Ex post evaluation of

major projects supported by the

European Regional

Development Fund

(ERDF) and Cohesion

Fund between 2000 and 2013

Call for Tenders N° 2016CE16BAT077

Inception Report

[Written by CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies (Italy) - In partnership with Ramboll Management Consulting A/S (Denmark) - In association with Significance BV (The Netherlands) - TPLAN Consulting (Italy)] [July – 2017] EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General and Urban Policy Directorate Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Unit Evaluation and European Semester Contact: Jan Marek Ziółkowski

E-mail: [email protected]

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

Directorate-General General and Urban Policy Unit Evaluation and European Semester 2017 EUR [number] EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Ex post evaluation of major projects

supported by the

European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion

Fund between 2000

and 2013

Call for Tenders N° 2016CE16BAT077

Inception Report

Directorate-General General and Urban Policy Unit Evaluation and European Semester 2017 EUR [number] EN

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN [number] doi:[number]

© European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in [Country]

PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF)

PRINTED ON TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (TCF)

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PRINTED ON PROCESS CHLORINE-FREE RECYCLED PAPER (PCF)

Image(s) © [artist's name + image #], Year. Source: [Fotolia.com] (unless otherwise specified)

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Author: CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies

Date:14 July 2017

Table of Contents 1. FOREWORD...... 3 2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS DOSSIER 4 3. FINE-TUNING OF THE PROPOSAL ...... 8

3.1. TASK 1 - THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS ...... 8 3.1.1 Effects mapping and measurement ...... 9 3.1.2 Interpretation of project success and failure ...... 12 3.1.3 Synthesis and conclusions ...... 13 3.2. TASK 2 – PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND SELECTION ...... 16 2.1. Preparing 30 project summary sheets ...... 16 Data gathering ...... 16 Drafting 30 project summary sheets ...... 17 2.2. Projects Rating ...... 18 2.3. Proposal for selection of 10 projects ...... 20 3.3. TASK 3 – EVALUATION OF 10 ERDF OR CF PROJECTS ...... 21 3.4. TASK 4 – SEMINAR ...... 23 Step 1 Plan ...... 23 Step 2 Prepare ...... 25 Step 3 Implement ...... 27 Step 4 Employ ...... 27 3.5. TASK 5 ...... 27 4. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND RESOURCES ...... 29

4.1. WORK PLAN AND DELIVERABLES ...... 29 4.2. RESOURCE ALLOCATION ...... 32 ANNEX I – KEY INFORMATION ON 30 PROJECTS ...... 34 ANNEX II – REVISED LIST OF REFERENCES FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW UNDER TASK 1 ...... 42 Selection of most relevant and interesting papers (from the long list below) to be review under task 1 ...... 42 The full revised list of references ...... 43 ANNEX III – SUMMARY SHEET STRUCTURE AND GUIDELINES ...... 51 ANNEX IV – EXAMPLE OF A FILLED IN SUMMARY SHEET ...... 55 ANNEX V – EXAMPLE OF A FILLED IN ENRICHED SUMMARY SHEET ...... 59

1

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ABBREVIATIONS

CBA Cost-benefit analysis CF Cohesion Fund

DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy EC European Commission

ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds

EU European Union EU13 New EU member states EU15 Old EU member states

EUR Euro ICT Information and communication technologies

ISPA Instrument for structural policy for pre-accession MCA Multicriteria Analysis

NUTS2 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics

RDI Research, Development and Innovation

TEN-T Trans-European transport networks ToRs Terms of References

2

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

1. FOREWORD

The Commission awarded to CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies, in partnership with Ramboll and supported by Significance and Tplan, a contract to carry out a study concerning the Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) between 2000 and 2013. The objective of this ex post evaluation is to analyse the long term contribution of 10 projects in the transport sector implemented during the 2000-2006 or 2007-2013 programming periods in the European Union and co-financed by the ERDF or CF, to economic development as well as the quality of life and well-being of society. This is to contribute to the wider effort engaged by DG Regional Policy to undertake ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy. The present Inception Report further details the proposals made in the Technical Offer, taking into account the first inputs from the Commission discussed during the kick-off meeting of the project (15 June 2017, Brussels). The Inception Report is organised as follows: after presenting the scope of the study and the preliminary analysis of project dossiers performed on the 30 projects proposed in the ToRs, the report focuses on the methodological fine-tuning of some activities with respect to the proposal. Finally, a concluding section deals with the revised work plan and resource allocation. Annexes comprise:

 A table providing key feature of the 30 projects;  A revised list of references for the conceptual model;  Revised and commented project summary sheet templates;  Illustrative project summary sheets.

3

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PROJECTS DOSSIER

The core of this ex-post evaluation is the in-depth investigation of 10 major projects in the transport sector to understand and discuss their long term contribution to economic development as well as the quality of life and well-being of society. The 10 projects for case studies will be selected from a sample of 30 projects indicated in the ToR. This sample was selected by the Commission in order to include projects:

 implemented in EU Member States investing the most of Cohesion Policy resources both in absolute and/or in relative terms in a given (sub-) area1 in comparison to their Cohesion Policy allocation.  reflecting the financial allocation among the sub-sectors;  which have been operational for at least 5 years by time the evaluation was launched and have not been covered by case studies in other evaluations done by DG REGIO;  concentrated on 2007-13 to ensure that most recent examples are taken into account.

Figure 1. Scope of the study: 30 selected Major Projects in the transport sector

a) A geographical and sectoral overview

1 Applicable to policy areas like transport or environment, which can be further down divided for sub-areas such as road, railway, urban transport or water, waste water management and solid waste management. Not necessary for other policy areas, where the sample of major projects to choose from will be smaller.

4

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

b) N. of projects by countries and Funds b) N. of projects by countries and programming period

ERDF CF CF (ISPA) 2000-06 2007-13 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 GRDE ES IT FR IE PT PL HU SK CZ ROBG LT LV SI GRDE ES IT FR IE PT PL HU SK CZ ROBG LT LV SI

EU15 EU13 EU15 EU13

Source: Own elaboration based on Annex II of the ToR

The selected sample shows that the selected projects are concentrated in the road sector and in the EU13 Member States. As said, this composition mirrors the distribution of all projects financed in the periods underTransport assessment which is reported in the following figures.

Figure 2. Major projects in transport sector in 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programming periods: an overview by country and sectors

Source: Own elaboration2

Soon after the signature of the contract the documents on the long list of 30 projects, i.e. the project library, were made available by the Commission services. The Team has started then to analyse the project dossier and in particular country experts performed a preliminary screening of these documents, the findings of this activity were presented during the Kick-off meeting and are briefly summarised in what follows. Moreover, in Annex I some key features of the 30 projects are briefly summarised.

2 Map for 2000-2006 is based on Commission of the European Communities, Annual reports on the implementation of the Structural Funds (2006 and 2008). Map of 2007-2013 is based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/major/

5

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

The first impression is that the projects are well documented (nearly 1,500 documents are available) and the information is quite well organised. The library is in fact organised with different folders reflecting the steps of a project’s decision process and it is sufficiently comprehensive for example reporting the exchanges between the Commission and the project’s applicants during the decision making process. This eases the reconstruction of the project history and the underpinnings of the project rationale and objectives. The following observations have been pointed out by the Team:

 Final reports are available only for 3 projects of 2000-2006 programming period. Namely: - 2001BG16PPT004: Construction of Liulin Motorway, Sofia Ring Road - Daskalovo Road junction"; - 2002LV16PPT008: Improvement of Via Baltica Route, Construction of Saulkrasti Bypass; - 2002LT16PPT008: IX B Rail - Structures and Sector 5.  In some cases documents are available in English even for projects implemented in non-English-speaking countries, which will ease the sharing of information between the country experts and the core team;  CBA report is available for all projects except two. The Contractor asked the Commission to check for the following projects. - 2012PL161PR007: Gdanski Projekt Komunikacji Miejskiej. The Commission confirmed that no CBA document is available in addition to the application form - Annex XXI. - 2001BG16PPT004: Ring Road - Daskalovo Road junction. The Commission needs to further investigate if there are additional paper documents in DG REGIO archives.  In the majority of cases extensive and documented CBA reports are available including data both on economic and financial analyses. Some of them contain transparent analysis built on rather straightforward assumptions, while others are developed according to less clear working hypotheses or performed using specific traffic modelling (e.g. the COBA model) which may be difficult to replicate. In such cases it will be crucial to have access to the original datasets and assumptions by contacting those responsible for preparing the CBA report at the time of the application.

6

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Figure 3. Availability3 of financial and economic data in projects’ dossiers. N. of projects

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Data not available Data partially Data available available Financial analysis Economic analysis

Source: Own elaboration  In general, the quality of documents available in the library enables to carry out task 2, i.e. to prepare the 30 project summary sheets. In addition, in the framework of Task 2 the availability and possibility to collect additional data beyond those already made available by DG REGIO will be investigated with interviews to beneficiaries and Managing Authorities. In any case, the selection of the 10 project to be further analysed as case study under task 3 will not rely on the criterion of data availability only. Considerations about the relevance of the projects are also crucial to ensure that interesting and useful conclusions are achieved (see next section).

Figure 4. Overall quality of the project dossier (in relation of the capacity to complete the project summary sheet as indicated in the technical offer)

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 High Fair/High Fair Low n.a.

Note: The two projects whose overall quality of the project dossier is classified N.A. are those for which a detailed CBA report is missing in the library. Source: Own elaboration

3 i.e. do the reported CBA assumptions and data allow for re-doing/updating the financial/economic analysis?

7

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

3. FINE-TUNING OF THE PROPOSAL

In terms of operationalisation, the evaluation design revolves around five tasks:

 Task 1: Conceptual basis  Task 2: Preliminary review of 30 ERDF and CF projects and selection of 10 projects for evaluation  Task 3: Evaluation of 10 ERDF or CF projects  Task 4: Seminar  Task 5: Synthesis and Cross-Project Analysis, conclusions and recommendations

The Figure below illustrates in a nutshell the proposed approach by matching the methods for data collection, processing and synthesis with the study tasks.

Figure 5. Methodology by tasks

Sheet

Task 1: Task 2: Task 0: Task 3: Task 4: Task 5: Task Conceptual Preliminary Synthesis and Inception Evaluation Seminar basis review cross-case analysis

Fine-tune Literature Documentary Data Case studies collection methodology Review review activities Documentary Interviews Interviews review

Fieldwork

Analytical Mapping of Project rating CBA MCA Cross-case analysis tools effects

Output Answers to Summary sheets CBA analysis evaluation Validation / questions Conceptual basis Insight Sample of Conclusions and Storytelling projects recommendations

The rest of this section further details some parts of the proposals made in the 07/02/2017 TechnicalOverview Offer, process taking into account the first inputs from the Commission discussed during the kick-off meeting of the project.

3.1. TASK 1 - THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS

The evaluation study must be guided by a sound and robust conceptual model which will provide a foundation for the in-depth evaluation of projects in Task 3. In what follows, a rough sketch and some preliminary hints on what will be further elaborated in the following weeks are presented. The conceptual basis will be fully worked-out in the First Interim Report, based on a review of the literature. A revised bibliographical list is included in Annex II. From this long list we have identified and shortlisted the most relevant and interesting papers which will be the main target of the review under Task 1.

The focus of the conceptual framework is on transport projects, more specifically road, rail and urban transport projects as are contained in the list of 30 ERDF and CF projects, but substantial parts of this conceptual model can also be used for the

8

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

evaluation of projects in other fields and will be referred to in the possible contract renewals for the ex-post evaluation in other sectors (i.e. Environment, Energy, RDI and ICT).

The conceptual model consists of three building blocks:

1) Effects mapping and measurement; 2) Investigation of project success and failure; 3) Synthesis and conclusions. The first two building blocks are reasonably independent from each other, the third builds on the first two (see figure 5). In what follows each block is briefly discussed.

Figure 6. Building blocks

EFFECTS MAPPING AND INVESTIGATION OF PROJECT MEASUREMENT SUCCESS AND FAILURE

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1.1 Effects mapping and measurement

The following figure shows a snapshot of the first building block of the conceptual framework, which is further discussed.

Figure 7. Mapping and measurement

Short-term effects MAPPING Long-term effects

Economic Quality of life Environmental effects development

 MEASUREMENT Cost-benefit analysis Qualitative analysis STORYTELLING

NPV Scoring system

Intended Theory of Observed performance INTERPRETATION Change

First, the potential effects of a transport project willBehavioural be enumerated. patterns The effects will be classified into short-term effects and long-term effects (keeping in mind that in this ex post evaluation we will select projects that started at least five year ago). The Multi-criteria analysis allocation of effectsASSESSEMENT to short-term and long-term is closely related to the causal • Relevance mechanisms through which projects change different• Coherence choices of people and firms in • Effectiveness society. A JBLJ project that provides a new motorway • routeEfficiency will first of all affect route • EU added value choice of carK and truck drivers, which is a choice that is reconsidered and changed quite frequently and clearly classifies as a short-term response. These route changes will lead to short-term time savings and transport cost savings. But if the new route also connects areas together that previously were not or badly connected, there may also be effects on residential choice, firm location choice and job location choice.

9

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

These choices are of a medium to long-term nature. In turn, in the long run they will have an impact on the economic development on both sides of the new link. In Table 1 we depict the causal mechanisms, distinguishing short-term effects, mid- term effects and long-term effects, the latter being the societal objectives that projects should contribute to in the long run:

 Economic development  Quality of life  Environmental sustainability

Table 1. Preliminary mapping of effects of major projects in transport

Project objectives / First–order (short- Second-order (mid- Long-term effects outputs term) effects term) effects

Increase the accessibility and the attractiveness Economic of regions Development Additional transport Time savings and capacity, removal improved travel of bottlenecks time reliability Increased mobility for

workforce,

business and consumption

Connectivity of peripheral regions Reduction in Lower production transport costs costs for goods Quality of life and services for providers

More productive Safety human capital

Reduced Benefits to human exposure to air health Environmental pollution noise

mitigations and accidents Environmental Benefits to improvements natural environment

Source: Authors Because of the variety of effects to be accounted for, a methodological approach combining CBA and qualitative analysis is needed in order to grasp the overall long- term contribution of each project. More specifically, in terms of their measurement level, the effects can be distinguished into:

A. Effects that by their nature are already in monetary units (e.g. transport costs savings). These can therefore easily be included in a cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

10

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

B. Effects that are quantitative, but not in money units, and that can be converted into money units in a reasonably reliable way (e.g. transport time savings, accidents, air pollution)4. These effects can then also be included in the CBA. C. Effects that are quantitative, but not in money units, for which there are no reasonably reliable conversion factors to money. We propose not to try to include such effects in the CBA, but to include them in a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) together with the overall outcome of the CBA. D. Effects that cannot be expressed in quantitative (cardinal) terms, but do lend themselves for ordinal measurement (a ranking of the impact of different projects on such a criterion can be provided, such as very good, good, neutral, bad, very bad). We propose to include these effects in the MCA as well. E. Effects that might occur but that are subject to a high degree of uncertainty: these will be treated as part of the risks/scenario analysis that will be included in the CBA F. Effects that might occur but that we cannot even express in an ordinal (ranking) manner: they are residual effects that can be mentioned in qualitative description in case study report. The following table is an attempt showing the contribution of CBA and qualitative analysis in measuring different effects of transport investment projects.

