Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion funds for the Programming Period

Transcription

1 Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion funds for the Programming Period N o 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014 Country Report Greece Final Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO ECORYS Nederland BV Rotterdam, August 2006

2 ECORYS Nederland BV P.O. Box AD Rotterdam Watermanweg GG Rotterdam The Netherlands T 31 (0) F 31 (0) E [email protected] W Registration no ECORYS Transport T 31 (0) F 31 (0)

3

4 Table of contents 1 Introduction Background The Strategic Evaluation The Country Report Structure of the report 2 2 Transport Sector: current situation Introduction Greece Situation per mode of transport Roads and road transport Railways Urban transport Inland waterway transport Sea ports Airports Analysis modal split Current Transport policy Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 21 3 Accessibility analysis Introduction Methodology: Accessibility Problem Indicator Transport needs 24 4 Previous support programmes National public funding for transport infrastructure EU funding Other sources of financing Conclusions 33 5 National Transport Strategy Introduction Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning Operational programme Prioritisation of Transport Investments ( ) Introduction Community Strategic Guidelines 38

5 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 39 7 Impact Assessment of scenarios Introduction Methodology Scenarios Impact assessment European effects 61 8 Conclusions on investment priorities Introduction Transport investment priorities Annex A Annex B TEN-T priorities Accessibility Red Flag Analysis

6

7 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States clearly creates a new challenge for its Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU have increased substantially and will further increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in This is an explicit point of attention as the Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas. This aim lies at the core of the Commission s regional policy. One of the key elements of the cohesion policy of the Commission is the contribution of the development of new transport infrastructure to regional economic development. Extensive spending has taken place in this domain under ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ISPA. One of the prominent initiatives in the European Union in this respect is the development of the Trans-European transport networks (TEN-T). In 2003 the Commission has identified the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T up to The priority projects include: the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in mind the general objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance, interoperability and the reduction of bottlenecks. For the new programming period the Commission seeks to strengthen the strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development 2. To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The present evaluation should be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The strategic evaluation should feed in the process of determining transport investment priorities and the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and 1 Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to 225 billion at the 2020 horizon. 2 COM(2004)492 1

8 operational programmes. As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund assistance. 1.2 The Strategic Evaluation The strategic evaluation is directed at the transport sector. Three specific objectives have been formulated for this strategic evaluation: To provide an analysis of the situation in selected fields relevant to transport, using structural indicators across Member States, plus Romania and Bulgaria; To assess the contribution of Structural and Cohesion funds relative to the current and previous programming periods and draw lessons of relevance for the purpose of the study in terms of identification of potential shortcomings in the development of transport priority projects that might have hampered the utilization of those funds or their expected benefits; To identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields and identify potential investment priorities of structural and cohesion funds for the programming period The Country Report The strategic evaluation results in specific country reports for all 15 countries and a synthesis report. The current report is the Country Report for Greece. Its main aim is to give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in the country and to address areas for future intervention. Where relevant this accompanied by recommendations with respect to the overall transport policy of the country. The country reports feed into the joint programming effort with the Member States for the next period, as will be detailed in the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the subsequent Operational Programmes. 1.4 Structure of the report The report is structured around three building blocks. First a needs assessment is presented based on an analysis of the current transport systems and a modelling analysis which reveals the current (relative) level of accessibility per region. This leads to first conclusions strengths and weaknesses of the current transport system and related transport investment needs (Part A). Next an overview is presented of the transport investment priorities in the past period (Part B). Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified. This builds on the needs assessment in the first part but also addresses other factors such as the contribution to EU and national policy objectives, the availability of other sources of funding and the administrative capacity of the country (Part C). 2

9 Part A: Needs assessment current situation 3

10 2 Transport Sector: current situation 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Greece. After a brief introduction on the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it first describes the situation per mode of transport. The analysis of the current situation is summarized in a SWOT table on the main strengths and weaknesses. The assessment of the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport policy issues in Greece. 2.2 Greece Greece is located in Southern Europe, bordering the Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, between Albania and Turkey. The country s terrain is mostly mountains with ranges extending into the sea as peninsulas or chains of islands. Greece is clearly a peninsular country, possessing an archipelago of about 2,000 islands. 4

11 Basic data Population 11.0 million Total area 131,940 km 2 Population density 80.3 inh/km 2 Main cities Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras, Irakleio and Larissa Greece is a services dominated economy. Some 72% of GDP is generated in the services sector, followed by industry (22%) and agriculture (6%). Within the services sector the role of tourism activities, which provide 15% of GDP, is clear. Immigrants make up nearly one-fifth of the work force, mainly in unskilled jobs. Greece is a major beneficiary of EU aid, equal to about 3.3% of annual GDP. The Greek economy grew by about 4.0% for the between 2003 and 2005, largely because of an investment boom and infrastructure upgrades for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Economic growth slowed to about 3% in Greece has not met the EU's Growth and Stability Pact budget deficit criteria of 3% of GDP since Public debt, inflation, and unemployment are above the Euro-zone average. To overcome these challenges, the Greek Government is expected to continue cutting government spending, reducing the size of the public sector which currently stands at approximately 40% of GDP. Economic data GDP (2004) bn GDP per capita, Greece (2004) 15,200 GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 Government debt as % of GDP (2004) Government deficit as % of GDP (2004) -6.9% Unemployment rate 10.5% Source: Eurostat 2.3 Situation per mode of transport Roads and road transport Infrastructure The Trans European Road network in Greece, planned for year 2010, (Decision 1692/96/EC) consists of 4,333 km road sections of which 1,172 km operate today in Motorway standards, while 205 km more are under construction to complete Via Egnatia. Additional 2,956 km operate as single carriageway highways, of which 149 km are expected to be upgraded to motorway standards by public funding within the current programming period. 755 km are planned for upgrade to Motorway standards using PPP schemes. The rest is set as high priority road network for upgrading seeking funding during the 4 th Programming period

12 Furthermore, road links to crossing points along the northern boarding of Greece are planned for construction or upgrade, giving access from via Egnatia (East - West Motorway axis) to Pan European corridors VI and X. About 5,000 km national and more than 29,000 km provincial road network provide accessibility to this Trans European network within Greece. Table 2.1 Motorway density in Greece Length motorway/1000 km 2 Length motorway/100,000 inh Greece (2004) EU EU Source: Eurostat (2005) It should be noted that, during the decade , the total length of Greek motorway network increased with a factor 4.3. This increase, partly achieved due to the EU financial contribution, concerns both the construction of new infrastructure and the upgrading of part of the existing network. The main road axes (see figure 2.1) are: Egnatia motorway. Motorway (Via Egnatia) spanning Northern Greece from its western to its eastern border, starting from Igoumenitsa, and running to the village of Kipoi on the Turkish border. In 2004, 444 km of Egnatia motorway were constructed, while its total length upon completion will amount to 670km. The main North-South road axis of the country (P.A.TH.E.), which connects Patras, Athens, Thessaloniki and Evzoni at the borders with FYROM and belongs to the Trans - European Motorway system and runs along the north coast of Peloponnisos, and the east coast of the Greek mainland. In June 2003, 462 km were constructed or upgraded at motorway standards, while the total length of the axis upon its completion will sum up to 774 km. The west road axis (Via Ionia) serving the west part of Greece from north to south (Ioannina Antirio - Rio- Patras - Kalamata). The remaining national road network, providing connection between the major axes and serving other areas as well. Out of this network the axes of Panagia - Trikala - Larissa / Lamia (planned for upgrade to form Central Greece Motorway ), Lamia - Antirio and Lamia Agrinio, assure trans regional connection between the east and the west parts of Greece, separated by Pindos mountain range. The northern road axis of Crete, providing trans-regional transportation on the island connecting the four major towns Chania, Rethimno, Herakleio and Ag. Nikolaos. The axis that is currently under construction is expected to complete under the 3 rd CSF at single carriageway highway standards. 6

13 Figure 2.1 Major Road network Greece Means Table 2.1 gives information on the car ownership in Greece in comparison to the EU15 and EU25. Table 2.1 Car ownership Greece (2004), EU (2003) Greece EU15 EU25 Cars/1000 inh Source: Eurostat, National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG) 7

14 During the period of , passenger car ownership in Greece increased by 96%, while at the same time the average EU increase is estimated at less than 25%. At the same time the number of trucks was increased by 36% (1.2 million trucks in 2004) while the motorcycles fleet increased considerably as well. Demand The increase in car ownership is also reflected in the total transport performance by passenger cars (in passengerkilometers). It is estimated that car travel grew with 5.6% per annum on average in the period Car travel has to a certain extent replaced intercity bus demand, especially on shorter distances. The bus fleet has shown a limited increase of about 1% annually. Table 2.2 Intercity bus traffic Total kilometrage (1000) Passengers (1000) Passenger kilometres (million) Source: NSSG Road accidents Greece presents a considerably high accident index. In the country had 15,751 road accidents with 22,342 people suffering casualties of which 1,605 people were reported killed. That means that more than one out of ten road accidents involves fatalities. Table 2.3 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants) Greece EU Source: Eurostat, NSSG There has been a significant reduction in fatalities due to road accidents in Greece in recent years (following a period of steep increase in 1990s). On 1998 the number of fatalities amounted to 2,182, which decreased to 1,605 in 2003 (reduction of 4.7% per annum). Certainly this decreasing trend becomes even more important if the constant increase in total exposure (vehicle-km) in the road network is considered. Spending on traffic enforcement has grown sixfold in the period Also upgrading of roads has had a positive contribution to the accident rate Railways Infrastructure The Greek railway network due to the mountainous terrain of the country is relatively limited with general alignment dating back to late 1800, early Considerable 3 National Statistical Service of Greece Greece in Figures,

15 investments are made since 1980, aiming to upgrade the existing sections. This is expected to continue in the upcoming years. In 2004, the operating railway network was approximately 2,449km long, consisting of 65% of standard gauge line (Attiki, Central Greece, Thessalia, Makedonia and Traki) and 35% of metric gauge line (Peloponnesus). Table 2.4 Railway density (2003) Railway line/1000 km 2 Railway line/100,000 inh Greece EU Source: Eurostat (2005) Figure 2.2 Railway network 9

