Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion funds for the Programming Period

Transcription

1 Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion funds for the Programming Period N o 25.CE.16..AT.14 Country Report Spain Final Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO ECORYS Nederland BV Rotterdam, November 26

2 ECORYS Nederland BV P.O. Box AD Rotterdam Watermanweg GG Rotterdam The Netherlands T +31 () F +31 () E netherlands@ecorys.com W Registration no ECORYS Transport T +31 () F +31 ()

3

4 Table of contents 1 Introduction Background The Strategic Evaluation The Country Report Structure of the report 8 2 Transport Sector: current situation Introduction Spain Situation per mode of transport Roads and road transport Railways Urban transport Inland waterway transport Sea ports Airports Trends and indicators Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 23 3 Accessibility analysis Introduction Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index Transport needs 26 4 Previous support programmes National public funding for transport infrastructure EU funding Other sources of financing 32 5 National Transport Strategy Introduction Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning Operational Programme Main objectives of the OP Priorities in OP by sector 41 6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (27-213) Introduction Community Strategic Guidelines 43

5 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 44 7 Impact assessment of scenarios Introduction Methodology Scenarios European effects 64 8 Conclusions on investment priorities Introduction Transport investment priorities Annex A: TEN-T priorities 69 Annex B: Accessibility red flag analysis 75

6

7 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States clearly creates a new challenge for its Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU have increased substantially and will further increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 27. This is an explicit point of attention as the Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. This aim lies at the core of the Commission s regional policy. One of the key elements of the cohesion policy of the Commission is the contribution of the development of new transport infrastructure to regional economic development. Extensive spending has taken place in this domain under ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ISPA. One of the prominent initiatives in the European Union in this respect is the development of the Trans-European transport networks (TEN-T). In 23 the Commission has identified the 3 priority projects of the TEN-T up to The priority projects include: the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in mind the general objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance, interoperability and the reduction of bottlenecks. For the new programming period the Commission seeks to strengthen the strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development 2. To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The present evaluation should be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The strategic evaluation should feed in the process of determining transport investment priorities and the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and 1 Decision 884/24/EC of 29 April 24. The total investment of the 3 priority projects amounts to 225 billion at the 22 horizon. 2 COM(24)492 7

8 operational programmes. As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance. 1.2 The Strategic Evaluation The strategic evaluation is directed the transport sector. Three specific objectives have been formulated for this strategic evaluation: To provide an analysis of the situation in selected fields relevant to transport, using structural indicators across Member States, plus Romania and Bulgaria; To assess the contribution of Structural and Cohesion funds relative to the current and previous programming periods and draw lessons of relevance for the purpose of the study in terms of identification of potential shortcomings in the development of transport priority projects that might have hampered the utilization of those funds or their expected benefits; To identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields and identify potential investment priorities of structural and cohesion funds for the programming period The Country Report The strategic evaluation results in specific country reports for all 15 countries and a synthesis report. The current report is the Country Report for Spain. Its main aim is to give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in the country and to address areas for future intervention. Where relevant this accompanied by recommendations with respect to the overall transport policy of the country. The country reports feed into the joint programming effort with the Member States for the next period, as will be detailed in the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the subsequent Operational Programmes. 1.4 Structure of the report The report is structured around three building blocks. First a needs assessment is presented based on an analysis of the current transport systems and a modelling analysis which reveals the current (relative) level of accessibility per region. This leads to first conclusions strengths and weaknesses of the current transport system and related transport investment needs (Part A). Next an overview is presented of the transport investment priorities in the past period (Part B). Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified. This builds on the needs assessment in the first part but also addresses other factors such as the contribution to EU and national policy objectives, the availability of other sources of funding and the administrative capacity of the country (Part C). 8

9 Part A: Needs assessment current situation 9

10 2 Transport Sector: current situation 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Spain. After a brief introduction on the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it first describes the situation per mode of transport. The analysis of the current situation is summarized in a SWOT table on the main strengths and weaknesses. The assessment of the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport policy issues in Spain. 2.2 Spain Spain is one of the larger EU countries with around 4 million inhabitants. The northern border with France is dominated by the Pyrenees Mountains, with only few cross border road and rail infrastructure. The western border with Portugal is mainly flat terrain, with the exception of the northwest part (near Vigo). Several TEN projects are relevant: TEN-3 High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe (Lisbon - Badajoz Madrid; Barcelona - Figueras - Perpignan - Montpellier Nimes; Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye Bordeaux; Aveiro- Salamanca) TEN-8 Multimodal Portugal/Spain - rest Europe (Coruna-Lisbon-Sines; Lisbon- Valladolid) TEN-16 Freight Railway line Sines Madrid Paris TEN-19 High-speed Rail interoperability on the Iberian Peninsula TEN-21 Motorways of the sea 1

11 Basic data Population 4.98 million Total area 54,782 km 2, including 5,24 sq km water 2 Population density 81 inh/ km 2 Main cities Source: Eurostat Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Seville The population of Spain is steadily growing, the growth rate is however lower than in the 7s and 8s. Economic data GDP (24) bn Government debt as % of GDP (24) 46.4% Government deficit as % of GDP (24) -.1% GDP per capita, Spain (24) 19,6 GDP per capita, EU15 (24) 25,8 GDP per capita, EU25 (24) 22,7 Source: Eurostat As is the case in most European countries, the Spanish services sector has grown steadily since the Second World War and now dominates the economy, accounting for 66.2% of GDP in 21. This expansion has come largely at the expense of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector. In the services sector, retailing, tourism, banking and telecommunications all make a crucial contribution to economic activity. The tourist industry is especially important and Spain is now one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. In the agricultural sector, Spain is a particularly important producer of wine, olive oil, fruit and vegetables. It has developed a greenhouse industry in the south-east which, thanks to the benign climate, has become one of the most competitive suppliers of fresh produce to the main European markets. Spain's fishing fleet and associated industry is also highly developed, thanks in part to its maritime location and the high domestic consumption of fish. Spain's most prominent manufacturing industry is vehicle production, which accounts for about 5% of GDP and exports more than 8% of its output. The GDP per capita in Spain is some 1% below the EU25 average. 2.3 Situation per mode of transport Roads and road transport Infrastructure The Spanish Road Network is divided into different sub-networks under different authorities. The Spanish State Road Network managed by the State The Road Network which is managed by Autonomous Communities The Road Network which is managed by Municipalities and Town Councils 11

12 Others Road Network The Road Network with the most traffic is the Spanish State Road Network which comprises 24,857 kilometres. This represents a growth of 1.3% in comparison to the 1994 data. The Road Network managed by the Autonomous Community is made up of roads belonging to just one Autonomous Community. They are managed by their own autonomies. In 23 they comprised of 7,27 kilometres, 43% is part of the National Road Network. The Town Council Road Network is made up of municipal roads. These are managed by the municipality. It consists of 69,457 kilometres, of which 43% is part of National Road Network. There are also other Municipal Networks. They are made up of urban roads and streets which are managed by the City Council. In 1999, the length of this network was 489,698 kilometres. The High Capacity Roads are made up of motorways, dual carriageways and double roads. Table 2.1 Length of road network in Spain ( ) in kms % change State Road Network High Capacity roads Other roads 6,2 16,534 8,794 16,62 47% -3% Autonomous roads High Capacity roads Other roads 1,489 71,76 2,361 67,99 59% -4% Council Roads High Capacity roads Other roads , ,63 232% 3% Total High Capacity roads Other roads 7, ,848 12,9 (9,91 km motorways) a 152,574 55% -1% Source: D.G. de Carreteras (Mº de Fomento), Comunidades Autónomas y Diputaciones a Source: Eurostat The High Capacity Roads amount to 12,9 kilometres of which 2,515 kilometres are toll motorways. The total length of the motorway network in 23 amounts to 9,91 km. Table 2.2 Motorway density in Spain Length motorway/1 km 2 Spain (23) 19.6 EU15 (24) 16 EU25 (24) 14 Source: Eurostat, Statistical Office Spain 12