Table 2. CBA and qualitative analysis in measuring different effects of transport investment projects

CBA Qualitative analysis (quantification

(monetisation) or qualitative description) Economic development Travel Time Savings ■ Vehicle Operating Cost ■ Reliability ■ Quality of life and well-being Safety ■ Security ■ Service Quality ■ ■ Environment effects Air pollution ■ Greenhouse gases ■ Landscape ■ Noise ■ Biodiversity ■ Distributional Accessibility ■ Affordability ■

Source: Authors To summarise, we propose to evaluate the projects ex post by doing a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of all the effects in A and B. Then the outcome of the CBA (e.g. the net present value) can be used as one or the criteria in a multi-criteria analysis (MCA),

4 Methods to establish such conversion factors include: stated preference surveys (asking respondents about hypothetical choice alternatives), hedonic pricing or equating the external cost with the cost of repair, avoidance or prevention or with the costs to achieve pre-determined targets

11

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

together with the criteria from C and D, while E and F will be used for descriptive purposes. MCA methods exist that can handle both quantitative and ordinal criteria at the same time (e.g. Hinloopen and Nijkamp, 1990). For carrying out MCA, all criteria need to receive weights. These too can be both quantitative and ordinal (i.e. ranking of criteria). We propose that for the criterion weights for the MCA the Team will develop a first proposal and the Commission (i.e. the Steering Committee of the study) can react to this and provide suggestions.

3.1.2 Interpretation of project success and failure

The second building block entails reasoning on the elements, both external and internal to the project, which have determined the observed causal chain of effects to take place and influenced the observed project performance. This issue will also be treated by means of a scoring system (quantitatively/ordinal), but also more qualitatively (storytelling for each project, from which we will carefully try to draw more general conclusions in the third step).

Figure 8. Interpretation of project success and failure

Intended Theory of Observed performance INTERPRETATION Change

Behavioural patterns

The research question here is why there are deviations between the ex-ante and the ex-post evaluation of a project: why do some projects perform worse than expected, some better and some (more or less) as expected? What are the factors that make projects successful or not successful? On the basis of a review of the literature on these issues, we will develop a conceptual model of the drivers of project success that can applied to the specific projects that need to be evaluated in Task 3 to answer these questions for those specific projects. In European Commission (2012) for the ex post evaluation of the 1994-1999 ERDF and CF projects five stylised determinants of project outcomes were distinguished:

 Appropriateness to the context: it includes the consideration of institutional, cultural, social and economic environment into which the project is inserted;  Project design: it refers to the technical capacity to design the infrastructure project;  Forecasting capacity: it regards the possibility and capacity to predict the future, by considering for example the demand level (e.g. looking at the dangers of over-predicting demand and under-predicting construction costs) ;  Project governance: it concerns the number and type of stakeholders involved during the project cycle and how responsibilities are attributed and shared;  Behavioural response: the managerial and professional ability to react to unforeseen events. In Task 1 we will investigate whether these five factors are still valid for the current ex post evaluation study or whether new factors have come to the fore in the more

12

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

recent literature that should replace or extend the earlier framework. Moreover, in Task 1 we will go beyond this and try to define ‘stylised patterns’ which can be combinations of the above drivers and other drivers that were not distinguished at the time. To this end, we will refer as far as possible to the economic literature focusing on project management in the field of complex adaptive system (see for instance Senge 1990, Kim 1992 and 1999 and Hass 2009).

3.1.3 Synthesis and conclusions

Building block 1 will provide an inventory of project effects, their likely timeframe and how they can be measured and evaluated. Building block 2 will develop a conceptual causal model of why/how projects have effects on society. The application of these two models (building blocks) to specific projects in 3 will provide a considerably richer story than either one approach would be able to give. Both knowledge of the transport system and its interfaces with other systems on the one hand and knowledge of the process of project planning and implementation on the other hand are required to provide an integral and balanced ex post evaluation of projects. Using the two earlier building blocks, we will write a story for each of the projects.

Due to the wide perspective adopted to evaluate projects and the multi-faceted nature of projects, the Team proposes to conduct a final assessment of project performance through a structured set of evaluation criteria, as suggested in the ToRs. This exercise will help to formulate a final judgement on each project to be conveyed in the case studies. Evaluation criteria are the following:

Short-term effects  Relevance MAPPING (were the project objectives in line with the existing development needs and the priorities at the programme,Long national-term effects and/or EU level?);

 Coherence (with other nationalEconomic and/or EU interventions in the same sector or Quality of life Environmental effects development region); 

 Effectiveness (were the stated objectives achieved, and in time? Were there MEASUREMENT Cost-benefit analysis Qualitative analysis STORYTELLING other effects? Were there other options?)

 Efficiency (costs and benefits relativeNPV to each other and toScoring their system ex ante values)  EU added value (was EU support necessary, EU-wide effects, further EU action Intended Theory of required?). Observed performance INTERPRETATION Change

Figure 9. Synthesis and final judgement Behavioural patterns

Evaluation criteria ASSESSEMENT • Relevance • Coherence • Effectiveness JBLJ • Efficiency • EU added value K

The different findings produced by the project analysis on the economic, social, environmental and other effects produced by the projects and measured through the CBA or the qualitative scoring system, and the findings on the causal chain explaining the behaviour of the project in time, will be put together and interpreted altogether to provide a reasoned answer to the study evaluation questions. A scoring system will help providing a structured and concise assessment. A tentatively and very preliminary evaluation matrix is presented in what follows.

13

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Table 3. Tentative evaluation matrix

CRITERION EQ ASSESSMENT SCORE

The project was and over the years remained fully in line with the development needs and the priorities established at various levels 5 At the beginning the project was in line with the development needs and the priorities established at various levels but it was not able to cope with changing 4 To what extent the original objectives of the examined major needs project matched: At the beginning the project was not in line with the development needs and the Relevance  the existing development needs, priorities established at various levels but over the years it has been able to cope 3  the priorities established at the programme, national, and/or changing needs EU level. Since the beginning the project was not in line with the development needs but was in line the priorities established at various levels 2 Since the beginning the project was not in line with the development needs and the priorities established at various levels 1

Fully consistent 5

Almost fully consistent 4 To what extent the examined major projects were consistent with Coherence other national and/or EU interventions carried out in the same Partially consistent 3 region or sector? Poorly consistent 2

Not at all consistent 1  Has the examined major project achieved the objectives The project has achieved the expected objectives in line with the foreseen time stated in the applications for Cohesion policy support? schedule. It turned out to be the best option among all feasible alternatives. It also produced some unexpected positive benefits. Was the actual implementation in line with the foreseen time 5  schedule?

 What factors, including the availability and the form of finance and to what extent influenced the implementation The project has achieved the expected objectives in line with the foreseen time Effectiveness time and the achievement observed? schedule. It turned out to be the best option among all feasible alternatives. 4  What has changed in the long run as a result of the project (for example, is there evidence showing contribution of the project to the private sector investments)? The project has achieved the expected objectives with some delay with respect to the projected time schedule. It turned out to be the best option among all  Were these changes expected (already planned at the project feasible alternatives. 3 design stage, e.g., in terms of pre-defined objectives) or unexpected (emerged, for instance, as a result of changes in the socio-economic environment)?

14

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 How have these changes matched the objectives set and The project has not achieved the expected objectives due to exogenous factors.

addressed the existing development needs, the priorities 2 established at the programme, national and/or EU level? The project has not achieved the expected objectives due to endogenous factors.  Did the selected project turn out to be the best option among 1 all feasible alternatives?  Are there any significant differences between the costs and Significant positive differences due to endogenous/exogenous factors 5 benefits in the original cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and what can be observed once the project has been finalised? Nil differences 4  To what extent have the interventions been cost effective? Efficiency Negligible positive/negative differences 3

Significant negative differences due to exogenous factors 2

Significant negative differences due to endogenous factors 1

 What is the EU added value resulting from the examined Very high EU added value, i.e. the project achieved EU-wide effects which could 5 major project (in particular, could any of the major projects not have been achieved without the EU support examined, due to its risk profile, complexity or scope, have not been carried out if not for the EU support)? High EU added value, i.e. the project achieved positive effects which would have 4  Did the examined major projects achieve EU-wide effects been hardly achieved without the EU support (e.g. for preserving the environment, building trans-European Modest EU added value, i.e. the project would have been hardly implemented EU added transport networks, broadband coverage etc.)? 3 without the EU support, however, its effects are still uncertain. value  To what extent do the issues addressed by the examined interventions continue to require action at EU level? Poor EU added value, i.e. the project would not have been implemented without the EU support, however, it did not achieve the intended effects due to 2 unforeseen events.

Nil EU added value, i.e. there is strong evidence showing that the results 1 achieved by the project could have been achieved even without the EU support.

Source: Authors

15

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

3.2. TASK 2 – PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND SELECTION

The work undertaken under this task will run in parallel with Task 1 and will be aimed at selecting the 10 projects that will be evaluated. The ultimate scope of the study is to pick-up 10 illustrative examples of infrastructure projects that can deliver interesting insights on the possible long-term effects of infrastructures and on the causal chain leading to those effects. For this reason the team devised a project selection methodology that combines a set of criteria related to data availability and willingness to cooperate by potential interviewees, with other criteria that can be important to account for the project varieties in terms of expected long-term effects, mechanisms and causal chains and context. As additional criterion the team will try to ensure a certain balance in terms of country, type of region, sub-sectors and other technical features of the project. Three sub-tasks will be carried out.

2.1. Preparing 30 project summary sheets

The starting point of Task 2 will be the review of a sample of 30 ERDF and CF projects proposed by the Commission. To prepare the project summary sheets it will be necessary to:

 collect relevant data;  drafting a “Project Review Summary Sheet” for each project.

Data gathering

The data gathering activity will be carried out by the national correspondents with the coordination of the core team. This activity will rely on:

 project documentation, feasibility and technical studies, application forms, financing decisions and any other relevant document available at the Commission services and/or the Managing Authorities and/or the beneficiaries;  preliminary interviews with Managing Authorities and project managers/relevant stakeholders (at least 2); knowledge of the national correspondents about the project history. Apart from the project documentation made available by the Commission, additional sources of information will be consulted. In particular, national correspondents will help gathering access to local sources of information, including Managing Authorities and beneficiaries, in order to understand what level of support it is possible to get locally and to check the availability of the required additional data needed to perform the ex-post evaluation.

In gathering data and information, the experts will follow a predetermined template and data collection grid, to ensure consistency across the 30 projects. The type of information collected will be instrumental to fill in the project summary sheets and provide a comprehensive information basis for the selection exercise. A crucial aspect will be data availability to perform the ex-post evaluation and in particular quantitative data for the CBA. For this activity the team will rely on secondary information and is not expect to produce primary data by means of undertaking independent surveys and counting, especially with regard to traffic data or, with reference to other sectors, on demand analysis more in general. The team instead envisages the possibility to rely

16

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

on the results of existing forecasts and relevant studies developed by specialised research institutions, whose availability shall be checked in this phase.

Drafting 30 project summary sheets

The objectives of this review process are to structure the information collected on each of the 30 ERDF or CF projects, to assess the availability and quality of existing information and to provide a preliminary judgement on their suitability for evaluation. The analysis will be summarised in a project sheet for which a proposed structure is provided in the box below. On the basis of this structure, one commented project summary sheet has been prepared and enclosed in Annex III to provide details on what kind of information we expect to collect and convey in the 30 fiches which will be the basis for the selection of the 10 cases. Also, 1 summary sheet has been prepared and enclosed in Annex IV as an illustrative example.

Box 1. Project review summary sheet

- Key project information: providing basic information on the project including its title and CCI number, sector targeted, the type of project (i.e. 1) Construction of a new infrastructure, 2) Upgrading of an existing infrastructure, 3) Modernisation of an existing infrastructure, 3) Instalment of telematic applications or signalling), financial volume, type of investment (i.e. indication on whether the project is a) revenue generating and b) a PPP initiative), operational programme, funding sources, financing period, geographical investment area, strategic location on TEN-T network, timeline (construction and operational phase). - Project description: describing the main project objectives and needs and the service provided, summarising its technical features, reporting on any modification to the original design and/or scope of the investment since the start of the works. This section also reports on the existing infrastructure and demand conditions, the target area and population, its inclusion in relevant programme and strategic plans for infrastructure development and provision of services and on any change in these elements since the start of the operation of the infrastructure. - Typology of effects: listing all possible positive and negative effects that the project has or could still generate in the future as identified by the project’s documents and promoters.

- Relevance of the project: commenting on the relevance of the project in investigating and answering the 'what', 'how' and 'when' questions about the capacity of major infrastructure projects to generate long-term contribution to economic development, quality of life and well-being of society, including environmental sustainability. - Assessment of available information and data: assessing the suitability (i.e. availability and quality) of quantitative data and qualitative information available for the project related both to the ex-ante analysis and to ex-post evaluation exercise with respect to the identified effects.

- Relevant stakeholders – identifying the relevant stakeholders to be contacted including promoters and beneficiaries, as well as any other stakeholders with whom potential interviews could be carried out (i.e. with policy makers and experts, including national and regional level administration as well as leading research

17

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

institutions in the respective fields) and commenting on their overall availability and willingness to cooperate in the evaluation study.

2.2. Projects Rating

On the basis of information collected for each of the 30 projects, a rating exercise will be undertaken by the Core Team to verify which projects are more suitable for been evaluated according to the proposed methodology. The rating will reflect the outcome of an evaluability assessment of the 30 proposed projects, a systematic process of determining whether a project is in a condition to be evaluated, i.e. whether its evaluation is justifiable, feasible and likely to provide useful information within the timeframe, resource constraints and operational objectives of the present study. In particular, project evaluability will be assessed along 3 broad criteria (reported in the box below), each one with a different weight to express its relative importance in the project selection.

Box 2. Criteria for the assessment of project evaluability

- Strategic relevance for the evaluation purposes (40%). This criterion measures the extent to which the project can contribute to answering the evaluation questions identified in the ToRs and the conceptual framework. - Availability and quality of data from existing sources (30%). This criterion measures the extent to which data and information (both ex-ante and ex-post) needed for the ex-post evaluation is already available, as well as being relevant and appropriate to the scope and the purposes of the evaluation and of good quality (no incomplete files, etc.). - Availability and willingness to cooperate by stakeholders and availability of information towards a project tailored theory of change analysis (30%). This criterion captures the extent to which information is available to support the evaluation of the project under the perspective of the theory of change as well as considerations about the willingness of people contacted to provide support to the evaluation

The evaluability grid below (see Table 2) indicates precisely what conditions should be met for an effective ex-post evaluation of projects. To arrive at a total score for a given project, the Core Team will first assign a score to each of the questions suggested under each criterion based on information provided in the one page summary sheet. These questions are intended as a declination of the criterion and will guide the Core Team in formulating their assessment. Scoring will be done by utilising a five-point scale, to be applied according to the relevance of the project in answering each of the questions as follows: 1 (very low or nil); 2 (low); 3 (medium); 4 (high); 5 (very high).

