TEN-T POLICY REVIEW EXPERT GROUP 1 METHODOLOGY FOR TEN-T PLANNING FINAL REPORT

Transcription

1 TEN-T POLICY REVIEW EXPERT GROUP 1 METHODOLOGY FOR TEN-T PLANNING FINAL REPORT Background Out of the three options offered in the Commission's Green Paper "TEN-T policy review Towards a better integrated trans-european transport network at the service of the common transport policy" 1, option 3, that of maintaining the comprehensive network and identifying a multimodal core network for Europe, received by far the strongest support in the public consultation (4 February 30 April 2009), as well as in the European Parliament Resolution of 22 April 2009, Council Conclusions of 11 June 2009 and the Opinions of the Social and Economic Committee 2 and the Committee of Regions 3. With a view to a final decision in favour of this option therefore, the Commission seeks to prepare the methodological bases for its implementation. Six expert groups were set up to support the Commission, made up of external experts from various fields: infrastructure managers, infrastructure planners, national, regional and local representatives, environmental experts, academia, etc.: Expert group 1: Expert group 2: Expert group 3: Expert group 4: Expert group 5: Expert group 6: methodology for network planning integration of transport policy technology connections to third countries financing legal aspects The conceptual pillar of the core network was addressed in expert groups 2 and 3. This pillar would be at the same strategic level as the elements of the geographical core network, and derive from EU policy objectives (in the transport and other relevant fields) to include complementary non-geographical, but infrastructure-related, measures aimed at enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of the network. 1 COM(2009) 44 final, /C 318/20 3 OJ C 318, ,

2 The Mandate of Expert Group 1 The mandate of Expert Group 1 was to elaborate a proposal for a sound and rational strategic core network planning methodology. In line with the objectives of economic, social and environmental sustainability, as laid down in the Treaty, such a methodology should lead to a multimodal network of the most important nodes and links throughout the Community, reflecting the geographical context and the major long-distance and international traffic flows. Particular attention should be paid to the contribution f the TEN-T to decarbonisation and climate protection. At a time of growing globalisation and market integration, links to third countries, even to those beyond the immediate neighbourhood, will gain in importance; this should be the focus of Expert Group 4. Latterly however, it was felt that candidate and potential candidate countries 4 should be included within the scope of expert group 1. The Chair and members of expert group 1 are shown in the annex. The Work of Expert Group 1 and its Main Results The expert group met four times 5 : 27 October 2009; 24 November 2009; 12 January 2010; 9 March For the first meeting, the Secretariat had prepared a paper containing suggestions about possible elements for a strategic core network planning methodology which served as a basis for the discussions. The work on the methodology for the geographical core network gradually evolved at the meetings and debates, taking account of the information and contributions received. At its final meeting, the group agreed on the text attached as its proposal for the methodology. The minutes of the meetings of the group are attached. The following summary of the group s work highlights the key elements of discussions. First meeting (27 October 2009) A short inventory of existing planning methodologies and corresponding studies, in the Commission and in the Member States, was followed by a discussion on which of these elements could be used, what was missing and what needed to be developed. 4 Turkey and the Western Balkans states and entities 5 The minutes of the meetings of the group are attached.

3 The methodology to be developed, with the support of Expert Group 1, was seen as a tool for the "top-down" identification of the geographical network, based on the political objectives laid down in the Treaty. It was agreed that, in a context of strategic network planning, the term "priority" should be used in the sense of high strategic importance rather than urgency of implementation. There was a high level of agreement among the experts that the approach to strategic network planning should be mainly geographical, while taking into account existing and potential future traffic flows. Accordingly, at this strategic level, some kind of multi-criteria analysis seemed appropriate, while cost-benefit analyses were seen as more appropriate for project assessment, in particular when comparing different variants. A thorough discussion took place on the question of how to handle the current economic downturn, which had affected freight transport in particular. Although it was still impossible to give any serious forecast of future development as between a complete recovery and stagnation, most of the experts agreed that, in a geographical approach, these uncertainties would tend to affect network configuration less than capacity demand, which had an impact on the dimensioning of nodes and links and/or on determining priorities for implementation. In this sense, the first step should be the determination of the main nodes, which would be the most important cities and city clusters, gateway ports and port clusters, hub airports and the big intermodal interfaces. These nodes would then have to be connected by corresponding links following an adequate routing. The experts underlined the importance of the following subjects: Accessibility, cohesion and impacts of infrastructure on regional growth; Traffic flows, traffic demand and capacity needs; Difference between "old" and "new" Member States; Needs of users and customers; Multimodality and logistics; Interoperability of all modes; Core network reflecting relations between metropolitan areas; Safety and efficiency, in particular of air transport; Advanced assessment methods, such as "systems analysis". Second meeting (24 November 2009) The following papers were presented by the members of the group: Werner Rothengatter: Markus Schubert: Richard Ossendorp: Frederik Rasmussen: Werner Rothengatter: Janeta Toma: Geographical vs. traffic approach Connectivity efficiency vs. equity Multimodal vs. modal network TRANSTOOLS Multi-criteria analysis incl. systems analysis Ports and intermodal nodes Following the presentations and the subsequent discussion a number of aspects emerged:

