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 Czech Republic
Final
Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV
Rotterdam, October 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 E [email protected] 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 Czech Republic 10 2.3 Situation per mode of transport 11 2.3.1 Roads and road transport 11 2.3.2 Railways 15 2.3.3 Urban transport 18 2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 19 2.3.5 Airports 19 2.3.6 Qualitative assessment of transport systems 20 2.4 Trends and indicators 21 2.5 Current Transport policy 22 2.5.1 Strategic objectives at sub-sector level 22 2.5.2 Related transport policy issues 24 2.6 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 27
3 Accessibility analysis 29 3.1 Introduction 29 3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 29 3.3 Transport needs 30
4 Previous support programmes 36 4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure 36 4.2 EU funding 36 4.3 Other sources of financing 38
5 National Transport Strategy 41 5.1 Introduction 41 5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 41 5.3 Operational Programme 2007 - 2013 42 5.3.1 Main objectives of the OP 42 5.3.2 Priorities in OP by sub-sector 43 5.4 Relation of the OP with the National strategy 44
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 46 6.1 Introduction 46 6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 47 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 48
7 Impact assessment of scenarios 52 7.1 Introduction 52 7.2 Methodology 52 7.3 Scenarios 54 7.4 Impact assessment 60 7.7 European effects 69
8 Conclusions on investment priorities 73 8.1 Introduction 73 8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 73
Annex A TEN-T priorities Annex B Accessibility “red flag” analysis Annex C Selection of priority projects (not for publication)
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
7 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 the Czech Republic. 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 is 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 on the 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 recent past (Part B). • Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified. This section (Part C) not only 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.
8
Part A: Needs assessment current situation
9 2 Transport Sector: current situation
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current situation of the transport sector and transport policy in the Czech Republic. After a brief introduction on the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it 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, opportunities and threats. The assessment of the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport policy issues in the Czech Republic.
2.2 Czech Republic
The Czech Republic is a landlocked country in the centre of Europe, strategically located on some of the oldest and most significant land routes of the continent. Bohemia in the west consists of rolling plains, hills and plateaus surrounded by low mountains; Moravia in the east is even more mountainous.
Source: CIA, World fact book
10
Basic data Population 10.2 million Total area 78,866 km 2 Population density 129 inh/km 2 Main cities Prague (capital; 1,2 million inhabitants), Brno (400,000 inh), Ostrava (315,000 inh) Source: Eurostat
Economic data GDP (2004) 86.8 bn€ GDP per capita, Czech (2004) 8,500 € Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 30.6% Government deficit as % of GDP (2004) -2.9% GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 € GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 € Source: Eurostat
2.3 Situation per mode of transport
2.3.1 Roads and road transport
Infrastructure Currently, there are 546 km of motorways and 55,000 km of state roads available in the Czech Republic, of which 6,120 km are class I roads. These roads are owned by the state and form the core road network that carries almost 91% of the total road transport capacity. This network includes 2,599 km of European international roads.
Class II roads, available for transport between larger cities, and class III roads, serving villages and connecting them to higher class roads, are managed by regional offices of the national highway administration. In total there are 14,668 km of class II and 34,143 km of class III roads.
Table 2.1 Length of road network in the Czech Republic (1994-2004) in kms
1994 2004 % change Motorways 392 546 39%
State roads 55,530 54,953 -1%
Local roads 69,270 72,300 4% Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
Despite the expansion of the motorway network in the past decade, it is still underdeveloped. The density of 7 km motorway/ 1000 km 2 in the Czech Republic is well below the EU-25 average (14 km motorway/ 1000 km 2), even though the country’s population density is high and its central position in Europe (see table 2.2.).
11
Table 2.2 Motorway density in the Czech Republic
Length motorway/1000 km 2 Czech Republic (2004) 7 EU15 16 EU25 14 Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
The construction, repair and maintenance funds for the state roads (class I, II and III, motorways) are provided from the budget of the State Transport Infrastructure Fund.
Traffic intensities are highest around the capital Prague as well as on the connection between Prague and Brno and between Brno and Ostrava. Taking into account the average growth in daily traffic on main roads, being over 5% during the past few years, quite a number of road sections are prone to upgrading to motorway or express-road standard.
Figure 2.1 Road network Czech Republic
Source: Ministry of Transport, 2004
The Czech Republic has not yet finished the network of motorways and expressways. Plans for enlarging the road network aim mainly at connections to the surrounding countries, in addition to the existing strong connection between Prague and Brno. The existing roads have to be modernized. It is, therefore, logical that there is very strong pressure for the provision of adequate financial means, from both a short-term and
12 medium-term perspective. About EUR 30 billion are estimated to be required to finish and modernize the transport infrastructure and to invest in repairs and maintenance. For the time being, however, it is necessary to search for a model of effective allocation of resources, while consistently meeting the principle of effectiveness in spending financial resources.
Demand The car ownership in the Czech Republic is at 373 per 1000 inhabitants, which is relatively low compared to the EU25.
Table 2.3 Car ownership
Czech Republic (2004) EU15 (2002) EU25 (2002) Cars/1000 inh 373 491 459 Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
The number of registered cars increased strongly in the past decade (30%). Also the number of freight vehicles showed a strong development in this period and doubled.
Table 2.4 Number of vehicles 1994-2004 (in 1000 vehicles)
1994 2004 Percentage change Cars 2923 3815 30% Lorries 184 371 102% Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
Road Transport Currently, there are 4,300 firms active on the international market. The average internationally operating road freight company owns 7.5 trucks against 4.4 for the rest of the new member states and 5.2 for the EU companies with Community authorisation. The Czech Republic has agreed a “2+2+1” year transitional period for road freight cabotage after accession.
The average Czech international road passenger transport company owns 3 coaches against 5.3 for the average EU company holding Community authorisation (data from 2000). There is no administrative limit regarding the number of operators or the number of vehicles. The fleet (age) is rather new.
The domestically operating road freight and passenger transport sector is characterised by a majority of small and medium sized companies, with very strong competition. Labour is relatively highly trained and motivated, but fleet renewal is slower than in internationally operated companies. There are many one-man hauliers (63%) with vehicles ranging from 1.5 tonnes to 48 tonnes. There are about 27,500 domestic road operators, of which 90% small scale operators owning 1-5 vehicles. 75% of domestic transport operations are carried out within a distance of up to 50 km.
The Czech economy is growing and, consequently, the problem of overcapacity in international operations seems not so apparent. On the other hand, the main problem for Czech hauliers is the lack of permits for operations in some European countries. In
13 domestic transport, the competition is intense, mainly because of the high number of operators. Overcapacity does exist, but is very much depending on the state of the economy. At present, the situation seems to be stabilised.
The privatisation process in the road transport has practically been completed after the transformation and privatisation of the CSAD, state enterprise (Czechoslovak Bus and Haulage Company). CSAD has been split into small regional companies, in some of which the state is a (partial) stakeholder. What remains is the following: • to complete the privatisation of several remaining state enterprises of the CSAD • to decide on some shares held by the Fund of National Property 3 and on the sale of state share of some commercial companies
Infrastructure According to official transport policy, the need to construct new motorways is very urgent and necessary to establish a first-class transport connection for the development of individual regions and to address the transport situation on ever more congested roads. Any deceleration in the speed of motorway network construction in the Czech Republic is deemed to result in heavy congestion and to have an impact on the environment, safety and satisfaction of citizens with the working of the transport system. It is necessary to mention that investments in transport infrastructure are an important factor in deciding the allocation of investments in the Czech Republic and in particular regions. The logical requirement of investors is the availability of first-class roads, railway tracks and/or a port.
Taking traffic away from the residential parts of cities and municipalities is imperative as well. For this reason, bypasses of cities and villages enjoy a high priority.
Road accidents Czech Republic has experienced a decrease in fatal accidents in 2004, with 1382 fatal accidents. The Czech Republic has a traffic death toll rate per million inhabitants of 140 (EU-25 average 110) and a death rate of 32 per billion motor vehicle km (EU-average 13). The situation for the number of accidents involving personal injury is similar; the Czech Republic’s figure in this field is also among the highest of EU.
Table 2.5 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants) 2004
Czech Republic (2004) EU 25 (2004) 140 110 Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
3 A fund for the proceeds from privatisation
14 2.3.2 Railways
General For the Czech Republic its connections to surrounding European states by railway lines are essential. The Czech Republic has one of the densest railway networks in Europe – 122 km/1,000 km² and by far the densest one among the new member states.
Table 2.6 Railway density
Railway line/1000 km 2 Railway line/100,000 inh Czech Republic 122 94 EU-25 51 45 Source: Eurostat, Czech Statistical Office
Czech legislation concerning the railway sector is in accordance with the legislation of the European Community. Act No. 266/1994 Coll. on Railways introduced the complete liberalisation of access to the railway infrastructure resulting in among other that the new private operators’ share of freight traffic amounted to 11% of total tonnage. Each operator needs a licence, asks for an allocation and pays charges for use of the railway infrastructure. The Czech Republic is in the fourth position in Europe with respect to freight railway traffic in millions of tons; its international freight transport amounts to 61.6% of total rail freight movements.
Network The Czech railway network represents 9,499 km of lines. The rail network is quite extensive. Electrification is at only 30%, while the EU-25 average is 50%. About 37% of the railway network has an automatic block system and about 90% corresponds to 20 or 22.5 tons axle load. The quality of the network is low.
Table 2.7 Overview of the Czech railway network
Source: ČD Czech railways
15 The most important railway lines represent parts of trans-European Corridors: • Corridor IV: from D ěč ín (cross-border station to Germany) through Praha, Česká Třebová and Brno to B řeclav; • Corridor VI: from D ětmarovice (cross-border station to Poland) through P řerov to B řeclav. From B řeclav Trans-European Corridors continue to Austria (Vienna) and to Slovakia (to Bratislava).
The following lines are also important for the interconnection of the European Corridors: • Česká T řebová – P řerov that joints Corridor IV and VI and • the line Praha – České Bud ějovice – to Austria (Linz) that joints Corridor IV and X.
Lines in the AGTC network and several domestic lines are also significant. All these lines mentioned create the fundamental part of the Czech conventional network where the Czech Republic plans to reach interoperability; these mentioned lines make up about 26% of the Czech railway network.