13 The above table shows that the motorway density in Spain exceeds the EU15 average. Demand The car ownership in Spain steadily grew from 351 per 1 inhabitants in 1994 to 459 cars per 1 inhabitants in 22, which is equal to the EU25 average. Table 2.3 Car ownership Spain Spain (22) EU15 (22) EU25 (22) Cars/1 inh Source: Dirección General de Tráfico. Mº del Interior. Obviously, the number of registered vehicles also showed a substantial increase, which is higher than the increase in population. Table 2.4 Number of vehicles (in 1 vehicles) Percentage change Cars 13,441 18,688 39% Lorries and vans 2,735 4,189 53% Source: Dirección General de Tráfico. Mº del Interior. Road charging The current legislation (Land Transport Act, Ley de Ordenación de los Transportes Terrestres - LOTT of 1987, and all subsequent amendments, by law or royal decree, made between 1998 and 23) establishes a mixed pricing formula for land transport, leaving the door open for practically all possible modalities. In particular, the Act provides that: The transport authorities may establish compulsory or reference tariffs for public transport and ancillary and complementary activities for the transport regulated hereunder. These tariffs may establish specific amounts or maximums, minimums or both. If no tariffs are set, contracting shall be made at local market or usual prices. In practice for the road sector there is a fuel excise tax which is part of fuel taxing (apart from VAT). As mentioned already, most of the roads are managed by Regional Authorities and Local Councils. Each region is encouraged to develop a Plan of Sustainable Mobility as framework for the performance of the different administrations. These plans will include road pricing policies to finance road maintenance. At present Spain has 36 toll concessions in operation (excluding shadow tolling), 26 of which were granted by the Central Government and ten by the Autonomous Regional Governments. The tariff revision systems have not been exactly the same in the different Government authorities and this is still the case, even though the differences are not substantial. 13

14 Table 2.5 Road accidents Despite a decrease in the number of fatal road accidents in Spain, road safety is still below the EU25 average. Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants) Spain EU Source: D. G.de Tráfico. Mº del Interior Railways Infrastructure In Spain two different gauge systems exist: the Iberian gauge (1.668 m) and the UCI/European gauge (1.435 m). RENFE FEVE Catalonian railways Euskotren Private rail operators Between 199 and 22, the length of the RENFE network remained at around 12,5km of Iberian gauge track, with a slight decrease in the total (up to 12,323km) but with an increase in the electrified network (which went from being 51 to 57% of the total). The network is radial with its centre in Madrid, the only exception being the Mediterranean axis. The high speed lines built or under construction have, until now, reinforced this characteristic: Madrid-Seville, Madrid-Barcelona, Madrid-north of Spain, etc. In the present day, the FEVE network totals 1,194 km of track, of which 72.4 km is double track and electrified, in this way it provides a backbone for the whole of the north of Spain through two routes that link Ferrol with Bilbao, across the north of Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria and the west of Vizcaya, and Bilbao with Leon through the provinces of Vizcaya, Burgos, a small part of Cantabria, Palencia and Leon. In the last few years, FEVE has invested in direct port access, to those such as Santander, Gijon and Aviles, as well as modernizing its intermodal transport terminals. The Catalan regional government railway network (Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya, FGC) is based around three main lines which depart from the city of Barcelona and reach different regions. Only the Llobregat-Anoia line that connects Barcelona with Martorell, Manresa and Igualada has branch lines for the transportation of freight, between the salt mines of Suria, the potash mines of Sallent and the Port of Barcelona. The total number of kilometres of track being used is of which, 15.2 are single tracks and 3.9 double tracks. All the tracks are metre-gauge. Most of the stretch is electrified (176.6km). The network runs from Irun, penetrating the Puerto de Pasajes as far as the port of Bermeo, through Amorebieta. Two private companies that manage railway freight traffic are both tied to the transport flows of mining products: Ponferrada steel and iron mine railway (Leon): has a total of 51 kilometres of track in service. Soller Railways: has a total of 32 kilometres of track in service. 14

15 Table 2.4 Railway density Railway line/1 km 2 Railway line/1, inh Spain (23) RENFE Iberian gauge (*) RENFE UIC gauge (*) 2 2 FEVE 3 3 Autonomous Regions and private companies 1 2 Total EU (*) The old RENFE network belongs to ADIF as per 1 January 25 Source: Ministerio de Fomento Dirección General de Ferrocarriles The railway density measured per 1 km 2 in Spain is substantially below the European average. If measured per 1, inhabitants, the railway density is close to the EU average. Figure 2.1 Railway network Spain RAILWAYS NETWORK Regular Lines in service High Speed Lines Means The size of the fleet of locomotives is decreasing for all railway operators. Only in RENFE this process is accompanied by an increase in the number of electric locomotives. The overall automotive fleet size remains the same, but with an increase in the equipment of RENFE. High speed trains, long distance trains and suburban automotive trains are playing a greater role in this fleet. FEVE has seen its fleet decrease in size, but simultaneously rebuilt it with the ever growing presence of electric automotives, in 15

16 keeping with its greater role in the transportation of passengers on the regionalmetropolitan scale. Demand The demand for passenger journeys has been growing steadily and to a considerable degree. This is true for all operators, but not for all types of travel. RENFE and FEVE, as well as the companies dependent on the Autonomous Regions have seen an increase in passenger numbers 3. However, the composition of this demand has varied considerably. It is worth highlighting the sustained increase in the number of passengers transported and especially the advance the creation of integrated urban transport systems has meant with the railway covering a significant proportion of the demand in metropolitan areas. Regarding rail freight, the following remarks are made: Traffic grew between 1993 and 23, but remained practically stable between 1997 and 23. The most dynamic flow is that of combined transport (containers). More than 9% of traffic is covered by RENFE. Of the remainder, FEVE is the most important operator. In any case, it must be noted that the negative trend in the movement of general freight has been negatively affected by the closure of some mines (copper and iron mines in Andalucía for example) and a reduction in the activity of others (coal in different areas in the north of the peninsula) Urban transport The main innovation in Spain related to urban public transport of the last few years has been the creation of the transport consortia that run the urban transport as an integrated system of the conventional modes. This led to the introduction of new elements such as highlighting the importance of the underground, install new tram and light underground rail lines and the incorporation of buses that run on gas (they already make up 1% of the fleet), and on hydrogen (still in the experimental phase). The history of these consortia is quite recent, especially in relation to the integrated supply of urban transport which only fully materialised when the unified fare systems were introduced. Infrastructure The urban transport infrastructures have experienced strong growth in the last fifteen years. This growth is characterized by its nature and most recent causes. Specifically: The supply of services has increased in response to an increase in demand which in turn is influenced by different factors, from among which, the secondary role of demographic growth in the principal cities is worth emphasising. Urban development has taken place in many cities, including in some no bigger than average. This development has shaped wide metropolitan areas in which an emerging set of specialization patterns in the use of land are apparent: 3 Until 199 FEVE provided all the services on the narrow gauge network. After that date, the services were shared between FEVE and the railways transferred to the Autonomous Regions (EuskoTren, FGC and FGV of the Basque Country, Catalonia and Valencia respectively). 16

17 Central areas with no permanent residents and dedicated more and more to business services, selective commerce and public administration. The extension of residential areas on the outskirts following the axes of road networks. Dispersion of industrial employment and of large shopping centres towards spaces further and further away from central areas, etc. The response required to this type of urban-metropolitan growth is the extension of the transportation network. In order for this extended network to maintain basic efficiency, serve a large territory and to respect certain rules of sustainability it must include: An increase in services with a dedicated infrastructure (all means of rail transport). An increased importance of underground transport. Intermodality Pressure from the issue of energy contributes to this reorientation, in which electric energy and less-polluting fossil fuels are starting to increase in importance. Finally, this whole process gives rise to demands in management and quality in the provision of services which push towards a clear multimodal concept: The old scheme of independent modes is replaced and there is a move towards what is normally known as transport consortia, or by any other similar title. The idea of an urban transport system, whose supply and fare system are unified is associated more and more with this organisational scheme. The clearest and most illustrative examples found in Spain of urban transport infrastructures are provided by the metropolitan areas of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao and Seville. However, there is an increasing number of consortia nationwide and so it appears that this process will continue to spread to areas such as the Bay of Cadiz, the Campo de Gibraltar, the Granada area, the metropolitan area of Malaga, the central area of Asturias (the metropolitan area of Oviedo-Gijon-Aviles and other surrounding towns) etc. Demand An overall tendency worthy highlighting on account of its national significance is the increasing importance of track-based urban transport in Spain. The overall figure has grown from 4.38 million passengers in 199 to 5.5 million in Inland waterway transport In Spain, there are only purely anecdotal uses of the inland waterways, sections of rivers or small lakes where there is activity connected to local tourism and estuary traffic, which is mainly for local supplies and tourists travelling within the port areas Sea ports Spain is the country with the largest length of coastline in the European Union: 8,km. 53 ports are distributed along its shores, with a frequency of 1 port for every 15 km of 17

18 coast. More than 2 million people use the Spanish port facilities for travel, and more than 5% of exports and almost 8% of imports are conducted by way of the sea, as well as around 15% of domestic commerce flow. In total 28 port authorities exist. Furthermore, there is a network of ports managed directly by their respective Autonomous Regions, which are not ports of general interest, but which in 23 moved almost 12 million tonnes, with more than 7% of solid bulk (here concessions for the cement and salt trade predominate) and 15% of general freight (tissue and paper products, foodstuffs etc). Figure 2.2 Spanish port authorities In 23 the total throughput in Spain was million tonnes. The following 6 ports accounted for around 6% of total throughput: Bahia de Algeciras: 15.4% Canarias (Tenerife, Las Palmas): 9.9% Valencia: 9.5% Barcelona: 9.4% Tarragona: 7.8% Bilbao: 7.7% The evolution of total cargo handled, excluding containers, in the Spanish ports is presented in table 2.5 Table 2.5 Cargo handled in Spanish ports, excluding containers (in 1 tons) Total Domestic Foreign ,171 57, , ,676 7,144 21, ,23 71, , ,393 78, ,68 The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 2.8 million TEU in 13 and has strongly grown until 9.1 million TEU in

