Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Study on Strategic Evaluation on
Transport Investment Priorities
under Structural and Cohesion
funds for the Programming Period
2007-2013
No 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014
Country Report Spain
Final
Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV
Rotterdam, November 2006
ECORYS Nederland BV
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726
ECORYS Transport
T +31 (0)10 453 87 59
F +31 (0)10 452 36 80
Table of contents
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 8
1.3 The Country Report 8
1.4 Structure of the report 8
2 Transport Sector: current situation 10
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Spain 10
2.3 Situation per mode of transport 11
2.3.1 Roads and road transport 11
2.3.2 Railways 14
2.3.3 Urban transport 16
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 17
2.3.5 Sea ports 17
2.3.6 Airports 20
2.3.7 Trends and indicators 21
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 23
3 Accessibility analysis 25
3.1 Introduction 25
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 25
3.3 Transport needs 26
4 Previous support programmes 32
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure 32
4.2 EU funding 32
4.3 Other sources of financing 32
5 National Transport Strategy 37
5.1 Introduction 37
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 37
5.3 Operational Programme 2007-2013 40
5.4 Main objectives of the OP 40
5.5 Priorities in OP by sector 41
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 42
6.1 Introduction 42
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 43
6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 44
7 Impact assessment of scenarios 47
7.1 Introduction 47
7.2 Methodology 47
7.3 Scenarios 49
7.4 European effects 64
8 Conclusions on investment priorities 67
8.1 Introduction 67
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 67
Annex A: TEN-T priorities 69
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis 75
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 2007. 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 2003 the Commission has
identified the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T up to 2020.1 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 2007-2013 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 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004. The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to € 225 billion at the 2020
horizon. 2 COM(2004)492
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 2007-2013.
1.3 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).
9
Part A: Needs assessment current situation
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 40 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
11
Basic data
Population 40.98 million
Total area 504,782 km2, including 5,240 sq km water2
Population density 81 inh/ km2
Main cities Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Seville
Source: Eurostat
The population of Spain is steadily growing, the growth rate is however lower than in the
70s and 80s.
Economic data
GDP (2004) 837.3 bn€
Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 46.4%
Government deficit as % of GDP
(2004)
-0.1%
GDP per capita, Spain (2004) 19,600 €
GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 €
GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 €
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 2001. 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 80% of its output. The GDP per capita in Spain is some 10% below the EU25
average.
2.3 Situation per mode of transport
2.3.1 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
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 10.3% 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 2003 they comprised of 70,270 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 (1994-2003) in kms
1994 2003
% change
State Road Network
High Capacity roads
Other roads
6,002
16,534
8,794
16,062
47%
-3%
Autonomous roads
High Capacity roads
Other roads
1,489
71,076
2,361
67,909
59%
-4%
Council Roads
High Capacity roads
Other roads
257
66,238
854
68,603
232%
3%
Total
High Capacity roads
Other roads
7,748
153,848
12,009
(9,910 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 12,009 kilometres of which 2,515 kilometres are toll
motorways. The total length of the motorway network in 2003 amounts to 9,910 km.
Table 2.2 Motorway density in Spain
Length motorway/1000 km2
Spain (2003) 19.6
EU15 (2004) 16
EU25 (2004) 14
Source: Eurostat, Statistical Office Spain
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 1000 inhabitants in 1994 to 459
cars per 1000 inhabitants in 2002, which is equal to the EU25 average.
Table 2.3 Car ownership Spain
Spain (2002) EU15 (2002) EU25 (2002)
Cars/1000 inh 459 491 459
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 1993-2003 (in 1000 vehicles)
1993 2003 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 2003) 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.
14
Road accidents
Despite a decrease in the number of fatal road accidents in Spain, road safety is still
below the EU25 average.
Table 2.5 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants)
Spain EU25
1994 1998 2003 2002
143 150 133 110
Source: D. G.de Tráfico. Mº del Interior
2.3.2 Railways
Infrastructure
In Spain two different gauge systems exist: the Iberian gauge (1.668 m) and the
UCI/European gauge (1.435 m).