Basic technical parameters on the interoperable Czech railway network: track class – UIC-D4, maximum speed – 160 km/h, vehicle gauge – UIC-GC. Rebuilding work or new electrification (AC or DC) and modernisation of signalling systems are being completed during modernisation of this network. The ERTMS is under preparation – pilot projects for GSM-R and ETCS should be started this year. Modernisations of the corridors are carried out in accordance with environmental rules, seeking the least negative impact on the environment. Investment projects as well as maintenance of infrastructure are prepared on the base of continuing diagnosis and monitoring. Monitoring systems for the track, the overhead line and for measuring all radio systems are completed.
Operators The main partners in the Czech railway system are: • DÚ (Railway Authority) - issues licences and is the regulator, • SŽDC, s.o. (Railway Infrastructure Administration, state organisation) - represents the State as the owner and administrator of the railway infrastructure. • ČD, a.s. (Czech Railways, joint stock company) - operates railway transport and the railway infrastructure; it is the biggest railway undertaking in the Czech Republic, • DI (Railway Safety Authority) - investigates causes of unusual occurrences.
16 Figure 2.2 Railway network Czech Republic
Source: Ministry of Transport, 2004
Railway transport demand The development of rail freight transportation has been quite positive when taking into account the general decline of railway figures. In 2003 the railway sector accounted for 15,900 million ton-km. The share of non-public companies is made up by private operators mainly transporting coal and iron in North Bohemia. In 2001 there were already 42 railway companies active on the Czech market, which is the highest figure for the new member states by far. Liberalisation took place in 1997.
In comparison to the other new Member States, the modal split share of freight transportation is with 25.6% quite low, given that the average is at 30%. Concerning passenger transportation, Czech figures (7.3%) are slightly better than the accession countries’ average of 6.3%. Still, for such a dense network, and a relatively dense population, the numbers are quite low. Furthermore, like elsewhere the development of passenger transportation has been rapidly decreasing. The figure shrank from 8,005 million passenger-km in 1995 to 6,597 million p-km (-17.6%) in 2002. The decrease can be directly linked to the growing motorisation in the Czech Republic, since national passenger transportation decreased more rapidly, while international figures where even growing by some 30%. The share of national transportation is yet more than 90% of all rail passenger transportation in km.
17
Process of Privatisation and Restructuring in the Railway Transport Sector The following process for transformation of the Czech Railways has been adopted: • consolidation of the existing railway operator Czech Railways, • transformation of the railway operator to a business led company with clearly set objectives of economic prosperity • privatisation on the ground of established long-term development philosophy and business policy
The principal target of this process shall be a strategic changeover from a state owned railway company to a transformed profitable public company with the driving force being a realistic strategy leading to maximisation of revenues and minimisation of costs (a decision has been taken to establish the state enterprise Czech Railways as from 1 January 1999). This means: • to develop a consolidation programme of Czech Railways, including complex steps leading to the improvement of financial position and also keeping back the negative trends • to implement gradual steps so that the Czech Railways are clear of debt from the state budget, as a necessary precondition for the consolidation programme • to develop a proposal for principles of privatisation of railway lines (lease arrangement) and conditions of the access to the transport infrastructure; the principles shall constitute organisational and legislative conditions for feasible separation of portion of railway lines from Czech Railways; at the same time to adhere to the following principles: • to preserve the rail network integrity • to separate the transport infrastructure from operations • to privatise and liberalise the traffic on the transport infrastructure managed by the State • to privatise the peripheral segments of regional lines, in recreational and similar areas in particular • to prepare a long-term policy of the railway development, covering the compliance with EC laws and current starting conditions of the Czech Republic • to preserve the possibility of later change-over of the transformed Czech Railways, state enterprise, into a commercial joint-stock company
2.3.3 Urban transport
The extent of the Czech urban rail transport and trolleybus infrastructure reflects a relatively high share of urban public transport in comparison to most EU-15 countries. A positive manifestation is a slow but definite expansion of the network. One of the Czech special characteristics is almost non-existent urban light rail (other than metro or classical trams), which could otherwise connect swiftly and flexibly larger urban and suburban housing quarters to the centres of cities.
The number of means of transport corresponds to the extent of network, but is not able to grow at the same pace as the extent of network, because of the lack of investment funding. The fleet is relatively obsolete and a vast modernization is needed
18
The transport demand for the Praha Metro is growing, as it is in urban rail. In the remaining forms of urban transport demand is stagnant. Even here, the competition of individual car transport is the main factor influencing the modal split.
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport
For the Czech Republic the connection of sea and inland waterways is not of relevance, since there is no coastline within its sovereign territory. The only direct connection to the sea is the inland waterway to the Northern Sea, which runs through Germany.
Freight transportation volumes by inland waterways have decreased from 1,753,000 tonnes in 1997 to 1,172,000 tonnes in 2003. Domestic transport is stable and slightly growing, while border crossing transport has decreased rapidly. The main Czech ports are Decin, Prague and Usti nad Labem.
The inland waterways are mainly used for recreation and sports. Due to protests by environmentalists, the lock system has not been modernized and freight waterway transportation has almost ceased on the 664 km of Czech waterways. However, there are 68 enterprises active in the field of inland water transport, but due to the concentration on recreation and sport the majority of them should be active in this branch of economy.
2.3.5 Airports
Prague Airport is a major flight destination in Central Europe, second only to Vienna. Stretching over an area of approximately 1000 ha, with two passenger terminals and a cargo zone, it is the highest-performing airport among the new EU member states. In 2003 the airport checked in nearly 7.5 million passengers and the annual capacity of its cargo terminal amounts to 100,000 tons. At the moment, the airport is building a new terminal, North 2, which should boost its capacity, bringing it to the level of 10 million passengers a year from as early as 2006. At the same time the airport is preparing to build a third runway.
In June 2004 the year-on-year increase in the number of passengers using Prague-Ruzyne International Airport reached 28.9%, with the number of June passengers totalling 940,331 persons. Over the period of January to June the airport handled as many as 4.2 million passengers, which represents an increase of 36.2% when compared to the same period of 2003.
Prague also reinforced its position as the airport with the most extensive range of low- cost airlines in this region. In June 2004 there were as many as 14 low-cost airlines operating flights to 28 various destinations.
19 Table 2.8 Passengers and freight transport at Prague - Ruzyne airport
Aircraft Cargo Air mail Passengers movements Year (thousand tons) (thousand tons) (million) (thousand) 2003 41.44 4.87 7.46 115.75 2004 46.88 5.20 9.69 144.96 Source: Prague - Ruzyne Airport
Besides the airport in Prague, there are several other airports in the Czech Republic, at least in each region there is one of them planning to become an international airport. Today the international regional airports are Brno, Ostrava and Karlovy Vary.
2.3.6 Qualitative assessment of transport systems
The Czech Republic finds itself at the crossroads of ancient trans-European routes that transformed recently into the European Union’s Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T). Therefore the quality and density of its road and rail infrastructure are crucial for a successful and hurdle-free Community Market. Especially the quality of the Czech transport infrastructure is far from being fit to serve this task. The existing infrastructure is in an unsatisfactory condition due to a long-term shortage of maintenance and renewal funds. The majority of national roads cross the centres of towns and villages adding to safety problems while the railway network is still designed like in the time of its origin in the 19th century and needs therefore a large extent of renewal and restructuring.
The Czech Republic still has a better modal split than the European average; the share of road is still 10% lower than the EU-average in passenger km, and in freight the share of rail is still well off 20% in tonne-km, but it develops in an adverse direction, as seen from the standpoint of sustainability. The development of the division between mass and individual passenger transport leads to spreading road congestion and environmental problems on the one hand, and to declining revenue and growing dependence on subsidies in public transport on the other. Main causes are expanding motorisation of households and cheapness and flexibility of road freight transport. Rail and inland waterway transport are growing yet less attractive for customers than before, which is caused also by an insufficient harmonisation of conditions in the transport market and by the imperfect integration of both transport modes into existing logistic chains.
Roads The motorway network is underdeveloped. Its density is well below the EU-25 average, although road traffic intensity in the country does not much differ from that of the “old” EU states. A marked problem is the absence of town and village bypasses causing numerous traffic congestions and collapses with a negative impact on the environment and safety of transport. It is necessary to urgently modernise 3,300 km out of total 6,000 km of I class roads, as they do not comply with standard parameters and endanger lives and health of the population. Also the condition of II and III class road does not correspond to the needs of the economy and safety standards. The regional road network is sufficiently dense; nevertheless its construction and installations do not usually match standards and show many transport endangering flaws. The number of lanes dedicated to non-motor transport (e.g. cycle-paths) is also very small in comparison with EU average.
20
Railways The rail network is quite extensive with a density at the high end of the EU-25 scale. The quality of this dense network is, however, very low and transport services are poor, and so especially in the passenger transport sector the railway market share is below the EU- 10 average and declining. The modernisation of rail corridors led to a marked improvement, but there is much more to reconstruct. Railway infrastructure shows missing links and tracks especially in densely inhabited urban and suburban areas, as well as at the EU-15 borders, but, on the other hand, contains sections where almost empty trains operate. The share of passenger rail transport in fixed intervals is growing, but is still under European level and the intervals and connections are not too reliable.
Urban Public Transport The Czech Republic has still a markedly high share of urban public transport in comparison to EU-15 countries, but the share is diminishing in effect of rising motorisation. While the ratio of mass transport to individual one was approximately 80:20 at the beginning of the 90’s, now it is around 50:50. The networks of urban rail transport share problems of the national railway network and need much improvement and a suitable extension. Integrated transport systems are organised only in some areas, with limited function and without needed interregional connection. Much is to be done to extend quiet and pedestrian zones in centres of cities and towns and improve conditions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Inland Waterway Transport Inland waterway transport in the Czech Republic is relatively small, due to natural conditions, and also suffered very much from the expansion of road freight transport. The length of used waterways in the Czech Republic is only 663.6 km, of which 303 km concern a continuous Labe-Vltava waterway used in international transport. The growth potential of water transport is limited, especially because any extension or major improvement is highly investment-intensive.
Aviation Air traffic is rapidly developing. The Praha International Airport is the busiest among the new member states’ airports; it has already crossed 10 million passengers during 2005 and thus ranked to the group of European large airports. The airport needs further extensions to master rapidly growing passenger and freight transportation. All other airports are minor with less than 300,000 passengers per year (Ostrava, Brno, Karlovy Vary) and generally need a basic reconstruction.
2.4 Trends and indicators
Modal split The comparison of the modal split in passenger travel demand with EU15 reveals the relative low position of the passenger car in the Czech Republic, caused by the lower degree of car ownership. But for the municipality of Prague, the road congestion is an increasingly severe problem despite the level of public transport.