By summing up the scores and weighting for their relative importance of the criterion, total scores per criterion will be calculated. These scores will be accompanied by a qualitative explanation of the reasons underlying the judgment made. As an outcome of the project evaluability assessment exercise, each project will get a total score (the sum of the single macro-scores per criterion) that will allow the ordered rating of projects and the determination of the most valuable projects.

18

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Table 4. Project evaluability grid

BRIEF QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT EVALUABILITY EXPLANATION CRITERIA RATING KEY QUESTIONS SCORES (0 to 4)** 1) To what extent the project represents a suitable unit of analysis able to investigate the generation of effects on economic development, quality of life rating * and environment? (This question addresses the relevance of the project in representing a suitable unit of analysis with respect to its functional scope in the wider infrastructure and service 0.1 context. In other words, it is assessed the ability of the project to generate relevant effects independently from other related or complementary investments) A) Relevance for 2) To what extent is the project sufficiently mature to generate effects on the evaluation rating * economic development, quality of life and environment? (This question addresses the relevance of the project in relation to its maturity, i.e. is the time elapsed since its implementation 0.1 enough to enable the assessment of the effects?) 3) To what extent is the ex-post evaluation of the project likely to produce rating * relevant policy lessons? (This question addresses the relevance of the project in investigating and answering the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘when’ questions about the capacity of major infrastructure 0.2 projects to generate positive effects and reach the Cohesion Policy objectives) 1) To what extent the data and information to perform an ex-post CBA are rating * available and of sufficient quality? (This question addresses the availability and quality of B) Availability 0.15 the data and information available to undertake an ex-post CBA) and quality of data from 2) To what extent the information to perform the ex-post assessment of effects rating * existing sources through qualitative discussion is available and of sufficient quality? (This question addresses the availability and quality of the information available to assess the project’s effects 0.15 suitable for a qualitative discussion ) C) Cooperation by 1) To what extent are stakeholders interested and available in cooperating with rating * the stakeholders the study team? (This question addresses the availability and willingness to cooperate to the 0.15 and availability of study by the stakeholders as well as their responsiveness) information 2) To what extent is information available to elaborate a project tailored theory towards a project rating * of change analysis? (This question addresses the availability and relevance of available tailored theory of information to assess the chain f effects occurred in the development, implementation and 0.15 change analysis operational stages of the project within the wider context in which it is located) Total project evaluability Sum A+B+C

Notes: 1= very low or nil; 2= low; 3= medium; 4 = high, 5= very high.

19

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

In order to show the grade of consistency between the different tools developed for the screening of the 30 projects and the selection of the 10 case studies, Annex III also provides the correspondence between the questions in the evaluation grid and the sections of the summary sheets that will be considered to answer these questions. In addition to the results of the above rating exercise, when selecting the sample of 10 projects to be evaluated, the team will also pay attention at ensuring coverage of different types of projects. The final list of 10 will not result by the mechanical rating exercise but the following variables will be also considered in order to ensure the selection of a balance sample of projects:

 Transport mode: road, railway or urban transport;  Financing period: 2000-06 or 2007-2013, knowing that a trade-off exists between older and more recent projects. While the former are associated with a longer time elapsed since their completion, they may be less informative for the next programming period since they may be associated to already addressed/discussed issues. On the contrary, more recent projects while being in principle more informative they are operational for a shorter time span, i.e. it is more difficult to capture their long-term contribution to wellbeing.  Location: Member State, Urban areas/ Outside urban areas, TEN-T Core Network, TEN-T Comprehensive Network, Non-TEN-T;  Type of infrastructure project: New construction, Upgrading, Modernisation or IT applications;  Project Financing: Revenue generating project/ Non revenue generating project, PPP project.

2.3. Proposal for selection of 10 projects

The data gathering and project rating exercise will lead to the identification of the most suitable 10 projects to be evaluated under Task 3. For each of the proposed projects, an enriched summary sheet will be prepared. This sheet will comprise information already included in the 1 page summary sheet, and additional sections (see the box below). On the basis of this structure, one project summary sheet has been prepared and enclosed in Annex V as illustrative examples.

Box 3. Project selection summary sheet

- Strategy for data gathering – providing information on the proposed data and information that will be collected and gathered to perform the ex-post evaluation of the project for each parameter and long-term effect applicable to the investment as well as the detailed list of sources and stakeholders that will be considered for the development of the case study; - Reason for the selection of the project – commenting on the justification for the selection of the project as a case study for the ex-post evaluation.

The final selection of 10 projects will be agreed with the Commission.

20

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

3.3. TASK 3 – EVALUATION OF 10 ERDF OR CF PROJECTS

Task 3 constitutes the main task of this evaluation. The objective is to carry out the ex post evaluation of the 10 selected projects. The assessment of long-term effects will concern two levels of analysis, whose findings will be put together by means of a Multi-Criteria Analysis:  a quantitative data collection and analysis represented by the Cost benefit Analysis;  a qualitative integration of the results obtained above with an analysis of the long term effects produced by the projects, and the reasons behind them, in order to develop project “histories”. Relevant data can be of two different natures:

 Ex ante: all data and documents prepared before the project implementation, such as feasibility studies, EU funds application forms, financing decisions, cost benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, economic impact assessments, etc.  Ex post: all data and documents elaborated after the project completion and during the operational phase, such as monitoring data, project accountability, mid-term and final evaluation reports, studies, customers surveys, polls, etc. Country correspondents will be responsible for collecting all ex ante and ex post data available, on the basis of the preliminary indications on availability and quality stemming from the reviewing process (Task 2). In particular, the following sources of information will be investigated:

 European Commission services, in particular for application forms and financing decisions (ex-ante), but possibly mid-term and final evaluations too. The Team is already aware of the availability of documents concerning the ex- ante assessment of projects. One way to obtain more information or further explanations on the negotiation process behind the projects could be to go back to people in charge of the projects file at that time, trying to reach them even if they are now working in other institutions. The interplay between the Commission and the MSs, and the final decision, was – in fact - a key aspect of the projects’ design so that its reconstruction, whenever possible, will give essential input for the relevance, detail and appropriateness of the case studies’ narrative.  Consultants: the possibility of contacting the consultants that prepared the feasibility studies and other analyses (e.g. EIA) at that time will be explored, to complement the evidence.  Managing Authorities: policymakers and civil servants at the national or regional authority that was responsible at that time for managing the contract with the Commission and for project implementation may be helpful, to gather both ex ante and ex post data and analysis and to gain specific insights into the project.  Beneficiaries/service operators: these are likely to be the principal sources, and interviews will be conducted in order to gather qualitative and quantitative ex post data. By accessing the files of the administration (monitoring data, project accounts) it should be possible to gather data necessary to carry out the cost benefit analyses. Qualitative interviews with key actors (e.g. project

21

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

managers) will also contribute to identifying the social effects generated by the project. Beneficiaries/service operator managers should be also aware of other information that could have been generated along the project lifetime, such as interim and final evaluations, polls or customer satisfaction surveys. In conclusion, both quantitative data collection - to estimate costs, revenues, construction times, etc. – and qualitative interviews with project managers, directors of works, etc. - to understand what effects have been produced and to investigate the possible causes of discrepancies from expectations - will be performed at the beneficiaries/service operator premises.  Other: as already mentioned, the Contractor will need to know everything that is behind the project under assessment. This means that consultations with local, regional and national stakeholders, not directly participating in the management of the infrastructure (e.g. academic experts) but with knowledge of it, will be carried out to complement the understanding of how investments have impacted over time and space. Also, press (e.g. newspapers articles) and other media sources will be searched in order, for example, to shed lights on what the public debate around the projects was and is. Finally, municipal and parliamentary minutes of meetings or public procurement articles could be gathered.

22

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

3.4. TASK 4 – SEMINAR

The evaluation includes a seminar, which, according to the agreed timetable (See Section 4.1 below) will take place on March 15th, i.e. one month after submission of the third interim report and one month before submission of the draft final report. Although no progress have been made so far on this task, there are some aspects that it is worth mentioning as fine tuning of what presented in the Technical Offer. The present section summarises the main elements of the proposition made in the tender and points at a number of aspects that require specific attention.

Figure 10. Approach to workshop design

Step 1 Plan

This first step is a reflection process and will be undertaken within our study team and with the Commission on the intention, relevant stakeholders to take part, and desired outcome of a given workshop. Our tender makes suggestions on the seminar but it was not discussed yet with the Commission. The planning process should be completed at the latest at the time of the third interim report (15 February 2018). The planning should be a collaborative process between the consultant and the Commission. To facilitate this reflection and planning process we propose I DO A-RR-T framework:

Table 5. Workshop planning

Questions Status Intention What is the According to the ToR, the purpose of the seminar intention with the is to “discuss and deepen the analysis on the process? emerging findings of the project case studies prepared under Task 3” Why are we here? Our tender identifies the following objectives:

 To share and discuss in-depth the key points emerging from the study;

 To collect additional insights from the participants;

 To derive policy implications and possible recommendations.

These objectives should be clarified with the European Commission since slightly departing from the ToRs. Desired What should come Our tender suggests that the seminar will provide

23

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Outcome out of it? with:

 additional insights on projects

 validated findings  recommendations

However it is also important to clarify what the participants themselves would get from this meeting. For instance, the seminar could be an opportunity for them to share experience and learn from each other’s practice on how to manage and evaluate major transport infrastructure projects. This point will be discussed with the European Commission. Agenda What is the Our tender suggests that we build the seminar programme of the around the key evaluation questions with a focus day? on topics of particular interest. What are the Further it proposes a draft agenda around four phases of the main sessions: (i) effects, (ii) implementation, (iii) process? relevance, (iv) added value and complementarity, (iv) policy implications and recommendation.

The agenda will depend on the intention and desired outcome of the seminar, and may also need to be tailored to the preliminary findings of the study. It shall also reflect the structure and logic of the conceptual framework which will be part of the First Interim Report. Importantly, the extent to which policy implications and recommendations should be a focus of the seminar should be discussed with the European Commission. Rules and Who will do what? The consultant will be responsible for moderating Roles the discussions during the seminar. The role of the How will we work team members from the Consultant (e.g. game together? master, rapporteur) and the European How will we involve Commission (e.g. open and closing session etc.) participants during the day will also be clearly defined.

The selection of participants is a crucial aspect that will be considered in the Preparatory phase. In particular, beyond country experts in charge of the case studies, relevant stakeholders with the necessary skills and capacity to interact in a EU policy environment will be identified and suggested during the data collection phase with field visits.

24

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Concerning participant’s involvement, our tender makes some suggestions, including presentation of emerging findings, group sessions and panel discussions. Previous experience has shown that participants gain a lot in sharing and discussing their cases.

Process facilitation techniques can be used but they should to serve a purpose and they are also very much dependent on meeting facilities. On this particular point we would appreciate if the Commission could confirm the location (including meeting room) of the seminar. Time How much time do A one-day workshop is foreseen on March 15. we need/have? Timing is a challenge because we rely on case studies to identify participants and relevant topics. When should we be This means that from the perspective of Task 4 finished by? case studies should be completed as soon as possible. On this particular point we would appreciate if the Commission could provide suggestions on time management and structure of the workshop.

Step 2 Prepare

The consultant is responsible for organising the seminar. However, since the European Commission will host the event, close cooperation is required for a successful event.

The consultant will take responsibility for organising the seminar and undertake inter alia the following tasks:

 defining a list of participants  sending invitations to the participants identified

 managing registration

 preparing the agenda

 preparing the briefing package  organising printing

 distributing relevant information material to participants  managing claims for reimbursement of travel and accommodation costs.

We understand that the European Commission will take care of booking the meeting room and providing catering during the day. We would appreciate a confirmation from the Commission that this will indeed be the case. Ahead of the seminar, the team will draft and share with the EC a Seminar Preparatory Report which will set out all the details of the day. The final version of

25

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

this report will be included in the Third Interim Report. It will cover all the points mentioned above. A Briefing Package for participants will also be prepared and shared with the EC as part of the Third Interim Report. It will include:

 agenda and outline of the seminar;

 briefing note with a summary of the evaluation evidence and listing of preliminary conclusions of the analysis.

An important point for the preparation of the seminary is the management of participants, which is described in details in the tender. Following the tender specifications, the participants will include representatives from the Managing Authorities responsible for the projects covered by the 10 case studies, experts (academic and policy), infrastructure operators and other project stakeholders (around 40 persons in total). The European Commission (various services) and the consultant will also be represented. In total, we will aim for 50 participant maximum in order to keep the discussions around the main topics to a manageable number of people. Error! Reference source not found. below describes our approach to identify potential participants.

The registration process will be facilitated by a web-based tool that has been developed and used by Ramboll in previous projects.

Box 4. How will we identify and select participants?

26

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

In March 2015 we will organise a seminar in Brussels in order to discuss the findings of the study.

For profound discussions, the identification and selection of suitable participants is of great importance. The seminar will be hosted by the European Commission and involve 50 participants from all over Europe. The ideal participants will:

 be experts in their domain (relating to transport infrastructure)  show great interest in the study (purpose and findings)  be comfortable with English langue (we do not expect translation services)

 reflect different stakeholder groups We will ask the national correspondents involve in the 10 case studies to identify at least four possible participants for the seminar during the interviews, taking into account the four criteria listed above. For each proposed participant, national correspondents will be asked to indicate his or her name, function/area of expertise, contact details and the reason for selecting him or her. To this purpose, the national correspondents will be encouraged to ask good interviewees whether they would be interested in participating in the seminar and if they would feel comfortable with the seminar being held in English. When asked, the national correspondents will mention that travel and accommodation costs will be reimbursed. Additionally, they may also ask the interviewee if they know someone who might be interested and who we can contact for the study and possible, the seminar.

Step 3 Implement

The seminar will be implemented according to the plan set up in step 1.

Step 4 Employ

The output of the seminar will be summarised in a Seminar Report. The findings stemming from the discussions will be consolidated into the draft final report.

3.5. TASK 5

The objective of Task 5 is to synthesise the findings from the case studies carried out under Task 3 and generalise the findings via a cross project analysis. This will allow for a comprehensive analysis of the contribution provided by the transport projects assessed, and could enable some generalisation in terms of classification of typologies of effects, channels through which such effects can materialise and key success conditions. This generalisation will be possible by referring to the analytical framework developed in Task 1 that will allow reading the ten stories with a coherent vision. In addition to that, the project selection designed in Task 2 will allow the selection of, if not statistically, at least ten projects conceptually representative of the typical challenges faced by projects financed by ERDF and CF in the transport sector.