Between 1990 and 2002, the length of the RENFE network remained at around 12,500km
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 316.8 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 181.1 of which, 150.2 are single
tracks and 30.9 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.
RENFE
FEVE
Catalonian railways
Euskotren
Private rail operators
15
Table 2.4 Railway density
Railway line/1000 km2 Railway line/100,000 inh
Spain (2003)
RENFE Iberian gauge (*) 27 34
RENFE UIC gauge (*) 2 2
FEVE 3 3
Autonomous Regions and private companies 1 2
Total 33 41
EU25 67 42
(*) The old RENFE network belongs to ADIF as per 1 January 2005
Source: Ministerio de Fomento – Dirección General de Ferrocarriles
The railway density measured per 1000 km2 in Spain is substantially below the European
average. If measured per 100,000 inhabitants, the railway density is close to the EU
average.
Figure 2.1 Railway network Spain
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
RAILWAYS NETWORK
Regular Lines in service
High Speed Lines
16
keeping with its greater role in the transportation of passengers on the regional-
metropolitan 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 numbers3. 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 2003, but remained practically stable between 1997
and 2003.
• The most dynamic flow is that of combined transport (containers).
• More than 90% 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).
2.3.3 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 10% 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 1990 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).
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 1990 to 5.50 million in 2002.
2.3.4 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.
2.3.5 Sea ports
Spain is the country with the largest length of coastline in the European Union: 8,000km.
53 ports are distributed along its shores, with a frequency of 1 port for every 150 km of
18
coast. More than 20 million people use the Spanish port facilities for travel, and more
than 50% of exports and almost 80% 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 2003 moved almost 12 million tonnes, with more than 70% 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 2003 the total throughput in Spain was 368.4 million tonnes. The following 6 ports
accounted for around 60% 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 1000 tons)
Total Domestic Foreign
1993 231,171 57,845 173,326
1996 271,676 70,144 201,532
2000 326,023 71,869 254,154
2003 368,393 78,713 289,680
The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 2.8 million TEU in 1003
and has strongly grown until 9.1 million TEU in 2003.
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.
Throughout the entire period analysed, 80% 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 1993-2004, specifically:
• The port of Algeciras predominates with almost 30% of the total movements within
the Spanish port system. These are essentially containers in transit, a situation that
Liquid bulk
Solid bulk
General cargo
Containers
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 40% 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 2000, (the first three: Bahia de
Algeciras, Valencia and Barcelona went from 60% to 68% in the same period).
The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 9.1 million TEU in 2003.
Between 1993 and 2004, passenger traffic increased by about 50%. 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 1993-2004 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%.
2.3.6 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 505,988 km2 and approximately 44,000,000 inhabitants, this
represents:
• 1 airport for every 10,766 km2
• 1 airport for every 200,000 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 90 %
of passenger transport by air in Spanish airports is distributed throughout 16 airports,
which is a third of the whole.
Passengers
21
Figure 2.4 Traffic development Spanish airports
Evolution air transport
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Nº OFOPERATIONS(thousand)
Nº OFPASSENGERS(million)FREIGHT(thousand ton)
The Madrid - Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat airports handle nearly 40 % 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 50 % of passenger movement, and the
most prominent aspect is that they are airports in which tourism predominates; in fact, 30
% 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.
2.3.7 Trends and indicators
Modal split
The share of car transport for passenger transport (81%) in 2002 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)
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, 2002)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro
Situation 2002
Spain 81.4 12.1 5.1 1.3
EU15 83.5 8.8 6.6 1.0
Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2004
In freight transport, measured in tonne-kilometres, road is the dominant mode with a
share of almost 90%, 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, 2002)
Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline
Situation 2002
Spain 89.3 6.4 - 4.3
EU15 75.5 12.9 6.9 4.6
Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2004
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
-
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(mln
to
nn
es-k
m)
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 500,000
TEUs (80% 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
2002-2009).