4 The overall goal should be to maximise EU added value. Efficiency, from the point of view of the EU, could be seen as fulfilment of the whole set of objectives laid down in the Treaty in a balanced way, against the corresponding costs and efforts. A geographical approach for strategic core network planning would not necessarily be in contradiction to a traffic driven approach, as the geographical distribution of main nodes in space is the main driver of major long-distance traffic flows. A sound balance between traffic demand in central regions and accessibility in peripheral ones would be needed. Network shape should reflect existing and potential long-distance traffic flows. Given the high relevance of traffic for polluting and greenhouse gas emissions, environmental aspects, climate change and decarbonisation would have to play an important role in infrastructure planning. Special attention should be paid to freight logistics, main gateway ports and their hinterland connections. Taking into account probable increases of fuel price increases, due to a future shortage of fossil energy, a partial shift of cargo flows from and to Asia from North Sea to Mediterranean ports might be expected. Furthermore, land transport between the EU and China would probably gain in importance. Air traffic is expected to continue its growth, although at lower rates than in the past. Airports would more and more become intermodal nodes, including with rail, and commercial centres. Adequate rail links, when justified by demand, could contribute to modal shift of access traffic to airports. High speed rail connections of great intercontinental hubs could even replace short distance flights within a circle of some hundred kilometres. The opinion of some experts that rail connections to airports, by facilitating air traffic, would have a globally negative impact on environment and climate and should, therefore, not be supported, was not however shared by the majority of the group. TRANS-TOOLS was perceived as having a very high potential, including as it does a separate module for logistics and intermodal transport, but it is still being developed and improved. It would in any case always be necessary to take into account the limitations of such a model when using it as a tool for decision making. There was unanimity that cost-benefit analysis would not be an appropriate means for network appraisal and that some kind of multi-criteria analysis would be more adequate. Despite a lack of simplicity and transparency, the application of scientifically more advanced models was seen as most advantageous, provided that all necessary data was available. Third meeting (12 January 2010) During the meeting there were presentations by: Andres Rodriguez-Pose: Peder Jensen: Jos Dings: Infrastructure and economic development Role of environment considerations in TEN-T planning Transport decarbonisation objectives and TEN-T

5 The first presentation gave a differentiated view on the impact of infrastructure on regional development. Accessibility eased access to markets, which was a precondition for competitiveness, but there were examples which had even shown negative effects, accelerating erosion of development in the periphery. Comparing neighbouring peripheral regions, it would be necessary to improve accessibility of one region as soon as it had been improved in a neighbouring one. This would, however, not necessarily mean infrastructure within those regions but rather infrastructure towards them. Furthermore, improving accessibility would not help if other location factors rather than infrastructure are in fact the relevant constraint on competitiveness in the region. In particular on rail, infrastructure is effective only if the necessary services are provided, as well. The role of de-carbonisation as a major goal of the Community was pointed out once again in the two related presentations. These objectives could be met by a set of measures at different strategic levels, with efficient charging according to the polluter pays principle and technological developments in addition. In general, investments in rail do not automatically generate modal shift; but additional rail infrastructure capacity would be needed if a modal shift was induced by policy measures such as internalisation of external costs. In the discussion on the draft methodology, it was proposed to follow, in parallel, two different scenarios for core network planning, in order to highlight the impact of transport policy and transport market conditions on traffic demand, modal choice and environmental impact. The two scenarios are: a baseline maintaining the current transport policy, and a sustainability scenario, including the internalisation of external costs. Furthermore, the launch of a "TENconnect II" study, taking into account the current economic downturn, would improve knowledge of existing and future traffic flows. There was broad support for the idea that the core network, which would be a less dense subset of the comprehensive network, should include and update the existing priority axes, but on the basis of a top-down approach. The basic patterns of main traffic flows, which are a determinant for the core network, would remain fairly stable, almost independent of economic development, in view of the long planning cycle and operational life of transport infrastructure. Once again, the large and growing share of aviation in air pollution and CO2 emissions was discussed. However, air transport was seen by most experts as an indispensable mode of transport, in particular of passengers, in a globalized world. Improved operation by better air traffic management such as SESAR was expected to enhance both economic efficiency and environmental sustainability of aviation, while rail links to airport would make corresponding surface-based access more sustainable. Others remained unconvinced by these arguments however. Fourth meeting (9 March 2010) The morning session was dedicated to two presentations and their subsequent discussion: Theo Notteboom: Economic analysis of the European seaport system (study carried out in 2009 for ESPO) Paolo Costa: Report on work of Expert Group 4