16 The main rail network (see figure 2.2) consist of: The line Piraeus - Athens - Thessaloniki - Idomeni through which the largest part of the total transport product is being carried, The line Thessaloniki - Alexandroupoli - Ormenio, that runs along the northern part of Greece, and provides railway connection with Bulgaria and Turkey, and finally, The line Athens - Patra, that connects the capital, by rail, with one of the country s western gates to Italy and Western Europe. The current network suffers from a number of weaknesses: the railway alignment and morphology of the country with steep gradients and acute curvatures allows only low speed travel; with the exception of the lines of Peloponnesus and Thessaly, the network in question, is developed mainly linearly, due to the morphology of the continental Greece, thus limiting the development of railway transportation towards areas non adjacent to the railway axis. the major railway axis Piraeus - Athens - Thessaloniki doesn t provide a connection with the country s major commercial ports, namely the ports of Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Alexandroupolis and the new port in Patras. This fact discourages the development of combined transportation in Greece; there are many single-track lines and a large number of level crossings; rail electrification stands at a low level (although electrification is increasing) and large part of the rolling stock is obsolete; incompatibility between Peloponnesus s line (metric gauge) and the rest of the network (standard gauge). Means The railway fleet consists of traction units, passenger and freight wagons. The fleet size has been reduced in the past decade. The largest difference is observed in the reduction in the number of freight wagons in the period Also the number of passenger wagons reduced. In 2004, passenger wagons were almost half (55%) of the ones operating in As electrification of the network is an ongoing project, electric tractions units have to be included in the fleet in the years to come. Organisation of railway sector The Hellenic Railways Organisation (OSE) was formed in 1970 uniting a number of regional railroads. OSE is responsible for the uniform organisation, operation and development of rail transport. Greece is not advanced in terms of rail liberalisation, as the existing environment provides significant barriers to entry. Only in 2005 the EU Regulation of the first Railway Package was transposed into national legislation, which gave OSE the obligation to establish a limited liability company (National Railway Infrastructure Manager Ltd) and 10

17 one or more limited liability companies to provide passenger and freight transport services 4. OSE is the only company providing rail (passenger and freight) services in Greece. There are currently no privately run rail services in Greece. As such it has not yet responded to the 2 nd Railway package which requires open access to all EU railway undertakings for all kinds of rail freight transport from January 2007 onwards 5. The lack of competition is hampering further restructuring and des-incentivises further efficiency improvements. It also has a negative impact on the level of service. Service quality of OSE in the past was reported to be low 6. Market opening has proven to be an important factor in contributing to a positive performance of rail (freight) markets 7. The current efficiency of the Greek Railways is low. A comparative study on railway systems in ten EU countries 8 showed that efficiency of the Greek Railways has been low for a longer time. Also recent indicators point at the low efficiency of the Greek railway system. Figure 2.3 gives an indication of the operational efficiency (expressed in staff per trainkm). Figure 2.3 Operational efficiency rail for selected European countries (staff per 1000 trainkms) Romania Lithuania Poland Greece Bulgaria Hungary Czech Republic Austria Netherlands 0,000 0,100 0,200 0,300 0,400 0,500 0,600 0,700 0,800 0,900 Source: ECORYS based on UIC data and NERA (2004), Study on the financing of and public budget contributions to railways 4 See Steer Davies Gleave (2005), RAILIMPLEMENT, Implementation of EU Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC. The transposition of the first Railway Package has taken place notwithstanding the fact that Greece obtained certain derogations from elements of the Packages until See SEC(2006)530 6 See Pavantis, Prevedouros (2002), Railroads in Greece, History, Characteristics and Forecasts, Transporttation Research Record See SEC(2006)530 8 Christopoulos et. al. (2001) Inefficiency in European Railways: not as inefficient as one might think. In: Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. IV No.1, May

18 Another indicator which gives (indirect) information on the competitiveness of rail transport is the utilisation of the railtrack (see table 2.5). Low utilisation rates signal an inefficient use of the available infrastructure. Greece ranks amongst the lowest utilisation figures in Europe. For freight rail transport the country shows even the lowest figure. This clearly does indicate that the existing railway traffic does have a potential for growth once the competitiveness and attractiveness of rail (both technically and institutionally) is brought at a higher level. Table 2.5 Utilisation of rail infrastructure Passengers (1000 pkm/km rail) Freight (1000 tkm/km rail) Passengerkms as a ratio of tonkms Bulgaria % Cyprus - - Czech Republic % Estonia % Greece % Hungary % Latvia % Lithuania % Malta - - Poland % Portugal % Romania % Slovakia % Slovenia % Spain % EU % EU % Source: ECORYS based on Eurostat (2005) and UIC (2006) Demand Rail transport, both for freight and passenger transport only plays a very modest role in Greece. Notwithstanding the poor attractiveness of the Greek rail system, rail transport in Greece increased in the last decade (although still at low absolute levels). Rail passenger traffic, expressed in passenger kilometres, increased mainly due to the introduction of the high quality intercity services. This phenomenon was particularly impressive during the period of , with an increase of 36% mainly as a result travel time reduction on Athens-Thessaloniki corridor. The transport demand reached 1,668 million passenger kilometres. The same trend seems to apply to the rail freight transport section as well. The number of tonne-kilometres summed up to 592 million in 2004, while the respective value in 1994 was 324 million, thus presenting an increase of 82%. Regarding the size of freight transported, expressed in tones, there was more than a two-fold increase, amounting to 2.97 million tonnes of which 66% for international transportation 12

19 2.3.3 Urban transport Infrastructure Athens and Thessaloniki are the two major urban centres in Greece. Athens The Mass Transit System of Athens consists of: Buses (Operated by ETHEL, Thermal Bus Company) Electric Buses (Trolleys) (Operated by ILPAP, Electric Buses of Athens - Piraeus) Tram Lines (Operated by Tram S.A.) Three Metro Lines (Line 1 operated by ISAP, Electric Railways of Athens - Piraeus, Lines 2 & 3 operated by Attiko Metro Operation Company S.A.). Suburban Railway (operated by Proastiakos S.A.) The Athens Metro is one of the most modern systems in the world. Line, 1 that is the oldest and for the most part runs on the ground, connects Piraeus, Athens major port with the northern suburbs of Athens. The other two lines were constructed mainly during the late 1990s and the first sections were put to service in They run entirely underground. Extensions to both lines are under construction. Suburban railway provides connection with the Athens International Airport. The expansion of the metro network over the past years, has greatly contributed to the improvement of the mass transport system of Athens. The bus service consists of a network of lines on which normal buses, electric buses, and natural gas buses run (the largest fleet of natural gas run buses in Europe). There are many bus lines serving Athens and the suburbs (and the airport).the construction of an extensive network of bus-lanes, that is continually expanding, has contributed to the enhancement of the level of service provided by reducing travel times. However average travelling speed on the bus network still remains relatively low. Additional urban transport systems for consist of the tram, that runs from the city centre to the south suburbs and was inaugurated in the summer of 2004, just before the Olympic games held in Athens and the large number of taxis that are in circulation. Thessaloniki The main means of urban (public) transport in Thessaloniki is the fleet of buses, providing connection between the city centre and the suburbs, in addition to a fleet of taxis is used as well. Thessaloniki with a total population of over 800,000 inhabitants, still remains one of the few large European cities that lacks a railed track transportation means of any type (metro or tramway), although the linear development of the city would favour the construction of such a transportation system. The main problems with respect to the urban transportation sector in Greece are relatively low travelling speeds of the bus network (congested urban road network) and the lack of reliable timetables. The current low level of service discourages the public from using the public transportation means. The major exception to this situation is formed by the exceptionally successful operation of the metro system in Athens, reveals the attractivity 13

20 of the development of railed track means that can be run independently of the prevailing traffic conditions. Means The bus fleet in Athens has been increased by 11% over the past decade reaching some 200 vehicles in The fleet has been recently remarkably upgraded. It is worth mentioning that 1,328 of the buses were acquired between 1998 and On the contrary, the number of electric buses in circulation seems to decrease especially after the year 2000, upon commencement of the new metro lines operation. In 2004 there were 372 electric buses running. The new metro system s (lines 2 and 3) fleet consists of 294 wagons, 126 of which were put to service in Demand An 11% increase in patronage, was noticed over the past four years. This increase is mainly attributed to the operation of the new metro lines, which attracted in 2004 more than two-fold the passengers attracted during 2000 the first year of its operation. Moreover in 2004 the tramway and the suburban railway were put to service attracting 3,284,000 and 600,000 passengers respectively. As far as it concerns the other means of transport - buses, electric buses, and electric railway - demand didn t change significantly. Table 2.6 Urban transport demand Mean of transport Bus (operated by ETHEL) Electric bus Electric railways Bus (operated by ISAP) Metro Tramway 3 Suburban Railway 0.6 TOTAL Note: excluding trips explicitly performed for the Olympics (approx. 16 mln passengers Source: Athens Urban Transport Organisation Annual Report Inland waterway transport No inland waterways exist in Greece Sea ports Infrastructure Greece is a peripheral EU country with no common land borders with other Member States. The morphology of the Greek mainland and the large number of inhabited islands has led to the development of a network of ports relative wide if compared with the country s total population. 14

21 Greece has a total coast line length of 15,021 km. Along this coastline operate 1,334 ports. These ports serve either short sea shipping passenger and freight traffic (within the Greek territory or by providing cross border connections) or open sea maritime transport passenger cruise ships and freight vessels. According to the Hellenic Ministry of Mercantile Marine, 138 ports are evaluated as major ports, and consist of: 96 ports, insular Greece 42 ports, mainland Figure 2.4 Major ports in Greece The sea ports can play an important role in the development of short-sea shipping within the EU. Moreover, three trans-european axes end at Greek ports, which are located at the northern port system (Thessaloniki, Alexandroupolis etc). One of the issues mentioned with respect to the ports is that the infrastructure hasn t always been suitably upgraded in order to meet the requirements of new technology ships. Also peak capacity problems are reported at summer periods. 15

22 Port organisation and port efficiency Recently, for the most important ports 10 independent Port Authorities were founded in the form of SAs, and the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki were partially privatized. The corporatisation (and privatisation) of ports is expected to increase efficiency of the ports in Greece with the involvement of stronger private sector interests. The introduction of more competition within the ports (private terminal operation is expected to further contribute to an increase in efficiency. The available evidence on port efficiency in Greece indicates that further efficiency gains can be reached (see table 2.7) 9. Table 2.7 Port efficiency indicators (selected European countries) Port efficiency index (1-7) a Bulgaria 3.68 Estonia n.a. Greece 4.28 Lithuania n.a. Poland 3.34 Portugal 3.81 Romania n.a. Slovenia n.a. Spain 4.88 Italy 4.11 Germany 6.38 Belgium 6.17 France 5.39 Finland 6.26 Netherlands 6.64 Port efficiency index: one-to-seven index ranking port efficiency based on surveys performed to representative firms of each country (1 = low efficiency, 7 i= high efficiency) Source: X. Clark, D. Dollar, A. Micco (2002), Maritime Transport Costs and Port Efficiency, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2781 Passengers Demand Being an island country, passenger transport by sea is important. Passenger transportation by sea mainly accommodates trips between continental Greece and the islands, between islands, as well as between Greece and Italy, having to compete only against the air transport sector. Minor connection exists between Greek islands in the Eastern Aegean and tourist connections on Turkey s coast. 9 See also Barros, Athanassiou (2004), Efficiency in European Seaports with DEA: Evidence from Greece and Portugal, in Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2004, 6, and Wang, Cullinane (2006), The efficiency of European Container terminals and implications for supply chain management, in: Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2006, 8 16