27

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

In the light of the above-mentioned generalisations, some conclusions and policy- oriented recommendations will be highlighted with the final aim to feed the current debate on the post-2020 preparation process.

The key activities of the task are to:

 Report on long term impacts of the ten projects, their different nature, magnitude and conditions for realisation.

 Drawn the study conclusions in terms of whether the long-term contribution of the 10 selected projects has represented value for money and in terms of triggering mechanisms of long-term effects as far as possible by typologies of investments.

 Identify and present the main messages in terms of policy learning.

 Make recommendations which will be formulated in a way to support the ex- ante appraisal process of future similar projects, in order to improve the validity of evaluation and the overall performance of the project. Findings, conclusions and recommendations will be integrated in the Draft Final Report.

28

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

4. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND RESOURCES

4.1. WORK PLAN AND DELIVERABLES

This ex-post evaluation will be performed over a period of 12 months and will involve the delivery of six reports, the arrangement of four meetings with the Steering Group, a kick-off meeting, two Progress Meetings and a seminar (see Table below). In addition, each month (starting from the second month of the study) a progress report will be submitted to illustrate the activities carried out so far and the next steps planned.

Table 2 and table 3 illustrate the timeframe of activities and deliverables, as agreed at the kick-off meeting.

Figure 11. Deliverables & Meetings

Reports Meetings Event Deadline Signature of the 15 May 2017 contract Kick-off meeting with DG REGIO 15 June 2017

R1: Inception Report 30 June 2017

M1: Progress Meeting to discuss Phone call to be

the Inception Report agreed R2: First Interim 31 August 2017 Report M2: First Steering Group Meeting 12 September to discuss the First Intermediate 2017 Report R3: Second Interim 23 October 2017 Report M3: Second Steering Group 14 November Meeting to discuss the Second 2017 Intermediate Report R4: Third Interim 15 February

Report 2018 M4: Third Steering Group Meeting to discuss the Third Intermediate 01 March 2018 Report Seminar 23 March 2018 R5: Draft Final Report 16 April 2018 M5: Progress Meeting to discuss 24 April 2018 the Draft Final Report R6: Final Report 15 May 2018 M6: Fourth Steering Group Meeting 24 May 2018 to discuss the Final Report

29

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Because of the slight delay accumulated after the signature of the contract, a slight postponement as compared to the initial time plan has been agreed with the EC regarding the submission of the First and the Second Interim Reports. This will ensure an adequate timespan to perform all the necessary activities needed to submit high quality deliverables. At the same time, the postponement will not cause additional delays for the Third Interim Report as the work on all case studies will progress practically in parallel (as shown in the following Gantt chart).

30

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Figure 12. Timeframe of activities and deliverables (workplan) – Weeks

May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18

Project Management Tasks w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7 w8 w9 w10 w11 w12 w13 w14 w15 w16 w17 w18 w19 w20 w21 w22 w23 w24 w25 w26 w27 w28 w29 w30 w31 w32 w33 w34 w35 w36 w37 w38 w39 w40 w41 w42 w43 w44 w45 w46 w47 w48 Coordination and monitoring Quality control / peer review Monthly Progress Report 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total project management tasks

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

Technical tasks w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7 w8 w9 w10 w11 w12 w13 w14 w15 w16 w17 w18 w19 w20 w21 w22 w23 w24 w25 w26 w27 w28 w29 w30 w31 w32 w33 w34 w35 w36 w37 w38 w39 w40 w41 w42 w43 w44 w45 w46 w47 w48 Task 0 - Inception Kick-off meeting with the EC Work plan and Inception Report Progress Meeting 1 Task 1 - Conceptual Basis Conceptualisation Fine tuning methodology for Tasks 2 and 3 Report drafting Task 2 - Projects selection Preparing 30 summary sheets Project rating Proposal for selection of 10 projects First Interim Report Steering Group Meeting 1 Task 3 - Projects analysis Preparing and adjusting the toolkit for case studies Carry out 2 pilot case studies Second Interim Report Steering Group Meeting 2 Carrying out the remaining 8 case studies Third Interim Report Steering Group Meeting 3 Task 4 - Seminar Preparing the seminar Managing participants Conducting the seminar Finalisation and reporting Task 5 - Synthesis Synthesis and cross-project reading Formulating conclusions and recommendations Draft final report Progress Meeting 2 Revision according to comments Final Report Steering Group Meeting 4

TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Legend: deliverable; meeting 31

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

4.2. RESOURCE ALLOCATION

The revised allocation of resources by category of experts is described in table below, with a breakdown by task and activity. The final allocation of working days among the different country experts for the case studies will be made as soon as the 10 projects are identified.

Figure 13. Resources allocation by experts

Deputy project Scientific Director Project Manager Task Managers Na tiona l Qua lity coordinator The ma tic Project Management Tasks Corresponde Man./Proof Tota l Scientific S ilvia Chia ra Ge ra rd De X a vie r Le Ema nue la Julie e xpe rts Massimo Florio Roberto Zani nts re a de r Committe e V igne tti P a nc otti Jong De n S irtori P e lle grin

Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd

Coordination and monitoring 12 5 4 8 8 37 Quality control / peer review 5 2 24 31 Monthly Progress Report 3 2 5 Total project management 0 0 20 7 0 4 10 8 0 0 0 24 73 ta sks Deputy project Scientific Director Project Manager Task Managers coordinator Na tiona l Qua lity The ma tic Corresponde Man./Proof Tota l Scientific S ilvia Chia ra Ge ra rd De X a vie r Le Ema nue la Julie e xpe rts Massimo Florio Roberto Zani nts re a de r Committe e V igne tti P a nc otti Jong De n S irtori P e lle grin

Technical tasks Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Nº of wd Task 0 - Inception 1 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 11

Kick- off meeting with the EC 1 1 1 1 4

Work plan and Inception Report 1 1 2 1 5

Progress Meeting 1 1 1 2 Task 1 - Conceptual Basis 2 0 8 0 14 0 2 4 0 0 18 0 48

Conceptualisation 2 5 8 2 1 5 23 Fine tuning methodology for Tasks 3 2 1 3 8 14

Report drafting 1 5 5 11 Task 2 - Projects selection 3 3 6 5 1 12 2 2 0 35 2 0 71

Preparing 30 summary sheets 3 30 33 Alignmnt and fine tuning of project summary sheets 2 2 2 2 8 Projects rating and selection of 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 2 projects 16 First Interim Report 1 2 1 1 1 6

Steering Group Meeting 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 Task 3 - Projects analysis 7 6 9 3 1 14 4 41 0 14 0 54 0 279 Preparing and adjusting the toolkit for 1 1 1 2 4 case studies 9

Carry out 2 pilot case studies 1 2 1 6 10 28 10 58

Second Interim Report 2 1 5 8 Steering Group Meeting 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 Carrying out the remaining 8 case 2 4 10 96 40 studies 152

Third Interim Report 1 2 1 1 3 12 16 36

Steering Group Meeting 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 Task 4 - Seminar 1 3 3 0 1 1 16 1 1 10 9 0 46

Preparing the seminar 1 10 5 16

Managing participants 1 2 3 Conducting the seminar 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 4 24 Finalisation and reporting 3 3 Task 5 - Synthesis 2 .5 6 7 6 2 0 2 6 23 0 3 0 58

Synthesis and cross- project reading 8 3 11 Formulating conclusions and 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 4 recommendations 10 Draft final report 0.5 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 14

Progress Meeting 2 1 1 1 3 Revision according to comments 1 1 1 4 7

Final Report 0.5 1 1 1 2 6

Steering Group Meeting 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 8 TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 16 .5 18 56 24 19 33 38 62 24 18 5 86 24 586

The revised allocation of time among team members and tasks responds to the following considerations:

 As concerns the allocation among Tasks and activities, a shift of resources form Task 3 (currently representing 48% of the total man-days allocated for the project) to Task 2 (currently representing 12% of the total allocation) responds mainly to the necessity of ensuring an adequate number of man-days for the preparation of 30 high quality summary sheets and an accurate selection of the 10 projects to be further analysed under Task 3.

32

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Regarding the allocation among experts, first, we have strengthened the allocation for the coordinating role by identifying Chiara Pancotti as deputy project coordinator. This is to ensure the continuity of the projects activities in case Silvia Vignetti will be temporarily unavailable due to other commitments. Secondly, a shift of resources from Task Managers (i.e. minus 16 man-days) to National Correspondents (plus 14 man-days) responds to the necessity of devoting a larger share of man-days for preparing 30 high quality summary sheets under task 2 as well as for field work (including data collection, desk research and at least 20 in-depth interviews per case study) under Task 3.

33

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ANNEX I – KEY INFORMATION ON 30 PROJECTS

Operatio Major Total Major project Dimensio nal MS project Fund Period Short Description Objective investment and title n program CCI EU funding me CCI

The project had three main goals: 1) to The project involves the construction of a new, 35 km- improve the capacity, safety and quality long motorway bypass, comprising a 22 km stretch of a of the transport corridor for national and Total investment two-lane motorway and 5 km of expressway with two transit traffic. This has been of particular was € 924 905 Budowa carriageways, plus an upgrade to an 8 km length of benefit to long-distance road traffic; 2) 590, of which the 2013PL1 autostradowej 2007PL16 national road. PL Road CF 2007-13 to improve the quality of life for people EU’s Cohesion 61PR044 obwodnicy 1PO002 living adjacent to national road No 8, and Fund is Wrocławia A8 The A8 bypass is part of the trans-European facilitate mobility of people and goods contributing € transport network (TEN-T) which forms a link with areas outside Lower Silesia; 3) to 651 401 030. across Poland between central Europe and those reduce travel time for road users and, countries to the east of Poland. within one year of completion, this was achieved. The main beneficiaries of the scheme are drivers who can expect significantly shorter The project consists in the construction of a new 88.6 km journey times, higher safety standards, and a Budowa drogi long road, a four-lane expressway, designed for speeds better all-round travel experience. At the same Total investment ekspresowej up to 100 km/h, and axle loads of 115 kN/axle, between time, the new road brings benefits to the was € 595 600 2007PL1 S3, odcinek 2007PL16 Szczecin, on the German border, southwards to Gorzów population of the Western Pomerania and 764, with the PL Road CF 2007-13 61PR008 Szczecin - 1PO002 Wielkopolski. It is part of the Polish section of the E65 Lubuskie regions, through which the road EU’s Cohesion Gorzów route, which is an element of the Trans-European travels as they will become more easily Fund contributing Wielkopolski Transport Network - TEN-T - programme that links accessible for the inhabitants of the € 377 833 020. Malmö, in Sweden, to Chania, in Crete. surrounding municipalities. Local inhabitants can also enjoy less pollution and better environmental protection, preserving local biodiversity. Local communities and public services The project provides for the design, supervision will benefit most from the Lugoj- The project has a and construction of a 27.47 km stretch of new Dumbrava project, which is expected to Construction total eligible motorway, along with an 11.43 km link road for cut accident rates by more than 62 % of Lugoj – budget of EUR 2011RO the city of Lugoj. The work forms part of a wider and reduce average travel times between Deva 2007RO16 208 704 829, RO 161PR00 Road CF 2007-13 scheme to build a motorway link between Lugoj the two urban centres from 31 minutes motorway 1PO003 with the EU’s 2 and Deva. The new motorway forms part of the to 20 minutes. There will also be wider (section Lugoj Cohesion fund EU-backed trans-European transport network benefits for the West Development – Dumbrava) contributing EUR (TEN-T), which has been developed to improve Region of Romania, particularly Timis 177 399 105 transport infrastructure across the continent. country whose 687 377 inhabitants can expect to enjoy improved accessibility to the road network.

34

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

The objectives of the project are Motorway The project consists in the construction of 22.2 km of 2x2 Total investments generally linked to the improvement of 2008RO construction standard motorway for the bypass of the city of € 246,450,293 2007RO16 freight and passenger travel conditions RO 161PR00 on TEN-T 7, Road CF 2007-13 Constanta. Main characteristics of the rout comprise of 21 EU investments 1PO003 as well as the improvement of the quality 3 Constanta By- bridges/overpasses, 5 major interchanges, 2 service areas €134,876,118 of environment and the well-being of the pass and 1 maintenance centre. The project completes the link community of Constanta. between Bucharest and Constanta (part of the TEN-T 7). Through improving connections along the 'backbone' transport corridor connecting Bratislava with Žilina, this project will The new dual two-lane motorway section, has a total bring benefits for both inhabitants across length of 9 595 meters (of which 4 429 meters of viaducts Total investments Slovakia, as well as for international and bridges) The project also includes two major € 379,735,297 users using the D1 as a transit corridor, intersections, as well as a maintenance centre and a EU investments 2007SK Dialnica D1 both in terms of better accessibility and 2007SK16 motorway service and rest area. € 223,952,180 SK 161PR00 Sverepec - Road CF 2007-13 improved road safety. More specifically, 1PO004 Public funds 2 Vrtizer the elimination of one of the major The new motorway section is part of the € 39,520,972 remaining bottlenecks on this important European-wide TEN-T transport network and is Private money road corridor will help reduce journey essential for the economic development of the € 116,262,145 times for people living in the Žilina Slovak Republic. region, Trenčín region and the Bratislava region. Also, there will be significant reduction in traffic transiting the town.

The project involves the construction of a new segment of dual-carriageway, part of the R1 expressway. The new segment is 18 km long, and The main objectives of this transport will become an important link in the region’s infrastructure are to improve developing transport network. It will run from international, inter-regional and regional Žarnovica to Šášovské Podhradie. The new accessibility by time and cost savings, Total Investment 2009SK R1 Žarnovica - 2007SK16 segment of dual-carriageway has a total length of and to increase levels of services and € 180,180,000 SK 161PR00 Šášovské Road ERDF 2007-13 1PO004 18 047 m, and is built with a design speed of 100 road safety. From a regional perspective, EU Investment 1 Podhradie km/h and a maximum permitted speed of 130 the main beneficiaries the newly € 111,000,000 km/h. It includes 18 expressway bridges and three constructed R1 section will initially be the intersections at Revištské Podzámčie, Lehôtka pod inhabitants of Žiar nad Hronom and Brehmi, and Šášov. Environmental compensation Žarnovica measures include 10 415 m of noise reduction barriers.

This infrastructure project links the Galway to East Opened to traffic on 23 July 2009 and Ballinasloe scheme and the existing Athlone declared Motorway on 28th August 2009, Bypass. It involved the design and construction of this project provides an important boost 19.3 kilometres of D2M Standard Motorway (dual for national industrial and commercial two-lane motorway), 2.8 kilometres of regional Total Investment sectors. Tourism will also benefit, with 2009IE1 M6 Athlone- 2007IE162 road with a single carriageway cross section and € 84,120,000 IE Road ERDF 2007-13 tourists benefiting from safer and shorter 62PR001 Ballinasloe PO001 3.31 kilometres of local road tie-ins and local road EU Investment journey times. The M6 Ballinasloe networks links, also with a single carriageway € 42,060,000 Motorway route is part of the strategic cross section. The new road between Ballinasloe National Primary Road network and Athlone, makes up the final stretch of development programme undertaken by Ireland’s newly completed M6 motorway linking Transport 21, traversing Ireland from Dublin in the east to Galway on the west coast,

35

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

and allowing motorists to travel coast-to-coast on Dublin to Gallway. almost continuous motorway.