6 Theo Notteboom (Professor, University Antwerp) stressed the importance of ports and their hinterland connections as key logistics elements in the European transport system. Against a background of competition between ports, there is a tendency towards concentration, reflecting economies of scale, as capacities and efficiency of ships and ports, including services, grow, in particular around the North Sea. This concerns in particular container traffic, while bulk cargo flows utilise a greater number of ports. RoRo markets have quite different properties to those for containers and bulk. Natural gateways are not automatically those which are closest to the hinterland. Flexibility of the system does not preclude concentration and is also in particular important in ensuring competition and providing alternatives in case of disruption. In determining the configuration of global supply chains and distribution networks, there are four layers in the port-hinterland relationship: a logistic, a transport, an infrastructure and a locational layer. As regards the selection of ports for the core network, he had identified twelve main port clusters around Europe, from the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the British Isles, the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts and the Black Sea. He noted that these clusters were particularly relevant for container traffic. According to Paolo Costa, Expert Group 4 was focusing on land-based links to Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East and Northern Africa and on gateway seaports and hub airports as the main entry points of the Union for passenger and freight, while acceding and Western Balkans were treated in methodological terms as if they were already Member States. Given the increasing importance of Asia in global trade, a likely future shortage of fossil energy and the need to internalize external costs, he expected growing economic pressure to shorten transport distances by avoiding going around Gibraltar and increasing use of Mediterranean ports. There needed to be a strategic decision on whether to support or to impede such a development. The experts shared these opinions to a great extent. While there was agreement that North Sea ports would maintain their leading function, it was acknowledged that, depending on the economic and political framework, a certain shift to Mediterranean ports was a realistic prospect and, with a view to the de-carbonisation and diversification goals, might even be desirable. To develop this potential, port structures in that region would have to be modernized, capacities increased, hinterland connections upgraded and, above all, services improved. In the afternoon session, some supplementary questions regarding the network planning methodology were discussed: It was agreed that the review of the comprehensive network should follow a more pragmatic, partly bottom-up approach, with changes only where justified to reflect implementation, to resolve inconsistencies and to add a few evident missing links.

7 A solution about the right balance between sometimes conflicting objectives was not found, but weights to be used in the assessment should reflect the relative importance of the criteria at EU level. Multimodality means that there is the necessary infrastructure available for all modes, which should be connected, in particular at the nodes of the network in an optimum way, to enable efficient and sustainable co-modal transport chains for passengers and freight This should include appropriate cross-modal ITS and information systems. On rail, passengers and freight my be separated partly or completely, on a case-bycase basis, according to the respective circumstances, taking into account the differing infrastructure and operational needs of the various types of passenger and freight transport. Standards should rather describe performance objectives than geometry or other technical parameters. Recommendations of the Expert Group Although the proposed methodology reflects a broad consensus within the group, a number of issues were raised that require further consideration, both within other expert groups and in the more extended policy-making process. There was no attempt within the group to reach a consensus on these issues, partly because they have only a limited direct impact on the methodology itself and partly because they also reflect some fundamental divergences among experts and stakeholders regarding the future role and development of the TEN-T and particularly the Core Network. They include: The exact relationship between long distance infrastructure development and cohesion and regional development objectives; The desirability, in the absence of other non-infrastructure related policy changes, of linking airports and long distance/high speed rail connections; The correct balance to establish, in the evaluation of proposals, between economic and environmental factors; The balance to be established between cohesion and internal market efficiency objectives; The expectations of traffic development and global traffic flow patterns, particularly as regards likely developments in maritime freight flows from Asia to Europe. It is recommended that the latter issues be taken up as appropriate, both within the relevant expert groups whenever possible and, in any case, in the preparation of the Commission s Communication that will be the outcome of the ongoing policy review of TEN-T.

8 Furthermore, it is in the very nature of the issue that at the level of experts, it has not been possible to determine concrete selection thresholds for node sizes, transport distances, traffic flows etc. and for weights to apply in network or project assessment. These are decisions that go beyond the responsibility of an expert group. The proposed "TEN-T planning methodology" is attached. The Chair thanks all members of the group for their contributions.

9 Annex: Expert Group 1 Chair, members, meetings and attachments: Chairman: Jonathan SCHEELE Members: Michaelis ADAMANTIADIS Nicolas BOUR Maria Angeles BULE COSTAS Pablo CORRIDE Mihaela CRISTEA-DEISS Chrystelle DAMAR Jos DINGS Zoltan EGYHAZY Janeta TOMA Nicolas IBANEZ RIVA Edyta JASZCSUK-JEZIERSKA Peder JENSEN Christof KIENEL Markku KIVARI Sergios LAMBROPOULOS Airy MAGNIEN Peter-Paul OOSTVEEN Richard OSSENDORP Romana PALCIC Christian RENAUD Michael ROBSON Andres RODRIGUEZ POSE Werner ROTHENGATTER Markus SCHUBERT Lanfranco SENN Patrick VERHOEVEN Commission: Jean PEYRONY Frederik RASMUSSEN Giuseppe RIZZO Marcel ROMMERTS Patrick ROUSSEAU Michael SCHWARZ Pawel STELMASZCZYK Julie SORS Janeta TOMA Secretariat: Gudrun SCHULZE Helmut ADELSBERGER Vania IVANOVA Madalina SIMION Meetings: 27 October November January March 2010 Attachments to this draft final report: The minutes of these meetings, in which the most important positions taken by the experts and the main results have been summarized, including the corresponding attendance lists. The final recommendations for a strategic network planning methodology, as a result of the work of the group, based on an introductory note elaborated by the secretariat for the first meeting, which contained a first proposal for strategic network planning, which was further developed in the following meetings.