21 Railway transport takes an intermediate position (slightly higher than the EU15 average) and bus transport can be recognized as a strong mode of public transport. The Czech Republic has an outstanding figure of urban rail transportation of 9.3% of all passenger- km. This is more then four times higher than the accession countries’ average figure of 2.1% not to mention the figure of 1.0% for the EU-15.
Table 2.9 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 2002)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro Situation 2002
Czech Republic 72.6 10.8 7.3 9.3 EU15 83.5 8.8 6.6 1.0 Source: Eurostat
For freight transport a strong position of rail can be noticed (although its relative share decreased over the years). With a share of 25% the position of rail cargo transport remains strong.
Table 2.10 Modal split freight transport (share in tonkilometers, 2002)
Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline Situation 2002
Czech Republic 70.7 25.6 0.9 2.8 EU15 75.5 12.9 6.9 4.6 Source: Eurostat
Trends Positive - A relatively fast economic growth of the country ( ≈ 5% per year) - Growing passenger rail transport in fixed intervals - Rapid growth of air traffic
Negative - The modal split develops to a stronger position of road transport and to a stronger position of individual passenger transport by car than public transport - Declining share of railway passenger transport sector in the transport market - Growing dependence on subsidies in public transport - Diminishing share of urban public transport in effect of rising motorisation
2.5 Current Transport policy
2.5.1 Strategic objectives at sub-sector level
Main national strategic objectives for the upcoming programming period are set by the new Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013, proposed by the Ministry of Transport and approved by the Czech Government on 13 July 2005. The Transportation Policy sets forth the following specific priorities:
22
• Attaining a suitable division of labour between transport modes by ensuring equal conditions in transport market • Ensuring a quality transport infrastructure • Ensuring needed finance in the transport sector • Enhancing transport safety and security • Supporting transport development in regions
Road transport The development in road transport should become oriented particularly towards a detailed area service and in freight towards a short distance transport where road transport is indispensable. This trend can be set by new legal conditions for the entry to the market of road transport.
It is urgently needed to intensify construction of new motorways (including the TEN-T Katowice-Brno/Zilina and Brno-Wien motorways) to cope with growing international road transport and stop the growth of congestions. Specific care must be taken of reconstruction and maintenance of existing national and regional roads to ensure an equilibrated use of network capacity and prevent growth of energy consumption and negative impact on the environment.
Rail transport Rail transport is to specialise in a quick and comfortable passenger transportation (both long-distance and regional) based on lines in regular intervals, fast freight transportation integrated into the logistic processes by the construction of logistic centres with guaranteed “door-to-door” service, and on comfortable suburban, potentially also urban passenger transportation in the most intensive transportation directions incl. broader participation of railway in integrated transport systems. An enhanced public support is needed for investment into the basic renewal of railway fleet.
A crucial task is to finish modernisation of rail transit corridors (3 rd and 4 th National Corridors, comprising the TEN-T railway axes Nürnberg-Praha and Praha-Linz), and revitalise main railway junctions incl. the link of TEN-T corridors in Praha Railway Junction. Other national lines with an important role of railway have to be improved. The entire network needs to be optimised in relation to a real extent of future transport requirements and to potential integration of transport modes.
Urban transport The infrastructures linked to mass and non-motor transport have to be enhanced. The State will continue to grant co-financing for larger projects, such as metro lines, tram/light-rail diameters, tram-train systems, and for the integration of railway into urban transport. The Government will also support purchase of mass transport vehicles in accordance with the public aid legislature. Mass transit systems in cities and towns will be interlinked into integrated systems with all types of suburban transport, and transport information systems (telematics) will be introduced to ensure information on urban traffic. Individual automobile transport and parking will have to be regulated more strictly inclusive potential use of toll access to the centres of cities and towns.
23 Water transport A favourable role of international waterway transport on the Labe-Vltava Waterway, where water transport acts as a sort of a price regulator, has been acknowledged. It is therefore deemed suitable to support a development and equilibrated use of this waterway by solving problems of navigability of Labe River between the town of Pardubice and the State boundary (missing locks), while respecting the requirements of environmental and landscape protection.
Air transport Air transport specialises in a swift connection between European regions, large urban agglomerations and with trans-continental destinations. The Praha International Airport will be enlarged with a new Schengen-specialised terminal, North 2, in 2006, and subsequently with a third runway. The connection between the airport and the city will be solved by a suitable high-capacity rail transport link. Another priority of the Transportation Policy in the air sector is the upgrading of regional airports and airfields and raising their importance.
2.5.2 Related transport policy issues
Infrastructure pricing (in roads, railways) The existing situation in infrastructure pricing can be described as follows:
Roads The cost of road infrastructure is only partially paid by users through motorway- vignettes, road tax and excise tax on mineral oils. The revenue of the first two is fully used by the State Fund of Transport Infrastructure to be invested into infrastructure construction and maintenance, the latter only in a small part (9.1%). The rest of infrastructure cost is covered by a state subsidy.
Rail Two-tier maximum prices for using railway infrastructure are set by the Ministry of Finance as the general price regulator to cover both track costs (construction and modernisation of railtrack, maintenance and repairs) and operation costs (timetable, signalling, telecommunications), to be paid by all operators. The prices (with some deductions for passenger transportation declared in the network statement by the SZDC, track administrator), however, do not cover full cost of infrastructure. Operators with diesel rail vehicles also pay the same rate of excise tax on mineral oils. The rest of infrastructure cost is covered by a state subsidy paid to the track administrators (chiefly SZDC).
The Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013 sets forth the following objectives in infrastructure pricing: • fair charging of the infrastructure use covering all costs incurred; from 2006 onwards, a performance-based road toll system will be gradually introduced to cover costs linked with operation, maintenance and renewal of road infrastructure • a compensation for damage caused by transport to the environment and public health • a compensation for congestion • a compensation for damage from transport accidents.
24 Public service obligations (railways; urban passenger transport) Public service obligations in the Czech Republic govern by the stipulations of the Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway. These stipulations were integrated into the domestic legislature, namely Act No. 266/1994 Coll., on Railways, and Act No. 111/1994 Coll., on Road Transport, as amended.
Public service obligations in passenger transport are negotiated in regional rail and bus line traffic by the respective region and in long distance rail transport by the State. The respective contractor compensates the operator the provable loss emerged during the fulfilment of the obligations. Public service obligations are split into obligations of operation (to ensure a regular operation of required trains or buses and granting potential supplementary services), obligations of transport (to transport passengers or luggage for a special price if conditions are fulfilled) and obligations of fares (to transport passengers or luggage for a regulated price that is lower that the economical price).
Public service obligation contracts are concluded in case it is not possible to ensure the requested service to an area on a commercial basis, while the transport operation is in public interest. Public finance invested in the contract preserve the existence of public transport as a functional network.
The Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013 declares the intention of the Government to support a competition environment in the transport service in public interest by tendering for an operator that is financially fit and capable to guarantee services in the quality specified and ensure transport services in integrated areas for at least 5 years.
Traffic safety (in particular on roads, railways) Roads The accident rate on roads in the Czech Republic is relatively high and significantly exceeds the EU average. The total number of transport accidents amounted 26,586 in 2002; 1,431 people died at the accidents and 34,389 of them were injured.
The Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013 supports a large number of measures that should contribute to the materialisation of the target set by the European Transport White Paper to halve the number of road deaths by 2010, also in the Czech conditions. e.g.: • separate as much as possible pedestrian, bicycle and motor transport • improve the arrangement of pedestrian crossings • enhance sanctions for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs • increase the number of road checks and make enforcing of fines more efficient • take high care for education, prevention and enlightenment in transport safety • identify and rearrange accident sites for prevention • exclude that public lighting dazzles drivers especially when coming from dark environment • organise traffic in municipalities to evade living areas, schools, sports grounds etc. • remove level rail crossings on I class roads and main railway lines, ensure a safe view • improve maintenance and road cleaning, especially during and after winter season etc.
25
Rail Total number of accidents in railways made 1,375 in 2002; 110 people died and 257 were injured. From this follows that railway is much safer than road transport. An overwhelming part of accidents happened at level rail crossings and were caused by car or lorry drivers.
The Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013 assigns tasks to the public sector e.g. • to introduce safety rules according to Technical Standards of Interoperability (TSI) • to improve and introduce new interlocking systems (in the Czech Republic a significant part of the network has no interlocking system) • to enhance security parameters of level rail crossings.
Interoperability of rail systems The Czech rail system is in many cases based on national safety standards that differ from those based on TSI. Therefore the national standards will be replaced by or adjusted to the European standards to allow full interoperability, including new regulation based on the Second and Third Railway Packages.
26 2.6 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system
SWOT analysis at the country level
Strengths Weaknesses • Dense road and rail network • Low quality of transport infrastructure caused • A relatively favourable modal split by lack of investment in the past decades • A relatively favourable share of public • Underdeveloped motorway network transport • National and regional roads not complying • Improved 1 st and 2 nd National Rail with standard parameters Corridors • Absence of town and village bypasses • Rapid development of air traffic • Obsolete structure of rail network • Obsolescence and bad condition of rail vehicles • Insufficient harmonisation of conditions in the transport market • Small extent of lanes dedicated to non-motor transport • Integrated transport systems existing only in some areas • Inland water transport in the Czech Republic relatively small • Underdeveloped regional airports • The cost of road and rail infrastructure not fully paid by users
Opportunities Threats • Central position of the Czech Republic in • Relatively low economic growth in EU Europe and between the “old” and “new” countries member states • Pertaining high deficits of the Czech public • High level of foreign direct investment budgets system • Positive influence of households income • Unfavourable safety situation in the road growth on public budgets’ resources network • Historic and natural potential for the growth of tourism • Gradual opening of labour markets in EU member states • Higher expected level of EU support in the 2007 – 2013 period
27 SWOT analysis at the regional (NUTS 2) level
Strengths Weaknesses • Relatively low differences in transport • Regional roads not complying with standard indicators between regions parameters • High share of urban public transport in • Low quality of urban rail infrastructure comparison to EU-15 countries • Missing railway links and tracks especially in densely inhabited urban and suburban areas • Non-equilibrated level of utilisation of regional rail lines
Opportunities Threats • Growing migration from urban to suburban • Limited resources for regional investment areas into infrastructure and funds for financing • New tenders for regional railway operators public service obligation • Insufficient absorption capacity at the regional level
28 3 Accessibility analysis
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment on a regional level. It complements Chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is described and 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 C). 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
29 transport system. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision.