The project will focus on 25 km of road from the village of Once completed, the R6 expressway is Jenišov to Kamenný Dvůr on the eastern outskirts of expected to result in significantly shorter Karlovy Vary. travel times in the West Bohemia region, The project has a while boosting international road links, total eligible Rychlostní Besides improving regional transport connections, it will especially to Germany. Its four lanes will budget of EUR 2008CZ silnice R6 - 2007CZ16 benefit the E48 and E49 – roads that form key links to also bring improvements in travel safety 453 109 400, CZ 161PR00 Road CF 2007-13 úsek Jenišov - 1PO007 Germany to the west and Austria to the south-east. and eliminate traffic congestion, which with the EU’s 3 Kamenný Dvůr Actually, The I/6, as it is known in the Czech Republic, is will in turn lead to significant operational Cohesion Fund also part of Europe’s expanding international road cost savings. The new road will also contributing EUR network (the so-called TEN-T programme), carrying enhance the local environment, because 304 339 000. traffic to Germany, mainly via the Pomezí nad Ohří it will bypass several towns and villages border crossing, and to Austria via Pilsen and České that are currently crossed by the I/6. Budějovice. Thanks to the project the accessibility The project concerns the construction of a new 14.31 km between the key main centres of Wismar long section between the Schwerin North exit and Neubau der and Schwerin will be substantially Jesendorf exit which is an integral part of the overall Autobahn A improved. The new construction will also Total Investment 2009DE project for the A14 motorway (Magdeburg – Wismar). 14, Modul 1: 2007DE16 reduce transport costs and notably cut € 112,536,500 DE 161PR00 Road ERDF 2007-13 The A14 serves as a long distance road connection as well 2. BA AS 1PO005 down travel time. Furthermore, by EU Investment 7 as a regional relief road for the areas of Schwerin and Schwerin-Nord shifting the flow of traffic from these € 57,700,000 Wismar, and also connects the A2 to the A20. – AS Jesendorf areas to the four-lane motorway, positive ecological impacts are forecast, alongside much improved road safety.

There are several benefits resulting from this project, as the motorway: 1) Forms the main backbone that links all the This project concerns the construction of a part of modes of transportation and the Ring Road of Athens, providing traffic infrastructures in the Attica region; 2) decongestion of the city centre and its radial in Significantly improves traffic conditions Total Investment 2004GR direction routes. It provides a link to the national 2000GR16 within the capital, by absorbing a € 1,449.8 million GR 161PR00 Attiki Odos Road ERDF 2000-06 motorway network and direct access to the new 1PO020 significant portion of the daily traffic Investment 3 Athens International Airport. The construction of moving across the Attica basin; 3) € 430.945.160 the entire Ring Road has been split into 22 clearly Promotes the strategic restructuring of defined “geographic units” in accordance with the the energy and telecommunication tender documents. networks; 4) Contributes to the residential and business development of the remote areas of Attica.

This project concerns the construction of the Rion- The Bridge will play a significant role in Antirion Bridge which is located at the intersection strengthening the links between the Total Investment 2003GR of two major road axes: the Patras-Athens- western part of Greece and the rest of Rio-Antirio 2000GR16 € 778 million GR 161PR00 Road ERDF 2000-06 Thessaloniki road which links the three most the country. It will facilitate Bridge 1PO020 EU Investment 9 important cities of communications with Italy and Western € 88,680,288 Greece and the Kalamata-Patras-Igoumenitsa Europe through the harbors coastal road. of Patras and Igoumenitsa

36

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Construction The project concerns the construction of a new of Liulin motorway of some 19 km in length with two lines Total Investment 2001BG Motorway, The project is intended to provide a link CF in each direction. It will serve to distribute North- € 148,450,000 BG 16PPT00 Sofia Ring Road 2000-06 between Sofia Ring Road and the E79 (ISPA) South traffic from Bulgaria and neighbouring EU Investment 4 Road - and E871 highways. countries in the direction of the Sofia-Greece and € 111,337,500 Daskalovo Sofia-FYROM corridors. Road junction

The M43 starts from the north of Szeged and runs eastbound, bypassing Szeged, Maroslele and Makó The benefits are manifold and include in the north, continuing to Csanádpalota on the reduced levels of transit traffic, reduced Samlet M43 Motorway 2008HU Romanian border. This section belongs to the TEN- noise levels and emissions, and improved investment between 2007HU16 HU 161PR01 Road CF 2007-13 T pan-European corridor IV and once completed safety. This will affect not only local € 324,778,400 Szeged and 1PO007 6 will benefit passenger car traffic and freight traffic residents, but also businesses and EU Investment Makó transiting through Hungary, not to mention the international trade, given the proximity € 201,137,800 residents of Szeged, Makó and other settlements to neighbouring countries. along this section.

The European The project concerns the construction of the 20.24 Union has made Improvement km long Saulkrasti bypass which forms part of the a financial of Via Baltica Via Baltica from Lilaste to Skulte and the The completion of the bypass greatly contribution of 2002LV1 Route, CF reconstruction of part of the existing A1 road (14.8 improved traffic safety, in particular for LV Road 2000-06 €40.03 million to 6PPT008 Construction (ISPA) km), pedestrians in Saulkrasti town, by this project, out of Saulkrasti including 15 bridges and overpasses, four railway diverting transit traffic on to the bypass. of a total budget Bypass crossings, pedestrian and bicycle roads and bus of €111.87 stops. million.

The motorway will relieve the settlements and towns in the Trebnje region of transit traffic, which will improve living conditions and the possibilities for the development of tourism, regional trade and industrial The project concerns the construction of a four- centres in the area. The construction of Motorway A2; lane motorway with a total length of 7.6 km in the the motorway section also means the 2009SI1 Bič - Hrastje: 2007SI16 EU Investment SI Road CF 2007-13 Pluska–Ponikve section. The Pluska–Ponikve finalisation of the TEN-T strategy with 61PR003 Section Pluska 1PO002 € 34.7 million motorway section is part of the A2 Karavanke– the Slovenian section of the Salzburg– - Ponikve Obrežje motorway and part of the TEN-T network. Ljubljana–Zagreb motorway, as it will further strengthen the capacity of the transport route in the north–south axis, which is facing increased transit traffic with the Balkans, in particular the connection between Ljubljana and Zagreb.

Ronda de This project falls under the Strategic Infrastructure The main beneficiaries of the project are Total Investment 2009ES1 Circunvalación 2007ES16 € 292,694,195 ES Road ERDF 2007-13 and Transport Plan - PEIT, with the road forming the 850 000 inhabitants of the 61PR017 Oeste de 1PO008 part of the trans-European transport network metropolitan area of Malaga, although all EU Investment Málaga (TEN-T) A-7 Autovía del Mediterráneo. Specifically, travellers who pass through the city of € 190,251,227

37

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

the project consists of the construction of 21 km of Malaga on the A-7 Autovía del motorway to bypass the city of Malaga to the west Mediterráneo will also benefit. The with the aim of reducing traffic congestion and project will also lead to better better linking all transport modes in the area. The connections with the rest of the country works also include the construction of nine and with the rest of Europe and thus is viaducts, 12 overpasses, 27 underpasses and a 1 likely to have a noticeable impact on 250-metre tunnel, as well as the transversal and tourism. longitudinal drainage, traffic signs, lighting and barriers.

The main benefits derived from the construction of the project, are the following: 1) Establishment of a new high L.A.V. Madrid - speed railway relationship between Castilla La The project refers to the necessary actions to Madrid - Cuenca - Valencia - Albacete - Mancha - carry out the assembly of track of the sections Alicante – Murcia; 2) Increased safety Comunidad Torrejón de Velasco - Villarrubia de Santiago, Total Investment with the provision of fencing on both Valenciana - Villarrubia de Santiago - Cuenca, Cuenca - € 2010ES1 2007ES16 sides of the track and the absence of ES Región de Railways ERDF 2007-13 Gabaldón and 14,767,606,000 61PR007 1PO007 level crossings along the line; 3) Murcia. Gabaldón - Albacete, and is part of the overall EU Investment Increased capacity and regularity as a Suministro y project of the high speed line Madrid - Castilla la € 177.588.630 result of having double line. 4) Increase montaje de vía Mancha - Community of Valencia - Region of of comfort; 5) Travel time saving en Castilla La Murcia. between Madrid and the communities of Mancha Castilla-La Mancha, Comunidad Valenciana and the Region of Murcia.

This project includes major works on the railway substructure and superstructure, drainage system, bridges and viaducts, and control and One of the main aims of the project is to communication equipment along the Planá – Cheb ensure that the technical condition of the line. track and the related buildings and The rail section in question forms part of the equipment comply with European Optimalizace Total investment 2008CZ Trans-European Transport Network. Problems standards. There are expected to be trati Planá u 2007CZ16 € 137,306,400 CZ 161PR01 Railways CF 2007-13 faced in recent years include significant limitations significant noise reductions, improved M.L. (mimo) - 1PO007 EU investment 5 in speed and load, and train management and animal migration paths (new corridors Cheb (mimo) € 116,710,500 communication equipment which is outdated and passing under the railroad), and a more expensive to maintain. This optimisation project competitive position of railway as a will see the maximum speed allowed increase from sustainable, environment-friendly means 100 km/h to 150 km/h for trains with tilting of transport. technology, and up to 120 km/h for conventional trains.

Adeguamento Works to upgrade the Coreca tunnel near the town The project will remove a bottleneck on The project has linea of Cosenza will improve rail connections down the network and increase capacity and eligible costs for 2009IT1 ferroviaria 2007IT161 Italy’s Tyrrhenian coast, part of the trans- safety. The track improvements will also funding of EUR IT Railways ERDF 2007-13 61PR008 tirrenica PO005 European rail corridor that links Berlin to Palermo allow the line to be upgraded to the 65 000 000, to Battipaglia- via Rome. The two single-track tunnels, each just International Union of Railways ‘C’ which the EU’s Reggio short of a kilometre in length, currently form a loading gauge, which makes it suitable European Calabria: bottleneck on the network, as trains are limited to for trains carrying intermodal containers. Regional

38

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

galleria Coreca travelling at a maximum speed of 80 km/h. By This will enable freight trains to move Development renewing the tunnel structure, track and electrical goods from the citrus production centre Fund is system, and making further track improvements in of Rosarno to the port of Sibari, along a contributing EUR the approaches to the tunnels, trains will rail route that links Gioia Tauro on the 31 700 000 henceforth be able to travel safely at up to 200 Tyrrhenian coast in Calabria to Taranto km/h. As a result, the tunnel and track upgrade in Apulia on the Adriatic coast. will reduce delays on the line, cutting noise and air pollution in the area. The project involved the modernisation of a One of the main aims of the project is to section of double-track electrified railway between increase the safety of passengers and the towns of Žilina and Krásno nad Kysucou, on railway traffic through the building of the line connecting Žilina and Čadca, close to the underpasses, new platforms and the borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. The introduction of modern security Total investment upgrade means that a previous speed limit of 120 technology. The environment has also was EUR 158 840 ŽSR, km/h has been increased to 140 km/h, and up to benefitted through the construction of 953 of which the 2008SK Modernizácia 160 km/h for tilting-trains. The project also 11.6 km of noise control barriers along EU’s Cohesion 2007SK16 SK 161PR00 trate Žilina - Railways CF 2007-13 involves the modernisation of existing railway the railway line. In addition, because the Fund contributed 1PO004 1 Krásno nad tracks and overhead lines, the construction of a improved railway line is expected to EUR 85 877 364. Kysucou new bridge, the rebuilding of 11 bridges, 12 level reduce freight transport by truck in the The national crossings, substations and switching stations and region, it is estimated that carbon contribution was the modernisation of stations. dioxide emissions should be reduced. By EUR 15 154 829. The upgraded track forms part of a designated making rail transport more attractive, it trans-European transport route connecting the is also hoped that the project can Slovakian capital Bratislava with the port of encourage a shift from road to rail for Gdansk, on Poland’s Baltic coast, part of the so- passengers as well. called TEN-T Programme. This project will complete the technical modernisation of the main East-West rail route, on Corridor IXB, from the Belarussian border to One of the main aims of the project is to Total investment IX B Rail - Klaipeda on the Baltic coast. This route is the ensure that the technical condition of the 2002LT1 CF € 128,910,647 LT Structures and Railways 2000-06 backbone of the Lithuania’s rail system. In track and the related buildings and 6PPT008 (ISPA) EU assistance Sector 5 particular, the project will consists of equipment comply with European € 45,562,704 modernisation of power supply and signalling on standards. the Šiauliai-Klaipėda section, rehabilitation of railway structures, track renewal.

The project consists in the construction of a two- Modernizacja track rail link from Warszawa Służewiec station to linii kolejowej the station at the city's Okęcie Airport. The new The project has a nr 8, budowa 1.99 km long track passes under a tunnel for part total eligible łącznicy do of the way and includes a sloped approach section Travellers using rail links between budget of EUR 69 lotniska from the existing No8 railway line to the terminal Warsaw and the city's main airport look 2010PL1 2007PL16 988 221, with PL Okęcie (od Railways CF 2007-13 located at the airport. The scheme also provides set to benefit from improved services 61PR006 1PO002 the EU's przystanku for the modernisation of a 1.2 km long section of that will cut journey, thanks to a major Coehsion fund osobowego rail track on Line N. 8. In addition, the project construction and modernisation scheme. contributing EUR Służewiec do covers reconstruction work at Warszawa Służewiec 42 834 602. stacji MPL passenger terminal – including modernisation of Okęcie) the platform – and the construction and fitting-out of Okęcie underground railway station.

39

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

The project will focus on Záhony in north-east Due to different rail gauge standards Hungary, a key rail hub close to the country’s between Hungary and Ukraine, freight border with Ukraine and the nearby town of Chop. has always had to be transhipped via Existing track along a 43-km stretch will be shunting stations on both sides of the The project has a Záhony upgraded, enabling the transport of heavier loads border. This project aims to tackle these total eligible térségében a and the lifting of current speed limits. challenges, thereby allowing freight to budget of EUR 88 2009HU vasúti After completion of this project, almost 43 km of 2007HU16 pass more smoothly and quickly across 832 400, with HU 161PR00 infrastruktúra Railways ERDF 2007-13 track will have been rebuilt between Záhony and 1PO007 the border. It is also hoped that the the EU’s 6 (szélesnyomtá nearby transhipment stations and/or marshalling improvements in general will generate Cohesion Fund vú hálózat) yards to the south of the town. Work will include an increase in freight traffic handled in contributing EUR fejlesztése the replacement or reconstruction of current rail- the Záhony area. This would also help to 75 507 500 line sections rated at 48 kg/m and 54 kg/m, maintain the area’s current favourable upgraded to allow wheel loads of 60 kg/m. The split between freight volumes carried by track will then be able to carry heavier freight rail and road. trains, with loads up to 245 kN (kilonewtons).