23 Table 2.8 Embarked-disembarked passengers at the principal ports of Greece Ports Average growth % per annum Iraklion ,1% Patra ,4% Piraeus ,6% Source: NSSG During the summer period, transport demand multiplies with regard to the annual average having as a result the insufficiency of the supply to meet the requirements of the peak period. Ports also play an important role in freight transport. Table 2.9 shows the main freight ports of Greece. Table 2.9 Loaded-unloaded goods at the principal ports of Greece (1000 tonnes) Ports Average growth % per annum Volos ,5% Elefsina ,5% Iraklion ,2% Thessaloniki ,4% Piraeus ,2% Source: NSSG Airports Infrastructure Greece possesses an extended network of 39 airports. The country s five major airports (Athens, Thessaloniki, Heraklion, Rhodes, and Corfu) serve 85% of the total air traffic. Twenty of the remaining 35 airports also accommodate international charter flights. Approximately 75% of the tourist trips are performed by air. The busiest airport is the Athens International Airport (El. Venizelos), which acts as a connecting node between the airport network of Greece and south-eastern Europe. In 2002, the transport demand of the specific airport reached 4.1 million passengers on domestic flights and 7.6 million on international flights. Second in size of traffic, is the airport of Heraklion, which shows high seasonal fluctuations in traffic numbers (4.8 million passengers in 2002), and third, the airport of Thessaloniki, which is expected to play a continuously increasing role in the air traffic of Balkan countries and north-eastern Europe (3.2 million passengers in 2002). Two companies, Olympic Airlines (the national carrier) and Aegean Airlines, which is private company, provide air transport in Greece. Olympic Airlines, based in Athens International Airport, has been established in 1957 and operates 40 aircrafts. Aegean Airlines was recently established in 1999 and operates a fleet of 20 airplanes. 17

24 Demand Air traffic, concerning national and international flights, has considerably increased over the last decade. Specifically during the last five years, a remarkable increase in the total passenger transport has been noticed, with an annual growth figure of 7%, which is accounted for by an 11% increase in domestic flights and a 5% increase in international flights. In 2002 the total passenger traffic on both domestic and international flights reached 33.4 million passengers. With respect to domestic travel the increased use of smaller aircraft (average 60 passenger/aircraft) is noticeable while the size of aircraft on international destinations tends to increase. Due to the seasonality characteristics of most Greek airports, a major increase in air traffic is observed (10-15%) during the peak months (July - August) Analysis modal split The comparison of the modal split in passenger travel demand but also freight demand reveals the relative weak position of rail in the transport mix, although some improvement are noticeable for both passenger transport (slight increase from 2004 on 2003 after a longer period of decline) and freight transport. Service improvements and linking rail infrastructure to ports may have a positive impact in this situation (especially for freight) in the future the natural morphology of the country poses natural limits to this mode of transport. Freight centres and freight villages also seem to have potential, especially serving searoad and sea-rail intermodal transport. A new law on the establishment and operation of freight centres is in force since summer 2005, which until now has led to the establishment of a new freight centre in the Attica region serving rail/road and sea transport. Another freight village is operating in northern Greece since 2 years. Road transport is by far the dominant mode in Greece. It can be expected that car ownership will further increase with economic development (see also table 2.1) which will further strengthen the position of road transport in future especially on medium to longer distance trips. The urban tram & metro system has clearly proven to be competitive in (congested) urban areas. Table 2.10 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 2003) Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro Situation 2003 Greece EU Percentage change Greece 7,1% 1,3% 0,0% 9,0% EU15 1,7% 0,8% 1,4% 1,9% Source: Eurostat (2005) 18

25 Table 2.11 Modal split freight transport for inland modes (share in tonkilometers, 2004) Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline Situation 2004 Greece EU Percentage change Greece 5,7% 8,5% - - EU15 3,3% 1,7% 1,2% 1,1% Source: Eurostat (2005) 2.4 Current Transport policy This section summarizes some key issues with respect to the policy of Greece with respect to the transport sector and puts them in the light of EU policy objectives. Railway revitalisation Considerable investment has been and is planned with respect to the railway sector with the aim to increase the relative modest share of rail transport in the country. A large part of the activities take place in the programmes that are jointly financed by the Commission and Greece (OPs). Actions are directed at: Improved interconnections with other networks Improved quality of the railway service (and rail network) Modernization of Hellenic Railways Air transport facilitation The main focus in this area is directed at improvement and increased efficiency of the air transport system. Building the TENs This has been one of the focus areas of the Greek policy until this moment. Especially the construction of the PATHE and Via Egnatia Motorways has received considerable attention in the past. Improved road safety Partially due to the increased efforts of the Greek government in this area accidents rates have reduced over the past period. Investments related to this policy action are relatively limited (approx. 1% of total investments). Actions are directed at improved instruction, training & examination, increased enforcement and increased awareness of drivers. Developing high-quality urban transport Substantial funds have been spent on this policy line, with clear success if one judged the increase of urban transport in the past period. This involves both modernisation of existing urban transport (fleet renewal, line upgrading), construction of new lines (e.g. Athens metro) and action to improve interconnectability. 19

26 Charging for transport In Greece the policy of having users pay for roads was introduced in 1927 for highways around the cities as well as between cities. Since then the motorway network has been a toll system. The toll motorway system in Greece follows the main Patras - Athens - Thessaloniki axis. The length of the toll network in service is 871 km, compared with 9,119 km of main (national) roads and 29,192 km of regional/local roads. There are 16 toll stations. This is an "open" system based on the distance travelled and vehicle type. The operator is the Greek National Road Fund (TEO), a government organization. Collected revenues supplement general State revenues. There is no specific policy with regard to toll pricing levels. Levels are not commonly adjusted to inflation rates. With respect to road users a special fuel tax is levied by the State to construct and maintain highways, but also develop other transport infrastructure. Rail transport is performed by the Hellenic Railways Organisation (OSE). Subsequently, the associated market is practically still regulated. OSE is directly accountable to the MTC. Inter-island sea transport within Greece has been partly deregulated in terms of general developments (cabotage). Competition has been developed in most connections with islands that are identified as attractive tourist destinations. Pricing thought, is still regulated by the MTC on most lines. Environmental sustainability of the transport system Environment protection and enhancement constitutes a major issue for all Greek regions, but the significance of this priority varies among them. With respect to transportgenerated pollution aspects, most problems are found around large urban centres. Traffic demand management has been the main source of efforts to confront with this problem so far, while the promotion of alternative fuels and environment-friendly vehicles (EFV) has not been developed. In terms of this effort to confront with air pollution, Greek authorities are trying to promote railway as a reliable alternative to road transport, both for freight and passengers the latest represent a target group in interurban as well as in urban context. This includes a major modernisation plan that has been initiated by OSE (Hellenic Railways), including doubling of the track, electrification and signalling, rolling stock modernisation and the introduction of higher speed services. Other actions of OSE to the fulfilment of its interoperability-related obligations, as stated in the White Paper for transport, include a tender for the provision and settlement of Global Mobile Communication System for Railways (GSM-R). EIA and SEA The Community legislation and guidelines with respect to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) have been encompassed in Greek legislation. The Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA), which assesses the impacts beyond the individual project, as expressed in Directive 2001/42 should be incorporated in Member States national legislation by July 21 st 2004 the latest. There is no formal and complete incorporation of 20

27 this directive 2001/42 in Greece yet, neither some other sort of established strategic assessment. Public- private-partnerships (PPP) Until recently, there was no particular framework governing the deployment of construction projects involving Public Private Partnership (PPP). However, there are three major examples of successful implementation of such projects, prior to the establishment of a pertaining Law. These involve the construction of Athens new International Airport, the Attica motorway (Athens bypass) connecting Athens to the new airport and the Rion-Antirrion Bridge. These projects are fully operational today. The construction of infrastructure with PPP is now a widely acceptable policy, and most of the new major road axes to be constructed are scheduled to use this scheme 2.5 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system In conclusion the following SWOT analysis can be prepared for the transport sector in Greece. Strengths Experience, know-how for the development of interurban transportation networks; Extensive network of ports and airports; Major motorway axes (PATHE & Via Egnatia) largely completed or to be completed on short term; Relatively extensive regional/ provincial road network; Relatively high percentage of the transportation fleet is already modernized; Improved border connections (rail & road) Efficient system of intermodal connection between Greece EU (road/sea) through Italy Strong development public transport system in Athens Increasing experience with PPP infrastructure projects Weaknesses (very) High system dependency on road transport (97%); Limited number of motorways as percentage of total road network; Insufficient access to cargo distribution centres (ports, industrial areas), insufficient interconnection of means and networks; Insufficiency of infrastructures and facilities for combined /intermodal transportation; Difficult morphology to establish extensive rail network; Limited modernisation on existing rail network; High percentage of road traffic accidents Insufficient port infrastructure / facilities, in combination with lack of rational operation of sea transport Insufficient service provided in peripheral areas Partial release of transport in relation to EU policies, state controlled pricing of fares Inefficient operation of many providers of transport services Under-estimation of cost regarding the usage of road infrastructure (external cost, deterioration, new investments) Design and politics from many involved ministries (fragmented policy formation process) 21

28 Opportunities Stability of the political and financial environment Continuity in Community Funding EU policy that promotes: o The completion of the Trans-European networks o The development of combined transportation o The development of environmental friendly means of transport o Transportation safety Technological development that allows for new opportunities regarding the development of services and the organization of the authorities The perspective of implementing PPP projects Normalization of the political and financial situation in South-eastern Europe combined with the new role of Greece as formed by the changes in composition of the EU (affiliation of Romania and Bulgaria in EU, in 2007) Continuing improvement of the connection with the adjacent areas Congestion of the road network that causes problems in urban road transportation (chances for public transport) Establishment of a Metropolitan Urban Transportation Authority for Athens and Thessaloniki providing integrated operation and policy as far as the urban transportation is concerned. Delays in the delivery times of projects and the fulfilment of investment programs Lack of customer-oriented strategy Lack of credibility by the citizens in relation to the provided services Threats Insufficiency of investment funds; Exaggerated development of road infrastructure; Lack of synergies among the stakeholders; Insufficient institutional framework; Lack of political (and implementation) commitment for rationalisation, deregulation and liberalisation of the transport sector; Difficulties in the implementation of reorganization programmes regarding the operation of the implementation authorities; Improvement of the living standard level that favours the use of private passenger cars; Continuing delays in the completion of investment programmes and fund absorption Competition between private cars and public transport (especially in view of increasing welfare) 22

29 3 Accessibility analysis 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment on a regional level. It clearly complements chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is described where potential deficiencies are addressed. The analysis on the current situation together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion perspective forms a basis for identifying possible investment priorities. In this chapter, first a description of the needs assessment methodology is presented. Especially the determination of the composite accessibility problem indicator which forms a central role in the approach is explained. The higher the value of the index, the higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled as the red flag analysis. This composite accessibility problem indicator is a combined measure, which addresses transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate explanation is provided in Annex C). As such the accessibility analysis is much more linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation (2006). 3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Indicator To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives. To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required. Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the 23