• High Speed Rail. Some projects are being re-scheduled in the Plan Estratégico de
Infraestrucuturas y Trasporte 2005-2020 (PEIT). A number of them will be for
freight-passenger services at 220 km/h, and others will be redefined as “high
performance” lines for passenger services (250 instead of 350 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:
24
• The railway infrastructure remains under state control, the passenger railway services
are not liberalized and the freight railway services are liberalized since the 1st January
2005 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 Weaknesses
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
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
Opportunities Threats
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
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
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
(2006).
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
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.
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 trade-
off 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.
The new accessibility
indicator recognises
transport network
quality, population
density and regional
disparity
27
Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm) Spain 2006
Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005), Spain 2006
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 (2006). 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.
29
Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), Spain 2006
Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), Spain 2006
30
Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), Spain 2006
Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), Spain 2006
31
Part B: Past transport investment priorities
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 1994-2004 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
1993-1999 and 2000-2006.
In the period 1993-2005 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 2000-2006 is 61%. The
rates of the national resources differ per region, typically values around 30% are found.
The regional funding is also substantial with 7-10% 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 (1994-1999) 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 2000-2006 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 2002-2004, it is noteworthy that EU
contributions worth 3,333.5 million € went to rail, followed by 837.6 million € for
maritime transport, and only 430.6 million € for road transport.
4.3 Other sources of financing
This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure.
33
EIB
The EIB has provided a substantial number of loans (more than 200) in the period 1994-
2006 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
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.
35
Part C: Future transport investment priorities
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 2007-2013.
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 2005-2020 (PEIT). The subsectorial programmes and
specific projects in each subsector situate both the objectives and the deadline for
investments in the intervening years (2005 to 2020).
The PEIT envisages a very high investment, in the order of 249 billion euros between
2005 and 2020, of which an estimated 170 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
2005). 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
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 2005-2020, 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 cross-
systems. 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 90-95% 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 220 km/h, instead of high speed, i.e. a schedule
speed of 300 km/h).
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 30 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 20m; 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 350 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 350 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
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 2007-2013
There are no activity plans or investments specifically scheduled for the period 2007-
2013 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 2007-2013 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 2007-
2013 in public works on transport infrastructure resources yet.
41
5.5 Priorities in OP by sector
There are no activity plans or investments or priorities specifically scheduled for the
period 2007-2013 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.
42
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments
(2007-2013)
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 20055. 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(2004)492 5 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.
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(2005)299) the guidelines with respect to the
expansion and improvement of transport infrastructures for the period 2007-2013
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 30 projects of European interest, located in Member States and regions eligible under the Convergence objective6. 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 inter-modality 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°. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April 2004.
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:
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 20%. 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.
TEN-T budget
EIB
PPPs
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 Destination
TEN-T TEN projects, especially cross border sections
EIB Roads, railways, airports, urban public transport and
to a lesser extent ports
EBRD None
PPP & private capital 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.
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
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 1330 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 sectors7.
7 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended
European Union.
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 model8.
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 2007.
In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European
integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. 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 (2003) and now maintained and further
developed by RRG (2005)
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 estimates9. Where no existing data
existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure needs
assessments10
. In all scenarios, after 2016 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 projects11
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 accessibility12
).
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 studies13
, 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 2007-2013 and
which are operational by 2016. 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 2005 (EU 2005), or recent studies on the Pan-
European corridors (VTT 2006). 10 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 2006).
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 prioritised14
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 return15
)?
• 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
51
Table 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment
Sub sector
Co
st-
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces
of fin
an
ce
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
0
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Roads:
- Motorways Lisbon-Valladolid, Bilbao-Oviedo,
Santander-Palencia, Zafra-Huelva, Taracon-
Cuenca, Albacete-Linares, Badajoz-Granada,
Coruna-Gijon
+
+
-
+
+
+
Legend: + positive score; 0 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 alternatives16
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 2005, it was agreed that the railway line Sines-Elvas-Badajoz-Madrid
will be studied by a separate project group.