This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union.
The new accessibility To avoid this dilemma, a new composite accessibility indicator was defined which indicator recognises transport network distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator quality, population assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of density and regional accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions, but that they can disparity 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 C 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 the Czech Republic. In terms of population density, the capital city Prague clearly stands out, whereas the next urban centres Ostrava, Brno, Plzen and Olomouc are parts of larger urban districts (Figure 3.1). Prague is also the economic centre of the country (Figure 3.2). However, it is apparent that compared to the old EU member states Austria and Germany the Czech Republic is still a relatively poor country.
30 Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm) 2006
Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005) 2006
31 The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that might 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 the Czech Republic 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 the Czech Republic is compared with the European average (Figures 3.4 and 3.6), it becomes apparent that the road accessibility in the Czech Republic is near the European average, but that the rail accessibility is still severely deficient, as indicated by the yellow and red shades of the map.
Regional imbalances Figure 3.3 shows the spatial distribution of road accessibility in the Czech Republic seen from a national perspective. There is a distinct divide of the country in terms of average road travel times. Whereas the regions in the western and southern parts of the country have above-average road travel speeds, regions at the borders to Poland and Slovakia have road accessibility problems. The region Ostrava has the highest problem index. Prague has congestion problems and so scores slightly above the national average. However, the European perspective is different. Currently all Czech regions have road travel speeds close to or (just) below the European average (Figure 3.4). The regions in the western part of the country are only slightly below the European average, whereas Ostrava again has the lowest road accessibility.
The spatial pattern of accessibility problems for rail is more scattered than for road (Figure 3.5). The regions in the west and south-west close to the Austrian and German borders have the best rail accessibility in the country, whereas Prague and its hinterland and the eastern regions along the Polish and Slovak borders are less well served. The region of Jihlava, lying between major rail lines, is particularly poorly connected by rail – to travel the 120 km to Prague takes 2.5 hours, and the 75 km to Brno more than two hours. From a European perspective (Figure 3.6), all regions in the Czech Republic have rail accessibility problems. The map again shows the west-to-east decline in accessibility noted above. The capital city Prague is only slightly better served than its surrounding regions, which indicates that it poorly linked to the European rail network.
32 Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), Czech Republic 2006
Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), Czech Republic 2006
33 Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), Czech Republic 2006
Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), Czech Republic 2006
34
Part B: Past transport investment priorities
35 4 Previous support programmes
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure
The State Transport Infrastructure Fund, established in 2000, continued its efforts to develop transport infrastructure, including the trans-European level. The Fund is responsible for financing the development of roads, motorways, railways and inland waterways.
The total expenditure of the Czech Republic into the field of transportation has been growing from 1998 to 2002, but the share in the national budget has only increased slightly, since total expenditure rose as well. Most of the investments have been made in the road and rail sectors. Especially the year 2002 shows a high level of investments in all modes of transportation; most significantly were the growth of the investments in the road and the inland waterway sectors.
Table 4.1 National funding (budget allocation) by mode of transport, 1998-2002 (mln €)
Road Rail Air Water Pipelines 1998 373.7 301.7 22.2 5.6 4.8 1999 322.1 268.6 16.6 3.1 11.5 2000 308.6 370.7 27.9 11.3 11.2 2001 302.2 393.7 50.4 8.6 21.7 2002 518.3 473.8 38.7 16.6 21.5 Total 1998-2002 1824.9 1808.5 155.8 45.4 70.7 share 47% 46% 4% 1% 2% Source: Ministry of Transport
4.2 EU funding
Description The Czech Republic has received EUR 238.63 million for the development of transport infrastructure from the European Union in the period 1991 – 2001; of this, EUR 223.89 million was allocated to projects, and EUR 14.74 million to technical assistance. The total support from Phare programme into transport infrastructure during the pre-accession period reached EUR 136.17 million and the ISPA contribution EUR 260.325 million. The ERDF sources for the OP Infrastructure period 2004 – 2006 totalled EUR 989.06 million and the Cohesion Fund contributed with further EUR 2,720 million.
36
In the Czech Republic, Phare funding has mainly benefited interventions in the area of road transport. This is mainly due to the fact that access roads are eligible for funding under the Phare-supported regional development or business-infrastructure programmes (whereas projects in the rail transport sector would be (1) too costly to be accommodated under these programmes and (2) project preparation of rail transport projects is lengthier than for road transport). Implementation of ISPA is in line with the national ISPA transport strategy paper (emphasis on road transport). Overall, in the period 1998 – 2004, ISPA (118 Mln EURO) and Cohesion Fund resources (180 Mln EURO) benefit mainly the road transport sector (EU contribution of 298 Mln EURO), followed by rail transport (EU contribution of 225 Mln EURO). 2002 ISPA programming focussed on reconstruction measures (including transport infrastructure) following the August 2002 floods. During 2003, there was limited programming of ISPA transport projects due to the need to balance spending between the environment and transport sectors.
Concerning the Structural Funds, the popularity of local transport infrastructure can be noted (funded under the Joint Regional Operational Programme- the largest OP with a share of 31% of Objective 1 resources). Note that under the Infrastructure OP, funding is mainly allocated to environment projects.
The contributions received from EU funds helped significantly to extend the investment in the Czech transport infrastructure, especially in rail corridors, motorways and major roads. Special attention was dedicated to the improvement of infrastructure in regions bordering on Germany and Austria and at border crossings.
The economic situation in the Czech Republic, however, contains factors that diminish the absorption capacity of the country and its ability to use European funds efficiently and without delays, e.g.: - pertaining high deficits of the State budget (2003: 12.5% of GDP; 2004: 3.0% of GDP) that should be sustainable adjusted to the Maastricht criteria, which causes tensions in the expense side - a very high level of mandatory (ordered by law) and quasi-mandatory (indispensable) expense (2004: 89% of total State budget revenue) restricts the space for state co-financing - growing public debt (2004: 36.8% of GDP) – especially the indebtedness of some municipalities becomes to be a brake, if not a hurdle in drawing EU funds.
Another problem is a still pertaining relatively low quality of projects resulting in a generally high rejection rate. Also aforementioned complications in preparing the construction process, area and time planning etc. add to the limited absorption of allocated funds.
37 4.3 Other sources of financing
This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure.
EBRD The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has committed loans only for railway and air transport projects. EBRD financed railway projects like the modernisation and upgrade of railway line Prague – Viena – Berlin in 1995 (13.6 million EUR), upgrading of three railway stations in 2004 (3.8 million EUR) and upgrading of a rail car and train manufacturing plant Siemens –SKV in 2003 (10.3 million EUR). EBRD financed in 1992 the privatisation of the national air transport carrier (CSA) and the modernisation of its fleet (24 million EUR).
EIB European Investment Bank (EIB) involvement has been mainly focused on motorway construction with 17 loans of in total 25 projects. In the period 1994-2005 total cumulative lending for motorway construction amounted to some 1.8 billion EUR. Five loans were supplied to the railway sector with a total of 570 million EUR including the loans for the railway corridors Warsaw-Vienna and Berlin-Vienna in the period 1994- 1997. In 2005 the EIB also supplied a loan for acquisition of locomotive fleet for medium-term leasing to European rail freight service operators.
In 2005 the focus was on financing the regional road infrastructure (124 million EUR) and motorway infrastructure (250 million EUR). The EIB has provided EUR 140 million for the construction of the D8 motorway connecting Prague with Dresden in Germany and EUR 110 million for the completion of the Prague motorway ring. Both loans constitute second tranches of finance (first tranches of finance 450 million EUR) provided by the EIB for the building of those motorway sections on trans-European corridor IV (TEN).
Also EIB financed the metro of Prague in the period 2000-2003 for 225 million EUR and Prague Airport Terminal in 2003 for 280 million EUR. Total EIB financing in the period 1994-2005 amounted to about 3 billion EUR.
PPP financing The Czech Government has adopted a policy introducing public private partnership ("PPP") as a standard tool serving the provision of public services and public infrastructure. In 2004 PPP Centre was formed to speed up preparation of legal environment and methodological procedures in relation to PPP in the Czech Republic. Under the Ministry of Transport two pilot projects are recently started: • Airport Connection: Upgrade of the Prague-Kladno railway line plus construction of a railway connection to the Ruzyne Airport, including operation and maintenance. This PPP project is a combination of BOT/DBFO and O&M contract for operation of transport (EUR 465 to 560 million). • Construction, finance and maintenance (BOT) of the 30km Tabor - Bosilec section of the D3 motorway (EUR 367 million). The aim of the project is to provide for the construction, funding, maintenance of a section of the D3 motorway between Tabor and Bosilec, using the PPP method. The D3 motorway will improve the connection
38 between Prague and South Bohemia and provide a link to the national network of motorways and the motorway network in Austria.
The PPP Centrum creates, in cooperation with the Ministries of Finance and Regional Development, the Czech country-specific PPP Process Methodology, which will form the basic guidelines for the public sector clients in terms of how to prepare and implement PPP projects. The legitimate preparation and implementation process for PPP projects, including the supervisory (gateway) process will depend on the approval of the Concession Act and the change of related legislation that is likely to happen during 2006.
39
Part C: Future transport investment priorities
40 5 National Transport Strategy
5.1 Introduction
This is the first chapter 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 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. Finally the overall impact of the proposed investment priorities is assessed.
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning
In July 2005, the Czech Government approved a new Czech Republic’s Transportation Policy for 2005 – 2013 as a complex document setting strategic and conceptual goals for transportation and transportation networks under a full Czech membership in the EU. The concept of sustainable development based on three pillars (economic, environmental, and social) has led to a re-evaluation of modal developments in favour of those with the smallest negative impact on the environment. The Transportation Policy is in line with the EU White Paper: “European Transport Policy up to 2010: Time to Decide,” as well as with the conclusions of the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development and the subsequent “Strategy for Sustainable Development,” approved by the Czech Government’s Resolution No. 1248/2004.
The Transportation Policy sets forth the following specific priorities: - Achieving a suitable division of transport jobs by types of transport by ensuring equal conditions on the transport market - Ensuring quality transport infrastructure - Ensuring financing in the transport sector - Improving the transport safety - Supporting transport development in regions.