30 transport system. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision. This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union. The new accessibility indicator recognizes transport network quality, population density and regional disparity To avoid this dilemma, a new composite accessibility indicator was defined which distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can demand to be able to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow flies") as the people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the utilitarian principle of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of densely populated regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only few inhabitants. And finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions with severe deficits in accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic effects by transport investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility. These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational tradeoff between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. Annex C gives a more elaborate description of the Composite Accessibility Problem Indicator. 3.3 Transport needs The composite Accessibility Problem Index takes account of the transport system quality (travel speed), population density and regional disparity. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 depict the population density and the regional distribution of income between the different regions in Greece. In terms of population density, the capital city region of Athens (3.2 million population) clearly stands out, whereas the next urban centres Thessaloniki, Patras, Peristerion, Iraklion and Larissa are parts of larger regions (Figure 3.1). The capital city region is also the economic centre of the country (Figure 3.2). It is apparent that compared to the neighbouring Balkan countries Greece is relatively affluent. 24

31 Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm), 2006 Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005),

32 The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that should be addressed by European transport policy are presented in Figures 3.3 to 3.6. These figures show the spatial distribution of the Accessibility Problem Index in Greece first for road and then for rail from a national and a European perspective for the current situation (2006). The colour scale of the maps resembles that of a traffic light: green shades indicate average interregional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow values indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades indicate speeds significantly lower than the national or European average. Overall accessibility If accessibility in Greece is compared with the European average (Figures 3.4 and 3.6), it becomes apparent that road accessibility is only slightly below the European average, whereas rail accessibility in Greece is significantly below the European average as indicated by the orange and red shades of the map. Regional imbalances Figure 3.3 shows the spatial distribution of road accessibility in Greece seen from a national perspective. There is an obvious distinction between the mainland parts of the country and the island, for which ferry times reduce average travel speeds. This also reduces the national average with the effect that most mainland regions in Greece have above-average interregional travel speeds. However, compared with the European average, almost all regions in Greece have below-average interregional road travel speeds (Figure 3.4). Interregional road travel speeds above the European average are found only in the Egnatia corridor in the north-west and on the Peloponnese. The spatial pattern of accessibility problems for rail shows a quite different pattern (Figure 3.5). Again, and not surprisingly, the islands score worst in terms of rail accessibility; in fact none of the islands has a rail line. However, on the mainland there exist great disparities in rail accessibility between the Thessaloniki region and the central parts of the country on the one hand and the regions in the north-west and on the Peloponnese, which are served very poorly or not at all by rail. From a European perspective (Figure 3.6), all regions in Greece have rail accessibility below the European average, with the most serious rail accessibility problems in the north-west and on the Peloponnese. 26

33 Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), 2006 Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European),

34 Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), 2006 Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European),

35 Part B: Past transport investment priorities 29

36 4 Previous support programmes 4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure No comprehensive registration of government funding for transport investment takes place. An overview (see figure 4.1) can be presented for national funding of projects that are also funded by the EU as these are monitored by the management information system maintained by the Greek Ministry of Economic Affairs. Prior to 2001, the investments in air transport, maritime and public transport also include projects that were funded by the national budget alone. Table 4.1 National funding (budget allocation) by mode of transport, (mln ), in EU co-funded projects (CF ERDF) Road Rail Maritime Air Urban transport Share % 48% 3% 0% 0% % 26% 2% 1% 5% % 33% 2% 1% 4% Source: Greek Ministry of Economic Affairs What can be concluded from these figures is the increased focus on road development in the second period, whereas the share between national public rail and road funding was practically equal in the first programming period 10. To a certain extent this is compensated by an increased attention to urban transport projects in the second period. 4.2 EU funding Also in the destination of EU funding (see table 4.2) there appears to be a stronger focus on road transport, although on the total period this is to some extent compensated by funding for the extension of Athens metro (in ). If this latter project (total allocation 265 m ) is taken into account the increasing attention for rail 10 These observations are not conclusive as other sources on actual expenditure allocations viz. Oscar Faber, Thematic Evaluation of the impact of Structural Funds on Transport Infrastructure, 2001) indicate that the focus of national funding in this first period was also on road projects, with metro projects on second place. 30

37 based transport from 1999 onwards becomes clearly noticeable. The basis for this shift can be found in the Strategic Reference Frameworks for transport projects funded under ERDF and Cohesion Funds during (covering two Operational Programmes "Roads, Ports and Urban Development" and "Railways, Airports and urban Transport") with a focus on: Completion of TEN priority road axes; Completing and modernising the PATHEP rail route; Modernising port infrastructure; Modernising Air Traffic Control. Table 4.2 EU funding Cohesion Fund (total commitments 11 ) by mode of transport, (mln ) Road Rail Maritime Air Other/urban transport Share % 31% 5% 17% 3% % 33% 1% 0% 17% % 32% 3% 8% 10% Source: ECORYS, based on Cohesion Funds Annual reports The available information on spending on transport from EDRF seems to indicate a different pattern, with a somewhat stronger allocation towards rail projects in the first programming period. According to the Oscar Faber study (2001) of the total structural fund allocations of 735 m on transport in the first programming period, some 43% is spent on rail projects. Information on the second period ( ) based on the last accepted programming documents, indicates a much stronger focus on roads (especially motorways) which receives 61% of all ERDF funding on transport, followed by rail (25%). Related OPs The current EU funded actions in the transport sector are programmed in 2 major OPs: OP Road Axes, Ports & Urban Development (RAPUD) is mainly aimed at the completion of major road axes and basic infrastructure projects in the urban areas of Athens and Thessaloniki, while OP Railways, Airports & Public Transport (RAPT) includes interventions across five major sub-sectors, namely railways, urban transport, airports, freight centres and road safety. Besides the projects of the two programmes, other actions co-financed by Cohesion Fund (or CSF projects co-funded by CF) and other funds also contribute to the achievement of the abovementioned objectives. The strategic objectives of the Operational Programme RAPUD mainly concern a comprehensive improvement in the basic road and sea transport infrastructure over the whole country: 11 Data should be treated as indication only as decisions in later years may alter to earlier commitments information is based on 1999 Annual report Cohesion Fund is based on total commitments resulting from the respective year (except for 2000 for which only partial information in this respect is available in the country report). 31

38 Integration of the Greek sections of TEN-T networks Completion of major networks that make the country s backbone Promotion of international and transit trade Promotion of combined transport, by means of ports upgrade and connections establishment between ports and airports Improvement of road safety throughout the country Improvement of urban development and quality of life in the country s major cities The main objectives of the Operational Programme RAPT may be summarised as follows: Extension and quality enhancement of transport services provided in Greece Upgrade of international connections to serve transport demand within and around the country Upgrade of domestic networks, aiming at the promotion of regional development and social cohesion Improvement of safety conditions in transport Reduction of adverse environmental impact and achievement of energy savings Emergence of the large metropolitan areas identity, along with improvement of urban/suburban public transport modes, both in qualitative and quantitative terms Provision of networks for the promotion of intermodal and interoperable transport. 4.3 Other sources of financing This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure. EIB An overview of total EIB lending to Greece is presented in table 4.3. It becomes clear that apart from direct national budget allocations this source of finance has been substantial. Over the period loans of in total 7.5 bn have been concluded with Greece. Also here the clear focus on road development is noticeable, followed by loans for the development of the new Spata airport of Athens and urban transport (mainly the Athens metro). Table 4.3 EIB financing (loans) by mode of transport, (mln ) Road Rail Maritime Air Urban transport Share % 4% 2% 24% 24% % 0% 1% 8% 18% % 2% 1% 13% 20% Source: ECORYS, based on EIB loan database 32

39 PPP financing EIB has also supplied loans to the three most importants PPP projects which have been established untill date. These are: Spata Airport, Athens, The Rion-Antirion bridge, and The Essi motorway (northern ring road Athens, connecting the city centre with the airport). These projects have set an example to an increasing use of PPP in recent road schemes. 4.4 Conclusions Transport investments in Greece in the past 15 years have been focused on road construction. Also the new airport in Athens and the Athens metro absorbed large amounts of funding. Investment in rail transport have been relatively modest and were mostly financed from EU support, especially in the second programming period. 33

40 Part C: Future transport investment priorities 34

41 5 National Transport Strategy 5.1 Introduction This is the first section of Part C which aims to determine transport investment priorities at a strategic level. This chapter deals with the current national transport policy (see also 2.4) and resulting investment priorities. 5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning Strategic planning for transport in Greece is closely linked to the strategic planning which takes place within the framework of EU mechanisms and funding support to cohesion in Greece. Greece does not have a formal separate transport policy document such as a country white paper. Most important documents are the operational programmes. The actions in the transport sector in the current programming period are programmed in two major OPs (see chapter 4): OP Road Axes, Ports & Urban Development (RAPUD) OP Railways, Airports & Public Transport (RAPT) The general objectives of the national transport strategy of Greece are: Reduction of social/regional disparities Stimulation of economic growth Improvement of the quality of life (especially in the main urban areas). More specific transport related objectives are: Securing accessibility throughout the country Promotion of transit and facilitating cross-border trade Improved road safety Promotion of modal shift, a/o by: o Improvements in urban transport o Modernisation of railways 5.3 Operational programme The strategic planning for the next programming period in Greece is at present under preparation. Drafting was initiated in June 2004 under the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MNEC). This Ministry co-operates with the Ministries of Transport, Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, Maritime and the Civil 35

42 Aviation Authority. It is expected that this will lead to a National Strategic Development Plan in This will then be subject to negotiation with the Commission. In parallel OPs will be prepared which are planned to be submitted to the Commission in the first half of Although no specific OPs have been established at the time of writing this report it is expected that, regarding the forthcoming 4 th program period, the Greek state aims to continue the transport network upgrading, mainly on the basis of the: completing all transport projects financed during the 3 rd program period but not expected to finish till 2008 upgrading the declared Trans European Network for year

43 6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments ( ) 6.1 Introduction This chapter intends to identify main factors that influence the setting of transport investment priorities for the next programming period. Community Strategic Guidelines The context for identifying strategic investment priorities is set by the Community Strategic guidelines. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to give effect to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development 12. These Strategic Guidelines form the basis for identifying investment priorities, which are then be elaborated in National Strategic Reference Frameworks at the Member State level, which are subsequently further detailed in Operational Programmes (OPs) for thematic areas. A Commission proposal on these Strategic Guidelines was published in July In parallel, Member States have already started preparations for their National Strategic Reference Frameworks and OPs. Additional factors influencing investment priorities As indicated the Strategic Guidelines form the context in which investment priorities for Community financing should be identified. In addition to these strategic guidelines a number of other factors shape the eventual establishment of transport investment priorities. These other factors include: Cost-effectiveness of projects; Availability of other sources of funding; Appropriateness of transport policy Administrative capacity to adequately absorb and manage funds. In the next section the Strategic Guidelines and the other factors are elaborated in more detail leading to a proposed prioritisation of areas for funding from Cohesion and Structural Funds. 12 COM(2004) COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines,