19 Demand From the point of view of freight traffic, the most determining aspects must be emphasized, distinguishing the big groups of freight according to its form, that is to say: Liquids Solid bulk General freight (conventional and containerized) Containers When considering liquids, solid bulk and general cargo, the solid bulk accounts for 37% of all cargo, followed by liquid bulk with 36% and general cargo with 24%. The In relation to these types of traffic, the following aspects are highlighted. Liquid bulk Solid bulk General cargo Containers Throughout the entire period analysed, 8% of liquid traffic was concentrated in the ports that serve oil refineries: the ports of Bilbao, La Coruña, Huelva, Algeciras, Cartagena, Castellón, Tarragona and Santa Cruz de Tenerife (the latter serves the only refinery located outside of the peninsula, in the Canary Islands). The remaining movements of liquid are much more disperse, with petroleum and chemical products predominating in the port of Barcelona. The predominant products are coal, mineral iron, cement and clinker, cereals and soya. The resulting shipping movements concern: The power stations that use coal as a primary source, highlighting Santander, Gijon, Ferrol, La Coruña, Algeciras, Almeria and Tarragona. The whole steel and iron sector located on the Cantabrian coast is the reason for the steel and iron industry movements of mineral iron and coal in Gijon and coal in Bilbao. The industry that transforms soya into animal feed explains large movements in Cartagena, Barcelona and Tarragona. The cereal business, whose movements are mainly related to farming, with entry and exit points in different ports depending on the regional farming totals each year. This throughput is located in the ports of Seville, Cadiz, Santander and Valencia. The cement business, in which industry exports predominate, but which also produces imports for the construction industry. The main movements are concentrated in the ports of Gijon, Almeria, Cartagena, Alicante and Valencia, as well as in Santa Cruz de Tenerife (The Canary Islands). The fertilizer business, which is conducted through the ports mainly dedicated to the agricultural supply and those located in the export industry: Ferrol, Huelva (chemical industry), Valencia, Barcelona and Tarragona (chemical industry). The port movement of general freight is very much concentrated in one area, especially that of containerized freight. The type of movement that predominates within the general freight category is that of containers. But within this group it is necessary to differentiate areas which have been consolidated throughout the period of , specifically: The port of Algeciras predominates with almost 3% of the total movements within the Spanish port system. These are essentially containers in transit, a situation that 19

20 has remained the same despite efforts to increase the number of containers with origin/destination in the peninsula. It should be noted that its land access must be improved: a study is underway. The ports of Valencia and Barcelona are the main commercial links of peninsular Spain, with clearly differentiated routes: Valencia started in second place but manages to situate itself clearly above Barcelona in the present day. In any case, both add up to 4% of the total movement of containers within the Spanish port system. The port of Bilbao is very much in the background, with a clear loss of importance which it has not been able to counteract even with the expansion of the exterior port nor with the opening of new terminals. The ports of the Canary Islands regularly bring in around 15% of the total traffic, but a redistribution of roles has been observed between them; thus, while Las Palmas grows considerably, operating as the hub of the archipelago, Santa Cruz de Tenerife restricts itself more to serving as traffic support in its own area. As the reflection of a trend which can be considered global, container traffic is becoming more and more focused on a small number of ports. Thus, within the Spanish port system and that of the overall movement of shipping containers, the six major ports absorbed 88% of all traffic in 1983 which went up to 92% in 2, (the first three: Bahia de Algeciras, Valencia and Barcelona went from 6% to 68% in the same period). The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 9.1 million TEU in 23. Passengers Between 1993 and 24, passenger traffic increased by about 5%. Almeria and Barcelona are the major mainland players (with rises of 3.5% and 4% respectively); the Canary Islands are the other big-growth off-shore region: their movements having more than doubled from an already high growth ratio. When considering the overall throughput figures, in the period the port of Valencia has faced the highest growth rate in Spain: 237%. The Canarias ports grew 146% and the port of Villagarcía is ranked third wit a growth of 132% Airports Infrastructure The basic airport infrastructure comprises 47 airports which are managed by AENA. These airports are distributed throughout the entire peninsular; in the Balearic and Canary islands and in the autonomous cities of Melilla and Ceuta (the latter only possesses a heliport). For a territory of 55,988 km 2 and approximately 44,, inhabitants, this represents: 1 airport for every 1,766 km 2 1 airport for every 2, inhabitants Demand The use of this infrastructure is related to the different categories of the 47 airports. This is reflected in the concentration of the movements of passengers and freight. Over 9 % of passenger transport by air in Spanish airports is distributed throughout 16 airports, which is a third of the whole. 2

21 Figure 2.4 Traffic development Spanish airports Evolution air transport Nº OF OPERATIONS (thousand) Nº OF PASSENGERS (million) FREIGHT (thousand ton) The Madrid - Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat airports handle nearly 4 % of total passenger movement (and 65 % of freight). These are the airports that assure Spain s principal foreign connections with regards to passengers The following ten largest airports handle nearly 5 % of passenger movement, and the most prominent aspect is that they are airports in which tourism predominates; in fact, 3 % of the total movement takes place in insular airports, of Balearic and Canary Islands. The third block is formed by the airports of cities of medium size (Bilbao, Valencia and Seville) and a regional capital (Santiago); the exception is Zaragoza placed half a way and well connected with Madrid and with Barcelona by land. But these airports represent only 6 % of the total movement Trends and indicators Modal split The share of car transport for passenger transport (81%) in 22 in Spain is more or less in line with the average found for EU15. The most important differences occur in the share of buses and coaches: this share (12%) is significantly higher than EU15 average of 8.8%. The most probable reasons for the high bus share are: Lower prices compared with those of the railway services. Many regional and national railway services have been suspended due to heavy losses Improvement and development of Spanish four-lane motorways network, which is also beneficial for long-distance bus transport The railway share is now increasing in Spain and will probably reach a higher share in the near future due to: Investments in High Speed Rail and other high performance lines Return to the former policy of new railway infrastructures and services integrated in urban transport systems (for a number of years the investments went only to tram and metro) 21

22 Return to the former policy of large investments in the conventional railway network, to improve security and increase capacity. Table2.6 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 22) Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro Situation 22 Spain EU Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 24 In freight transport, measured in tonne-kilometres, road is the dominant mode with a share of almost 9%, which is far above the EU15 average. The share of rail freight transport (6%) is only half of the average found for EU15. Table2.7 Modal split freight transport (share in tonkilometers, 22) Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline Situation 22 Spain EU Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 24 The following figure illustrates the trend in the last decade, where railways lost significant market share to road haulage. Figure 2.5 Development of the modal split in freight transport in Spain (mln tonnes-km)

23 2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system The current situation in Spain, together with the foreseen global developments in the transport sector, has been subject for a Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threat (SWOT) analysis. This analysis is summarized through the table on the following page. It is necessary to emphasize four aspects, which seem to be especially significant to describe the situation and to analyse the future expectations. In particular: The difference in gauge in the railway system, in addition to a series of factors that prevent interoperability at a European level. Non-railway distances over which freight is transported, which constitutes a fact in favour of the internal predominance of roads. Occupation of the peninsular territory where only Madrid and Zaragoza constitute areas of real weight, away from the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Cantabrian coasts. A solid uni-modal culture (that prevents the development of an inter-modal one) whose prominence can be seen in the institutional system and in the organization of the different providers offers. Risks of going from the great lack of infrastructure that Spain had in the mid eighties, to excess in capacity due to over investing. Obstacles to the advance of liberalization and of the consequent increased presence of providers both of infrastructure and of services, especially in the railway system, where the dominant presence of the State offer continues to be evident. In order to understand better the risks of over investing the following three main issues should be considered: Maritime ports. Currently and for the next years the Spanish ports system is increasing its capacity at a very high rate, most of all in deep-water ports and container terminals. For instance, four ports are finished (Bilbao), are in construction (Gijon) or preparing projects for new deep-water ports with big container terminals (Ferrol, A Coruña). In the north of Spain, container traffic is now under 5, TEUs (8% in Bilbao) and growing since 1995 at an annual rate of less than 2% (forecast for South Europe from Drewry shows a growth rate over 9% for the period 22-29). High Speed Rail. Some projects are being re-scheduled in the Plan Estratégico de Infraestrucuturas y Trasporte (PEIT). A number of them will be for freight-passenger services at 22 km/h, and others will be redefined as high performance lines for passenger services (25 instead of 35 km/h). The meaning of these changes is clear: the former over-investment in high speed rail (for instance, in short distances) is substituted by a larger combination of freight dedicated lines and high performance network for passenger services. Four-lane motorways network. The main goal is to link all the capitals of the 47 provinces and a number of other important cities by four-lane motorways. The daily intensity of traffic in many of these relations is below the usual standards for the construction of four-lane motorways. With regards to obstacles to the advance of liberalization the following should be considered: 23