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; 0 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. 20 km) which is under public
consultation and announced for 2009. 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.
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:
54
Table 7.3 Strategic objectives and related indicators
Objective Indicator Level
Average speed of interregional road trips (kph)
National, regional average
Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph)
National, regional average
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average
Territorial cohesion Primacy rate population (%) National
Primacy rate GDP (%) National
Gini coefficient17 of GDP per capita (0-1)
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 2007-2013, the target year for the model simulations is set at 2031.
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)
55
Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (2031 impacts)
Scenario
Objective Indicator Reference Maximum Road
Maximum Rail
Maximum Balanced
Average speed of inter- regional road trips (kph)
52.0
52.5 +1.0%
52.0 0.0%
52.5 +1.0%
52.4 +0.8%
Average speed of inter- regional rail trips (kph)
31.8 31.8 0.0%
34.0 +6.9%
34.0 +6.9%
32.5 +2.4%
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro)
30,914 30,947 +0.1%
31,050 +0.4%
31,083 +0.5%
31,021 +0.3%
Territorial cohesion
Primacy rate (%) population
14.0
14.0 0.0%
14.0 0.0%
14.0 0.0%
14.0 0.0%
Primacy rate (%) GDP
18.5
18.4 0.0%
18.5 0.0%
18.5 0.0%
18.4 0.0%
Gini coefficient18 of GDP per capita (0-100)
12.08 12.02 -0.44%
12.10 +0.23%
12.05 -0.21%
12.05 -0.26%
Environmental sustainability
Share of interregional rail trips (%)
30.9 30.6 -1.1%
33.6 +8.8%
33.3 +7.7%
32.1 +3.9%
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 170 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)
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 2031 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 2031. 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 1,000 Euro 2005) per region (2031 Reference Scenario)
57
Figure 7.4 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Maximum Scenario)
Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Balanced scenario)
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 2031. 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 2007-2013 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 (2031)
59
Figure 7.7 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Maximum Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Balanced Scenario (2031)
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 7.10 show the indices in the year 2031 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 2006. 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 7.10 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).
61
Figure 7.9 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)
62
Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (2031)
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, 2031
Scenario
Mode Level Reference Maximum
Road
Maximum
Rail
Maximum Balanced
Road National 0.968
0.958 -1.0%
0.991 +2.4%
0.959 -0.9%
0.961 -0.7%
European 0.850
0.841 -0.1%
0.851 +0.1%
0.842 -0.9%
0.844 -0.7%
Rail National 0.965
0.963 -0.2%
0.899 -6.8%
0.898 -6.9%
0.918 -4.9%
European 0.728
0.727 -0.1%
0.679 -6.7%
0.678 -6.8%
0.693 -4.8%
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.
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 2031 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.
65
Figure 7.13 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
Figure 7.14 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
66
Figure 7.15 GDP per capita: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
Figure 7.16 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
67
8 Conclusions on investment priorities
8.1 Introduction
Based on the previous analysis the main areas for transport investments that would merit
EU funding in the period 2007-2013 have been identified. It should be emphasized that
this is based on an analysis that has been carried out at strategic level. Although the areas
identified are expected to result in high potential projects they should still be subjected to
the regular cost-benefit analysis at a project level before being finally selected.
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013
The identified priority areas are described per sub-sector. These sub-sectors are assessed
on a number of criteria:
Table 8.1 Assessment of priority areas
Subsector
Co
st-
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces
of fin
an
ce
Railways:
- HSL Barcelona - Figueras - Perpignan
- HSL Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye
- Freight railway line Sines – Madrid
- Conventional rail Lisbon-Valladolid
- High-Speed Rail interoperability
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
0
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
Roads:
- Motorways Lisbon-Valladolid, Bilbao-Oviedo,
Santander-Palencia, Zafra-Huelva, Taracon-
Cuenca, Albacete-Linares, Badajoz-Granada,
Coruna-Gijon
+
+
-
+
+
+
Ports:
- Motorways of the Sea
- Dedicated rail access port
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
+
+
0
0
Intermodal transport:
- Logistics centre(s)
+
0
+
0
0
+
Urban transport:
- Integration public transport modes
0
+
+
0
+
0
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
68
Railways
The priorities for railways investment are first of all to continue with the construction of
the high speed lines Barcelona –Figueras-Perpignan and Madrid - Vitoria - Irun/Hendaye
(parts already under construction). Secondly, the freight railway lines Sines – Madrid is
also considered important; the priority is also depending on the Portuguese plans for the
section Sines-Badajoz. 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..