44 6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines The (draft) Community Strategic Guidelines set the scene for any future transport investment financed as part of the Commission s cohesion policy. According to the communication of the Commission (COM(2005)299) the guidelines with respect to the expansion and improvement of transport infrastructures for the period determine clear guidelines for action (see text box 6.1) Box 6.1 Community Strategic Guidelines: Guidelines for action The Community Strategic Guidelines distinguish the following guidelines for action: Member States should give priority to the 30 projects of European interest, located in Member States and regions eligible under the Convergence objective 14. Other TEN projects should be supported where this is a strong case in terms of their contribution to growth and competitiveness. Within this group of projects, cross-border links and those overseen by the specially designated European co-ordinators in the Member States merit special attention. Member States should make use of the co-ordinators as a means of shortening the time that elapses between designation of the planning of the network and the physical construction Complementary investment in secondary connections will also be important in the context of an integrated regional transport and communications strategy covering urban and rural areas, in order to ensure that the regions benefit from the opportunities created by the major networks. Support for rail infrastructure should seek to ensure greater access. Track fees should facilitate access for independent operators. They should also enhance the creation of an EU-wide interoperable network. Compliance and applications of the interoperability and the fitting of ERTMS on board and on track should be part of all projects financed. Promoting environmentally sustainable transport networks. This includes public transport facilities (including park-and-ride infrastructures), mobility plans, ring roads, increasing safety at road junctions, soft traffic (cycle lanes, pedestrian tracks). It also includes actions providing for accessibility to common public transport services for certain target groups (the elderly, disabled persons) and providing distribution networks for alternative vehicle fuels. In order to guarantee the optimum efficiency of transport infrastructures for promoting regional development, attention should be paid to improving the connectivity of landlocked territories to the Trans- European network (TEN-T) ( ). In this respect, the development of secondary links, with a focus on intermodality and sustainable transport, should be promoted. In particular, harbours and airports should be connected to their hinterland. More attention should be paid to developing the motorways of the sea and to short-sea shipping as a viable alternative to long-distance road and rail transport. In addition the Guidelines give specific instructions with respect to the territorial dimension of Cohesion policy in stressing that Member States should pay particular attention to prevent uneven regional development and improve territorial integration and cooperation between and within regions. 14 Decision n. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April

45 6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments As indicated in the introduction a number of other factors determine the eventual prioritisation of transport investment priorities under the Commission s cohesion policy instruments. These will be subsequently elaborated. Cost-effectiveness Cost-effectiveness or value for money stands at the core of any sound investment programme. It is also fully embedded in the procedures and structure of the cohesion policy of the Commission in which cost-benefit assessments of proposed projects are standard procedure. Also EIB applies CBA as standard assessment methodology before granting new loans. The cost-effectiveness criterion is especially important if budget resources are limited. In this case cost-benefit analyses can be used to phase foreseen transport investment in time or to seek alternatives with a similar functionality that offer a higher value for money. Availability of other sources of financing A can be observed from the previous investment programmes other sources of finance should not be overlooked with respect to future transport investments Apart from public financing by the country itself important potential sources are: TEN-T budget EIB PPPs The Commission recently reached an agreement with the EP on future TEN-T financing. Total budget available is 7 bn for the coming programming period. Financing can be up to 20%. It should be noted however that this financing is only a fraction of total cohesion financing (e.g. Cohesion Fund financing for transport approximates 30 bn ), while TEN- T funds are valid for all EU members. It is expected that TEN-T funds will be focused on cross-border TEN-T projects. EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. Past involvement of EIB in Greece in the period totalled 7.5 bn (in loans). Which could hamper future involvement of EIB in Greece are the level of high public debt (109% of GDP in 2004) and the high public deficit (-6.6% of GDP in 2004). PPPs are explicitly mentioned in the Community Strategic Guidelines as a possible appropriate method of financing investment when there is significant scope for involving the private sector. Apart from the financial leverage positive impacts are expected on implementation and management of projects. Experience with private involvement in transport infrastructure in the form of PPPs has been limited until now. However, following the successful implementation of three major PPP projects (Athens Airport, the Rion-Antirrion Bridge in Patras and the Athens Bypass) 15, PPP has become widely acceptable in the construction of newly planned road axes. 15 All three projects included EIB involvement through loans 39

46 The current business climate in Greece is expected to be sufficiently open not to hamper PPPs. In summary, other financing sources are expected to relevant for the following areas: Table 6.1 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding Source TEN-T EIB PPP & private capital Destination TEN projects, especially cross border sections Motorways and to a lesser extent railways Income generating transport investments: ports, airports, logistic centres, toll roads (and bridges) Appropriateness of the transport policy In principle Greek transport policy appears to correspond with the main directions of the EU transport policy. With respect to pricing the motorway network has a long tradition of tolling. Also other mechanisms are in place to charge road user for the development and maintenance of the transport system. Regulation still exists in rail transport and inter-island sea transport although certain deregulation has taken place with respect to the latter sub-sector. An important development is the development of competition on most island connections. Competition in rail transport appears to be absent. During the last years some progress was made in favour of the deregulation in the transport sector. Air transports operate in an open environment, rail are under reform due to the new liberalized environment, while short-sea shipping (cabotage) is not yet fully deregulated. Pricing policy, PSO and crew composition are still subjects of some regulations that phase out gradually. Although considerable improvements have been reached, continued attention for road safety, which is still below the EU average, is required. Railway modernisation and linking the railway network to other parts of the transport system remains an important focus in the light of promoting more environmentally friendly transport. Increased attention to the role of Strategic Environmental Assessments is required for the next programming period. Administrative capacity The Management Authority (MA) of OP RAPUD was formed in early 2001 and is directly accountable to the General Secretary for Public Works (GSPW) of the Ministry of environment, Physical Planning & Public Works (MEPPPW). The MA consists of 4 units. The units have been assigned distinct roles and are supervised by the Head of the Authority. At the moment, the MA employs 27 persons of higher education, 2 persons of technological education and 5 high school graduates. 40

47 A variety of IAs is involved in carrying out the projects listed in the Programme s Measures. The General Secretariat for Public Works, responding to identified requirements for the modernisation of IAs, has formed new entities for each group of projects. There are three types of IAs involved in OP RAPUD: S.A. (state-controlled) companies, Special Authorities for Public Works and MEPPPW Directorates. The main beneficiaries of all projects included in the OP s Measures is the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning & Public Works and the Ministry of Merchant Marine. The MA of OP RAPT was formed in early 2001 and is directly accountable to the General Secretary of the Ministry of Transport & Communications (MTC). Its structure is precisely similar to that of OP RAPUD MA. At the moment, the MA employs 21 persons of higher education. Overall, the MA employs 26 persons, of which 14 have come from the public sector and 12 were recruited from MOU S.A. The affiliated (subsidiary) company of OSE, ERGOSE represents the IA for railway projects. ERGOSE human resources mainly consist of high-expertise scientific personnel. The main beneficiary of the OP is OSE (Hellenic Railways Organisation), and the Ministry of Transports and Communications. Although the establishment of a separate project organisation is positively assessed, the experience with EU co-financed railway projects in the past has indicated that the institutional/management capacity of the railways has been poor, until this moment. Although recent restructuring of the railway sector (into a railway infrastructure manager and a operating company) may forebode a positive change in this respect for the next programming period, this still has to be realised. Paying Authority (PA) was formed in the end of The PA is common for CSF, CF and other EU co-funding initiatives. It is directly accountable to the General Secretary for Investment and Development of the MNEC. The PA consists of three Units, namely Unit A for financing flows, Unit B for control issues and Unit C for technical/administrative support. In general it is assessed that the manning and quality of staff of MA and PA is adequate and sufficiently experienced in transport issues and EU-related procedures. The projects are implemented by the final beneficiaries among which are ERGOSE, a subsidiary of the Greek Railways Organisation, EGNATIA ODOS and EYDE PATHE. These are specific organisations set up to manage EU co-funded projects. This has greatly improved the management of projects. Assessment A number of weaknesses can be identified in the administrative capacity of Greece 16. Main issues are: Deficiencies in project preparation leading to significantly delayed conduction of studies, over-optimistic planning, costly and insufficient expropriations, as well as a general state of late-start projects due to immature conditions (preliminary delays often exceed 4 years), have constituted common problems. 16 See also ECORYS, Ex-post evaluation Cohesion Fund, and Global View/Speed, Mid Term Evaluation of OP RAPT of CSF ( ). 41

48 Deficiencies in the tendering process (time consuming tender and contract award procedures, lack of standard tender documents, technical specifications and prices analysis); Low standard of monitoring & control from responsible authorities. Although this latter shows some improvement as a result of stricter standards that are applied as a result of bilateral agreements between national and Community authorities. Room for improved information systems. Overlapping responsibilities. The responsible authorities for transports in Greece are three ministries (MERPPW, MMM, MTT) with parallel, complementary and sometimes overlapping responsibilities. So, the development of a Strategic Transport Plan, involves four Ministries (plus MNEC) with several Bureaus and Secretariats. Capacity of final beneficiaries to deal with the strict and demanding managing rules. Especially in the first programming period this has led to frequent problems and low absorption rates. Essential improvements have been applied institutionally and in the legislative environment, although it should be noted that this process is still ongoing. Based on the available information a tentative risk assessment has been prepared with respect to the administrative capacity in Greece. This assessment has been summarized in table 6.2. Moderate to high levels indicate that additional attention should be paid to this aspect in the implementation of the programme. Table 6.2 Risk assessment administrative capacity Sector Risk level Explanation Overall Moderate Project preparation, tendering & contracting, and monitoring Roads Low Motorways low risk due to extensive experience PATHE & EGNATIA. Rail Moderate/high ERGOSE: increased efficiency in contract management and tendering should be aimed at. Risks in contract management and commitment in OSE. Ports Moderate Strongly depending on experience of port under consideration. Ports with ltd experience in large scale projects are assessed as having a high risk Airports Moderate/low Previous airport projects have a positive track record regarding the larger airports of Athens and Thessaloniki. Urban transport moderate/low Successful implementation of different projects in past period. Risk dependent on specific scope of project and experience of final beneficiary. 42

49 7 Impact Assessment of scenarios 7.1 Introduction This chapter assesses different scenarios with respect to their impacts on three different (EU) policy objectives: Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion Environmental sustainability In addition the impacts are assessed on the Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3). First the methodological approach is described, including the SASI model that has been used to assess the impacts. Next the scenarios are described, followed by a presentation of the impacts. 7.2 Methodology The SASI model The impacts are assessed with the support of the SASI model. The SASI model is a recursive-dynamic simulation model of socio-economic development of 1330 regions in Europe. The model was developed to assess socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport infrastructure investment and transport system improvements. Is has been applied and validated in several large EU projects including the IASON and ESPON projects. The SASI model differs from other forecasting models of regional development by modelling not only production (the demand side of labour markets) but also population (the supply side of labour markets). Regional production by industry is forecast by regional production functions containing production factors capital, labour, regional endowment and accessibility. Regional population is forecast by a demographic model including fertility, mortality and migration. The SASI model is specifically relevant for projects that serve a function on a European level (e.g. the TEN projects). Such projects cannot be adequately evaluated using traditional cost-benefit analysis on a national scale, since they are less able to capture the international effect and the indirect effects occurring in non-transport sectors See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended European Union. 43