24 The railway infrastructure remains under state control, the passenger railway services are not liberalized and the freight railway services are liberalized since the 1 st January 25 but no private operators are yet working under the new legislation. The road network investments are concentrated on free four-lane motorways and local roads, so private participation is quite unusual in the last years, except for the R toll motorways in the metropolitan area of Madrid and a short number of small regional motorways with shadow toll system. Airports stay under state control, and only port container terminals are now a field of interest and participation of private sector. Strengths Roads High density network Competitive service offer Developed network of logistical platforms Door-to-door service capacity Rail Competitive routes with high demand Urban Public Transport Integrated services is successful Maritime High capacity of ports Air Great capacity and renewing offers Opportunities Roads Development of intermodal facilities Rural transport on demand Rail Increase in quality of rail product due to entry of new private operators Urban Public Transport Coordinated policy of councils and regional governments Increase in metropolitan and urban demand Maritime More competitive through improvement of port management Increase in public-private initiatives Air Great capacity and renewing offers Increasing use of regional airports Weaknesses Roads Lack of connection to ports and railways Network too radial Dysfunction in metropolitan areas Difficulty in transferring environmental costs Rail Low level of interoperability with EU Urban Public Transport Return to unimodal services Maritime Low level of domestic cargo Air Weak competitive position with railways for domestic trips Threats Roads Unimodal ideas persist Rail Lack of coordination between European networks High Speed Rail offer on routes with low demand Risk of continuity of public monopoly Urban Public Transport Growth of metropolitan areas without adequate sustainable transport policy Maritime Risk of too high capacity in peninsular system Air Tendency to maintain the subordination of passengers Discredit for lower quality of service 24

25 3 Accessibility analysis 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment on a regional level. It clearly complements Chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is described where potential deficiencies are addressed. The analysis on the current situation together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion perspective forms a basis for identifying possible investment priorities. In this chapter, first a description of the needs assessment methodology is presented. Especially the determination of the composite Accessibility Problem Index (API), which forms a central role in the approach, is explained. The higher the value of the index, the higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled as the red flag analysis. This composite Accessibility Problem Index is a combined measure, which addresses transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate explanation is provided in Annex B). As such the accessibility analysis is much more linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation (26). 3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives. To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required. Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the 25

26 transport system. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision. This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union. The new accessibility indicator recognises transport network quality, population density and regional disparity To avoid this dilemma, a new composite accessibility indicator was defined which distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can demand to be able to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow flies") as the people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the utilitarian principle of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of densely populated regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only few inhabitants. And finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions with severe deficits in accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic effects by transport investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility. These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational tradeoff between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. Annex B gives a more elaborate description of the composite Accessibility Problem Index. 3.3 Transport needs The composite Accessibility Problem Index takes account of the transport system quality (travel speed), population density and regional disparity. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 depict the population density and the regional distribution of income between the different regions in Spain. In terms of population density, the three major urban centres Madrid, Barcelona and Bilbao clearly stand out (Figure 3.1). The capital city Madrid is also the economic centre of the country (Figure 3.2). However, it is also apparent that compared to France (and the other north-west European countries) Portugal and Spain are still less affluent. 26

27 Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm) Spain 26 Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 25), Spain 26 27

28 The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that should be addressed by European transport policy are presented in figures 3.3 to 3.6. These figures show the spatial distribution of the Accessibility Problem Index in Spain first for road and then for rail from a national and a European perspective for the current situation (26). The colour scale of the maps resembles that of a traffic light: green shades indicate average interregional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow values indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades indicate speeds significantly lower than the national or European average. Overall accessibility If accessibility in Spain is compared with the European average, it becomes apparent that the road system in Spain is already of high quality (Figure 3.4). Under a European perspective most regions in Spain have also above-average rail speeds for trips to other regions in Europe (Figure 3.6). Regional imbalances The map of accessibility problems in the road network of Spain of today (Figure 3.3) shows congestion problems around the capital of Madrid and in the coastal regions in the north and south but not in the urbanised areas along the Mediterranean. The regions of Malaga and Cordoba have the lowest average road travel speeds to all other regions in Europe except, not surprisingly, the Baleares islands. However, if interregional road speeds in Spain are compared with the European average (Figure 3.4) these differences become less important. The maps of accessibility problems in the current rail system of Spain (Figure 3.5) show great regional disparities in rail services in Spain. The high-speed rail corridors between Madrid and Seville and Madrid and Barcelona stand out as above the national average, but there are many poorly served areas, in particular in the Atlantic regions in the north and the Mediterranean regions in the south, but also in the Cuenca and Temel regions near Madrid. And, unlike road speeds, if these rail speeds are compared with the European average (Figure 3.6), several regions, such as Cuenca and Almeria, remain problem regions. 28

29 Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), Spain 26 Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), Spain 26 29

30 Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), Spain 26 Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), Spain 26 3

31 Part B: Past transport investment priorities 31

32 4 Previous support programmes 4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure Information regarding the allocated national and private funding in the transport sector in the period in Spain is to a great extent missing. The only available information relates to the public cofinancing related to the CF and ERDF for the programming periods and In the period the average cofinancing rate for the CF is 76%. The national financial resources are all on the national public budget, no private resources are allocated. The average co-financing rate for ERDF in the period 2-26 is 61%. The rates of the national resources differ per region, typically values around 3% are found. The regional funding is also substantial with 7-1% of total resources; again no private resources have been used. 4.2 EU funding In Spain (according to the Oscar Faber Study), 1994 to mid-1999 resources (actual expenditure including Structural and Cohesion Funds as well as EIB, and national resources) focussed on road (77%), rail (16.5%), ports (3.8%), air (1.6%), other / mixed modes (1.2%). One reason provided for lower expenditure on rail projects is that project design is more demanding and implementation more complicated than for roads. The Objective 1 Ex Post Evaluation ( ) mentions that 19% of total SF resources (excluding CF) are dedicated to roads, 2% to rail, around 1% to ports and 1% to airports. The year 1999 marks an increasing focus on rail, and the Strategic Reference Framework for 2-26 introduces a focus on high-speed rail, improved road access to France and Portugal and improved port conditions. Looking at the Cohesion Fund allocations during 22-24, it is noteworthy that EU contributions worth 3,333.5 million went to rail, followed by million for maritime transport, and only 43.6 million for road transport. 4.3 Other sources of financing This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure. 32

33 EIB The EIB has provided a substantial number of loans (more than 2) in the period amounting to in total approximately 22.2 bn. The overall distribution of loans is: road 28%, rail 23%, urban public transport 24%, aviation 22% and ports 3%. The last decade the loans for the rail sector are dominated by the investments done in the high speed rail lines. The urban public transport loans are almost all related to feasibility studies and construction of new metro lines in Barcelona, Madrid, Malaga, Seville, Valencia and Bilbao. It also includes loans for the purchase and lease of rolling stock. Part of the recent EIB loans is also dedicated to PPP projects, especially in the road sector namely motorways (Santiago Brion, de Los Vinedos) and in urban public transport for the metro in Madrid. PPP financing The main form of private participation in investments in infrastructures in Spain has traditionally been in toll motorways. In railway lines there have only been a few small investments by mining companies. Several toll motorways have been built during the second half of the nineties and the turn of the century, which has increased the presence of the private sector. Some new roads have also been built under the system of shadow tolls, which has led to a new type of private participation, namely investment in road building without direct charging of tolls and recovery of the investment through payments made by the competent government, according to traffic volumes. This method has been extended as the government powers have been decentralised and Regional Governments have increased their investment decision-making autonomy in respect of investments. Regarding railways, at present, private sector participation in the rail segment is insignificant: a few mining companies still operate old lines, going back to the origins of the railway, as a means of transport for moving certain merchandise of the companies operating them. There is also no private participation at present in the airport system (governed by the government agency AENA), railway and intermodal terminals (until recently run by RENFE and now by ADIF) and, practically, the road transport centres network (governed mainly by the Regional Governments and their specialist agencies). In the field of land transport, private investments are usually made to start up own logistics hubs, not services for third parties. The most common examples are the platforms of large retail outlet chains; the PDI platforms and parks of the motor industry; the storage areas for certain large volumes of bulk product, such as fuels and coals; etc. Private participation in basic investments has existed for a long time in specialised port terminals. In general, these have been concessions for certain industries, including even 33

