ECE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Final Report - VolumeTEM and TER revised Master Plan - Final Report I: Main text

TEM and TER revised Master Plan

Final Report Volume I: Main text

Trans-European Motorway (TEM) Trans-European Railway (TER) Projects

United Nations 2011

Printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva — GE.12.20689 — February 2012 — ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2 (Vol. I) ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Trans-European Motorway (TEM) project

Trans-European Railway (TER) project

TEM and TER revised Master Plan

Final report

Volume I : Main text

UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2011

1 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The revised Master Plan of the Trans-European Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TEM) projects was completed thanks to the work and contributions of National Coordinators and country experts from participating TEM and TER member countries, without whose commitment and input this revision would not have been possible; the TEM and TER Project Manager — Mr. Helmut Meelich; the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe as the executing agency of the projects; the consultants Mr. Petr Pospisil, Mr. Romeo Galbenu and Mr. Darek Przybyla, as well as experts from observer and other participating countries, whose valuable input enlarged the scope of the revised Master Plan.

ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2(Vol. I)

2 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Table of Contents

Preface...... 7 Executive summary...... 9 Introduction...... 15

1. REVISION OF THE TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN...... 17

2. REVISED TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN BACKBONE NETWORKS...... 21 2.1 Revised TEM Master Plan backbone network...... 22 2.2 Revised TER Master Plan backbone network...... 26

3. COMPARISON OF THE MASTER PLAN BACKBONE NETWORKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS...... 33 3.1 TEM backbone network...... 34 3.2 TER backbone network...... 43 3.3 Summary...... 52

4. MISSING LINKS IN THE BACKBONE NETWORKS...... 53 4.1 Motorway and road missing links incorporated in the revised TEM backbone network...... 53 4.2 Railway missing links incorporated in the revised TER backbone network...... 55 4.3 Other motorway and road missing links...... 57 4.4 Other railway missing links...... 57

5. UPDATING OF THE TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR THE BACKBONE NETWORKS...... 59 5.1 Past development...... 59 5.2 Traffic forecast for the TEM and TER Master Plan...... 60 5.3 Other recent forecasts...... 63 5.4 Comparison of existing forecast results...... 68 5.5 Questionnaires for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan...... 68 5.6 The influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic developments in 2008 and 2009...... 69 5.7 Groups of countries...... 75 5.8 Basic development scenario...... 75 5.9 Post-crisis development scenarios...... 77 5.10. Maps of road and rail traffic flows in 2020...... 79

6. REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS...... 81 6.1 Overview...... 81 6.2 Motorway/road projects in the revised Master Plan...... 83 6.3 Railway projects in the revised Master Plan...... 99 6.4 Analysis of projects and their classification...... 111

7. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS...... 113

3 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

8. STATUS OF BACKBONE NETWORKS IN 2010, 2015 AND 2020...... 115 8.1 Status maps of the TEM and TER backbone network...... 115 8.2 Lessons learnt...... 115 8.3 Conclusions...... 116

9. bOTTLENECKS ON BACKBONE NETWORKS...... 119 9.1 Definition and identification...... 119 9.2 Roads...... 122 9.3 Railways...... 124

10. bORDER CROSSING ISSUES...... 177 10.1 Road border crossings on the TEM backbone network...... 177 10.2 Railway border crossings of importance for international combined transport according to the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations)...... 180 10.3 Other railway border crossings on the TER backbone network...... 182 10.4 Border crossing traffic...... 183 10.5 Border crossing barriers and problems...... 184 10.6 Solutions and remedial measures...... 186

11. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE REVISED TER AND TEM BACK- BONE NETWORKS AND RELEVANT TRANSHIPMENT POINTS...... 189 11.1 Common sections of revised TEM and TER backbone networks...... 189 11.2 Terminals of importance for international combined transport...... 192 11.3 Other terminals of importance for international combined transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks...... 197 11.4 Ferry links/ports forming part of the international combined transport network... 200 11.5 Other ferry links of high importance linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks...... 201 11.6 Other sea ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks...... 201 11.7 Terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combined transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks...... 202 11.8 Other river/lake ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks...... 204

12. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS...... 207 12.1 ITS in the road sector...... 207 12.2 ITS in the rail sector...... 208 12.3 Motorway/road ITS systems and services in the participating countries...... 208 12.4 Rail ITS systems and services in the participating countries...... 210

13. ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES...... 213 13.1 Environmental impacts...... 213 13.2 Road safety...... 217 13.3 Transport security...... 220

14. CONCLUSIONS...... 225

4 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

LIST OF MAPS 1. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision participating countries...... 129 2. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network...... 131 3. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network...... 133 4. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links...... 135 5. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links...... 137 6. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — traffic flows in 2020...... 139 7. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — passenger flows in 2020...... 141 8. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — freight flows in 2020...... 143 9. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — TEM revised Master Plan projects...... 145 10. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — TER revised Master Plan projects...... 147 11. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010...... 149 12. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015...... 151 13. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020...... 153 14. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010...... 155 15. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015...... 157 16. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020...... 159 17. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks...... 161 18. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks ...... 163 19. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks interrelationships...... 165 20. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks — common sections...... 167 21a. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance)...... 169 21b. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries)...... 171 22a TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance)...... 173 22b TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries)...... 175

5 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

6 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Preface

“Ensuring the adequate provision of infrastructure is a key Government responsibility because the transport sector has important implications throughout society and the economy …”

Ján Kubiš’ opening speech at the “Conference on Financing development of road and rail transport infrastructures” (Vienna, 17 November 2010)

The Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TER) projects are unique Pan-European transport infrastructure projects bringing together countries of the European Union (EU), EU candidate countries as well as other United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Member States in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. UNECE is the executing agency for both projects. The original TEM and TER Master Plan was published in 2006. This revision of the original Master Plan was made possible through the commitment, skill, dedication and cooperation of National Coordinators from participating countries, the UNECE TEM and TER Project Manager, external consultants and the UNECE secretariat. Two expert groups, one for road and one for rail, worked together over the last two years to consolidate and process substantive information on transport plans and priority needs for the participating countries, liaising with the relevant national authorities and the UNECE secretariat. This work resulted in a revised list of priority infrastructure projects of the TEM and TER backbone networks as well as recommendations on possibilities for funding. The expected status of the backbone networks in 2015 and 2020 is also projected based on their situation in the 2008 to 2009 period. The present final report contains information for 25 participating countries. In the current challenging economic and financial environment, reflected by major budgetary cuts and capital market restrictions, special attention was paid to possibilities for financing road and rail infrastructure projects identified as priorities in the revised Master Plan. Four specific reports have been produced on issues related to financing: see Volume II of this publication. The implementation of the projects contained in the revised Master Plan is a long-term process that will require, first and foremost, political will and commitment from the Governments of the participating countries. It will also require intensive follow-up work and progress monitoring through close cooperation between participating countries, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and the UNECE, as well as with the European Commission and other international organizations, financial institutions and bodies whose assistance will be essential in completing this ambitious task. I hope that this revised TEM and TER Master Plan will be widely used throughout the ECE region not only as a reference source for transport infrastructure planning in the international context but also as a very good example of effective collaboration among participating countries.

Ján Kubiš Executive Secretary United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

7 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

8 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of the Master Plan revision were (a) to analyse the results of the road and rail infrastructure development in 25 participating countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and the Caucasus in the period 2005 to 2010, (b) to describe the existing status of road and rail networks, and (c) to set out the road and rail networks development programme until the year 2020. Five years ago, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) published the original Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TER) projects Master Plan, presenting a reliable and pragmatic short-, medium- and long-term investment strategy for developing road, rail and combined transport backbone networks in the participating countries. The original Master Plan proved to be an important step towards improving the transport sector performance in the study region. Many targeted investments — for example, about 45 % of the 491 road and rail projects contained in the original Master Plan — have been completed. Since the creation of the original Master Plan, important political, economic and technological changes have taken place and new challenges have emerged. Four additional countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — have joined the revision process. The slower than expected economic growth in some participating countries unfortunately has resulted in a minimal growth of their passenger and freight transport sectors. Budgetary constraints in many of the countries have limited transport infrastructure development. However, the original Master Plan had already acknowledged that the range of possible investments would greatly exceed the immediate and foreseeable capacities of national and international bodies to fund all the identified projects. The original Master Plan did not foresee the global crisis of 2008 and 2009, the consequences of which further deepened the imbalances between the investment needs and the funding sources. The revised Master Plan endeavours to take the recent and expected future developments into account. First of all, it addresses the modifications of the TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks identified in 2005. Furthermore, it reflects changes in traffic flows, political changes in the region, the needs of new participating countries, the desire to harmonize TEM and TER networks with other international transport networks, changes in priorities, as well as the need to connect these networks in the best way with important international combined transport routes and with transhipment points and nodes. During this work, the road and rail missing links identified in the original report were also considered and the great majority of them have been included in the revised networks. Three scenarios for road and rail traffic growth on backbone networks up to 2020 have been developed. These scenarios are based on the results of the 2005 UNECE Censuses of Motor Traffic on Main International Traffic Arteries and of E Rail Traffic in Europe, results of recent national traffic censuses, the TEM and TER databases, national forecasts of traffic development in 2015 and 2020, and recent international studies. The basic scenario reflects, as far as possible, uncertainties inevitably linked with such projections. The other two scenarios take into account the consequences of the global economic crisis, with its impacts on the development of road and rail traffic in the participating countries in 2008 and 2009. These impacts were identified

9 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

by a special enquiry carried out in the framework of the Master Plan revision work. As far as it is known, this is a first attempt to reflect the impact of the global crisis on the road and rail traffic developments in the forthcoming years. The forecast traffic flows on particular sections of the TEM (motorway/road) and TER (rail) backbone networks are also illustrated on the respective maps. The changes in the backbone network, traffic forecast results as well as the above additional requirements have been reflected in the new Master Plan list of road and rail projects, comprising 294 motorway/road construction and/or rehabilitation and 191 rail projects with a total cost of approximately EUR 188 × 109. The average cost of a project (approximately EUR 388 × 106) increased almost twofold in comparison with the average project cost in the original Master Plan. This increase was partly due to inflation, but extensively due to the larger and more demanding construction projects (e.g. high-speed rail lines in some countries) which frequently focus on densely populated agglomerations. More stringent environmental protection measures also contributed to the increase. Special attention was paid to project funding considerations in light of the present budgetary funding limitations in almost all participating countries. Annexes III to VI of Volume II focus on the financing of road and rail Master Plan projects and recommendations for their implementation. The expected status of the backbone road and rail networks in the region in the years 2015 and 2020 is shown on the respective maps. This status was based on the assumption that identified infrastructure projects would be completed in accordance with the timetables indicated in this final report and also on other available sources as follows: the national master plans of participating countries and their data provided through the revision questionnaires; the TEM and TER projects databases; data from other relevant studies, and documentation and information from other sources. It should be noted, nevertheless, that the 2020 status maps in particular include a rather considerable degree of uncertainty and represent the most probable option based on the latest information available. The status data were also of importance for other topics dealt with in this final report, e.g. border crossing issues and intermodal relationships. Different types of road and rail bottleneck were subsequently analysed, distinguishing between the condition bottlenecks, i.e. links in poor condition, and the capacity bottlenecks, i.e. congested road and rail links in the backbone networks. Both types of bottleneck are listed in the final report and are indicated on the corresponding maps. The final report also includes detailed considerations on indicated barriers and on border crossing problems in the region, broken down according to their origin (i.e. infrastructure, procedures and staff ), which are particularly frequent on borders between Schengen and non- Schengen countries. In comparison with the original TEM and TER Master Plan of 2005, this final report further considers the links between the road and rail backbone networks, and between them and the other transhipment points such as terminals, ferry links and sea, river and lake ports of importance for international combined transport. The original Master Plan did not deal with Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). ITS applications would improve overall service levels by improving transport management and the use of infrastructure. This final report underlines that the wider application of ITS could be increased by their integration. ITS integration is also a necessary precondition for interoperability of ITS at the European level. Finally, the revised Master Plan focuses on the most important transport impacts on the environment, i.e. carbon dioxide emissions and noise pollution, as well as on road safety and

10 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

transport security issues. These issues, at present, are basic elements of the definition of transport service quality — provided that there is a balance between operational needs and security requirements. This final report, including the maps, was prepared in close cooperation with the TEM and TER National Coordinators and focal points/contact persons in participating countries. The report recommends that the next revision of the Master Plan be prepared in the years 2015 to 2016. Successful implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan will be a long-term process, requiring political will and commitment from the participating countries as well as close cooperation between participating countries, UNECE and the TEM and TER projects Central Offices. The necessary follow-up work will require the actions identified in the conclusions of the final report and in its annexes, the most important of which are summarized below. - Each participating country needs a clear transport policy and strategy, indicating objectives and measures/instruments for investment funding. Such a strategy should include an implementation schedule and a manageable financial plan, and should only include infrastructure projects which clearly demonstrate a significant cost–benefit ratio. - National transport master plans, comprising infrastructure and transport policy for all modes, with clear objectives for a sustainable transport policy, should be established and regularly updated. - A long-term “strategic” development plan for transport networks should be established based on the results of feasibility studies. The development plan should determine an implementation schedule and a tentative investment plan. - The investment plan of the revised Master Plan should be updated regularly, and a monitoring system for implementing identified road and rail projects must be established. - The updating of both national and international transport infrastructure development plans should be carefully and simultaneously considered with the aim of moving towards plans that acknowledge shared international needs and goals, recognizing at the same time the importance of specific national needs. - National laws on tender and construction need appropriate harmonization with the emerging European good practices so as not to restrict interest in undertaking infrastructure works which, in turn, could likely lead to undermining cost-effectiveness and technical innovation in construction. - A new planning culture is needed to prevent erroneous decisions and to ensure efficient allocation of the limited financial resources. The planning process and preparatory decisions need to be executed more carefully and the results should be made more visible by public decision-makers. - The political, legal, institutional, financial and economic framework conditions which influence the transport sector should be carefully considered and the organizational structure revised if necessary. - Efforts aimed at simplifying the bureaucratic and lengthy procedures for project approval should be intensified and appropriate legislative and administrative measures established, thus preventing substantial interference with or modification of the already approved medium-term financing plans during the annual budget allocation procedures. - An appropriate project management system should be established to avoid systematically biased underestimation of project costs and overestimation of travel and transport demand, and to ensure appropriate risk assessment, quality of management as well as approbation of economically efficient projects.

11 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

- The preparation of appropriate feasibility studies for each project in the pipeline should be organized as soon as possible, even if their implementation is not expected in a near future. - New assessment instruments (such as Sustainable Development Analysis) should be introduced to ensure sustainable transport development. - European standardization procedures on national construction and operation guidelines should be enabled and supported as quickly as possible since it is proven that their application significantly reduces the costs of infrastructure construction, maintenance and operation. - Efficient completion of priority transport infrastructure networks needs to be pursued. The currently established practice in many countries is to extend the completion time of several infrastructure projects running in parallel because of underfunding; such a practice minimizes the economic benefits and should be avoided. - Data on road and rail traffic flows will need to be regularly provided in the forthcoming years for verifying and updating road and rail traffic forecasts for the years 2015 and 2020. - The provision of information on the location of new or extended transhipment points, sea and major river ports, freight villages and logistics centres would make it possible to adjust connections to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks. - The deeper involvement of both the TEM and the TER project in the activities aimed at possible technical interoperability of the ITS at the European level should be considered. - A special follow-up programme should be established to monitor regularly the progress achieved in implementing the revised Master Plan and to bring the TEM and TER backbone networks up to the standards set by the relevant UNECE International Agreements as well as by the “Standards and Recommended Practices for Projects”. The possibilities for funding identified projects for which financing has not been fully secured at present should be seriously considered by respective countries, exploiting the ways and means identified and recommended in Annexes III to VI of Volume II as summarized below. - Efforts should be intensified to develop and/or rearrange the system of institutions dealing with the transport sector when opting for the renewal and reorganization of financial practices. - There is a strong need to have a dedicated unit within the competent Ministry of a country, which will integrate the critical links between the involved Ministries, EU bodies (if applicable), international financial institutions and other relevant public and private stakeholders. This unit may have a specific role to follow transport infrastructure projects. - Governments should consider establishing transport funds. This will make additional funding available for investments in transport projects. - All the advantages and disadvantages of public–private partnership (PPP) models for financing transport infrastructure should be discussed and made transparent before making decisions; experience indicates that some advantages of PPP models can be achieved also by changing organizational models and/or tendering procedures. - Different organizational models for planning and financing activities should be considered; whether a public or a private corporation is the more successful model will depend on which entity has the lower interest rate and better credit rating, etc. More effective planning and construction management can be achieved also with the new method of “functionally oriented bidding”. - The legal, financial, banking and economic environment should be ready when preparing PPP projects and appropriate rules should be set to streamline administrative procedures which could pose time limits on approval processes and the establishment of “special project vehicles” (SPVs).

12 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

- A special PPP unit or a programme in the government may address the capacity problem of the public sector effectively and promote private participation in a planned and coordinated manner taking into account the overall sector needs. Such an administrative arrangement can also help to enhance the social acceptability and transparency of private projects by institutionalizing the project identification and approval processes. - Further efforts should be aimed at establishing fair cost sharing between taxpayers and transport users, since the current distribution of external costs may contribute to the future unsustainability of a transport system as a whole. - For roads, opportunities for cost sharing of road infrastructure and road transport services in a fair and equitable manner should be considered, introducing and/or gradually developing appropriate toll collection systems. - For railways, the long-term goal should be that contributions of railway users cover, at least, all operation costs and, as much as possible, the infrastructure costs with the exception of the share of the costs which are summarized under the terms non-profit and social costs.

13 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

14 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is the executing agency of the two international cooperation frameworks — the Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and the Trans-European Railway (TER) projects — established respectively in 1977 and 1990, by the Governments of the Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries and the Caucasus.1 These projects, aimed at developing coherent transport infrastructure networks in the region and at facilitating international traffic, have to date been instrumental in the construction and upgrade of the transport networks in the participating countries, and thus have contributed to the interoperability of the European transport systems. At the same time, both projects, through their regular activities, have created and continuously updated databases, have published a large number of technical documents, studies, guidelines and recommendations, and have continued to work for the harmonization of the management, maintenance and operational procedures on roads, motorways and railways in the region and for their integration in the Pan-European context. The long-lasting, flexible, effective and self-sustaining structures of the TEM and TER projects, in combination with the great dedication and commitment of the participating countries, provide a useful framework for the development and monitoring of the progress of this unique sub-regional cooperation in the field of transport. The original TEM and TER Master Plan, which was published in January 2006, represented the most important outcome of the new short-term strategies for the further integration of both projects in the new European transport context. The Master Plan was intended to assist the TEM and TER member countries in the development of their road, rail and combined transport infrastructures and in making decisions on relevant investments. It also addressed important questions such as alternative scenarios of growth, methodological aspects of project evaluation, infrastructure bottlenecks, missing links, border crossing issues, as well as problems of funding of transport infrastructure. More specifically, the work addressed the goals of promoting the integration of the European transport infrastructure, extending the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), supporting the implementation of the Pan-European transport corridors and promoting intermodal transport operations. The work on the original Master Plan, completed in 2005, resulted in the elaboration of a realistic investment strategy for the development of the road, rail and combined transport infrastructure in the 21 Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries involved. Within this framework, the road and rail backbone networks were defined taking into account the international importance of the relevant sections as well as the national priorities and proposals of the countries participating in this work. A special top-down methodology was developed for the evaluation and prioritization of the identified infrastructure projects. On the basis of the input from the participating countries, and following the agreed methodology, 491 projects of a total value of more than EUR 102 × 109 were evaluated and prioritized. Special emphasis was placed on seeking a balance between the national priorities of the participating countries for

1 The member countries of the TEM project were Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. The member countries of the TER project were Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey.

15 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

the development of transport infrastructure within their own borders, and the recognition that many of the most important national links and projects were also critical to the establishment of effective international networks. In general, the original TEM and TER Master Plan achieved its intended goals. Through the Master Plan, both projects offered a substantial contribution to the extension of the TEN-T, practical implementation of Pan-European transport corridors, promotion of intermodal operations, complementarity of transport modes and enhanced effective use of the transport infrastructure. The Master Plan also contributed to the integration and harmonization of transport beyond Europe, notably as input to the Euro-Asian Transport Links project. Meanwhile, it was clear that the implementation of the Master Plan would last many years, would require the continuing political will and commitment of all the countries involved, and would necessitate permanent monitoring of the progress in the realization of the projects identified as well as the intensive follow-up work. The activities in the original Master Plan focused primarily on the review of the investment strategy for transport infrastructure reflecting, inter alia, the future political and economic developments, changing priorities and new transport needs in the region. At the same time, the objective was to raise awareness about the Master Plan implementation, to disseminate its results and outcomes, and to provide the missing information about the current status and planned progress in some parts of the backbone network. In this connection, the final report provided, inter alia, the specification of the complete shape of the TEM and TER backbone networks in the different time horizons of 2010, 2015 and 2020, and updated the investment plan and Geographical Information System database. Taking these facts into account, noting the importance of the progressive implementation of the TEM and TER Master Plan for the development of a coherent transport infrastructure in Europe, and following the conclusions and recommendations of the final report, the TEM and TER Steering Committees decided that the Master Plan should be revised every 5 years. The UNECE Inland Transport Committee reiterated its support for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan and invited the Steering Committees of both projects, in close cooperation with the participating countries, to undertake this work and to complete the revised final report by the end of 2010.

16 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

1. REVISION OF THE TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN

This first Master Plan revision, carried out in 2009 and 2010, reflects the increased awareness of the importance for the implementation of the Master Plan projects. In comparison with the original Master Plan, its geographical coverage has been extended to 25 countries, i.e. Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine (Map No. 1). During the revision, efforts were focused in particular on Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro which did not participate in the original Master Plan. Based on actual and available data on gross domestic product (GDP) as well as on motorway/road infrastructure status and traffic flows, the aim was to establish realistic growth scenarios, to define their road and rail backbone networks, to develop respective traffic forecasts and to identify missing links, connections, bottlenecks and priority projects. Since the elaboration of the original Master Plan, a number of new developments have taken place. These may be summarized as follows: • completion of the work of the European Union (EU) High Level Group (HLG) and the extension of the Trans-European Transportation Network (TEN-T) to neighbouring countries and regions2; • the accession of Armenia and Slovenia to the TEM and TER projects; • the separation of Serbia and Montenegro into two independent states; • the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU; • the need to include all South-Eastern Europe and Caucasus countries in the Master Plan exercise (i.e. addition of Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro and Serbia); • new proposals on priorities, projects and links which emerged in the TEM and TER member countries in the course of the 2007 to 2009 follow-up work; • completion of the first phase of the UNECE–UNESCAP Joint Project on Developing Euro- Asian Transport Linkages (EATL) and adoption of the priority routes and projects identified by it; • new data received from the participating countries, especially with regard to the identified transport infrastructure projects; • increased interest of the participating countries in intermodal aspects (including logistics centres, combined transport terminals, seaports and maritime hinterland connections); • the consequences of the global economic crisis.

2 The priority axes defined by the HLG chaired by Loyola de Palacio do not have the same binding character as the Pan-European corridors that were agreed by the Ministers of Transport. Turkey, as a negotiating candidate country for accession to the EU, supports the revision of the existing TEN-T in a more comprehensive framework and finds that the recommendations of the HLG report fall short of addressing satisfactorily its needs, priorities and considerations, and in particular those concerning transport axes, corridors and links within Turkey and towards its neighbouring countries. Therefore, Turkey does not concur with the HLG report in its entirety. Hence, Turkey reads all references to the HLG report with the understanding that Turkey’s needs, priorities and considerations are addressed, on a mutually-acceptable basis, in the Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) study and in the framework of the accession negotiations. Turkey’s border with Armenia is currently not operational and there is no freight and passenger traffic.

17 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

In order to reflect these developments, on the basis of the inputs from the participating countries, the TEM and TER project Central Offices, in close collaboration with the UNECE and external consultants, prepared the terms of reference for the revision of the Master Plan. These terms of reference were approved by the Steering Committees of the TEM and TER projects in 2008 and contained the following work packages: 1. Project management 2. Updating of data including those for countries newly involved 3. Updating of traffic forecasts 4. Consideration and evaluation of new emerging developments 5. New and/or revised Master Plan infrastructure projects 6. Review of facilitation aspects along the TEM Master Plan backbone network 7. Assessment and modification of the Master Plan backbone network 8. Backbone network status in 2015 and 2020 9. Funding considerations and securing of funds for the Master Plan projects 10. Intermodal transport considerations 11. Operational aspects 12. Lessons learnt and recommendations The work on the revision was coordinated and supervised by the Coordination Group, consisting of the UNECE secretariat representatives, the TEM and TER Project Manager and external consultants. The Coordination Group was assisted by groups of experts composed of the TEM and TER Project Manager, National Coordinators and experts from participating countries, the UNECE Transport Division Regional Adviser, and consultants. During the revision of the Master Plan, the Coordination Group met six times and the expert groups met five times. One of the first and most important tasks of the Master Plan revision process was the modification and updating of the original backbone networks, consisting of the most important motorway/road and railway links in the participating countries. This task was necessary because of the need to reflect the latest relevant developments described above, the increased interest of the participating countries in intermodal aspects (including seaports and maritime hinterland connections), new road and rail projects initiated in the meantime as well as new data received from the participating countries. Moreover, during their revision, the TEM and TER backbone networks have been extended to include Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro, which did not participate in the original Master Plan. It was also necessary to take into consideration the identified missing links, broadly following the relevant recommendations of the UNECE Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5). In addition, some participating countries proposed additional links, with special consideration being given to the interconnections and the continuity of these additional links with the respective parts of both road and rail backbone networks. In the course of this work, modifications related to the backbone network´s intermodal relationships (motorways of the sea, combined transport terminals, freight villages and logistics centres) have been duly taken into account. The final scope of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks, reflecting all these changes and proposals, is documented on the respective maps in this final report. Particular attention was paid to the development and updating of the road and rail traffic forecast for the years 2015 and 2020. This work was based on verification of the forecast data in the original Master Plan (these data were based on the results of the 2005 censuses), other

18 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

recent forecasts presented by international organizations and the data and national forecasts of the participating countries. Two development scenarios were created which also took into account the present and expected impacts of the global recession on road and rail traffic. At the same time, the Master Plan traffic forecast was extended to include Armenia (as a new TEM and TER member country) and also to cover Albania, Azerbaijan and Montenegro. The results of updating the traffic forecast were also taken into account in the identification of bottlenecks on the backbone networks and served as input for the elaboration of the maps showing road and rail traffic flows in 2020. The revised Master Plan puts forward a total of 485 new or revised projects (294 motorway/ road projects and 191 rail projects) proposed by the participating countries. Most of the proposed road infrastructure projects were evaluated and prioritized in order to assign them a corresponding score and class. The results of this exercise are presented in detail in Annex III of Volume II of this final report. Out of the total number of projects, 268 projects (55 %) were taken over from the original Master Plan, mostly with revised or changed parameters. Thus, in the period 2006 to 2010, a total of 223 projects contained in the original Master Plan (45 %) were completed, most of them on the railway network. During the revision, the work carried out by the relevant international organizations and institutions was reviewed with a special emphasis on bottlenecks in the TEM and TER backbone networks and on border crossing problems. The work in this segment focused on the identification of bottlenecks and missing links as well as on proposals and measures aimed at the removal of bottlenecks and the resolution of other priority transport needs in the backbone network. For this purpose, use was also made of the UNECE document “Methodological Basis for the Definition of Common Criteria regarding the Identification of Bottlenecks, Missing Links and Quality of Service in Infrastructure Networks”. With respect to border crossings, concrete actions were proposed in order to remove obstacles and to resolve the problems identified in relation to infrastructure, procedures and staff. The status maps of rail and road backbone networks in 2010, 2015 and 2020 were produced on the basis of the national master plans of the participating countries, national data, TEM and TER projects databases, the TEMSTAT monitoring system, and available documentation and information gained from other sources. In some participating countries, approved investment plans up to the year 2020 did not exist, or such plans were undergoing revision and change as a result of the economic recession. For such cases, the infrastructure status shown on the maps represents the most probable option based on the latest information available, as communicated by the participating countries. At the time of the revision of the Master Plan, a considerable proportion of the total implementation costs for the realization of projects has not been secured. The main sources of funding of the investment plans have been identified in Annexes III to VI of Volume II of the final report. This information will assist participating countries in advancing further and in continuing the process of funds acquisition in close cooperation with the international financial institutions. The work also aimed at the identification of the relationship of backbone networks with the intermodal infrastructure and its facilities and nodal points. The mutual relationships between the TEM and TER backbone networks as well as the combined transport routes were examined. The locations of the shipping points (motorways of the sea, sea ports and major river ports), freight villages and logistics centres were identified, including their connections to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.

19 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Finally, the Master Plan revision summarizes the experience gained by the participating countries in the implementation of individual components of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), including the electronic toll collection (ETC) systems and plans and recommendations for their wider implementation in the future. Other items analysed in the revision include the possibilities for balancing transport facilitation and security measures to contribute to full interoperability of road transport, as well as considerations of environmental, safety and security issues especially with regard to international road and rail freight traffic.

20 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

2. REVISED TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN BACKBONE NETWORKS

The TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks, consisting of the most important motorway/road and railway links in the participating countries, were defined during the preparation of the original Master Plan in 2005 on the basis of proposals made by National Coordinators from participating countries, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and their consultants in close cooperation with the UNECE. The selection of lines and sections included in these networks was done on the basis of well-defined and commonly agreed criteria, which took into consideration the international importance of the traffic on these lines and sections. Most of these lines are part of the Pan-European transport corridors, the EU TEN-T and the Euro-Asian Transport Links as well as national priority lines of the participating countries. After the original Master Plan was produced, the document “Networks for Peace and Development — Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries and regions” developed by the HLG was published in November 2005. In this document, the group identified five major trans-national axes to connect the EU with its neighbours (the Northern, Central, South Eastern and South Western axes and motorways of the sea); the first three generally cover the region of the TEM and TER Master Plan. Furthermore, the Euro-Asian road and rail transport routes were identified in the framework of the UNECE–UNESCAP Joint Project on Developing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages (EATL). In the meantime, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, Serbia and Montenegro separated into two independent states and four new countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — expressed interest in taking part in the Master Plan follow-up activities. In order to take into account the developments described above, to reflect the increased interest of countries in intermodal aspects (including logistics centres, combined transport terminals, seaports and maritime hinterland connections), and to include new road and rail projects which were brought up in the meantime, as well as new data received from the participating countries, it was necessary to revise the original Master Plan and its original road and rail backbone networks. In the course of the revision, additional links were proposed for inclusion in the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks. Special consideration was given to the interconnections and the continuity of the additional links with the respective parts of both road and rail backbone networks. Also new links, proposed by some participating countries, were added to these revised backbone networks. Following the above-mentioned approach, the components of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks specified in chapters 2.1 and 2.2 were identified (see also Maps No. 2 and No. 3).