50 Figure 7.1 Main structure of the SASI model SASI Model The reference network To assess the impacts of new transport investments a reference scenario has been prepared. This mainly implies an adjustment of the transport network in the SASI model 18. The dynamic network database of SASI is based on highly detailed pan- European transport networks with respect to: Roads (including short-sea shipping) Rail (including ferries) Air (including regional airports). Network calculations are based on travel times or generalised costs including border waiting times and (political, economic cultural and language) barriers. The reference network has been updated based on the most recent information from the countries on implementation schedules and alignment with respect to TEN and national transport projects (also information on toll is included). The reference network includes all projects that are already under construction and will be operational in at latest In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in Further European integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers between countries. 18 Which relies on the trans-european transport network database developed by IRPUD (2003) and now maintained and further developed by RRG (2005) 44

51 7.3 Scenarios Impacts have been assessed for different scenarios to be able to compare the outcomes and draw conclusions on the different impacts. Although the study aims to identify strategic areas for investment priorities these areas need to be translated into projects to enable the SASI model to assess impacts. As a result assumptions have been made on projects within the scenarios. These projects have not been listed separately as this would distract the discussion from strategic priorities to projects. Where possible, these projects are based on existing planned projects and related cost estimates 19. Where no existing data existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure needs assessments 20. In all scenarios, after 2016 no further transport projects are implemented. However, it is assumed that European integration proceeds as in the Reference Scenario. In addition to the Reference scenario, two major scenarios have been distinguished: The Maximum Scenario, which comprises a listing of possible projects 21 which have been identified in the respective countries; The Balanced Scenario, which applies a budget restriction (with in parallel an assessment of additional financing opportunities). Projects are prioritised on the basis of their benefit-cost ratio and their contribution to specific objectives and needs (sustainability, regional disparity, and contribution to accessibility 22 ). On the basis of the maximum scenario, two sub-sets are determined: the Maximum Road Scenario and the Maximum Rail Scenario which illustrates the differential impact of rail versus road projects. The Maximum Scenario The Maximum Scenario is based on an extensive listing of possible investment projects that have been identified by the national project partners in the project. Where relevant these projects lists have been extended with projects that have been identified on the basis of existing network analyses and studies 23, projects identified on the basis of interviews that have been carried out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified on the basis of the needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the red flag analysis). This results in a scenario of all TEN priority projects and additional national projects that are planned to be constructed (or start with construction) in the period and which are operational by An important notion with respect to the maximum scenario is that no budget restriction is applied This can be national studies or information, information on TEN priority projects 2005 (EU 2005), or recent studies on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006). E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC The impact assessment in SASI has only been done on a selected set of road and rail projects. This is done because these sub-sectors in general will receive the majority of funding and an assessment of their impacts can be done without having to go into too much project detail. It is assessed that this approach gives sufficient feedback on the potential impacts. Are projects solving missing links in the network? For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006). 45

52 Within the Maximum Scenario two specific sub-sector scenarios are distinguished: The Maximum Road Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed road projects including cross-border transport corridors. The Maximum Rail Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed rail projects including cross-border transport corridors. The Balanced Scenario The Balanced Scenario starts from the Maximum Scenario. First, an assessment is made of the available EU funding in comparison to the total budget requirements of the projects. If a budget restriction applies projects are selected and prioritised 24 on the basis of a number of criteria: Cost -benefit ratio. Are projects in this field expected to deliver value for money (socio-economic rate of return 25 )? Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both on a European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport corridors, secondary connections to backbone network)? Sustainability. Do interventions facilitate modal shift to more environmentally friendly transport modes; Territorial cohesion. Is there a contribution to improving the accessibility of more backward regions; Safety. Do measures contribute to improved transport safety. The assessment in this respect draws strongly on the finding in Part A of the report (SWOT-analysis of the transport system and red flag analysis). Finally, an assessment is made to which extent other financing sources could play a role. In this respect especially the potential of EIB involvement and PPP is included (see also Chapter 6): Other sources of finance. Are projects able or likely to attract other sources of finance? In those cases application for EU financing might not be necessary. In addition, the possible impact of limitations in the administrative capacity and changes in the pricing policy (if large distortions exist in this respect) are taken into account. Table 7.1 gives an overview of the criteria that have been applied for the sub-sectors road and rail In the calculations in certain countries this leads to the elaboration of an interim scenario, which is called the Restricted scenario (strict application of the budget restriction, i.e. no other sources of finance). Based on TEN-STAC 46

53 Table 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment Sub sector Costeffectiveness Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety of finance Other sources Railway: - Modernisation rail Patras-Athens corridor Modernisation rail axis 22 (Thitorea- 0 0 Domokos) - Rail extension to (heart of) Alexandroupoli 0 0 port Road: - construction of missing links PATHE 0 - Connections of VIA Egnatia to neighbouring - countries - Complete missing link on Crete E-W 0 0 motorway - Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia- - Lamia/Larissa-Volos) - Via Ionia (Ioannina-Antirio-Rio-Patra-Pirgos- - Kalamata) Legend: positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion Railways In the railway sector modernisation of the existing railway network is expected to yield the highest benefits for the country as this will directly increase the attractivity of the mode. This includes both the modernisation of the railway network itself (e.g. electrification, rolling stock), but also the institutional organisation and deregulation of the railway sector (including the deregulation in rail freight transport). New rail construction in Greece should be treated with care as the morphology of the country leads to (very) high costs and intrinsic low speeds of rail transport. The main focus of new rail development should be placed at connecting the existing rail network to the main ports (including the construction of terminals), with the view to increase to possibilities for multimodal transport in Greece. Roads Although the road sector has received much attention in past investment programmes motorway density in Greece still remains relatively low in a European perspective 26. Given the high costs of building roads in mountainous terrain it is advised to focus on the 26 In relation to population density and GDP per region as measured by the Accessibility Problem Index (see chapter 3), the position of Greece is closer to the European average, which can be mainly contributed to the fact that the large population centres are relatively well connected. 47

54 completion of a backbone network which serves as an arterial network in the country and links the country to neighbouring countries. Within this concept the construction of missing links in the PATHE and Egnatia motorways should receive clear attention, including the construction of connections to neighbouring countries. Also the upgrading to motorway standard of the Via Ionia and the Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia-Lamia/Larissa-Volos) should be considered in this respect. Further road development should be directed at connecting regions to the backbone trunk network through the secondary road network. Specific attention should be paid in this respect to the accessibility of large urban centres (Thessaloniki and Athens) and areas which house main economic functions that require transport accessibility (e.g. ports, multimodal logistics centres and freight villages) and more peripheral regions. Table 7.2 gives on overview of the assessment which areas for the road and rail projects can be (potentially) financed by other sources. Table 7.2 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB PPP Railway: - Modernisation rail Patras-Athens corridor - Modernisation rail axis 22 (Thitorea-Domokos) - Rail extension to (heart of) Alexandroupoli port Road: - construction of missing links PATHE - Connections of VIA Egnatia to neighbouring countries - Complete missing link on Crete E-W motorway - Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia- Lamia/Larissa-Volos) - Via Ionia (Ioannina-Antirio-Rio-Patra-Pirgos- Kalamata) Location of projects Figures 7.2 and 7.3 show the location of the expected projects under the Maximum (Road and Rail) and Balanced Scenarios that have been included in the impact analysis. Within the Road sector there is no distinction between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios. 48

55 Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios TEN priority road projects - Motorway Athens - Thessaloniki - Dual carriageway Thessaloniki - Kulata - Motorway Patras - Athens - Dual carriageway northern Crete National road projects - Motorway Ktismata - Ioannina - Motorway Krystallopigi - Siatista - Dual carriageway Miki - Kozani - Dual carriageway Exochi - Drama - Dual carriageway Makaza -Komotini - Motorway Panagia - Lamia/Larissa-Volos - Motorway Ioannina - Antirio - Rio - Patras - Pirgos - Kalamata - Road Echinos - Bulgaria 49

56 Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios TEN priority rail projects - Igoumenitsa - Kalambaka - Kozani - Antirrio - Ioannina - Platiyiali - Rio - Patras - Kalamata - Tithorea-Lianokladi - Domokos National rail projects - Patras - Kiato 50

57 7.4 Impact assessment The impacts of the balanced transport scenario are measured as differences between the Balanced Scenario and Reference Scenario. These impacts are evaluated with respect to the strategic objectives: Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion, and Environmental sustainability The following objectives have been identified to describe the impact on the different policy objectives: Table 7.3 Strategic objectives and related indicators Objective Indicator Level Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion Average speed of interregional road trips (kph) Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph) GDP per capita (Euro) Primacy rate population (%) Primacy rate GDP (%) Gini coefficient 27 of accessibility (0-100) Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100) National, regional average National, regional average National, regional average National National National National Environmental sustainability Share of interregional rail trips (%) National, regional average It should be realised that these spatial impacts are long term effects, as: Location decision of firms result in changes in economic activity and employment only after some time; Secondary effects of economic activity (i.e. attraction of other firms) take even longer. This is accounted for in the SASI model by time delays of one to five years. In order to take due account of the long-term spatial impact of transport infrastructure investments in the period , the target year for the model simulations is set at Overall Impacts Table 7.4 presents the impacts of the proposed priority transport investments on the above indicators. For each indicator the table shows the value of the indicator in 2006 and the indicators values of the five scenarios in The numbers in italics are the differences between the indicator values of the policy scenarios compared with those of the Reference Scenario in 2031 in percent. 27 The Gini coefficient is a measure which represents the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of indicator values between regions (i.e. equal indicator values in all regions). 51

58 Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (2031 impacts) Scenarios Objective Economic competitiveness Territorial cohesion Environmental sustainability Indicator Average speed of interregional road trips (kph) Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph) Reference Maximum Road Maximum Rail Maximum Balanced % % GDP per capita (Euro) 28 13,739 21,548 21, % Primacy rate (%) population % Primacy rate (%) GDP % Gini coefficient 29 of accessibility (0-100) Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100) Share of interregional rail trips (%) % % % % % 21, % % % % % % % % 21, % % % % % % % % 21, % % % % % % Table 7.4 indicates that the economic impacts of the scenarios on Greece are not very large but also not negligible. The transport improvements of the policy scenarios increase the average income in Greece by up to 80 Euro per capita per year. This effect is equally due to road and rail investments (even though the improvements in rail speed are larger than those of road speed). The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact on the spatial structure of the country, are negligible. The model expects the Athens agglomeration, which contains more than on third of the national population, to decline in population in line with the overall population decline in Greece, so that its share of the national population remains about the same. The Athens region is even more dominant as economic centre. According the SASI forecasts, this dominance is likely to decrease as other regions catch up in development. However, these trends are not significantly changed by any of the transport infrastructure scenarios. The Gini coefficients of both accessibility and GDP per capita both show a slight convergence effect as a result of both road and rail projects. The sustainability effects of the policy scenarios in terms of increased rail share are significant. If only rail projects were implemented as in the Maximum Rail Scenario, rail use would increase by more than a quarter. However, if also the planned road projects are implemented as in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, this effect is much reduced by the growth in road travel, but still substantial The GDP per capita value for 2006 is not an official statistic but a result of the SASI model based on regional GDP per capita statistics for 2001 by Eurostat. Regional GDP is forecast in the SASI model in terms of international exchange value; in purchasing power standards all GDP figures for Greece would be about twice as high. The Gini coefficient is a measure which represents the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of indicator values between regions (i.e. equal indicator values in all regions). 52