34 port investment in docks, dikes, quays, etc., as in cases of oil refineries, cement factories, gas or coal thermoelectric power stations, agricultural processing industries, etc. But they are always terminals for own use by the concessionaire. However, more recently there has been a growing participation of private operators in specialist port terminals providing services to third parties, such as polyvalent terminals and, above all, container and Ro-Ro traffic terminals. These are terminals operated under concession granted by the Port Authorities. But within the framework of a landlord -type port operation, which in practice rules out the possibility of BOT concessions, the basic investment is still made by the public sector. Therefore, private sector participation in the port system has three overriding components, namely: the purchase of equipment, the building of fixed installations (conditioning of land for parks of vehicles, building of warehouses) and working capital In short, this means that for the time being the only area of investment in transport infrastructures in which there is any significant private-sector participation is high capacity roads. 34

35 Part C: Future transport investment priorities 35

36 Introduction Part C, Future investment priorities is structured around a number of subsequent chapters. First, chapter 5 deals with the current national transport policy and resulting investment priorities. In the next chapter these investment priorities are confronted with an analysis of possible sources of financing, and other factors such as their contribution to EU policy objectives, the administrative capacity of the country, the socio-economic impacts in relation to the costs of the projects, and the extent to which the projects contribute to the needs identified in Part A of this report. Subsequently in chapter 7, the impacts of different packages of investment priorities are assessed. Finally conclusions are drawn with respect to investment priorities for the next programming period

37 5 National Transport Strategy 5.1 Introduction This is the first section of Part C which aims to determine transport investment priorities at a strategic level. This chapter deals with the current national transport policy and resulting investment priorities. In puts the investment priorities in the national planning perspective. 5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning PEIT The main planning instrument currently in place is the Plan Estratégico de Infraestrucuturas y Trasporte (PEIT). The subsectorial programmes and specific projects in each subsector situate both the objectives and the deadline for investments in the intervening years (25 to 22). The PEIT envisages a very high investment, in the order of 249 billion euros between 25 and 22, of which an estimated 17 million euros will be for the development of the TEN-T network. Prioritisation process Within the PEIT, the sub-sector strategic instruments, including bottom-up processes, are established at different levels of global regulation, namely: Roads A National Roads & Highways Plan is in force. Railways No equivalent to the Roads & Highways Plan is in force. In general there are greater difficulties in this sector than in the roads sector, since it covers different types of infrastructure that are not grouped together under a single programme for which a single agent is responsible (Iberian gauge system, metric gauge network, Iberian gauge suburban lines, UIC gauge high speed lines, etc.) The Ministry of Development has expressed its intention of preparing a Rail Transport Sector Plan (although it has not been possible to achieve this by the announced date, within 25). This Plan will deal with the following aspects: High performance corridors Interoperability of the conventional system Safety and maintenance (level crossings and other actions) Integration of the railway in the environment 37

38 Rail services and operators Urban rail transport Ports An overarching document exists, but this is merely the result of bringing together independent projects of different Port Authorities. In other words, it is more the consolidated presentation of port-by-port investment budgets than a national ports plan. Airports A strategic programme exists that prioritises investments and classifies them according to the functions attributed to the different airports, for passengers and, collaterally, for cargo, but there is no formal national plan establishing objectives, deadlines and budgets for the system overall. Logistics No national network exists, particularly because the competence in this matter is totally decentralised (between regional and local governments) In order to discuss prioritisation criteria for specific investments, therefore, the analysis must focus on the different sectors. Joint sector criteria are only established on very general terms: for example, in the eighties and early nineties, priority was given to the high capacity road system; in the second half of the nineties and turn of the century, more importance has been given to the rail system, particularly the UIC gauge high speed system. Currently, with the PEIT 25-22, the rail system still appears to have priority, but with a certain change of focus, looking more towards the conventional Iberian gauge system, with the pinpointing of certain priorities in the high speed system. On a second level, the PEIT contemplates certain strategic guidelines from which priorities are necessarily derived, namely: Determination to break with the arterial model centred in Madrid, which means giving priority to lines that join cities and territories without going through Madrid. The main examples are the Mediterranean system, the Cantabrian system, the River Ebro system, the Silver Trail (Sevilla-Gijón) and the Levante-Andalusia crosssystems. This option is backed by Spain-Portugal connections that do not go through Madrid (Huelva-Faro, Vigo-Oporto, etc.). Decision to guarantee maximum accessibility to the road and rail systems by practically the entire population. The aim is to guarantee 9-95% of the population rapid access to the high speed rail system and the high capacity road system. Although not decisive, it should be noted that objectives of this nature may be establishing implicit priorities. In particular: Roads: a high capacity network of free use, since in Spain the use of toll roads is considered a negative discrimination that would largely neutralise the aim of maximum accessibility. Railways: with the parameters established stations will have to be situated at short distances between one another from the point of view of high speed, which may have several possibly undesired implications (greater investment, higher operating cost, reduction of schedule speed) or otherwise a qualified response should be demanded (in many cases, opting for high performance, considering this to mean a schedule speed of 22 km/h, instead of high speed, i.e. a schedule speed of 3 km/h). 38

39 The following remarks are made on a sub-sector level: General road system Progress continued with the development of the high capacity network, attempting to recover pre-1995 investment levels in maintenance and proposing the objective of studying, case by case, the possible buy-back by the State of some of the toll motorways. Rail system The programmes for improving the conventional system have been taken up again, but most of the total investment is still assigned to the high speed network. Without any clear indications for the time being, the idea is being considered again of making investments to develop a system specifically for goods traffic through the Pyrenees, which is, moreover, one of the 3 projects of the TEN-T. Ports There is a prevailing individual goal of becoming more competitive, which leads most Port Authorities to make very similar investment decisions, with two predominant aspects: increasing the operating draught, to at least 2m; creating adequate basic infrastructures to attract private operators engaged in container carriage. Airports Criteria are established for airports, associated with their individual functions, i) international hubs absorbing the highest share of investments (e.g. expansion plans in Madrid and Barcelona), ii) tourist airports (e.g. expansions and improvements in Malaga, Alicante, etc.), iii) non-peninsular airports, where air transport is vital, many of them also tourist airports (e.g. Palma de Mallorca, Tenerife, etc.). Particular interest: High Speed Rail Some important issues concerning high speed rail projects have to be considered at this moment. Most of all: For some years, high speed rail was considered the only way to develop a high performance network for passenger services, both in domestic traffic and in relations Spain-France and Spain-Portugal. High speed rail became a synonym of 35 km/h performance infrastructure and means. This point is now redefined. The new definitions mainly concern: o The relation between distance and high speed. o The necessity to concentrate investments for opening new lines at scheduled dates. o The importance of agreeing with France and Portugal the development of cross border lines. o The advantage of some new lines to be designed for both passenger and freight services. The main axis Madrid-Barcelona, Madrid-Valencia-Alicante-Murcia, Mediterranean Corridor and Madrid-Valladolid are high speed lines and will be developed and finished keeping the original design. But some other new lines are now redefined or are going to be redefined, assuming that 35 km/h performance infrastructure is too expensive and not necessary for short distances. This redefinition seems to be reasonable from technical and financial points of view but is hard to explain to the 39

40 populations concerned, so it is difficult to find at this moment official statements of this kind. The concentration of investments seems to be necessary to maintain scheduled dates and, most of all, to deal with complete operational infrastructures. Among other issues, this means that some small sections of new lines (except the main axis mentioned above) have platforms under construction but tracks and electrification are delayed or their final designs are waiting for the decision about what will be the final design of the complete line. Agreements with France and Portugal are necessary to decide the design and the scheduled time of two sections of high speed lines: Barcelona-French border and Badajoz-Portuguese border (the Salamanca-Portuguese border line is now suspended). After some years, the agreements are now clear, so Spanish government is able to take final decisions on this respect. The strategy concerning some new developments in Spanish railway network is stated at PEIT, especially to pay attention to the high speed rail network and to freight traffic. Three important meanings of this strategy are: o The development of new freight dedicated lines: one of them is the TEN- T new Pyrenees line. o The investments to improve conventional network. o And, concerning high speed lines, the redefinition of some projects to stand a lower performance level to admit freight trains. Considering the past experiences in the development of high speed railway lines, it must be stated that new changes can be expected, concerning time schedules, infrastructure designs and, maybe, priorities between different axis (an important issue on this respect, in Spain, is the role of Regional Governments: for instance, the so-called Y in the Basque Region high speed railway network is now under consideration to be constructed with central and regional funds, after a long time out of any investment plan). 5.3 Operational Programme There are no activity plans or investments specifically scheduled for the period in public works on transport infrastructure resources yet. It should be noted that, apart from an Operational Programme (OP) covering solely transport infrastructure, several regional OPs are to be developed, aimed at the ERDF. Substantial parts of these regional OPs are expected to include transport projects. Presently, the clear view held in Spain of the period is one of trying to avoid a short, sharp drop in the funds allocated for investment in the transport infrastructures. 5.4 Main objectives of the OP There are no activity plans or investments specifically scheduled for the period in public works on transport infrastructure resources yet. 4