21 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

2.1 Revised TEM Master Plan backbone network Note: The ISO alpha-3 country code is indicated where useful.

Albania (ALB) Hani i Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Fushe Kruja – Tirana Morina – Kukes – crossing of 2 roads Lezhe/Fushe Kruja Tirana – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Perrenjas – Qafe Thana (MKD) Kapshtica (GRC) – Pogradec – Perrenjas Kakavija (GRC) – Gjirokaster – Fier – Rrogozhine Fier – Vlore

Armenia (ARM) Bavra (GEO) – Gyumri – Yerevan Bagratashen (GEO) – Vanadzor – Yerevan Yerevan – Ararat – Vayk – Goris – Meghri (IRN)

Austria (AUT) Nickelsdorf (HUN) – Parndorf – Wien Kittsee (SVK) – Parndorf Wien – Graz – Villach – Arnoldstein (ITA) Wien – Drasenhofen (CZE) Salzburg (DEU) – Sattledt – Linz – Wien Sattledt – St. Michael – Graz – Spielfeld (SVN) Linz – Wullowitz (CZE) Villach – Karawanken Tunnel (SVN)

Azerbaijan (AZE) Baku – Sumgayit – Samur (RUS) Alat – Astara (IRN) Baku – Ganja – Gazakh – Boyuk – Red bridge (GEO) Baku – Alat – Horadiz – Agband (ARM) Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM)

Belarus (BLR) Novaja Zjamlja (RUS) – Minsk – Brest (POL) Kamenny Loh (LTU) – Minsk – Homyel Ezerische (RUS) – Vitebsk – Homyel – Novaja Guta (UKR)

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH) Samac/Bosanski Samac (HRV) – Zenica – Lasva – Sarajevo – Bijaca (HRV) Sarajevo – Visegrad – Vardiste (SRB) Jajce – Banja Luka – Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (HRV) Izacic (HRV) – Bihac – Jajce – Travnik – Lasva Sarajevo – Foca – Hum (MNE)

Bulgaria (BGR) Kalotina (SRB) – Sofia – Orizovo – Svilengrad – Kapitan Andreevo (TUR) Ruse (ROU) – Bjala – Haskovo Svilengrad – Novo Selo (GRC) Orizovo – Stara Zagora – Sliven – Burgas – Varna Botevgrad – Bjala – Sumen –Varna

22 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Vidin (ROU) – Botevgrad – Sofia Daskalovo – Gjusevo (MKD) Sofia – Daskalovo – Kulata (GRC) Varna – Durankulak (ROU) Croatia (HRV) Bregana (SVN) – Zagreb – Lipovac (SRB) Gorican (HUN) – Zagreb – Karlovac – Bosiljevo – Rijeka –Matulji – Rupa (SVN) Knezevo (HUN) – Osijek – Slavonski Samac (BIH) Metkovic (BIH) – Ploce Macelj (SVN) – Zagreb Karlovac – Bosiljevo/Slunj – Zadar/Knin – Split – Ploce Matulji – Pazin – Kanfanar – Pula Kanfanar – Plovanija (SVN) Licko Petrovo Selo (BIH) – Karlovac Okucani – Donji Varos (BIH) The Czech Republic (CZE) Cinovec (DEU) – Praha – Brno – Lanzhot (SVK) Rozvadov (DEU) – Praha Mikulov (AUT) – Brno – Ostrava – Cesky Tesin/Vernovice (POL) Praha – Dolni Dvoriste (AUT) Praha – Hradec Kralove – Kralovec (POL) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD) Tabanovce (SRB) – Kumanovo – Miladinovci – Veles – Gevgelija (GRC) Miladinovci – Skopje – Debar (ALB) Veles – Bitola – Medzitlija (GRC) Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka (BGR) Bitola – Ohrid – Podmolje – Struga – Mali Vlaj (ALB) Georgia (GEO) Leselidze (RUS) – Senaki – Khashuri – Tbilisi – Tsiteli Khidi (AZE) Sarpi (TUR) – Poti – Senaki Larsi (RUS) – Tbilisi – Sadakhlo (ARM) Arali (TUR) – Akhaltsikhe – Khashuri Greece (GRC) Promachonas (BGR) – Thessaloniki Evzoni (MKD) – Chalastra – Klidi – Athinai – Korinthos – Tripolis – Kalamata Tripolis – Githeion Korinthos – Rio – Patra Igoumenitsa – Ioannina – Paleokastro – Kozani – Klidi Chalastra – Thessaloniki – Alexandroupoli – Peplos – Ormenio (BGR) Ktismata (ALB) – Ioannina – Agrinio – Rio Kristalopigi (ALB) – Kastora – Paleokastro Niki (MKD) – Kozani Peplos – Kipi (TUR)

23 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Hungary (HUN) Hegyeshalom (AUT) – Level – Gyor – Budapest – Szeged – Roszke (SRB) Rajka (SVK) – Level Szeged – Nagylak (ROU) Letenye (HRV) – Budapest – Istvanmajor – Zahony (UKR) Budapest – Udvar (HRV) Tornyosnemeti (SVK) – Miskolc – Istvanmajor Hont (SVK) – Vac – Budapest Tornyiszentmiklos (SVN) – Letenye

Italy (ITA) Ventimiglia (FRA) – Genova – Alessandria – Brescia – Padova – Palmanova – Trieste /Fernetti (SVN) Coccau (AUT) – Palmanova Padova – Bologna – Bari – Brindisi Brescia – Milano – Biandrate Alessandria – Biandrate – Domodossola – Iselle (CHE) Alessandria – Torino – Bardonecchia (FRA)

Lithuania (LTU) Klaipeda – Sitkunai – Kaunas – Vilnius – Medininkai (BLR) Kaunas – Marijampole – Sangruda (POL) Salociai (LVA) – Sitkunai Marijampole – Kybartai (RUS) Vilnius – Panevezys – Siauliai – Palanga – Klaipeda

The Republic of Moldova (MDA) Leuseny (ROU) – Chisinau – Dubasari – Dobau (UKR) Chisinau – Pervomaise (UKR)

Montenegro (MNE) Donje Krusevo (BIH) – Podgorica – Bozaj (ALB) Metanjac (SRB) – Bijelo Polje – Podgorica – Bar

Poland (POL) Swiecko (DEU) – Poznan – Warszawa – Terespol (BLR) Gdansk – Lodz – Piotrkow Trybunalski – Katowice/Sosnica – Gorzyczki (CZE) Jedrzychowice (DEU) – Krzyzowa – Wroclaw – Katowice – Krakow – Rzeszow – Korczowa (UKR) Olszyna (DEU) – Krzyzowa Bialystok – Warszawa – Piotrkow Trybunalski Warszawa – Lublin – Plaski – Hrebenne (UKR) Pyrzowice – Kosztowy – Bielsko Biala – Cieszyn (CZE) Bielsko Biala – Zywiec – Zwardon (SVK) Piaski – Dorohusk (UKR) Gdansk – Elblag – Warszawa – Kielce – Krakow – Chyzne (SVK) Budzisko (LTU) – Suwalki – Elk – Lomza – Ostrow Mazowiecka Wroclaw – Poznan – Bydgoszcz – Grudziadz (A1) Barwinek (SVK) – Rzeszow – Lublin – Miedzyrzec Podlaski – Bialystok – Kuznica Bialostocka (BLR) Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Gorzow Wielkopolski – Zielona Gora – Legnica – Lubawka (CZE)

24 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Wroclaw – Lodz Grzechotki (RUS) – Elblag

Romania (ROU) Nadlac (HUN) – Timisoara – Lugoj – Sebes – Bucuresti – Constanta Lugoj – Craiova – Rosiori de Vede – Bucuresti Craiova – Calafat (BGR) Timisoara – Moravita (SRB) Albita (MDA) – Marasesti – Bucuresti – Giurgiu (BGR) Siret (UKR) – Suceava – Bacau – Marasesti Halmeu (UKR) – Baia Mare – Zalau Constanta – Vama Veche (BGR) Zalau – Cluj Napoca – Brasov – Ploiesti – Bucuresti

The Russian Federation (RUS) Moskva – Nizhny Novgorod Moskva – St. Petersburg Moskva – Smolensk – Krasnoye (BLR) Moskva – Jaroslavl – Vologda Moskva – Brjansk – Kalinovka (UKR) St. Petersburg – Pskov – Lobok (BLR) Moskva – Tambov – Borisoglebsk – Volgograd Kozino (UKR) – Kursk – Voronezh – Borisoglebsk – Saratov Donetsk (UKR) – Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy – Morozovsk – Volgograd – Astrakhan Novoshakhtinsk (UKR) – Mayskiy – Rostov na Donu – Pavlovskaya – Novorossiysk – Adler (GEO) Pavlovskaya – Pyatigorsk – Vladikavkaz – Groznyy – Makhachkala Vladikavkaz – Verkhniy Lars (GEO) Karaozek (KAZ) – Astrakhan – Makhachkala – Novogaptsakh (AZE) Kaliningrad – Nesterov – Chernyshevskoye (LTU) Kaliningrad – Mamonovo (POL)

Serbia (SRB) Horgos (HUN) – Novi Sad – Beograd – Batocina – Nis – Dimitrovgrad (BGR) Beograd – Batrovci (HRV) Nis – Leskovac – Presevo (MKD) Beograd – Vrsac (ROU) Mokra Gora (BIH) – Uzice – Kraljevo – Nis Beograd – Pozega – Uzice – Boljare (MNE) Kraljevo – Kragujevac – Batocina

Slovakia (SVK) Kuty (CZE) – Bratislava – Rusovce (HUN) Bratislava Petrzalka (AUT) – Trnava – Zilina – Kosice – Vysne Nemecke (UKR) Skalite (POL) – Zilina Ruzomberok – Zvolen – Sahy (HUN) Vysny Komarnik (POL) – Presov – Kosice – Milhost (HUN) Trstena (POL) – Dolny Kubin – Ruzomberok

25 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Slovenia (SVN) Koper – Divaca – Ljubljana – Novo Mesto – Obrezje (HRV) Sezana (ITA) – Divaca Postojna/Divaca – Jelsane (HRV) Sentilj (AUT) – Maribor – Gruskovje (HRV) Ljubljana – Maribor – Pince (HUN) Ljubljana – Jesenice (AUT) Koper – Smarje – Dragonja (HRV) Turkey (TUR) Kapikule (BGR) – Istanbul – Gerede – Ankara – Refahiye – Askale – Horasan – Gurbulak (IRN) Gerede – Suluova – Samsun – Trabzon – Sarp (GEO) Trabzon – Askale Izmir – Afyon – Ankara Suluova – Amasya – Refahiye Ankara – Tarsus – Adana – Toprakkale – Gaziantep – Sanliurfa – Habur (IRQ) Toprakkale – Iskenderun – Yayladagi (SYR) Tarsus – Mersin Izmir – Balikesir – Bursa – Yalova – Gebze Sanliurfa – Diyarbakir – Bitlis – Dogubayazit Izmir – Cesme Izmir – Aydin – Denizli – Antalya Afyon – Konya – Eregli – E 90 road junction Horasan – Kars – Turkgozu (GEO) Kinali 1 junction – Tekirdag – Ipsala (GRC) Ukraine (UKR) Chop (HUN) – Užhorod (SVK) – Mukaceve – Stryj – Lviv – Kyjiv – Kharkïv – Debaltseve – Dovzhanskiy (RUS) Stryj – Ternopil – Uman – Dnipropetrovsk – Doneck – Debaltseve – Krasnodon (RUS) Ternopil – Porubne (ROU) Novi Yarylovychi (BLR) – Kipti – Kyjiv – Uman – Demydivka – Odesa Demydivka – Poplavka (MDA) Odesa – Kuchurhan (MDA) Kipti – Konotop – Hluchov – Zarutske/Bachivsk (RUS) Starovoitove (POL) – Kovel – Korosten – Kyjiv Rava-Ruska (POL) – Lviv Krakovets (POL) – Lviv Nevetlenfolu (ROU) – Berehove – Mukaceve

2.2 Revised TER Master Plan backbone network

Albania (ALB) Hani-i-Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Vore – Tirana Vore – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Lin (MKD) Rrogozhine – Vlore

26 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Armenia (ARM) Ayrum – Gyumri – Masis – Yerevan Masis – Yeraskh Meghri – Niuvedi Austria (AUT) Salzburg – Bischofshofen – Schwarzach – Spittal am der Dran – Villach – Rosenbach (SVN) Wernstein am Inn (DEU) – Neumarkt – Wels – Linz – St. Valentin – St. Polten – Wien Linz – Salzburg – Innsbruck – Bregenz Wien – Parndorf – Nickelsdorf (HUN)/Kittsee (SVK) Wien – Bruck an der Mur – Klagenfurt – Villach – Arnoldstein (ITA) Wien – Hohenau – Bernhardsthal (CZE) Summerau (CZE) – Linz – Selzthal – St. Michael – Leoben – Bruck an der Mur – Graz – Spielfeld (SVN) Innsbruck – Brenner (ITA) Baumgarten im Burgenland (HUN) – Ebenfurth – Wien Klagenfurt – Koralm – Graz – Jennersdorf (HUN) Azerbaijan (AZE) Baku – Yalama (RUS) Baku – Osmanly – Astara Baku – Ganca – Boyuk-Kesik (GEO) Osmanly – Horadiz – Agband (ARM) Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM) Belarus (BLR) Orsha (RUS) – Minsk – Brest (POL) Gudagai (LTU) – Homyel (UKR) Ezjaryszcza (RUS) – Vitebsk – Asipoviczy Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH) Samac/Bosanski Samac (HRV) – Doboj – Zenica – Sarajevo – Konjic – Mostar – Capljina (HRV) – Dobrljin (HRV) – Bosanski Novi – Banja Luka – Doboj – Bosanska Poljana – Zvornik (SRB) – Capljina – Trebinje – MNE Bulgaria (BGR) Vidin (ROU) – Mezdra – Sofia – Pernik – Radomir – Dupniza – Kulata (GRC) Russe (ROU) – Gorna Oriahovitza – Dubovo – Stara Zagora – Dimitrovgrad – Svilengrad (GRC, TUR) Dragoman (SRB) – Sofia – Mezdra – Pleven – G. Oriahovitza – Kaspichan – Sindel – Varna Sofia – Plovdiv – Dimitrovgrad Stara Zagora – Karnobat – Burgas Radomir – Gjusevo (MKD) Croatia (HRV) (HUN) Koprivnica – Zagreb – Ostarije – Rijeka Rijeka – Sapjane (SVN) Ostarije – Gospic – Knin – Perkovic – Split Knin – Zadar

27 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Perkovic – Sibenik (HUN) Beli Manastir – Osijek – Slavonski Samac (BIH) – (BIH) Metkovic – Ploce (SVN) Savski Marof – Zagreb – Novska – Vinkovci – Tovarnik (SRB) Zagreb – Sisak – Sunja – Novska Sunja – Volinja (BIH) (SVN) Cakovec – Kotoriba (HUN)

The Czech Republic (CZE) Decin (DEU) – Ustí nad Labem – Lovosice – Kralupy – Praha – Kolin – Pardubice – Ceska Trebova – Brno – Breclav (AUT, SVK) Petrovice u Karvine (POL) – Bohumin (POL) – Ostrava – Prerov – Breclav (AUT, SVK) Cheb (DEU) – Plzen – Beroun – Praha – Kolin – Pardubice – Olomouc – Prerov – Ostrava – Mosty u Jablunkova (SVK) Lichkov (POL) – Usti nad Orlici – Pardubice – Kolin – Praha – Benesov – Tabor – Veseli nad Luznici – Ceské Budejovice – Horni Dvoriste (AUT) Prerov – Brno Hranice na Morave – Horní Lidec (SVK)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD) Tabanovce (SRB) – Kumarovo – Skopje – Titov Veles Titov Veles – Kremenica (GRC) Titov Veles – Gevgelija (GRC) Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka (BGR) Skopje – Kicevo – Struga (ALB)

Georgia (GEO) Gantiadi (RUS) – Achadara – Gali – Abasha – Batumi Abasha – Poti Abasha – Agara – Gori – Kaspi – Tbilisi – Sadakhlo (ARM) Tbilisi – Gardabani (AZE) Tbilisi – Akhalkalaki – Kartsakhi (TUR)

Greece (GRC) Dikea (BGR) – Alexandroupoli – Thessaloniki Promachonas (BGR) – Thessaloniki – Athina Thessaloniki – Idomeni (MKD) Neos Kafkasos (MKD) – Plati

Hungary (HUN) Sopron (AUT) – Gyor – Budapest Budapest – Hatvan – Miskolc – Nyiregyhaza – Zahony (UKR) Felsozsolca – Hidasnemeti (SVK) Oriszentpeter (SVN) – Zalalovo – Zalaegerszeg – Ukk – Boba – Szekesfehervar – Budapest Budapest – Szolnok – Szajol – Puspokladany – Biharkeresztes (ROU) Szajol – Bekescsaba – Lokoshaza (ROU) Szob (SVK) – Budapest Budapest – Pusztaszabolcs – Dombovar – Pecs – Magyarboly (HRV) Budapest – Kelebia (SRB) Dombovar – Gyekenyes (HRV) Gyor – Hegyeshalom (AUT)

28 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Hegyeshalom – Rajka (SVK) Szentgotthard (AUT) – Szombathely – Boba Murakeresztur (HRV) – Nagykanizsa – Szekesfehervar Puspokladany Debrecen – Nyiregyhaza Italy (ITA) Villa Opicina (SVN) – Trieste – Venezia – Bologna – Ancona – Roma Verona – Venezia Brennero (AUT) – Verona – Bologna Tarvisio (AUT) – Udine Lithuania (LTU) Kena (BLR) – Kaisiadorys – Klaipeda Kaisiadorys – Kybartai (RUS) Radviliskis – Pagegiai (RUS) Mockava (POL) – Kazlu Ruda – Palemonas – Gaiziunai – Siauliai – Joniskis (LVA) The Republic of Moldova (MDA) Ungheni (ROU) – Chisinau – Tighina – Bender (UKR) Reni (UKR) – Besarabeasca – Cainari – Chisinau Montenegro (MNE) Bijelo Polje (SRB) – Podgorica – Tuzi (ALB) BIH – Niksic – Podgorica Podgorica – Bar Poland (POL) Gdynia – Gdansk – Tczew – Malbork/Bydgoszcz – Warszawa – Myslowice – Zebrzydowice (CZE) Trakiszki (LTU) – Suwalki – Sokolka/Elk – Bialystok – Warszawa Rzepin (DEU) – Poznan – Warszawa/Mszczonow – Lukow – Terespol (BLR) Warszawa – Dorohusk (UKR) Wroclaw – Miedzylesie (CZE) Zgorzelec/Wegliniec (DEU) – Wroclaw – Opole – Kedzierzyn Kozle – Katowice – Krakow– Medyka (UKR) Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Kostrzyn/Poznan – Wroclaw – Opole – Chalupki (CZE) Malbork – Braniewo (RUS) Zwardon (SVK) – Czechowice-Dziedzice Muszyna (SVK) – Tarnow Poznan – Inowroclaw Romania (ROU) Episcopia Bihor (HUN) – Oradea– Poieni – Cluj – Apahida – Alba Iulia – Copsa M. – Brasov – Ploiesti Vicsani (UKR) – Suceava – Pascani – Adjud – Marasesti – Buzau – Ploiesti Ploiesti – Bucuresti – Giurgiu (BGR) Bucuresti – Fetesti – Medgidia – Constanta Bucuresti – Videle – Craiova – Drobeta Turnu Severin – Timisoara – Arad – Curtici (HUN) Craiova – Calafat (BGR)

29 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Stamora (SRB) – Timisoara Arad – Alba Iulia Arad – Oradea – Halmeu (UKR) Pascani – Iasi – Cristesti Jijia (MDA) Buzau – Faurei – Braila – Galati – Giurgiulesti (UKR) Vintu de Jos – Sibiu – Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti – Bucuresti Bucuresti – Armasesti – Urziceni – Faurei Satu Mare – Beclean – Deda – Adjud Razboeni – Targu Mures – Deda Beclean – Suceava Simeria – Filiasi Tulcea – Medgidia Constanta – Mangalia The Russian Federation (RUS) Moskva – N. Novgorod – Kotelnich Moskva – St. Petersburg – Buslovskaya (FIN) Moskva – Krasnoye (BLR) Moskva – Suzemka (UKR) Moskva – Ekaterinburg St. Petersburg/Ust-Luga – Vologda – Kotelnich – Perm – Ekaterinburg – Kurgan Vologda – Yaroslavl – Moskva St. Petersburg – Pskov – Dubishche (BLR) Moskva – Voronezh – Rostov na Donu – Krasnodar – Veseloe (GEO) Kavkaz/Novorossiysk – Krasnodar – Volgograd – Saratov – Syzran – Samara – Chelyabinsk – Kurgan Samara – Orenburg – Akbulak (KAZ) Shelayevo (UKR) – Liski – Penza – Syzran – Samara Ryazan – Ruzayevka – Syzran Kochetovka – Rtishchevo – Saratov Matveev Kurgan (UKR) – Rostov na Donu Gukovo (UKR) – Likhaya – Volgograd – Astrakhan (KAZ)/Olya – Makhachkala – Samur (AZE) Mamonovo (POL) – Kaliningrad – Nesterov (LTU) Kaliningrad – Sovetsk (LTU) Serbia (SRB) Stara Pazova – Novi Sad – Subotica (HUN) Beograd – Stara Pazova – Ruma – Sid (HRV) Ruma – Zvornik (BIH) Beograd – Valjevo – Uzice – Vrbnica (MNE) Beograd – Vrsac (ROU) Beograd – Nis Nis – Leskovac – Presevo (MKD) Nis – Pirot – Dimitrovgrad (BGR) Stalac – Kraljevo – Pozega Lapovo – Kraljevo

30 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Slovakia (SVK) Kuty (CZE) – Malacky – Devinska Nova Ves – Bratislava Petrzalka (AUT) – Rusovce (HUN) Zilina – Puchov – Nove Mesto nad Vahom – Leopoldov – Bratislava/Galanta Bratislava – Galanta – Nove Zamky – Sturovo (HUN) Cadca (CZE) – Zilina – Vrutky – Ruzomberok – Kralova Lehota – Poprad – Spisska Nova Ves – Margecany – Kysak – Kosice – Cierna nad Tisou (UKR) Plavec (POL) – Presov – Kysak – Kosice – Cana (HUN) Cadca – Skalite (POL) Luky pod Makytou (CZE) – Puchov Slovenia (SVN) Koper – Divaca – Pivka – Ljubljana – Zidani Most – Pragersko – Ormoz – Murska – Sobota – Puconci – Hodos (HUN) Divaca – Sezana (ITA) Pivka – Ilirska Bistrica (HRV) Ljubljana – Jesenice (AUT) Pragersko – Maribor – Sentilj (AUT) Ormoz – Sredisce (HRV) Ljubljana – Zidani Most – Dobova (HRV) Turkey (TUR) Kapikoy (IRN) – Van – Tatvan – Yolcati – Malatya – Cetinkaya Cetinkaya – Divrigi – Erzurum – Kars – Dogukapi (ARM) (border closed) Kars – Aktas (GEO) Cetinkaya – Sivas – Kalin – Bogazkopru – Kirikkale – Irmak – Ankara – Istanbul – Halkali – Mandra – Pehlivankoy – Kapikule (BGR) Kalin – Yildizeli – Amasya – Samsun Malatya – Narli – Fevzipasa – Toprakkale – Iskenderun Toprakkale – Adana – Yenice – Mersin Eskisehir – Alayunt – Balikesir – Manisa – Izmir Irmak – Zonguldak Balikesir – Bandirma Alayunt – Afyon – Konya – Ulukisla Bogazkopru – Ulukisla – Yenice Afyon – Manisa Afyon – Karakuyu – Aydin – Izmir Fevzipasa – Meydanekbez (SYR) Narli – Gaziantep – Karkamis – Nusaybin (SYR) Karkamis – Cobanbey (SYR) Tekirdag – Muratli Pehlivankoy – Uzunkopru (GRC) Polatli – Konya

31 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

kraine (UKR) Dobrjanka (BLR) – Chernihiv – Kyjiv– Vinnytsya – Khmelnytskyy – Ternopil – Lviv – Mostiska (POL) Zernovo (RUS) – Kyjiv Izov (POL) – Kovel – Kyjiv– Kharkov – Topoli (RUS) Fastiv – Donetsk – Krasnaia Mogila (RUS) Donetsk – Kvashino (RUS) Kovel – Lvov – Chop (HUN, SVK) Djakove (ROU) – Berehove – Vuzlove Vadu Siret (ROU) – Cernivci – Ternopil Zmerinka – Rozdilna (MDA) – Odessa

32 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

3. COMPARISON OF THE MASTER PLAN BACKBONE NETWORKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS

The tables in chapters 3.1 and 3.2 include the results of link-by-link and country-by-country detailed comparisons of the revised TEM and TER backbone networks together with the following: • the lines from the final report of the EU HLG on the extension of the major Trans-European multimodal transport axes and trans-national axes to the neighbouring countries and regions [out of the five axes defined by the Group, three of them (i.e. the Northern, Central and South- Eastern axes) were subjected to this comparison since the two remaining ones (the motorways of the sea and the South-Western axis) were of no relevance to this final report]; • the lines included in the EU TEN-T according to the Corrigendum to Decision 884/2004/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (Official Journal of the EU Volume 47 - 7 June 2004) as well as the lines from the Accession Treaties of the TEM and TER Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007; • the road and rail routes defined in the framework of the 1st phase of the Euro-Asian Transport Linkages (EATL) project, developed jointly by the UNECE and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP); • the links of E road and E rail networks according to the European Agreements on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) and Main International Railway Lines (AGC). Note: In the tables in 3.1 and 3.2, “X” indicates “compatible” backbone road and rail links in the revised Master Plan which overlap with other international networks over a substantial part of their length but not over their full length.

33 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

3.1 TEM backbone network

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Hani Hotit Tirana (MNE)

Morina Fushe Kruja

Qafe Thana Tirana X (MKD) Albania Kapshtica Perrenjas (GRC)

Kakavija Rrogozhine (GRC)

Fier Vlore

Bavra Yerevan X (GEO)

Bagratashen Armenia Yerevan X X X (GEO)

Meghri Yerevan X X (IRN)

Salzburg Wien X X (DEU)

Arnoldstein Wien X X (ITA)

Wien Parndorf X X

Nickelsdorf Parndorf X X (HUN)

Austria Kittsee Parndorf X X (SVK)

Spielfeld Sattledt X X (SVN)

Wullowitz Linz X X (CZE)

Drasenhofen Wien X X (CZE)

Karawanken tunnel Villach X X X (SVN)

Samur Baku X X (RUS)

Astara Alat X X (IRN)

Red bridge Azerbaijan Baku X X X (GEO)

Agband Baku X X (ARM)

Kerchivan Sadarak X X X (ARM) (ARM)

34 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Jezjarysca Novaja Guta X X (RUS) (UKR)

Belarus Brest Novaja Zjamlja (RUS) X X X (POL)

Kamenny Loh (LTU) Homyel X X X

Vardiste Sarajevo X (SRB)

Samac/Bosanski Samac Bijaca X X (HRV) (HRV)

Bosnia and Gradiska/Bosanska Jajce X Herzegovina Gradiska (HRV)

Izacic Lasva X (HRV)

Hum Sarajevo X (MNE)

Ruse Haskovo X X (ROU)

Bjala Varna X X

Vidin Sofia X X X (ROU)

Sofia Kulata (GRC) X X

Novo Selo Svilengrad X X Bulgaria (GRC) Kalotina Kapitan Andreevo X X X X (SRB) (TUR)

Gjusevo Daskalovo X X X X (MKD)

Orizovo Burgas X X X X

Sofia Bjala X X X

Burgas Durankulak (ROU) X X

Gorican Zagreb X (HUN)

Macelj Zagreb X (SVN)

Croatia Zagreb Bosiljevo X Bosiljevo Ploce X

Rupa Bosiljevo X (SVN)

Matulji Pula X

35 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Plovanija Kanfanar X (SVN)

Bregana Lipovac X X (SVN) (SRB)

Knezevo Slavonski Samac X X (HUN) (BIH) Croatia Metkovic Ploce X X (BIH)

Licko Petrovo Selo Karlovac X (BIH)

Donji Varos Okucani X (BIH)

Cinovec (DEU) Praha X X

Praha Lanzhot (SVK) X X

Rozvadov Praha X X (DEU)

The Czech Republic Dolni Dvoriste Praha X X (AUT)

Cesky Tesin/Vernovice Mikulov X X (POL) (AUT)

Kralovec Praha X X (POL)

Tabanovce Gevgelija X X (SRB) (GRC)

Debar Miladinovci X X (ALB)

The former Yugoslav Medzitlija Veles Republic of Macedonia (GRC)

Kriva Palanka Kumanovo X X (BGR)

Mali Vlaj Bitola X (ALB)

Leselidze Tsiteli Khidi X X X (RUS) (AZE)

Sarpi Senaki X X X (TUR) Georgia Larsi Sadakhlo X X (RUS) (ARM)

Arali Khashuri (TUR)

36 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Korinthos Kalamata X X

Tripolis Githeion X

Ktismata X Ioannina X (ALB)

Kristalopigi X Paleokastro (ALB)

Niki X Kozani X (MKD)

Evzoni X Athinai X X Greece (MKD)

Korinthos Patra X X

Rio Ioannina X X

Igoumenitsa Klidi X X X

Ormenio X Chalastra X X (BGR)

Thessaloniki Promachonas (BGR) X X

Kipi X Peplos X X (TUR)

Hegyeshalom Budapest X X (AUT)

Letenye Budapest X X (HRV)

Rajka Level X X (SVK)

Nagylak Szeged X X (ROU)

Zahony Budapest X X (UKR)

Hungary Budapest Szeged X X X

Roszke Szeged X X X (SRB)

Udvar Budapest X X X (HRV)

Tornyosnemeti Istvanmajor X X (SVK)

Hont Budapest X X (SVK)

Tornyiszentmiklos Letenye X X (SVN)

37 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Coccau X Palmanova X (AUT)

Trieste/Fernetti X Palmanova X (SVN)

Padova Brindisi X X

Iselle X Italy Alessandria X (CHE)

Ventimiglia X Alessandria X (FRA)

Alessandria Palmanova X X

Bardonecchia X Alessandria X (FRA)

Sangruda Kaunas X X X X (POL)

Salociai Sitkunai X X (LVA)

Medininkai Lithuania Klaipeda X X X X (BLR)

Kybartai Marijampole X X X X (RUS)

Klaipeda Vilnius X X X (via Siauliai)

Leuseny Dobau X X The Republic of (ROU) (UKR) Moldova Pervomaise Chisinau X X (UKR)

Donje Krusevo Bozaj X (BIH) (ALB) Montenegro Metanjac Bar X (SRB)

Olszyna X Krzyzowa X (DEU)

Piotrkow Trybunalski Bialystok X X

Zwardon X Bielsko Biala (SVK)

Hrebenne X Warszawa X Poland (UKR)

Dorohusk X Piaski X (UKR)

Gdansk X Sosnica X

Gorzyczki X Sosnica (CZE)

38 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Swiecko Terespol X X X (DEU) (BLR)

Jedrzychowice Korczowa X X X (DEU) (UKR)

Cieszyn X Pyrzowice X (CZE)

Chyzne X Gdansk X (SVK)

Budzisko Ostrow Mazowiecka Poland (LTU)

Wroclaw Grudziadz (A1) X X

Barwinek Kuznica Bialostocka (SVK) (BLR)

Lubawka X Swinoujscie X (CZE)

Wroclaw Lodz X X

Grzechotki X Elblag (RUS)

Timisoara Moravita (SRB) X X

Bucuresti Lugoj X X X (via Craiova)

Craiova Calafat (BGR) X X X

Marasesti Giurgiu (BGR) X X X

Marasesti Siret (UKR) X X

Romania Marasesti Albita (MDA) X X X

Nadlac (HUN) Bucuresti X X X

Bucuresti Constanta X X X

Halmeu (UKR) Zalau X X

Vama Veche Constanta X X (BGR)

Zalau Bucuresti X X

Moskva Nizhny Novgorod X X X

Moskva Vologda X X X The Russian Federation Kalinovka Moskva X X X (UKR)

Moskva Volgograd X X

39 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Kozino Saratov X X (UKR) Donetsk Astrakhan X X (UKR)

Novogaptsakh Karaozek X X (AZE) (KAZ)

Lobok St. Petersburg X X (BLR)

Krasnoye Moskva X X X (BLR)

The Russian Federation St. Petersburg Moskva X X X

Chernyshevskoye Kaliningrad X X X (LTU)

Novoshakhtinsk Adler X X (UKR) (GEO)

Verkhniy Lars Vladikavkaz X (GEO)

Pavlovskaya Makhachkala X X

Mamonovo Kaliningrad (POL)

Vrsac Beograd X (ROU) Mokra Gora Nis X (BIH) Batrovci Beograd X X (HRV)

Horgos Dimitrovgrad Serbia X X (HUN) (BGR)

Presevo Nis X X (MKD)

Boljare Beograd X (MNE)

Kraljevo Batocina

Petrzalka/Bratislava Vysne Nemecke X X (AUT) (UKR)

Kuty Rusovce X X (CZE) (HUN)

Skalite Zilina X X (POL) Slovakia Sahy Ruzomberok X X (HUN)

Vysny Komarnik Milhost X X (POL) (HUN)

Trstena Ruzomberok X (POL)

40 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Sezana Divaca X X (ITA)

Jelsane Postojna/Divaca X X (HRV)

Obrezje Koper X X X (HRV)

Sentilj Gruskovje Slovenia X X (AUT) (HRV)

Pince Ljubljana X X (HUN)

Jesenice Ljubljana X X X (AUT)

Dragonja Koper X X (HRV)

Sarp Gerede X X X (GEO)

Trabzon Askale X

Kapikule Ankara X X X (BGR)

Gurbulak Ankara X X X (IRN)

Yayladagi Toprakkale X (SYR)

Habur Ankara X X (IRQ)

Suluova Refahiye X X X

Turkey Sanliurfa Dogubayazit X

Tarsus Mersin X X

Izmir Gebze X

Izmir Ankara X

Izmir Cesme X

Izmir Antalya X

Afyon E 90 road junction X

Turkgozu Horasan X X X (GEO)

Ipsala Kinali 1 junction X X (GRC)

41 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TEM backbone network links

From To axis Country network Part of HLG (country border) (country border) Part of EATL transnational Part of TEN-T Part of E road

Starovoitove Kyjiv X X (POL)

Rava-Ruska Lviv X (POL)

Stryj Uman X X

Krasnodon Uman X X (RUS)

Porubne Ternopil X (ROU)

Poplavka Demydivka X (MDA)

Kuchurhan Odesa X X Ukraine (MDA)

Krakovets Lviv X X X (POL)

Chop Kyjiv X X (HUN)

Novi Yarylovychi Odesa X X (BLR)

Zarutske/Bachivsk Kipti X X (RUS)

Dovzhanskiy Kyjiv X X (RUS)

Nevetlenfolu Mukaceve (ROU)

42 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

3.2 TER backbone network

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Hani i Hotit Tirana (MNE)

Albania Lin X Vore (MKD)

Rrogozhine Vlore

Ayrum Yerevan X X X (GEO)

Yeraskh Armenia Masis X (AZE)

Meghri Niuvedi X (AZE) (AZE)

Wernstein am Inn Wien X X (DEU)

Rosenbach Salzburg X X X (SVN)

Linz Bregenz X X

Nickelsdorf Wien X X (HUN)

Kittsee Parndorf X X (SVK)

Summerau Spielfeld X X Austria (CZE) (SVN) Arnoldstein Wien X X (ITA)

Bernhardsthal Wien X X (CZE)

Brenner Innsbruck X X (ITA)

Baumgarten im Burgenland Wien X (HUN)

Jennersdorf Klagenfurt X (HUN)

Yalama Baku X (RUS)

Baku Astara X

Boyuk-Kesik Baku X X X Azerbaijan (GEO)

Agband Osmanly X (ARM)

Kerchivan Sadarak X (ARM) (ARM)

43 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Ezjaryszcza Asipoviczy X (RUS)

Brest Orsha Belarus X X X (POL) (RUS)

Gudagai Homyel X X X (LTU) (UKR)

Dobrljin Zvornik (HRV) (SRB)

Bosnia and Herzegovina Samac/Bosanski Samac Capljina X X (HRV) (HRV)

Capljina MNE

Russe Svilengrad X X X (ROU) (TUR and GRC)

Dragoman Sofia X X X X (SRB)

Sofia Varna X X X

Bulgaria Vidin Kulata X X (ROU) (GRC)

Sofia Dimitrovgrad X X X X

Stara Zagora Burgas X X X X

Gjusevo Radomir X X X (MKD)

Koprivnica Rijeka X (HUN)

Sapjane Rijeka X (SVN)

Ostarije Split X

Knin Zadar X

Perkovic Sibenik X

Beli Manastir Croatia Ploce X X (HUN)

Savski Marof Tovarnik X X (SVN) (SRB)

Novska Zagreb X (via Sisak)

Volinja Sunja X (BIH)

Cakovec Kotoriba X (SVN) (HUN)

44 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Decin Breclav X X (DEU) (AUT and SVK)

Petrovice u Karvine Breclav X X (POL) (AUT and SVK)

Cheb Mosty u Jablunkova X X The Czech Republic (DEU) (SVK) Lichkov Horni Dvoriste X X (POL) (AUT)

Prerov Brno X

Horni Lidec Hranice na Morave X X (SVK)

Tabanovce Titov Veles X X (SRB)

Kremenica Titov Veles (GRC)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Gevgelija Titov Veles X X Macedonia (GRC)

Kriva Palanka Kumanovo X (BGR)

Struga Skopje X (ALB)

Gantiadi Batumi X X X (RUS)

Kartsakhi Tbilisi X (TUR)

Georgia Sadakhlo Abasha X X X (ARM)

Gardabani Tbilisi X X X (AZE)

Abasha Poti X X X

Dikea Thessaloniki X X (BGR)

Promachonas Athina X X (BGR) Greece Idomeni Thessaloniki X X X (MKD)

Neos Kafkasos Plati X (MKD)

45 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Sopron Budapest X (AUT)

Zahony Budapest X X (UKR)

Hidasnemeti Felsozsolca X X (SVK)

Oriszentpeter Szekesfehervar X (SVN)

Biharkeresztes Budapest X X (ROU)

Lokoshaza Szajol X X (ROU)

Magyarboly Budapest X X X (HRV)

Hungary Kelebia Budapest X X X (SRB)

Szob Budapest X X (SVK)

Gyekenyes Dombovar X X X (HRV)

Hegyeshalom Gyor X X (AUT)

Rajka Hegyeshalom X (SVK)

Szentgotthard Boba X (AUT)

Murakeresztur Budapest X X (HRV)

Puspokladany Nyiregyhaza X X

Tarvisio Udine X X (AUT)

Villa Opicina Roma X X Italy (SVN) Verona Venezia X X

Brennero Bologna X X (AUT)

Mockava Joniskis X X (POL) (LVA)

Kena Klaipeda X X X (BLR) Lithuania Kybartai Kaisiadorys X X X (RUS)

Pagegiai Radviliskis X (RUS)

46 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Ungheni Bender X X (ROU) (UKR) The Republic of Moldova Reni Chisinau X X (UKR)

Bijelo Polje Tuzi X (SRB) (ALB) Montenegro (BIH) Podgorica

Podgorica Bar X

Gdynia Warszawa X X

Trakiszki Warszawa X X (LTU)

Warszawa Katowice X X

Terespol Warszawa X X X (BLR)

Dorohusk Warszawa X X (UKR)

Rzepin Warszawa X X X (DEU)

Miedzylesie Wroclaw X X (CZE)

Wegliniec (DEU) Krakow X X X Poland Chalupki Swinoujscie X X (CZE)

Braniewo Malbork X (RUS)

Medyka Krakow X X X (UKR)

Tczew Gliwice X

Zebrzydowice Katowice X X (CZE)

Zwardon Czechowice- X X (SVK) Dziedzice

Poznan Inowroclaw X

Muszyna Tarnow X X (SVK)

47 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Episcopia Bihor Ploiesti X X X (HUN)

Vicsani Ploiesti X X X (UKR)

Giurgiu Ploiesti X X X (BGR)

Bucuresti Constanta X X X

Curtici Bucuresti X X X (HUN)

Calafat Craiova X X (BGR)

Stamora Timisoara X (SRB)

Arad Alba Iulia X X X

Romania Halmeu Arad X X (UKR)

Pascani Cristesti Jijia (MDA) X X X

Giurgiulesti Buzau X X (UKR)

Vintu de Jos Bucuresti X

Bucuresti Faurei

Satu Mare Adjud X

Razboeni Deda

Beclean Suceava X

Simeria Filiasi

Tulcea Medgidia

Constanta Mangalia

Moskva Kotelnich X X X

Buslovskaya Moskva X X X (FIN)

Suzemka Moskva X X X (UKR)

Krasnoye Moskva X X X The Russian Federation (BLR)

Moskva Ekaterinburg X

St. Petersburg Kurgan X X X

Vologda Moskva X

Dubishche St. Petersburg (BLR)

48 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Veseloe Moskva X (GEO)

Kavkaz/Novorossiysk Kurgan

Akbulak Samara X (KAZ)

Shelayevo Samara X X X (UKR)

Ryazan Syzran X

Kochetovka Saratov X The Russian Federation Matveev Kurgan Rostov na Donu X X X (UKR)

Gukovo(UKR) Astrakhan/Olya X X

Samur Astrakhan (AZE)

Mamonovo Nesterov X (POL) (LTU)

Sovetsk Kaliningrad (LTU)

Subotica Stara Pazova X X (HUN)

Sid Beograd X X (HRV)

Zvornik Ruma (BIH)

Vrbnica Beograd X (MNE)

Vrsac Serbia Beograd X (ROU)

Beograd Nis X X

Presevo Nis X X (MKD)

Dimitrovgrad Nis X X (BGR)

Stalac Pozega

Lapovo Kraljevo X

49 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Bratislava Petrzalka/ Kuty Rusovce X X (CZE) (AUT and HUN)

Zilina Bratislava/Galanta X X

Sturovo Bratislava X X (HUN)

Cadca Cierna nad Tisou Slovakia X X (CZE) (UKR)

Plavec Cana X X (POL) (HUN)

Skalite Cadca X X (POL)

Luky pod Makytou Puchov X X (CZE)

Sezana Divaca X X (ITA)

Hodos Koper X X (HUN)

Ilirska Bistrica Pivka X X (HRV)

Jesenice Slovenia Ljubljana X X X (AUT)

Sentilj Pragersko X X (AUT)

Sredisce Ormoz X X (HRV)

Dobova Ljubljana X X X (HRV)

Kapikoy Cetinkaya X X X (IRN)

Dogukapi Cetinkaya (ARM) X X X (border closed)

Aktas Kars X X (GEO)

Kapikule Turkey Cetinkaya X X X (BGR)

Samsun Kalin X X X

Malatya Iskenderun X X X

Toprakkale Mersin X X X

Eskisehir Izmir X X

Irmak Zonguldak

50 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TER backbone network links Part of HLG Part of Part of Part of trans- E rail From To EATL TEN-T Country (country border) (country border) national network axis

Balikesir Bandirma X

Alayunt Ulukisla X X

Bogazkopru Yenice X X

Afyon Manisa X X

Afyon Izmir

Meydanekbez Fevzipasa X X X (SYR) Turkey Nusaybin Narli X X (SYR)

Cobanbey Karkamis X (SYR)

Tekirdag Muratli

Uzunkopru Pehlivankoy X (GRC)

Polatli Konya

Mostiska Dobrjanka X X X (POL) (BLR)

Zernovo Kiev X X X (RUS)

Izov Piski X X X (POL) (RUS)

Sverdlovsk Fastiv X X (RUS)

Ukraine Amvrosyivka Donetsk X X X (RUS)

Chop Kovel X X X (HUN and SVK)

Djakove Vuzlove X (ROU)

Vadu Siret Ternopil X (ROU)

Zmerinka Odessa X X X

51 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

3.3 Summary The main conclusion drawn from these comparisons is that almost all sections of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone network in the participating countries are compatible with the E road and E rail networks. The same conclusion applies to the EU member countries and the TEN-T network of the EU. The compatibility is also high with respect to the EU HLG trans- national axes as well as with the EATL, taking into account that these links are in general less dense than those in the Master Plan revised backbone network and that these networks (HLG and EATL) cover the territory of only some countries which participated in the Master Plan revision.