This project will provide for the electrification of a 62.9 km stretch of railway line between Plauen Electrification of the entire route will do Elektrifizierung and Nuremburg. The scheme will ensure that the away with the need to change trains at The project has a der rail line between Leipzig/Dresden and Hof is the station – this will ease existing total eligible Schienenstrec completely electrified by the end of 2013. bottlenecks and improve rail traffic flows. budget of EUR 46 ke Installation of overhead wires and masts are key What is more, improving the rail link 541 689, with 2011DE Reichenbach – 2007DE16 to the project, which will also require the between Plauen and Reichenbach will the EU’s DE 161PR00 Railways ERDF 2007-13 Landesgrenze 1PO005 construction of 11 bridges. Work will include increase accessibility to two of the most European 5 Sachsen/Bayer replacing the Göltzschtal viaduct’s rail support important development areas in South- Regional n, Modul 1 structure. In addition, a coupling point and remote West Saxony. The scheme will also Development (Bauabschnitte control systems will be constructed as part of the improve connections to the Central Fund contributing 1 und 2) electrification measures. The project also German rail link and the Zwickau rail EUR 25 700 000 encompasses a 27.3 km extension of rail track to hub. Plauen.

The project consists in the improvement of the Margit Bridge in terms of structural supports, functionality for users and aesthetic appeal. The The project has a The overall project aims to both improve scope of the work includes reconstruction of the total eligible the level of service of the bridge and to A budapesti pillars supporting the structure, the repair of steel budget of EUR provide better accessibility to public Margit híd és a structural elements where required, replacement 109 553 280 with 2011HU transport. It primarily benefits those kapcsolódó Urban 2007HU16 of the existing concrete deck of the bridge by a the EU’s HU 162PR00 ERDF 2007-13 residents in Budapest and the közlekedési transport 2PO001 steel deck, and treatment to protect the steel European 1 surrounding areas in terms of reduced rendszer elements of the bridge from corrosion. In addition Regional journey times and increased safety. fejlesztése to these structural elements, the works include the Development

widening of the pedestrian and bicycle paths on Fund contributing

each side of the bridge, renewal of the tramway EUR 22 338 049 tracks and installation of new traffic control signs and signalling systems.

The project concerns the extension of Athens 2003GR Metro The main purpose of the subway Urban 2000GR16 Metro, in particular, it includes: 1) works to EU investment GR 161PR01 d'Athènes et ERDF 2000-06 expansion is to promote urban transport 1PO020 complete the section Syntagma-Monastiraki of the € 265.2 million 0 stations accessibility and territorial cohesion basic project of two new Athens Metro lines; 2)

40

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

new extension from “National Defence” to through sustainable mobility. “Stavros”; 3) electromechanical and signalling works of the extension Agios Antonios-Peristeri- Thivon; 4) new extension “Dafni-Ilioupoli; 5) new extension “Monastiraki-Egaleo.

This project’s key task was the construction of a new tram line linking the Chelm district of Gdansk The upgrading and expansion of the with the Nowa Łódzka integrated transport hub. Gdansk tram network and infrastructure The work package included the laying of 3 km of has increased levels of passenger Total investment Gdański new tram line and the upgrading of an existing 12 comfort and provides better links was EUR 167 132 Projekt km stretch to double-track standards. Six stops between the city centre and outlying 806, of which the 2012PL1 Urban 2007PL16 PL Komunikacji ERDF 2007-13 along the route of the new line feature shelters southern districts. The improved tram EU’s Cohesion 61PR007 transport 1PO002 Miejskiej - with passenger information panels as well as services should support the shift away Fund is etap III A barriers which control pedestrian flow and provide from polluting road transport by contributing EUR protection from traffic. In addition, the project encouraging people to leave the car at 85 406 711 delivered 35 new trams and paid for the home – in turn this will help to cut CO2 construction of a “park and ride” facility and a emissions in the city. “park and bike” area.

Total The project concerned the realization of investment: Metropolitana technological works (i.e. anti-vibrating massive €92,698,740 The main purpose of the subway di Napoli tratta armament; signalling system, remote control and (ERDF: 2003IT1 Urban 1999IT161 expansion is to promote urban IT Vanvitelli ERDF 2000-06 automation) related to the 5 km tunnel €46,349,370; 61PR007 transport PO007 accessibility and territorial cohesion Dante codice connecting the five stations of Cilea, S. Rosa, national funds: through sustainable mobility. MONTI 402 Meterdei, Museo and Dante, in the historic center €32,444,559; of Naples. regional funds: 13,904,811)

Extensão da Total investment Rede de Metro The project covers the extension of the “Orange The main purpose of the subway € 161 million. 2012PT1 do Porto entre Urban 2007PT16 line” that was open to the public in late 2010. 6.76 expansion is to promote urban PT ERDF 2007-13 EU assistance 61PR003 Estádio do transport UPO001 km of double track light railway and 10 metro accessibility and territorial cohesion € 97 million Dragão e stations, including a 980 m long tunnel were built. through sustainable mobility.

Venda Nova

The project concerns the construction of a tramline The project to build the new tramway in Le Havre which will serve the lower part of the has three key objectives: to improve the town, including the area around the station, the population’s mobility from socially Première ligne beach and the Hôtel de Ville. The 13 km line will Total Investment challenged areas of the town to areas of 2009FR1 de tramway de Urban 2007FR16 be ‘Y’ shaped and comprise 23 stations running € 249,450,000 FR ERDF 2007-13 employment; to develop viable 62PR004 l’agglomératio transport 2PO011 along a western and eastern branch. The line’s ‘Y’ EU Investment alternatives to car usage; and to support n havraise form will help to serve the lower part of town by € 52,384,500 urban re development in five key areas passing through the town centre, the area around of the commune through an efficient the University and the station and the northern public transport network. quarters of Le Havre.

Source: Authors based on ToRs; DG Regio website; project application dossiers.

41

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ANNEX II – REVISED LIST OF REFERENCES FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW UNDER TASK 1

Selection of most relevant and interesting papers (from the long list below) to be review under task 1

 Börjesson, M., and Eliasson, J. (2014), Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time Study, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59, 144-158.  Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J and Lundberg, M. (2014), Is CBA ranking of transport investments robust?, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 48(2), 189- 204.  Carrion, C. and Levinson, D. (2012). Value of travel time reliability: a review of current evidence, Transportation Research A, 46, 720-741.  CGSP (2013) Cost-benefit assessment of public investments, report of the mission chaired by Emile Quinet, summary and recommendations, www.strategie.gouv.fr.  Chen, CL and Vickerman, R. (2017) Can transport infrastructure change regions’ economic fortunes? Some evidence from Europe and China, Regional Studies, 51:1  Department for Transport (2016) Transport Analysis Guidance: WebTAG. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag.  Eliasson, J., & Lundberg, M. (2012). Do Cost–Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010–21. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 29–48.  Eliasson, J. and Fosgerau, M. (2013) Cost overruns and benefit shortfalls – deception or selection?, Transportation Research B, 57, 105-113.  European Commission, 2014, Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment projects.  HEATCO (2006). Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment, Deliverable 5, Proposal for harmonized guidelines. IER, University of Stuttgart  Hess, S., Daly, A.J., Dekker, T., Ojeda Cabral, M. and R.P. Batley (2017), A framework for capturing heterogeneity, heteroskedasticity, non-linearity, reference dependence and design artefacts in value of time research, Transportation Research B, 96, 126-149.  JASPERS (2016), JASPERS Appraisal Guidance (Transport), Guidance on appraising the economic impacts of rail freight measures, JASPERS, Bucharest.  Jong, G.C. de and MC.J. Bliemer (2015), On including travel time reliability of road traffic in appraisal, Transportation Research A, 73, 80-95.  Kouwenhoven, M., de Jong, G.C., Koster, P., van den Berg, V.A.C., Verhoef, E.T, Bates, J.J. and Warffemius, P. (2014), New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands, Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 37-49.  Mackie, P.J., Worsley, T. and Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport Appraisal Revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, pp.3-18.  Maibach, M. et al. (2008), Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector, Version 1.1. (2008 Handbook), CE Delft, Delft.

42

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Martens, K., Golub, A. and Robinson, G. (2012), A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(4), 684-695.  Nicolaisen, M.S. and Driscoll, P.A. (2016). An International Review of Ex-Post Project Evaluation Schemes in the Transport Sector, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management.  Odeck, J. (2010) What determines decision-makers’ preferences for road investments? Evidence from the Norwegian road sector, Transport reviews, 30(4), 473-494.  Ricardo AEA, TRT, TEPR, DIW and CAU (2014), Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Final Report for European Commission DG MOVE, Ricardo AEA, London.  Romijn, G. and Renes, G. (2014), General guideline for social cost-benefit analysis,CPB/PBL, The Netherlands.  Walther, C., Monse, J, and Hassheider, H, (2015), Revision of project evaluation as part of the German Federal transport infrastructure plan, Transport Research Procedia, 8, 41-19.  Wardman, M. and Whelan, G. (2011), Twenty years of Rail Crowding Valuation Studies: Evidence and Lessons from British Experience, Transport Reviews, 31:3, 379-398.  Wardman, M (2014), Valuing Convenience in Public Transport: Roundtable Summary and, Conclusions. Discussion Paper No. 2014-02, OECD International Transport Forum, Paris.  Wardman, M.R., Chintakayala, P., and de Jong, G.C. (2016), European wide meta-analysis of values of travel time, Transportation Research A, 94, 93-111.

The full revised list of references

Transport

 Abrantes, P. and Wardman, M., Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (2010), MetaAnalysis of UK Values of Time: An Update  AEA (2007), Estimation of Rail Environmental Costs, 2007.  Atkins and MVA (2010) Assessing Distributional Impacts in Transport Scheme Appraisal  Bates, J., Polak, J., Jones, P and A. Cook (2001): 'The Valuation of Reliability for Personal Travel', Transportation Research Part E 37.  Blaeij, A. de, R.J.G.M. Florax, P. Rietveld and E. Verhoef (2003), The value of a statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, pp. 973-986.  Börjesson, M., and Eliasson, J. (2014), Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59, 144-158.  Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J and Lundberg, M. (2014), Is CBA ranking of transport investments robust?, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 48(2), 189- 204.  BVU and TNS Infratest (2014) Entwicklung eines Modells zur Berechnung von modalen Verlagerungen im Güterverkehr für die Ableitung konsistenter Bewertungsansätze für die Bundesverkehrswegeplanung, Vorläufiger Endbericht, BVU/TNS Infratest, Freiburg/München.

43

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Cantarelli, C.C., B. Flyvbjerg, B. Van Wee and E.J.E. Molin (2010), Lock-in and its influence on the project performance of large-scale transportation infrastructure projects: investigating the way in which lock-in can emerge and affect cost overruns, Environment and Planning B, 37 (5): 792-807  Carrion, C. and Levinson, D. (2012). Value of travel time reliability: a review of current evidence, Transportation Research A, 46, 720-741.  CGSP (2013) Cost-benefit assessment of public investments, report of the mission chaired by Emile Quinet, summary and recommendations, www.strategie.gouv.fr.  Chen, CL and Vickerman, R. (2017) Can transport infrastructure change regions’ economic fortunes? Some evidence from Europe and China, Regional Studies, 51:1  Chilton, S., Dolan, P., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Robinson, A., Carthy, T., Covey, J., Spencer, A., Hopkins L., Pidgeon, N., Beattie, J. (2000) Valuation of Benefits of Health and Safety Control: Final Report, Health and Safety Executive.  Department for Transport (2009), The Role of Soft Measures in Influencing Patronage Growth and Modal Split in the Bus Market in England, Final Report  Department for Transport, (2013). Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers Guidance on Value for Money. Available at: 〈https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/value-for-money-advice-for- localtransport-decision-makers〉  Department for Transport (2016) Transport Analysis Guidance: WebTAG. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag.  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 13 Economic Assessment of Road Schemes, The Stationary Office: London.  de Rus, G. (2006). Economic Evaluation and Incentives in Transport Infrastructure Investment. OECD, Milan European Economy Workshops Working paper No. 2006-25.  de Rus, G. and Inglada, V. (1997). Cost-benefit analysis of the high-speed train in Spain. Annals of Regional Science 31(2),: 175-188.  de Rus, G. and Nash, C. (2007), In what circumstances is investment in HSR worthwhile? ITS working paper no 590. University of Leeds.  ECMT (2001) Assessing the benefits of transport, OECD, Paris, France.  Eliasson, J., Börjesson, M., Odeck, J., Welde, M. (2015) Does benefit/cost- efficiency influence transport investment decisions? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy or CTS WP 2014:6.  Eliasson, J., & Lundberg, M. (2012). Do Cost–Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010–21. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 29–48.  Eliasson, J. and Fosgerau, M. (2013) Cost overruns and benefit shortfalls – deception or selection?, Transportation Research B, 57, 105-113.  European Commission (2016). The impact of cohesion policy 2007-2013: model simulations with Quest III. Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy.  European Court of Auditors (2013). Special report No 5. ‘Are EU Cohesion Policy funds well spent on roads?’

44

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 European Court of Auditors (2014). Special Report 01. ‘Effectiveness of EU- supported public urban transport projects’.  European Court of Auditors (2016). Special Report 08. ‘Rail freight transport in the EU: still not on the right track’.  European Parliament, 2006, The impact of Trans-European Networks on cohesion and employment, TRT.  EVATREN (2008). Improved Decision-Aid Methods and Tools to Support Evaluation of Investment for Transport and Energy Networks in Europe. EVATREN.  Flyvbjerg, B., M.K. Holm and S.L. Buhl (2003b), How Common and How Large Are Cost Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects? Transport Reviews, 23 (1): 71-88.  Flyvbjerg, B., M.K.S. Holm and S.L. Buhl (2004), What Causes Cost Overrun in Transport infrastructure Projects?, Transport Reviews 24 (1): 3-18.  Flyvbjerg, B., M.K.S. Holm and S.L. Buhl (2005), How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation, Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2): 131-146.  Green E and Stone V (2004) Public Attitudes to Road Pricing in the UK: a Qualitative Study. DfT, London  Hayashi, Y. and Morisugi, H. (2000). International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transport Policy 7(1), 73–88.  Hamer, R., De Jong, G., Kroes E and P, Warffemius (2005): The Value of Reliability in Transport.  HEATCO (2006). Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment, Deliverable 5, Proposal for harmonized guidelines. IER, University of Stuttgart.  Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose, J. de Dios Ortúzar, L.I. Rizzi (2009), Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(7),pp. 692-707.  Hess, S., Daly, A.J., Dekker, T., Ojeda Cabral, M. and R.P. Batley (2017), A framework for capturing heterogeneity, heteroskedasticity, non-linearity, reference dependence and design artefacts in value of time research, Transportation Research B, 96, 126-149.  Hook, W., 2003, Appraising the Social Costs and Benefits of Road Projects, Institute of Transportation and Development Policy.  Hyder Consulting, Fearon, J. and Black, I. (2007): Forecasting Travel Time Variability in Urban Areas. Department for Transport, UK.  Jacobsen, P.L. (2003) Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling, Injury prevention, Vol. 9, pp.205-209  JASPERS (2016), JASPERS Appraisal Guidance (Transport), Guidance on appraising the economic impacts of rail freight measures, JASPERS, Bucharest.  Jong, G.C. de, Daly, A.J., Pieters, M. and van der Hoorn, A.I.J.M. (2007). The logsum as an evaluation measure: review of the literature and new results, Special issue of Transportation Research A, 41, 874-889.  Jong, G.C. de, Kouwenhoven, M., Bates, J., Koster, P., Verhoef, E., Tavasszy, L. and Warffemius, P. (2014), New SP-values of time and reliability for freight transport in the Netherlands, Transportation Research E, 64, 71-87, 2014.