All the above priorities and specific objectives and measures arising there from respect the general principles having a cross-sectional character:
• Implementation of research and development results, new progressive technologies including telematics; • Equal opportunities and social policy;
41 • Creating conditions for maintaining the competitiveness of Czech carriers under open market conditions; • Limiting the environmental and public health impacts of transport in line with sustainable development principles.
5.3 Operational Programme 2007 - 2013
5.3.1 Main objectives of the OP
The Operational Programme Infrastructure (OP Infrastructure) for the shortened programming period 2004 – 2006 has been developed in compliance with the following EU regulations:
• Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, as amended by the Commission Communication on Structural Funds and their co-ordination with the Cohesion Fund - Instructions for the period 2000 – 2006 No. 1999/CZ/02; • Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No. 1783/1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
Operational Programme Infrastructure addresses development priorities of the transport and environment sectors in the Czech Republic for the period of 2004 – 2006. The OP Infrastructure contributes to the development of the second priority axis - Development of Transport Infrastructure – and the fourth priority axis - Protection and Improvement of the Environment - of the Community Support Framework (CSF). Implementation of the OP Infrastructure contributes to the achievement of the specific objective “improvement of the infrastructure quality” of the CSF, but also supporting the horizontal objectives of “sustainable development” and “balanced development of regions”.
Implementation of the OP Infrastructure also contributes to the achievement of the following individual specific objectives of the National Development Plan (NDP) of the Czech Republic:
a) generation of conditions for economic growth by strengthening internal factors, b) increase in the qualification level, competitiveness and labour force mobility and, at the same time, the compensation of economic growth impacts on disadvantaged population groups, c) approximation to EU standards in the field of the environment, d) balanced development of regions.
Initially, in accordance with the Resolution of the Government two operational programmes were prepared: the OP Transport (proposed by the Ministry of Transport) and the OP Environment (the Ministry of the Environment). Both sectors prepared their operational programmes in a similar way. Both the documents underwent, on an-ongoing basis, the ex-ante assessment and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Both the
42 programme documents were presented to the public for discussion. Individual versions of the OP were published on Internet pages of appropriate Ministries. Substantial comments were currently incorporated into the programmes.
However, in its session in February 2003 the Government of the Czech Republic decided that the operational programmes for the transport sector and for the sector of the environment would be consolidated into one Operational Programme Infrastructure. This decision was taken following a Commission’s recommendation to reduce the number of operational programmes. The OP Infrastructure underwent a merger of the already adopted separate operational programmes.
OP Infrastructure is conceived as a mono-fund document; funds to be supplied have been granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
The sector of transport is, however, also supported by the Joint Regional Operational Programme with the Priority No 2: Improving Regional Infrastructure.
5.3.2 Priorities in OP by sub-sector
The basic background document in the transport sector was in the pre-accession phase the Transport Policy as adopted by the Government Resolution No. 413/1998, together with the other government-approved documents:
• Medium-term strategy of the transport sector as adopted by the Government Resolution No. 385/1999 • Transport and communications planning policy in the Czech Republic - 1999 stage (submitted to the Government for information) • Draft transport networks development in the Czech Republic until 2010 (Government Resolution No. 741) • Time-schedule and provision of financing for the implementation of the development of transport networks in the Czech Republic until 2010 (Government Resolution No. 145/2001) • National Programme of Preparation for Membership of the European Union (regularly updated document)
Based on it, the OP Infrastructure developed the following priorities and measures:
43 Figure 5.1 Structure of Priorities and Measures of OP Infrastructure in Transport
Priority 1 – Modernisation and development of transport infrastructure of national importance
Measure 1.1 - Modernisation of rail lines of national importance and important rail junctions
Measure 1.2 – Construction and modernisation of 1st class roads
Measure 1.3 - Modernisation of civil airports of inter-regional importance
Measure 1.4 – Construction of port infrastructure and modernisation of waterways
Priority 2 - Reduction of unfavourable environmental consequences of transport
Measure 2.1 – Implementation of protective measures within the transport network to ensure environmental protection
Measure 2.2 - Support for combined transport
Measure 2.3 - Support for introduction of alternative fuels
Measure 2.4 - Study and research projects connected with the improvement of the environment in terms of transport Source: Ministry of Transport, OP Infrastructure
5.4 Relation of the OP with the National strategy
In the second half of 2005 works began on the draft of the new National Development Plan for the period 2007 -2013. It proposes again an independent OP Transport . The idea of the OP Transport is in line with the Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion 2007 – 2013, COM (2005)299 from July 2005 and with the drafts of general regulations for ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund.
The general objective of the OP Transport is to create conditions for ensuring the development of a quality transport based on principles of sustainable development. The general objective derives from the global objective of the NRP CR for 2007-2013 and materialisation of the OP will contribute particularly to the fulfilment of the strategic objective Quality Physical Environment and then also to other strategic objectives.
Specific objectives of the OP Transport are: • Construction and modernisation of the TEN-T network and interlinked networks, • Construction and modernisation of regional railway networks; • Construction and development of the motorway network and the road network of 1st class exclusive TEN-T, • Improvement of the quality of transport and environment protection from the viewpoint of transport; • Construction and modernisation of important transport links in the area of Praha Capital City.
44 The Managing Authority of the proposed Operation Programme Transport is the Ministry of Transport.
The new transport objectives for 2007-2013 show general continuity with those related to the previous OP Infrastructure. A new accent is set in first drafts of priorities and measures e.g. on the development of bicycle paths and also on the renewal of the fleet of public mass passenger transport. Especially the latter is a very important task because of marked obsolescence of railway vehicles and trams in the country which – unsolved – would seriously hamper the materialisation of the objective to shift transport currents to more ecological modes.
45 6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013)
6.1 Introduction
This chapter intends to identify the main areas for transport investments that would merit EU funding in the period 2007-2013. 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.
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 2005 5. 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.
4 COM(2004)492 5 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.
46 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.
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 objective 6. Other TEN projects should be supported where this is a strong case in terms of their contribution to growth and competitiveness. Within this group of projects, cross-border links and those overseen by the specially designated European co-ordinators in the Member States merit special attention. Member States should make use of the co-ordinators as a means of shortening the time that elapses between designation of the planning of the network and the physical construction
• Complementary investment in secondary connections will also be important in the context of an integrated regional transport and communications strategy covering urban and rural areas, in order to ensure that the regions benefit from the opportunities created by the major networks.
• Support for rail infrastructure should seek to ensure greater access. Track fees should facilitate access for independent operators. They should also enhance the creation of an EU-wide interoperable network. Compliance and applications of the interoperability and the fitting of ERTMS on board and on track should be part of all projects financed.
• Promoting environmentally sustainable transport networks . This includes public transport facilities (including park-and-ride infrastructures), mobility plans, ring roads, increasing safety at road junctions, soft traffic (cycle lanes, pedestrian tracks). It also includes actions providing for accessibility to common public transport services for certain target groups (the elderly, disabled persons) and providing distribution networks for alternative vehicle fuels.
• In order to guarantee the optimum efficiency of transport infrastructures for promoting regional development, attention should be paid to improving the connectivity of landlocked territories to the Trans- European network (TEN-T) (…). In this respect, the development of secondary links, with a focus on 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.
47 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments
As indicated in the introduction, a number of other factors determine the eventual prioritisation of transport investment priorities under the Commission’s cohesion policy instruments. These will be subsequently elaborated.
Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness or value for money stands at the core of any sound investment programme. It is also fully embedded in the procedures and structure of the cohesion policy of the Commission in which cost-benefit assessments of proposed projects are standard procedure. Also EIB applies CBA as standard assessment methodology before granting new loans.
The cost-effectiveness criterion is especially important if budget resources are limited. In this case cost-benefit analyses can be used to phase foreseen transport investment in time or to seek alternatives with a similar functionality that offer a higher value for money.
Availability of other sources of financing A can be observed from the previous investment programmes, other sources of finance should not be overlooked with respect to future transport investments Apart from public financing by the country itself important potential sources are:
TEN-T budget 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 EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. EIB has been very active in the Czech Republic in the previous decade, especially in supplying loans for motorway investment, but also in railway infrastructure and investment in regional infrastructure recently in 2005. Further involvement of EIB is certainly expected in the Czech Republic. An important criterion is the level of public debt which should be below 60% of GDP. In the Czech Republic this currently stands around 30%.
EBRD In addition to EIB, EBRD can become more active in the Czech Republic. The involvement of EBRD has been limited to three railway projects and one air transport project. Possible areas are railway transport (renewal railway fleet), rehabilitation of state roads and urban transport.
PPPs 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
48 sector for a more intense private sector involvement are: airports and logistics centres (inland terminals). Also motorways sometimes figure as typical PPP models.
The Czech Republic needs to consider in future new financing methods for further transport infrastructure development needs. Substantive increase of resources apart from the State Transport Infrastructure Fund could be found particularly through the involvement of private finance resources in the transport infrastructure construction.
The two pilot projects for PPP in the Czech Republic, the railway connection to the Ruzyne Airport and the D3 motorway Tabor - Bosilec are just started. The process of these PPP pilots and the progress and success of the projects are important for the support for PPP initiatives in future. The current business climate in the Czech Republic is expected to be sufficiently open not to hamper PPPs.
Both EBRD and EIB can also get involved if PPP constructions are considered through direct equity participations.
In summary, other financing sources are expected to relevant for the following areas:
Table 6.1 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Source Destination TEN-T TEN projects, especially cross border sections EIB Motorways and to a lesser extent railways EBRD Possibly state roads (road rehabilitation) and rail and urban transport PPP & private capital Income generating transport investments: airports, logistic centres (inland terminals), toll roads
Appropriateness of the transport policy Apart from the investment policy of the Czech Republic other aspect of the country’s transport policy are relevant to contribute to EU and national policy objectives. Two specific elements are identified on the basis of the analysis of the current transport system: • Transport safety • Transport pricing and charging
Transport safety is clearly an area for attention, as accident levels are still clearly above the EU average. Facing the enormous growth of road accidents in recent years, the Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic decided to create a brand new strategy to fight road accidents, besides amending traffic laws and regulations. The National Road Safety Strategy aims to reduce its road traffic related deaths by 50% in 2010, following the EU Road Safety Action Plan. The new strategy is based on in-depth road accidents analysis and a SWOT analysis, which created the background for partial goals and proposed measures. The Minister of Transport of the Czech Republic often announced that road safety is one of his main priorities.