41 5.5 Priorities in OP by sector There are no activity plans or investments or priorities specifically scheduled for the period in public works on transport infrastructure resources yet. Priorities for EU funding The priorities for EU funding formally relate to the realisation of the TEN-T priority projects: TEN-3 High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe TEN-8 Multimodal Portugal/Spain - rest Europe TEN-16 Freight Railway line Sines Madrid Paris TEN-19 High-speed Rail interoperability on the Iberian Peninsula. It should be noted that, based on above considerations, the planning (and thus priority) of several high speed rail projects (TEN-3) is being reconsidered. 41

42 6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (27-213) 6.1 Introduction This chapter intends to identify main factors that influence the setting of transport investment priorities for the next programming period. Community Strategic Guidelines The context for identifying strategic investment priorities is set by the Community Strategic guidelines. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development 4. These Strategic Guidelines form the basis for identifying investment priorities, which are then be elaborated in National Strategic Reference Frameworks at the Member State level, which are subsequently further detailed in Operational Programmes (OPs) for thematic areas. A Commission proposal on these Strategic Guidelines was published in July In parallel, Member States have already started preparations for their National Strategic Reference Frameworks and OPs. Additional factors influencing investment priorities As indicated the Strategic Guidelines form the context in which investment priorities for Community financing should be identified. In addition to these strategic guidelines a number of other factor shape the eventual establishment of transport investment priorities. These other factors include: Cost-effectiveness of projects; Availability of other sources of funding; Appropriateness of transport policy Administrative capacity to adequately absorb and manage funds. In the next section the Strategic Guidelines and the other factors are elaborated in more detail leading to a proposed prioritisation of areas for funding from Cohesion and Structural Funds. 4 COM(24)492 5 COM(25)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines,

43 6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines The (draft) Community Strategic Guidelines set the scene for any future transport investment financed as part of the Commission s cohesion policy. According to the communication of the Commission (COM(25)299) the guidelines with respect to the expansion and improvement of transport infrastructures for the period determine clear guidelines for action (see text box 6.1) Box 6.1 Community Strategic Guidelines: Guidelines for action The Community Strategic Guidelines distinguish the following guidelines for action: Member States should give priority to the 3 projects of European interest, located in Member States and regions eligible under the Convergence objective 6. Other TEN projects should be supported where this is a strong case in terms of their contribution to growth and competitiveness. Within this group of projects, cross-border links and those overseen by the specially designated European co-ordinators in the Member States merit special attention. Member States should make use of the co-ordinators as a means of shortening the time that elapses between designation of the planning of the network and the physical construction Complementary investment in secondary connections will also be important in the context of an integrated regional transport and communications strategy covering urban and rural areas, in order to ensure that the regions benefit from the opportunities created by the major networks. Support for rail infrastructure should seek to ensure greater access. Track fees should facilitate access for independent operators. They should also enhance the creation of an EU-wide interoperable network. Compliance and applications of the interoperability and the fitting of ERTMS on board and on track should be part of all projects financed. Promoting environmentally sustainable transport networks. This includes public transport facilities (including park-and-ride infrastructures), mobility plans, ring roads, increasing safety at road junctions, soft traffic (cycle lanes, pedestrian tracks). It also includes actions providing for accessibility to common public transport services for certain target groups (the elderly, disabled persons) and providing distribution networks for alternative vehicle fuels. In order to guarantee the optimum efficiency of transport infrastructures for promoting regional development, attention should be paid to improving the connectivity of landlocked territories to the Trans- European network (TEN-T) ( ). In this respect, the development of secondary links, with a focus on intermodality and sustainable transport, should be promoted. In particular, harbours and airports should be connected to their hinterland. More attention should be paid to developing the motorways of the sea and to short-sea shipping as a viable alternative to long-distance road and rail transport. In addition the Guidelines give specific instructions with respect to the territorial dimension of Cohesion policy in stressing that Member States should pay particular attention to prevent uneven regional development and improve territorial integration and cooperation between and within regions. 6 Decision n. 884/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April

44 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments As indicated in the introduction a number of other factors determine the eventual prioritisation of transport investment priorities under the Commission s cohesion policy instruments. These will be subsequently elaborated. Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness or value for money stands at the core of any sound investment programme. It is also fully embedded in the procedures and structure of the cohesion policy of the Commission in which cost-benefit assessments of proposed projects are standard procedure. Also EIB applies CBA as standard assessment methodology before granting new loans. The cost-effectiveness criterion is especially important if budget resources are limited. In this case cost-benefit analyses can be used to phase foreseen transport investment in time or to seek alternatives with a similar functionality that offer a higher value for money. Availability of other sources of financing A can be observed from the previous investment programmes other sources of finance should not be overlooked with respect to future transport investments Apart from public financing by the country itself important potential sources are: TEN-T budget EIB PPPs The Commission recently reached an agreement with the EP on future TEN-T financing. Total budget available is 7 bn for the coming programming period. Financing can be up to 2%. It should be noted however that this financing is only a fraction of total cohesion financing (e.g. Cohesion Fund financing for transport approximates 45 m ), while TEN-T funds are valid for all EU members. It is expected that TEN-T funds will be focused on cross-border TEN-T projects. EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. The EIB is expected to continue its ongoing support to Spain in the road, rail, air, maritime and urban public transport. PPPs are explicitly mentioned in the Community Strategic Guidelines as a possible appropriate method of financing investment when there is significant scope for involving the private sector. Apart from the financial leverage positive impacts are expected on implementation and management of projects. Experience with private involvement in transport infrastructure in the form of PPPs has been limited until now. However, based on the experience in other countries logical sector for a more intense private sector involvement are: ports, airports and logistics centres. Also motorways sometimes figure as typical PPP models. Spain has experience with PPP projects, especially for toll motorways. For the time being motorways and high capacity roads remain the major area of investment in transport infrastructures in which any significant private-sector participation is expected. In addition possible participation of private operators could be expected in port terminal infrastructure. 44

45 The current business climate in Spain is expected to be sufficiently open not to hamper PPPs. EIB can also continue its support in PPP constructions through direct equity participations. In summary, other financing sources are expected to relevant for the following areas: Table 6.1 Potential other financing sources and expected destination of funding Source TEN-T EIB EBRD PPP & private capital Destination TEN projects, especially cross border sections Roads, railways, airports, urban public transport and to a lesser extent ports None Income generating transport investments: toll motorways, ports, airports, logistic centres Appropriateness of the transport policy The current transport policy (PEIT), and subsequent sub-sectoral plans and priroitisation processes, seem adequate. Spain is preparting for substantiallly less support from the European funds and consequently the initial prioritisations are being reconsidered, especially concerning high speed rail development. Transport safety is clearly an area for attention as accident levels are still clearly above the EU average, notwithstanding a clear decrease in the past decade. This can be partly solved by improving the quality of the state road network. Another point of attention is the development of a specific transport safety policy and an adequate level of enforcement. With respect to transport pricing it should be noted that most of the roads are managed by Regional Authorities and Local Councils who are encouraged to develop a Plan of Sustainable Mobility including road pricing policies to finance road maintenance. With respect to toll roads, the tariff revision systems are not the same in the different Government authorities, even though the differences are not substantial. Administrative capacity In Spain, the SF and CF are managed and implemented in the technical and administrative departments belonging to the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Works and the regional and local organisms implied directly in the OPs, Strategic Plans, as well as the projects included in them. This means that the technical and administrative capacity to manage and implement the European Funds, are handed out over the national territory in each local area in which a project funding with SF or CF is being developed, in each Autonomous Community that includes a program funding with SF or CF and in the national organisms like Ministry of Finance or Public Works which are in charge of the managing and have the final control of the payments. 45

46 The above results in institutional weaknesses, for example, overlap responsibilities between different involved ministries, or between institutions at different territorial levels. This has complicated implementation in Spain where the national and the regional level share responsibilities in the implementation of EU-funded transport interventions without sufficiently clearly defined coordination and communication channels. Furthermore, Spanish staff working on managing the funds has in some cases limited relevant skills. Specific weakness is reported for monitoring skills. Another area with a potential lack of skills at the side of the government is related to possible PPPs. Based on the previously stated argument a risk assessment has been prepared with respect to the administrative capacity in Spain. This assessment has been summarized in table 6.2. Moderate to high levels indicate that additional attention should be paid to this aspect in the implementation of the programme. Table 6.2 Risk assessment administrative capacity Sector Risk level Explanation Overall Moderate Experience with CF and ERDF is large for most authorities. Institutional weaknesses, overlapping responsibilities between different public entities. Suggested solution: clear delineation of responsibilities Roads Low-Moderate There has been relatively much experience with road construction in different regions in Spain. Rail Moderate Depending on complexity of project. Ports Low-Moderate Depending on specific port and experience with large scale investments. Urban transport Moderate Depending on city. Higher risk in cities with relative lack of experience in large scale investment programme 46