59 Regional impacts Figures 7.3 to 7.6 show the spatial distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in the regions of Greece in the target year Figure 7.3 shows GDP per capita of the regions in the Reference Scenario in the year Because of the growth in GDP per capita a different colour scale as in Figure 3.2 had to be used. It can be seen that according to the model the gap in income between Greece and the neighbouring Balkan countries has remained substantial, despite Bulgaria's accession to the EU in Apart from the higher level, the spatial distribution of GDP per capita within Greece is similar to the distribution in 2006 shown in Figure 3.2. Figures 7.4 and 7.5 show the effects of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the distribution of GDP per capita. The impact maps show the percentage differences in GDP per capita between the policy scenarios and the Reference Scenario. The more intense the green shade, the higher the impact. The transport infrastructure investments mainly benefit the western regions along the Ionian Sea due to the road and rail projects there, the regions in the northern Peloponnese due to the Athens-Patras motorway and the regions in the far north-east at the Bulgarian and Turkish border due to the new motorway link to Bulgaria from Komotini. The gain in GDP in the regions around Ioannina in the Balanced Scenario is less than in the Maximum Scenario because the new rail line Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani is not included in the Balanced Scenario. Figure 7.3 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005), Reference Scenario,

60 Figure 7.4 Impact on GDP per capita, Maximum Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita, Balanced Scenario,

61 Figures 7.6 to 7.8 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips). Figure 7.6 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3 regions of Greece (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031, i.e. without road or rail improvements. The spatial distribution of rail use resembles that of average rail speed (see Figures 3.5 and 3.6) with higher rail use in the regions in central Greece and the Thessaloniki area and the north-east. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. Here, too, the reversed traffic light colour scale is used; green indicates a higher and red a lower share of rail trips than in the Reference Scenario. The distribution of impacts follows the distribution of road and rail projects (See Figures 7.2 and 7.3). In the Maximum Scenario all central regions, including the Patras region on the Peloponnese, improve in terms of rail use. In the Balanced Scenario the regions in the north-west gain less because the Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani rail line is not built. The same happens in the Balanced Scenario in the south of the Peloponnese if the Patras-Kalamata line is not built. In the north-east of the country, where there are only road improvements, the share of rail trips declines. Figure 7.6 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Reference Scenario,

62 Figure 7.7 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Maximum Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Balanced Scenario,

63 Finally the impacts of the policy scenarios on the composite Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3) are shown to examine in how far the transport projects contribute to solving the accessibility problems identified in the red-flag analysis. As it was noted in Chapter 3, road accessibility in Greece is close to the European average but rail accessibility is significantly below (Figures 3.4 and 3.6). Figures 7.9 and 7.10 show the Accessibility Problem Index for road and rail in the year 2031 in the Reference Scenario from a European perspective. It should be remembered that in the Reference Scenario no new road or rail projects are started after The comparison with Figures 3.4 and 3.6 shows that despite of this accessibility has improved in many regions due to the ongoing European integration, including the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, which has led to shorter border waiting times and reduced trade barriers. Figure 7.9 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Road. Now most regions in central Greece are shaded light green, i.e. their accessibility has improved to above the European average, and some other regions are shaded yellow, i.e. have moved closer to the European average. Needless to say that the accessibility of the islands continues to be very poor. Figure 7.10 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Rail. Here the effects of European integration are weaker. It can be seen that without rail improvements most parts of Greece would remain poorly served by rail. Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show the impacts of the Balanced Scenario on the Accessibility Problem Index in Greece seen from a European perspective. Compared to the Reference Scenario in 2031 (Figure 7.9), road accessibility has further improved so that most regions in Greece, except the congested capital city region, are now above the European average (Figure 7.11). Even larger, but more focused, improvements occur in the rail system. The largest improvements are along the improved sections of the rail line between Athens and Thessaloniki in the Lamia and Larissa regions as well in the Patras region on the Peloponnese (Figure 7.12). 57

64 Figure 7.9 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Reference Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Reference Scenario,

65 Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Balanced Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Balanced Scenario,

66 Table 7.5 summarises the effects of the four scenarios on the Accessibility Problem Index: index values above one indicate accessibility problems, whereas index values below one indicate above-average performance. Table 7.5 Accessibility Problem Index, Greece, 2031 Scenarios Roads Rail Mode Level Reference Maximum Road Maximum Rail Maximum Balanced National % European % National % European % % % % % % % % % % % % % The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are significant improvements in both road and rail accessibility between 2006 and 2031 already in the Reference Scenario through the effects of European integration, including the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, in the form of reduced waiting times and other barriers. There are significant further improvements to the road network in Greece if the envisaged road projects are implemented as in the Maximum Road and Maximum Scenarios. The improvements in rail accessibility in the Maximum Rail and the Maximum Scenarios are even larger. Because the Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani rail line is not included in the Balanced Scenario, the improvements in rail accessibility in the Balanced Scenario are smaller. 60

67 7.5 European effects The effects of transport infrastructure improvements are not confined to the country in which the construction work actually occurs but reach across borders into neighbouring countries. The SASI model forecasts these effects. To demonstrate this on the following two pages maps of the spatial distribution of the impacts of the transport infrastructure investments in Greece are shown (Figures 7.13 to 7.16). The four maps show the difference between the Balanced Scenario and the Reference Scenario in 2031 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.4: average speed of interregional road trips (Figure 7.13), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.14), GDP per capita (Figure 7.15) and share of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.16). It can be seen that because of its geographical position at the European periphery, the main impacts occur in Greece itself and only marginal effects spread beyond its national borders. The most notable effects are the combined impacts of the road and rail projects in Greece on the share of rail trips. The improvements on sections of the Athens-Thessaloniki rail line result in higher shares of rail use in Greece's northern neighbours Macedonia, Kosovo, Bulgaria and parts of Romania. However, the effects of the road improvements in Greece are felt in an even wider area, resulting in lower shares of rail use in large parts of south-eastern Europe. As these reductions in rail travel are not counted in the Greek average in Table 7.4, the net effect for Greece is positive. 61

68 Figure 7.13 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.14 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario,

69 Figure 7.15 GDP per capita: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031 Figure 7.16 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario,

70 8 Conclusions on investment priorities 8.1 Introduction Based on the previous analysis the main areas for transport investments that would merit EU funding in the period have been identified. It should be emphasized that this is based on an analysis that has been carried out at strategic level. Although the areas identified are expected to result in high potential projects they should still be subjected to the regular cost-benefit analysis at a project level before being finally selected. 8.2 Transport investment priorities The identified priority areas for future investment are described per sub-sector. These priority areas are assessed on a number of criteria (see table 8.1). It should be noted it is expected for Greece that part of the budget needs to be reserved for completing projects that already started in the current programming period ( ). Table 8.1 Assessment of priority areas Sub sector Costeffectiveness Accessibility Sustainability Cohesion Territorial Safety of finance Other sources Railways: - Modernisation of rail - Improving rail connections to ports Roads: - Completion/missing links backbone motorway network - Connections to neighbouring countries - Accessibility urban areas 0 0/- - 0/ / Ports - Enhance rail connections in ports - Port development in key ports 0/ 0/ Urban Public Transport - High quality urban transport in major cities 0/ 0 Legend: positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion 64

71 Railways With respect to land transport on the mainland of Greece, the morphology of the country puts it in a relatively difficult position with respect to rail transport. The analyses reveal that rail accessibility in Greece is relatively poor from a European perspective. However, the mountainous area makes rail transport relatively unattractive (slow speed) and expensive (high investment costs). Another development which is of utmost importance is the further restructuring of the rail sector through enhanced deregulation and liberalisation. The current efficiency of the rail service is low and the existing railway network is heavily underused (even stronger for freight than for passengers). Where possible competition should be allowed (this will be required for freight as from 2007 as part of the 2 nd Railway Package). The interconnection (to the ports) and modernisation of the existing rail network is of high importance to improve the competitiveness of rail vis-à-vis road transport. The modernisation of the rail network include the construction of double tracks, high(er) speed (less level crossings) and electrification. In the implementation of projects the administrative capacity of the railways sector needs to be improved. The current institutional/management capacity is reported to be poor. This leads to a higher risk on failure within projects. This may be further aggravated by the current restructuring of OSE into a railway Infrastructure manager and a Railway Operating Company (although this will improve the situation on the longer run). One option would be to outsource the management of the projects or to further strengthen the capacity of ERGOSE. Roads The geographical location of Greece within Europe places it at the end of several international corridors. From an international perspective the country places a role in creating East-West connections between the EU and Asia. The situation in the Balkan and the economic development of Central and Eastern Europe directly influences transport demand and transport system requirements in Greece. In future this is expected to lead to an increased importance of the interconnecting role of especially the road network in Greece. Thus the focus of investment should be directed at the completion of the backbone motorway network in Greece, with a focus on the construction of missing links and the construction of connections to neighbouring countries (Balkans & Bulgaria). Greece clearly has discovered the possibility of PPPs in these projects, which are successful in motorway construction both in terms of quality of the projects and in leveraging additional sources of finance. Further road development should be directed at connecting regions to the trunk network through the secondary road network. This includes connecting centres of economic activity (ports, urban areas, railway nodes) to the Egnatia and PATHE motorways. The axes have to be developed into a real network. In the development of the network specific attention should be paid to the accessibility of large urban centres (Thessaloniki and Athens) and more peripheral regions. Improvement of the road network clearly contributes to road safety which is a point of attention in Greece. 65