49 A point of attention is the harmonisation of the Czech laws with that of the EU, as it has been imposed by the Association Agreement on the association of the Czech Republic to European Communities development of a specific transport safety policy and an adequate level of enforcement. As a member of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, the Czech Republic adopted a number of resolutions at the level of recommendations which deal with the solution of road traffic safety questions and which are necessary to be step-by-step implemented into the Czech law and order.
The existing and new building motorway network in the Czech Republic consists of toll infrastructure. In coordination with the neighbouring countries the Czech Government is planning to install the electronic toll system for the freight road transport on parts of the motorway network. Although the Czech Republic is working on adapting the EU regulations, further effort is necessary in the field of internalising external costs and creating a fair and transparent price structure for all modes of transportation. Further attention should be paid to the generation of income from the users of the transport system. This is specifically important with respect to the financing of the maintenance and operation of the state road network and possibly also the rail network.
Administrative capacity Managing authority for the Community Framework and for the Cohesion Fund is the Ministry for Regional Development. The general Managing Authority for the OP Infrastructure is the Ministry of the Environment, which is responsible for the overall programme implementation. The Ministry of Transport (EU Funds’ Department) is the Intermediate Authority in the Czech Republic for both the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in transport. Final users of a SF or CF project in transport are typically Railway Infrastructure Administration, Road and Motorway Directorate, Directorate of Waterways and regions.
In the forthcoming programming period a more intense level of project financing is expected for especially the railways and the state roads (national road administration). To prepare these projects the Czech Republic has to deal with the problem of high staff turn-over and the problem of both limited availability of suitable staff as well as the financial constraints on recruiting additional staff. Also the lack of technical expertise and limited or no previous professional experience should be solved by the Czech Ministry of Transport to manage the future projects well. The project preparation capability is one of the key issues relating to the relevance and viability of the proposed project and should be focused on.
The Czech Republic should strengthen its administrative capacity in preparation for the significant investments and changes that will be needed in road and rail infrastructure. The administrative capacity should be focused on the organisation and coordination of experienced staff in managing large externally financed projects.
The Czech Republic indicates the significant learning from the pre-accession experience and the 2004-2006 programmes and this is likely to contribute to more adequate institutional arrangements.
50
Based on the previously stated argument a risk assessment has been prepared with respect to the administrative capacity in the Czech Republic. 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 Some pre-accession experience; administrative capacity needs improvements for preparation and organisation of projects Roads Moderate/high Poor track record on highway construction (only 150 km in past 10 yrs; significant cost increases in road construction). Rail Moderate/low Limited experience with large scale investments, however substantial upgrading experience. Inland waterway Moderate/high Limited experience with IWT projects Urban transport Moderate Depending on size of project. Limited experience with large scale projects
51 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 sectors 7.
7 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended European Union.
52 Figure 7.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
The reference network To assess the impacts of new transport investments a reference scenario has been prepared. This mainly implies an adjustment of the transport network in the SASI model 8. The dynamic network database of SASI is based on highly detailed pan-European transport networks with respect to: • Roads (including short-sea shipping) • Rail (including ferries) • Air (including regional airports). Network calculations are based on travel times or generalised costs including border waiting times and (political, economic cultural and language) barriers.
The reference network has been updated based on the most recent information from the countries on implementation schedules and alignment with respect to TEN and national transport projects (also information on toll is included). The reference network includes all projects that are already under construction and will be operational in at latest 2007.
In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union 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)
53 7.3 Scenarios
Impacts have been assessed for different scenarios to be able to compare the outcomes and draw conclusions on the different impacts. Although the study aims to identify strategic areas for investment priorities, these areas need to be “translated” into projects to enable the SASI model to assess impacts. As a result assumptions have been made on projects within the scenarios. These projects have not been listed separately as this would distract the discussion from strategic priorities to projects. Where possible, these projects are based on existing planned projects and related cost estimates 9. Where no existing data existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure needs assessments 10 . 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 projects 11 which have been identified in the respective countries; • The Balanced Scenario, which applies a budget restriction (with in parallel an assessment of additional financing opportunities). Projects are prioritised on the basis of their benefit-cost ratio and their contribution to specific objectives and needs (sustainability, regional disparity, and contribution to accessibility 12 ).
On the basis of the maximum scenario, two sub-sets are determined: the Maximum Road Scenario and the Maximum Rail Scenario which illustrates the differential impact of rail versus road projects.
The Maximum Scenario The Maximum Scenario is based on an extensive listing of possible investment projects that have been identified by the national project partners in the project. Where relevant these projects lists have been extended with projects that have been identified on the basis of existing network analyses and studies 13 , projects identified on the basis of interviews that have been carried out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified on the basis of the needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the “red flag” analysis).
This result 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).
54 • The Maximum Road Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed road projects including cross-border transport corridors. • The Maximum Rail Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed rail projects including cross-border transport corridors.
The Balanced Scenario The Balanced Scenario starts from the Maximum Scenario. First, an assessment is made of the available EU funding in comparison to the total budget requirements of the projects. If a budget restriction applies projects are selected and prioritised 14 on the basis of a number of criteria: • Cost -benefit ratio. Are projects in this field expected to deliver value for money (socio-economic rate of return 15 )? • Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both on a European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport corridors, secondary connections to backbone network)? • Sustainability. Do interventions facilitate modal shift to more environmentally friendly transport modes; • Territorial cohesion. Is there a contribution to improving the accessibility of more backward regions; • Safety. Do measures contribute to improved transport safety? The assessment in this respect draws strongly on the finding in Part A of the report (SWOT-analysis of the transport system and “red flag” analysis).
Finally, an assessment is made to which extent other financing sources could play a role. In this respect especially the potential of EIB involvement and PPP is included (see also Chapter 6): • Other sources of finance. Are projects able or likely to attract other sources of finance? In those cases application for EU financing might not be necessary.
In addition, the possible impact of limitations in the administrative capacity and changes in the pricing policy (if large distortions exist in this respect) are taken into account.
Table 7.1 gives an overview of the criteria that have been applied for the sub-sectors road and rail.
14 In the calculations in certain countries this leads to the elaboration of an interim scenario, which is called the Restricted scenario (strict application of the budget restriction, i.e. no other sources of finance). 15 Base don TEN-STAC
55 Figure 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment effectiveness Cost- Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety financeof Othersources Sub sector
Railways - TEN-T priority axis Nuremberg - Prague - Breclav 0 + + 0 + 0 - TEN-T priority axis Prague - Linz 0 + + 0 + 0 - renewal of railway fleet 0 0 + 0 + + Roads: - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Vienna (VI) + + - 0 0 0 - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Katowice (VI) + + - 0 0 0 - implement missing links corridor IV and VI + + - 0 0 + - reconstruction / maintenance national roads (east + + - + + 0 and border regions) Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
Railways • The railway network is one of the densest in Europe, but one of the oldest as well. The infrastructure needs upgrading and maintenance and the possible speed has to be increased up on the corridor parts. Focus should be on the national railway lines that represent parts of trans-European Corridors, the TEN-T priority axis (22 en 23) that connect the Czech Republic with neighbouring countries (corridor IV and VI). Upgrading of the Breclav-Brno-Prague-Nuremberg railway line crosses the Czech Republic and is essential to maintain the position of railway passenger and freight transport. Upgrading of the railway line from Dětmarovice (cross-border station to Poland) through P řerov to B řeclav is also important for improvement of the accessibility of the eastern part of the Czech Republic. • For the revitalisation of the railways not only upgrading of the railway infrastructure is important, but also the conditions of the trains and stations need to be improved. The renewal of rolling stock is essential for a better quality of service and operation of public and freight transport.
Roads • The network of motorways has to be improved. The TEN-T projects Brno- Vienna and Brno-Katowice are important to improve the accessibility of the eastern regions in the Czech Republic and improve the border motorway connections with Poland and Austria (corridor VI). • The need to construct new motorways is urgent and necessary to expand the motorway network. The motorway network construction enlarges the capacity, relieve the existing (congested) road network and meet the expected growth of traffic passenger and freight demand. Also the new motorway network contributes to the development of regions. Most missing links on the motorway corridors IV and VI are planned to construct for toll roads and could be financed through EIB loans or with PPPs constructions.
56 • The upgrading of the sections that connect the regions with road accessibility problems (regions at the borders to Poland and Slovakia like Ostrava) with the motorway network could be aided by financing from ERDF/CF. Insufficient maintenance of the road network and poor conditions of cross border infrastructure are important aspects that should be improved. ERDF funds may be used to establish improved links from border and east regions to the existing motorway networks. Also the Czech Government should be paid attention to financing of regular maintenance of the state road network.
Table 7.2 gives on overview of the assessment which areas for the road and rail projects can be (potentially) financed by other sources.
Table 7.2 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB EBRD PPP Railways - TEN-T priority axis Nuremberg - Prague - Breclav - TEN-T priority axis Prague - Linz - renewal of railway fleet √ ? ? Roads: - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Vienna (VI) - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Katowice (VI) - implement missing links corridor IV and VI √ ? - reconstruction / maintenance national roads (east √ ? and border regions)
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.
57 Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum Road and Balanced Scenarios
TEN priority road projects - Katowice - Brno/Zilina - Brno - Vienna
National road projects - Jesenice - Lahovice - Čimelice - Mirotice - Droužkovice - Spo řice - Lahovice - Slivenec - Lety - Čimelice - Hradec Králové - Smi řice - Praha - Pavlov - Milín - Lety - Smi řice - Jarom ěř - Karlovy Vary - West - II/118 - Milín - Jarom ěř - Trutnov - Lovosice - Řehlovice - Skalka - II/118 - Trutnov - State Border (PL) - Křelov - Slavonín - Nové Strašecí - Crossing I/27 - Turnov - Mohelnice - B ěchovice - D1 - Žalmanov - Olšová Vrata - Rychaltice - Frýdek-Místek - D1 - Jesenice - Olšová Vrata - Karlovy Vary - Frýdek-Místek - Olešná Jct. - Tábor - Sob ěslav -Jenišov - Tisová - Frýdek-Místek Bypass - Sob ěslav – Bošilec -Tisová - Kamenný Dv ůr - Hulín - Fryšták - Bošilec - Borek - Knovíz - Panenský Týnec - Olomouc - Kokory - Borek - Úsilné - Sulec Bypass - Kokory - P řerov - Úsilné - T řebonín - Chlum čany Bypass - Praha - Mezno - T řebonín - Kaplice - Postoloprty Upgrade - Praha bypass - Kaplice - State Border (A) - Bítozeves Jct. - Vyso čany Jct. - Mirotice - T řebkov - Vyso čany Jct. - Droužkovice
58 Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum Rail and Balanced Scenarios
TEN priority rail projects - Brno - Prague - Nürnberg - Prague - Linz
National rail projects - Červenka - Záb řeh na Morav ě - Olomouc Junction - Prague Junction new Link - Branch A 10 sections
59 7.4 Impact assessment
The impacts of the transport scenarios are measured as differences between these scenario’s and the 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:
Table 7.3 Strategic objectives and related indicators
Objective Indicator Level Economic competitiveness Average speed of interregional National, regional average road trips (kph) Average speed of interregional rail National, regional average trips (kph) GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average Territorial cohesion Primacy rate population (%) National Primacy rate GDP (%) National Gini coefficient 16 of GDP per capita National (0-1) 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 on the above indicators. For each indicator the table shows the value of the indicator in 2006 and the indicators values of the five scenarios in 2031. The numbers in italics are the differences between the indicator values of the policy scenarios compared with those of the Reference Scenario in 2031 in percent.