It should also be noted that a strategic strategic evaluation of the rail freight network at
large is needed, taken into account the capacities for freight which will be become
available by the implementation of new high speed lines. It is clear that this evaluation
could only be made once the "sectoral plan" of the railways will be approved.
Roads
The road accessibility in Spain is already high. Therefore, priority is recommended on
completion of some missing motorways sections, whereas Lisbon-Valladolid has the
highest priority (already under construction).
Ports
It has been stated that 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 port with the hinterland is another
essential element.
Intermodal
The establishment of intermodal logistics centres are considered to be an important
element as well to stimulate multi-modal transport. The exact locations and number of
logistics centres are subject to feasibility studies.
Urban transport
Priority should be given to ensure integration of the different public transport modes in
urban areas. For urban roads, changes in the traditional concept of radial centred network
around Madrid and increase of high capacity networks are considered important.
69
Annex A: TEN-T priorities
Table A.1. TEN priority projects and major Swiss projects
No. TEN project Completion
1 Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo
- Halle/Leipzig-Nurnberg (2015)
- Nurnberg-Munich (2006)
- Munich-Kufstein (2015)
- Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009/2012)
- Brenner tunnel (2015)
- Verona-Naples (2007)
- Milan-Bologna (2008)
- Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015)
2015
2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London
- Channel tunnel-London (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Liege-Cologne (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007)
2007
3 High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe
- Lisbon/Porto-Madrid (2015), including:
- Lisbon-Porto (2013)
- Lisbon-Madrid (2010)
- Aveiro-Salamanca (2015)
- Madrid-Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2009)
- Perpignan-Montpellier (2009)
- Montpellier-Nimes (2015)
- Madrid-Vitoria-Irún/Hendaye (2010)
- Irún/Hendaye-Dax (2015)
- Dax-Bordeaux (2020)
- Bordeaux-Tours (2015)
2015
70
No. TEN project Completion
4 High-speed railway axis east
- Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)
- Metz-Luxembourg (2007)
- Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007)
2007
5 Betuwe line 2006
6 Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divača/Koper-Divača-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian border
- Lyon-St Jean de Maurienne (2015)
- Mont-Cenis tunnel (2018)
- Bussoleno-Turin (2011)
- Turin-Venice (2011)
- Venice-Ronchi Sud-Trieste-Divača (2015)
- Koper-Divača-Ljubljana (2012)
- Ljubljana-Budapest (2015)
2018
7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athens-Sofia-Budapest
- Via Egnatia (2006)
- Pathe (2008)
- Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010)
- Nadlac-Sibiu motorway (branch to Bucharest and Constanza) (2007)
2010
8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe
- Railway La Coruňa-Lisbon-Sines (2009)
- Railway Lisbon-Valladolid (2015)
- Railway Lisbon-Faro (2006)
- Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (2010)
- La Coruña-Lisbon motorway (2005)
- Seville-Lisbon motorway (completed 2001)
- New Lisbon airport (2015)
2015
9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed 2001
10 Malpensa Airport completed 2001
11 Öresund fixed link completed 2001
71
No. TEN project Completion
12 Nordic triangle railway/road axis
- Road and railway projects in Sweden (2015)
- Helsinki-Turku motorway (2009)
- Railway Kerava-Lahti (2006)
- Helsinki-Vaalimaa motorway (2015)
- Railway Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2015)
2015
13 UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis 2013
14 West coast main line 2008
15 Galileo (not included in reference scenario, only mentioned here for consistency) 2010
16 Freight railway axis Sines/Algeciras-Madrid-Paris
- New high-capacity rail axis across the Pyrenees (2020)
- Railway Sines-Badajoz (2010)
- Railway line Algeciras-Bobadilla (2010)
2020
17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava
- Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015)
- Stuttgart-Ulm (2012)
- Munich-Salzburg (2015)
- Salzburg-Vienna (2012)
- Vienna-Bratislava (2012)
2015
18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis
- Rhine-Meuse (2019)
- Lanaken lock (2011)
- Vilshofen-Straubing (2013)
- Wien-Bratislava (2015)
- Palkovicovo-Mohács (2014)
- Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011)