52 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

4. MISSING LINKS IN THE BACKBONE NETWORKS

As is for the case for bottlenecks (Cf. Chapters 9.2 and 9.3), there is no widely available and internationally agreed definition of what constitutes a missing link. The existing definitions are even more vague than those of a bottleneck, and allow for a very wide interpretation. For example, the UNECE report TRANS/WP.5/R.60 describes a missing link as “a situation in which the quality of service has extreme low values due to the fact that no direct link exists between two points”. Two other documents deal with the identification of missing links; one of them (mentioned in chapter 1), the UNECE document “Methodological Basis for the Definition of Common Criteria regarding the Identification of Bottlenecks, Missing Links and Quality of Service in Infrastructure Networks”, deals with the identification in a theoretical and general way only. The maps of the TENCONNECT study shown in chapter 9.1 define missing links (green colour) in the road sector as those below motorway standard (2 × 2 lanes, neglecting the fact that in some cases with low traffic flow levels, a 2-lane road may be sufficient even in 2030) and in the rail sector as those below infrastructural standard (single track and/or non-electrified) and having importance for EU cohesion. These simplified criteria seem very questionable since the identified links are in place (i.e. they are not missing) although they have a lower — but sometimes quite satisfactory — standard. Therefore, the same approach as in the case of bottlenecks has been taken, i.e. on a country-by-country basis, use has been made of the data and information provided by the participating countries, distinguishing between two categories of link: (i) links having a networking character (i.e. links which are mostly longer and with a higher share of international traffic) and (ii) short or local missing links. The first category of links (listed in chapters 4.1 and 4.2) has been incorporated in the revised backbone networks of the TEM and TER Master Plan. Some of the local or short missing links are also located on these networks.

4.1 Motorway and road missing links incorporated in the revised TEM backbone network

Albania (ALB) Hani Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Fushe Kruja – Tirana Morina – Kukes – crossing road Lezhe/Fushe Kruja Tirana – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Perrenjas – Qafe Thana (MKD) Kapshtica (GRC) – Pogradec – Perrenjas Kakavija (GRC) – Gjirokaster – Fier – Rrogozhine Fier – Vlore Armenia (ARM) Bavra (GEO) – Gyumri – Yerevan Bagratashen (GEO) – Vanadzor – Yerevan Yerevan – Ararat – Vayk – Goris – Meghri (IRN) Austria (AUT) Villach – Karawanken Tunnel (SVN)

53 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Azerbaijan (AZE) Baku – Sumgayit – Samur (RUS) Alat – Astara (IRN) Baku – Ganja – Gazakh – Boyuk – Red bridge (GEO) Baku – Alat – Horadiz – Agband (ARM) Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM) Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH) Jajce – Banja Luka – Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (HRV) Izacic (HRV) – Bihac – Jajce – Travnik – Lasva Sarajevo – Foca – Hum (MNE) Bulgaria (BGR) Varna – Durankulak (ROU) Botevgrad – Bjala Croatia (HRV) Licko Petrovo Selo (BIH) – Karlovac Okucani – Donji Varos (BIH) The Czech Republic (CZE) Praha – Hradec Kralove – Kralovec (POL) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD) Bitola – Ohrid – Podmolje – Struga – Mali Vlaj (ALB) Georgia (GEO) Arali (TUR) – Akhaltsikhe – Khashuri Greece (GRC) Peplos – Kipi (TUR) Hungary (HUN) Tornyosnemeti (SVK) – Miskolc – Istvanmajor Hont (SVK) – Vac – Budapest Tornyiszentmiklos (SVN) – Letenye Lithuania (LTU) Vilnius – Panevezys – Siauliai – Palanga – Klaipeda Montenegro (MNE) Donje Krusevo (BIH) – Podgorica – Bozaj (ALB) Metanjac (SRB) – Bijelo Polje – Podgorica – Bar Poland (POL) Gdansk – Elblag – Warszawa – Kielce – Krakow – Chyzne (SVK) Budzisko (LTU) – Suwalki – Elk – Lomza – Ostrow Mazowiecka Wroclaw – Poznan – Bydgoszcz – Grudziadz (A1) Barwinek (SVK) – Rzeszow – Lublin – Miedzyrzec Podlaski – Bialystok – Kuznica Bialostocka (BLR) Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Gorzow Wielkopolski – Zielona Gora – Legnica – Lubawka (CZE) Wroclaw – Lodz Grzechotki (RUS) – Elblag

54 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Romania (ROU) Halmeu (UKR) – Baia Mare – Zalau Constanta – Vama Veche (BGR) Zalau – Cluj Napoca – Brasov – Ploiesti – Bucuresti The Russian Federation (RUS) Kaliningrad – Mamonovo (POL) Serbia (SRB) Beograd – Pozega – Uzice – Boljare (MNE) Kraljevo – Kragujevac – Batocina Slovakia (SVK) Ruzomberok – Zvolen – Sahy (HUN) Vysny Komarnik (POL) – Presov – Kosice – Milhost (HUN) Trstena (POL) – Dolny Kubin – Ruzomberok Slovenia (SVN) Ljubljana – Maribor – Pince (HUN) Ljubljana – Jesenice – Karavanke (AUT) Koper – Smarje – Dragonja (HRV) Sentilj – Maribor – Gruskovje (HRV) Koper – Divaca Ukraine (UKR) Nevetlenfolu (ROU) – Berehove – Mukaceve

4.2 Railway missing links incorporated in the revised TER backbone network

Albania (ALB) Hani-i-Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Vore – Tirana Vore – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Lin (MKD) Rrogozhine – Vlore Armenia (ARM) Ayrum – Gyumri – Masis – Yerevan Masis – Yeraskh Meghri – Niuvedi Austria (AUT) Baumgarten im Burgenland (HUN) – Ebenfurth – Wien Klagenfurt – Koralm – Graz – Jennersdorf (HUN) Azerbaijan (AZE) Baku – Yalama (RUS) Baku – Osmanly – Astara Baku – Ganca – Boyuk-Kesik (GEO) Osmanly – Horadiz – Agband (ARM) Kerchivan – Sadarak (ARM)

55 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH) Dobrljin (HRV) – Bosanski Novi – Banja Luka – Doboj – Bosanska Poljana – Zvornik (SRB) Capljina – Trebinje – MNE Croatia (HRV) Zagreb – Sisak – Sunja – Novska Sunja – Volinja (BIH) (SVN) Cakovec – Kotoriba (HUN) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD) Skopje – Kicevo – Struga (ALB) Greece (GRC) Neos Kafkasos (MKD) – Plati Hungary (HUN) Gyor – Hegyeshalom (AUT) Hegyeshalom – Rajka (SVK) Szentgotthard (AUT) – Szombathely – Boba Murakeresztur (HRV) – Nagykanizsa – Szekesfehervar Puspokladany – Debrecen – Nyiregyhaza Italy (ITA) Tarvisio (AUT) – Udine The Republic of Moldova (MDA) Reni (UKR) – Besarabeasca – Cainari – Chisinau Montenegro (MNE) Bijelo Polje (SRB) – Podgorica – Tuzi (ALB) BIH – Niksic – Podgorica Poland (POL) Katowice – Zebrzydowice (CZE) Zwardon (SVK) – Czechowice-Dziedzice Muszyna (SVK) – Tarnow ¨ Suwalki – Elk – Bialystok Lowicz – Mszczonow – Lukow Poznan – Inowroclaw Poznan – Szczecin – Swinoujscie Szczecin – Rzepin Opole – Chalupki Romania (ROU) Buzau – Faurei – Braila – Galati – Giurgiulesti (UKR) Vintu de Jos – Sibiu – Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti – Bucuresti Bucuresti – Armasesti – Urziceni – Faurei Satu Mare – Beclean – Deda – Adjud Razboeni – Targu Mures – Deda Beclean – Suceava Simeria – Filiasi Tulcea – Medgidia Constanta – Mangalia

56 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

The Russian Federation (RUS) Kaliningrad – Sovetsk (LTU) Serbia (SRB) Ruma – Zvornik (BIH) Beograd – Valjevo – Uzice – Vrbnica (MNE) Stalac – Kraljevo – Pozega Lapovo – Kraljevo

4.3 Other motorway and road missing links

Road section Remark

Albania (ALB)

Fier – Levan – Tepelene under construction, to be opened in 2011

Thumane – Vore – Rrogozhine planned

Tirana – Bulqize under construction

Central-South Corridor Fushe Kruja – Tepelene planned

Azerbaijan (AZE)

Bridge over river Astarachay (IRN) planned

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)

Podmolje – Bitola planned

Serbia (SRB)

Beograd bypass, section Ibarska – E 75 planned

Map No. 4 shows the locations of these missing links.

4.4 Other railway missing links

Road section Remark

Azerbaijan (AZE)

Astara – IRN programmed

Croatia (HRV)

Matulji – Ucka tunnel – Borut

Map No. 5 shows the locations of these missing links.

57 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

58 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

5. UPDATING OF THE TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR THE BACKBONE NETWORKS

5.1 Past development

Road transport According to European Road Statistics (European Union Road Federation, Brussels 2009), road transport in 25 countries of the EU developed in the period 1995 to 2007 as shown in the following table in which the year 1995 = 100.

Passenger transport Freight transport Year (passenger-km) (tonne-km)

1996 101 102

1997 105 105

1998 109 108

1999 112 111

2000 117 115

2001 119 117

2002 121 118

2003 122 120

2004 128 123

2005 132 125

2006 135 130

2007 137 133

The total road transport growth in the period 1995 to 2007 amounted to 33 % (freight) and to 37 % (passenger), corresponding to an average freight annual growth rate of about 2.4 % and an average passenger annual growth rate of about 2.7 %. Rail transport According to European rail transport core statistics (the UIC report “Rail Transport and Environment: Facts and Figures”, November 2008), the rail freight transport output in 25 countries of the EU increased in the period 1995 to 2005 by 9.2 %, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 0.9 %. The rail passenger transport increase in the same period amounted to 8.6 %, corresponding also to an average annual growth rate of about 0.9 %.

59 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

The respective differences in average annual growth rate in countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan, and listed in the UIC report, in the period between 1995 and 2006 were as shown in the following table.

Country Rail passengers (%) Rail freight (%)

Albania -59 -32

Austria -10 +44

Bulgaria -48 -39

Croatia +44 +67

The Czech Republic -14 -28

The former Yugoslav Republic +62 +263 of Macedonia

Greece +15 +126

MÁV +10 MÁV +16 Hungary GYSEV +74 GYSEV +165

Italy -7 -6

Lithuania -62 +79

Poland -19 -37

Romania -57 -52

Slovakia -48 -29

Slovenia +33 +17

Turkey +1 +7

5.2 Traffic forecast for the TEM and TER Master Plan The road and rail traffic forecast for 2020 based on the year 2000 values was carried out separately for three groups of countries: Group 1: EU member countries before 1 May 2004 — Austria, Greece, Italy Group 2: EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey Group 3: Other TEM and TER Master Plan countries — Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine and for two development scenarios, i.e. the moderate and the optimistic. Transport demand forecasting was performed (a) by analysing the current trends in the transport industry in order to identify existing interrelations between transport demand and the transport-relevant socio-economic parameters (population, GDP and foreign trade) and (b) by using the forecasts of such parameters (population, GDP or any other relevant economic data, such as foreign trade) from the base year 2000 to the target year 2020. The official forecasts for road and rail transport growth were treated as reference/comparison points. The following results were obtained for the three groups.

60 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

• For the EU member countries before 1 May 2004, the two basic factors underlying the forecast of passenger transport were the growing incomes and the growing car ownership, both of which strongly correlated with the expected growth in GDP. For the freight transport forecast, the main underlying factors stimulating the expected growth were the globalization of the economy and the liberalization of the internal market, the evolution of complex trading networks, specialization of production processes and preferences of customers as well as low load factors. The following summary regional trends were expected in the period 2000 to 2020: - annual growth in passenger transport by car: 1.32 % to 1.81 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by bus: 0.03 % to 0.19 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.31 % to 2.55 %; - annual growth in freight transport by road: 3.2 % to 3.38 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 3.43 % to 3.67 %. • For the EU member and acceding countries after 1 May 2004, a negative trend was expected in public passenger transport that was explained by the higher competitiveness of private cars and decreasing accessibility, a consequence of both urban sprawl and somewhat degrading public transportation systems. Concerning freight transport, the shares of road and rail transport were expected to remain about the same owing to the increase in rail transport prices, liberalization and deregulation in road transport as well as capacity expansion of the road infrastructure. The following summary regional trends were expected in the period 2000 to 2020: - annual growth in passenger transport by car: 2.07 % to 3.10 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by bus: -0.01 % to -0.28 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 0.75 % to 1.18 %; - annual growth in freight transport by road: 2.49 % to 2.77 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.57 % to 2.59 %. • In non-EU, non-acceding, countries the following summary regional trends were expected in the period 2000 to 2020: - accumulated road traffic growth: between 187.2 % and 255.6 %; - accumulated rail traffic growth: between 61.2 % and 81.6 %.

61 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

The forecast for the TEM part of the Master Plan forecast contained the following growth rates for the individual countries concerned.

Optimistic scenario growth rate Moderate scenario growth rate (%) (%) Country Mode 1995 2005 2000 1995 2005 2000 2005 2015 2020 2005 2015 2020

Passenger 159 190.80 Bosnia and Herzegovina Freight 172 206.40

Bulgaria 47 38 37.31 47 38 44.77

Passenger 93 111.60 Croatia Freight 159 190.80

The Czech Republic 21 18 15.58 21 18 18.70

The former Yugoslav Republic Passenger 156 187.20 of Macedonia Freight 164 196.80

Hungary 38 20 23.91 38 20 28.69

Lithuania 53 38 40.21 53 38 48.25

Poland 59 38 43.10 59 38 51.72

Romania 117 83 107.94 117 83 129.53

Passenger 171 205.20 Serbia and Montenegro Freight 213 255.60

Slovakia 129 47 85.85 129 47 103.02

Slovenia 27 17 18.11 27 17 21.73

62 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

The forecast for the TER part of the Master Plan contained the following growth rates for the individual countries concerned.

Optimistic scenario growth rate Moderate scenario growth rate (%) (%) Country Mode 1995 2005 2000 1995 2005 2000 2005 2015 2020 2005 2015 2020

Passenger 58 69.60 Bosnia and Herzegovina Freight 51 61.20

Bulgaria 13 14 37.89 13 14 45.47

Passenger 57 68.40 Croatia Freight 48 57.60

The Czech Republic -8 7 15.68 -8 7 18.82

The former Yugoslav Republic Passenger 65 78.00 of Macedonia Freight 57 68.40

Hungary 35 11 65.32 35 11 78.38

Passenger -57 35 18 -51 41 62.00 Lithuania Freight 67 23 91 73 32 109.00

Poland 48 62.71 48 75.25

Passenger 68 81.60 Serbia and Montenegro Freight 60 72.00

Slovakia 8 7 20.90 8 7 25.08

Turkey 37.89 45.47

5.3 Other recent forecasts

ASSESS forecast The ASSESS study (Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term implementation of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010) published in October 2005 provided passenger and freight transport demand forecasts for the years 2010 and 2020 in 25 countries of the EU based on macro-economic and trade assumptions derived from the GDP forecasts. It was based on four scenarios related to the expected degree of implementation of White Paper measures: (i) null scenario; (ii) partial implementation scenario; (iii) full implementation scenario; (iv) extended scenario with some additional measures added [e.g. the introduction of road pricing for passenger cars or of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) technology for rail]. According to the ASSESS study, the forecast market demand for passenger rail transport might increase in the period 2000 to 2020 between 15 % and 29 % (the respective figures being 15 % null scenario, 19 % partial scenario, 20 % full scenario and 29 % extended scenario). The passenger car road transport might in the same period increase between 26 % and 37 % (the respective figures being 36 % null and partial scenarios, 37 % full scenario and 26 % extended

63 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

scenario). The corresponding bus/coach road transport figures were 0 % to 8 % (0 % null and partial scenarios, 3 % full scenario and 8 % extended scenario). The forecast development of freight rail transport in the period 2000 to 2020 was expected to vary between a decrease of 6 % (i.e. -6 %) and an increase of 30 % (the respective figures being -6 % null scenario, 11 % to 13 % partial scenario, 19 % full scenario and 30 % extended scenario). The freight road transport might in the period 2000 to 2020 increase between 32 % and 55 % (the respective figures being 52 % null scenario, 43 % to 55 % partial scenario, 38 % full scenario and 32 % extended scenario). ERIM The ERIM (European Rail Infrastructure Masterplan) of the UIC published in February 2007 was based on all available national and European demand studies (including those mentioned above) as well as on an exchange of views with its member railways in order to establish how the market conditions and the rail offers may translate into future rail traffic growth. The study estimated the rail traffic growth figures for the ERIM network (corresponding mostly to the TER backbone network) between the years 2004 and 2020 in each of the International Road Transport Union (IRU) 32 member countries. The respective figures for countries participating in the revision of the TER Master Plan are listed in the following table.

Passenger growth (%) Freight growth (%)

Country Total Domestic International Total Domestic International

Austria 34 33 39 45 43 46

Bosnia and Herzegovina 400 400 400 800 800 800

Bulgaria 45 45 45 29 29 29

Croatia 35 35 35 176 176 176

The Czech Republic 16 16 16 16 16 16

The former Yugoslav Republic 108 108 108 140 140 140 of Macedonia

Greece 25 25 25 35 35 35

Hungary 65 65 74 80 80 80

Italy 26 25 32 59 58 61

Lithuania 30 30 30 30 30 30

Poland 40 40 44 28 23 38

Romania 18 18 18 18 18 18

Serbia and Montenegro 156 156 156 213 213 213

Slovakia 46 46 46 2 2 2

Slovenia 15 15 15 40 40 40

Turkey 25 25 25 35 35 35

64 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

According to the ERIM (on the basis of the 2005 data), the forecast market demand for passenger rail transport might in the period 2005 to 2020 amount to 35 % (domestic traffic) and 50 % (international traffic), which correspond to an annual growth of 2.0 % and 2.7 % respectively. The forecast market demand for freight rail transport in the period 2005 to 2020 amount to 61 % (domestic traffic) and 68 % (international traffic), which correspond to an annual growth of 3.2 % and 3.5 % respectively. The overall ERIM forecast for passenger rail transport was very similar to the TER Master Plan forecast results and was a little more optimistic than the ASSESS and TEN-STAC results, due inter alia to higher ERIM forecasts in the Balkan countries. The ERIM freight forecast was very close to the results obtained in TEN-STAC and TER Master Plan, while the ASSESS study is more pessimistic in this respect. TRANSvisions “Report on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Horizon” This study, coordinated by Tetraplan A/S (Denmark) and published in March 2009, was aimed at the provision of technical support to a debate on transport scenarios with a 20- and 40- year horizon by • collecting and analysing inter alia information on transport long-term scenario forecasting, • developing long-term transport scenarios including modelling work and case studies, and • suggesting long-term objectives for the European transport policies. Three scenarios were set up: “Baseline” (business as usual), “High growth” and “Low growth”. Descriptions of the scenarios were based as far as possible on assumptions taken from official forecasts, using other assumptions (based on previous developments or assessments) where necessary. The Baseline scenario was basically a prolongation of existing trends until 2020 and 2030. The High growth scenario was based on elements giving priority to EU cohesion (higher economic growth and improvement of infrastructure particularly in EU12) and elements based on competition (each mode of transport paying its own costs). The Low growth scenario reflected, in particular, increasing costs of energy (particularly oil), which resulted in mobility reduction because of higher operating costs. Regarding the socio-economic development, the study assumed that the total EU population would grow from about 491 × 106 in 2005 to almost 496 × 106 in 2020 and then it would remain almost constant up to 2030 (495 × 106). Population in the EU15 would grow slightly from 387 × 106 to 399 × 106, whereas a fall in population was expected in EU12 (from 104 × 106 in 2005 to 96 × 106 in 2030). The economic development up to 2030 was based on the European Commission´s DG-ECFIN Note 253 of June 2006. The economic development in GDP per capita was expected to be fastest in the eastern part of the EU and slower in the western part, in line with the development experienced in the last 10 years. GDP per capita in EU15 in 2005 was about EUR 24,000 in constant 2000 prices, expected to increase to about EUR 37,000 in 2030. In EU12 the GDP per capita was about EUR 5,000 in 2005, expected to increase to about EUR 13,000 in 2030. The ratio between GDP per capita in EU15 and in EU12 would then decrease from 4.7 to 2.9.

65 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

The resulting figures for passenger (passenger-km) and freight (tonne-km) traffic are given in the following table.

Baseline Baseline High growth Low growth Indicator scenario scenario scenario scenario 2020 2030 2030 2030

Annual GDP increase with respect to 2005 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.7

Annual increase in tonne-km (%) 1.9 1.6 1.95 0.6

Annual increase in passenger-km (%) 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.35

It may be noted that the overall growth in both freight and passenger road and rail transport was predicted to be lower than the projected GDP growth rate in all scenarios. As regards rail and road modal share, the rail passenger mode share grew from 10 % in 2005 to between 20 % and 35 % in 2050 (depending on the scenario), whereas the growth of the freight modal share was lower in all scenarios [from 27 % (in 2005) to a maximum of 33 % in 2050], although freight might have some further growth potential after 2050. In general, passenger rail shares grew more than freight rail shares up to 2030, whilst after 2030 the opposite seemed to happen. In the short-term, passenger rail increased in relative terms, due to investments in high- speed lines and an increase in long-distance trips (in passenger-km). In the long-term, rail freight might grow because of the high growth of goods imported from and exported to overseas. The overall conclusion could be drawn that road traffic was expected to remain the dominant transport mode in passenger transport, although it would lose some market share to the benefit of railways. In relation to freight, road transport might also lose some market share, but only marginally. TENCONNECT The TENCONNECT study published in December 2009, coordinated also by Tetraplan A/S (Denmark), provided a coherent forecast for the future traffic flows in the EU and neighbouring countries for 2020 and 2030 with particular focus on flows between old and new Member States, between new Member States, and between the EU and neighbouring countries. The analysis covered all transport modes, including both freight and passenger traffic on links and through nodes with a focus on the TEN-T network. On the basis of this assessment, two scenarios for the situation in 2020 and 2030 were defined: a “Baseline” scenario and a scenario called “Sustainable Economic Development”. The Baseline scenario was a “business as usual” scenario, including infrastructure and policy measures already agreed, and in line with the current trends. The Sustainable Economic Development scenario described a faster economic and demographic development, higher fuel costs and provided for an intensive development of the road and rail networks. Forecasts for all modes for 2020 and 2030 in the Baseline and Sustainable Economic Development scenarios for both freight and passenger transport were produced. Subsequently, these forecasts were then applied for identifying the most important infrastructure axes for cohesion, development of the internal EU market and the relations with neighbouring countries. With regard to the neighbouring countries, the population forecasts were based on the UN 2006 “World Population Prospects”, and the economic forecasts of the UNECE TEM and TER Master Plan. For those countries not covered by the TEM and TER study, the CEPII “The Long Term Growth Prospects of the World Economy: Horizon 2050” (Poncet, 2006) was used. The resulting growth data are given in the following table.

66 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Difference between Sustainable Economic Baseline scenario Baseline scenario Indicator Development and 2005/2020 2005/2030 Baseline scenario in 2030

Road — increase in passenger-km (%) 20 35 6

Rail — increase in passenger-km (%) 44 76 37

Road — increase in tonne-km (%) 27 40 6

Rail — increase in tonne-km (%) 44 70 12

The growth in passenger-km by car (35 %) in the Baseline scenario was slightly higher than the growth in vehicle-km (33 %according to the findings of the study). One of the reasons for this was that the types of trip that were growing the most were those where there were more passengers in the cars (i.e. holiday and private trips). But vehicle-km also included trucks and vans, and tonne-km increased in the study faster than did vehicle-km indicating that utilization and/or empty driving would be reduced in the future. Since the study expected that the number of trips by rail would increase by only 1 %, increases in passenger-km had to be due to longer trip lengths. Constructions of high-speed rail lines would reduce travel times and inspire people to travel to more distant destinations. A change in mode choice from air to rail, in particular, for vacation trips was apparent. Tonne-km by truck in the Baseline scenario was estimated to increase 27 % from 2005 to 2020 and 40 % from 2005 to 2030. Outside EU25 the growth in truck transport was expected to be higher: 44 % from 2005 to 2020 and 80 % from 2005 to 2030. Tonne-km by rail was on average forecast to increase by 44 % from 2005 to 2020 and 70 % from 2005 to 2030 within EU25. Outside EU25, the figures were 75 % and 136 % respectively. According to the Baseline scenario, the forecast traffic growth between 2005 and 2020 in TEM and TER countries participating in the revision of the Master Plan was as shown in the following table.

Passenger growth (%) Freight growth (%) Country Road Rail Road Rail

Austria 21 35 40 35

Bulgaria 50 210 46 127

The Czech Republic 21 20 52 110

Greece 10 45 63 63

Hungary 22 25 46 97

Italy 14 10 19 24

Lithuania 20 1,000 57 72

Poland 22 125 72 96

Romania 47 30 64 132

Slovakia 24 20 55 120

Slovenia 29 240 37 67

67 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

5.4 Comparison of existing forecast results A comparison of the total and annual growth rates forecast by the studies described in chapter 5.3 is shown in the following table (note that the ERIM and TENCONNECT data are related to the 2005 to 2020 period, whereas the other studies covered the 2000 to 2020 period). This comparison of different forecasts is useful to reveal differences and to analyse relative magnitudes, but the consistency of the forecasts is strongly influenced by the fact that the different studies were based on different assumptions and modelling tools.

Annual growth Study Period Mode Total growth rate (%) rate (%)

Passenger 18 to 82 depending on country 0.8 to 2.6 UN TER (rail) 2000 to 2020 Freight 48 to109 depending on country 2.6 to 3.7

Passengera) 93 to 205 depending on country 1.3 to 3.7 UN TEM (road) 2000 to 2020 Freight 159 to 256 depending on country 2.5 to 3.4

Passenger 22 1.0 ASSESS rail 2000 to 2020 Freight 12 0.6

2000 to 2020 Passenger 32 1.3 ASSESS road Freight 55 2.2

Passenger 35 (national) and 50 (international) 2.0 and 2.7 ERIM rail 2005 to 2020 Freight 61 (national) and 68 (international) 3.2 and 3.5

TRANSvisions 2000 to 2020 Passenger 158 Baseline scenario 3.7 rail Freight 79 Baseline scenario 2.9

TRANSvisions 2000 to 2020 Passenger 43 Baseline scenario 1.8 road Freight 60 Baseline scenario 2.4

TENCONNECT Passenger 44 Baseline scenario 1.8 2005 to 2020 rail Freight 48 Baseline scenario 2.0

TENCONNECT Passenger 20 Baseline scenario 0.9 2005 to 2020 road Freight 28 Baseline scenario 1.2

a) Excluding bus/coach transport. To summarize, most of the forecast values are in line with those of other studies (each one of which is based on its own scenarios and geographic coverage), but the growth rates in the TEM and TER Master Plan are generally rather high and the modal split for rail is higher than in the ERIM and TRANSvisions studies. Meanwhile, none of these studies took into account (and could not have taken into account) the occurrence of the recent global economic and financial crisis and its impacts.

5.5 Questionnaires for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan To collect the actual national forecast data for the years 2015 and 2020, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices distributed in the fourth quarter of 2008 detailed revision questionnaires dealing, inter alia, with this topic. The revision questionnaires provided the Project Central

68 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Offices with valuable data, based on the results of the 2005 traffic counts (see Volume II, Annexes I and II), used for elaboration of the revised forecasts. However, the analysis of the data provided revealed some inconsistencies and sometimes even differences in the approaches taken. In some cases, data on the number of passengers and tonnes transported were given, while in most cases data comprised the number of trains (either separately for passenger and freight, or in total), and it was very difficult to transform passenger data to train data because there was no information about the length of trains, the number of seats per train and their occupancy rate. In other cases, the data provided comprised ranges within which the values fell or growth rates (coefficients). In some cases, recent rail traffic data were not supplied (and were not requested in the revision questionnaires), because these data were taken from the UNECE Censuses of Motor Traffic on Main International Traffic Arteries and of E Rail Traffic in Europe in 2005. Since these censuses covered only Austria, Bulgaria (road only), Croatia (road only), the Czech Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (road only), Greece (rail only), Hungary, Italy (rail only), Lithuania, Poland, Romania (road only), Serbia (road only), Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey, the data from the remaining countries were taken from the TEMSTAT templates, the revision questionnaires and other sources. Since practically all national forecasts mentioned above were formulated before the advent of the global crisis, in general they anticipated the constant growth of both passenger and freight road and rail traffic (particularly in the optimistic scenarios). The revised forecast for the Master Plan also had to take into account the consequences of the crisis, which were extremely difficult to determine at the time of elaboration of the revision. It was necessary, therefore, to request the participating countries to convey data on the development of road and rail traffic between 2008 and 2009 in order to adjust the final forecast results accordingly.

5.6 The influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic develop- ments in 2008 and 2009 To evaluate the influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic developments in 2008 and 2009, in the spring of 2010 the TEM and TER Project Central Offices requested the participating countries to provide the following data. For road traffic • Total decrease/increase of AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) on the road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traffic on the road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of passenger cars traffic on the road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of AADT on the main (national) road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traffic on the main (national) road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of passenger cars traffic on the main (national) road network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %)

69 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

The responses obtained are summarized in Chart 1. For rail traffic • Total decrease/increase of number of passenger kilometres on the railway network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of average number of passenger trains/day in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of annual freight output (tonne-kilometres) on the railway network in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) • Total decrease/increase of average number of freight trains/day in 2009 compared to 2008 (in %) The responses obtained are summarized in Chart 2.

70 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Chart 1

2009/2008 road traffic development

Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traf c on the whole network

10

+3% +2.3% 0

-3.1% AZE -8% -10 TUR -11% ROM POL -16.6% -20 CZE LTU ALB

-30

-40

-46% -50 2008 2009

Total decrease/increase of passenger cars trafc on the whole road network

10

+ 8.4% 8

6

+4.2% 4 AZE + 3% TUR + 2% 2 ROM POL +0.2% 0 CZE LTU -2 ALB

-4

-6 --6.5%

-8 2008 2009

71 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traf c on the main ( national ) road network

5 +3.2% +3% +2.5%

0

-5 ROM ALB TUR -10 AUT

-12.8% POL -14% LTU -15

-20 -20.2%

-25 2008 2009

Total decrease/increase of passenger cars trafc on the main ( national ) road network

6

+4.3% 4 +3.5%

2 +2%

0% 0 TUR ROM -2 POL AUT

-4 LTU

-6

-8 -8%

-10 2008 2009

72 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Chart 2

2009/2008 rail traffic development

Total decrease/increase of number of passenger kilometres on the railway network

10

+ 5.4% 5 + 4.5%

+ 0.7% TUR 0 MKD -1% -1.4% SVN -3.2% -4.4% HRV -5 AZE SVK HUN -10 -11.5% CZE -12.7% ROM -15 RUS ALB

-20 -22 %

-25 2008 2009

Total decrease/increase of average number of passenger trains/day

5 +3.5% + 3.1% +1.1% + 0.8% 0% 0 -0.4% -0.5%

CZE -5 SVK TUR HUN -10 ALB -10.3% HRV SVN

-15 ROM MKD

-20 -20.7%

-25 2008 2009

73 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Total decrease/increase of annual freight output ( tonne - kilometres ) on the railway network

0

-3.0% -5 -4.7%

TUR -10 ALB -11.9% RUS HRV -15 CZE HUN SVN -20 -20% AZE -21.7% -22.9% SVK -25 ROM -26% MKD

-30 -30% -31.8% -32.6% -35 2008 2009

Total decrease/increase of average number of freight trains/day

0

-5 - 6.3%

-9.4 % -10 TUR MKD HRV -15 CZE -17% SVN -19.6% SVK -20 ROM -21.1% HUN -25 -25% ALB

-29.6% -30 -29.7% -30%

-35 2008 2009

As can be seen in the charts, passenger traffic on the main national road network (which roughly corresponds to the TEM backbone links) was not influenced too much by the crisis (annual in- crease 2008 to 2009 between 0 % and 4.3 %, lower in Central European countries, higher in East- ern European ones, the only exception being Lithuania, registering a decrease of 6 % to 8 %). The impact on the road freight traffic in Central Europe was much more pronounced, while in Eastern Europe the crisis seemed to be reflected only by a slower increase.

74 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

As far as the rail transport was concerned and taking into account only the number of passenger trains/day (which is the indicator used in the UNECE rail census and the one defining the capacity of the line), the results of the enquiry showed that in most of the countries in the region, the number of passenger trains grew slightly (between 0 % and 4 % in general). The only exceptions were Romania and, in particular, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but these decreases may have been caused by other factors, e.g. by a shift to road transport, limited budgetary resources, closures of local railway lines, etc. As for the road freight transport, the global crisis brought about a decline in the number of freight trains, this time much more pronounced, in all reporting countries. This decline ranged between 5 % and 30 % and again, in general, affected more the Central European countries and less the Eastern European ones. This recent development would certainly have an influence on the former traffic forecasts, particularly in the short run, and the findings discussed in chapter 5.6 have been reflected in the revised forecast for the Master Plan.