16 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)
60 Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (2031 impacts)
Scenarios
Refer- Maxi- Maxi- Maxi- Bal- Objective Indicator ence mum mum mum anced Road Rail 2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 Economic Average speed of inter- 43.4 45.4 49.8 45.4 49.8 49.8 competitiveness regional road trips (kph) +9.8% 0.0% +9.8% +9.8% Average speed of inter- 27.6 27.8 27.8 30.3 30.3 30.9 regional rail trips (kph) 0.0% +9.0% +9.0% +11.2% GDP per capita (Euro) 17 6,525 15,180 15,228 15,234 15,281 15,287 +0.3% +0.4% +0.7% +0.7% Territorial Primacy rate (%) 11.4 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 cohesion population +0.0% +0.0% +0.0% +0.0% Primacy rate (%) GDP 27.1 26.6 26.5 26.6 26.6 26.5 -0.0% +0.0% -0.0% -0.0% Gini coefficient 18 of 18.01 17.20 17.14 17.23 17.18 17.17 GDP per capita (0-100) -0.3% +0.2% -0.1% -0.2% Environmental Share of interregional 24.4 23.0 19.8 28.0 24.4 25.5 sustainability rail trips (%) -13.8% +21.9% +6.4% +11.1%
Table 7.4 indicates that, despite the substantial effects on travel speeds, the economic impacts of the scenarios on the Czech Republic are modest. The transport improvements of the policy scenarios increase the average income in the Czech Republic by up to 100 Euro per capita per year, equalling 0.7%. A large part of this effect is due to the significant strategic rail investments (see Figure 7.3), despite the large number of smaller road improvements (see Figure 7.2) The strategic effect of rail investments in the Czech Republic is reflected in the larger improvement in interregional rail travel speed in the Balanced Scenario.
The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact on the spatial structure of the country, are negligible. The model expects Prague to decline in population, but less than the population decline in the Czech Republic, so that its share of the national population grows only slightly. Prague is much more dominant as economic centre. According the SASI forecasts, this dominance is likely to decrease as other regions catch up in development. However, these trends are not significantly changed by any of the transport infrastructure scenarios. The Gini coefficient shows a slight convergence effect through the road projects and a slight polarisation effect through the rail projects.
The environmental effects of the policy scenarios in terms of increased rail share are significant. If only rail projects were implemented as in the Maximum Rail Scenario, rail use would increase by more than 20 percent. However, if also the planned road projects are implemented as in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, this effect is much reduced by the growth in road travel.
17 The GDP per capita value for 2006 is not an official statistic but a result of the SASI model based on regional GDP per capita statistics for 2001 by Eurostat. Regional GDP is forecast in the SASI model in terms of international exchange value; in purchasing power standards all GDP figures for The Czech Republic would be about twice as high.
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)
61 Regional impacts Figures 7.4 to 7.7 show the spatial distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in the regions of the Czech Republic in the target year 2031.
Figure 7.4 shows GDP per capita of the regions in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031. The same colour scale as in Figure 3.2 is used. It can be seen that according to the model results the gap in income between the old EU member states Austria and Germany and the Czech Republic has remained, despite its rapid economic growth (see Table 7.4). Apart form the higher level, the spatial distribution of GDP per capita within the country is similar to the distribution in 2006 shown in Figure 3.2.
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 show the effects of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the distribution of GDP per capita. The impact maps show the percentage differences in GDP per capita between the policy scenario and the Reference Scenario. The more intense the green shade, the higher the impact. The transport infrastructure investments mainly benefit the Prague-Linz corridor and improved border regions near the two road and rail corridors to Poland, Kralovehradecky and Ostravsky, both regions with accessibility problems (see Figures 3.4 and 3.6). The Jihlava region, which suffers from poor rail accessibility (see Figure 3.5) has not gained much. The differences between the two scenarios are small despite the additional rail improvements between Prague and Dresden and between Ostrava and the Austrian border in the Balanced Scenario.
Figure 7.4 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005) 2031 (Reference Scenario)
62 Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Maximum Scenario)
Figure 7.6 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Balanced Scenario)
63 Figures 7.7 to 7.9 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips).
Figure 7.7 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3 regions of the Czech Republic (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031, i.e. without road or rail improvements. The spatial distribution of rail use resembles that of average rail speed (see Figures 3.5 and 3.6) with higher rail use in the regions near the Austrian and German borders and lower rail use in the east near the Polish and Slovak borders.
Figures 7.8 and 7.9 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the policy scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. Here, too, the reversed traffic light colour scale is used; green indicates a higher and red a lower share of rail trips than in the Reference Scenario. The distribution of impacts follows the distribution of road and rail projects (See Figures 7.2 and 7.3). The three main rail lines from Prague to Nürnberg, Linz and Brno (see Figure 7.3) attract more passengers than the road projects in the same region, whereas in the eastern part of the country along the Brno-Ostrava-Katowice motorway the situation is reversed: road gains more passengers than rail – this effect is reduced, but not reversed, by the upgrading of the rail line between Ostrava and the Austrian border in the Balanced Scenario.
Figure 7.7 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Reference Scenario (2031)
64 Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Maximum Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.9 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Balanced Scenario (2031)
65 Finally the impacts of the policy scenarios on the composite Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3) are shown to examine in how far the transport projects contribute to solving the accessibility problems identified in the red-flag analysis. As it was noted in Chapter 3, road accessibility in the Czech Republic is near the European average but rail accessibility is significantly below (Figures 3.4 and 3.6).
Figures 7.10 and 7.11 show the Accessibility Problem Index for road and rail in the year 2031 in the Reference Scenario from a European perspective. It should be remembered that in the Reference Scenario no new road or rail projects are started after 2006. The comparison with Figures 3.4 and 3.6 show that, despite of this, accessibility by both road and rail has improved in most regions due to the ongoing European integration, which has led to shorter border waiting times and reduced trade barriers.
Figure 7.10 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Road. Now more regions in the Czech Republic are shaded green, i.e. their accessibility has improved over the European average. However, the north-eastern regions at the Polish border are still problem regions. Figure 7.11 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Rail. It can be seen that without rail improvements the north-eastern parts of the Czech Republic remain poorly served.
Figures 7.12 and 7.13 show the impacts of the Balanced Scenario on the Accessibility Problem Index in the Czech Republic seen from a European perspective. Compared to the Reference Scenario in 2031 (Figure 7.10), road accessibility has further improved in most regions, so that only the most eastern regions around Ostrava and Zlin remain below the European average (Figure 7.12). The rail system of the Czech Republic remains below the European average despite the rail improvements, with Liberec and Jihlava still poorly connected (Figure 7.13). In particular the situation of the Jihlava region in the centre of the country not far from Prague and Brno deserves further analysis.
66 Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)
67 Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Balanced Scenario (2031)
Figure 7.13 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Balanced Scenario (2031)
68 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, Czech Republic, 2031
Scenarios
Refer- Maxi- Maxi- Maxi- Bal- Mode Level ence mum mum mum anced Road Rail 2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 Roads National 1.000 0.914 0.835 0.915 0.836 0.835 -8.6% +0.1% -8.5% -8.6%
European 1.093 0.999 0.913 1.000 0.914 0.914 -8.6% +0.1% -8.5% -8.6%
Rail National 1.000 0.940 0.937 0.822 0.819 0.801 -0.3% -12.5% -12.9% -14.8%
European 1.357 1.275 1.272 1.115 1.112 1.087 -0.2% -12.5% -12.8% -14.8%
The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are significant improvements in both road and rail accessibility between 2006 and 2031 already in the Reference Scenario through the effects of European integration, in the form of reduced waiting times and other barriers. There are significant further improvements to the road network in the Czech Republic if the envisaged road projects are implemented as in the Maximum Road and Maximum Scenarios. The improvements in rail accessibility in the Maximum Rail and the Maximum Scenarios are even more significant. The differences between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios are small in the case of road, as the two scenarios do not differ in their road projects. The differences are more significant in the case of rail because the Balanced Scenario includes additional rail improvements between Prague and Dresden and Ostrava and the Austrian border.
7.7 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 the Czech Republic are shown (Figures 7.14 to 7.17).
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 7.14), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.15), GDP per capita (Figure 7.16) and share of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.17). It can be seen that although the main impacts occur in the Czech Republic itself, significant effects spread beyond national borders.
69
The speed impacts of the planned road projects (Figure 7.14) spread in all directions across the Czech borders into the neighbouring countries. Within the country the two peaks indicate the two main areas of investment in the Prague-Linz corridor and in the Ostrava and Olomouc regions. The speed increases through rail improvements (Figure 7.15) are single-peaked in the western part of the country around the Prague-Linz corridor. As both diagrams are drawn to the same vertical scale, the significance of the rail investment is apparent.
The economic impacts in GDP per capita (Figure 7.16), though small, spread into all directions, most significantly into adjacent Poland, and affect, though only marginally, all of Europe.
The environmental impacts in terms of share of rail trips (Figure 7.17) reflect the different effects in the west and east of the country already shown in Figure 7.9: rail use increases in the western part of the county where the impacts on rail speed are large and decreases in the east where road speed improvements are dominant. The peak in Figure 7.17 coincides with the peak in rail improvement in Figure 7.15 and the sink behind it with the right peak of road improvement in Figure 7.14. As it can be seen in Table 7.4, the net effect of the peak and sink in the Balanced Scenario is positive.