45

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Jong, G.C. de and MC.J. Bliemer (2015), On including travel time reliability of road traffic in appraisal, Transportation Research A, 73, 80-95.  Kjerkreit, A.; Odeck, J.; Sandvik, K. O. 2008. Post Opening Evaluation of Road Investment Projects in Norway: How Correct are the Estimated Future Benefits? In Proc. of European Transport Conference 2008:Traffic Engineering and Road Safety [online]. October 06-08, 2008, The Netherlands.  Kouwenhoven, M., de Jong, G.C., Koster, P., van den Berg, V.A.C., Verhoef, E.T, Bates, J.J. and Warffemius, P. (2014), New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands, Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 37-49.  Kroes, E.P., Kouwenhoven, M., Debrincat, L. and Pauget, N. (2014), The value of crowding on public transport in Ile-de-France, Transportation Research Record, 4606, Washington.  Littman, T. (2008), Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.  Li, Z. and Hensher, D.A. (2011), Crowding and public transport: A review of willingness to pay evidence and its relevance in project appraisal, Transport Policy, 18 (2011), 880- 887.  Mackie, P.J., Worsley, T. and Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport Appraisal Revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, pp.3-18.  Maibach, M. et al. (2008), Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector, Version 1.1. (2008 Handbook), CE Delft, Delft.  Martens, K., Golub, A. and Robinson, G. (2012), A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(4), 684-695.  McMahon, C.M. (1995) Valuation of Road Accidents 1994, Road Accidents Great Britain 1994, Department of Transport.  Metz, D. (2008). The myth of travel time saving. Transport Reviews, 28-3, 321-336.  National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory http://www.naei.org.uk/emissions/index.php  Nellthorp J.,A.L., Bristow and B.H. Day (2007), Introducing Willingness to Pay for Noise Changes into Transport Appraisal : An Application of Benefit Transfer.,Transport Reviews, 27 (3).  Nicolaisen, M.S. and Driscoll, P.A. (2016). An International Review of Ex-Post Project Evaluation Schemes in the Transport Sector, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management.  OECD (2002). Impact of Transport Infrastructure Investment on Regional Development. Available at: http://www.itf- oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/02rtrinveste.pdf  Odeck, J. (2010) What determines decision-makers’ preferences for road investments? Evidence from the Norwegian road sector, Transport reviews, 30(4), 473-494  Odgaard T., Kelly C.E. and Laird J.J., 2005, Current practice in project appraisal in Europe –Analysis of country reports. Deliverable 1, HEATCO – Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment. Funded by the 6th Framework RTD Programme, IER, Stuttgart, Germany.

46

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Quinet E. (1990) Analyse économique des transports, Presses universitaires de France, Paris, France.  Quinet, E. (2007). ‘Cost Benefit Analysis of Transport Projects in France’, in Florio, M. (ed) Cost Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation, Edward Elgar.  Ricardo AEA, TRT, TEPR, DIW and CAU (2014), Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport, Final Report for European Commission DG MOVE, Ricardo AEA, London  Romijn, G. and Renes, G. (2014), General guideline for social cost-benefit analysis, CPB/PBL, The Netherlands.  Shires, J.D. and de Jong, G.C (2009), An International Meta-Analysis of Values of Travel Time Savings, Evaluation and Program Planning 32(4), pp.315-325.  Social Exclusion Unit (February 2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion  TEN; HETA (Mar 2001) Transport Economics Note, the primary source for information on: values of time; values for vehicle operating costs (fuel and non-fuel); and tax rates  Union Internationales des Chemins de Fer (2008) Infrastructure Charges for High Performance Passenger Services in Europe. UIC, Paris.  Venables, A.J. (2007). ‘Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost-benefit analysis in the presence of agglomeration and income taxation’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 41, 173-188.  Vickerman, R (1997). High-speed rail in Europe: experience and issues for future development. Annals of Regional Science 31, 1,: 21-38.  Vickerman, R (2000). Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom. Transport Policy, 7(1), 7–16.  Vickerman, R, 2006, Indirect and wider economic impacts of high speed rail. Paper given at the 4th annual conference on Railroad Industry Structure, Competition and Investment, Madrid.  Walther, C., Monse, J, and Hassheider, H, (2015), Revision of project evaluation as part of the German Federal transport infrastructure plan, Transport Research Procedia, 8, 41-19.  Wardman, M. and Whelan, G. (2011), Twenty years of Rail Crowding Valuation Studies: Evidence and Lessons from British Experience, Transport Reviews, 31:3, 379-398.  Wardman, M., Batley, R., Laird, J., Mackie, P., Fowkes, A.S., Lyons, G., Bates, J. and Eliasson, J., Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (2013), Valuation of Travel Time Savings for Business Travellers  Wardman, M (2014), Valuing Convenience in Public Transport: Roundtable Summary and Conclusions. Discussion Paper No. 2014-02, OECD International Transport Forum, Paris.  Wardman, M.R., Chintakayala, P., and de Jong, G.C. (2016), European wide meta-analysis of values of travel time, Transportation Research A, 94, 93-111.  Weisbrod, G. 2000, Synthesis of Current Practice for Assessing Economic Development Impacts from Transportation Projects, NCHRP Study 20-5, TRB, National Academy Press.  Wheat, P., Wardman, M. and Bates, J., Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (2012), Advice on Statistical Confidence of Appraisal Non- Work Values of Time

47

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Zamparini, L. and Reggiani, A. (2007a), Freight transport and the value of travel time savings: a meta-analysis of empirical studies, Transport Reviews, 27-5, 621-636.  Zamparini, L. and Reggiani, A. (2007b), Meta-analysis and the value of travel time savings: a transatlantic perspective on passengers’ transport, Networks and Spatial Economics, 7-4, 377-396. General - CBA  Arrow, K.J. (1995), Intergenerational Equity and the Rate of Discount in long-Term Social investment, paper presented at the IEA World Congress, Tunis.  Bateman I. J., A. P. Jones, N. Nishikawa, R. Brouwer, 2000. Benefits transfer in theory and practice: a review and some new studies. CSERGE and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.  Boardman A.E. et al., 2006, Cost-Benefit-Analysis – Concepts and Practice, Third Edition, Pearson, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.  Conrad, J.M. (1980), ‘Quasi-Option Value and the Expected Value of Information’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 94 (4), pp. 813-820.  Cowell, F.A. and Gardiner, K. (1999), ‘Welfare weights,’ London School of Economics, STICERD, Economics Research Paper No 20.  Diamond, P.E. and J.A. Hausman (1993) On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. in J.A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation, A critical assessment, Contributions to economic analysis 220. North Holland, Amsterdam.  Del Bo, C.F., Fiorio, C.V. and Florio M. (2011), ‘Shadow wages for the EU regions’, Fiscal Studies, Vol. 32(1), pp. 109-143.  European Commission, 2014, Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment projects.  Evans, D. (2007), ‘Social Discount Rates for the European Union’, in Florio, M. (ed.), Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation. The Structural Funds of the European Union, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.  Florio M., ed., 2007, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation. The Structural Funds of European Union, Edward Elgar.  Florio, M. (2014), Applied Welfare Economics: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Projects and Policies, Routledge  Fujiwara and Campbell (2011), Valuation Techniques for Cost Benefit Analysis: Stated Preference, Revealed Preference and Subjective Well-Being Approaches, London: HM Treasury  Harrison, M. (2010), Valuing the Future: the social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis, Visiting Researcher Paper, Australian Government – Productivity Commission  HM Treasury (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, London.  Jong, G.C. de (2000), Value or weight?, Paper presented at the IATBR 2000 Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 2000.  Londero, E.H. (2003), Shadow Prices for Project Appraisal. Theory and practice, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.  Mouter, N., J.A. Annema and B. van Wee (2013) Managing the insolvable limitations in cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview-based study, Transportation 42-2 49, 277-302

48

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

 Mouter, N., J.A. Annema and B. van Wee (2013) Ranking the substantive problems in Dutch cost-benefit analyses practice, Transportation Research A 49, 241-255.  Potts, D. (2012a), ‘Semi-input-output methods of shadow price estimation: are they still useful?’, in Weiss J. and Potts D. (eds.), Current Issues in Project Analysis for Development, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA USA: Edward Elgar Publishing  Potts, D. (2012b), ‘Shadow wage rates in a changing world’ in Weiss, J. and D. Potts (eds.), Current Issues in Project Analysis for Development, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.  Ready, R., Navrud, S., Day, B., Dubourg, R., Machado, F., Mourato, S., Spanninks F. and Vazquez, R. (2004), ‘Benefits Transfer in Europe: Are Values Consistent Across Countries?’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 29, No 1, pp. 67-82.  Significance (2013), Update of the Value of Safety methodology and dataset, A report for the European Investment bank.  Spackman, M. (2007), ‘Social discount rates for the European Union: an overview’, in Florio, M. (ed.), Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation. The Structural Funds of the European Union, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.  Viscusi, W.K. and Aldy, J.E. (2003). ‘The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 27 (1), pp. 5–76. General - Multicriteria  De Brucker, K. Macharis, C. and Verbeke, A. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: an institutional approach, European Transport \ Trasporti Europei n. 47 (2011): 3-24 .  de Jong, G.C. (2000) Value or weight?, Paper presented at the IATBR 2000 Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 2-7 July 2000.  European Commission (2003) Evaluating Socio Economic Development, SOURCEBOOK 2: Methods & Techniques Multicriteria analysis.  Hinloopen, E. and P. Nijkamp (1990) Qualitative multiple criteria analysis: the dominant regime method, Quality and Quantity 24, 37-56.  Macharis, C. (2007) “Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method” In: Haezendonck, E. (ed) Transport Project Evaluation. Extending the Social Cost Benefit Approach, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.  Macharis, C., De Witte, A., and Ampe, J. (2007) “The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice”, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43(2): 183-202.  Munda, G. (2004) “Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences”, European Journal of Operational Research 158(3): 662-677.  Nijkamp, P., P. Rietveld and H. Voogd (1990) Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Contributions to economic analysis 185. North Holland, Amsterdam.  Tamošiūnienė, R.; Šidlauskas, S.; Trumpaitė, I. 2006. The Multicriterial Evaluation Method of the effectiveness of the investment projects. Business: Theory and Practice, Vol. VII, No. 4: 203-212 p.

49

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

General – project appraisals  Flyvbjerg B. et al. (2003), Megaprojects and risk. An anatomy of ambition, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, Great Britain.  Flyvbjerg B. (2006), From Nobel Prize to Project Management: Getting Risk Right, Aalborg University.  Flyvbjerg, B. (2007), Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34 (4): 578-597.  Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). ‘Quality control and due diligence in project management: getting decisions right by taking the outside view’. International Journal of Project Management, 31: 760–774.  Gramlich E., 1994, Infrastructure Investment: A review Essay, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 32, Pages 1176-96.  JASPERS Working Paper (2010), Evaluation of Major Project Applications. Guidance for evaluators  Loop, J.T.A. van der and Jong, G.C. de (1998), What is the best public transport system? An instrument to compare urban public transport systems using transportational, environmental and social criteria, in Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st century III (Eds: L.J. Sucharow and G. Bidini), Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, 1998.

50

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ANNEX III – SUMMARY SHEET STRUCTURE AND GUIDELINES

Corresponden ce to PROJECT REVIEW SUMMARY SHEET evaluation grid

PROJECT KEY INFORMATION

Project title: Prefilled for all 30 major projects based on the list annexed to the Terms of

Reference

CCI Number: Prefilled for all 30 major projects based on the list annexed to the Terms of

Reference

Transport mode: Prefilled for all 30 major projects based on the list annexed to the Terms

of Reference TEN-T Network (if any): Reports on whether the project affects an infrastructure located on a TEN-T core network corridor or section, or whether it belongs to the TEN-T comprehensive network Project type: Dropdown (Construction of a new infrastructure, Upgrading of an existing infrastructure, Modernisation of an existing infrastructure, Instalment of telematic applications or signalling) Location: Reports on Member State, NUTS 2, NUTS 3, city or metropolitan area (if applicable); If relevant for the analysis of the effects also refers other administrative territories Project map Includes a map showing the location and extent of the infrastructure scope of

the project

Operational programme: Specifies the title of the operational programme in which the

project was included Funding: Reports on the total cost and breakdown of funds by funding source, based on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier, to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders

Revenue generating: Yes ☐ No ☐

PPP initiative: Yes ☐ No ☐ Funding period: Prefilled for all 30 major projects based on the list annexed to the Terms

of Reference Construction period: Reports on the start and end year of construction and the overall timespan, based on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions and documents as appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

Start and total years of project operation: Reports on the start year of operation, based on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier (or previous Question A2 versions and documents as appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Briefly reports on the needs leading to the project idea and on the objectives of the project. This will be based on the latest version of the Objective and most updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions Question A3 needs and documents as appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

Reports and comments on the target population and area where the Target Question A1 projects is expected (based on the analysis included in the project area/populatio dossier) or observed (based on real data and information from public

51

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

n sources and stakeholder consultation) to generate effects.

Briefly reports on the type of the works implemented within the project, based on the latest version of the most updated document in the Technical application dossier (or previous versions and documents as description appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

Reports on any significant changes to the project design or scope of Modification to work, since the start of the project, which may have impacted in the the project Question C2 total project cost or project time-schedule, also commenting on the design or scope possible impact of significant events in the capacity of the project to (if any) generate effects in the expected times and quantities.

Any project is integrated in pre-existing system with its own rules and features. Comment how the project integrate with the existing infrastructure endowment. Also, comment whether the project Relationship represents a suitable unit of analysis to generate effects i.e. the project Question A1 with existing is included in a wider section/segment of infrastructure. This is based infrastructure on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions and documents as appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders.