5.7 Groups of countries As stated in chapter 5.2, for traffic forecasting purposes, the original TEM and TER Master Plan distinguished between three groups of countries according to their respective potentials, historic background, the time period when they entered into the transition process and their political as well as economic developments: Group 1: EU member countries before 1 May 2004 — Austria, Greece, Italy Group 2: EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey Group 3: Other TEM and TER Master Plan countries — Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine To reflect the political and economic development which occurred in the period 2005 to 2010 as well as the fact that four more countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — decided to join the revision of the Master Plan, it has been necessary to modify the participation in the groups accordingly. For the revised traffic forecast, Croatia (as an EU candidate country) has been transferred to Group 2, while Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro have been added to Group 3.

5.8 basic development scenario For the purpose of establishment of the basic road and rail traffic development scenario, all relevant recent forecast results were taken into account, namely the forecast for the Master Plan from 2005, the ERIM rail forecast (February 2007), data received from the participating countries (2008) and in particular (with respect to the EU member countries) the most recent (December 2009) and well-documented TENCONNECT study described in chapter 5.3. The results are summarized in the following table which gives the traffic growth increase between 2005 and 2020.

75 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Master Master Plan Plan TENCONNECT Master Plan revision Group of revision ERIM Mode annual Baseline questionnaire countries questionnaire (%) growth (%) (%) (%) (%)

Road 1.3 to 1.8 25 to 32 10 to 21 passenger

Group 1 Road freight 3.2 to 3.4 60 to 66 19 to 63 Rail passenger 1.3 to 2.6 25 to 47 25 to 34 10 to 45

Rail freight 3.4 to 3.7 66 to 72 35 to 59 24 to 63

Road 2.1 to 3.1 37 to 58 20 to 50 passenger 46 to 109

Group 2 Road freight 2.5 to 2.8 45 to 51 37 to 72 Rail passenger 0.7 to 1.2 12 to 22 15 to 65 20 to 240 21 to 123 Rail freight 2.6 47 2 to 176 67 to 132

Road passenger 4.8 to 6.5 102 to 157 86 to 150 Road freight Group 3 108 to Rail passenger 400 2.1 to 3.0 37 to 56 35 to 161 140 to Rail freight 800

It can be concluded from this table that in many cases the ranges of data are excessively large, notably those for the ERIM freight forecast for most of the countries in Groups 2 and 3, the TENCONNECT Baseline rail passenger forecast for Group 2 and the rail forecast in the revision questionnaires of some Group 3 countries. Moreover, the maximum growth values for some countries in Group 3 in the ERIM forecast (2005/2020 increases of up to 800 %) do not seem reliable from the current perspective. The TENCONNECT Baseline and Master Plan revision questionnaires seem to be the most authoritative, being also the most recent ones. Therefore, they have been taken as the reference points for the revised forecast for the Master Plan basic development scenario. At the same time, it was also taken into account that in most cases (especially with the rail passenger forecast) the TENCONNECT data ranges are larger than those in the Master Plan revision questionnaire. On this basis, the revised basic development scenario trends for the TEM and TER Master Plan expected in the period 2005 to 2020 are as follows. • For the EU member countries before 1 May 2004 (Group 1 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 1.2 % to 2.3 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.3 % to 2.0 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.0 % to 2.7 %. • For the EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 (Group 2 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 1.7 % to 2.9 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.1 % to 1.3 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.8 % to 3.6 %.

76 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Within Group 2, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey the following higher development potential is envisaged: - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 2.6 % to 5.4 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 2.4 % to 5.0 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.8 % to 5.5 %; with the growth rates of Turkey expected to lie in the upper parts of these ranges. • In non-EU, non-acceding, countries (Group 3 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 2.3 % to 6.3 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 3.0 % to 4.3 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 3.6 % to 5.5 %.

5.9 Post-crisis development scenarios Neither the forecast results discussed above in chapters 5.2 to 5.4 nor the revised basic development scenario for the Master Plan took into account the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis whose partial impacts on the road and rail traffic development in 2008 and 2009 in the participating countries were introduced in chapter 5.6. To reflect these impacts and knowing that — as the International Transport Forum´s “Transport Outlook 2010” puts it — economic recovery is uncertain and uneven, two more post- crisis development scenarios, modifying the basic scenario, have been formulated as follows. Post-crisis development scenario “1” This scenario proceeded from the assumption that the consequences of the crisis would not be long-term, i.e. that owing to the faster economic development in the forthcoming period, its impacts would not be traceable by 2020. In other words, the traffic flow levels reached in 2020 would be the same as those in the basic scenario. The annual growth figures for the whole period 2005 to 2020 (specified in chapter 5.8) would also remain the same (despite the slower average development in the period 2005 to 2010 and a higher average development in the period 2010 to 2020) and thus would be valid also for this post-crisis development scenario. Post-crisis development scenario “2” In this scenario, the assumption was that the decrease in traffic resulting from the road crisis in 2009 will influence the future road and rail traffic development up to the year 2020, i.e. the annual growth rates in the period 2010 to 2020 will be the same as those of the basic development scenario, but starting from the 2009 actual (i.e. lower) level. With a great degree of generalization, the 2008 to 2009 traffic development according to the results of the inquiry presented in Charts 1 and 2 can be summarized as follows. Road passenger traffic: Group 1 — no increase Group 2 — no influence (Lithuania decrease about 7 %) Group 3 — no influence

77 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Road freight traffic: Group 1 — decrease about 10 % Group 2 — decrease about 10 % (Lithuania about -15 %, Romania and Bulgaria only about -2 %, Turkey no influence) Group 3 — no influence (Balkan countries decrease about 20 %) Rail passenger traffic: Group 1 — no increase Group 2 — no increase (Romania and Bulgaria -10 %, Turkey no influence) Group 3 — decrease about 10 % (Balkan countries about -20 %) Rail freight traffic: Group 1 — decrease about 20 % Group 2 — decrease about 20 % (Romania and Bulgaria -30 %, Turkey -5 %) Group 3 — decrease about 20 % (the Russian Federation -10 %). These figures are approximate, are based on the limited amount of data available and may also vary country by country within the respective group. Taking these figures into account, the trends expected in the period 2005 to 2020 according to the revised post-crisis development scenario “2” are as follows: • For the EU member countries before 1 May 2004 (Group 1 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 0.8 % to 1.9 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.1 % to 1.8 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 0.5 % to 1.2 %. • For the EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 (Group 2 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 0.8 % to 2.6 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.0 % to 1.2 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 1.2 % to 2.2 %. Within Group 2, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey the following higher development potential is envisaged: - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 2.5 % to 5.4 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.7 % to 5.0 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.4 % to 5.3 % with the growth rates of Turkey expected to lie in the upper parts of these ranges. • In non-EU, non-acceding, countries (Group 3 countries): - annual growth in road transport (AADT): 2.0 % to 6.3 %; - annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.5 % to 2.8 %; - annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.0 % to 4.2 %.

78 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

5.10 Maps of road and rail traffic flows in 2020 Maps No. 6 to 8, showing the forecast traffic volumes in 2020 according to the basic development scenarios, were compiled taking into account the results of the 2005 traffic counts and the forecast trends, making allowance also for the national forecasts and maps published in the framework of the recent TENCONNECT study. To allow comparison, the same legend indicators (for roads AADT; for rail passengers/day and rail freight tonne/day) were used, but slightly modified to reflect the specific situation in the region (especially the lower road traffic flows than in Central Western Europe).

79 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

80 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

6. REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS

6.1 Overview On the basis of the replies from participating countries in the course of 2009, and of subsequent consultations and updated data received up to the end of 2010, altogether 485 new or revised projects (294 motorway/road and 191 rail) have been identified and proposed by the participating countries, i.e. about the same number (491) as in the original Master Plan of 2005 (see also Maps No. 9 and 10). Some of the projects which emerged in the reporting period are new; these are indicated using bold print in the tables in chapters 6.2 and 6.3. The projects indicated using regular print were already contained in the original Master Plan, but have not been completed yet and so they are listed with revised/updated parameters. The total cost of all Master Plan revision projects amounts to EUR 188,401 × 9 10 . The implementation of motorway/road projects will require EUR 115,123 × 109 and rail projects EUR 73,278 × 109. The total cost of all projects is much higher than in the original Master Plan (EUR 102,114 × 109). Taking into account that the total number of projects is almost identical, this fact indicates that the average price of a project has increased almost two times from EUR 208 × 106 to about EUR 388 × 106; this is partly due to inflation but mostly because bigger and more-demanding construction projects (e.g. high-speed rail lines) are in the list of some countries. The total number of projects and their cost in individual countries is shown in the following table (only known and reported costs are included).

81 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

TEM projects TER projects Country No. EUR ×106 No. EUR ×106

Albania 6 564 2 29

Austria 17 13,639

Azerbaijan 3 389 2 319

Bosnia and Herzegovina 9 4,583 7 70

Bulgaria 13 1,479 8 7,665

Croatia 13 3,365 16 4,839

The Czech Republic 2 2,437 4 4,053

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2 1,024 4 555

Georgia 7 1,523

Greece 3 575

Hungary 8

Lithuania 12 920 31 685

Montenegro 3 104 1 33

Poland 78 41,452 20 5,652

Romania 49a 33,939 5 4,747

The Russian Federation 12 20 3,790

Serbia 12 3,902 11 4,021

Slovakia 19 6,555 13 7,559

Slovenia 3 640 9 3,401

Turkey 36 10,629 21 12,221

Ukraine 4 1,043 a) Including projects put into operation recently.

82 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Private 100 Grant 16 100 100 Bank 100 100 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2011 2011 2013 2013 2011 2011 2011 2011 2017 2012 2014 2015 2018 year Start 2010 2009 2010 2010 2009 2010 2010 2009 2013 2010 2012 2012 2001 ) 6 70 34 69 34 27 54 80 20 330 150 185 400 500 200 Cost (EUR × 10 3,200 28 70 50 32 25 39 64 38 57 61 72 18 14 54 32 290 Length (km) 1 line to 2 × 2 line) Project description ALBANIA (construction) Levan – Tepelene Librazhd (Qukes) – Pogradec (construction) Durres (Plepa) – Rrogozhine (rehabilitation) (from 1 Tirana – Elbasan (Krrabe) (construction) Fushe Kruje – Milot Thumane (rehabilitation) (from 1 × 1 line to 2 2 line) Shkoder – Hani i Hotit (rehabilitation) AZERBAIJAN Baku – RUS border (134 km to 198 km) Masalli – Astara (construction) Gazakh – Red bridge BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA – Orasje expressway Construction of Tuzla Construction of Banja Luka – Doboj motorway Improvement of Foca – Hum road Construction of Mostar bypass Improvement of Lasva – Travnik road Improvement of Lasva – Travnik Improvement of Stolac – Neum road Construction of Corridor Vc motorway Motorway/road projects in the revised Master Plan Motorway/road projects Note 1: New projects in the revised Master Plan are indicated using bold print.

AL-H-5 AL-H-7 AL-H-6 AL-H-8 AL-H-9 AZ-H-5 AZ-H-8 BH-H-4 BH-H-5 BH-H-6 BH-H-7 BH-H-8 BH-M-2 BH-M-3 AL-H-10 AZ-H-10 Project ID 6.2

83 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 Private 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Grant 9 20 20 20 20 Bank 20 20 91 20 20 20 20 % funding secured from following source National End year 2013 2013 2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2020 2020 2020 2016 year Start 2015 2011 2011 2008 2015 2015 2010 2015 2015 2015 2010 2010 2010 2015 2015 2015 2014 ) 6 48 26 32 96 135 113 104 105 120 123 137 178 191 108 146 275 192 467 212 Cost (EUR × 10 9 20 31 35 43 37 12 22 59 85 32 36 48 25 16 15 41 120 Length (km) Project description Reconstruction of Tuzla – Sarajevo road section Reconstruction of Tuzla Construction of Renovica – Mesici road BULGARIA Road E85 (reconstruction) Maritza motorway, Section 1 Maritza motorway, Maritza motorway, Section 2 Maritza motorway, Maritza motorway, Section 3 Maritza motorway, Kalotina – Sofia motorway, section: Dragoman – Slivnitza Sofia Kalotina – Sofia motorway, Kalotina – Sofia motorway, section: Kalotina – Dragoman Kalotina – Sofia motorway, Kalotina – Sofia motorway, section: Hemus Connector Kalotina – Sofia motorway, Kalotina – Sofia motorway, section: Sofia Ring Road – North Arc Kalotina – Sofia motorway, Hemus motorway, section 1 Hemus motorway, Hemus motorway, section 1 Hemus motorway, Trakia motorway, section 2 motorway, Trakia Trakia motorway, section 3 motorway, Trakia Trakia motorway, section 4 motorway, Trakia Krizisce – Novi Vinodolski Novi Vinodolski – Senj A7-03 Senj – Zuta Lokva CROATIA A7-02 Krizisce – Senj BH-H-9 CR-M-7 CR-M-6 BG-M-1 BG-M-2 BG-M-3 BG-M-4 BG-M-5 BG-M-6 BG-M-7 BG-M-8 BG-M-9 BH-H-10 BG-M-10 BG-M-11 BG-M-12 BG-M-13 Project ID

84 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Private 80 80 80 100 100 100 100 Grant 60 60 60 20 20 20 100 100 100 100 100 Bank 40 40 40 % funding secured from following source National End year 2013 2008 2013 2018 2020 2020 2020 2013 2020 2020 2020 2020 2013 2013 2015 2013 2013 2015 2015 2013 2013 year Start 2006 2006 2008 2011 2015 2015 2015 2011 2015 2015 2015 2015 2011 2011 2012 2011 2011 2013 2011 2011 2011 ) 6 96 70 50 30 45 49 55 51 11 641 241 400 465 104 965 195 188 727 112 205 298 Cost (EUR × 10 6 7 6 4 5 4 3 2 48 27 21 30 47 11 15 28 15 15 25 Length (km) Project description A1-05 Zagvozd (Makarska) – Ploce Zagvozd – Ravca (in operation) Ravca – Ploce A1-06 Ploce – Neum Opuzen – Cvor Peljesac Cvor Peljesac –BIH border A1-07 Neum – Dubrovnik Metkovic – Opuzen Ploce – Metkovic BIH border – Doli Doli – Dubrovnik Dubrovnik – BIH border A1-09 Dugopolje – Klis A1-10 Klis – Split A5-01 Knezevo – Ceminac A5-02 Ceminac – Osijek HUN (Branjin Vrh) – Beli Manastir HUN (Branjin Vrh) Beli Manastir – Osijek A10-01 Metkovic – Ploce A5-04 Sredanci – Svilaj Metkovic – BIH border CR-M-12 CR-M-13 CR-M-14 CR-M-18 CR-M-19 CR-M-20 CR-M-21 CR-M-24 CR-M-23 Project ID

85 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 Private 44 Grant 79 Bank 56 21 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2019 2011 2011 2011 2014 2013 2015 2013 2017 2016 2014 2016 2015 2021 2015 year Start 2018 2005 2004 2002 2011 2009 2011 2010 2014 2013 2009 2010 2011 2016 2011 ) 6 90 33 67 567 174 317 850 366 268 178 225 102 240 235 100 Cost (EUR × 10 1,870 13 16 80 28 63 44 78 67 31 52 29 42 40 30 304 Length (km) Project description A5-05 Ceminac – Batina A9-01 Vodnjan – Pula A9-01 Vodnjan THE CZECH REPUBLIC Motorway D8 Lovosice – Rehlovice Motorway D47 Lipnik – POL border THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA THE FORMER YUGOSLAV Construction of Demir Kapija – Smokvica road section, Phase I GEORGIA Gori – Rikoti (rehabilitation and upgrading) Construction of Corridor VIII, Skopje bypass Rikoti – Zestafoni (rehabilitation and upgrading) Zestafoni – Samtredia (rehabilitation and upgrading) Samtredia – Poti (rehabilitation and upgrading) Poti – Choloqi (rehabilitation and upgrading) Choloqi – Sarpi (rehabilitation and upgrading) Tbilisi – Marneuli (rehabilitation and upgrading) GREECE section Strymonas Egnatia motorway, – Nea Peramos Profitis – Macedonia airport, dual carriageway Siatista – Kristalorelopigi motorway, section Siatista – Argos Orestiko Siatista – Kristalorelopigi motorway, HUNGARY GE-H-6 GE-H-7 GE-H-8 GE-H-9 CZ-M-2 CZ-M-5 GE-M-5 GR-M-1 GR-M-2 GR-M-4 MA-M-1 MA-M-3 GE-H-10 GE-H-13 CR-M-25 CR-M-26 Project ID

86 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 100 100 Private 50 50 50 50 50 50 63 33 85 85 42 57 Grant Bank 50 50 50 50 50 50 37 67 15 15 58 43 % funding secured from following source National End year 2015 2012 2020 2020 2015 2013 2015 2013 2020 2022 2027 2013 2011 2013 2015 2025 year Start 2016 2008 2010 2016 2017 2012 2011 2013 2025 2010 2018 2020 2025 2009 2009 2011 2008 2014 ) 6 29 17 90 79 80 80 64 40 40 41 120 240 Cost (EUR × 10 1 9 4 6 7 38 64 25 26 60 50 78 35 36 34 47 10 114 105 Length (km) (construction) Project description M2: Vac – HUN/SVK border M2: Vac M3: Nyiregyhaza – HUN/UKR border M6: Dunaujvaros – Boly M6: Boly – HUN/HRV border M6: Boly – HUN/HRV M43: Mako – HUN/RUS border Szombathely – Nagykanizsa M30: SVK/HUN border – Miskolc 47/42: Debrecen-HUN/RUS border LITHUANIA Bridge on road A1 across Neris river in Kaunas (widening) Road A1 (widening) (6 traffic lanes) Road A1 (widening) (6 traffic lanes) Road A5 Kaunas-Marijampole – Suvalkai (construction of second driving direction) Road A5 Kaunas-Marijampole – Suvalkai (construction of second driving direction) Road A8 Panevezys – Aristava Sitkunai (construction of second driving direction) Road A8 Panevezys – Aristava Sitkunai (construction of second driving direction) Jakai intersection on road A1 in Klaipeda approaches Vilnius southern bypass (I. stage) Klaipeda city southern access to the sea port Vilnius city western bypass Ramygala bypass, section Salociai – Sitkunai LT-M-4 LT-M-5 LT-M-6 LT-M-7 LT-M-8 LT-M-9 LT-M-10 LT-M-11 LT-M-12 LT-M-13 LT-M-14 LT-M-15 HU-M-4 HU-M-6 HU-M-9 HU-M-10 HU-M-14 HU-M-15 HU-M-16 HU-M-20 Project ID

87 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 Private 70 60 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 70 Grant Bank 30 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 30 % funding secured from following source National End year 2012 2012 2012 2016 2020 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2012 2015 2020 2020 2020 2020 2012 2012 year Start 2011 2011 2011 2014 2014 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 2013 2016 2014 2014 2014 2009 2010 ) 6 57 15 32 17 26 104 890 684 115 139 724 400 273 283 441 193 145 Cost (EUR × 10 1,013 5 12 40 20 13 27 32 33 80 56 76 36 42 41 16 Length (km) Project description MONTENEGRO bridge at Kotor Verige Bypass Bijelo Polje Podgorica – Niksic Bosnian border POLAND S1-I expressway existing: Pyrzowice – Podwarpie (III stage) S1-II expressway: Kosztowy – Bielsko Biala S2-I expressway: Konotopa – Pulawska with Marynarska S3-II expressway: bypass Troszyna, Parlowko i Ostromice with S-3 Wolin – Troszyn Parlowko i Ostromice with S-3 Wolin S3-II expressway: bypass Troszyna, S3-III expressway: bypass Miekowo S3-VII expressway: Gorzow Wielkopolski – Skwierzyna S3-VII expressway: Gorzow Wielkopolski S3-VIII expressway: Skwierzyna – Jordanowo (A2) S3-IX expressway: Jordanowo – Sulechow S3-XI expressway: Nowa Sol – Legnica S3-XII expressway: S-3 Legnica (A4) – Lubawka S5-I expressway: Nowe Marzy – Bydgoszcz S5-III expressway: Bydgoszcz – Znin S5-IV expressway: Znin – Gniezno S5-V expressway: Gniezno – Poznan (Kleszczewo) S5-VI expressway: Gluchowo – Wroclaw (Wronczyn) S5-VI expressway: Gluchowo – Wroclaw PL-H-1 PL-H-2 PL-H-7 PL-H-9 PL-H-10 PL-H-14 PL-H-15 PL-H-16 PL-H-18 PL-H-19 PL-H-20 PL-H-22 PL-H-23 PL-H-24 PL-H-25 ME-H-24 ME-H-25 ME-H-26 Project ID

88 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 50 50 50 Private 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 50 50 50 59 70 70 70 70 59 Grant Bank 50 50 50 50 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 50 50 50 41 30 30 30 30 41 % funding secured from following source National End year 2016 2016 2014 2014 2012 2012 2015 2016 2015 2016 2016 2012 2013 2013 2015 2012 2012 2015 2015 2012 year Start 2013 2013 2012 2012 2009 2008 2010 2014 2013 2013 2013 2010 2010 2010 2013 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 ) 6 89 69 75 83 572 448 923 470 910 196 197 395 590 437 296 Cost (EUR × 10 1,105 1,434 1,026 1,070 1,591 40 36 11 60 50 21 75 20 18 60 30 18 48 19 46 155 107 128 104 116 Length (km) Project description S5-VII expressway: Poznan (A-2 junction “Głuchowo”) – Wroclaw (A-8 junction S5-VII expressway: Poznan (A-2 junction “Głuchowo”) – Wroclaw “Widawa”) S6- I expressway: Slupsk – Lebork S6-II expressway: Lebork – Boze Pole S6-III expressway: Boze Pole – Gdansk (Trasa Kaszubska) S6-III expressway: Boze Pole – Gdansk (Trasa S7-I expressway: Gdansk (A-1) – Elblag (S-22) S7-II expressway: Elblag (S-22) – Olsztynek (S-51) S7-III expressway: Olsztynek (S-51) – Plonsk (S-10) S7-IV expressway: Plonsk (S-10) – Warszawa (S-8) S7-IV expressway: Plonsk (S-10) – Warszawa S7-V expressway: Warszawa – Grojec S7-V expressway: Warszawa S7-IX expressway: Radom (Jedlinsk) – Jedrzejow S7-X expressway: Jedrzejow – voivodeship border S7-XI expressway: Jedrzejow – voivodeship border S7-XII expressway: voivodeship border – Krakow S7-XIII expressway: Krakow – Myslenice (reconstruction) S7-XVI expressway: Lubien – Rabka with tunnel S8-I expressway: Wroclaw – Olesnica S8-I expressway: Wroclaw S8-III expressway: Olesnica – Sycow S8-IV expressway: Sycow – Walichnowy S8-V expressway: Walichnowy – Lodz S8-V expressway: Walichnowy S8-VI expressway: Piotrkow Trybunalski – Wolica PL-H-26 PL-H-27 PL-H-28 PL-H-29 PL-H-30 PL-H-31 PL-H-32 PL-H-33 PL-H-34 PL-H-38 PL-H-39 PL-H-41 PL-H-42 PL-H-43 PL-H-45 PL-H-46 PL-H-48 PL-H-49 PL-H-50 PL-H-51 Project ID

89 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 Private 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 50 59 59 59 59 59 59 50 Grant Bank 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 50 41 41 41 41 41 41 50 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2012 2012 2015 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2016 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2015 2016 2015 2015 2015 2020 year Start 2009 2009 2013 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2013 2013 2012 2013 2013 2013 2012 2014 2013 2012 2012 2015 ) 6 159 270 130 580 480 349 621 501 580 383 529 859 657 292 336 568 206 261 Cost (EUR × 10 1,123 1,452 1,320 7 8 16 15 27 22 16 29 23 42 59 69 69 68 49 33 89 122 123 157 220 Length (km) Project description S8-VII expressway: Wolica – Salomea S8-VII expressway: Wolica S8-IX expressway: Powazkowska – Marki (Pilsudskiego) S8-X expressway: Marki – Radzymin S8-XIII expressway: Wyszkow – Ostrow Maz S8-XIV expressway: Ostrow Mazowiecka – Zambrow S8-XV expressway: bypass Zambrow S8-XVI expressway: Zambrow – Jezewo S8-XVII expressway: Jezewo – Bialystok S8-XVIII expressway: bypass Bialystok S17-I expressway: Warszawa (junction “Zakret”) – Garwolin S17-I expressway: Warszawa S17-III expressway: Garwolin – Kurow S17-IV expressway: Kurow – Lublin Piaski S19-I expressway: Kuznica Bialostocka – Bialystok (Choroszcz) S17-VI expressway: Piaski – Hrebenne S19-I expressway: Bialystok – Miedzyrzec Podlaski S19-II expressway: Miedzyrzec Podlaski – Lubartow S19-III expressway: Lubartow – Krasnik S19-IV expressway: Krasnik – Stobierna S19-V expressway: Stobierna – Lutoryz S19-VI expressway: Lutoryz – Barwinek S61-XXI expressway: Ostrow Mazowiecka – Lomza Suwalki Budzisko (via Baltica) PL-H-52 PL-H-54 PL-H-55 PL-H-58 PL-H-59 PL-H-60 PL-H-61 PL-H-62 PL-H-63 PL-H-64 PL-H-66 PL-H-67 PL-H-68 PL-H-69 PL-H-70 PL-H-71 PL-H-72 PL-H-73 PL-H-74 PL-H-75 PL-H-77 Project ID

90 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 100 100 100 100 Private 59 59 70 70 50 59 70 25 25 25 59 83 59 59 59 59 Grant Bank

41 41 30 30 50 41 30 75 75 75 41 17 41 41 41 41 % funding secured from following source National End year 2012 2013 2013 2012 2010 2014 2011 2013 2012 2013 2016 2016 2012 2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2020 year Start 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 2012 2008 2008 2010 2011 2014 2014 2008 2007 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 2015 ) 6 38 85 58 32 10 283 125 372 470 300 330 938 179 604 605 500 Cost (EUR × 10 1,159 1,367 1,251 1,560 1,162 4 4 6 9 15 71 51 11 40 84 54 44 25 92 15 57 83 88 95 144 105 Length (km) Project description S69-I expressway: Bielsko-Biala – junction Krakowska S69-II expressway: junction Krakowska – Zywiecka S69-III expressway: junction Zywiecka – Wilkowice S69-IV expressway: junction Wilkowice – Zywiec S69-IV expressway: junction Wilkowice S69-VII expressway: junction Przybedzie – Milowka (reconstruction) A18-I motorway: junction Olszyna – Golnice (reconstruction of the road south) A1-II motorway: Nowe Marzy – Torun (Lubicz) A1-II motorway: Nowe Marzy – Torun A1-III motorway: Lubicz – Czerniewice A1-IV motorway: Torun (Czerniewice) – Strykow A1-IV motorway: Torun AI-V motorway: Strykow – Tuszyn A1-VI motorway: Tuszyn – Czestochowa (Rzasawa) A1-VI motorway: Tuszyn A1-VII motorway: Czestochowa (Rzasawa) – Pyrzowice A1-VIII motorway: Pyrzowice – Sosnica A1-X motorway: Swierklany – Gorzyczki A2-I motorway: Swiecko – Nowy Tomysl A2-VIII motorway: Strykow – Warszawa A2-IX motorway: Lubelska (Warszawa) – Siedlce bypass Minsk Mazowiecki A2-IX motorway: Lubelska (Warszawa) A4-VII motorway: (Krakow) Szarow – Tarnow (Krzyz) A4-VII motorway: (Krakow) Szarow – Tarnow A4-VIII motorway: Tarnow (Krzyz) – Rzeszow Wschod with S19 Rzeszow-Swilcza A4-VIII motorway: Tarnow A4-IX motorway: Rzeszow – Korczowa A2-X motorway: Siedlce – Terespol PL-M-1 PL-M-3 PL-M-4 PL-M-5 PL-M-6 PL-M-7 PL-M-8 PL-M-9 PL-H-78 PL-H-79 PL-H-80 PL-H-81 PL-H-84 PL-M-11 PL-M-12 PL-M-19 PL-M-20 PL-M-27 PL-M-28 PL-M-29 PL-M-31 Project ID

91 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 100 100 100 Private 43 85 85 85 85 Grant 27 55 Bank 30 15 15 15 15 45 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2011 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2015 2015 2011 2020 2028 2035 2024 2020 2012 2020 2032 2013 2020 year Start 2005 2009 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2009 2015 2023 2030 2020 2015 2004 2015 2025 2011 2015 ) 6 945 588 359 253 792 902 968 396 259 990 561 948 402 806 215 528 149 920 Cost (EUR × 10 1,172 3,246 36 84 36 33 82 48 53 51 60 99 30 19 92 24 74 100 117 180 220 140 Length (km) Project description A8-IX motorway: Bypass Wroclaw ROMANIA Nadlac – Timisoara Timisoara – Lugoj Timisoara Lugoj – Deva Deva – Orastie Orastie – Sibiu (including Sebes bypass) Sibiu – Pitesti Bucuresti South bypass Bucuresti North bypass Cernavoda – Constanta Bucuresti – Giurgiu Lugoj – Drobeta Turnu Severin Lugoj – Drobeta Turnu Drobeta Turnu Severin – Craiova Drobeta Turnu Craiova – Bucuresti Timisoara – Stamora Moravita Timisoara Oradea – Zalau Halmeu – Satu Mare Satu Mare – Zalau Zalau – Cluj Napoca Turda – Sebes Turda RO-M-1 RO-M-2 RO-M-3 RO-M-4 RO-M-5 RO-M-6 RO-M-7 RO-M-8 PL-M-32 RO-M-12 RO-M-13 RO-M-14 RO-M-15 RO-M-16 RO-M-17 RO-M-18 RO-M-19 RO-M-20 RO-M-21 RO-M-23 Project ID

92 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Private Grant Bank 100 100 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2011 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2019 2027 2033 2038 2014 2014 2019 2020 2014 year Start 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2007 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2015 2022 2027 2033 2011 2011 2015 2015 2011 ) 6 143 344 500 322 522 379 415 220 589 231 484 138 253 165 614 Cost (EUR × 10 2,849 6,352 36 56 22 37 48 62 47 86 19 89 94 42 95 52 87 25 48 27 73 105 281 Length (km) Project description (Campia Turzii) Turda – Ogra (Targu Mures) – Ogra (Targu Turda (Campia Turzii) (Targu Mures) Ogra – Sighisoara (Targu Sighisoara – Brasov Brasov – Predeal Predeal – Comarnic Comarnic – Ploiesti Ploiesti – Bucuresti Albita – Crasna Crasna – Tecuci Tecuci – Marasesti Tecuci Marasesti – Ramnicu Sarat Buzau Buzau – Bucuresti N/E (Ploiesti section is included in RO-M-30) Siret – Suceava Suceava – Sabaoani Sabaoani – Bacau Bacau – Marasesti (Ungheni) Sculeni – Iasi Iasi – Targu Frumos Iasi – Targu Targu Frumos – Sabaoani Targu Sibiu – Fagaras Targu Mures – Piatra Neamt Roman Targu RO-M-24 RO-M-25 RO-M-26 RO-M-27 RO-M-28 RO-M-29 RO-M-30 RO-M-31 RO-M-32 RO-M-33 RO-M-34 RO-M-35 RO-M-36 RO-M-37 RO-M-38 RO-M-39 RO-M-40 RO-M-41 RO-M-42 RO-M-43 RO-M-44 Project ID

93 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 100 Private Grant 34 Bank 30 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2020 2020 2020 2030 2012 2012 year Start 2015 2015 2015 2025 2008 1990 ) 6 336 150 336 Cost (EUR × 10 1,356 2,207 1,066 82 55 47 135 121 302 515 359 115 Length (km) Project description Arad – Oradea Petea – Satu Mare Baia Craiova – Pitesti Constanta – Vama Veche Constanta – Vama THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BLR border – Moskva Nizhni Novgorod (development) UKR – Kursk Saratov (development) (development) Syzran – Saratov Volgograd – Kirov Perm – Ekaterinburg (development) FIN – St. Petersburg Vologda (development) Ekaterinburg – Tyumen Chita – Khabarovsk (part of the national highway): Krasnoe – Moscow Vladivostok) (construction) – Saratov (reconstruction) Sections on the road UKR – Kursk Voronezh (construction and reconstruction) Motorway “Don”, section Moskva – Voronezh – Rostov na Donu Novorossiisk/Sochi Motorway “Don”, section Voronezh – Astrakhan and road – Volgograd Motorway “Kaspiy” Moskva – Tambov – Makhachkala – Kochubey / Motorway “Caucasus”, section Pavlovskaya – Mineralnye Vody Makhachkala Auxiliary and service infrastructure SERBIA Motorway Novi Sad – Horgos (completion) Beograd bypass (completion) RU-H-1 RU-H-2 RU-H-3 RU-H-4 RU-H-5 RU-H-6 SR-M-1 RU-M-1 RU-M-2 RU-M-3 RU-M-4 RU-M-5 RU-M-6 SR-H-12 RO-M-45 RO-M-46 RO-M-47 RO-M-49 Project ID

94 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 65 65 65 Private 16 Grant 84 50 100 100 Bank 50 35 35 35 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2011 2015 2011 2012 2012 2012 2011 2017 2017 2017 2015 2014 2011 2013 2014 2013 2014 year Start 2008 2009 2012 2012 2008 2012 2009 2009 2009 2008 2014 2014 2014 2012 2011 2008 2010 2010 2009 2010 ) 6 33 96 85 15 99 620 600 413 620 480 200 280 170 143 498 190 194 508 Cost (EUR × 10 1,348 4 5 83 41 60 96 95 13 19 43 12 14 38 17 13 148 110 Length (km) Project description Corridor Xb, Nis – Dimitrovgrad (BGR) Motorway Beograd – South Adriatic, section Pozega Motorway E 761 Pojate – Preljina Motorway E 763 (E 761) Preljina – Pozega Motorway E 761 Pozega – Uzice BIH Corridor X, Leskovac – Presevo (MKD border) Motorway Pancevo – Vrsac Semimotorway Kikinda – Ada Novi Sad Sremska Mitrovica Sabac Loznica Semimotorway Pozarevac – Kucevo Majdanpek Negotin SLOVAKIA Motorway D1 Bidovce – Dargov Beograd, Gazela bridge (rehabilitation project) Motorway D1 Dargov – Pozdisovce Motorway D1 Pozdisovce – State border SRB/UKR Motorway D3 Cadca, Bukov – Svrcinovec Motorway D3 Svrcinovec – Skalite Expressway R3 Horna Stubna, bypass Expressway R4 Kosice – Milhost Motorway D1 Hricovske Podhradie – Dubna Skala Motorway D1 Dubna Skala – Turany Motorway D1 Turany – Hubova Motorway D1 Turany SK-H-1 SK-H-2 SR-M-4 SR-M-5 SR-M-6 SR-M-7 SR-M-8 SR-M-3 SK-M-1 SK-M-2 SK-M-3 SK-M-5 SK-M-6 SK-M-8 SK-M-9 SR-H-27 SR-H-28 SR-H-29 SR-M-10 SK-M-10 Project ID