70
Figure 7.14 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
Figure 7.15 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
71
Figure 7.16 GDP per capita: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
Figure 7.17 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031
72
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 subsectors are assessed on a number of criteria:
Table 8.1 Assessment of priority areas effectiveness Cost- Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety financeof Othersources Subsector
Railways - TEN-T priority axis Nuremberg - Prague - Breclav 0 + + 0 + 0 - TEN-T priority axis Prague - Linz 0 + + 0 + 0 - renewal of railway fleet 0 0 + 0 + + Roads - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Vienna (VI) + + - 0 0 0 - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Katowice (VI) + + - 0 0 0 - implement missing links corridor IV and VI + + - 0 0 + - reconstruction / maintenance national roads + + - + + 0 (east and border regions) Urban Transport - modernization of urban transport fleet 0 0 + 0 + + Inland waterway transport - improving navigability of Elbe-Vltava waterway 0 + + 0 + 0 Multimodal transport - Public Logistics Centers + 0 + 0 0 + Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
73
Railways The improvement of the railway network with the investments of the TEN-T priority axis Nuremberg - Prague - Breclav and Prague - Linz has significant effects for the interregional connections of the Czech Republic with neighbouring countries on the Trans-European corridors. Despite the significant rail investments, the rail system of the Czech Republic remains weak (in particular the Jihlava region) and the accessibility below European average. Renewal of rolling stock, also a priority for a better quality of service and operations of public and freight transport, can be financed with EIB loans.
Roads The extension of the motorway network has further improved the accessibility in most of the regions in the Czech Republic. Only the accessibility of the most eastern regions around Ostrava and Zlin remain relative low. The improvement of the road network in the eastern regions and improvement of the border motorway connections with Poland and Austria can contribute to a better accessibility of the eastern regions. It is important that investments in cross-border connections will be tuned especially between Poland and Czech Republic.
Most of the investments of new motorways are planned to construct for toll roads and could be financed through EIB loans or with PPPs constructions. ERDF funds may be used to establish improved links from border and east regions to the existing motorway networks. Also, the Czech Government should pay attention to the financing of regular maintenance of the state road network.
Urban transport The quality of the public transport system (rail and bus infrastructure) and relatively high share of urban public transport should be maintained in future. With rising motorisation in Prague, Brno, Ostrava and the other urban areas, development of the public transport system is required. The need for renewal of urban transport rolling stock is urgently felt. Also dedicated and separated lanes for public transport (cycle and walking paths) can contribute to the quality and safety of the system.
Inland waterway transport The Czech Republic has with the Elbe waterway the only connection with the European inland waterway network. It is important to improve this inland waterway connection. The main problem are the inconsistent navigation conditions in the nearly 40 km long regulated part. Without improvement of navigability conditions on the Elbe-Vlatva waterway this waterway and its main inland ports (Decin, Usti nad Labem and Prague) are insufficiently accessible.
Multimodal transport To stimulate long-distance transport by the railways, modern logistics sites are crucial for the development of multimodal transport in the Czech Republic. Regions with a high concentration of production or consumption would be likely locations for Logistic Centers, like Prague, Brno and Ostrava.
74 The development of logistics centers is (as for new motorway construction) also an opportunity for PPPs; the state prepares a suitable location and the construction of the center could be carried out by a private company.
75 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 2015
- 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)
2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London 2007
- Channel tunnel-London (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Liege-Cologne (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007)
3 High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe 2015
- 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)
76 No. TEN project Completion
4 High-speed railway axis east 2007
- Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)
- Metz-Luxembourg (2007)
- Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007)
5 Betuwe line 2006
6 Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Diva ča/Koper-Diva ča-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian 2018 border
- Lyon-St Jean de Maurienne (2015)
- Mont-Cenis tunnel (2018)
- Bussoleno-Turin (2011)
- Turin-Venice (2011)
- Venice-Ronchi Sud-Trieste-Diva ča (2015)
- Koper-Diva ča-Ljubljana (2012)
- Ljubljana-Budapest (2015)
7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athens-Sofia-Budapest 2010
- Via Egnatia (2006)
- Pathe (2008)
- Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010)
- Nadlac-Sibiu motorway (branch to Bucharest and Constanza) (2007)
8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe 2015
- Railway La Coru ňa-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)
9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed 2001
10 Malpensa Airport completed 2001
11 Öresund fixed link completed 2001
77 No. TEN project Completion
12 Nordic triangle railway/road axis 2015
- 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)
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 2020
- New high-capacity rail axis across the Pyrenees (2020)
- Railway Sines-Badajoz (2010)
- Railway line Algeciras-Bobadilla (2010)
17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava 2015
- Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015)
- Stuttgart-Ulm (2012)
- Munich-Salzburg (2015)
- Salzburg-Vienna (2012)
- Vienna-Bratislava (2012)
18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis 2019
- Rhine-Meuse (2019)
- Lanaken lock (2011)
- Vilshofen-Straubing (2013)
- Wien-Bratislava (2015)
- Palkovicovo-Mohács (2014)
- Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011)
19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula 2020
- Madrid-Andalusia (2020)
- North-east (2020)
- Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2020)
- North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2020)
- Extremadura (2020)
78 No. TEN project Completion
20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis 2015
- 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)
21 Motorways of the sea 2010
- 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)
22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden 2017
- Railway Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia-Vidin/Calafat (2015)
- Railway Curtici-Brasov (towards Bucharest and Constanta) (2013)
- Railway Budapest-Vienna (2010)
- Railway B řeclav-Prague-Nürnberg (2016)
- Railway axis Prague-Linz (2017)
23 Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna 2015
- Railway Gdansk-Warsaw-Katowice (2013)
- Railway Katowice-Břeclav (2010)
- Railway Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n.V. (2015)
24 Railway axis Lyons/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp 2018
- Lyon-Mulhouse-Mülheim (2018)
- Genoa-Milan/Novara-Swiss border (2013)
- Basel-Karlsruhe (2015)
- Frankfurt-Mannheim (2015)
- Duisburg-Emmerich (2015)
- 'Iron Rhine' Rheidt-Antwerp (2010)
25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna 2013
- Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011)
- Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010)
- Brno-Vienna motorway (2013)
79 No. TEN project Completion
26 Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe 2020
- Ireland road/rail modernisation (2010)
- Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (2020)
- Railway Felixstowe-Nuneaton (2014)
- Railway Crewe-Holyhead (2012)
27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki 2018
- Warsaw-Kaunas (2010)
- Kaunas-Riga (2014)
- Riga-Tallinn (2018)
28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis 2013
- Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012)
- Luxembourg- French border (2013)
29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor 2014
- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)
- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)
30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt 2016
- Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016)
- Compiègne-Cambrai (2016)
CH1 Gotthard axis 2015
- Zimmerberg tunnel (2011)
- Gotthard tunnel (2015)
- Ceneri tunnel (2015)
CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015
Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005; Spiekermann & Wegener (Swiss projects)
80 Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects
81 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
82 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.
83 - It should allow to measure 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
∑ Ps (t)exp [− β f rsm (t)] d rs s vrm (t) = (1) ∑ Ps (t)exp []− β f rsm (t) crsm (t 60/) s
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
2 2 d rs = ()()xs − xr + y s − yr (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:
vrm (t) ∑ Pr (t0 ) r v′rm (t) = (3) ∑ vrm (t0 ) Pr (t0 ) r
Pr (t) ∑ Ar r pr′ (t) = (4) Ar ∑ Pr (t) r
Gr (t) ∑ Pr (t) r g r′ (t) = (5) Pr (t) ∑Gr (t) r
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
84 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:
−1 α −γ
qrm (t) = [][][]vrm′ (t) pr′ (t) g r′ (t) (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
85 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.
86 Annex C: Selection of priority projects (not for publication!)
This Annex presents the projects that are included in the “Balanced”scenario and an overview of the arguments (criteria) to exclude certain projects and include others. It should be stressed that this list is only an indicative list. It cannot be expected that the strategic evaluation gives a full priority listing of specific projects within having access to in-depth project information. It should therefore be interpreted as guidance in the eventual selection of projects.
87 Assessment of priority areas effectiveness Cost- Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety financeof Othersources Subsector Remarks
Railways - TEN-T priority axis Nuremberg - Prague - Breclav 0 + + 0 + 0 Investments in major railway corridors improve quality and speed of - TEN-T priority axis Prague - Linz 0 + + 0 + 0 connections in interregional rail transport; less impact on regional transport
- renewal of railway fleet 0 0 + 0 + + Upgrading trains on popular regional railway connections to remain attractive as an alternative for road transport; upgrading III and IV corridor, modernisation, electrification, signalling/ safety of main regional railway connections Roads: - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Vienna (VI) + + - 0 0 0 Improvement of border connections on main corridors with grants TEN-T. - TEN-T priority axis Brno - Katowice (VI) + + - 0 0 0 Cooperation and tuning of border connections with Poland and Slovakia.
- implement missing links corridor IV and VI + + - 0 0 + Mainly EIB finance or PPPs. Completion of motorway sections between Prague and main Czech cities and neighbouring countries. - reconstruction / maintenance national roads + + - + + 0 Fund main axes linking backward east and border regions (Ostrava and (east and border regions) Olomouc) to motorway network. Where possible implementation by upgrading existing road (possibly partly new alignment/new construction). Remaining upgrading of state road through major rehabilitation programme (possibly through EBRD loan?). Pay sufficient attention to financing structure for O&M state road network (State Fund for Transport Infrastructure?).
88 effectiveness Cost- Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety financeof Othersources Subsector Remarks
Urban Transport - modernization of urban transport fleet 0 0 + 0 + ? Maintain the strong position of rail and bus transport in main cities by modernise the public transport system. Modernization of urban transport fleet and reconstruction of urban infrastructure in main cities with urban mass transport will improve quality and services. - road safety 0 0 0 0 + ? Action programme road safety with measures on human factor, related to vehicle and infrastructure for the halving of the number of accidents. National and regional financing and cooperation (possibly with EU funds) Inland waterway transport - improving navigability of Elbe-Vltava waterway 0 + + 0 + 0 Remove bottlenecks inland waterway infrastructure for main inland ports Decin, Usti Nad Labem and Prague. Multimodal transport - Public Logistics Centers + 0 + 0 0 + Construction of logistic centers located in consumer and distribution regions like Brno, Prague and Plzen located near a motorway, railway and airport. Opportunity for PPPs. Attract sufficient private participation and select suitable locations.
89