Reports on the inclusion of the project in a transport programme or Relationship strategic document commenting on the capacity of the project to with existing generate effects independently or within a group of investments. This is Question A1 programmes based on the latest version of the most updated document in the and strategic application dossier (or previous versions and documents as documents appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

Reports and comments on changes in the project operational layout and catchment area which may have impacted on the functional merit of the Changes project and/or outstanding issues in the completion of relevant works or occurred in the other projects impacting on the functional capacity of the project to Question C2 infrastructure generate effects. This is based on the latest version of the most network and updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions and project area documents as appropriate), to be checked and confirmed with the stakeholders and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

Specifies whether the project is located in a Natura 2000 area or whether special mitigation measures were requested to implement the project due to environmental or archaeological works, also indicating Environmental the amount of total investment costs dedicated to mitigation measures.

Aspects This is based on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions and documents as appropriate) and validated by means of consultation of public available reports and media

TYPOLOGIES OF EFFECTS

Positive Negative

Reports on the expected effects generated by the project, based on the latest version of the most updated document in the application dossier (or previous versions and documents as appropriate). Also, if ready available information exists, the section could report on unexpected but Question A3 Effects observed effects that have materialised and effects which were not considered in the project dossier but which may reasonably be expected to materialise due to professional knowledge by the experts and/or supported by preliminary discussion with the stakeholders.

PROJECT RELEVANCE

Questions A1, Comments on the capacity of the project to represent a significant case study in terms of:

52

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

A2, A3 - generation of varieties of effects, also considering the infrastructural, territorial and institutional context in which the project is located and has been implemented. - Ability to generate relevant effects independently from other related or complementary investments/infrastrcutures. - Timing, i.e. with reference to time elapsed from its implementation and timely materialisation of effects. - Mechanism and element of infrastructure development, implementation and operation, impacting negatively or positively in the capacity of the project to generate the expected effects. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA FOR CBA

Overall assessment of data Overall assessment of data availability for the EX-ANTE availability for the EX-POST assessment assessment Financial Reports on the quantity and Question B1 analysis quality of the data and information included in the project Demand Reports on the quantity and Question B1 dossier (and particularly analysis quality of the data and information application form and annexed CBA available from the stakeholders report), identifies any relevant and/or from other available Economic gap to be checked and confirmed Question B1 documents and reports analysis with the stakeholders and by means of consultation of other sources ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Overall assessment of Overall assessment of information availability for the information availability for the EX-ANTE assessment EX-POST assessment Effects on Reports on the quantity and Question B2 economic quality of the information included development in the project dossier (and Reports on the quantity and Effects on particularly application form and quality of the information available Question B2 annexed CBA report), identifies from the stakeholders and/or from quality of life any relevant gap to be checked other available documents and Effects on and confirmed with the reports Question B2 environmental stakeholders and by means of consultation of other sources systainability

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS

Considerations about the Contact name Institution stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate Reports on the availability and willingness to cooperate by the stakeholders specifying whether The list should include: the stakeholders are: a) available - Operational Programme to cooperate and provide updated Managing Authority quantitative data and useful - Beneficiary Contact name information on the project, b) - Infrastructure operator and available to cooperate and provide Question C1 and role service operator if different useful information/insights on the - Local and regional project, but unable to provide stakeholders updated quantitative information, - Committees in favour or c) interested in the analysis but against the project unable to provide updated data - Other and information on the project, d) unavailable /demonstrating low responsiveness. STRATEGY FOR DATA GATHERING

Reports on the possible sources and solutions to elaborate an ex-post Financial financial analysis, based on the quantity and quality of the data and

analysis information identified on the basis of the review of official and unofficial sources as well as preliminary consultation with stakeholders.

53

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

Reports on the possible sources and solutions to elaborate ex-post Market and financial and economic analyses, based on the quantity and quality of demand the data and information identified o on the basis of the review of analysis official and unofficial sources as well as preliminary consultation with stakeholders.

Reports on the possible sources and solutions to elaborate an ex-post Economic economic analysis, based on the quantity and quality of the data and

analysis information identified on the basis of the review of official and unofficial sources as well as preliminary consultation with stakeholders.

Qualitative effects on

economic development Reports on the possible sources and solutions to collect relevant data Qualitative and information to assess the capacity of the project to generate qualitative effects on the economy, quality of life and environment effects on based on the quantity and quality of the data and information identified quality of life on the basis of the review of official and unofficial sources as well as Qualitative preliminary consultation with stakeholders. effects on

environmental sustainability

REASONS FOR SELECTION

Reports on the reasons supporting the selection of the project as a case study for the subsequent in depth analysis. This section will be daft considering all the above stated

information and especially the capacity of the project to generate the expected benefits and the relevance of the project as significant example to provide relevant policy lessons.

54

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ANNEX IV – EXAMPLE OF A FILLED IN SUMMARY SHEET

02 PROJECT REVIEW SUMMARY SHEET

PROJECT KEY INFORMATION

Project title: Budowa autostradowej obwodnicy Wrocławia A8

CCI Number: 2013PL161PR044

Transport mode: Road TEN-T Network (if any): by-pass of the Baltic – Adriatic Core Urban Node; national road A8; international route E67 Project type: Upgrading of an existing infrastructure Location: Poland, PL51 Dolnośląskie (Voivodship), Wrocław City Project map

Operational programme: Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment Funding: total cost: €924,905,590 (CF: €651,401,030; national funds: €273,504,560)

Revenue generating: Yes ☐ No ☒

PPP initiative: Yes ☐ No ☒

Funding period: 2007-2013 Construction period: 05/2008 – 08/2011 Start of the operation: 08/2011 Total years of operation: 6

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Wrocław bypass major project aimed at increasing the existing trunk road transport infrastructure in the Wrocław metropolitan area, with over 630 thousand inhabitants. The road is also part of the national highway network and belongs to the international route E67 interconnecting Prague, Wrocław, Warsaw, Kaunas, Panevėžys, Riga, Tallinn and Helsinki. The service provided by the project is a road Objective and bypass of motorway standards; the new road aimed at responding to increasing needs passengers’ and freight traffic and overwhelm insufficient capacity of the existing network. The main objectives of the investment were reduction of travel times for long distance and local traffic, reduction of congestion in the urban network, improved accessibility between this core urban node of the TEN-T network and surrounding regional cities, as well as improved road safety.

The target population of the investment are the inhabitants of the City of Wrocław, Target of the PL51 Dolnośląskie (Voivodship) (about 3 million inhabitants), as well as users area/population of the national major road network and of the Baltic-Adriatic Core Network Corridor.

The project involved the construction of a motorway by-pass for a total length of 35.413 km (3 lanes per direction), as well as connecting and access roads, including Technical 7 road junctions, 40 engineering structures (6 bridges incl. largest in Poland concrete description pylon bridge, 34 road viaducts), noise barriers, 41 animal over- and underpasses, road culverts, drainage system, lighting, pedestrian crossings, safety facilities, etc. This project is a revenue generating one; ETC system is in place since 2012 for

55

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

heavy vehicles over 3.5 tons and buses with 9 or more passengers.

Modification to the project design The project has been implemented without any specific issues in 3 years. or scope (if any)

The A8 consists entirely of this bypass, which represents a fully independent unit of Relationship with analysis. It interconnects with the S8 expressway and the A4 motorway; the latter existing already in operation at the time the project opened to traffic, the former completed infrastructure in November 2012.

According to the project dossier, the investment is in line with the EU, national as well as regional strategies, including: the Community Strategic Guidelines; the National Strategic Reference Framework 2007 – 2013; National Development Strategy 2007-2015; Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment – OPI&E; Transport Development Strategy up to 2020; National Transport Policy for 2006 – 2025; Programme for the Construction of National Roads for 2011 – 2015; Relationship with National Programme for Road Traffic Safety 2005-2007-2013; Dolnoslaskie existing Voivodship Development Strategy up to 2020; Transport Infrastructure and programmes and Communication Development Programme for Dolnoslaskie; The Strategy ”Wroclaw in strategic the Perspective 2020 plus”; Wroclaw Transport Policy. Particularly regarding the documents latter policy plan, it is noticed that the investment is proposed as a priority measure to ensure the maintenance and good operability of the whole city road system by transforming the road network structure from radiant to radial-bypasses, also including the construction of new bridges across the river Oder and the development of organizational and economic actions to support the implementation of the Wroclaw Motorway Bypass.

Changes occurred in the Except the opening to traffic of the S8, no other significant changes occurred since infrastructure the opening to traffic of the A8. The impact of the opening to traffic of the S8 was network and considered in the exa-ante analysis of the A8. project area

The road crosses a NATURA 2000 area, which at the time of the preparation of the Environmental project was included in the shadow list of Natura 2000 areas; appropriate Aspects administrative measures for this type of investments were undertaken in this regard in line with the national legislation.

TYPOLOGIES OF EFFECTS

Positive Negative

The main expected positive quantitative effects are reduction of travel times for long distance and local traffic, reduction of congestion in the urban network, improved accessibility between this core urban node of the TEN-T network and surrounding regional cities, as well as improvement of road safety. Although not reported in the project dossier Crossing a Natura 2000 area, the and not observed in any relevant public project was expected to generate a source, the project seems to have generated negative impact on this zone; Effects economic growth by supporting industrial and appropriate measures have been urban developments in the project catchment undertaken to mitigate the impacts area, which may have not occurred otherwise of the project on the environment. (i.e. Bielany Worcławskie and Domasław industrial logistics centers, and Widawa residential area). Although not reported in the project dossier and not observed so far in any relevant public source, by moving traffic transiting through the city out of the urban area positive effects in the improvement of quality of life could be

56

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

expected especially in the area surrounding national road no. 8, which was replaced by the motorway by-pass.

PROJECT RELEVANCE

The project is expected to generate economic effects, which are described in quantitative and qualitative terms in the project dossier and other documents. Due to its location in the city metropolitan area and its function as a motorway bypass, it may also reasonably expected to have positive impacts in terms of quality of life. It is furthermore crossing a Natura 2000 area, representing in this regard also a relevant case study for the negative effects on the environment. The preliminary analysis undertaken so far seems confirming a prevailing interpretation of the investment by the stakeholders as having predominant effects on the transport network, with little/no evidences and awareness of its development, implementation and operation in the wider territorial and institutional context in which the project is located and used by society.

ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA FOR CBA

Overall assessment of data Overall assessment of data availability for the EX-ANTE availability for the EX-POST assessment assessment Investment costs related to implementation of specific national road sections are provided on the GDDK&A Data relating to the financial analysis website. Operating and maintenance costs Financial analysis are satisfactorily detailed in the project could be estimated on the basis of unit dossier parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis. Traffic data on AADT on A8 motorway by- pass are publicly available as part of The demand analysis and forecast were National Traffic Counts 2015 results Demand analysis satisfactorily and quantitatively detailed (http://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/a/9179/gen in the project dossier eralny-pomiar-ruchu-w-2010-roku). Forecasts does not seem to be available for the project and network. The project dossier satisfactorily The information available in the project includes the detailed data and dossier and the demand data seem to Economic analysis information used to calculate the allow an ex-post estimation of the shorter expected effects of the project terms effects of the project ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA FOR QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Overall assessment of information Overall assessment of information availability for the EX-ANTE availability for the EX-POST assessment assessment The study team has started approaching Effects on This type of effects are considered in the relevant stakeholders and screen the project dossier. The information available sources. However it is not economic available is considered to be possible at this stage to comment on the development satisfactory. quantity and quality of the available information. Effects on quality Qualitative information about this type of effects is available and of sufficient To be checked. of life quality. Effects on The EIA report is not included in the environmental To be checked. project dossier. sustainability

RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS Considerations about the Contact name Institution stakeholders’ willingness to cooperate Jerzy Kwieciński, The listed institutions have Ministry of Development Secretary of State been contacted by the study team. Some of these Krzysztof Kondraciuk, GDDK&A (General Directorate for National Roads entities have already General Director for and Motorways) responded asking for more

57

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

National Roads and details and availability of Motorways the detailed methodology that will be adopted to Lidia Markowska – undertake the study. Branch Director and City of Wrocław Wojciech Adamski

Lower Silesia Chamber of Commerce

Wrocław Chamber of Commerce

Citizenships organizations/associations (e.g. the Lower Silesia Association of International Carriers)

Regional Environmental Agency in Wrocław

58

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

ANNEX V – EXAMPLE OF A FILLED IN ENRICHED SUMMARY SHEET

The project used for filling in the two additional sections of enriched summary sheets (i.e. fiches filled in just for the most suitable 10 projects to be evaluated under Task 3) is the same used in the previous annex.

STRATEGY FOR DATA GATHERING

Investment costs related to implementation of specific national road sections are provided on the GDDK&A website. Operating and maintenance costs are to be Financial analysis calculated on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis.

Concerning the demand analysis: data on AADT on A8 motorway by-pass are publicly available as part of National Traffic Counts 2015 results Market and (http://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/a/9179/generalny-pomiar-ruchu-w-2010-roku). demand analysis Additionally, the Lower Silesia Association of International Carriers will be contacted for gathering some information about historic freight traffic.

Travel time is to be measured on spot, or via public available interactive road maps (e.g. google maps). For the purpose of CBA travel time effect is to be measured on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307). Vehicle operating/ travel costs are to be calculated on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307). Number of accidents including no. of injured and fatalities is to be obtained from the respective Local Police Department. For the purpose of CBA safety effect is to be measured on the basis of unit parameters for injuries and fatalities included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road Economic analysis transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307). Gas emissions are to be calculated on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307). Greenhouse gases effect is to be calculated on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307). Noise levels are to be calculated on the basis of unit parameters included in JASPERS Blue Book for Road transport; in line with the national methodology for CBA analysis (https://www.cupt.gov.pl/index.php?id=307).

Qualitative effects Information to be gathered from the public available sources and discussion with the stakeholders, including Wrocław City Office, GDDK&A, Lower Silesia Chamber of on economic Commerce, Wrocław Chamber of Commerce, citizenships organizations/associations development (e.g. the Lower Silesia Association of International Carriers). Information to be gathered from the public available sources and discussion with the stakeholders, including Wrocław City Office. On service quality: Information to be gathered from public sources and discussion with the Stakeholders including citizenships’ associations (e.g. Lower Silesia Association of International Carriers), Qualitative effects GDDK&A and Wrocław City Office. Reports on citizen’s welfare and satisfaction (to on quality of life possibly understand how this investment affected inhabitants’ satisfaction level and what is its perception): e.g. http://www.portalsamorzadowy.pl/komunikacja- spoleczna/mieszkancy-ktorych-miast-podregionow-i-wojewodztw-sa-najbardziej- zadowoleni-z-miejsca-zamieszkania,75433.html

Qualitative effects Information to be gathered from the public available sources and discussion with the on environmental stakeholders, including Wrocław City Office, GDDK&A, and the Regional sustainability Environmental Agency.

REASONS FOR SELECTION

To be filled in upon completion of the screening of the 30 projects

59

Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013

60