72 Ports Domestically the island character of Greece favours the development of ports and airports, on the one hand to cater tourism development in the country and on the other hand to facilitate freight transport (especially through the ports). An adequate port system which is well connected to the inland transport system (rail and road) is essential in this respect. In this respect especially the key ports connecting Greece to the rest of Europe would deserve attention. Main focus would be to provide good hinterland connections and measures and activities which further improve the port efficiency and thus the competitiveness of the Greek ports. The recent process of corporatisation and privatisation of the main ports will also contribute to a further improvement of port efficiency in due term, especially when this is combined with more (international) competition within the ports (e.g. in terminal operation). Also in the port sector this could serve as a means to leverage additional sources of finance. Intermodal logistics centres Connecting the different mode networks is essential to facilitate intermodal transport. Also the establishment of multimodal logistics centres a main transfer point is necessary in this respect. With the adoption of a new law on the establishment of freight centres in summer 2005 and important step has been taken in this respect. The next step will be the actual development of a network of these centres around economic areas which are served by different modes and take care that these centres are connected to the networks. EU funding could be directed at facilitating the establishment of these centres for example through the construction of the connecting infrastructure. Urban Public transport Within the urban agglomerations which are faced with heavy congestion the development of public transport systems clearly offers room to alleviate transport problems. Whereas Athens has shown a beneficial development in this respect the city of Thessaloniki (the second urban conglomeration of Greece) would merit specific attention in this respect. Also projects involving modern IT based traffic management systems and passenger information systems (for urban transport) should be considered to alleviate urban congestion. 66

73 Annex A: TEN-T priorities Table A.1. TEN priority projects and major Swiss projects No. TEN project Completion 1 Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo Halle/Leipzig-Nurnberg (2015) - Nurnberg-Munich (2006) - Munich-Kufstein (2015) - Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009/2012) - Brenner tunnel (2015) - Verona-Naples (2007) - Milan-Bologna (2008) - Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015) 2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London Channel tunnel-london (2007) - Brussels/Brussels-Liege-Cologne (2007) - Brussels/Brussels-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007) 3 High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe Lisbon/Porto-Madrid (2015), including: - Lisbon-Porto (2013) - Lisbon-Madrid (2010) - Aveiro-Salamanca (2015) - Madrid-Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2009) - Perpignan-Montpellier (2009) - Montpellier-Nimes (2015) - Madrid-Vitoria-Irún/Hendaye (2010) - Irún/Hendaye-Dax (2015) - Dax-Bordeaux (2020) - Bordeaux-Tours (2015) 67

74 No. TEN project Completion 4 High-speed railway axis east Paris-Baudrecourt (2007) - Metz-Luxembourg (2007) - Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007) 5 Betuwe line Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divača/Koper-Divača-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian border Lyon-St Jean de Maurienne (2015) - Mont-Cenis tunnel (2018) - Bussoleno-Turin (2011) - Turin-Venice (2011) - Venice-Ronchi Sud-Trieste-Divača (2015) - Koper-Divača-Ljubljana (2012) - Ljubljana-Budapest (2015) 7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athens-Sofia-Budapest Via Egnatia (2006) - Pathe (2008) - Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010) - Nadlac-Sibiu motorway (branch to Bucharest and Constanza) (2007) 8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe Railway La Coruňa-Lisbon-Sines (2009) - Railway Lisbon-Valladolid (2015) - Railway Lisbon-Faro (2006) - Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (2010) - La Coruña-Lisbon motorway (2005) - Seville-Lisbon motorway (completed 2001) - New Lisbon airport (2015) 9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed Malpensa Airport completed Öresund fixed link completed

75 No. TEN project Completion 12 Nordic triangle railway/road axis Road and railway projects in Sweden (2015) - Helsinki-Turku motorway (2009) - Railway Kerava-Lahti (2006) - Helsinki-Vaalimaa motorway (2015) - Railway Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2015) 13 UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis West coast main line Galileo (not included in reference scenario, only mentioned here for consistency) Freight railway axis Sines/Algeciras-Madrid-Paris New high-capacity rail axis across the Pyrenees (2020) - Railway Sines-Badajoz (2010) - Railway line Algeciras-Bobadilla (2010) 17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015) - Stuttgart-Ulm (2012) - Munich-Salzburg (2015) - Salzburg-Vienna (2012) - Vienna-Bratislava (2012) 18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis Rhine-Meuse (2019) - Lanaken lock (2011) - Vilshofen-Straubing (2013) - Wien-Bratislava (2015) - Palkovicovo-Mohács (2014) - Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011) 19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula Madrid-Andalusia (2020) - North-east (2020) - Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2020) - North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2020) - Extremadura (2020) 69

76 No. TEN project Completion 20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis Fehmarn Belt fixed rail/road link (2015) - Railway for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015) - Railway for access in Germany from Hamburg ( Railway Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015) 21 Motorways of the sea motorway of the Baltic Sea (2010) - motorway of the sea of western Europe (2010) - motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (2010) - motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (2010) 22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden Railway Greek/Bulgarian border-kulata-sofia-vidin/calafat (2015) - Railway Curtici-Brasov (towards Bucharest and Constanta) (2013) - Railway Budapest-Vienna (2010) - Railway Břeclav-Prague-Nürnberg (2016) - Railway axis Prague-Linz (2017) 23 Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna Railway Gdansk-Warsaw-Katowice (2013) - Railway Katowice-Břeclav (2010) - Railway Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n.v. (2015) 24 Railway axis Lyons/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp Lyon-Mulhouse-Mülheim (2018) - Genoa-Milan/Novara-Swiss border (2013) - Basel-Karlsruhe (2015) - Frankfurt-Mannheim (2015) - Duisburg-Emmerich (2015) - 'Iron Rhine' Rheidt-Antwerp (2010) 25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011) - Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010) - Brno-Vienna motorway (2013) 70

77 No. TEN project Completion 26 Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe Ireland road/rail modernisation (2010) - Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (2020) - Railway Felixstowe-Nuneaton (2014) - Railway Crewe-Holyhead (2012) 27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki Warsaw-Kaunas (2010) - Kaunas-Riga (2014) - Riga-Tallinn (2018) 28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012) - Luxembourg- French border (2013) 29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012) - Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014) 30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016) - Compiègne-Cambrai (2016) CH1 Gotthard axis Zimmerberg tunnel (2011) - Gotthard tunnel (2015) - Ceneri tunnel (2015) CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015 Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005; Spiekermann & Wegener (Siwss projects) 71

78 Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects 72

79 Annex B: Accessibility red flag analysis To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model was used to assess the present and future situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives. Figure B.1 Main structure of the SASI model SASI Model To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required. Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the transport system and so always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to 73

80 the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision. This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union. To avoid this dilemma, a new accessibility indicator was defined which distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can demand to be able to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow flies") as the people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the utilitarian principle of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of densely populated regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only few inhabitants. And finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions with severe deficits in accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic effects by transport investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility. These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational tradeoff between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. The Accessibility Problem Index The indicator to be developed should have a number of properties to make it easy to understand and communicate to policy makers and stakeholders: - It should be a "problem indicator", i.e. high values should indicate large deficiencies in regional accessibility, whereas low values of the indicator indicate above-average levels of accessibility. - It should be standardised in order to be comparable between regions and countries, i.e. should not reflect the size or affluence of regions or countries. - It should be independent of the arbitrary or historically subdivision of the territory into regions, i.e. its magnitude should not change if a region is subdivided into two or more regions or if two or more regions are consolidated to one region. - It should be scalable, i.e. it should be possible to vary the impact of the weighting by population and inverse GDP to reflect different political priorities. 74

81 - It should allow to measure the development of accessibility over time. Based on these requirements, an indicator called Accessibility Problem Index was developed. The calculation of the Accessibility Problem Indicator proceeds in three steps: Average regional airline speed The first step in the development of the Accessibility Problem Index is the calculation of average regional airline speed. Average airline speed v rm of all trips f rsm from a region r to all other regions s in Europe by mode m in year t is defined as v rm ( t) = s s s P ( t)exp s P ( t)exp [ β f ( t) ] [ β f ( t) ] rsm rsm c rsm d rs ( t) / 60 (1) where P s (t) is regional population in year t, c rsm (t) is travel time in minutes between regions r and s by mode m in year t, β is the impedance parameter and d rs is airline distance in km between the central cities in regions r and s calculated from their geographical coordinates x r, y r and x s, y s by d rs ( x x ) ( y y ) 2 = (2) s 2 r s r Standardisation Next average regional airline speed, regional population and regional GDP are standardised as fractions of the average of all regions in the country (national perspective) or the average of all regions in Europe (European perspective). To neutralise the effect of region size, population is replaced by population density and GDP is replaced by GDP per capita. The benchmark for the standardisation of average regional airline speed is always the average of the base year t 0 = 2006 to show changes in accessibility: vrm ( t) Pr ( t 0 ) r v rm ( t) = (3) v ( t ) P ( t ) r rm 0 r 0 Pr ( t) Ar r p r ( t) = (4) A P ( t) r r r Gr ( t) Pr ( t) r g r ( t) = (5) P ( t) G ( t) r r r where A r is the area of region r and G r (t) is the GDP of region r. The v' rm (t), p' r (t) and g' r (t) then are the relative airline speed, relative population density and relative GDP per capita of region r in year t, respectively. Values below one indicate below-average airline 75

82 speed, population density and GDP per capita and values above one indicate above-average airline speed, population density and GDP per capita of the region. Index With these relative indicators, the Accessibility Problem Index q rm (t) of region r by mode m in year t can be formulated: [ ] 1 v ( t) [ p ( t) ] α [ g ( t ] γ qrm ( t) = rm r r ) (6) where α and γ are weights indicating the relative importance of population density and GDP per capita, respectively. Note that average regional airline speed and GDP per capita have negative weights, i.e. the Accessibility Problem Index expresses deficits in average regional airline speed relative to the national or European average weighted by population and economic weakness. The index has the following properties: - The higher the index the more severe is the deficiency in accessibility. - The influence of weights of population density and GDP per capita can be changed by changing α and β: values below one imply less influence, zero no weighting. - Regions with average airline speed, population density and GDP per capita have an index value of one. - Index values are independent of region size and are therefore comparable between regions and countries. - The index shows improvements in airline speed over time (and not only relative shifts between regions). Sensitivity tests with different values of α and γ showed that α = γ = 0.05 gave the most plausible results and a reasonable level of responsiveness of the Accessibility Problem Index to changes of accessibility due to European integration and European transport projects over time. The application of the Accessibility Problem Index for the evaluation of accessibility deficits in the country policy briefs use these values of α and γ throughout. The regions analysed were the NUTS-3 regions or equivalent regions in the 25 countries of the European Union plus the accession countries Bulgaria and Romania. The overseas regions of France and the island regions of the Azores and Madeira of Portugal and the Canary Islands of Spain were excluded from the analysis. The spatial distribution of the resulting values of the Accessibility Problem Index are presented in maps using a colour scale resembling that of a traffic light: green shades indicate average regional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow values indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades indicate speeds significantly lower than the national or European average. Regions shaded in red are the targets of the "red-flag" analysis. For each country first for road and then for rail the national and the European perspective are presented for the current situation (2006) and for The situation in 2016 is based 76

83 on a base scenario of the SASI model without the national projects, i.e. only with the TEN priority road and rail projects and selected transport projects in Switzerland. The assumed opening times of the individual projects are those of the 2004 TEN guidelines (European Union, 2004) 30 which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the individual countries (European Commission, 2005) European Union (2004): Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision No 1692/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network. Official Journal of the European Union L 201 (Corrigendum to L 167), European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority Axes and Projects Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 77