2019
19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula
- Madrid-Andalusia (2020)
- North-east (2020)
- Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2020)
- North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2020)
- Extremadura (2020)
2020
72
No. TEN project Completion
20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis
- Fehmarn Belt fixed rail/road link (2015)
- Railway for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015)
- Railway for access in Germany from Hamburg (2014
- Railway Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015)
2015
21 Motorways of the sea
- motorway of the Baltic Sea (2010)
- motorway of the sea of western Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (2010)
2010
22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden
- Railway Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia-Vidin/Calafat (2015)
- Railway Curtici-Brasov (towards Bucharest and Constanta) (2013)
- Railway Budapest-Vienna (2010)
- Railway Břeclav-Prague-Nürnberg (2016)
- Railway axis Prague-Linz (2017)
2017
23 Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Railway Gdansk-Warsaw-Katowice (2013)
- Railway Katowice-Břeclav (2010)
- Railway Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n.V. (2015)
2015
24 Railway axis Lyons/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp
- Lyon-Mulhouse-Mülheim (2018)
- Genoa-Milan/Novara-Swiss border (2013)
- Basel-Karlsruhe (2015)
- Frankfurt-Mannheim (2015)
- Duisburg-Emmerich (2015)
- 'Iron Rhine' Rheidt-Antwerp (2010)
2018
25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011)
- Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010)
- Brno-Vienna motorway (2013)
2013
73
No. TEN project Completion
26 Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe
- Ireland road/rail modernisation (2010)
- Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (2020)
- Railway Felixstowe-Nuneaton (2014)
- Railway Crewe-Holyhead (2012)
2020
27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki
- Warsaw-Kaunas (2010)
- Kaunas-Riga (2014)
- Riga-Tallinn (2018)
2018
28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis
- Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012)
- Luxembourg- French border (2013)
2013
29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor
- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)
- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)
2014
30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt
- Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016)
- Compiègne-Cambrai (2016)
2016
CH1 Gotthard axis
- Zimmerberg tunnel (2011)
- Gotthard tunnel (2015)
- Ceneri tunnel (2015)
2015
CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015
Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005;
Spiekermann & Wegener (Siwss projects)
74
Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects
75
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model was used to assess the
present and future 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.
Figure B.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
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
transport system and so always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to
76
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.
To avoid this dilemma, a new 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 trade-
off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion.
The Accessibility Problem Index
The indicator to be developed should have a number of properties to make it easy to
understand and communicate to policy makers and stakeholders:
- It should be a "problem indicator", i.e. high values should indicate large deficiencies in
regional accessibility, whereas low values of the indicator indicate above-average levels
of accessibility.
- It should be standardised in order to be comparable between regions and countries, i.e.
should not reflect the size or affluence of regions or countries.
- It should be independent of the arbitrary or historically subdivision of the territory into
regions, i.e. its magnitude should not change if a region is subdivided into two or more
regions or if two or more regions are consolidated to one region.
- It should be scalable, i.e. it should be possible to vary the impact of the weighting by
population and inverse GDP to reflect different political priorities.
77
- It should allow measuring the development of accessibility over time.
Based on these requirements, an indicator called Accessibility Problem Index was
developed. The calculation of the Accessibility Problem Indicator proceeds in three steps:
Average regional airline speed.