95 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 65 65 65 100 100 100 Private 12 Grant 75 85 85 85 85 Bank 35 35 35 13 15 15 15 15 100 100 100 100 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2013 2013 2011 2013 2016 2013 2017 2018 2018 2011 2013 2015 2015 2015 2015 2014 2014 2014 year Start 2009 2008 2009 2010 2012 2011 2014 2014 2016 2008 2012 2011 2011 2011 2011 2000 2010 2010 2010 ) 6 63 355 372 201 243 125 900 120 114 329 197 509 435 487 215 292 314 Cost (EUR × 10 1,000 1,031 7 4 19 11 14 23 17 78 93 94 34 63 62 112 Length (km) Project description Motorway D1 Hubova – Ivachnova Motorway D1 Janovce – Jablonov Motorway D1 Jablonov – Beharovce Motorway D1 Fricovce – Svinia Motorway D1 Presov West – Presov South Motorway D1 Presov West Motorway D1 Budimir – Bidovce Motorway D4 Bratislava, Jarovce – Ivanka pri Dunaji, north Motorway D4 Ivanka pri Dunaji, north – Zahorska Bystrica Motorway D4 Devinska Nova Ves – state border SVK/AUT Motorway D4 Devinska Nova Ves SLOVENIA – Peracica, section Peracica Podtabor Vrba Koper – Dragonja Draženci – Gruškovje TURKEY Section 1: Ankara – Acikuyu Ankara – Pozanti motorway, Ankara – Pozanti motorway, Section 2: Acikuyu – Ortakoy Ankara – Pozanti motorway, Section 3: Ortakoy – Golcuk Ankara – Pozanti motorway, Section 4: Golcuk – Pozanti Ankara – Pozanti motorway, Section 1: Orhangazi – Bursa Bursa – Izmir motorway, Bursa – Izmir motorway, Section 2: (Bursa – Karacabey) junction Susurluk Bursa – Izmir motorway, Bursa – Izmir motorway, Section 3: Susurluk – (Balikesir Edremit) junction Bursa – Izmir motorway, SL-M-3 SL-M-5 SL-M-7 TU-M-1 TU-M-2 TU-M-3 TU-M-4 TU-M-5 TU-M-6 TU-M-7 SK-M-11 SK-M-12 SK-M-13 SK-M-14 SK-M-15 SK-M-16 SK-M-17 SK-M-18 SK-M-20 Project ID

96 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 100 100 100 100 100 Private Grant Bank 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2014 2014 2014 2013 2013 2013 2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2014 2014 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 year Start 2010 2010 2010 1998 2005 2003 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2010 2010 2005 2008 2008 2008 2008 ) 6 40 68 38 44 38 28 32 23 49 52 99 78 63 80 310 244 309 120 307 Cost (EUR × 10 1,420 65 52 56 56 15 52 55 91 72 56 45 55 32 13 30 75 58 66 57 49 Length (km) psala border . Project description psala border road, Section 1: Kinali junction – Tekirdag psala border road, Section 2: Tekirdag bypass psala border road, Section 2: Tekirdag psala border road, Section 3: Tekirdag – Malkara junction psala border road, Section 3: Tekirdag psala border road, Section 4: Malkara junction – I . . . . Bursa – Izmir motorway, Section 4: (Balikesir – Edremit) junction Kirkagac Bursa – Izmir motorway, Bursa – Izmir motorway, Section 5: Kirkagac – Manisa Bursa – Izmir motorway, Bursa – Izmir motorway, Section 5: Manisa – Izmir Bursa – Izmir motorway, Tekirdag – I Tekirdag Tekirdag – I Tekirdag Tekirdag – I Tekirdag Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 1: Sanliurfa – Viransehir Sanliurfa – Habur border, Tekirdag – I Tekirdag Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 2: Viransehir – Kiziltepe Sanliurfa – Habur border, Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 3: Kiziltepe – Nusaybin junction Sanliurfa – Habur border, Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 4: Nusaybin junction – Oyali Sanliurfa – Habur border, Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 5: Oyali – Cizre Sanliurfa – Habur border, Sanliurfa – Habur border, Section 6: Cizre – Silopi Sanliurfa – Habur border, (Yalova – Karamursel) junction (new Section 1: Gebze – (Yalova Istanbul – Izmir motorway, bridge) Istanbul – Izmir motorway, Section 2: (Yalova – Karamursel) junction Orhangazi Section 2: (Yalova Istanbul – Izmir motorway, Gerede – Merzifon, Section 1: Gerede – 15. Division border Gerede – Merzifon, Section 2: 4. Division border – Ilgaz junction (Kastamonu- Korgun) junction Gerede – Merzifon, Section 3: (Kastamonu – Korgun) junction – Tosya – 7/15 Division Gerede – Merzifon, Section 3: (Kastamonu – Korgun) junction Tosya border Gerede – Merzifon, Section 4: 7/15 Division border – Osmancik Gerede – Merzifon, Section 5: Osmancik – Merzifon TU-M-8 TU-M-9 TU-M-10 TU-M-11 TU-M-12 TU-M-13 TU-M-15 TU-M-14 TU-M-16 TU-M-17 TU-M-18 TU-M-19 TU-M-20 TU-M-21 TU-M-22 TU-M-23 TU-M-24 TU-M-25 TU-M-26 TU-M-27 Project ID

97 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 25 25 25 25 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Private 25 25 25 25 Grant 25 25 25 25 Bank 25 25 25 25 100 100 % funding secured from following source National End year 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2018 2012 2012 2018 year Start 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2009 2010 2011 ) 6 401 552 242 158 179 489 362 321 466 244 178 155 Cost (EUR × 10 1,200 47 28 95 44 71 72 58 284 391 Length (km) Project description Amasya – Refahiye junction Afyon – Konya Eregli (Ankara-Pozantı) motorway junction North Section 1: Kınalı – Izzettin Marmara motorway, North Marmara motorway , Section 2: Izzettin – Odayeri North Marmara motorway (including 3rd suspension bridge on Istanbul Strait), Section 3: Odayeri/Pasakoy North Section 4: Pasakoy – Gebze Marmara motorway, North Section 5: Gebze – Izmit Marmara motorway, North Section 6: Izmit – Akyazi Marmara motorway, North Section 7: Izzettin – Hasdal Marmara motorway, UKRAINE section Vinnytza – Kyiv Border of Ukraine (Kosyny) – Kyiv, Motorway Western (building and maintenance) Motorway Lviv – Krakovets (building and maintenance) Motorway Lviv – Brody (building and maintenance) Motorway from RUS border (Scherbakivka) to the motorway Kyiv – Kharkiv Dovzhansky (building and maintenance) TU-M-28 TU-M-29 TU-M-30 TU-M-31 TU-M-32 TU-M-33 TU-M-34 TU-M-35 TU-M-36 UKR-M-1 UKR-M-2 UKR-M-3 UKR-M-4 Project ID

98 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Private Grant source 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Bank National % funding secured from following 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2021 End year 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2007 2002 2007 2012 Start year ) 6 5 24 109 685 105 654 189 348 113 116 138 Cost 1,123 2,988 1,339 (EUR × 10 3 4 13 42 23 75 54 49 81 45 55 65 104 125 (km) Length Project description ALBANIA Porto Romano Port (LPG and oil terminal) to Sukth station Link railway Lines – border with MKD AUSTRIA (Note to funding: in majority of cases, 70 % bank loans be reimbursed by State) Gloggnitz – Murzzuschlag, new tunnel, rehabilitation, safety concept Godersdorf – Rosenbach, Karawanken tunnel, upgrading and tunnel safety Wien – Semmering, upgrading and rehabilitation of access to Semmering base tunnel Bruck/Mur – Graz, upgrading and rehabilitation Graz – Spielfeld, construction of 2nd track, rehabilitation and upgrading rehabilitation and upgrading Passau – Wels, Wien – Bratislava, construction of new line and rehabilitation existing one – Selzthal, rehabilitation and upgrading Traun Summerau – Linz, construction of 2nd track Koralm project, new line Graz – Klagenfurt Freilassing – Salzburg, construction of 3rd track – Kundl, construction of additional 2 tracks, upgrading existing Kufstein – Worgl line Railway projects in the revised Master Plan Railway projects Note 1: New projects in the revised Master Plan are indicated using bold print. AT-R-3 AT-R-4 AT-R-5 AT-R-6 AT-R-7 AT-R-8 AT-R-9 AT-R-2 AL-R-1 AL-R-4 AT-R-10 AT-R-11 AT-R-13 AT-R-14 Project ID 6.3

99 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 0 0 Private 0 0 Grant source 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 Bank 0 0 National % funding secured from following 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2015 2012 2014 2011 2014 2014 End year 2002 2007 2002 2002 2002 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 Start year ) 6 95 40 30 276 381 196 319 Cost 4,784 (EUR × 10 8 78 38 62 40 78 188 124 137 503 (km) Length Project description Linz – Wien, construction of 61 km new 4-track line, additional 2 tracks on the remaining 127 km Linz – Salzburg, construction of additional 2 tracks, upgrading and rehabilitation Buchs – Innsbruck, construction of 2nd track, rehabilitation and upgrading, tunnel safety Wien – Bernhardsthal, rehabilitation and upgrading Klagenfurt – Villach, new line construction AZERBAIJAN Reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Baku – Boyuk Kesik (GEO) line Construction of new railway line Astara – IRN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Rehabilitation and upgrading of Samac/Bosanski Samac – Doboj line Rehabilitation of Sarajevo – Ploce line, section Bradina Samac/Bosanski Samac – Celebici, modernization of signalling system Samac/Bosanski Samac – Celebici, modernization of telecommunication system Doboj – Dobrljin, track overhaul and reconstruction of section Josavka to TER standards – Zvornik, modernization of signalling system Dobrljin – B. Luka –Doboj Tuzla – Zvornik, modernization of telecommunication Dobrljin – B. Luka –Doboj Tuzla system BH-R-1 BH-R-3 BH-R-4 BH-R-5 BH-R-6 BH-R-7 AZ-R-1 AZ-R-2 AT-R-15 AT-R-16 AT-R-17 AT-R-20 AT-R-21 BH-R-2b Project ID

100 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private 0 45 80 80 80 80 80 80 83 Grant source 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 Bank 11 20 20 20 20 20 20 17 100 100 100 National % funding secured from following 2011 2011 2020 2015 2017 2013 2015 2013 2013 2015 2015 2018 2021 2021 2011 2021 2012 2023 End year 2000 2007 2007 2007 2009 2007 2008 2007 2008 2014 2009 2017 2011 2013 2008 2011 2010 2014 Start year ) 6 40 85 65 18 44 25 50 90 340 300 200 300 510 421 Cost 4,800 1,600 2,233 (EUR × 10 16 88 43 48 79 79 13 44 15 151 480 607 320 206 152 129 329 (km) Length Project description BULGARIA Electrification and upgrading of Plovdiv – Svilengrad line Electrification and reconstruction of Svilengrad – TUR line Modernization of Vidin – Sofia Kulata line Modernization of Sofia – Plovdiv – Burgas/Varna line Modernization of Sofia – Plovdiv Burgas/Varna Modernization and electrification of Radomir – Gueshevo line Rehabilitation of Sofia – Karlovo Zimnitza line Modernization of Sofia – Dragoman line Rehabilitation of Mezdra – Gorna Oryahovitza line CROATIA Reconstruction of section Osijek – Strizivojna (Vrpolje) Electrification of north section Beli Manastir – Strizivojna (Vrpolje) Construction of 2nd track and reconstruction existing one Dugo Selo – Koprivnica – Botovo Construction of 2nd track Zagreb Glavni Kolodvor – Horvati Construction of new line Horvati – Krasica Ucka – Borut Construction of new line Matuji – Tunel Modification of electrical traction system Moravice – Rijeka Sapjane (Skrljevo Bakar) Remote control system, line Botovo – Zagreb Rijeka Reconstruction of signalling and safety devices Zagreb Main Station Construction of 2nd track Zagreb – Velika Gorica Construction of 2nd track Zagreb – Velika CR-R-1 CR-R-2 CR-R-3 CR-R-4 CR-R-5 CR-R-6 CR-R-7 CR-R-8 CR-R-9 BG-R-1 BG-R-3 BG-R-4 BG-R-5 BG-R-6 BG-R-7 BG-R-8 BG-R-9 CR-R-10 Project ID

101 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 0 0 0 0 15 15 Private 41 35 23 35 85 85 Grant source 21 23 35 23 Bank 38 42 42 42 100 National % funding secured from following 2021 2016 2023 2016 2020 2014 2011 2014 2014 2016 2012 2014 2012 End year 2011 2007 2018 2013 2016 2014 2008 2006 2007 2008 2010 2010 2008 2009 2008 Start year ) 6 6 5 8 40 90 41 301 436 510 669 505 200 200 150 Cost 1,400 1,479 (EUR × 10 4 6 64 85 19 54 80 66 120 326 117 109 216 (km) Length Project description THE CZECH REPUBLIC Modernization of line Benesov – Ceske Budejovice Reconstruction of Rijeka junction Construction of new double track line Zapresic – Horvati – Dugo Selo (bypass of Zagreb) Construction of 2nd track Dugo Selo – Novska Vukovar line Electrification with AC 25kV/50Hz of Vinkovci – Station reconstruction and uprade of signalling safety system, Ostarije – Knin Split line Denivelation of Zagreb main station and line section thru Zagreb Upgrading of line State border – Cheb Plzen Detmarovice – Mosty u Jablunkova Plzen – Praha THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA THE FORMER YUGOSLAV Construction of railway Kicevo – Lini (ALB) – Zgropolci Demir Kapija Speed increase on sections Veles Multimodal terminal at Struga LITHUANIA Modernization of signalling and power supply on Corridor IXD, sections Palemonas – Rokai and Kaunas – Kybartai Construction of railway Kumanovo – Deve Bair (BGR) Track modernization on Corridor IXD, sections Palemonas – Rokai and Kaunas Track Kybartai LT-R-1 LT-R-2 CZ-R-1 CZ-R-3 CZ-R-4 CZ-R-7 MA-R-3 MA-R-4 CR-R-16 CR-R-12 CR-R-13 CR-R-14 CR-R-15 CR-R-11 MA-R-1a MA-R-1b Project ID

102 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Private 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Grant source Bank National % funding secured from following 2013 2012 2012 2030 2030 2014 2020 2013 2013 2011 2013 2013 2014 2014 2020 2024 2024 2014 2015 2014 2014 End year 2011 2010 2010 2015 2015 2011 2015 2011 2010 2009 2011 2011 2010 2012 2012 2012 2012 2010 Start year ) 6 9 3 7 7 89 39 19 30 26 21 29 13 20 15 25 161 Cost (EUR × 10 (km) Length Project description Track modernization for speed up to 160 km/h on Kaunas – Kaisiadorys line Track Construction of second track on Pusynas – Paneriai line (Vilnius station bypass) Construction of second track on Kyviskes – Valciunai line (Vilnius station bypass) Construction of second track on Kyviskes – Valciunai Elimination of crossings (building road overpasses) on Corridor IXD Elimination of crossings (building road overpasses) on Corridor IX B – Lieplauke line Construction of second track on Telsiai Track modernization for speed up to 160 km/h on KaisiadorysTrack – Vilnius line Construction of second track on Kulupenai – Kretinga line Modernization of signalling on Corridor IXB, section Radviliskis – Siauliai Development of Klaipeda railway node (modernization of Draugystes station tracks) Development of Klaipeda railway node (modernization of Rimku station tracks) Development of Klaipeda railway node (modernization of Pauostis station tracks) Development of Klaipeda railway node (modernization of Klaipeda station tracks) Construction of second track on Pavenciai – Rudenai line Electrification of Kena – Kybartai line Electrification of Kaisiadorys – Radviliskis line Electrification of Radviliskis – Klaipeda line Construction of second track on Plunge – Sateikiai line Construction of second track on Telsiai – Duseikiai line Construction of second track on Telsiai Modernization of signalling on Corridor IXB, section Kaunas – Kaisiadorys line Modernization of electrification Palemonas – Kaisiadorys line LT-R-3 LT-R-4 LT-R-5 LT-R-6 LT-R-7 LT-R-8 LT-R-9 LT-R-10 LT-R-11 LT-R-13 LT-R-14 LT-R-15 LT-R-16 LT-R-17 LT-R-18 LT-R-19 LT-R-20 LT-R-21 LT-R-22 LT-R-23 LT-R-24 Project ID

103 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 15 15 15 Private 85 85 85 75 70 75 75 Grant source 27 Bank 73 25 30 25 25 National % funding secured from following 2013 2014 2015 2015 2022 2025 2025 2018 2012 2010 2015 2012 2010 2015 2010 2014 2015 End year 2010 2011 2012 2010 2019 2022 2022 2010 2004 2009 2010 2002 2012 2001 2009 2011 Start year ) 6 5 22 27 47 33 27 40 268 189 103 504 194 354 Cost (EUR × 10 0 1 39 71 58 120 234 (km) Length Project description Construction of traffic control centre Construction of second track on Zeimia – Luksiai and Gimbogala Linkaiciai lines Construction of second track on Silainiai – Kedainiai, Gaiziunai Jonava lines and modernization of signalling system in Jonava and Gaiziunai stations Implementation of ETCS-1 on the rail Corridor IXB Kaisiadorys – Klaipeda Implementation of ETCS-1 on the rail Corridor IXB Radviliskis – Joniskis Modernization of electrification Vilnius – Kaunas line MONTENEGRO Rehabilitation of bridges and tunnels, mechanization traction power supply POLAND section) Modernization of E-20 line (Sedlce – Terespol Construction of new standard gauge (Rail Baltica) on border crossing sections Implementation of ETCS-1 on the rail Corridor IXD Kena – Kaunas Modernization of E30 line (We¸gliniec – Zgorzelec, We¸gliniec – Bielawa Dolna – Zgorzelec, We¸gliniec Modernization of E30 line (We¸gliniec sections) oenzto fE2 ie(ohce wredz section) Modernization of E-20 line (Sochaczew – Swarze¸d Wschodnia – Dorohusk section), Modernization of C-28 line (Warszawa viaducts construction projects Modernization of E30 line (Legnica – We¸gliniec section) Modernization of E30 line (Legnica – We¸gliniec Modernization of E30 line (Zabrze – Kraków section) Modernization of E30 line (Bielawa Dolna – Horka section) and construction of bridge and electrification on Nysa Łu˙zycka PL-R-1 PL-R-4 PL-R-2 PL-R-3 PL-R-5 PL-R-7 PL-R-6 LT-R-25 LT-R-26 LT-R-27 LT-R-30 LT-R-31 LT-R-32 LT-R-28 LT-R-29 ME-R-2 Project ID

104 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 0 0 0 0 0 Private 0 0 0 70 58 75 66 50 65 85 75 Grant source 0 0 0 0 Bank 0 0 30 42 25 34 50 35 15 25 National % funding secured from following 2015 2011 2015 2015 2010 2012 2013 2014 2010 2013 2013 2015 2014 2016 2016 2015 2012 End year 2010 2009 2011 2006 2004 2003 2003 2003 2008 2010 2009 2011 2007 2014 2014 2009 2009 Start year ) 6 3 5 13 17 848 640 390 453 578 248 191 504 105 422 733 250 199 Cost 3,143 (EUR × 10 13 60 58 39 66 12 26 48 139 104 103 580 161 224 107 117 480 356 (km) Length wiercze – Mława section) ´ Project description Modernization of E30/CE30 line (Kraków – Rzeszów section) Modernization of C30/1 line (Tarnów – Stró ˙ze section) – StróModernization of C30/1 line (Tarnów ˙ze Modernization of E59 line (Dolnos´la¸skie Voivodeship border – Poznan´ section) border – Poznan´ Voivodeship Modernization of E59 line (Dolnos´la¸skie Modernization of E59 line (Wrocław – Dolnos´la¸skie Voivodeship border section) Voivodeship – Dolnos´la¸skie Modernization of E59 line (Wrocław – Szczecin section) Modernization of CE59 line (Mie¸dzylesie Modernization of E65/CE65 line (S Modernization of E65/CE65 line (Malbork – Iława section) – Gdynia section) Modernization of E65/CE65 line (Gdanˇsk – Pszczyna section) Modernization of CE65 line (Tczew Modernization of E65 line (Opoczno – Knapówka section) Project and development of ETCS 1 on E65 line (Grodzisk Mazowiecki – Zawiercie section) Modernization of E75 line Rail Baltica (Warszawa Rembertów – Sadowne section) Modernization of E75 line Rail Baltica (Warszawa ROMANIA Rehabilitation and modernization of line Craiova – Calafat Improvement of accessibility to Port of Gdańsk (bridge construction and double-track railway line modernization ) Rehabilitation of line Bucuresti – Videle Giurgiu Rehabilitation and modernization of line Brasov – Sighisoara Curtici Rehabilitation of line Brasov – Predeal Rehabilitation of line Predeal – Campina PL-R-8 PL-R-9 RO-R-1 RO-R-2 RO-R-4 RO-R-5 RO-R-6 PL-R-10 PL-R-11 PL-R-12 PL-R-13 PL-R-14 PL-R-15 PL-R-16 PL-R-17 PL-R-18 PL-R-19 PL-R-20 Project ID

105 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 Private Grant source Bank National % funding secured from following 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 End year 2010 2010 2010 2010 Start year ) 6

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 22 80 89 75 36 31 99 241 168 523 150 149 185 364 400 Cost 1,176 (EUR × 10 8 60 24 23 83 18 64 40 428 112 244 365 (km) Length Project description Construction of by-road around Saratov junction – Tikhoretskaya Construction of side track in the passage Volgograd Construction of side track in the passage Tikhoretskaya – Korenovsk Construction of side track in the passage Enem – Krivenkovskaya Construction of side track in the passage Timashevskaya – Krimskaya Construction of side track in the passage Enem (Afipskaya) – Krimskaya passage – Anapa Temruk Complex reconstruction of 9 km – Yurovskiy Construction of by-road around Krasnodar junction Construction of a new station Razyezd 9 km Electrification of Rtishevo – Kochetovka passage Construction of side track in the passage Akhtuba – Trubnaya Trubnaya – Aksarayskaya passage Electrification of Construction of third rail-tracks in the passage Bekasovo – Nara Construction – Buslovskaya of side track in the passage Vyborg-Passazhirskaya Construction of a new line Petyayarvi – Kamennogorsk – Kamennogorsk Construction of side track in the passage Vyborg-Tovarnaya Vysotsk) Vyborg passage (Primorsk, Electrification of Sosnovo – Kamennogorsk – Ivangorod passage and Complex reconstruction of Mga – Gatchina –Veymarn railway approaches to the ports located in the southern coast of Finnish Bay THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Reconstruction of St. Petersburg railway junction RU-R-7 RU-R-8 RU-R-9 RU-R-2 RU-R-3 RU-R-4 RU-R-5 RU-R-6 RU-R-1 RU-R-10 RU-R-11 RU-R-12 RU-R-13 RU-R-14 RU-R-15 RU-R-16 RU-R-17 RU-R-18 RU-R-19 Project ID

106 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 0 4 0 0 0 Private 55 50 60 74 81 Grant source 6 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 Bank 1 44 17 94 30 19 National % funding secured from following 2015 2021 2015 2025 2024 2021 2014 2015 2021 2011 2017 2011 2013 2017 2020 End year 2010 2015 2008 2010 2010 2011 2008 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2013 2009 2009 2013 2015 Start year ) 6

a 2 88 85 53 318 670 278 850 530 300 102 400 400 216 363 564 403 Cost 1,118 (EUR × 10 55 85 20 16 59 39 39 122 244 104 139 102 287 287 182 157 (km) Length Project description SERBIA Modernization of line Beograd – Sid HRV Completion of construction (new part) and reconstruction (existing part) of Belgrade Rail Node Modernization of line Beograd – Nis to a double-track Modernization of line Nis – Dimitrovgrad BGR Modernization and electrification of line Stalac – Kraljevo Pozega Vrsac – ROU Modernization and electrification of line Pancevo – – MNE Rehabilitation of line Beograd – Vrbnica Modernization of line Ruma – Zvornik – BIH Modernization and construction of 2nd track line Beograd – Subotica HUN Modernization of line Nis – Presevo MKD border Modernization and electrification of line Lapovo – Kraljevo SLOVAKIA Modernization of line Zilina – Krasno nad Kysucou Modernization of line Kysak – Kosice Station Cierna nad Tisou – UKR Restoration of crossing points in Dno – Novosokolniki passage Modernization of line Nove Mesto nad Vahom – Puchov Modernization of line Nove Mesto nad Vahom Modernization of line Puchov – Zilina Modernization of line Zilina – Kralovany SR-R-1 SR-R-3 SR-R-4 SR-R-6 SR-R-8 SR-R-9 SR-R-2 SR-R-5 SR-R-7 SK-R-1 SK-R-3 SK-R-4 SK-R-5 SK-R-6 SK-R-8 SR-R-10 SR-R-11 RU-R-20 Project ID

107 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 Private 2 1 0 0 82 80 84 26 35 41 Grant source 0 0 0 0 75 Bank 2 1 1 1 39 18 16 74 65 59 25 100 National % funding secured from following 2014 2017 2017 2017 2012 2017 2017 2011 2012 End year 2011 2011 2013 2014 2009 2013 2013 2003 2005 Start year ) 6 82 95 80 388 788 432 567 325 122 145 141 500 Cost 1,182 1,403 1,200 1,293 2,400 (EUR × 10 7 71 29 56 95 56 56 40 17 46 28 48 110 565 533 212 (km) Length 1,229 Project description Modernization of line Kuty – CZE Modernization of line Kuty – Bratislava Modernization of line Krompachy – Kysak Modernization of line Kralovany – Liptovsky Mikulas Modernization of line Kosice – Cierna nad Tisou Modernization of line Liptovsky Mikulas – Poprad Modernization of line Poprad – Krompachy SLOVENIA Modernization of line Pragersko – Ormoz – Project A Reconstruction and electrification of line Pragersko – Hodos Construction of 2nd track on line Maribor – Sentilj AUT Introduction of ERTMS/ETCS system on Slovenian rail network Introduction of ERTMS/ETCS Modernization of existing line Koper – Divaca Introduction of GSM-R system on Slovenian rail network Construction of new line Divaca – Koper Construction of new line Ljubljana – Kranj Jesenice with connection to airport – Divaca Cross border line Trieste TURKEY Ankara – Istanbul High-Speed Railway project Ankara – Konya High-Speed Railway project SL-R-1 SL-R-2 SL-R-3 SL-R-5 SL-R-7 SL-R-8 SL-R-9 TR-R-1 TR-R-2 SK-R-9 SL-R-4a SL-R-4b SK-R-10 SK-R-13 SK-R-12 SK-R-11 SK-R-14 SK-R-15 Project ID

108 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 Grant source 0 0 0 0 90 75 85 85 85 100 100 100 Bank 0 0 0 10 25 10 15 15 15 100 100 100 National % funding secured from following 2013 2014 2014 2014 2011 2012 2012 2014 2013 2013 2013 2014 2011 2013 2013 2013 2014 2011 End year 2007 2008 2008 2010 2004 2005 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2006 2011 2011 2011 2012 2008 Start year ) 6 60 70 50 55 90 10 910 390 730 140 320 100 100 130 200 166 Cost 2,100 1,700 2,000 (EUR × 10 76 30 76 450 606 278 105 231 425 425 415 328 328 341 390 378 702 578 (km) Length Project description Ankara – Sivas High-Speed Railway project Ankara – Izmir High-Speed Railway project Bursa – Osmaneli High-Speed Railway project Yerkoy – Kayseri High-Speed Railway project Yerkoy Halkali – Kapikule High-Speed Railway project Gebze – Halkali (Marmaray) Railway project Bogazkopru – Yenice, Mersin – Toprakkale, signalling, telecommunication and station Mersin – Toprakkale, Bogazkopru – Yenice, extension Bogazkopru – Ulukisla – Yenice, Mersin – Adana – Toprakkale electrification project Mersin – Adana Toprakkale Bogazkopru – Ulukisla Yenice, Irmak – Karabuk Zonguldak rehabilitation and signalling project Eskisehir – Balikesir signalling project Eskisehir – Balikesir electrification project Bandirma – Menemen signalling project Izmir (Cumaovasi) – Karakuyu signalling project New ferries, wharf rehabilitation, setting up of maintenance and repair workshop (Lake Van) Samsun – Kalin electrification and signalling project Kayas – Cetinkaya electrification project Pehlivankoy – Uzunkopru electrification and signalling project Kars – Divrigi signalling project Kars – Aktas new railway line with signalling and electrification systems TR-R-3 TR-R-4 TR-R-5 TR-R-6 TR-R-7 TR-R-8 TR-R-9 TR-R-10 TR-R-11 TR-R-12 TR-R-13 TR-R-14 TR-R-15 TR-R-16 TR-R-17 TR-R-18 TR-R-19 TR-R-20 TR-R-21 Project ID Conversion rate: 1 EUR = 45 RUB. a

109 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

6.4 Analysis of projects and their classification For the analysis and classification of revised Master Plan projects, a simplified evaluation method was developed, based on that used in the original Master Plan. The method applies principles of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), and establishes preferences between options by reference to an explicit set of objectives, identified by the decision-makers. Measurable criteria were chosen to assess the extent to which these objectives had been achieved. These criteria were defined through observation, discussion and trial-and-error processes. In spite of an inherent subjectivity associated with this method, it may bring a degree of structure, analysis and openness to the decision-making process. Its methodological framework was structured in three phases, i.e. identification, analysis and time period classification, in order to ensure the inclusion of all available projects, and employed a set of criteria reflecting the societal values, priorities and available resources of the participating countries as well as the viability of the projects and their international character. Phase A — Identification The identification phase entailed the selection of prospective projects primarily on the basis of their funding possibilities and secondarily on the basis of commonly-shared objectives of the national or international authority responsible as well as of the collection of available information/ data regarding these projects. Phase B — Analysis The analysis phase had as an objective the derivation of scores (the degree of performance) for unfunded, or partly funded, projects to be used in the prioritization phase, and included the following components: • definition of criteria — two hyper-criteria; • measurement of criteria — scores; • weighting/hierarchy of criteria — Delphi/pairwise comparison; • derivation of total score per project (total performance of project).

Definition of criteria The criteria were grouped in two clusters as follows. Cluster A — Horizontal dimension: Functionality/coherence criteria • serves international connectivity (reaches a border crossing point or provides a connection with a link that crosses a border); • promotes solutions to the particular transit transport needs of landlocked developing countries; • connects low income and/or least developed countries to major European and Asian markets; • the project crosses natural barriers, removes bottlenecks, raises substandard sections to meet international standards, or fills missing links in the network. Cluster B — Vertical dimension: Socio-economic efficiency and sustainability criteria • has a high degree of urgency due to importance attributed by the national authorities and/or social interest; • passes the economic viability test; • has a high degree of maturity, such that it can be carried out quickly (i.e. project stage); • financing feasibility; • has environmental and social impacts.

110 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Measurement of criteria The criteria were measured firstly using a “physical scale” either by direct classification according to available data/measurable characteristics and/or by quality attributes, provided by preference judgment from the national authority involved. To make the various criteria compatible, it was necessary to transform them into a common measurement unit, or in other words to transform them from a “physical scale” measurement into a common “artificial scale” measurement. This was carried out using a simple linear function, connecting threshold values of an artificial scale with those of a physical scale. The artificial scale chosen was 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest value. Weighting/hierarchy of criteria A pairwise comparison matrix in combination with the Delphi method was used for establishing the criteria weights, the sum of which had to be 1. For their establishment, the participating countries were requested through their National Coordinators to provide their own weight with an appropriate justification. Derivation of total score per project The total score of each project was calculated by the consultant based on multi-attribute utility theory. Phase C — Time period classification The time period classification phase resulted in the selection of projects according to their performance score on the basis of which projects were classified into four time period classes (1, 2, 3 and 4), each related to a specified time horizon: Class 1 — projects started before 2011; Class 2 — projects which are expected to start before 2015; Class 3 — projects which are expected to start before 2020; Class 4 — projects which are expected to start after 2020, and projects for which sufficient data are not available. Evaluation results The results of evaluation of the motorway/road projects with the respective data are contained in the TEM and TER revised Master Plan final report, Volume II “Financing of road and rail infrastructure for the TEM and TER Master Plan revision”. According to these results, the total number of evaluated projects reached 367, with a total cost of EUR 100,881 × 106. Out of this number, 94 were completed. From the remaining 273 motorway/road projects, 227 belonged to Class 1, 3 to Class 2, 20 to Class 3 and 23 to Class 4. In Annex III of Volume II, these projects were analysed in detail also with respect to their construction costs, and the GDP and national budget of the individual countries. Volume II of the final report also contains considerations regarding funding and recommendations addressed to some of the participating countries. It has not been possible to apply the methodology described above to all motorway/road Master Plan projects and nor has it been possible to apply it to any of the rail projects. The timing of the realization of any project is not only dependent on societal values, political priorities, financing feasibility and the international importance of the project. It may also depend on the design stage, the results of the environmental impact assessment analysis, decisions related to the territorial location of the project, the possibilities for land acquisition, the availability of a construction permit and funds, etc. The realistic start and end years for the implementation of all (roadand rail) revision projects, taking all the relevant aspects into account, are stated in the respective columns of the tables in chapters 6.2 and 6.3, thus indicating de facto the real project time priorities.

111 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

112 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

7. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS

Owing to the complexity of the transport infrastructure funding arrangements and of the multitude of their possible technical and institutional aspects, the funding considerations for revised Master Plan projects is dealt with in detail in Volume II “Financing of road and rail infrastructure for the TEM and TER Master Plan revision” of this final report. Volume II includes the identification of possible sources of funding for road and rail projects as well as the eligibility criteria and required procedures to be followed in order to receive the needed funds. Volume II, Annex III “How to ensure financing for road projects in the Master Plan” presents these funding sources, criteria and procedures and how to obtain them, together with concrete and detailed recommendations specifically tailored to actual motorway/road projects for which funding has not yet been fully secured. Volume II, Annex IV “Road financing in Europe and recommendations for the financing of road projects in the Master Plan” provides an up-to-date review of the literature and practices concerning road financing in Europe. It presents a summary of the various means and methods available for securing financing of motorway/road projects, taking into consideration the information collected from the participating countries, and formulates some recommendations for the countries which were engaged in the TEM component of the Master Plan revision. Volume II, Annex V “Financing the railway infrastructure in the revised Master Plan” deals with the present and future ways of funding of railway infrastructure, and the identification of possible sources, criteria and procedures for obtaining the needed funds. It further provides an overview of costs of railway infrastructure and instruments for railway financing, and formulates recommendations with regard to financial sources for railway construction, improvement of planning and preparation of decisions for a greater efficiency of the rail infrastructure. It also proposes an organizational model for the operation and financing of this infrastructure. In addition, it contains selected examples of current European rail funding experience and practices. Volume II, Annex VI “Funding considerations for railway infrastructure projects in the Master Plan” contains an overview of the railway projects in the revised Master Plan, their funding status and possible sources of funding. It also deals with the evaluation criteria for projects, funding considerations for non-secured or partly secured financing for projects, prerequisites for bankable projects, steps to be followed for ensuring funding and establishment of the technical and institutional actions required to secure missing funds.

113 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

114 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

8. STATUS OF BACKBONE NETWORKS IN 2010, 2015 AND 2020

In accordance with the terms of reference for the revision of the Master Plan, the need to document the development and expected status of the TEM and TER backbone networks in the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 was identified as a precondition for the identification of their bottlenecks. These status data were also of importance to, or indirectly connected to, other topics in this final report, e.g. border crossing issues, intermodal relationships and ITS, as well as to environmental aspects, safety and security.

8.1 Status maps of the TEM and TER backbone network Status maps of the rail and road backbone networks in 2010, 2015 and 2020 were developed on the basis of the national master plans, data and assistance of the participating countries, the revision questionnaires, the TEMSTAT monitoring system, data from other relevant studies (in particular from the UIC ERIM and the TENCONNECT study), internet sources (especially with regard to the status of high-speed railways and their planned development), and available documentation and information gained from other sources (see Maps No. 11 to 13 for the TEM backbone network and No. 14 to 16 for the TER backbone network). In the majority of participating countries, there is a national master plan (strategy) of approved infrastructure development with a horizon extending up to the years 2013 to 2015. Only some of the participating countries have investment plans that extend to the year 2020, and these are (or may soon be) undergoing revision and change as a result of the economic recession. Therefore, for such cases, the infrastructure status shown on the 2020 status maps includes a considerable element of uncertainty and represents the most probable option based on the latest information available, as communicated by the representatives of the participating countries. The TER status maps (No. 14 to 16) show sections with the design speed limits below 160 km/h and those with design speed limits equal to 160 km/h, 200 km/h to 230 km/h, 250 km/h and 300 km/h. The TEM status maps (No. 11 to 13) show sections with “motorways or dual carriageways in operation” in the given year (i.e. motorways, expressways and also dual- carriageway highways, sometimes even those for which access of slow vehicles is permitted and at- grade intersections). Distinction between these different categories of “dual carriageway” was not possible since in some countries the term “motorway” is not defined and the term “expressway” has a very different meaning from one country to another (sometimes it includes also two-lane roads).