47 7 Impact assessment of scenarios 7.1 Introduction This chapter assesses different scenarios with respect to their impacts on three different (EU) policy objectives: Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion Environmental sustainability In addition the impacts are assessed on the Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3). First the methodological approach is described, including the SASI model that has been used to assess the impacts. Next the scenarios are described, followed by a presentation of the impacts. 7.2 Methodology The SASI model The impacts are assessed with the support of the SASI model. The SASI model is a recursive-dynamic simulation model of socio-economic development of 133 regions in Europe. The model was developed to assess socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport infrastructure investment and transport system improvements. Is has been applied and validated in several large EU projects including the IASON and ESPON projects. The SASI model differs from other forecasting models of regional development by modelling not only production (the demand side of labour markets) but also population (the supply side of labour markets). Regional production by industry is forecast by regional production functions containing production factors capital, labour, regional endowment and accessibility. Regional population is forecast by a demographic model including fertility, mortality and migration. The SASI model is specifically relevant for projects that serve a function on a European level (e.g. the TEN projects). Such projects cannot be adequately evaluated using traditional cost-benefit analysis on a national scale, since they are less able to capture the international effect and the indirect effects occurring in non-transport sectors 7. 7 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended European Union. 47

48 Figure 7.1 Main structure of the SASI model SASI Model The reference network To assess the impacts of new transport investments a reference scenario has been prepared. This mainly implies an adjustment of the transport network in the SASI model 8. The dynamic network database of SASI is based on highly detailed pan-european transport networks with respect to: Roads (including short-sea shipping) Rail (including ferries) Air (including regional airports). Network calculations are based on travel times or generalised costs including border waiting times and (political, economic cultural and language) barriers. The reference network has been updated based on the most recent information from the countries on implementation schedules and alignment with respect to TEN and national transport projects (also information on toll is included). The reference network includes all projects that are already under construction and will be operational in at latest 27. In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 27. Further European integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers between countries. 8 Which relies on the trans-european transport network database developed by IRPUD (23) and now maintained and further developed by RRG (25) 48

49 7.3 Scenarios Impacts have been assessed for different scenarios to be able to compare the outcomes and draw conclusions on the different impacts. Although the study aims to identify strategic areas for investment priorities these areas need to be translated into projects to enable the SASI model to assess impacts. As a result assumptions have been made on projects within the scenarios. These projects have not been listed separately as this would distract the discussion from strategic priorities to projects. Where possible, these projects are based on existing planned projects and related cost estimates 9. Where no existing data existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure needs assessments 1. In all scenarios, after 216 no further transport projects are implemented. However, it is assumed that European integration proceeds as in the Reference Scenario. In addition to the Reference scenario, two major scenarios have been distinguished: The Maximum Scenario, which comprises a listing of possible projects 11 which have been identified in the respective countries; The Balanced Scenario, which applies a budget restriction (with in parallel an assessment of additional financing opportunities). Projects are prioritised on the basis of their benefit-cost ratio and their contribution to specific objectives and needs (sustainability, regional disparity, and contribution to accessibility 12 ). On the basis of the maximum scenario, two sub-sets are determined: the Maximum Road Scenario and the Maximum Rail Scenario which illustrates the differential impact of rail versus road projects. The Maximum Scenario The Maximum Scenario is based on an extensive listing of possible investment projects that have been identified by the national project partners in the project. Where relevant these projects lists have been extended with projects that have been identified on the basis of existing network analyses and studies 13, projects identified on the basis of interviews that have been carried out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified on the basis of the needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the red flag analysis). This results in a scenario of all TEN priority projects and additional national projects that are planned to be constructed (or start with construction) in the period and which are operational by 216. An important notion with respect to the maximum scenario is that no budget restriction is applied. Within the Maximum Scenario two specific sub-sector scenarios are distinguished: 9 This can be national studies or information, information on TEN priority projects 25 (EU 25), or recent studies on the Pan- European corridors (VTT 26). 1 E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC 11 The impact assessment in SASI has only been done on a selected set of road and rail projects. This is done because these sub-sectors in general will receive the majority of funding and an assessment of their impacts can be done without having to go into too much project detail. It is assessed that this approach gives sufficient feedback on the potential impacts. 12 Are projects solving missing links in the network. 13 For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 26). 49

50 The Maximum Road Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed road projects including cross-border transport corridors. The Maximum Rail Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed rail projects including cross-border transport corridors. The Balanced Scenario The Balanced Scenario starts from the Maximum Scenario. First, an assessment is made of the available EU funding in comparison to the total budget requirements of the projects. If a budget restriction applies projects are selected and prioritised 14 on the basis of a number of criteria: Cost -benefit ratio. Are projects in this field expected to deliver value for money (socio-economic rate of return 15 )? Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both on a European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport corridors, secondary connections to backbone network)? Sustainability. Do interventions facilitate modal shift to more environmentally friendly transport modes; Territorial cohesion. Is there a contribution to improving the accessibility of more backward regions; Safety. Do measures contribute to improved transport safety? The assessment in this respect draws strongly on the finding in Part A of the report (SWOT-analysis of the transport system and red flag analysis). Finally, an assessment is made to which extent other financing sources could play a role. In this respect especially the potential of EIB involvement and PPP is included (see also Chapter 6): Other sources of finance. Are projects able or likely to attract other sources of finance? In those cases application for EU financing might not be necessary. In addition, the possible impact of limitations in the administrative capacity and changes in the pricing policy (if large distortions exist in this respect) are taken into account. Table 7.1 gives an overview of the criteria that have been applied for the sub-sectors road and rail. 14 In the calculations in certain countries this leads to the elaboration of an interim scenario, which is called the Restricted scenario (strict application of the budget restriction, i.e. no other sources of finance). 15 Base don TEN-STAC 5

51 Table 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment Sub sector Costeffectiveness Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety of finance Other sources Railways: - HSL Barcelona - Figueras - Perpignan - HSL Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye - Freight railway line Sines Madrid - Conventional rail Lisbon-Valladolid - High-Speed Rail interoperability - Dedicated rail infrastructure Roads: - Motorways Lisbon-Valladolid, Bilbao-Oviedo, Santander-Palencia, Zafra-Huelva, Taracon- Cuenca, Albacete-Linares, Badajoz-Granada, Coruna-Gijon Legend: + positive score; neutral score; - negative score on criterion Railways Continuation of the construction of HSL Barcelona Figueras-Perpignan and Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye is one of the priorities (parts already under construction) to be financed through CF and ERDF. The freight railway lines Sines Madrid is also considered important; the priority is also depending on the Portuguese plans. Two alternatives 16 are considered in accordance with the PEIT: a new high performance line in UIC gauge and a conventional line in Iberian gauge with additional capacity for rail freight transport. Close cooperation between Portugal and Spain is needed to come to a common approach on this project, which is oart of the TEN-T priority network.. The intermodality trend is practically blocked, especially due to the gaps of dedicated railways infrastructures and lack of interchange modal platforms. Therefore dedicated rail infrastructure connecting ports with the hinterland are essential. Roads Completion of the missing motorways sections, whereas Lisbon-Valladolid has the highest priority (already under construction). Table 7.2 gives on overview of the assessment which areas for the road and rail projects can be (potentially) financed by other sources. 16 In a Spanish interministerial meeting held 23 November 25, it was agreed that the railway line Sines-Elvas-Badajoz-Madrid will be studied by a separate project group. 51

52 Table 7.2 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB PPP Railways: - HSL Barcelona - Figueras - Perpignan - HSL Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye - Freight Railway line Sines Madrid - Conventional rail Lisbon-Valladolid - High-Speed Rail interoperability - Dedicated rail infrastructure Roads: - Motorways Lisbon-Valladolid, Bilbao-Oviedo, Santander-Palencia, Zafra-Huelva, Taracon-Cuenca, Albacete-Linares, Badajoz-Granada, Coruna-Gijon Legend: + positive score; neutral score; - negative score on criterion Location of projects Figures 7.2 and 7.3 show the location of the expected projects under the Maximum (Road and Rail) and Balanced Scenarios that have been included in the impact analysis. Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum Road and Balanced Scenarios NB. It is known that a couple of small motorway sections is not correctly represented in this map. The motorway Cantabria, Bilbao-Oviedo exists already except section Llanes-Unquera (aprox. 2 km) which is under public consultation and announced for 29. The section Gijon-Coruña is in the contracting phase and some sections are under construction. The impact of these motorway sections will however be very limited; no fundamental change will occur in our impact analysis since these are small changes. 52