The first step in the development of the Accessibility Problem Index is the calculation of
average regional airline speed. Average airline speed vrm of all trips frsm from a region r to
all other regions s in Europe by mode m in year t is defined as
[ ]
[ ]∑
∑
−
−
=
s
rsmrsms
rs
s
rsms
rmtctftP
dtftP
tv60/)()(exp)(
)(exp)(
)(β
β (1)
where Ps(t) is regional population in year t, crsm(t) is travel time in minutes between
regions r and s by mode m in year t, β is the impedance parameter and drs is airline
distance in km between the central cities in regions r and s calculated from their
geographical coordinates xr, yr and xs, ys by
( ) ( )22
rsrsrsyyxxd −+−= (2)
Standardisation
Next average regional airline speed, regional population and regional GDP are
standardised as fractions of the average of all regions in the country (national perspective)
or the average of all regions in Europe (European perspective). To neutralise the effect of
region size, population is replaced by population density and GDP is replaced by GDP
per capita. The benchmark for the standardisation of average regional airline speed is
always the average of the base year t0 = 2006 to show changes in accessibility:
)()(
)()(
)(00
0
tPtv
tPtv
tvr
r
rm
r
rrm
rm
∑
∑=′ (3)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtPA
AtP
tp)(
)(
)( (4)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtGtP
tPtG
tg)()(
)()(
)( (5)
where Ar is the area of region r and Gr(t) is the GDP of region r. The v'rm(t), p'r(t) and
g'r(t) then are the relative airline speed, relative population density and relative GDP per
capita of region r in year t, respectively. Values below one indicate below-average airline
78
speed, population density and GDP per capita and values above one indicate above-aver-
age airline speed, population density and GDP per capita of the region.
Index
With these relative indicators, the Accessibility Problem Index qrm(t) of region r by mode
m in year t can be formulated:
[ ] [ ] [ ]γα −−
′′′= )()()()(1
tgtptvtqrrrmrm
(6)
where α and γ are weights indicating the relative importance of population density and
GDP per capita, respectively. Note that average regional airline speed and GDP per capita
have negative weights, i.e. the Accessibility Problem Index expresses deficits in average
regional airline speed relative to the national or European average weighted by population
and economic weakness. The index has the following properties:
- The higher the index the more severe is the deficiency in accessibility.
- The influence of weights of population density and GDP per capita can be changed by
changing α and β: values below one imply less influence, zero no weighting.
- Regions with average airline speed, population density and GDP per capita have an
index value of one.
- Index values are independent of region size and are therefore comparable between
regions and countries.
- The index shows improvements in airline speed over time (and not only relative shifts
between regions).
Sensitivity tests with different values of α and γ showed that α = γ = 0.05 gave the most
plausible results and a reasonable level of responsiveness of the Accessibility Problem
Index to changes of accessibility due to European integration and European transport
projects over time.
The application of the Accessibility Problem Index for the evaluation of accessibility
deficits in the country policy briefs use these values of α and γ throughout. The regions
analysed were the NUTS-3 regions or equivalent regions in the 25 countries of the
European Union plus the accession countries Bulgaria and Romania. The overseas
regions of France and the island regions of the Azores and Madeira of Portugal and the
Canary Islands of Spain were excluded from the analysis.
The spatial distribution of the resulting values of the Accessibility Problem Index are
presented in maps using a colour scale resembling that of a traffic light: green shades
indicate average regional 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. Regions
shaded in red are the targets of the "red-flag" analysis.
For each country first for road and then for rail the national and the European perspective
are presented for the current situation (2006) and for 2016. The situation in 2016 is based
79
on a base scenario of the SASI model without the national projects, i.e. only with the
TEN priority road and rail projects and selected transport projects in Switzerland. The
assumed opening times of the individual projects are those of the 2004 TEN guidelines
(European Union, 2004) which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the
individual countries (European Commission, 2005).
References:
European Union (2004): Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/EC on Community guidelines
for the development of the trans-European transport network. Official Journal of the
European Union L 201 (Corrigendum to L 167), 1-55.
European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority
Axes and Projects 2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