8.2 Lessons learnt The lessons learnt in the course of the elaboration of the status maps of the TEM and TER backbone networks can be summarized as follows. Road • In some cases, planning and even construction of motorway connections between participating countries is not properly coordinated, in particular with respect to their timing. • The concepts for the terms describing different categories of “dual carriageway” (and in particular the term “expressway”) need to be clarified and if possible harmonized. More detailed information about the types of dual-carriageway communications is desirable within the framework of the follow-up to the Master Plan revision.

115 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

• More detailed and regular data on road infrastructure development would be very beneficial, especially those from the non-TEM member countries participating in the revision, since there is a certain lack of consistency between the infrastructure data from the TEM countries (through the TEMSTAT information and monitoring system) and those from the other countries (where no regular information flows have been established yet). • It should be further clarified how realistic the future motorway development plans are; in some countries they seem quite ambitious when compared with the pace of past constructions. Rail • There is no regional high-speed rail master plan for the region covered by the TER Master Plan; in practice, the vast majority of the participating countries are planning the development and construction of high-speed railways taking account only of their national needs. • Some of the participating countries possess national high-speed rail master plans, or future plans for their construction are at different stages of approval. • At present, some participating countries have no plans for a national high-speed rail network or its construction. • In some of the data received from the participating countries, it is not clear to which speed category a particular rail section belongs. This is particularly the case with respect to the speed limit of 160 km/h: the term frequently used is “up to 160 km/h” and in some cases the respective data differ (e.g. for the same section, one source indicates a design speed of 140 km/h and another a design speed of 160 km/h). • In many cases it is not clear how realistic (in particular from the point of view of secured funding) the future development plans are, especially as far as the 2020 status is concerned. For example, plans to construct in hilly terrain (where the current line allows speeds from 60 km/h to 80 km/h) hundreds of kilometres of railway links in 4 years to 5 years and with a design speed of 160 km/h seem to be extremely ambitious.

8.3 Conclusions According to the TEM status maps (No. 11 to 13) and taking into account the remarks above, it is possible to assume that in 2020 the TEM Master Plan backbone network with motorway or dual carriageway sections would be in full operation in Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Turkey and, with a few exceptions, also in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, Serbia and Slovakia. There also seems to be some hope for its completion in the foreseeable future in Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Romania, while in the remaining participating countries the chance seems to be rather low. According to the TER status maps (No. 14 to 16), railway sections with a design speed of 160 km/h exist at present in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey, i.e. in 9 out of the 25 countries participating in the revision. In 2015, this number is expected to grow to 14 and in 2020 to a total of 17 countries (Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine). It seems possible that in the region in 2020, a few more or less continuous 160 km/h main lines may exist, interconnecting most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe including Belarus, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. Because of the total absence of a regional high-speed rail master plan in the region (and taking into consideration the introduction of the 160 km/h speed limit on major international lines), the elaboration of such a master plan under the auspices of the UNECE, and possibly also of the European Commission (EC), could be the subject of one of the follow-up activities in the future.

116 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Since the backbone network construction plans may be, at least in some countries, negatively influenced by the present economic recession, the results of which are difficult to foresee, it seems probable that the maps for 2015 and 2020 present the maximum possible, and the reality, especially in 2020, might be rather more modest than estimated. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure regular monitoring of the progress of the transport infrastructure construction and updating of the respective mid-term investment plans and long-term strategies.

117 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

118 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

9. bOTTLENECKS ON BACKBONE NETWORKS

9.1 Definition and identification In general, there are different causes of bottlenecks. In road and rail transport, two types are usually distinguished: condition bottlenecks, where the poor infrastructure limits the speed, and capacity bottlenecks, where the heavy traffic flows cause delays. Bottlenecks can also be caused by other reasons, e.g. by border crossings and rail gauge changes, and temporary bottlenecks can be caused because of infrastructure repair works, accidents, landslides, earthquakes, floods etc. Special types of transport-related bottleneck represent the so-called social and environmental bottlenecks, i.e. cases where the transport infrastructure development is at odds with the priorities or goals of social or environmental legislation, institutions and groups. Most of the studies and documents dealing with bottlenecks in the transport sector concentrate on condition and/or capacity bottlenecks and the same approach has been chosen in the course of the revision of the Master Plan. It is commonly accepted that a fully rigorous and theoretically founded basis for identifying bottlenecks is not available. On the whole, the identification of bottlenecks appears to have been done individually by each country, without reference to any common definition or parameter. With respect to condition bottlenecks, the main indicators of the quality of an infrastructure are its type (e.g. limited access road, ordinary road, railway gauge, high-speed railway, signalling system, electrification), capacity (expressed in number of lanes or tracks, or number of cars, trains or passengers), axle load, permitted speed and restrictions. For capacity bottlenecks, there are many criteria proposed in various documents and studies. For example, the CEDR SG-TERN in its report “Bottlenecks in Road Networks” suggested that a road section may be considered as a bottleneck if over the period of one year, congestion occurs for more than 200 h or speed falls below the threshold value. The UNECE documents TRANS/WP.5/R.60 and TRANS/ WP.5/2006/2 suggested that rail bottlenecks be identified by assessing whether the demand exceeded 60 to 80 trains/day for a single track and 2 × 100 trains/day to 2 × 200 trains/day for a double-track line. A motorway/road bottleneck would be a section where the traffic exceeded 12,000 PCU/day on a 2-lane road and 60,000 PCU/day on a 4-lane motorway for more than 80 days to 120 days a year. The WSP Finland Ltd pilot study “The Northern Transport Axis” made use of the same criteria for rail capacity bottlenecks, and considered a road as congested when the travel speed of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) decreased below 50 km/h. The road capacity limits suggested by the UNECE (above) together with the level of service concept of the US “Highway Capacity Manual” were also used as a basis for the identification of bottlenecks in the TEM component of the original Master Plan. Finally, according to the TENCONNECT report, the applied capacity of a 4-lane motorway was 4,600 PCU/h, corresponding to a level of service E. A practical lane capacity of a 2-lane road was considered to be about 1,400 PCU/h, reduced to about 950 PCU/h in urban areas. In rail transport, double-track sections with more than 230 trains/day or sections with mixed usage of tracks by high-frequent suburban trains, long- distance passenger trains and freight trains (or a combination of these factors) were considered as bottlenecks. In these calculations, the rail passenger and freight flows were transformed to train numbers using the conversion factors of 700 net tonnes/train, 350 passengers/train and 50 % share of passenger and freight trains.

119 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Meanwhile, none of these documents and studies resulted in the identification of concrete bottlenecks in the TEM and TER region with the exception of the TENCONNECT study. At first, it presented the road bottlenecks (red colour) and missing links (green colour) in 2030 on the following schematic map of the major trans-national axes of “EU importance” of the south- western part of the region, based simply on the criterion of exceeding the capacity of the link in the two morning peak hours.

Following a more detailed analysis of road capacity bottlenecks, the study registered their existence only in large cities and agglomerations (Athens, Bucharest, Budapest, Florence, Gdansk, Istanbul, Katowice, Kaunas, Kiev, Milan, Moscow, Naples, Prague, Rome, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Vilnius, Warsaw, Vienna and Zagreb), but not on any intercity motorway/road links. A similar schematic map of the south-western part of the region (see below) identified the rail capacity bottlenecks (red colour) on links where the average daily rail traffic was above 25,000 passengers/day. According to the map, rail capacity bottlenecks existed only in Warsaw, Vienna and in about 5 places in Italy. (In this map, the green colour again identifies the missing links.)

120 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

As a result of a more-detailed analysis of rail freight and passenger transport capacity bottlenecks, the TENCONNECT study analysed them in general and only on the links of selected main network. It identified bottlenecks in conurbations too, but in 2030 in Vienna and Milan only. Bearing in mind that there is no generally accepted approach for the identification of bottlenecks, and taking into consideration all the findings and limitations described above, as well as the fact that the methodology used in the original Master Plan cannot be applied to rail bottlenecks, it was decided to identify road and rail bottlenecks in the revised Master Plan on a country-by-country basis from the data delivered by the participating countries. These bottlenecks are identified in chapters 9.2 and 9.3 and Maps No. 17 and 18.

121 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

9.2 Roads

Note: Under “Type”, CA = capacity bottleneck, CO = condition bottleneck.

No. / Country / Road section Type Remark

Albania

second carriageway under 1. Durres (Plepa) – Kavaje – Rrogozhine CA construction

Austria

2. Tauern tunnel, second tube CO under construction

3. Roppen tunnel, second tube CO under construction

4. Pfaender tunnel, second tube CO under construction

5. Traismauer – Jettsdorf, Danube bridge CO under construction

6. Klaus tunnel, second tube CO programmed

7. Bosruck tunnel, second tube CO planned

8. Linz Hummelhof – Linz Urfahr CA planned

9. Schwechat – Sussenbrunn CA planned

10. Judenburg – St. Georgen CA second carriageway planned

11. St. Georgen – Scheifling CA second carriageway planned

12. Scheifling – Klagenfurt North CA second carriageway planned

Azerbaijan

13. Sumgayit – G.Z. Tagiyev CO reconstruction of bypass road

14. Ganja – Gazakh CO 4 road relocations needed

15. Salyan – Kura river bridge CO bridge reconstruction

bridge reconstructions and short 16. Bilasuvar – Astara CO road relocations

17. Hadjigabul – Red bridge CA 2 more traffic lanes planned

Bosnia and Herzegovina

18. Foca – Hum CO reconstruction planned

19. Stolac – Neum CO construction programmed

20. Border crossing Doljani CO new crossing under design

21. Border crossing Vardiste CO new crossing under design

The Czech Republic

22. Lovosice – Rehlovice CA under construction

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

23. Tabanovce – Kumanovo CO under construction

122 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

No. / Country / Road section Type Remark

Georgia

24. Vale – TUR CO planned

Lithuania

25. Kaunas bypass (A5 – A6 road crossings) CA widening to 2 × 3 lanes planned

26. Jakai intersection in Klaipeda CA grade separation planned

27. Kaunas – Medininkai, Vilnius thoroughfare CA Vilnius southern bypass planned

Serbia

28. Beska Danube bridge CO under construction

29. Kelebia –Subotica (E 75 Y-branch) CO designed

Slovakia

30. Sverepec – Vrtizer CA under construction

31. Hricovske Podhradie – Dubna Skala CA under construction

32. Dubna Skala – Ivachnova CA under construction

33. Janovce – Jablonov CA under construction

34. Fricovce – Svinia CA under construction

Slovenia

36. Peracica – Podtabor CA under construction

37. Drazenci – Gruskovje CA under construction

Turkey

38. Izmit Bay crossing CA under construction

3rd suspension bridge 39. Istanbul Strait Crossings CA construction will start in 2011

123 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

9.3 Railways

Note: Under “Type”, CA = capacity bottleneck, CO = condition bottleneck.

No. / Country / Road section Type Remark

Albania

second carriageway under 1. Durres (Plepa) – Kavaje – Rrogozhine CA construction

Austria

1. St. Polten – Wien CA

2. Neunkirchen – Murzzuschlag CA Semmering base tunnel planned

3. Klagenfurt node CA

4. Schwarzach/St. Veit node CA

5. Attnang/Puchheim – Selzthal CA

6. Feldkirch – Bregenz CA

Azerbaijan

7. Osmanly – Astara CA second track under construction

Bosnia and Herzegovina

8. Samac/Bosanski Samac border crossing CA agreement on cross-border and 9. Capljina border crossing CA cross-country use of locomotives and crews 10. Doboj Inter-Entity boundary line CA

Croatia

construction of rail bypass, new marshalling yard and other 11. Zagreb junction CA measures aimed at increased junction capacity

12. Dugo Selo – Koprivnica CA reconstruction and second track

13. Dugo Selo – Novska CA second track, new signalling

construction of new line Horvati 14. Zagreb – Karlovac CA – Krasica

new electrification and signalling 15. Moravice – Rijeka CA systems

new electrification and signalling 16. Rijeka – Sapjane CO systems

Hungary

17. Budapest – Nagykanizsa CA

18. Budapest – Kelebia CA

19. Gyor – Boba CA

Romania

rehabilitation and modernization 20. Predeal – Brasov CA programmed

124 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

No. / Country / Road section Type Remark

The Rssian Federation

21. Bogdanovich – Bajenovo – Sverdlovsk CA parallel schedule of trains

22. Kungur – Perm – Cheptsa CO improvement of power supply

extension and rehabilitation of 23. Mga, Bogdanovich, Vologda and Losta stations CO station tracks

24. Lyangasovo – Kotelnich CO improvement of technical state

25. Kanalnaya – Salsk CA

26. M. Gorkogo – Kotelnikovo – Korenovsk CA construction of second track

27. Timashevskaya – Krimskaya CA construction of second track

28. Krasnodar junction CA new double-track bypass

29. Krimskaya – Novorossijsk CA reconstruction of tunnel

30. Primyikanie – Saratov CA

31. Krotovka – Obsharovka CO improvement of power supply

32. Chelyabinsk main station CA improvement of railway sidings

33. Zamchalovo – Kiziterinka CA

34. Bekasovo – Nara CA

35. Bakasovo – Sandarovo CO improvement of power supply

36. Shilovo – Ryibnoe CO improvement of power supply

Serbia

37. Beograd – Subotica – HUN CA construction of second track

construction of new part and 38. Beograd Rail Node CA reconstruction of existing one

39. Beograd – Nis CA construction of second track

Slovenia

40. Maribor- Sentilj – AUT CA construction of second track

41. Divaca – Koper CA construction of new line

42. Trieste – Divaca cross-border railway CO construction of new line

43. Ljubljana – Jesenice CA construction of new line

Turkey

tunnel and upgrading of existing 44. Istanbul, Istanbul Strait crossing CA lines (Marmaray project) under construction

procurement of 2 new ferries 45. Tatvan – Van CA ongoing

125 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

126 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

LIST OF MAPS

1. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision participating countries 2. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network 3. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network 4. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links 5. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links 6. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — traffic flows in 2020 7. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — passenger flows in 2020 8. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — freight flows in 2020 9. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — TEM revised Master Plan projects 10. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — TER revised Master Plan projects 11. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010 12. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015 13. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020 14. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010 15. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015 16. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020 17. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks 18. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks 19. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks interrelationships 20. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks — common sections 21a. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance) 21b. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries) 22a TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance) 22b TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries)

127 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

128 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

129 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

131 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

133 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

135 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

137 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

139 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

141 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

143 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

145 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

147 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

149 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

151 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

153 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

155 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

157 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

159 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

161 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

163 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

165 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

16720 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

16921 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

17122 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

17323 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

17524 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

10. bORDER CROSSING ISSUES

Border crossings and related procedures may constitute significant transport barriers. The obstacles at borders result in difficulties in both road and rail services, and long waiting times at borders cause disruptions to logistical activities, increase their costs and reduce the efficiency of the global economy. While transport operators can waste time at these crossings, it is the shippers and ultimately the consumers who pay the price for delays. Since the elaboration of the original Master Plan in 2005, considerable improvement has been achieved through the extension of the Schengen area to all the EU member countries, and thus practically no problems have been observed at the internal borders between the 10 participating countries which are in the EU. In the region covered by the TEM and TER Master Plan, long waiting times lead to difficulties in the road transport services especially at border crossing with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, where the waiting time for trade and traffic operations is increasing rapidly. The growing rail transport at these borders is also hampered by the gauge difference. As was the case for the original Master Plan, the inventory of border crossings and of the respective traffic flows was made as a first step, followed by the identification of border crossing problems and recommendations for alleviation of these problems. The following border crossings identified in chapters 10.1 to 10.3 are located on the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone network.

10.1 Road border crossings on the TEM backbone network Hani-i-Hotit (ALB) – Bozaj (MNE) Qafe Thane (ALB) – Kjafasan (MKD) Kakavija (ALB) – Ktismata (GRC) Morine (ALB) – Zhur Kapshtice (ALB) – Kristalopigi (GRC) Meghri (ARM) – Nurduz (IRN) Arnoldstein (AUT) – Coccau (ITA) Salzburg (AUT) – Piding (DEU) Nickelsdorf (AUT) – Hegyeshalom (HUN) Kittsee (AUT) – Petrzalka (SVK) Spielfeld (AUT) – Sentilj (SVN) Karawanken tunnel (AUT) – Jesenice (SVN) Samur (AZE) – Novogaptsakh (RUS) Astara (AZE) – Astara (IRN) Novaja Guta (BLR) – Novi Yarylovychi (UKR) Ezjaryszcza (BLR) – Lobok (RUS) Novaja Zjamlja (BLR) – Krasnoe (RUS) Visici (BIH) – Metkovic (HRV)

177 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Samac/Bosanski Samac (BIH) – Slavonski Samac (HRV) Donje Vardiste (BIH) – Bratislava Basta (SRB) Izacic (BIH) – Vaganac (HRV) Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (BIH) – Novi Varos (HRV) Hum (BIH) – Scepan Polje (MNE) Kalotina (BGR) – Gradina (SRB) Kapitan Andreevo (BGR) – Kapikule (TUR) Kulata (BGR) – Promachon (GRC) Russe (BGR) – Giurgiu (ROU) Vidin (BGR) – Calafat (ROU) Durankulak (BGR) – Vama Veche (ROU) Gjusevo (BGR) – Kriva Palanka (MKD) Svilengrad (BGR) – Ormenio (GRC) Bregana (HRV) – Obrezje (SVN) Gorican (HRV) – Letenye (HUN) Knezevo (HRV) – Udvar (HUN) Lipovac (HRV) – Batrovci (SRB) Macelj (HRV) – Gruskovje (SVN) Rupa (HRV) – Jelsane (SVN) Plovanija (HRV) – Dragonja (SVN) Rozvadov (CZE) – Waidhaus (DEU) Krasny Les (CZE) – Breitenau (DEU) Kralovec (CZE) – Lubawka (POL) Cesky Tesin (CZE) – Cieszyn (POL) Vernovice (CZE) – Gorzyczki (POL) Lanzhot (CZE) – Kuty (SVK) Dolni Dvoriste (CZE) – Wullowitz (AUT) Mikulov (CZE) – Drasenhofen (AUT) Gevgelija (MKD) – Evzoni (GRC) Medzitlija (MKD) – Niki (GRC) Sarpi (GEO) – Sarp (TUR) Naohrebi (GEO) – Turkozu (TUR) Larsi (GEO) – Verhnij Lars (RUS) Leselidze (GEO) – Adler (RUS) Tsiteli Khidi (GEO) – Red Bridge (AZE) Sadakhlo (GEO) – Ayrum (ARM) Kipi (GRC) – Ipsala (TUR) Rajka (HUN) – Rusovce (SVK)

178 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Parassapuszta (HUN) – Sahy (SVK) Tornyosnemeti (HUN) – Milhost (SVK) Zahony (HUN) – Chop (UKR) Nagylak (HUN) – Nadlac (ROU) Roszke (HUN) – Horgos (SRB) Tornyiszentmiklos (HUN) – Pince (SVN) Trieste Villa Opicina (ITA) – Fernetici (SVN) Rabuiese (ITA) – Skofije (SVN) Iselle (ITA) – Gondo (CHE) Bardonecchia (ITA) – Foumeaux (FRA) Ventimiglia (ITA) – Menton (FRA) Kalvarija (LTU) – Budzisko (POL) Salociai (LTU) – Grenctale (LVA) Medininkai (LTU) – Kamenny Loh (BLR) Kybartai (LTU) – Chernyshevskoye (RUS) Dobau (MDA) – Platonove (UKR) Pervomaise (MDA) – Kuchurhan (UKR) Boljari (MNE) – Brodarevo (SRB) Swiecko (POL) – Frankfurt (DEU) Olszyna (POL) – Forst (DEU) Jedrzychowice (POL) – Ludwigsdorf (DEU) Barwinek (POL) – Vysny Komarnik (SVK) Zwardon (POL) – Skalite (SVK) Terespol (POL) – Kozlovichi (BLR) Korczowa (POL) – Krakoviec (UKR) Chyzne (POL) – Trstena (SVK) Rattles (POL) – Mamonovo (RUS) Hrebenne (POL) – Rava Russkaya (UKR) Okopy Nowe (POL) – Izov (UKR) Moravita (ROU) – Vrsac (SRB) Siret (ROU) – Porubne (UKR) Halmeu (ROU) – Djakove (UKR) Albita (ROU) – Leuseni (MDA) Kotyayevka (RUS) – Akkol (KAZ) Donetsk (RUS) – Krasnodon (UKR) Novoshakhtinsk (RUS) – Dovzhanskiy (UKR) Kozino (RUS) – Zarutske (UKR)

179 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Kalinovka (RUS) – Bachivsk (UKR) Presevo (SRB) – Tabanovce (MKD) Vysne Nemecke (SVK) – Uzhgorod (UKR) Gurbulak (TUR) – Maku (IRN) Habur (TUR) – Zakhu (Iraq) Yayladagi (TUR) – Yayladag (SYR) In order to determine the border crossing traffic flows and the average waiting times for passenger and freight transport, as well as to identify major problems causing the longer delays at these crossings, special enquiries focused on these topics were launched in the framework of the revision of the Master Plan. The resulting data and findings are summarized in Annexes VII and VIII of Volume II of the final report.

10.2 Railway border crossings of importance for international combined trans- port according to the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations) Passau (DEU/AUT) Salzburg (DEU/AUT) Brennero (ITA/AUT) Tarvisio (ITA) – Arnoldstein (AUT) Ebenfurth (AUT) – Sopron (HUN) Nickelsdorf (AUT) – Hegyeshalom (HUN) Frankfurt/O. (DEU) – Kunowice (POL) Horka (DEU) – Wegliniec (POL) Kelebia (HUN) – Subotica (SRB) Lokoshaza (HUN) – Curtici (ROU) Presevo (SRB) – Tabanovci (MKD) Dimitrovgrad (SRB) – Dragoman (BGR) Episcopia Bihor (ROU) – Biharkeresztes (HUN) Giurgiu (ROU) – Ruse (BGR) Svilengrad (BGR) – Kapikule (TUR) Vidin (BGR) – Calafat (ROU) Kulata (BGR) – Promachon (GRC) Kapikoy (TUR) – Razi (IRN) Kittsee (AUT) – Bratislava (SVK) Gdynia (POL) – Ystad, Stockholm (SWE) / Helsinki (FIN) Chalupki (POL) – Bohumin (CZE) Schirnding (DEU) – Cheb (CZE) Bad Schandau (DEU) – Decin (CZE) Bernhardsthal (AUT) – Breclav (CZE) Summerau (AUT) – Horni Dvoriste (CZE)

180 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Vainikkala (FIN) – Buslovskaya (RUS) Orsha (BLR) – Krasnoye (RUS) Gudagai (BLR) – Kena (LTU) Meitene (LVA) – Sarkiai (LTU) Zernovo (UKR) – Suzemka (RUS) Zaverezhye (RUS) – Ezerischa (BLR) Nesterov (RUS) – Kibartai (LTU) Valuiki (RUS) – Topoli (UKR) Gukovo (RUS) – Krasnaya Mogila (UKR) Petukhovo (RUS) – Mamlyutka (KAZ) Astrakhan (RUS) – Aksaraiskaya II (KAZ) Orenburg (RUS) – Iletsk I (KAZ) Trakiszki (POL) – Mockava (LTU) Dorohusk (POL) – Izov (UKR) Zwardon (POL) – Skalite (SVK) Zebrzydowice (POL) – Petrovice u Karvine (CZE) Medzylesie (POL) – Lichkov (CZE) Cadca (SVK) – Mosty u Jablunkova (CZE) Luky pod Makytou (SVK) – Horni Lidec (CZE) Kuty (SVK) – Lanzhot (CZE) Cierna nad Tisou (SVK) – Chop (UKR) Sturovo (SVK) – Szob (HUN) Rusovce (SVK) – Rajka (HUN) Cana (SVK) – Hidasnemeti (HUN) Plavec (SVK) – Muszyna (POL) Magyarboly (HUN) – Beli Manastir (HRV) Gevgelia (MKD) – Idomeni (GRC) Dikea (GRC) – Svilengrad (BGR) Stamora Moravita (ROU) – Vrsac (SRB) Halmeu (ROU) – Deakovo (UKR) Dornesti (ROU) – Vadu Siret (UKR) Dogukapi (TUR) – Ahuryan (ARM) (closed) Koprivnica (HRV) – Gyekenyes (HUN) Savski Marof (HRV) – Dobova (SVN) Tovarnik (HRV) – Sid (SRB) Slavonski Samac (HRV) – Samac/Bosanski Samac (BIH) Metkovic (HRV) – Capljina (BIH)

181 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Sapjane (HRV) – Ilirska Bistrica (SVN) Rosenbach (AUT) – Jesenice (SVN) Spielfeld Strass (AUT) – Sentilj (SVN) Sredisce (SVN) – Cakovec (HRV) Hodos (SVN/ HUN) Villa Opicina (ITA) – Sezana (SVN) Terespol (POL) – Brest (BLR) Medyka (POL) – Mostiska (UKR) Zahony (HUN) – Chop (UKR) Ungheni (MDA) – Cristesti Jijia Fr. (ROU) Novosavytskoe (MDA) – Kuchurgan (UKR) Kvashino (UKR) – Uspenskaya (RUS) Veseloe (RUS) – Gantiadi (GEO) Kars (TUR) – Akhalkalaki (GEO) under construction Boyuk Kasik (AZE) – Gardabani (GEO)

10.3 Other railway border crossings on the TER backbone network Apart from the AGTC railway border crossing points of importance for international combined transport listed above, the remaining railway border crossings located on the revised TER backbone network are as follows. Bregenz (AUT) – Lindau (DEU) Cobanbey (TUR) – Aleppo (SYR) Fevzipasa (TUR) – Meydanekbez (SYR) Galati Larga (ROU) – Reni (UKR) Jennersdorf (AUT) – Szentgotthard (HUN) Kotoriba (HRV) – Murakeresztur (HUN) Kremenica (MKD) – Neos Kafkasos (GRC) Kriva Palanka (MKD) – Gjusevo (BGR) under construction Nusaybin (TUR) – Al Qamishli (SYR) Qafe Thane (ALB) – Struga (MKD) under construction Sadakhlo (GEO) – Ayrum (ARM) Teryukha (BLR) – Hornostayivka (UKR) Tuzi (MNE) – Hani-i-Hotit (ALB) Volinja (HRV) – Dobrljin (BIH) Vrbnica (SRB) – Bijelo Polje (MNE) Yalama (AZE) – Samur (RUS) Zvornik Novi (BIH) – Donja Borina (SRB) Uzunkopru (TUR) – Pythion (GRC)

182 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

10.4 Border crossing traffic According to the results of the enquiry into the border crossings on the road backbone network, the highest annual average border crossing traffic (up to 15,000 cars/day) was registered at the borders between the old (Austria and Germany) and the new (Poland and the Czech Republic) EU member countries. High traffic volumes were also detected at the Czech/Slovak motorway border crossing Breclav/Brodske (about 12,000 cars/day). At the Schengen border crossings, no delays or problems have been reported. At other road border crossings, the average waiting times ranged from 5 min to 40 min for passenger cars and from 10 min to 50 mins for trucks at the borders of non-EU Balkan countries and Turkey. Longer waiting times (up to 90 min) were registered at EU borders with Belarus and Ukraine and in special cases in Turkey (for trucks carrying agricultural products and at the border crossing to Iraq in Habur). These average data of course do not reflect the fact that in individual cases, on particular days and at particular time periods, the real waiting times may be much longer. According to the IRU “Border Waiting Times Observatory (BWTO)” and other IRU documents, the waiting times at the Lithuanian borders with the Russian Federation (Kaliningradskaya Oblast) and Belarus reached up to 36 h in 2008, between Poland and Belarus 20 h to 40 h, and at the most overloaded crossing on the link Warsaw – Minsk – (Moscow) even 100 h in January 2008. A similar situation was registered at road border crossings between Poland and Ukraine, where a record waiting time of almost 150 h was faced at the crossing Korczowa/Krakovec (Krakow – Lviv). Border waiting times were also influenced negatively in Albania, Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina by the inadequate crossing infrastructure. At some crossings between Poland, Germany, Lithuania and the Czech Republic capacity problems were caused by high traffic flows. The average rail border crossing traffic according to the results of the enquiry ranged between 2 freight trains/day at the Albania/Montenegro crossing Hani i Hotit and more than 100 trains/ day at the Breclav crossing between the Czech Republic and Austria/Slovakia. At the Schengen border crossings, no delays or only very short ones (about 5 min for passenger trains and minor technical stops for freight trains) have been reported. At the other rail border crossings, the average passenger train waiting times were approximately 15 min in Croatia, 30 min in Serbia, 30 min to 40 min at the Romanian and Slovak borders with Ukraine, 90 min in Azerbaijan and about 100 min in Turkey. Freight trains waited for about 60 min on average in Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina, 180 min in Bulgaria, up to 90 min in Croatia, 75 min to 300 min in Romania, 220 min to more than 7 h (at the Finnish border) in the Russian Federation, 130 min to 240 min in Serbia, 30 min to 150 min in Slovakia, 55 min to 185 min in Slovenia and 45 min to 200 min in Turkey. At three railway border crossings (Hani i Hotit between Albania and Montenegro, and Halmeu and Galati Larga between Romania and Ukraine), there is no passenger traffic and six border crossings (all between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkey) are closed. In some cases, the data reported from the two sides of the border differed considerably, which could not be explained by diverse counting methodologies only; the same is valid for some road crossings border traffic data. In their response to the revision questionnaire, some countries (e.g. Bulgaria and Turkey) mentioned the following border crossing problems: (i) delays arising from the supply of locomotives; (ii) delays of one train caused by the delay of another train; (iii) lack of personnel at the exchange border stations; (iv) delays faced during customs controls; (v) inefficiency in the exchange of information and certificates between the border stations and lack of technical equipment and personnel. The proposed measures to improve the situation inter alia include the following.

183 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

• Supply of the necessary technical equipment and personnel required to carry out controls in international passenger trains during the train journey. • Coordination between railway administrations, with exchange of information about train operations on their network and supply of locomotives, taking into account the arrival times of trains at the border stations. • Minimization by railway administrations, through all the necessary measures, of delays in trains on their network, thereby avoiding further delays to other trains. • Acceptance by railway administrations only of that luggage defined in the tariffs. • Efficiency in the exchange of the certificates issued by the border stations, and minimization of the handover formalities at stations. Furthermore, a specific problem exists in the Russian Federation related to the location of rail customs supervision posts, which according to the respective Government decree of 2003 should be situated not further than 30 km from the border. This condition is not fulfilled in some cases with respect to freight trains, namely on the Moscow (border crossing to Ukraine) and on the North-Caucasus (border crossing to Azerbaijan) railways. It is planned, therefore, to construct new border crossing and customs infrastructure at the border crossing stations Suzemka and Samur respectively. The main causes of waiting times in general are (i) visa issues (documentary and time requirements, validity), (ii) documentation and customs procedures, (iii) safety and security especially at road border crossings, (iv) congestions in road transport and (v) reloading procedures at rail crossings with different gauges. 10.5 Border crossing barriers and problems The existing border crossing barriers and problems in the region, broken down according to their origin (infrastructure, procedures, staff ), are the following. TEM road border crossings INFRASTRUCTURE • Unsuitable and insufficient capacity of border crossing installations • Obsolete and poor quality facilities or their absence at terminals • Inadequate equipment • Absence of separate lanes for transit traffic and empty vehicles • Absence of special lanes dedicated to the transport of dangerous goods • Undersized access roads to border crossings, and the poor state of these access roads • Insufficient parking space PROCEDURES • Either insufficient or overly-complex control procedures • Discrepancies between the opening times of customs and sanitary, phytosanitary, veterinary and other services • Insufficient computerization of control procedures • Non-application of electronic data interchange and use of paper-based documents • Systematic control of all vehicles instead of control based on risk assessment management techniques • Complex and often contentious weighing procedures for commercial vehicles • Absence of round-the-clock veterinary and phytosanitary controls • Sometimes excessive burden of national documentation requirements • Lack of coordination between customs administrations of neighbouring countries and authorities responsible for controls, in particular insufficient information exchange

184 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

• Non-compliance with TIR procedures • Breach or non-application of other international agreements and conventions related to border crossing • Failures to provide advance information to transport operators and private sector travellers • Changes of procedure without prior notice • Proliferation of taxes, duties and fees • Imposition of compulsory pay services using “commercial” structures established at border crossing points STAFF • Shortage of control personnel • Low productivity • Limited working hours • Lack of skills and inadequate training • Inappropriate behaviour of some officials • Lack of continuity in management of controls due to frequent staff rotation at all positions TER rail border crossings INFRASTRUCTURE • Unsuitable and insufficient capacity of border crossing installations • Obsolete and poor quality facilities • Inadequate equipment • Gauge differences PROCEDURES • Lack of adequate technology for handling the arrival and departure of trains • Delayed disposition of locomotives • Absence of suitable wagons and their positioning on each side of the border • Different train lengths on each side of the border • Positioning of empty containers • Insufficient coordination and management • Phytosanitary control problems, e.g. with pallets • Slow implementation of measures aimed at more adequate information about traffic flows • Slow or inadequate transmission of data inside and outside of the country • Insufficient legal basis for establishing rules and relations between railway administrations and other interested institutions with regard to harmonization of border procedures • Different cost characteristics of railway-owned and private wagons • Incorrect documentation and consignment notes • Different documentation rules, languages and codes • Inaccuracies in the completion of documents • Inadequate cooperation and lack of initiative at all levels • Insufficient computerization of control and monitoring procedures • Poor interoperability between IT systems of customs authorities and railway companies STAFF • Late arrivals of staff • Shortage of control personnel • Low productivity • Lack of skills and training

185 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

10.6 Solutions and remedial measures Certain solutions and remedial measures for each group of problems are recommended below on the basis of the existing border crossing barriers and problems mentioned in chapter 10.5. Their implementation has to be considered for each border crossing point on the basis of an evaluation of the specificities of that border crossing. At the same time, decision-makers should anticipate the future growth of traffic flows and take relevant measures — especially infrastructure investments — well in advance. In these activities, it is indispensable for governments and all the authorities on both sides of a border to closely coordinate activities and to work together to avoid wasting limited resources and to reduce waiting times and alleviate barriers in the most efficient manner. The participating Governments should focus especially on accession to and implementation of all the related UNECE international agreements and conventions, which provide a common legal and technical platform for both EU and non-EU countries to achieve harmonized and efficient performance of border controls. TEM road border crossings INFRASTRUCTURE • Improvement in border crossing facilities • Provision of a sufficient number of control lanes and windows • Improvement in access to border crossings by upgrading access roads • Implementation of modern information and traffic management systems • Separation of transit access and control lanes from those for other types of traffic • Creation of a sufficient number of border crossing lanes PROCEDURES • Introduction of common customs posts and performance of joint controls • Transfer of control procedures to sites inside the country or to the places of destination (especially for transit traffic and for checks of drivers´ rest and driving times) • Introduction of simplified control procedures • Strict compliance with the provisions of the TIR Convention • Implementation and efficient use of the TIR Convention, e.g. via the IRU TIR Environmental Product Declaration • Application of risk assessment and management technologies • Simplification and harmonization of vehicle weighing procedures • Improvement in coordination between customs authorities of neighbouring countries • Limitation of truck convoys to justified cases only • Improvement in cooperation between respective national administrations • Consideration of reduction of taxes, fees and duties charged at border crossings • Facilitation of issuance of visas to professional drivers • Improvement in communication with the private sector • Harmonization and, if possible, reduction of traffic bans STAFF • Increase in the number of staff employed at borders • Increase in the availability of control services to 24/24-hour and 7/7-day schemes wherever justified • Harmonization and coordination of border post opening times • Training of control personnel • Motivation of control officials • Implementation of measures to fight against corruption

186 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

TER rail border crossings INFRASTRUCTURE • Increase in capacity of border crossing installations • Improvement in the quality of border crossing facilities and equipment • Upgrade in railway infrastructure at border crossings and access lines PROCEDURES • Improvement in communication among all authorities and bodies involved in border crossing operations • Timely disposition of locomotives • Guaranteed availability of suitable wagons • Improvement in coordination between customs authorities of neighbouring countries and between the respective national administrations • Harmonization in documentation rules, languages and codes • Computerization of control and monitoring procedures • Adoption and implementation of best practices developed in the field by all parties involved in border crossing operations • Organization of border crossing operations in running trains • Performance of non-railway procedures, e.g. customs formalities, at origin and destination stations where possible • In combined transport, performance of all customs and border control operations at points of loading and unloading • Improvement in quality of technical facilities of border crossing points • Improvement in the interoperability between information technology systems of customs authorities and railway companies • Introduction of performance indicators to monitor future progress on border crossings STAFF • Training of control personnel • Increase in productivity of staff • Implementation of measures to fight against corruption • Implementation of measures to fight against crime • Increase in the number of control personnel where necessary

187 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

188 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

11. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE REVISED TER AND TEM BACKBONE NETWORKS AND RELEVANT TRANSHIPMENT POINTS

Two maps showing the interrelationship between the revised TEM and TER backbone networks were developed during the revision of the intermodal transport aspects of the Master Plan. The first map (No. 19) shows the layout of the road backbone network vis-a-vis the rail backbone network. The second map (No. 20) identifies the sections which are common to both networks (only sections longer than 100 km are indicated). These common sections of the backbone networks may offer the best intermodal conditions for passenger and goods transportation, providing practically equal-distance opportunities for both rail and road transport modes as well as for combined transport, especially since the great majority of them are situated in flat terrain and almost all of them also form part of the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations) transport lines.

11.1 Common sections of revised TEM and TER backbone networks The common sections of the revised TEM and TER backbone networks are specified in the following table, which also shows the number of respective AGTC sections according to Annex I of the AGTC Agreement.

Country Section description AGTC No. Note

(Innsbruck – ) Brennero – Verona – Bologna – Ancona C-E 45 – Foggia – Bari – Brindisi Italy (Arnoldstein – ) Tarvisio – Udine – Venezia – Bologna C-E 55

Verona – Trieste – Villa Opicina ( – Sezana) C-E 70

(Freilassing – ) Salzburg C-E 43

Salzburg – Wels – Linz – Wien – ( – Hegyeshalom) C-E 50

(Horni Dvoriste – ) Summerau – Linz C-E 55

Austria (Bratislava – ) Kittsee – Parndorf – Wien C-E 63

Bruck a.d. Mur – Graz – Spielfeld Strass ( – Sentilj) C-E 67

Linz – Selzthal – St.Michael C-E 551

St. Michael – Bruck an der Dran – Mur C-E 65

(Frankfurt(O) – ) Kunowice – Poznan – Lowicz – C-E 20 Warszawa – Lukow – Terespol ( – Brest)

(Görlitz – ) Zgorzelec – Wroclaw – Katowice – Krakow C-E 30 – Przemysl – Medyka ( – Mostiska) Poland Warszawa – Katowice C-E 65

Warszawa – Bialystok – Sokolka – Suwalki – Trakiszki C-E 75 ( – Mockava)

Warszawa – Lublin – Dorohusk ( – Izov) C 28

189 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Country Section description AGTC No. Note

Brno – Olomouc – Prerov – Hranice na Morave – section Brno-Prerov C-E 40 Bohumin not in AGTC The Czech Republic Brno – Breclav – Lanzhot ( – Kuty) C-E 61

Praha – Horni Dvoriste ( – Summerau) C-E 551

Cadca – Zilina – Poprad – Tatry – Kosice – Cierna nad C-E 40 Tisou ( – Chop)

Slovakia (Lanzhot – ) Kuty – Bratislava – Rusovce ( – C-E 61 Hegyeshalom)

Zilina – Leopoldov – Bratislava ( – Kittsee) C-E 63

(Wien – ) Hegyeshalom – Gyor – Budapest – Miskolc – C-E 50 Hungary Nyiregyhaza – Zahony ( – Chop) (Bratislava) – Hegyeshalom C-E 61

Ljubljana – Ilirska Bistrica ( – Sapjane) C-E 65

Divaca – Koper C-E 69 Slovenia (Villa Opicina – ) Sezana – Ljubljana – Zidani Most – C-E 70 Dobova ( – Savski Marof)

(Ilirska Bistrica – ) Sapjane – Rijeka C-E 65

(Dobova – ) Savski Marof – Zagreb – Strizivojna Vrpolje – Vinkovci – Tovarnik C-E 70 ( – Sid)

Zagreb – Karlovac – Ostarije – Rijeka C-E 71 Croatia (Bogojevo – ) Erdut–Vinkovci–Strizivojna Vrpolje – Slavonski Samac ( – Samac/Bosanski Samac) and C-E 771 (Capljina – ) Metkovic – Ploce

(Magyarboly – ) Beli Manastir – Osijek – Strizivojna C 773 Vrpolje

Bosnia and (Slavonski Samac – ) Samac/Bosanski Samac – C-E 771 Herzegovina Sarajevo – Capljina ( – Metkovic)

Beograd – Vrsac ( – Stamora Moravita) C-E 66

(Tovarnik – ) Sid – Beograd – Nis – Dimitrovgrad ( – C-E 70 Dragoman) Serbia Subotica – Bogojevo ( – Erdut) C-E 771

(Kelebia – ) Subotica – Beograd and Nis – Presevo C-E 85 ( – Tabanovci)

(Presevo – ) Tabanovci – Skopje – Gevgelia C-E 85 The former Yugoslav ( – Idomeni) Republic of not in AGTC, Macedonia Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka( – Gjushevo) under construction

(Gevgelia – ) Idomeni – Thessaloniki – Athinai C-E 85

Greece (Kulata – ) Promachon – Thessaloniki C-E 855

Strymonas – Alexandroupolis – Dikea ( – Svilengrad) C 70/2

190 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Country Section description AGTC No. Note

Arad – Timisoara – Craiova – Bucuresti C-E 56

Timisoara – Stamora Moravita ( – Vrsac) C-E 66

Pascani – Buzau – Ploiesti – Bucuresti – Videle – C-E 95 Romania Giurgiu ( – Ruse) Bucuresti – Constanta C-E 562

(Vadul Siret – ) Vicsani – Suceava – Pascani C-E 851

Craiova – Calafat ( – Vidin) C 95

(Dimitrovgrad – ) Dragoman – Sofija – Plovdiv – C-E 70 Dimitrovgrad Sever – Svilengrad ( – Kapikule)

(Giurgiu – ) Ruse – Gorna Oriahovitza – Dimitrovgrad C-E 95

Sofija –Mezdra – Gorna Oriahovitza – Kaspican – C-E 680 Sindel – Varna

Bulgaria Plovdiv – Zimnitza – Karnobat – Burgas C-E 720 Sofija – Kulata ( – Promachon) C-E 855

(Dikea – ) Svilengrad C 70/2

(Calafat – ) Vidin – Mezdra – Sofija C 95

not in AGTC, under Sofija – Gjushevo ( – Kriva Palanka) construction

(Terespol – ) Brest – Minsk – Orsha ( – Krasnoye) C-E 20

Belarus (Kena – ) Gudagai – Maladzeczna – Minsk C 20/3

Minsk – Homyel – Markaviczy ( – Dobrjanka) not in AGTC

(Medyka – ) Mostiska 2 – Lvov and Kiev – Kharkiv C-E 30

(Cierna nad Tisou – ) Chop C-E 40

(Zahony – ) Chop – Lvov and Znamyanka – C-E 50 Dnipropetrovsk – Krasnoarmeisk

(Novosavytskoe – ) Kuchurgan – Razdelnaya and Kiev C-E 95 Ukraine – Khutor Mikhailovsky – Zernovo ( – Suzemka)

Ternopil – Vadul Siret ( – Vicsani) C-E 851

(Dorohusk – ) Izov – Kovel – Sarni – Korosten – Kyiv C 28

Odessa – Usatovo – Razdelnaya C 95/1

(Markaviczy – ) Dobrjanka – Cernihyv – Nizyn not in AGTC

The Republic of Chisinau – Bendery – Novosavytskoe ( – Kuchurgan) C-E 95 Moldova

191 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Country Section description AGTC No. Note

St. Petersburg – Moskva C-E 10

(Orsha – ) Krasnoye – Smolensk – Moskva – Nizhniy C-E 20 Novgorod

Moskva – Ryazan C-E 24

Gukovo – Likhaya – Volgograd – Astrakhan ( – C-E 50 Aksaraiskaya II) The Russian (Zernovo – ) Suzemka – Bryansk – Moskva C-E 95 Federation Ryazan – Kochetovka I and Rostov na Donu – Krasnodar – Veseloe ( – Gantiadi) C-E 99 Novorossiysk

Kaliningrad – Cherniakhovsk – Nesterov ( – Kibartai) C 20/3

Kochetovka – Gryazi – Povorino – Volgograd not in AGTC

Astrakhan – Makhachkala – Samur ( – Yalama) not in AGTC

Ankara-Sivas under (Svilengrad – ) Kapikule – Istanbul – Haydarpasa – C-E 70 construction of the Ankara – Sivas Turkey new line Mersin – Adana–Toprakkale – Fevzipasa and C-E 97 Toprakkale – Iskenderun

(Trakiszki – ) Mockava – Sestokai – Kazlu Ruda – C-E 75 Kaunas – Radviliskis – Siauliai – Joniskis ( – Meitene) Lithuania (Nesterov – ) Kybartai – Kazlu Ruda and Kaisiadorys – C 20/3 Vilnius – Kena ( – Gudagai)

(Adler – ) Gantiadi – Sukhumi – Senaki – Tbilisi – Georgia not in AGTC Gardabani ( – Boyuk Kasik)

11.2 Terminals of importance for international combined transport The following terminals of importance for international combined transport, located or closely linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks, are listed in Annex II to the AGTC Agreement. The distance to the terminals not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the respective revised backbone networks is given in the “Remark” column. No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Austria

1. Linz-Stadthafen TEM, TER

2. Graz Süd/Werndorf TEM, TER

3. Salzburg Hauptbahnhof/Liefering TEM, TER

4. Villach Süd TEM, TER

5. Wels Hauptbahnhof TER motorway linkage to TEM 12 km

6. Wien Freudenau Hafen TEM, TER

7. Wien Nordwestbahnhof TEM, TER

192 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Belarus

8. Brest TEM, TER

9. Minsk TEM, TER

Bosnia and Herzegovina

10. Sarajevo TEM, TER

Bulgaria

11. Burgas TEM, TER

12. Dimitrovgrad Sever TEM, TER

13. Filipovo (Plovdiv) TEM, TER

14. Gorna Oriahovitza TER road linkage to TEM 7 km

15. Kaspichan TEM, TER

16. Ruse TEM, TER

17. Sofia TEM, TER

18. Stara Zagora TEM, TER

19. Svilengrad TEM, TER

20. Varna TEM, TER

Croatia

21. Rijeka TEM, TER

22. Slavonski Brod TEM, TER

23. Split TEM, TER

24. Zagreb TEM, TER

The Czech Republic

25. Brno TEM, TER

26. Lovosice TEM, TER

27. Praha Uhrineves TER road linkage to TEM 5 km

28. Praha Zizkov TEM, TER

Greece

29. Aghii Anargyri (Athinai) TEM, TER

30. Alexandroupolis TEM, TER

narrow gauge rail linkage to TER 31. Patras TEM 203 km

32. Thessaloniki TEM, TER

33. Igoumenitsa TEM no rail linkage

34. Volos no road linkage to TEM 12 km

rail linkage to TER 54 km

193 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Hungary

35. BILK Kombiterminal Budapest TEM, TER

36. Budapest Kikotö TEM, TER

37. Miskolc-Gomori TEM, TER

38. Sopron TER road linkage to TEM 38 km

39. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma TEM rail linkage to TER 41 km

40. Szolnok TER road linkage to TEM 64 km

41. Záhony TEM, TER

Italy

42. Bari-Lamasinata TEM rail linkage to TER 440 km

43. Bologna-Interporto TEM, TER

44. Brindisi TEM rail linkage to TER 560 km

45. Busto Arsizio no road linkage to TEM 20 km

rail linkage to TER 185 km

46. Milano Greco Pirelli TEM rail linkage to TER 157 km

47. Milano-Rogoredo TEM rail linkage to TER 157 km

48. Padova-Interporto TEM, TER

49. Pescara-Porta Nuova TEM rail linkage to TER 198 km

50. Pomezia-Santa Palomba no rail linkage to TER 40 km

road linkage to TEM 240 km

51. Rivalta Scrivia TEM rail linkage to TER 210 km

52. Trieste TEM, TER

53. Verona-Quadrante Europa TEM, TER

Lithuania

54. Draugyst (Klaipeda) TEM, TER

55. Klaipeda TEM, TER

56. Paneriai (Vilnius) TEM, TER

57. Kaunas TEM, TER

58. Sestokai TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

Poland

59. Gdansk TEM, TER

60. Gdynia TER expressway linkage to TEM 26 km

61. Gliwice TEM, TER

62. Krakow TEM, TER

63. Lodz TEM rail linkage to TER 45 km

64. Malaszewicze TEM, TER

194 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

65. Poznan TEM, TER

66. Pruszkow TER road linkage to TEM 10 km

67. Sosnowiec TEM, TER

68. Warszawa TEM, TER

69. Wroclaw TEM, TER

The Republic of Moldova

70. Ungeny TER road linkage to TEM 58 km

71. Chisinau TEM, TER

Romania

72. Bucuresti TEM, TER

73. Constanta TEM, TER

74. Craiova TEM, TER

75. Oradea TER road linkage to TEM 120 km

The Russian Federation

76. Blochnaya (Perm) TER road linkage to TEM 920 km

77. Brjansk-Lgovskiy (Brjansk) TEM, TER

78. Kirov-Kotlasskiy (Kirov) TER road linkage to TEM 490 km

79. Kostarikha (Nizhniy Novgorod) TEM, TER

80. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Smolenskaya TEM, TER

81. Novorossiysk-Port TEM, TER

82. Rostov-Tovarnyi (Rostov-na-Donu) TEM, TER

83. Smolensk TEM, TER

84. St. Petersburg Port TEM, TER

85. St. Petersburg-Tovarnyi-Vitebskiy TEM, TER

86. Ekaterinburg-Passagirskiy TER road linkage to TEM 1,240 km

87. Kuntsevo II (Moskva) TEM, TER

88. Kutum (Astrakhan) TEM, TER

89. Moskva-Kievskaya TEM, TER

90. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Oktyabrskaya TEM, TER

91. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Paveletskaya TEM, TER

92. Voinovka (Tyumen) TER road linkage to TEM 1,560 km

93. Volzhskiy (Volgograd) TEM, TER

Serbia

94. Beograd TEM, TER

195 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Slovakia

95. Bratislava TEM, TER

96. Cierna nad Tisou TER road linkage to TEM 40 km

97. Kosice TEM, TER

98. Zilina TEM, TER

Slovenia

99. Koper TEM, TER

100. Ljubljana TEM, TER

101. Maribor TEM, TER

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

102. Skopje TEM, TER

Turkey

103. Derince TEM, TER

104. Iskenderun TEM, TER

105. Istanbul TEM, TER freight village

106. Izmir TEM, TER

107. Mersin TEM, TER

108. Samsun TEM, TER

199. Bandirma TEM, TER

Ukraine

109. Chop TEM, TER

110. Dnepropetrovsk Gruzovoy TEM, TER

111. Kiev TEM, TER

112. Kiev-Lisky TEM, TER

113. Kharkov Chervonozavodskoy TEM, TER

114. Lvov TEM, TER

115. Lugansk Gruzovoy TEM rail linkage to TER 70 km

116. Usatove (Odessa) TEM, TER

As this overview shows, practically all of the AGTC international combined transport terminals are located on TEM or TER backbone networks, which indicates that the revised layout of these networks has been properly designed.

196 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

11.3 Other terminals of importance for international combined transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks In the course of drafting the revised backbone networks of the Master Plan, additional terminals (freight villages, logistics centres and other intermodal transhipment points) were indicated by the participating countries. They are listed below. As for the AGTC terminals, for those not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the respective revised backbone network, the distance is given in the “Remark” column.

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Austria

117. Container terminal Enns TEM, TER

118. Hafen Krems no road linkage to TEM 35 km

rail linkage to TER 32 km

motorway/road linkage to TEM 119. Terminal Bludenz TER 320 km

120. Terminal Hall in Tirol TER motorway linkage to TEM 128 km

121. Terminal Kapfenberg TER expressway linkage to TEM 65 km

122. Terminal Lambach TER road linkage to TEM 12 km

123. Terminal St. Michael TER motorway linkage to TEM 58 km

124. Terminal St. Polten TEM, TER

motorway/road linkage to TEM 125. Terminal Wolfurt TER 310 km

126. Brenner/Brennersee TER motorway linkage to TEM 280 km

127. Worgl TER motorway linkage to TEM 95 km

Azerbaijan

128. Baku International Sea Trade TEM, TER Port

129. Alat Sea Port (under TEM, TER construction)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

130. Mostar (planned) TEM, TER

131. Banja Luka (planned) TEM, TER

132. Tuzla (planned) no road linkage to TEM 70 km

rail linkage to TER 70 km

133. Brcko (planned) no road linkage to TEM 30 km

rail linkage to TER 55 km

134. Samac/Bosanski Samac (planned) TEM, TER

197 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Bulgaria

135. Lom no road linkage to TEM 50 km

rail linkage to TER 30 km

136. Septemvri TER road linkage to TEM 38 km

Croatia

137. Osijek TEM, TER

138. Zadar TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

139. Solin TER rail linkage to TEM 15 km

140. Ploce TEM, TER

141. Pazin TEM rail linkage to TER 55 km

142. Vinkovci TER road linkage to TEM 25 km

143. Koprivnica TER road linkage to TEM 40 km

502. Spacva road linkage to TEM 20 km

The Czech Republic

144. Prerov TER road linkage to TEM 15 km

145. Paskov (Ostrava) no expressway linkage to TEM 10 km

rail linkage to TER 15 km

Georgia

146. Poti TEM, TER

147. Batumi TEM, TER

148. Tbilisi TEM, TER

Italy

149. Genova TEM

150. Trieste TEM, TER

151. Mestre TEM, TER

152. Ancona TEM

153. Bari TEM

154. Brindisi TEM

Romania

155. Brasov TEM, TER

156. Arad TEM, TER

The Russian Federation

157. Moskva (Beliy Rast) TEM, TER planned

158. Ekaterinburg (Gipsovaya) TER road linkage to TEM 1,240 km

planned, road linkage to TEM 159. Samara TER 410 km

160. St. Petersburg (Shushary) TEM, TER

198 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

161. Kaliningrad TEM, TER planned

162. Nijni Novgorod (Doskino) TEM, TER planned

163. Saratov TEM, TER planned

planned, road linkage to TEM 164. Chelyabinsk TER 1,300 km

165. Yaroslavl TEM, TER planned

166. Ust-Luga TER road linkage to TEM 140 km,

167. Kazan TER planned, road linkage to TEM 400 km

168. Voronezh TEM, TER planned

500. Krymsk (Razyezd 9 km) TEM, TER planned

501. Ufa TER planned

Serbia

169. Novi Sad TEM, TER

170. Nis TEM ,TER

171. Subotica (planned) TEM, TER

172. Senta (planned) no road linkage to TEM 35 km

rail linkage to TER 40 km

173. Sombor (planned) no road linkage to TEM 45 km

rail linkage to TER 60 km

174. Sabac (planned) TER road linkage to TEM 25 km

175. Smederevo (planned) no road linkage to TEM 15 km

rail linkage to TER 50 km

176. Prahovo (planned) no road linkage to TEM 145 km

rail linkage to TER 155 km

177. Jagodina (planned) TEM, TER

178. Uzice (planned) TEM, TER

179. Krusevac (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 15 km

180. Kragujevac (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 30 km

181. Presevo (planned) TEM, TER

Slovakia

182. Sladkovicovo TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

183. Zvolen (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 95 km

184. Ružomberok TEM, TER

185. Dunajska Streda no road linkage to TEM 50 km

rail linkage to TER 60 km

199 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark

Slovenia

186. Celje TEM, TER

187. Sezana TEM, TER

Turkey

188. Gokkoy (Balikesir) TEM, TER

189. Bogazkopru (Kayseri) TER road linkage to TEM 150 km

190. Hasanbey (Eskisehir) TER road linkage to TEM 100 km

191. Kosekoy (Izmit) TEM, TER

192. Palandoken (Erzurum) TEM, TER

193. Kaklik (Denizli) TEM, TER

194. Usak TEM, TER

195. Kayacik (Konya) TEM, TER

196. Tekirdag TER new railway line from Muratli

108. Gelemen (Samsun) TEM, TER freight village

197. Yenice (Mersin) TEM, TER freight village

The list of additional terminals of importance for international combined transport shows that the great majority of them are again located on the TEM and/or TER revised backbone network. These terminals and intermodal transhipment points are, or will preferably be, located on the major railway lines. Therefore, in some countries, where the main road or motorway link follows other routes (e.g. in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation), the majority are located on the railway backbone network only.

11.4 Ferry links/ports forming part of the international combined transport network The AGTC lists those ferry links/ports in the region covered by the revised TEM and TER Master Plan as follows (the numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22). 200. Samsun – Constanta (TUR – ROU) 201. Mersin – Venezia (TUR – ITA) 202. Gdynía – Ystad (POL – SWE) 203. Gdynía – Stockholm (POL – SWE) 204. Gdynía – Helsinki (POL – FIN) 205. Calafat – Vidin (ROU – BGR) (until bridge completion) 206. Kaliningrad – Lubeck (RUS – DEU) 207. Draugyste (Klaipeda) – Mukran (Sassnitz) (LTU – DEU) 208. Varna – Odessa (BGR – UKR) 209. Varna – Novorossiysk (BGR – RUS) 210. Varna – Poti/Batumi (BGR – GEO) 211. Burgas (port) – Novorossiysk (BGR – RUS) 212. Burgas (port) – Poti (BGR – GEO)

200 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

11.5 Other ferry links of high importance linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks 213. Varna – Kavkaz (BGR – RUS) 214. Kavkaz – Crimea (RUS – UKR) 215. Kavkaz – Poti (RUS – GEO) 216. Kavkaz – Samsun (RUS – TUR) 217. Ilyichevsk – Poti (UKR – GEO) 218. Ust-Luga – Baltiisk – Sassnitz (RUS – DEU) 219. Varna – Ilyichevsk (BGR – UKR) 220. Constanta – Derince (ROU – TUR) 221. Tekirdag – Bandirma (TUR) 222. Tatvan – Van (TUR) 223. Tekirdag – Derince (TUR)

11.6 Other sea ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks Note: The numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22. Albania 301. Durres 302. Porto Romano 303. Petroliferra (Vlore) Azerbaijan 304. Baku International Sea Trade Port 305. Aliat International Sea Port (under construction) Croatia 306. Rijeka 307. Zadar 308. Sibeník 309. Split 310. Ploce 311. Pula Georgia 312. Batumi Greece 313. Pireas 314. Thessaloniki 315. Patra 316. Alexandroupoli 317. Volos 318. Kalamata 319. Igoumenitsa 320. Iraklio The Russian Federation 321. Murmansk

201 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

322. Belomorsk 323. St. Petersburg 324. Vyborg 325. Rostov na Donu 326. Tuapse 327. Makhachkala 328. Alya 329. Astrakhan Slovenia 330. Koper Ukraine 331. Ilyichevsk Turkey 332. Haydarpasa 333. Derince 334. Iskenderun 335. Izmir 336. Antalya 337. Ordu 338. Giresun 339. Trabzon 340. Rize 341. Hopa 342. Ceyhan 343. Bandirma 344. Ambarli (Marport) 345. Zonguldak 346. Sinop 347. Cesme It should be noted that, according to the UNECE report on “Hinterland Connections of Seaports”, the ports of Pireas (Greece), Constanta (Romania) and Genova (Italy) are ranked in 12th, 14th and 15th place respectively among the 20 top EU container ports, . Similarly, on the basis of the volume of containers handled, the ports of St. Petersburg (the Russian Federation), Ambarli and Izmir in Turkey are in 13th, 14th and 20th place respectively among the top non-EU ports in the world.

11.7 Terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combi- ned transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks The following terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combined transport, listed in Annex II of the “Protocol on Combined Transport on Inland Waterways” to the AGTC Agreement, are located or closely linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks. Note: The numbers indicated correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22 followed by the number of the waterway indicated in Annex I to the “Protocol on Combined Transport on Inland Wat er way s”.

202 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Austria 400. C-P 80-33 Linz 401. C-P 80-34 Linz-Voest 402. C-P 80-35 Enns-Ennsdorf 403. C-P 80-37 Wien Bulgaria 404. C 80-01 Vidin 405. C-P 80-56 Rousse Croatia 406. C-P 80-08-01 Osijek 407. C-P 80-12-01 Slavonski Brod The Czech Republic 408. C-P 20-15 Decin 409. C-P 20-16 Usti nad Labem 410. C 20-01 Pardubice (planned) 411. C-P 20-06-01 Praha Hungary 412. C-P 80-42 Budapest Poland 413. C-P 30 Gliwice Labedy 414. C-P 30 Opole 415. C-P 30 Wroclaw Romania 416. C-P 80-51 Turnu Severin 417. C-P 80-57 Giurgiu 418. C-P 80-14-03 Constanta The Russian Federation 419. C-P 50-02 St. Petersburg river port 420. C-P 50-03 Podporozhie (Volgo-Baltijskiy canal) 421. C-P 50-04 Cherepovets (Volgo-Baltijskiy canal) 422. C-P 50-06 Nizhniy Novgorod 423. C-P 50-09 Samara 424. C-P 50-10 Saratov 425. C-P 50-11 Volgograd 426. C-P 50-12 Astrakhan 427. C 50-03 Tolyatti 428. C-P 50-02-01 Moskva Northern Port 429. C-P 50-02-02 Moskva Western Port 430. C-P 50-02-03 Moskva Southern Port 431. C-P 50-01-01 Perm 432. C-P 90-03 Azov 433. C-P 90-04 Rostov na Donu 434. C-P 90-05 Ust-Donetsk

203 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Slovakia 435. C-P 80-38 Bratislava 436. C-P 80-41 Sturovo-JCP 437. C 81-01 Sered 438. C-81-02 Sala 439. C 20/30-01 Devinska Nova Ves Ukraine 440. C-P 40-05 Kyiv 441. C-P 40-09 Dnipropetrovsk

11.8 Other river/lake ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks Note: The numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22. Austria 442. Krems Bosnia and Herzegovina 443. Samac 444. Brcko Bulgaria 445. Lom Croatia 446. Vukovar 447. Sisak The Republic of Moldova 448. Giurgiulesti 449. Bendery 450. Ungheni 451. Ribnita Romania 452. Calafat 453. Cernavoda 454. Braila 455. Galati The Russian Federation 456. Kazan 457. Yaroslavl 458. Eysk Serbia 459. Beograd 460. Novi Sad 461. Smederevo Slovakia 462. Komarno

204 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Turkey 463. Van 464. Tatvan Ukraine 465. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskiy 466. Ismail 467. Ust-Dunaisk 468. Reni 469. Kherson 470. Zaporozhye 471. Mykolaiyv

Maps No. 21 and 22 show the locations of the terminals, ferry links, sea and river ports and their positions vis-a-vis the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.

205 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

206 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

12. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

In a very general sense, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and services relate to the connection between information and communication technologies, vehicles and transport networks. There are many current ITS applications aimed at the intelligent and efficient use of existing motorway, road, railway, seaport and airport infrastructures, and new applications are emerging on a frequent basis. New technologies such as radio-frequency identification, satellite navigation (GPS, Galileo) and the global system for mobile communications (GSM), coupled with other ITS applications, may ease the interfaces between transport modes as well as cross- border traffic, and create greater possibilities for managing transport and the more efficient use of infrastructure, and thus create better overall service levels. Such new technologies and other ITS applications also make the logistics and the handling of goods more efficient, improve just-in-time deliveries and could also reduce congestion in cities. In railways, they can inter alia boost their competitiveness by reducing safety distances between trains and thus increasing line capacity. ITS applications can further enable accurate and continuous tracking of boxes, containers and pallets and, coupled with other technologies such as radio frequency identification devices, improve the management of supply chains and fleets in all transport modes. The potential of ITS could be increased greatly by their integration. Such integration requires a strategic framework to act as a basis for choices concerning their design and deployment as well as for investment decisions covering technical aspects as well as all organizational, legal and social issues involved. The ability for integration is a factor of growing importance since it represents a precondition for the much- needed interoperability of ITS at the European level.

12.1 ITS in the road sector In the road sector, the ITS applications can be broken down into those intended for passenger cars, for public passenger transport, for trucks and lorries and for motorway and road infrastructure. The ITS for passenger cars include traffic information systems, wireless application protocol (WAP) services, traffic message canals (TMC), parking information and guidance systems, car navigation and location systems, uniform emergency calling systems, and advanced driver assistance systems (driver behaviour tracking, weather information, visibility improvement, collision warning or avoidance, speed and car distance control, voice recognition, etc.). Floating car data (FCD) and Extended floating car data (XFCD) systems make use of mobile phones and other sensors in cars as anonymous traffic probes, and convert these data into accurate traffic flow information. Data communication and exchange, information services for passengers, automatic vehicle location, speed control and public transport priority assignment systems, and electronic ticketing are some of the ITS applications for public passenger transportation. Systems for the management and tracking of HGV pools, the routing and tracking of vehicles carrying dangerous goods, and the intelligent location of accidents and for their investigation, as well as digital tachographs and weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems, belong to the category of the ITS for goods vehicles. These ITS result in the better management of vehicles and loads, improved safety and reduced vehicle wear, transportation times and fuel consumption. For the purposes of the revision of the Master Plan, the ITS applications for infrastructure are of greatest importance. They include various technologies for electronic toll collection (ETC) which make it possible for vehicles to drive through toll gates at traffic speed, thus reducing

207 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

congestion at the gates. Another form of road pricing scheme is the high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes which are reserved for passenger cars with more than one occupant. Variable intelligent road signs and messaging also constitute an efficient way to fight congestion and improve safety. Intelligent systems could establish variable speed limits on motorways and roads, and dynamic sequencing of traffic lights in urban environments in order to enhance traffic flows. They could also be used to manage fees and tolls dynamically, and thus to distribute traffic flows over different times of the day and week. Automatically controlled cordon zones make it possible to collect congestion charges and fees from vehicles entering city centres. Automatic road enforcement systems, consisting of cameras and vehicle-monitoring devices, can detect and identify vehicles disobeying speed limits and other road legal requirements, and can contribute considerably to road safety. In the future, ITS may also encompass automated motorways/roads with driverless cars and platooning, where vehicles are coupled, driving very close to one another, thus increasing the capacity of the highway and contributing to the road safety at the same time.

12.2 ITS in the rail sector In the rail sector, the main components of the ITS are the European Train Control System (ETCS) and the Global system for Mobile Communication for Railways (GSM-R), which both form part of the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System). In 2006, when the original TEM and TER Master Plan was published, the ETCS was installed only on one link in the region, namely on the Vienna – Budapest line in Austria and Hungary. At that time, over the complete length of the main European railway network, the ETCS was installed and in operation on only 1,340 km of line according to the UIC ERIM study. This figure should increase to 36,232 km (about 73 % of the network) in 2020, covering almost all main lines in the EU member and candidate countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan. The coverage of GSM-R in actual service on the same main network in Europe in 2006 amounted to 8,676 km (about 18 % of the total length). At that time, in the region, it was in operation on only two short sections in the Czech Republic and on most of the main lines in Italy. According to the UIC ERIM study, it is planned to increase the GSM-R coverage to 43,882 km (about 88 %) in 2020, again covering almost all main lines in the EU member and candidate countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan. In the revision of the Master Plan, the participating countries were requested to convey their experience gained in the implementation of individual components of ITS and to describe any plans for their wider exploitation in the future, including possible coordination between the road and rail traffic in urban areas in order to mitigate congestion (including Park and Ride systems etc.). The information obtained is summarized in chapters 12.3 and 12.4 for road and rail ITS systems and services respectively.

12.3 Motorway/road ITS systems and services in the participating countries

Austria To finance the construction and maintenance of the primary Austrian road network (motorways and expressways), Austria has successfully introduced a dual toll collection system consisting of a time-based toll sticker for passenger cars (in operation since 1997) and a distance- related electronic toll system for trucks and coaches (introduced in 2004).

208 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Azerbaijan The Intelligent Management System of the City Transport in Baku (the Baku city ITS project) is being implemented in the 2009 to 2011 period. This system will automate the management of bus stops, the regulation of intervals between buses, and traffic speeds, will gather information about road/street traffic and will fulfil additional functions. This system will not only cover the capital but also the whole of the Absheron peninsula. The Czech Republic ITS are widely implemented. Electronic toll collection is in operation on motorways, and Park and Ride systems are in use, for example at metro terminals in the capital city of Prague. The “Intelligent Motorway” project for traffic control on the section of the D1 motorway between Prague and Brno and on the Prague southern bypass expressway is under implementation. The Centre of Traffic Information provides real-time traffic information for all users of the road network, etc. Romania An ad-hoc group comprising experts from the ITS field and transport representatives has been established to examine the use of ITS, to collect data and to propose solutions to be implemented in the forthcoming years. Serbia The implementation of ITS applications intended to increase road safety, namely real-time navigation and information systems on the road network and traffic flows, has top priority. The “Strategy of Planning, Development and Implementation of ITS on the Roads in the Republic of Serbia” includes a number of projects of which the following implementations are the most important: • a centre for traffic management; • ITS applications at ring roads and in tunnels; • a traffic management and road user information; • an RWIS (Road Weather Information System; • a network of stations for measuring axle loads of moving vehicles • a warning system aimed at addressing the safety of road users in areas where there are construction works; • a system for preventing the formation of ice on the carriageways on bridges; • a system for measuring the weight of commercial vehicles in transit; • coordination of traffic signal systems; • signals for indicating the right-of-way for emergency intervention vehicles; • an infrared system for checking vehicle brakes; • laptop and wireless communications for inspection along the roads; • systems for monitoring commercial vehicles remotely; • information on rest areas; • anti-rollover warning systems for commercial vehicles. Slovakia The country’s first electronic satellite-based highway toll system, obligatory for all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, was launched on 1 January 2010. The National Highway Company (NDS) signed a EUR 716 × 106 contract with the supplier of ETC services, the SanToll-Ibertax consortium, on 13 January 2009 for construction of the system and its operation over 13 years, with a possible

209 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

extension for a further 5 years. The project covers not only motorways and dual carriageways but also, to a large extent, first-class roads. The solution of the ETC system, based on GPS-GSM technology, provides maximum flexibility in order to accommodate increases in the volume of freight transport and extension of the road network. There are about 60 distribution and contact points across Slovakia where drivers obtain so-called on-board units (OBUs). Through the use of the OBUs, the system monitors (via satellite) the position of vehicles, and automatically calculates the number of kilometres driven on toll roads. Tolls on first-class roads are lower than those on motorways and dual carriageways. Slovakia has decided to launch the tolling system on first-class roads to avoid the situation wherein heavy vehicles bypass tolled motorways by using the first- class roads.

Turkey The General Directorate of Highways launched an ITS installation programme on its motorway network in the 1990s. Electronic toll collection was chosen as the primary ITS service to be installed as a first step, and all toll stations have been covered using a microwave-based motorway toll system and contactless smart card system. Three traffic control systems have been established in İstanbul, İzmir and Mersin with a view to managing the traffic and travel information systems. Various stretches of motorway network have been equipped with detection and dissemination systems including meteorological sensors, multi-lane vehicle detectors, travel-time detectors, surveillance cameras, communication systems, variable-message signs and other supplementary equipment. Tunnels longer than 500 m have been equipped with safety-related systems as well as emergency (exits or escapes). The ITS will be extended to the rest of the motorway sections as a function of budget availability. Additionally, new developments in ITS technology will be taken into consideration and the capacity of systems will be broadened.

12.4 Rail ITS systems and services in the participating countries

Austria In the period 2002 to 2011, investments in the introduction of the European Train Control System (ETCS) system amounted to EUR 109 × 106, in Park and Ride projects to EUR 181.7 × 106 and in technological improvement projects and operational performance improvement projects to EUR 399.7 × 106. Moreover, investments in tunnel safety projects in the years 2002 to 2006 amounted to EUR 65.4 × 106, upgrading of railway terminals to EUR 72.7 × 106 and interconnections of railway and metro stations in Vienna to EUR 189.0 × 106.

Bulgaria An ETCS level 1 has been implemented along the Plovdiv – Burgas railway line and is in operation since 2003. A strategy for the ERTMS implementation was developed in 2007, according to which the backbone network will be equipped with ERTMS facilities by the end of 2020.

Romania In September 2007, Romania submitted to the EC its National Plan for the development and implementation of the ERTMS. The implementation of this system at national level is based on the TEN-T corridor strategy. The strategy envisages the implementation of this system along the IV Pan-European rail corridor to an extent of 15 % by 2015. The “Sectoral Operational Programme — Transport” (SOP-T) for the period 2007 to 2013 for modernization and development of the railway infrastructure along the TEN-T priority axis 22 (Curtici – Constanta) will aim at rehabilitating/upgrading/modernizing this TEN-T priority axis. The focus of the operations will

210 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

be on the northern branch (Curtici – Predeal), while all necessary preparatory studies will be envisaged for the southern branch (Arad – Calafat), with the aim of starting the work in the next programming period. In addition to modernizing the rail infrastructure, and in order to ensure effective interoperability, the project will include the introduction of the ERTMS/ETCS. Slovakia With respect to the implementation of the ERTMS (ETCS and GSM-R), Slovakia is modernizing the main Pan-European corridors, mainly Corridors IV, V(a) and VI. In accordance with the EC rules for funding and the interoperability directives, all modernized lines will be equipped with the ERTMS to provide interoperability. For Corridor V(a), the ETCS L1 was implemented from Bratislava to Nove Mesto nad Vahom by 2009, and that from Nove Mesto nad Vahom to Puchov will be implemented by 2015. Corridor VI (Zilina – Krasno – Cadca) should be equipped by the end of 2013 and Corridor IV by the year 2015. A pilot GSM-R project is being built from Bratislava to Senec and Nove Zamky, and should be put into service already in 2010. A GSM-R should be implemented on Corridor V(a) from Bratislava to Zilina by the year 2011. Slovenia The implementation of the ERTMS is being carried out in accordance with the “National Implementation Plan of TSI for Control-command and signalling subsystem”. The first implementation will be on the pilot sections of Corridor D (Corridor V). Following that, the conventional signalling will be replaced on the other sections of Corridor D and later on the rest of the Slovenian railway network. Turkey In order to improve the safety level throughout the whole railway network and to maintain a high safety level for new railway projects, Turkey is giving high priority and importance to the interoperability of the railway network for both domestic and international operations. Accordingly, Turkey has been investing in new high-speed railway lines throughout the country, all of which are equipped with ERTMS. The Ankara – Eskisehir high-speed line has been in operation since March 2009 and is equipped with ERTMS ETCS Level 1. The Eskisehir – Istanbul high-speed line is under construction and will be equipped with ERTMS ETCS Level 1. There is a project to install a GSM-R system to cover the Ankara – Istanbul high-speed line and to upgrade the high-speed line to ETCS Level 2. The Ankara – Konya high-speed line is under construction and will have ERTMS ETCS Level 1 and Level 2. The third ongoing high-speed line railway project is Ankara – Sivas. Other high- speed lines, such as Ankara – Izmir, Bursa – Osmaneli, Yerkoy – Kayseri and Halkali – Kapıkule, will also be equipped with the ERTMS. Additionally, there are upgrading projects on conventional lines, all of which also comprise installation of the ERTMS. On the Bogazkopru – Yenice and Mersin – Toprakkale line sections, ERTMS Level 1 has been installed within the scope of the ongoing “Signalling, Telecommunication & Station Extension” project. The “Irmak – Karabuk – Zonguldak Rehabilitation and Signalling” project will be put out for tender in 2011 and will be equipped with ERTMS Level 1 over its whole length. All other signalling upgrading projects and new signalling projects will provide ERTMS to be installed on corresponding line sections in Turkey.

211 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

212 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

13. ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES

13.1 Environmental impacts According to the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” report (MEA 2005), over the past 50 years humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, raw materials and fuel. Transport activities contributed a great deal to these changes through their environmental impacts, namely through noise, vibrations and especially air pollution. The main components of transport emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matters (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), benzene and volatile components (CmHn). The construction and use of transport infrastructure may cause landscape fragmentation and the partitioning of ecosystems and of species populations; in urban areas they may lead to a reduction in the space available for other users. Moreover, transport activities contribute indirectly to negative environmental impacts through fuel and electricity production and the production and maintenance of vehicles. All the adverse impacts of transport activities on the environment are clearly significant, and emissions from transport (in particular) constitute a very high share of the overall emissions. The main environmental impacts, such as air and noise pollution, are related to road traffic, but rail traffic also causes noise problems in the vicinity of lines with diesel traction, and near marshalling yards and rail and intermodal terminals. Since the traffic volumes are dominated by road and rail transport, the ultimate extent of the environmental impacts will depend also on the development of the modal split between these two modes of transport. Because rail causes less negative environmental impacts than road, it would be desirable, from the environmental and safety point of view, to increase the share of the rail transport as well as the share of combined transport, in particular along the backbone network links. Nevertheless, it remains questionable whether the objective of shifting freight from road to the more-environmentally-friendly rail is feasible at least in the near future, especially if the basic improvement in the rail infrastructure and the introduction of market-oriented economic reforms in the rail sector are delayed as has happened frequently in the past. Decisions on the choice of transport mode depend on the quality of alternatives, prices and other market-relevant characteristics such as reliability, frequency of departure, duration of the trip, departure and arrival times, availability of information, safety record and security environment. As long as rail transport does not represent a viable economic alternative, significant shifts to it will not happen and the expansion of road transport will continue to generate significant negative externalities, especially taking into account the environmental consequences of more frequent road congestions. One way to alleviate this problem and to slow down environmental degradation is the introduction of regulations which form part of the EU transport policy to mitigate potential conflicts between infrastructure and its users on one side, and the environment on the other side. According to the “Evaluation of the Common Transport Policy (CTP) of the EU from 2000 to 2008 and analysis of the evolution and structure of the European transport sector in the context of the long-term development of the CTP” of August 2009, policy measures should in general

213 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

target overall reductions in emissions rather than specifically modal shift. This could be achieved, inter alia, by the internalization of external costs, which in the transport sector would certainly bring important benefits, namely by taxing environmental degradation, establishing cap and trade systems, and estimating the true external costs (including life-cycle impacts), and using that information to fix criteria for green public procurement. Also, in some places, the application of appropriate charges may establish a sustainable balance between transport and environmental impacts. According to the 2005 report of the EU HLG chaired by Loyola de Palacio, it is of utmost importance to assess the environmental impacts of transport infrastructure early, i.e. already at the stage of project definition and analysis. Infrastructure projects should be designed so that any severe or dangerous environmental effects are offset by mitigating measures. In the context of strategic environmental assessment, the policy option of promoting alternative modes to road transport ought to be considered always. In cases where such projects are to be funded or co-funded by international financial institutions, they are always subject to their standard environmental impact assessment procedures. In the framework of these procedures, the development banks not only consider the narrowly defined environmental criteria, but also take into account public health and concerns for preservation of the cultural heritage. Furthermore, the UNECE 1991 “Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context” stipulates that its contracting parties have to undertake environmental impact assessments at the project level of planned transport infrastructure activities. Where the proposed activity may have a significant adverse transboundary impact, the party of origin should notify any affected party as early as possible and enter into consultations concerning measures to reduce or eliminate such an impact. Furthermore, the 2003 “Kiev Protocol” mandates its parties to analyse the environmental consequences of their infrastructure development programmes much earlier than does the Convention, and to include extensive public participation. Finally, improvements in rail intermodality and in the combined transport infrastructure may also influence the share of transport modes, because the competitiveness of railways would then be more directly linked to that of other modes. Given the strong economic and transport links that exist amongst the participating countries of the region, the realization of environmental benefits associated with intermodality would require coordinated action at the international level. In the following text, the most important transport environmental impacts, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and noise pollution, are analysed in more detail.

CO2 pollution The increase in carbon dioxide emissions reflects a rapid acceleration of human activities, including transport, over the last 50 years. This increase is caused not so much by population growth, but is associated primarily with a rapid rise in per capita consumption by a fraction of the population. Because of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, average global temperatures have also risen as a result of the greenhouse effect. On the basis of baseline climate model projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that without wide-ranging measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global warming would accelerate with severe consequences, such as longer heat-waves and more frequent floods. According to the OECD simulations, if nothing is done and current trends regarding transport technologies and modal share are maintained, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may increase by 52 % by 2050, which would cause increases in mean temperatures of 1.7 °C to 2.4 °C, not taking into account the possible “snowball” effect wherein the reduced sea ice cover would change the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface and increased methane emissions from melting permafrost would accelerate climate change even more.

214 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

To slow down or limit this trend, the international community should take action now — at the moment does not seem to be the case if one considers the unsatisfactory results of the UN Climate Change Conference in 2009, and the consequences of global economic recession. Theoretically — according to the OECD simulations — climate stabilisation goals are affordable and could be achieved by 2030 through measures costing roughly 0.5 % of world GDP, such as imposing a tax of USD 25 (escalating at roughly 2 % a year) on every tonne of GHG produced. A more ambitious scenario, reflecting a phased-in tax set at the level necessary to limit atmospheric concentrations to 450 ppm of CO2-eq in the atmosphere, would even lead to a reduction in global emissions by about 40 % in 2050 compared to 2000 levels. However, in addition to the total cost of introducing the necessary measures, there would be the problem of their distribution amongst the countries, since should a straightforward global tax policy be used, developing countries would face far bigger GDP losses than would developed countries. As far as transport CO2 emissions are concerned, transport is the second largest contributing sector to the EU27 greenhouse gases emissions after the stationary energy sector; for example in 2005, it accounted for 23.4 % of all EU27 emissions. Moreover, in the last three decades, CO2 emissions from transport have risen faster than those from all other sectors and will most probably continue to rise even more rapidly in the coming years. The vast majority of these emissions (76 %) are produced by the road transport sector. Both rail and road transport modes also contribute to global warming not only by their direct emissions of CO2, but also by the indirect ones such as emissions from oil refineries, and from the production of electricity used by electric trains, vehicle manufacture, maintenance, support and disposal as well as those caused by infrastructure construction and maintenance. Ideally, all these indirect emissions should be considered, but since their effects are generally negligible, in most cases only emissions from the vehicle operations themselves are taken into account. Nevertheless, indirect emissions from petrol and diesel production will gain in importance for vehicles complying with stricter emission standards such as Euro 2 or higher. Actions and measures aimed at reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions should be focused on implementation of policies to control emission ratios and on technological innovations, in particular on the evolution of car technologies. For example, the introduction of lower speed limits in road traffic such as 100 km/h for motorways and 80 km/h for roads would reduce CO2 emissions by about 5 % through the elimination of very fast traffic. According to the EC TRANSvisions “Report on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Horizon” of March 2009, the implementation of the policy package (including pricing mechanisms to increase the average occupancy of cars, the load factor of trucks and the long-distance rail modal share) would reduce CO2 emissions by 2 % in 2020 and 22 % in 2050. Road investments aimed at reducing congestion on roads by 20 % would reduce these emissions by another 1 %. On the other hand, the study forecast that indirect CO2 emissions by vehicles not using fossil fuels will increase significantly due to the presence of fossil fuels in the primary generation of electricity. Full implementation of the Euro 5 directive for cars, according to which vehicles with old technology would be replaced by vehicles with Euro 5 technology, would reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 2 %. More promising is the car design evolution: according to “Trends in Vehicle and Fuel Technologies” published by the EC Joint Research Centre — Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) in 2003, a likely evolution of car technologies may increase the market shares of hybrid cars by 27 %, of fuel cell cars by 10 % and of electric cars by 5 % by 2020 and bring about a 28 % reduction in CO2 emissions in fossil-fuel-based cars due to increases

215 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

in their efficiency. In the short term, the present economic recession and lower economic growth over the next years may result in slower growth of transport greenhouse gas emissions, provided that governments and companies do not cut their research and technical development investments, that the renewal of vehicle fleets is not significantly decreased and that the pace of technological innovations is maintained. In order to reduce air pollution and thus to protect human health and the environment, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe determined target values for pollutants. In this Directive, most of the existing legislation has been merged and new objectives and limit values for particles were included. The respective standards and objectives in the Directive apply over different periods of time for each of the pollutants because the observed health impacts associated with various pollutants have different exposure times. Noise pollution Noise is the second most important transport environmental impact. Its levels are much more difficult to predict than those from CO2 emissions, since it represents a very local burden and non-linearities are involved in its aggregation and perception by human beings. It is recognized not only as a nuisance, but also as a serious health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), half of the citizens in European live in noisy surroundings and about third of them suffer from sleep disturbances during the night time. Road traffic noise also hinders communication and learning, contributes to fatalities and causes physical health problems including hearing loss, raised blood pressure and heart disease. It is generally understood that the noise levels causing health impacts are the following: - above 40 dB(A) Leq to 50 dB(A) Leq may lead to significant annoyance; - between 40 dB(A) Leq and 60 dB(A) Leq may disturb sleep; - between 65 dB(A) Leq and 70 dB(A) Leq may be risk factors for school performance and ischemic heart diseases; - above 70 dB(A) Leq may cause hearing impairment. The European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise, the aim of which was to provide a common basis for tackling the noise problem in the EU. This Directive is based on the following principles. 1. Monitoring of the environmental problem by requiring competent authorities in Member States to draw up “strategic noise maps” for major roads, railways and agglomerations, using the harmonized noise indicators Lden (day-evening-night equivalent level) and Lnight (night equivalent level). These maps will be used to assess the number of people annoyed and sleep-disturbed throughout Europe. 2. Informing and consulting the public about noise exposure, its effects, and the measures considered to address noise. 3. Addressing local noise issues by requiring competent authorities to draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The respective measures to be used in the action plans will remain at the discretion of the competent authorities.

216 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

4. Developing a long-term EU strategy, which includes objectives to reduce the number of people affected by noise in the longer term, and provides a framework for developing existing European Community policy on noise reduction from source. In this Directive, the EC did not set any common threshold values, but required the Member States to determine national target values not to be exceeded. The Directive established a way to identify areas where noise calculations need to be carried out. For roads, these are the areas where the main roads carry more than 6 × 106 vehicles per year. For railways, they are those areas with more than 250,000 inhabitants that are crossed by railroads carrying more than 60,000 trains/ year. In recent years, the EU Member States have transposed this Directive into national legislation. The elaboration of strategic noise maps along the main roads and across large agglomerations in each member country is to be followed by the drafting of specific action plans and implementation of the proposed initiatives. Following the implementation of the first action plans, each country should provide to the EC feedback on the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce noise pollution. This effectiveness should not be measured in terms of a reduction in dB (decibels) only, but should also take into account the general feeling of improvement perceived by the inhabitants. The application of mandatory impact assessment methods in the EU member countries should significantly contribute to the reduction in noise pollution and improve the quality of life of its citizens. In general, road and rail traffic noise nuisance can be reduced by (i) measures at the source, (ii) measures connected to the diffusion of noise, and (iii) measures undertaken at buildings. Abatement measures which reduce the traffic noise nuisance connected to new infrastructure construction include alteration of the horizontal and vertical alignment, erection of absorptive or reflective noise barriers and provision of low-noise road surface materials, which can reduce noise by up to 3 dB(A). In built-up areas, roads and streets carrying heavy traffic flows should be located as far as possible from residential areas, speeds on urban expressways and other major roads should be reduced, trees and shrubs should be planted as noise mufflers, buildings and dwellings should be sound insulated and appropriate traffic management systems should be employed. In addition to most of these measures, rail-structure-borne noise at the source could be reduced by making use of elastic pads for rail fasteners, elastic sleeper pads, ballast mats, elastic supports for slab tracks and troughs (mass-spring systems).

13.2 Road safety Road traffic accidents and fatalities have an important social impact, whereas figures regarding rail accidents and fatalities are comparatively negligible. According to data provided by the WHO, about 1.2 × 106 people are killed and more than 50 × 106 are injured every year in road accidents. During the decade 1994 to 2004, in the UNECE member countries, each year there were on average more than 150,000 persons killed and about 6 × 106 injured in 4 × 106 road accidents. In Europe, road safety indicators are improving in general as a consequence of a number of policy measures implemented at both the EU and the national level. The steep decline in road deaths in the participating countries in the period 2008 to 2009, as well as in the first decade of the 21st century, is illustrated in the following table which is based on data of the IRTAD Group of the International Transport Forum (ITF).

217 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

Road fatalities Country 2008 2009 Evolution 2008 to 2009 Evolution 2000 to 2009

Austria 679 633 -6.8 % -35 %

The Czech Republic 1,076 901 -16.3 % -39 %

Greece 1,553 1,456 -6 % -29 %

Hungary 996 822 -17.5 % -32 %

Italy 4,731 4,050 -14.4 % -43 %

Lithuania 499 370 -25.9 % -42 %

Poland 5,437 4,572 -15.9 % -27 %

Slovenia 214 171 -20.1 % -46 %

Moreover, according to the WHO’s “Global Burden of Disease”, the number of road accident victims will decrease in these countries by 30 % over the period from 2000 to 2020. Meanwhile, this positive development will be more than offset in the same period by an 80 % increase in victims in developing countries (where about 90 % of the global road fatalities occur). Therefore, reduction in the number of traffic casualties remains a very important objective of transport policy and especially of the road infrastructure development, since newly-built roads and motorways with improved standards are assumed to have a positive effect on road traffic safety. With the aim of reducing road accidents and fatalities, the United Nations declared the period 2011 to 2020 the Decade of Action for Road Safety. The following table, which summarizes data from the UNECE statistical database and from the ITF, shows for the countries participating in the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan, the number of road traffic accidents per 310 road motor vehicles in 2008, the number of road fatalities per 105 in 2009 and per 109 vehicle-km travelled on roads in 2008.

Accidents per Fatalities per Fatalities per Country 103 vehicles 105 inhabitants 109 vehicle-km 2008 2009 2008 a)

Albania 3.5

Austria 8.4 7.6 9.0

Azerbaijan 3.5

Bulgaria 2.9

Croatia 8.0

The Czech Republic 4.2 8.6 19.4

The former Yugoslav Republic of 14.2 Macedonia

Georgia 11.5

Greece 2.5 13.8

Hungary 5.5 8.2

Italy 4.6 7.9

Lithuania 9.5 11.0

218 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Accidents per Fatalities per Fatalities per Country 103 vehicles 105 inhabitants 109 vehicle-km 2008 2009 2008 a)

The Republic of Moldova 6.9 (2007)

Poland 2.5 12.0

Romania 2.3

The Russian Federation 5.7

Slovakia 4.1

Slovenia 7.8 8.4 12.3

Turkey 10.8

a) The indicator “fatalities per 109 vehicle-km travelled” represents a direct measure of the risk of road travel in the country, but most of the countries do not systematically collect data on vehicle-km. Regarding the future development in the individual EU countries, the TEN-STAC study on “Scenarios, Traffic Forecasts and Analysis of Corridors on the Trans-European network” of September 2004 forecast the accident rates for 2020 taking into account the past and current accident rates, the impacts of new transport infrastructure as well as realistically achievable safety improvements. The results for the countries which took part in the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan were as given in the following table.

Fatalities per 109 vehicle-km Injurous accidents per 106 vehicle‑km Country 2020 2020 Motorways Other roads Total Motorways Other roads Total

Austria 5.43 9.42 8.28 0.13 0.53 0.42

Bulgaria 10.40 24.80 16.30 0.15 0.40 0.37

The Czech 6.90 24.51 21.86 0.09 0.54 0.48 Republic

Greece 8.09 15.09 14.38 0.10 0.20 0.19

Hungary 8.16 25.83 23.18 0.09 0.45 0.40

Italy 4.63 11.59 9.46 0.14 0.47 0.37

Lithuania 26.20 36.65 34.87 0.43 0.47 0.45

Poland 15.45 26.94 25.68 0.10 0.30 0.29

Romania 12.07 36.40 34.13 0.10 0.13 0.12

Slovakia 7.47 32.09 28.80 0.06 0.48 0.43

Slovenia 6.83 18.15 15.91 0.12 0.68 0.52

Injuries and disabilities resulting from road traffic accidents put a significant drain on economies, typically consuming between 1 % and 3 % of a country’s gross national product per annum. In this connection, one of the crucial points is the calculation of the social costs of accidents. Globally, estimates in 2003 suggested that the economic costs of road traffic injuries amounted to USD 518 × 109 per annum. In developing countries, the costs were estimated to be USD 100 × 109, twice the annual amount of the development assistance given to developing countries. According to the British trade union Unite, the value per fatality was EUR 2.158 × 106 in 2003 values, consisting of a statistical life value of EUR 1.962 × 106 and health care costs of

219 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

EUR 0.196 × 106. For serious and minor injuries, the respective figures were 13 % and 1 % of these values. Acknowledging the importance of the work focused on the improvement of road safety, the UNECE established already in 1950 the Ad Hoc Working Group on the prevention of road accidents which was replaced by the Working Party on Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) in 1988. Within the general mandate of the United Nations, WP.1 initiates and pursues actions aimed at reinforcing and improving road safety, developing and harmonizing traffic regulations and rules for road signs and signals and strengthening cooperation between member countries. The WP.1 developed the “Geneva Convention on Road Traffic”, the “Vienna Convention on Road Traffic” and the “Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals”, as well as the European Agreements supplementing them. WP.1 remains today the only permanent intergovernmental body in the United Nations dealing with road safety and is open to all countries of the world. Moreover, the UNECE, concerned with the importance of improving safety in both road and rail tunnels, created two ad hoc Multidisciplinary Groups of Experts on Road and Rail Safety in Tunnels. Final reports produced by the two groups contain recommendations for minimum requirements concerning safety in road and rail tunnels respectively. These recommendations have been taken into account in the work of national authorities and international entities such as the EC. In the period 2008 to 2009, the United Nations Development Account funded the project “Improving Global Road Safety: Setting Regional and National Road Traffic Casualty Reduction Targets”, which was set up to assist governments in low- and middle-income countries to develop regional and national road safety targets and to exchange experience in good practice for achieving these targets by 2015. The project emphasized the importance of knowledge transfer from high- income countries, where progress has already been made, to low- and middle-income countries where the effects of increased motorization on safety performance have not yet been mitigated by effective risk-reducing actions.

13.3 Transport security The national economies of all countries are heavily dependent on transport and energy networks. Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the threat of terrorist attacks against critical transport infrastructures has emerged. It is increasingly recognized that all transport modes are at risk from such attacks and crimes. In these attacks, transport systems have been used either as a means or as a target. Since the safety of people and the integrity of critical infrastructures are at stake, security concerns in both international and national transport, and measures to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and to minimize their consequences, have become increasingly prominent. In addition to a considerable tightening of security, especially that in the container transport field, the strategic approach to national security has to include further improvements in the infrastructure and the regulatory environment influencing both the road and the rail sector. Although the fight against terrorism is of primary importance, security is also an issue with respect to common criminal acts such as the theft of vehicles, transported goods and dangerous substances, attacks on drivers and conductors, illegal immigration, smuggling and physical aggression in public transport vehicles. The need to protect passengers, drivers, personnel, vehicles, freight as well as vulnerable transport infrastructure is, therefore, becoming increasingly urgent. The EC has recently funded “Counteract”, a research project focused on improved security against terrorist attacks, aimed inter alia at public passenger transport and intermodal freight

220 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

transport. The project reviewed the existing security policies, procedures, methodologies and technologies to identify the best practices, which in turn will be promoted throughout the relevant EU security community. Acknowledging the importance of the transport security issue, the UNECE has paid great attention to the work on this topic. In 2007, a Multidisciplinary Group of Experts on Inland Transport Security (AC.11) was established to examine threats to inland transport security and to provide recommendations to UNECE Governments on how to tackle them. Amongst other things, the group prepared the document “Guidelines and Best Practices in The Field of Inland Transport Security”, published in Geneva in 2008. Road The leading international organization in the road transport security field is the IRU. The IRU has developed many important documents and reports on the topic, and these have greatly contributed to increased security and crime prevention in the road sector. The report “Haulage Security in the EU and beyond: IRU Position” contained a variety of recommendations designed primarily to combat terrorism. The report stated inter alia that security cooperation between the public and private sectors can be extremely effective, and it made the following recommendations: the existing security/facilitation instruments offering both security and facilitation benefits, such as the UNECE TIR and the EU’s Common and Community Transit procedures, should be used to the maximum; “self-security” measures taken by the haulage industry should remain high on the agenda; security policies must be information- based; enhanced security should not reduce unnecessarily operators’ freedom; electronic advance customs declarations should not be implemented hastily and, in the case of road traffic at border crossings, a 24-hour pre-arrival notification to customs authorities is excessive. The IRU position is that the economic needs of transport organizations and entities should be balanced with the necessary security. The facilitation of transport and trade cannot be ignored, even when security considerations are high on the agenda. The IRU “Position on Supply Chain Security” formulated proposals for increasing the level of security without impeding the free flow of trade and for establishing a common transport framework for Europe. These proposals included establishment of a mandatory system requiring EU Member States to create a security quality label (“secure operator”) to be awarded to operators who meet European minimum security levels in the land transport supply chain, and introduction of a voluntary scheme for operators to increase their security performance in exchange for incentives. The proposals further provided for four separate “security operators” within the security framework, with the following separate functions: the preparation of goods for shipment and shipment from the production site; the transportation of goods; the forwarding of goods; the warehousing, storing and inland terminal operation shipping. The “IRU Resolution on Security in Road Transport” adopted by the IRU General Assembly in November 2002 included the following proposals for governments in addressing land transport systems. • Apply all possible preventive measures in the fight against international terrorism and criminal activities at national and international levels in cooperation with the road transport industry. • Take and guide effective measures against crime rings specializing in smuggling and human trafficking.

221 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

• Reinforce the control and application of national law and international conventions, permitting the identification and sanctioning of all beneficiaries of illegal activities. • Provide fair and humane treatment, as well as all necessary assistance (legal and otherwise), to all commercial vehicle drivers and owners involved in the transport of illegal immigrants without their knowledge. • Preserve the trade facilitation benefits provided by international customs transit systems, such as the common transit and the TIR systems. • Increase the efficiency of state control and crime prevention by police, other authorities and licensed special private organizations against smuggling and laundering of huge financial profits. • Cooperate with the national organizations representing the transport industry, including trade associations, to exchange information. • Increase the number of secure parking places and provide more accurate information on their facilities and location in cooperation with private business. • Improve border crossing conditions and facilities in order to reduce access by terrorists and criminals to drivers, vehicles, cargo and information. • Make consignors and consignees co-responsible for fraudulent and illegal activities in road transport operations. • Promote international security standards through the World Customs Organization, the World Trade Organization and other relevant bodies, to create a secure environment without impeding commerce and tourism, or undermining the efficiency and reliability of the road transport industry. • Develop and apply effective and efficient measures, including risk management, in accordance with cost–benefit analyses. The report further required transport associations and operators • to implement in their daily business, risk management procedures established by the profession, including all the IRU rules, procedures and recommendations to counter terrorism, crime and fraudulent activities; • to encourage the development of internal security management systems within companies, • to reinforce the criteria for access to the facilities provided by customs transit systems and association membership, • to promote and implement the best tried and tested fraud and crime prevention practices, • to support the use of modern information and communication technologies in daily operations, including vehicle and goods tracking, • to support, recommend and apply the use of industry codes of conduct, rules and recommendations aimed at making the environment of transport operations secure, • to entrust dangerous goods transport safety advisors with the special task of reducing the risk of terrorism, in partnership with consignors and consignees, • to improve the information flow and quality of driver training with special attention to security and the risk of terrorism, illegal immigration and fraud, • to exchange information amongst associations and, if necessary, with the competent authorities, on issues of relevance in the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration, smuggling and crime, • to cooperate fully on all issues with police and other authorities including licensed special private agencies, and • to extend cooperation with other transport modes with due regard to ensuring security across the complete intermodal transport and supply chains.

222 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

The “IRU Road Passenger Transport Security Guidelines” dealt with security issues concerning public transport, and proposed voluntary guidelines for operators. The document discussed recommendations for all aspects of transport security, including specific forms of transportation (e.g. buses), specific situations (i.e. bomb threats) and security suggestions for public transport administrative entities. The report also listed a collection of security-related support materials that can be used in security plans. Finally, the “IRU Road Transport Security Guidelines” fulfilled a similar purpose for individuals involved in inland transport. Again, the report discussed the possible security measures and proposed voluntary guidelines. It dealt with dangerous goods specifically, providing general provisions for dangerous goods transport and emphasizing the need for the appropriate training of personnel. Finally, the report considered cooperative arrangements with customs and customs officials. The IRU also recently published facts and figures on “Attacks on Drivers of International Heavy Goods Vehicles”, underlining the fact that the number of vehicle thefts and freight robbery incidents are not only a major security issue, but appear to be increasing in many countries. According to this document, about 17 % of all drivers interviewed had suffered an attack during the past 5 years, and 30 % of the attacked drivers reported that they had been attacked more than once. About two thirds of attacks (66.8 %) happened during the night between 22:00 and 6:00. About 42 % of all the attacks occurred in truck parks, and a further 19 % of them were at motorway service stations. Moreover, some attacks remained unreported for multiple reasons such as language difficulties, lack of trust in the authorities and insufficient information about where and to whom to report. In this connection, the document pointed out that the increasing number of attacks on drivers of international HGVs resulted also from the fact that effective measures to fight crime, such as the provision of a sufficient number of secure truck parking areas, the wider use of protective devices onboard vehicles, the setting up of efficient and accessible incident reporting and recording structures as well as the awareness raising of police forces, are in most countries implemented either insufficiently or not at all. Rail In November 2008, the UNECE Working Party on Rail Transport (SC.2) established a Task Force on Rail Security to address selected security issues in the rail sector, including the collection and exchange of information about best practices in securing rail systems, cost–benefit assessments, regional and international cooperation as well as cooperation between government agencies and railway sector. Experts from the public sector and international organizations (the EC, OSJD, OTIF, OSCE, UIC), railway companies as well as those from the business sector took part in this task force. The task force concluded that for the time being, mandatory rules and standards for railway security at the UNECE level are neither desirable nor necessary. However, best practice guidelines for the installation and use of specific security tools [e.g. closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras] could be useful for national authorities. Mandatory rules at the national level, tailored to specific security needs, continue to be appropriate as well as mandatory rules at the bilateral or trilateral levels, if needed. Industry representatives in the task force have emphasized that since ordinary crimes present everyday problems for rail operators, practically each network has to set up an organization involving stakeholders to control and reduce these crimes. Counter-terrorism approaches ought to be based on these pre-existing structures created for coping with ordinary criminal activities, and additional responsibilities should be assigned to them.

223 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

With respect to the international transport of goods and passengers, the task force agreed that guidelines and intergovernmental cooperation are important, although national security regimes need not be uniform. An effective combination of such national risk-adequate diversities and intensive cross-border cooperation may change over time in response to technical progress and emerging threats. Effective methods of managing railway security should be shared and their adoption encouraged across the region. Further cooperation along these lines could lead to the elaboration of an international framework agreement that would leave enough scope for the individual approaches to be adapted efficiently to national conditions. The task force also recommended to national authorities to develop a suitable architecture for a toolbox of guidelines and good practices. This could be accomplished by setting up a Technical Working Group (TWG) that would become a unique internationally accepted focal point for rail security. The TWG would be asked to analyse existing security requirements and practices, and to produce guidelines and design strategies for an effective sharing of good practices by national authorities and railway industry professionals. It would also develop an international research agenda for rail security. The main rail security guidelines, once developed by the TWG and approved by participating Governments and industry representatives, ought to be promoted by the UNECE and other regional commissions of the UN system. Technically, the toolbox would be a protected website that would help policy makers, law enforcement authorities and designated rail transport professionals to solve security problems. The task force also agreed that the cost–benefit analysis of rail safety measures can be applied to a limited extent to security problems. Therefore, an appropriate model for appraising rail security risks based on this analysis needs to be developed with the assistance of national and international transport research centres.

224 ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

14. CONCLUSIONS

The work on the revision of the 2005 TEM and TER Master Plan represents a substantial contribution to the development of road and rail infrastructure in the region and to the integration and harmonization of road and rail infrastructure even beyond Europe. The implementation of the investment strategy of the revised Master Plan would also stimulate the economic growth of the participating countries and be beneficial to their populations. Furthermore, this investment strategy as well as the other results will assist the participating countries in the elaboration and revision of their national master plans and/or of their medium- and long-term transport infrastructure development plans. However, the work on the revised Master Plan cannot be considered to be complete but should continue; such follow-up work will require the strong desire, commitment and political will of the participating countries as well as close cooperation between the participating countries and their immediate neighbours, the UNECE and the TEM and TER project Central Offices. These follow-up activities will first and foremost need a permanent monitoring system with continuous data supply with respect to all the topics covered in the TEM and TER Master Plan revision. In particular, this relates to missing information about individual participating country plans, priorities and missing data from some participating countries, as well as to the progress in bringing the Master Plan backbone networks up to the UNECE AGR and AGC requirements and to the TEM and TER standards and recommended practices. Of the same importance will be the monitoring of the implementation of the identified road and rail projects on the basis of commonly accepted technical and operational standards. The successful implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan and the follow-up work will require in particular the following actions. • The relevant data should be supplied directly by the participating countries to support the decision-making processes regarding the development of transport infrastructures and to adjust and modify the layout of the backbone networks in order to respond appropriately to the economic development of the countries in the region. • A monitoring system for the implementation of the identified road and rail projects must be established to ensure that the investment plan contained in the revised Master Plan is kept up to date. To facilitate the monitoring process, countries participating in the elaboration of the Master Plan who are not yet members of the TEM and TER Projects, may wish to consider full membership. • The possibilities for external financing of projects which have not fully secured funding at present should be explored and considered using the ways and methods identified and recommended in Annexes III to VI of Volume II of the final report as well as through PPP schemes. • The regular provision of data on road and rail traffic flows in the forthcoming years should be assured to permit the verification and updating of the rail and road traffic forecasts for the years 2015 and 2020 in the revised Master Plan in the participating countries and in the region covered.

225 UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN – 2011

• Changes and revisions of national master plans and approved new road and rail investment plans should be reported as soon as possible to the TEM and TER projects Central Offices so that they can be duly reflected in their transport infrastructure databases as well as in the maps of the 2015 and 2020 backbone network status. • Reflecting these infrastructure changes as well as the results of the relevant work of the respective bodies of the UNECE and of international organizations and institutions dealing with the road and rail transport, the status of the bottlenecks identified and the situation at border crossings should be monitored and necessary remedial measures proposed. • Information about the locations of new or extended transhipment points, sea and major river ports, freight villages and logistics centres should be supplied to make it possible to adjust connections to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks. • The experience gained by the participating countries regarding the ITS and plans for their future implementation should be communicated to the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and thus shared with the other countries that participated in the revision of the Master Plan. • In the course of the follow-up work, the deeper involvement of both the TEM and the TER projects in activities aimed at enhancing technical interoperability of the ITS systems at the European level, and especially in the participating countries which are not members of the European Union, should be considered. • Within the framework of the Decade of Action for Road Safety declared by the United Nations, the TEM project should organize, preferably already in 2011, a seminar on road infrastructure safety in which the experience gained in the course of the revision of the Master Plan can be exploited. • The Geographical Information System of the TEM and TER projects Central Offices, which inter alia served the purposes of the revision, should be further upgraded and developed. • A special follow-up programme should be established based on regular monitoring of the progress in implementation, as described above. The results should be submitted to the sessions of the TEM and TER Steering Committees at least once a year. • The TEM and TER projects Central Offices, in close collaboration with the participating countries and the UNECE, should regularly publish information about the implementation progress and the results of the revised Master Plan. These actions and activities cannot be treated as single and one-off since the implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan will require that they are carried out on a permanent basis. It is also recommended that the next revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan and of its investment strategy should follow and be carried out in five years, i.e. in the years 2015 to 2016, with the related preparatory work starting as early as 2014.

226 ECE ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Final Report - VolumeTEM and TER revised Master Plan - Final Report I: Main text

TEM and TER revised Master Plan

Final Report Volume I: Main text

Trans-European Motorway (TEM) Trans-European Railway (TER) Projects

United Nations 2011

Printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva — GE.12.20689 — February 2012 — ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2 (Vol. I)