53 Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum Rail and Balanced Scenarios Impact assessment The impacts of the balanced transport scenario are measured as differences between the balanced scenario and reference scenario. These impacts are evaluated with respect to the strategic objectives: Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion, and Environmental sustainability The following objectives have been identified to describe the impact on the different policy objectives: 53

54 Table 7.3 Strategic objectives and related indicators Objective Indicator Level Economic competitiveness Average speed of interregional road trips (kph) Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph) GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average National, regional average National, regional average Territorial cohesion Primacy rate population (%) National Primacy rate GDP (%) Gini coefficient 17 of GDP per capita (-1) National National Environmental sustainability Share of interregional rail trips (%) National, regional average It should be realised that these spatial impacts are long term effects, as: Location decision of firms result in changes in economic activity and employment only after some time; Secondary effects of economic activity (i.e. attraction of other firms) take even longer. This is accounted for in the SASI model by time delays of one to five years. In order to take due account of the long-term spatial impact of transport infrastructure investments in the period , the target year for the model simulations is set at 231. Overall Impacts Table 7.4 presents the impacts of the proposed priority transport investments. 17 A Gini coefficient is a measure which represent the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of income between NUTS 3 regions (i.e. equal regional GDP/capita) 54

55 Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (231 impacts) Scenario Objective Indicator Reference Maximum Road Maximum Rail Maximum Balanced Economic competitiveness Average speed of interregional road trips (kph) % 52..% % % Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph) % % % % GDP per capita (Euro) 3,914 3, % 31,5 +.4% 31,83 +.5% 31,21 +.3% Territorial cohesion Primacy rate (%) population % 14..% 14..% 14..% Primacy rate (%) GDP % 18.5.% 18.5.% 18.4.% Gini coefficient 18 of GDP per capita (-1) % % % % Environmental sustainability Share of interregional rail trips (%) % % % % Table 7.4 indicates that the overall impact of the scenarios on Spain is relatively modest but not negligible. In absolute terms, the transport infrastructure improvements of the policy scenarios increase the average income in Spain by 17 Euro per capita per year. This is mainly due to the significant volume of rail investment in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios. The road investments contribute only one fifth of the overall impact in the Maximum Scenario and even less in the Balanced Scenario. As most of the new rail lines are high-speed rail lines, they bring a significant increase in interregional rail speeds. Compared to this quantum leap in technology, the planned road improvements are more incremental and bring only little increase in road speed. The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact of the transport policy scenarios on the spatial structure of the country, are negligible. Although (not shown in the table) the primacy of Madrid in terms of population increases in all scenarios, no significant differences between the scenarios in the two primacy rates can be detected, not even between the transport policy scenarios and the Reference Scenario. This suggests other factors than accessibility is more important for the process of spatial polarisation. The Gini coefficient shows a slight convergence through the road projects, whereas the rail projects, which are oriented towards the large urban centres, lead to a slight divergence in regional GDP per capita. The environmental effects in terms of increased rail share are significant if only rail projects are implemented as in the Maximum Rail Scenario. However, if also the planned road projects are implemented as in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, this effects is nearly halved. 18 A Gini coefficient is a measure which represent the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of income between NUTS 3 regions (i.e. equal regional GDP/capita) 55

56 Regional impacts Figures 7.3 to 7.6 show the spatial distribution of the indicators GDP/capita in the NUTS- 3 regions of Spain in the target year 231 in comparison to the Reference Scenario. The impact maps show the percentage differences in regional indicator values. The more intense the colour green, the higher the impact. Figure 7.3 shows gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of the NUTS-3 regions in Spain in the Reference Scenario in the year 231. Compared with the current distribution of GDP per capita (see Figure 3.3), the capital city region around Madrid is still dominant. The comparison between the two maps is made difficult as, because of the general increase in GDP per capita, a different colour scale had to be used. However, the lag in GDP per capita between the Spanish and the French regions is still there, as is the decline in affluence within Spain from the north-east to the south-west. Figures 7.4 and 7.5 show the effects of the Maximum and the Balanced scenarios on GDP per capita. It can be seen that in relative terms the poorer regions in the south-west benefit more than those in the north-east from the transport investments. This is in line with the concentration of road and rail projects in these regions but may be partly due also to the lower values of economic activity in these regions. Figure 7.3 GDP per capita (in 1, Euro 25) per region (231 Reference Scenario) 56

57 Figure 7.4 Impact on GDP per capita (231 Maximum Scenario) Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita (231 Balanced scenario) 57

58 Figures 7.6 to 7.8 show the impact of the Maximum and Balanced scenario on sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips). Figure 7.6 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3 regions of Spain (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 231. Here, too the reversed traffic light colour scale is used; so green indicates a higher share of rail trips than in the Reference Scenario, and red indicates a lower share of rail trips. The spatial distribution of rail usage closely resembles that of average rail speed (see Figures 3.6 and 3.7) highlighting the high-speed rail corridors between Seville and Madrid and Madrid and Barcelona. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the policy scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. If as in the Maximum Scenario all rail projects are implemented, the share of interregional rail trips speeds of nearly all regions improves (Figure 7.7). However, if the high-speed rail line Lisbon-Badajoz-Madrid is not built in the funding period, as in the Balanced Scenario, the share of interregional rail trips from the Badajoz and Carceres regions declines due to the competition of the motorway between Badajoz and Granada, which is included in the Balanced Scenario (Figure 7.8). Figure 7.6 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Reference Scenario (231) 58

59 Figure 7.7 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Maximum Scenario (231) Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Balanced Scenario (231) 59

60 Finally results are shown as impacts on the composite Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3). It is examined in how far the policy scenarios contribute to solving the accessibility problems identified in the red-flag analysis. As it was noted in Chapter 3, road accessibility in Spain is above the European average (Figure 3.5), whereas there are great disparities in rail accessibility between the regions in Spain (Figure 3.7). Figures 7.9 and 7.1 show the indices in the year 231 in the Reference Scenario from a European perspective. It should be remembered that in the Reference Scenario no new road/rail projects are started after 26. The maps show that despite of this accessibility by both road and rail has improved in most regions due to the ongoing European integration leading to shorter border waiting times and reduced trade barriers. Figure 7.9 shows the Accessibility problem Index for road. Now all regions in Spain are shaded green, i.e. their accessibility is above the European average. Figure 7.1 shows the Accessibility Problem Index for rail. It can be seen that without rail improvements the disparities in accessibility between the regions seen in Figure 3.7 remain. Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show the impacts of the Maximum Scenario on the Accessibility Problem Index in Spain seen from a European perspective. Compared to the Reference Scenario road accessibility has further improved in most regions, in particular near the Portuguese and French borders (Figure 7.11). However, despite the significant improvements the quality of the rail system of Spain remains uneven, with above-average performance in regions served by the high-speed rail lines and below-average service in the regions not served by the new technology, most notably the Cuenca and Almeria regions (Figure 7.12). 6

61 Figure 7.9 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (231) Figure 7.1 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (231) 61

62 Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (231) Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (231) 62

63 Table 7.5 summarises the effects of the four scenarios on the Accessibility Problem Index: index values above one indicate accessibility problems, whereas index values below one indicate above average performance. Table 7.5 Accessibility Problem Index, Spain, 231 Scenario Mode Level Reference Maximum Maximum Maximum Balanced Road Road National % Rail % % % European % % % % Rail National % % % % European % % % % The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are significant improvements to the rail network in Spain if all envisaged high-speed rail projects are implemented as in the Maximum Scenario. The improvements in road accessibility are less significant. The differences between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios are small except in rail because the high-speed rail line Lisbon-Badajoz-Madrid is not contained in the Balanced Scenario. 63

64 7.4 European effects The effects of transport infrastructure improvements are not confined to the country in which the construction work actually occurs but reach across borders into neighbouring countries. The SASI model forecasts these effects. To demonstrate this on the following two pages three-dimensional images of the spatial distribution of the impacts of the transport infrastructure investments in Spain are shown (Figures 7.13 to 7.16). The four indicator surfaces show the difference between the Balanced Scenario and the Reference Scenario in 231 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.4: average speed of interregional road trips (Figure 7.13), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.14), GDP per capita (Figure 7.15) and share of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.16). It can be seen that although the main impacts occur in Spain itself, significant effects spread beyond national borders. There is a clear difference between road and rail. Whereas the impacts of the planned road projects are concentrated in the south-west of Spain, the rail improvements are part of international corridors and their impacts radiate out into Portugal and France. The economic impacts in GDP per capita, though small, spread across almost all of Europe, following the combined impacts of road and rail. The environmental impacts in terms of share of rail trips reflect the spatial distribution of road and rail projects: the share of rail use increases where the impacts on rail speed are large and decrease where road speed improvements are dominant. 64

65 Figure 7.13 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 231 Figure 7.14 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario),

66 Figure 7.15 GDP per capita: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 231 Figure 7.16 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario),