EX POST EVALUATION OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 2000-2006… · 2011-12-12 · Figure 6.1 Road safety case study work plan 47 Figure 7.1 Road link attributes 54 Figure 7.2 Rail passenger

First Intermediate Report

EX POST EVALUATION OFCOHESION POLICYPROGRAMMES 2000-2006.WORK PACKAGE 5A:TRANSPORT

Invitation to tender n.: 2008.CE.16.AT.017


August 2009

Prepared for: Prepared by:

European CommissionDirectorate General for Regional PolicyEvaluation Unit

Steer Davies Gleave28-32 Upper GroundLondonSE1 9PD

+44 (0)20 7919 8500www.steerdaviesgleave.com


1

Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION 4

Background to the project 4

The structure of the remainder of the report 4

2. THE STUDY REQUIREMENTS 6

1st Intermediate Report 7

3. TASK 1: DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES OF TRANSPORT SYSTEMDEVELOPMENT 8

Study requirements 8

Approach to task 1 9

Preparation of country reports 9

Features and challenges of the EU transport system 9

Transport programming strategy 19

Transport Investment 21

The role of the ERDF 23

ERDF strategies 24

4. TASK 2: COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE MAIN FINANCIALAND PHYSICAL OUTCOMES FROM ERDF INVESTMENTS 39


Approach to analysis 40

5. TASK 3: REGIONAL AND URBAN CASE STUDIES 42

Regional case studies - Study Requirements 42

Regional case studies - Approach 43

Good practice in urban transport - Study Requirements 45

Good practice in urban transport - Approach 45

6. TASK 4: CASE STUDIES ON SPECIFIC ISSUES 46


Approach to the Road Safety analysis 46

Approach to Regional airports analysis 47

7. TASK 5: PREPARATION OF DATA FOR WORK PACKAGE 8 49

Study Requirements 49

Approach 50

Further issues 55


2

FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Motorway network relative surface & population densities in 2005 12

Figure 3.2 railway network relative surface and population densities in 2005 13

Figure 3.3 Land transport demand (pass-km) index: 1995-2005 15

Figure 3.4 Freight transport demand (tonnes-km) index: 1995-2005 15

Figure 3.5 Modal shares for land-based transport modes in 2005: passenger 16

Figure 3.6 Modal shares for land-based transport modes in 2005: freight 17

Figure 3.7 Change in infrastructure endowement in EU25 1995-2005(1995=100) 18

Figure 3.8 Average yearly transport expenditure in programming period 23

Figure 3.9 Average yearly transport expenditure per capita in programmingperiod 23

Figure 3.10 Total ERDF expenditure - current prices 28

Figure 3.11 ERDF Objective 1 Expenditure - current prices 30

Figure 3.12 Objective 1 transport expenditure 31

Figure 3.13 ERDF Objective 2 expenditure - current prices 32

Figure 3.14 Objective 2 transport spending 33

Figure 3.15 Proportion between ERDF expenditure and allocation in EU25Member States 34

Figure 4.1 Operational programmes selection: overview 39

Figure 5.1 Selected regions 43

Figure 6.1 Road safety case study work plan 47

Figure 7.1 Road link attributes 54

Figure 7.2 Rail passenger attributes 55

Figure 7.3 Rail freight attributes 55

TABLES

Table 2.1 Member States covered by the study 6

Table 3.1 Road fatalities country ranking (2000-2007) 10

Table 3.2 Passenger and freight modal shares 1995-2005 14

Table 3.3 Transport Infrastructure in EU25 (1995-2005) - Kms 18

Table 3.4 Implementation of Action Priorities in 2005 20

Table 3.5 Total transport investment across Europe: 2000-2006 (€M) 22

Table 3.6 ERDF allocation by transport mode (% & absolute value) 35

Table 3.7 ERDF expenditure by transport mode (% & absolute value) 36


3

Table 7.1 Project list 49

APPENDICES

A TASK 1 NATIONAL REPORTS

B TASK 2.1 EXCEL TEMPLATE

C TASK 3 REGIONAL PILOT CASE STUDIES

D TASK 4 ROAD SAFETY TEMPLATE


4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Steer Davies Gleave is pleased to present this 1st Intermediate Report for the study of“Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by theEuropean Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work package 5a:Transport”.

1.2 In undertaking the study, we have drawn on our extensive pan-European experienceand contacts gained on multinational projects for the European Commission (theCommission) and other national as well as international clients.

Background to the project

1.3 The Commission provides regional funding to support less prosperous areas through anumber of programmes and initiatives such as the European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and the Cohesion Fund. Thisstudy is focused exclusively on the ERDF transport interventions through theObjective 1 and Objective 2 programmes. The responsibility for choosing individualpractical projects suitable for funding is the responsibility of the Member States alone,although the broad priorities and measures of a given programme are identified incooperation with the European Commission.

1.4 The two objectives of the ERDF are:

Objective 1 – the development of poorer regions (those whose GDP is below 75%of the Community average), remote regions and sparsely populated areas; and

Objective 2 – the development of areas with structural problems, divided intofour categories: industrial; rural; urban; and fishery-dependent.

1.5 Overall the ERDF allocated €123 billion (henceforth “B”) of funding to Objective 1and Objective 2 regions over the period 2000-2006 through 226 operationalprogrammes. Transport measures were included in 154 operational programmes, andwere assigned €34 B, i.e. some 27.5% of the total ERDF allocation given to Objective1 and Objective 2 programmes. 95% of the funds allocated to transport were given to18 Member States (reported in Table 2.1) which, for this reason, represent the core ofthis ex post evaluation, as explained in the following chapters.

1.6 For the purpose of this report all Member State names are in English. The names ofthe regions at NUTS 2 level and below as well as cities will be provided in theiroriginal language, (using Latin characters where necessary). In the event that aMember State as a whole is a NUTS 2 region (for example Malta and Lithuania) weuse the English language name.

The structure of the remainder of the report

1.7 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 sets out a brief summary of the study requirements, particularly inrelation to this specific report, and a brief overview of progress to date on thevarious tasks;

Chapter 3 sets out the details of our analysis under Task 1;


5

Chapter 4 sets out the work that has been undertaken on Task 2 and the nextsteps;

Chapter 5 sets out the progress to date and approach to Task 3; Chapter 6 explains the work that has been done to date on Task 4; Chapter 7 sets out the analysis and results of Task 5;

Chapter 8 provides an overview of the next steps for the project; Appendix A contains the national country reports for Task 1;

Appendix B includes the template excel spreadsheet for Task 2.1; Appendix C contains the Pilot Studies for Task 3;

Appendix D contains the template document for Task 4.


6

2. THE STUDY REQUIREMENTS

2.1 This chapter summarises briefly the study requirements for this project. The mainobjective of this study is to assess the contribution that the ERDF has made to thedevelopment of the EU transport system. The study is to focus on the Member Statesset out in the table below that together account for over 95% of the ERDF resourcesallocated to transport infrastructure. For the purposes of this report, they will beknown as “detailed” Member States.

TABLE 2.1 MEMBER STATES COVERED BY THE STUDY

Spain (ES) Greece (GR) Italy (IT) Germany (DE) Portugal (PT) Poland (PL)

Ireland (IE) France (FR) UK (UK) Hungary (HU) Czech Republic (CZ) Slovakia (SK)

Lithuania (LT) Latvia (LV) Sweden (SE) Belgium (BE) Netherlands (NL) Malta (MT)

2.2 The remaining Member States will only be looked at in certain sections of the analysisand for the purpose of this report, they will be known as “high-level” Member States.The study will often refer to the individual country codes of each Member State,primarily in tables and figures. Where this is the case the states will be presented inalphabetical order according to their country code.

2.3 The study is divided into a number of distinct tasks.

Task 1

2.4 Under this task we are required to provide a description of the development of thetransport systems in each of the 18 Member States to be analysed, assessing theinfluence of EU transport strategies on national transport policy and the evolution ofthe transport system in this period (including overall investment over the period) andproviding an outline of the ERDF strategy in each Member State. This will need to besupplemented by a short overview for the remaining Member States.

Task 2

2.5 This task includes the collection of information on the main financial and physicaloutcomes from the ERDF investments, focusing on the gathering of output indicatordata and, where feasible, results indicator information. The collection of thisinformation will need to take place not only through desk-based research, but alsothrough direct interviews with managing authorities in the countries concerned. Thistask also requires the codification of investment patterns according to interventionpatterns, as set out in the terms of reference. Having undertaken these two elementswe are required to compare the outcomes to the original targets forecast by theCommission in relation to the 11 national programmes set out in the followingchapter.

Task 3

2.6 This task involves the preparation of 15 regional case studies setting out the types ofprojects financed in the region, their rationale and their effectiveness, as well ashighlighting the differences between Objective 1 and 2 strategies.


7

2.7 As part of this task, we will also undertake mini case studies on good practice inUrban Transport. Specifically, three good practice examples need to be put forwardfrom the regional case studies. This will be done once the work on the regional casestudies is well underway.

Task 4

2.8 In addition to the regional case studies set out in the previous task, we will alsoundertake further case studies on specific issues: two case studies on road safety (onein Portugal and one in Poland) and two case studies looking at regional airports fundedby the ERDF.

Task 5

2.9 This task involves the preparation of data for Work Package 8 in a form necessary tobe inputted into the TRANS-Tools model. This will be based on the data collected inprevious tasks, additional information gathering (especially in terms of the UK,Hungary and the Czech Republic) and information provided by the Commission.

Task 6

2.10 Based on the analysis undertaken in the tasks listed above, we will then prepare a finalanalysis of the contribution of the ERDF to the development of the transport sector bysummarising the findings and making any relevant recommendations.

2.11 A more detailed breakdown of the study requirements is included in the terms ofreference.

1st Intermediate Report

2.12 The requirements specifically in relation to this report are to:

Complete Task 1 for each country; Complete Task 5, focusing on the major projects; and Prepare Pilot studies that are to be submitted to the European Commission for

Review.

2.13 This report provides the information for Tasks 1 and 5 and the Pilot Studies for Puglia,Andalucia and Attiki as well as providing an update on the remaining tasks.


8

3. TASK 1: DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES OF TRANSPORT SYSTEMDEVELOPMENT

Study requirements

3.1 This task requires an analysis to be undertaken for each of the EU25 Member States.However, this analysis has been divided into a more detailed review for 18 MemberStates and a high-level analysis for the remaining ones. For each of the 18 MemberStates that received the most funds (which also include Malta, which received asignificant proportion), we have undertaken a review of historical data on transportinvestment and funding and of the institutional arrangements in place. We have alsoprovided a description of the development of the transportation system in each case.

3.2 The focus of this task is to analyse and provide a summary of the development oftransport within each Member State during the programming period. The summaryincludes an assessment of how the ERDF contributed to this development and,critically, a description of how the transport system evolved and an analysis of howkey changes were financed overall.

3.3 The research for this task considered each of the following issues:

What the status and features of the transport system were at the start of theprogramming period in each of the identified Member States (that is: whathappened in the run-up to the start of the programming period and whatchallenges did the Member State face in terms of transport issues?);

What the general trends were in the development of transport systems over theprogramming period and what impact EU transport strategies had on thesetransport systems (that is: what did the national authorities do to meet thesechallenges in terms of policy actions?);

What was the overall investment made in the transport system during theprogramming period and how was it financed; and

What was the ERDF strategy for the development of transport policy in thenational and regional programmes (that is: how did the national strategy and theresulting investment relate to the aims of the European Union on transport issuesand how did ERDF funding contribute to this?).

3.4 For the remaining Member States, we provide a short overview of the sources offinancing for transport infrastructure and the role of the ERDF, as required by theterms of reference. This follows a common template for each Member State to ensureconsistency.

3.5 Having prepared the individual Member State notes, we have completed the analysisfor this task by preparing a short comparison of the Member States at EU level. This isbased on the contents and outcome of the individual notes, and reflects the differencesbetween Objective 1 and 2 regions.

3.6 Finally, the summary sets out the role of the ERDF in relation to investment intransport infrastructure, based on the results of the individual Member State analysisand our preliminary, high level, assessment of the contribution of funding in countryspecific areas.


9

3.7 Throughout the analysis in Task 1 and all the subsequent tasks, monetary amounts aregiven in real prices (taking 2000 as the base year), unless otherwise specified in theindividual tables. Given the information that is currently available in Member States,the financial and output/results-related information are provided up to the end of 2006,unless otherwise specified in individual tables. This ensures that the information thatwe provide is comparable to that included in Work Package 1.

Approach to task 1

3.8 In carrying out the analysis for task 1 we have focused primarily on undertaking desk-based research within the various Steer Davies Gleave offices in Europe. This researchhas been undertaken by staff members who have fluent or near fluent languagecompetencies for the majority of the languages in the Member States concerned. Forthose countries for which we do not have direct language capability, we have engageda translator to work with a transport specialist.

3.9 This information was subsequently supplemented by discussions with the relevantMinistries and Managing Authorities in each Member State to provide a full review ofthe information available.

Preparation of country reports

3.10 We have drafted all 25 of the country reports for the EU25 Member States accordingto the requirements set out above and following the pilot agreed with the Commission.These reports are included in Appendix A, while a comparison between the MemberStates is set out below.

Features and challenges of the EU transport system

Features

3.11 At the beginning of the 2000-06 programming period, an integrated Europeantransport system was still far from being achieved. Despite the opening-up of nationaltransport markets during the 1990s, the barriers to the free flow of passengers andgoods through the Member States remained, hindering the establishment of aEuropean internal market.

3.12 The lack of integration also affected national transport systems, as the policiestraditionally adopted by Member States did not sufficiently promote the developmentof synergies between transport modes. This was worsened by the continued budgetconstraints faced by both EU15 and EU10 Member States, which hindered theimplementation of innovative transport solutions and the upgrading of transportnetworks and services more reliant on public funding.

3.13 This situation resulted in the unchecked growth of road transport in all Member States,as road is less affected by the elements mentioned above1. However, this was not

1 Between 1995 and 2007, pkms transported by road increased in EU27 by 21%. In the same period, the increasefor buses and coaches and railways was respectively 7% and 12%. As far as freight transport is concerned,


10

without consequences, in terms of increased congestion and pollution, particularly inurban areas2. In addition, especially in Member States where the road network was notready to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes, this was also accompanied byworsening levels of road safety, as shown in the table below.

TABLE 3.1 ROAD FATALITIES COUNTRY RANKING (2000-2007)

Per million inhabitants Per 10 billion pkm Per million passenger cars

MemberState

2000 2007Member

State2000 2007

MemberState

2000 2007

MT 39 29 UK 56 44 MT 79 54

NL 68 43 SE 64 46 NL 165 97

UK 61 50 NL 77 47 UK 143 106

SE 67 51 MT 83 56 SE 148 111

DE 91 60 DE 90 56 DE 192 120

FI 77 72 FI 71 59 LU 278 135

DK 93 74 FR 115 62 IT 217 145

FR 137 75 LU 136 64 FR 271 148

IE 111 78 IT 97 64 FI 186 150

AT 122 83 DK 97 72 AT 238 164

ES 144 85 IE 131 80 ES 331 179

IT 124 86 BE 139 94 IE 314 182

LU 175 90 AT 146 94 DK 269 199

PT 184 92 ES 191 108 BE 314 213

BE 144 100 SI 154 125 PT 545 225

CY 161 114 PT 325 128 CY 415 227

SK 116 116 EL 323 158 CZ 432 291

CZ 145 118 CY 285 158 SI 361 293

HU 117 123 CZ 232 163 EL 638 338

RO 111 130 LT 247 187 EE 440 364

BG 124 131 EE 305 193 PL 630 399

EL 187 141 PL 420 229 HU 507 413

SI 157 145 LV 511 234 SK 493 453

EE 149 146 SK 262 235 LT 547 465

EU27 117 86 EU27 131 88 EU27 281 187

Source: DG TREN-Statistical pocket book

tonnes transported by road increased by about 50%, while tonnes transported by rail increased just by 17%.Source: DG TREN - Statistical pocket book

2 In 1995, in EU 27 there were 381 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants; in 2007, there were 464 (+21.7%). Inthe same period, the number of registered good vehicles increased by 45% (from 22.8M to 33.2M). Source: DGTREN - Statistical pocket book.


11

3.14 This situation specifically disadvantaged the most peripheral areas of the Community,traditionally suffering from low levels of accessibility both for passenger and freighttraffic, and was likely to affect the successful integration of the EU10 Member States,both from an economic and social point of view.

3.15 The figures on the following pages show the relative density of the motorway andrailway networks per km2 and per inhabitant in EU25 Member States in 2005compared to the EU25 average. The parameters have been computed normalising theMember State density to the related EU25 one, so that a value higher (lower) than 1indicates an infrastructural endowment higher (lower) than the EU25 average.

3.16 These indicators have been chosen because they allow a comparison of each countrywith respect to the average European infrastructure endowment. However, these chartsdo not give information about the quality of infrastructures and about regionaldisparities existing within each country. These are issues that are dealt with in theindividual country reports.

3.17 Looking at the following graphs, it is possible to categorise Member States accordingto the following four categories:

Countries in which both parameters are higher than 1. This is the best case: thesecountries have a sufficient infrastructure endowment, i.e. one above the EUaverage both in terms of surface and population density. This is the case for mostWestern Europe countries for motorways, and for Eastern European countries(except for the Baltic republics) for railways;

Countries in which the density per km2 is higher than the EU average, whilst thedensity per inhabitant is lower. These are densely populated countries with verylikely problems of congestion along the main transport corridors. This situationapplies to Benelux countries and Italy;

Countries in which the density per inhabitant is higher than the EU average,whilst the density per km2 is lower. These are sparsely populated and largecountries, in which accessibility, rather than congestion, is the main problem.This is the case of Northern Europe, Baltic republics and Ireland, the latterlimitedly to railway network.

Countries in which both parameters are lower than the EU average: this is theworst case, as congestion and accessibility problems persist. This situation relatesto Ireland, Greece and all Eastern Europe countries except Slovenia for themotorway network and to Greece, Spain and Portugal with respect to the railwaynetwork.


12

FIGURE 3.1 MOTORWAY NETWORK RELATIVE SURFACE & POPULATIONDENSITIES IN 2005


13

FIGURE 3.2 RAILWAY NETWORK RELATIVE SURFACE AND POPULATIONDENSITIES IN 2005

Challenges

3.18 Despite the differences between the Member States, based on the individual countryreports several common challenges which oriented our analysis can be identified:

An imbalance towards road traffic; in EU15 Member States, road transportboth for passenger and freight transport was the dominant mode, despite theambitious objective of revitalising railways pursued since the 1990s. In EU10Member States, the relative share of road has been increasing consistently overtime as a result of improved living standards and the change in the economicorganisation of many countries.

Congested infrastructure on key corridors; in all EU25 Member States, thepresence of bottlenecks across road and rail networks, especially along corridorsand in the nodes of the major metropolitan areas, negatively affected thecompetitiveness of businesses, and worsened the quality of life.

Inadequacy of rail network; in most EU25 Member States, investments in therail network saw a long period of stagnation due to the decline of rail haulage andnational budget constraints. High speed lines were being built in Western Europe,


14

but the investments did not cover the peripheral and remote areas of the EU, andEU10 Member States. In the EU10 Member States, some sections of the railnetwork were in a very poor state of repair, and suffered from severe speedrestrictions reducing efficiency levels;

Insufficient capacity at airports and seaports; many national and regionalairports as well as strategic seaports could not accommodate an increasedthroughput, due to infrastructure limitations. This limited the communities’abilities to provide for adequate levels of accessibility and to support regionaldevelopment. This was particularly evident for the airports of Bari and Budapestin terms of passenger transport and for several Greek ports in relation to bothpassenger and freight movements.

Pollution and road safety problems, particularly in urban areas; particularlyin EU10 Member States, a significant proportion of the road network was not incompliance with standard traffic safety requirements (in particular in relation tothe quality of the roads), leading to a large number of accidents and fatalities.Road safety was a problem in EU15 Member States as well, for example inPortugal and Greece, especially in urban areas. In addition, all Member Stateswere experiencing increasing levels of pollution and noise emissions.

3.19 The individual country reports include challenges specifically related to each MemberState. For example, in the Malta case study, a lot of emphasis is put on the problemsrelated to the archipelago’s insularity; the Latvian case study points to theobsolescence of passenger rolling stock, while in France, a key challenge is therelative inadequacies of transport infrastructure and services in the overseasdepartments.

Transport trends

3.20 The table below compares the modal shares of land-based modes, for both passengerand freight markets, between 1995 and 2005 in EU25. It can be seen that the relativemodal shares over the programming period have remained fairly stable in passengertransport. Indeed, the shares over this period are largely equivalent to those prevailingin 1995. The table below also indicates a slight increase in the share of road freighttransport at the expense of other forms of transport over the programming period.

TABLE 3.2 PASSENGER AND FREIGHT MODAL SHARES 1995-2005

Passenger transport

(measured in passenger_km)

Freight transport

(measured in tonne_km)

CarsBus &

coachesRailway

Urbanrail3

RoadHaulage

RailwayInland

WaterwaysPipelines

1995 82% 10% 1% 7% 68% 19% 6% 6%

2000 82% 10% 1% 7% 70% 18% 6% 6%

2005 82% 9% 1% 7% 73% 16% 5% 6%

3.21 The figures below illustrate the change in the demand of land-based transport modesbetween 1995 and 2005 in EU25, respectively for passenger and freight transport. As

3 Urban rail includes trams and metros.


15

can be seen in the first figure, passenger transport demand increased in period 1995-2005 for all modes (about 16% measured in passenger-km). More specifically, thegrowth was about 16% for road transport and urban rail, about 13% for railways and8% for buses and coaches.

FIGURE 3.3 LAND TRANSPORT DEMAND (PASS-KM) INDEX: 1995-2005

90

100

110

120

1995 2000 2005

Cars Bus and coaches

Urban rail Railw ay

Source: DG TREN-Statistical pocket book

3.22 As far as freight transport is concerned, there was an absolute increase in the volumeof freight transported of 28.9% (measured in total tonnes-km transported), with themajority of the increase being taken by road haulage. In particular, the growth of roadhaulage in period 1995-2005 in EU25 almost reached 40%. The other modes alsoexperienced growth: the tonne-km transported by pipelines and inland waterwaysincreased by 20% and 10% respectively (although the latter did not increasesubstantially between 2000 and 2005). The demand served by railway increased at amuch lower rate of 8%.

FIGURE 3.4 FREIGHT TRANSPORT DEMAND (TONNES-KM) INDEX: 1995-2005

90

100

110

120

130

140

1995 2000 2005

Road Haulage Railw ay

Inland Waterw ays PipelinesSource: DG TREN-Statistical pocket book

3.23 Within individual countries there were, some significant changes, with car ownershipincreasing in some of the EU10 Member States from the mid 1990s, leading to asubstantial increase in the market share of road when compared to rail and othermodes. At an EU25 level, the motorisation level (number of cars per thousandinhabitants) has increased from a value of 445 in 2000 to 485 in 2006, an increase of


16

more than 9%. At a national level, the largest increases over the same period wereseen in Latvia (53%) and Lithuania (40%).

FIGURE 3.5 MODAL SHARES FOR LAND-BASED TRANSPORT MODES IN 2005:PASSENGER

3.24 Figure 2.2 above compares the modal shares of land-based transport modes in each ofthe EU25 Member States in 2005, for passenger traffic. The share of passenger carsexceeds 75% in all Member States, except for Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.While Estonia, Greece, Ireland and Poland surpassed this threshold during theprogramming period. The modal share of cars decreased only in two countries in the2000-06 period: Belgium and, marginally, Italy.

3.25 Similarly, the share of railways in 2005 was greater than 10% only in Austria andHungary. Furthermore, there was almost no change in this share in most MemberStates with the notable exceptions of Poland (-4%) and Slovakia (-2%). As far asbuses/coaches are concerned, the market shares remained stable in most Member


17

States, and were declining in some Eastern and Southern Europe countries4; onlyBelgium experienced an increase (+2%).

FIGURE 3.6 MODAL SHARES FOR LAND-BASED TRANSPORT MODES IN 2005:FREIGHT

3.26 Figure 3.3 above shows the modal shares in freight traffic in all EU25 Member States,directly comparing road haulage and railways. There is substantial differentiationbetween Member States; on one side, there are countries in which railways have anegligible role in freight traffic (Ireland, Greece); on the other hand, in Latvia andEstonia, the modal share of railways is still higher than road haulage.

3.27 As a general rule, in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, the share of railways ismuch higher than in Southern Europe. The Netherlands are an exception to this, asmore than 30% of freight travels by inland waterways which is not shown in the figureabove as it is a significant mode of transport only in the Netherlands and is not a land

4 In particular: Estonia,, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia


18

based mode of transport.

3.28 In the 2000-06 programming period, the market share of railways increased by morethan one percentage point just in three countries: Austria, Belgium and the UnitedKingdom. On the other hand, the decline of railways was substantial in some EasternEuropean countries, such as the Czech Republic (-6.5%), Slovakia, Slovenia, Polandand Lithuania (between -9.5% and -14.5%).

3.29 The trends in modal shares highlighted above should also be compared with theconcurrent changes in the availability of transport infrastructure. The table and thefigure below show how the main categories of transport infrastructure have changedsince 1995 (measured in total length of the relevant infrastructure).

TABLE 3.3 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN EU25 (1995-2005) - KMS

Year Motorways Railways High speed railInland

waterwaysPipelines

1995 47,579 211,709 2,386 36,031 25,503

2000 54,358 202,012 2,691 37,305 28,939

2005 61,006 200,337 4,406 38,726 29,551

Source: DG TREN-Statistical pocket book 2007 and Eurostat

FIGURE 3.7 CHANGE IN INFRASTRUCTURE ENDOWEMENT IN EU25 1995-2005(1995=100)

90100

110

120130

140

150160

170

180

190

1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Motorways

Railways

HSR

Inland waterways

Pipelines

Note: HSR=High Speed Rail. Source: Eurostat

3.30 The figure shows that before 2000 the number of total kilometres of railway(conventional and high speed) actually fell as some lines were closed and that this falllevelled off during the initial years of the programming period. During the sameperiod, the high speed rail network, which is also shown separately for illustrativepurposes, increased substantially as more Member States chose to invest in this type ofinfrastructure. This investment was mainly concentrated in the EU15 Member States.

3.31 All other categories, except the motorway network, the length of which increased by30% between 1995 and 2005, experienced a small overall increase both in the 10 yearperiod to 2005 and within the initial years of the programming period.


19

Transport programming strategy

3.32 Transport priorities are often similar between Member States, mainly as a result of thedesire to align national policy development to those of the European Community,whose main objectives were illustrated primarily in the 2001 Transport White Paper.

3.33 The need to remove bottlenecks was mentioned in most of the transport strategicdocuments, but was identified as a key priority primarily in western Europeancountries, such as Germany, Belgium and France. These countries were also those thatfocused their attention on the promotion of modal shift and the improvement of thesustainability of the transport sector.

3.34 The transport strategies of several Member States identified the need to strengthen thelinks with remote areas of the country. This was a recurring issue in countries locatedin the periphery of Europe that suffered from poor transport accessibility (such asItaly, Spain, Portugal, Greece). However, this was identified as a problem also byGermany in relation to the need to improve the connection between western andeastern Landers.

3.35 Most EU10 Member States focused their transport strategy on the modernisation ofroad infrastructure, though it must be pointed out that this was a key theme also inother EU countries, like Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

3.36 The need to enhance regional accessibility through the improvement of regionalairports was also a recurring theme across both EU10 and EU15 Member States.Examples include the attention given to the development of the Charleroi and Liègeairports in Belgium or of Bari airport in Italy, as well as Budapest airport in Hungary.

3.37 Finally, maritime competitiveness was a key area of intervention across EU countriesthat have direct access to the sea in particular in Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, andPortugal.

The compatibility of national transport strategy to EU transport policy

3.38 For the 18 “detailed” Member States, the country reports set out the national transportstrategy and compare the national policy framework with that of the EuropeanCommission, as outlined in the 2001 Transport White Paper “European transportpolicy for 2010: time to decide”5 and, later, in the 2006 Mid Term Review “KeepEurope moving”6. This is an important comparison to make as it highlights therelevance of EU transport policy in each individual Member State.

3.39 This comparison was based primarily on the results of the Assess study7, focusing

5 [COM(2001)370]6 [COM(2006)314]7 Assess - Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the midterm

implementation of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010. 2005


20

particularly on the alignment of national policies with the following Action Priorities8:

Action Priority 1: Shifting the balance between modes of transport

Action Priority 2: Eliminating bottlenecks Action Priority 3: Placing users at the heart of transport policy.

3.40 The table below summarises the implications of the country comparison includedwithin the Assess Study in terms of the implementation of each Action Prioritymentioned above. It refers primarily to the analysis in 2005, but where possible wehave updated the results to reflect changes between 2005 and the end of theprogramming period.

TABLE 3.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PRIORITIES IN 2005

Country Action Priority 1 Action Priority 2 Action Priority 3

Austria M M L

Belgium M M L

Cyprus L L N

Czech Republic M M L

Germany M H M

Denmark M M M

Estonia L L L

Spain M L L

Finland L M M

France M H L

Greece L L L

Hungary M M L

Ireland M L M

Italy M M M

Lithuania L L N

Luxembourg L M L

Latvia L L L

Malta L M L

Netherlands M H M

Poland L L L

Portugal M M L

Sweden M M M

8 Assess presented another priority (Priority 4 – Managing the effect of globalisation), which was present in the2001 White Paper, that has been excluded from the following analysis because its contents and implicationswere limited for the scope of this study.


21

Country Action Priority 1 Action Priority 2 Action Priority 3

Slovakia L M L

Slovenia L M L

UK M H MSource: ASSESS. Notes: N=No implementation, L=Low, M=Medium, H=High

3.41 The scale that has been used refers to the state of implementation, ranging from “Nomatch to EU policy” to “High matching with EU policy”. The table shows that there iswide variation between the Member States, that very few countries achieve a rate of“High matching” and for those that do, the match tends to be with Action Priority 2:Eliminating Bottlenecks. However, although not reflected in the table above, in thecase of some specific policy elements within Action Priority 1 and 3 some MemberStates are closely aligned with the EU’s priorities, although this is not reflected acrossall the policy areas within those Action Priorities.

3.42 For example, the UK is well advanced in implementing policy related to “Building theTrans European Transport Network” and “Improving Road Safety”, while behind on“Promoting transport by sea and inland waterways” and “Adopting a policy oneffective charging for transport”. Both Germany and France have taken significantsteps to eliminate bottlenecks and strengthen their link with the rest of Europe. France,together with Portugal, was also successful in reducing road accidents and improvingsafety conditions. Germany has been quite successful in tackling the negativeenvironmental externalities caused by transport and limiting the growth of roadtransport demand (which lead to the introduction in 2005 of a distance-based tollingsystem for heavy good vehicles).

3.43 However, it should be noted, as seen from the table above, that a number of MemberStates fall well short of a full implementation of all Action Priorities.

Transport Investment

3.44 Our analysis also shows that national investment in transport has varied significantlybetween countries. In this analysis we have focused our research and findings oncapital investment in the transport sector without considering maintenance and otheroperating expenditure.

3.45 In many cases we have supplemented information obtained through desk research bycontacting key national financing and management bodies within the countryconcerned. Nevertheless, it has not been possible to obtain consistent andcomprehensive data for all countries, particularly in relation to information related tofunding sources.

3.46 The table below sets out the total amount of investment undertaken in transport duringthe programming period, including national and EU funding. It also shows the totalamount spent by all EU25 Member States, the total for the “Detailed” Member States,and the total for the “High Level” Member States.


22

TABLE 3.5 TOTAL TRANSPORT INVESTMENT ACROSS EUROPE: 2000-2006 (€M)

MS Public Funding ERDF CF Private Total EIB

Austria 13,894 3 n.a. 13,897 871Belgium 4,699 27 n.a. 4,726 516Czech Republic 9,371 95 546 n.a. 10,012 2,039Cyprus 1,073 - 25 1,255 2,355 84Germany 147,326 2,953 n.a. 150,279 4,080Denmark 8,271 3 n.a. 8,274 1,705Estonia 414 20 213 n.a 647.6 8Spain 83,968 9,523 4,814 8,618 106,923 15,403Finland 15,422 23 n.a. 15,445 410France 109,481 774 n.a. 110,254 5,934Greece n.a. 4,185 1,490 5,676 4,286Hungary 63 145 724 n.a. 976 1,516Ireland 15,335 1,096 294 n.a. 16,725 681Italy 134,071 2,652 n.a. 136,722 7,638Lithuania 727 82 126 n.a. 935 75Luxembourg 1,024 2 n.a. 1,026 386Latvia 439 56 353 n.a. 848 52Malta 229 4 9 n.a. 243Netherlands 74,155 96 n.a. 74,251 624Poland 11,046 539 2,694 n.a. 14,279 2,389Portugal 4,903 2,592 1,635 n.a. 9,130 5,987Sweden 13,304 63 n.a. 13,367 1,277Slovakia 3,036 100 381 n.a. 3,523 275Slovenia n.a. 4 122 n.a n.a. 829UK 158,182 416 n.a. 158,599 4,259Total EU25 810,433 25,454 13,426 9,873 859,113 61,324Source: Country reports. Notes: Shaded rows are Member States where information where poor or incomplete: no data for Slovenia; the Belgian figure covers only one region;Hungary and Lithuania data available only since 2004, Greece no public sector figures. Current prices


23

3.47 The following figures report average yearly expenditure in transport investmentundertaken during the programming period. It can be seen that in absolute terms, onaverage, the UK transport sector received the most funds per year (€22,657 M), whileMalta received the least (€41 M) during the programming period. Once per capitafigures are considered, the Netherlands had the highest average transport investmentper capita, with€649 per capita, and Hungary the least with €32 per capita.

FIGURE 3.8 AVERAGE YEARLY TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE IN PROGRAMMINGPERIOD

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000U

K

DE IT FR

ES

NL

PL

PT IE FI

CZ

AT

SE

DK

SK

CY

HU LT LV EE

LU MT

Member State

Ave

rage

expe

nditu

repe

ryea

r(€

mil)

FIGURE 3.9 AVERAGE YEARLY TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA INPROGRAMMING PERIOD

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

NL IE CY FI

UK

ES IT LU PT

DE

FR

AT

DK

SE

CZ

EE

SK

LV MT

LT

PL

HU

Member State

Ave

rage

expe

nditu

repe

rca

pita

per

year

(€)

Note: expenditure refers to the 2000-06 period for EU15 and to 2004-06 period for EU10 Member Statesto make figures more comparable. Source: Country reports. Note: Excludes BE, and SI as insufficientinformation was available for them.

The role of the ERDF

3.48 A different approach has been used by Member States to allocate resourcesdomestically. This section provides an overview of this approach; a more detailedcountry by country analysis is provided in the country reports. This analysis will besupplemented further following the analysis to be carried out for subsequent tasks.

3.49 Essentially the role of the ERDF can be compared from two points of view:

The manner in which the ERDF was managed at a national level and in theregions in relation to transport; that is how the role of the ERDF interlinked withnational goals and policy objectives; and


24

The transport areas where the funds themselves were actually directed.

3.50 In the case of the former, in Objective 1 regions, the adoption of the structuralprogrammes was preceded by the adoption of a Community Support Framework(CSF) laying down the general strategy for ERDF assistance in a certain number ofregions within a Member State.

3.51 In some cases there was no national or regional transport strategy to implementdevelopment programmes other than those set through the CSF. For instance, in 2000,Greece did not have a strategic transport planning and policy document: during the2000-2006 period strategic planning and policy for transport was defined and carriedout solely through the EU mechanisms and funding support. The same is also true forPortugal.

3.52 Some Member States allocated resources to transport interventions exclusivelythrough national programmes. This was the case for all EU10 Member States, withthe only exception of Czech Republic where Objective 1 areas received resourcesthrough national programmes, while Praha, qualifying for Objective 2, had a separateSPD. In Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic the recourse to nationalprogrammes reflected a strong centralised management of the funding. This in somecases (e.g. Slovakia and Poland) hindered the definition of a clear strategy for ERDFintervention at a regional level. By contrast, in the remaining Eastern EuropeanMember States, as well as in some others such as Malta, Cyprus, Luxemburg andDenmark, programmes were adopted at a national level because of the small amountsincluded in the interventions.

3.53 Other Member States, namely those whose areas mainly qualified for Objective 2intervention, assigned funds to transport exclusively through regional/localprogrammes. This was the case for Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Netherlands,Sweden and UK, where regional/local SPDs were adopted.

3.54 Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain used a combination of bothnational and regional/local programmes, though in Spain the national programme hadquite a marginal role. In these countries national programmes applied only toObjective 1 areas, including phasing-out, where they often had to be coordinated alsowith regional programmes; Objective 2 areas received support through SPDs. Onsome occasions the presence of both national and regional programmes acting onObjective 1 regions caused problems of overlapping of strategies and objectives to bepursued, like in the case of Portugal and Italy.

ERDF strategies

3.55 Over the programming period, different development programmes focused ondifferent strategic priorities, reflecting the diverse challenges faced by the variousMember States and regions, both in terms of transport needs and managing thefunding. However, it must be noted that according to Regulation (EC) 1783/1999,which sets the ERDF strategy for the 2000-06 programming period, the scope forERDF co-financing in the transport sector is mainly identified in Objective 1 regions.

3.56 The ERDF mandate in Objective 1 regions covers the financing of infrastructure


25

which helps to increase the economic position, development, structural adjustment andcreation or assurance of sustainable jobs in those regions. These include theinvestments (including transport investments) which contribute to the establishmentand development of a Trans-European Transport Networks, whilst also focusing onthe need to link to the core regions of the Community, the regions suffering fromstructural difficulties resulting from their insular, landlocked or peripheral position9.

3.57 ERDF co-financing in the transport sector may also support investments that, both inObjective 1 and Objective 2 regions, concern:

the diversification of economic sites and industrial areas suffering from decline,the renewal of depressed urban areas and the revitalisation of, and improvedaccess to, rural areas and areas that depend on fishing; and

infrastructure investment where modernisation or regeneration is a prerequisitefor the creation or development of job-creating economic activities. This includesinfrastructure links on which the development of such activities depends10.

3.58 In the first case, investment in transport infrastructure is the core of ERDF mandate,while in the second case, it must be deemed as ancillary to the main objectives ofdevelopment and revitalisation of specific areas. The latter rationale is the only oneunder which Objective 2 regions may receive ERDF resources for transport projects.

3.59 This is the main reason why the role of transport projects co-financed by the ERDF iscritical in Objective 1 regions but tends to be marginal in Objective 2 regions. It alsoexplains why in countries where there are only Objective 2 regions, the ERDF strategyin the transport sector may not align with the general national strategy for investmentin transport infrastructure.

3.60 For example, in some countries, such as Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands, theERDF contribution to the development of transport systems was almost insignificant,financing only a small number of local schemes. On the other hand, given the sumsinvolved, Objective 1 resources tended to be used for larger projects having a moresignificant impact on regional development (such as the construction of theBotniabanan line in Sweden).

3.61 In EU10 Member States (mainly Objective 1) the strategy in relation to ERDFexpenditure on transport was focused mainly on road interventions. While the overallaim was to reduce the transport infrastructure gap with the more advanced MemberStates, the particularly poor quality of much of the road infrastructure in the EU10, asdescribed in the country reports for these Member States, meant that roadimprovements were identified as a key priority. Improving road connections to EU15Member States, filling internal missing links and upgrading existing infrastructure inorder to meet international standards were all considered essential in furtheringregional development.

9 Article 2, paragraph 1, letter (b), point (i) of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999.10 Article 2, paragraph 1, letter b), point (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999.


26

3.62 The main thrust of the strategies in the EU10 Member States was to use ERDFresources to improve sections of road systems not included in the TEN-T (such as theJoint Regional Operational Programme in the Czech Republic), or only connecting tothe TEN-T (as in Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia)11. In some cases this may have lead(as is argued for Lithuania) to some disjointed investment that did not address thewider global transport problems experienced.

3.63 Other Member States benefiting from substantial Objective 1 funding, such as Ireland,Germany, Spain, Greece and Portugal, also focused primarily on road systeminterventions. In Ireland, expenditure on roads was mainly directed at improvingaccess to the Greater Dublin Area (GDA), the Port of Dublin and to Dublin Airport.At the same time resources were allocated to the maintenance and renewal of non-national roads to encourage local development. In Germany, the ERDF strategyresulted in resources being allocated to finance road interventions in eastern Landersas well as the A20 motorway, aimed at ensuring a long distance strategic routebetween Poland and Germany. New motorways and improvements to the existing roadnetwork were also at the core of ERDF strategy and expenditure in Spain and Greece,where the focus was on filling important missing links in the national road network.

3.64 Other Member States, such as the Netherlands and Italy, had a more balancedutilisation of resources across transport modes. In the case of Italy, around one third ofERDF resources were directed at rail and one third at road, with the rest being splitbetween airports, ports, multimodal transport and urban transport. As regards totalnational expenditure on transport in Italy (including ERDF expenditure), some 83%was focused on road and rail.

3.65 It is also important to note that the ERDF strategy in the EU10 Member States, as wellas in some EU 15 countries (particularly Spain, Greece and Portugal) was focused onupgrading and building new roads and railway lines rather than maintaining existinglines. This reflects a broad objective for regions within these Member States to catch-up with regions enjoying a higher GDP per capita and to support regionaldevelopment through transport investment.

3.66 Generally, the ERDF strategies have tended to follow the national and regionaltransport strategies and have allocated resources to those transport modes that thenational strategy sees as being fundamental to regional development. For example,Spain’s national objectives focused on road and rail improvements (to increase qualityand decrease pollution and congestion). Hence around 87% of all ERDF resourceswere directed to these two areas. Similar observations can be made for the CzechRepublic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Portugal with respect to their relevantobjectives and, to a certain extent, for Greece, which did not have a specific nationaltransport strategy outside the CSF.

3.67 However, the ERDF strategy did not always mirror the national and regional strategyin terms of transport needs and requirements; this, as explained above, is particularly

11 It should be noted that this was not the case for Malta that used ERDF resources to fund both TEN-T and nonTEN-T investments


27

the case in those Member States that received primarily Objective 2 funding. In theseMember States the transport needs of the country could clearly not be met by ERDF-supported interventions alone.

3.68 However, this is also true of Member States receiving both Objective 1 and 2resources. In France, only 4% of ERDF resources were allocated to rail, althoughnational policy was focused on encouraging modal shift to rail. Even allowing for thefact that a significant amount of expenditure was directed at the Overseas Departmentswhich do not have railways, the share of rail expenditure was only 8%. In the UK,40% of expenditure was on investment in road and motorway project, with urbantransport and rail receiving 20% and 12% respectively, despite a similar policy focusemphasizing a shift to public transport.12

3.69 In addition, some aspects of national and regional transport strategies received little orno attention during the programming period, notwithstanding that they had beenincluded in the ERDF strategy for the Member State concerned. The main example ofthis is intermodal transport and the development of logistics centres, which receivedvery little funding even in those Member States that identified them as important areasfor development (primarily those with regions receiving Objective 1 funding).

Coordinating the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund

3.70 In some countries (EU10 Member States, as well as Greece, Ireland, Portugal andSpain) the strategy for ERDF intervention had to be coordinated with resourcescoming from the Cohesion Fund, which was focused on investments on the TEN-T. Inorder to ensure a significant level of coordination ERDF resources had to be targetedat improving accessibility to TEN-T as well as at addressing other national transportchallenges rather than primarily on the TEN-T. However, in some cases, it proved tobe difficult to draw a clear line between the intervention carried out with CohesionFund resources and those carried out with ERDF resources.

3.71 In the EU10 Member States the Cohesion Fund played a bigger role than the ERDF intransport investment. In Estonia for example, ERDF resources assigned to transportwere less than one tenth of those given through the Cohesion Fund; in Latvia this wasabout 12%; in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia the contribution of ERDF was slightlyhigher (around 20% of the Cohesion Fund resources); while Lithuania had a morebalanced approach, with ERDF resources representing about 80% of the CohesionFund resources. By contrast, in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, ERDF resourcesspent on transport were higher (twice or three times) the Cohesion Fund. In thesecountries in a few cases (as in the case of Portugal) the Cohesion Fund focused on railto counterbalance the high concentration of ERDF resources on the road modediscussed above.

12 Ireland also falls into this category as no expenditure has been categorised as rail, which was a major element ofnational strategy, although this seems to point to an incorrect categorisation of expenditure as “Urban transport”as, following further investigation, substantial investments have actually been made in the railways.


28

Comparison between Objective 1 and 2 funding

3.72 Of the total ERDF resources spent for the programming period (up to 200713), about30% were directed at transport expenditure. Of the €80.9 B of total ERDF resourcesspent in Objective 1 regions, some 34% was targeted at transport projects. Of the€17.6 B spent in Objective 2 regions, approximately 7% was used in support oftransport projects. The figure below shows in graphical form the amount of fundingallocated to transport when compared to the total amount of ERDF co-financing. Thelarger the pie chart, the more ERDF resources were provided in each Member State.

FIGURE 3.10 TOTAL ERDF EXPENDITURE - CURRENT PRICES

13 The data in this section has been included up to 2007, as opposed to Table 3.5 which includes data only up to2006. This has been done to provide more detail in the data on ERDF resources which is not available fornational public funding in all Member States.


29

Country Total (€M) Transport (€M) % Transport

AT 715 4 0%BE 705 33 5%CY 16 0 0%CZ 631 199 32%DE 12,805 3,049 24%DK 116 3 3%EE 153 26 17%ES 23,669 9,940 42%FI 738 27 4%FR 6,637 878 13%GR 11,593 5,346 46%HU 875 199 23%IE 1,779 1,107 62%IT 14,685 3,315 23%LT 329 109 33%LU 34 2 6%LV 197 63 32%MT 30 9 31%NL 746 34 5%PL 2,913 1,202 41%PT 11,051 2,894 26%SE 769 67 9%SI 102 5 5%SK 355 134 38%UK 6,827 479 7%Total 98,470 29,124 30%

Source: Country Reports

3.73 By the end of 2007 a total of €29 B of ERDF resources had been spent on transport(excluding technical assistance) as part of the 2000-2006 EU cohesion policy. Almostall (€28 B) went to Objective 1 regions, with the remainder (€1 B) going to Objective2 regions. The 18 Member States that spent the most funding received primarilyObjective 1 funding. All of the remaining Member States, except for Finland, receivedexclusively Objective 2 funding. The countries receiving funding under bothObjective 1 and 2 were Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

3.74 The figure below shows in graphical form the amount of funding spent on transportwhen compared to the total amount of ERDF resources spent in Objective 1 regions.The size of the pie chart indicates the amount of ERDF co-financing provided in eachMember State.


30

FIGURE 3.11 ERDF OBJECTIVE 1 EXPENDITURE - CURRENT PRICES


AT 145 0 0%BE 378 5 1%CZ 593 182 31%DE 10,191 2,930 29%EE 153 26 17%ES 21,727 9,684 45%FI 403 10 2%FR 1,931 457 24%GR 11,593 5,346 46%HU 875 199 23%IE 1,779 1,107 62%IT 12,443 3,082 25%LT 329 109 33%LV 197 63 32%MT 30 9 30%NL 78 3 4%PL 2,913 1,202 41%PT 11,051 2,894 26%SE 432 32 7%SI 102 5 5%SK 335 134 40%UK 3,240 416 13%Total 80,917 27,896 35%



31

3.75 The figure below shows the breakdown of the ERDF transport expenditure forObjective 1 regions. About 54% of the total amount spent occurred in Spain andGreece with the remaining Member States accounting for the rest. Both Spain andGreece had specific national programmes whose aim was primarily transportinvestment, and these were in addition to the various Regional Objective 1programmes. These sectoral programmes along with more detailed information on theregional programmes will be looked at in more detail in Task 2 as well as in Task 3case studies.

FIGURE 3.12 OBJECTIVE 1 TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE

PT10%

PL4%

IT11%

IE4%

GR19%

FR2%

ES35%

DE11%

Other3%

UK1%

Source: Country reports

3.76 The figure below shows in graphical form the amount of funding spent on transportwhen compared to the total amount of ERDF resources in Objective 2 regions. Thesize of the pie chart indicates the amount of ERDF resources spent in each MemberState.

Other=


32

FIGURE 3.13 ERDF OBJECTIVE 2 EXPENDITURE - CURRENT PRICES


AT 570 4 1%BE 327 28 9%CY 15 0 0%CZ 39 17 44%DE 2,613 119 5%DK 116 3 3%ES 1,942 256 13%FI 335 17 5%FR 4,707 421 9%IT 2,242 233 10%LU 34 2 6%NL 668 30 4%SE 337 36 11%SK 21 0 0%UK 3,587 62 2%Total 17,553 1,228 7%


3.77 The following figure sets out the expenditure of transport funding for Objective 2regions. This shows that the largest allocation was to French regions, and that almost75% of the resources were allocated to just three countries, France, Italy and Spain.


33

FIGURE 3.14 OBJECTIVE 2 TRANSPORT SPENDING

ES21%

FR35%

IT19%

NL2%

SE3%

UK5%

Other3%

BE2%

DE10%

Source: Country reports

3.78 It is also worth noting that of the Member States receiving both Objective 1 andObjective 2 funding, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Sweden have a largerallocation from Objective 2 than Objective 1. Some more detailed analysis on the typeof expenditure undertaken in Objective 2 regions will be undertaken in Task 2, alongwith a more detailed analysis for some specific regions in the Task 3 Regional CaseStudies looking at Objective 2 regions.

Difference between allocation and expenditure

3.79 The effectiveness of the implementation of the programming documents allocatingERDF resources in Objective 1 and 2 regions, in terms of the proportion betweenresources actually spent and allocated, varies substantially between the EU25 MemberStates and is shown in the figure below.

Other =


34

FIGURE 3.15 PROPORTION BETWEEN ERDF EXPENDITURE AND ALLOCATION INEU25 MEMBER STATES

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

IE ES

PT

SE

EU

15 IT DE FI

EU

25

DK

AT

UK

FR

LU EE

GR

LT

MT

CZ

NL

HU

BE

LV SI

EU

10

PL

SK

Source: Country reports and Work Package 1.Note:Cyprus has not spent any money on transport.

3.80 By the end of 2007, only two Member States (Ireland and Spain), had spent more than90% of their allocation. For 10 of the 25 Member States (all EU15 countries) the levelof expenditure is between 80% and 90% of the allocation, 10 Member States havespent between 60% and 80%, while Poland and Slovakia had spent the least, the lessthan 60%.

3.81 The figure above shows that the EU15 Member States have been better at spendingtheir allocation than the EU10 Member States, this is also shown by the averagevalues in the different shaded bars, it should be noted however that the EU10 valuewas strongly influenced by the low Polish value as it has a significant share of theoverall resources for the EU10 Member States.

Modal allocation

3.82 The tables below show the share of allocation and the expenditure of ERDF resourcesacross Member States and modes as well as the modal allocation of cumulativeObjective 1 and Objective 2 expenditure. It should be noted that about 2.3% of totalallocation and expenditure was not categorised in the source material, which relates to100% of the allocation and expenditure in, Denmark, Luxembourg, Slovenia andSweden and 92% in Belgium.


35

TABLE 3.6 ERDF ALLOCATION BY TRANSPORT MODE (% & ABSOLUTE VALUE)

MS Rail Roads Motorways Airports PortsUrban

transportMultimodaltransport

Others UncategorisedTotal

allocation(€M)

AT 33% 0% 0% 32% 32% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4

BE 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 92% 46

CY 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2

CZ 14% 55% 0% 2% 2% 19% 1% 7% 0% 267

DE 20% 60% 16% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3,513

DK 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 4

EE 2% 53% 0% 6% 31% 0% 0% 9% 0% 33

ES 31% 56% 2% 3% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 10,307

FI 0% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 35% 31

FR 5% 32% 1% 4% 23% 2% 11% 2% 21% 1,078

GR 24% 19% 43% 2% 5% 5% 0% 1% 1% 6,736

HU 4% 85% 0% 0% 4% 3% 4% 0% 0% 276

IE 0% 69% 0% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 1,134

IT 35% 22% 9% 8% 9% 8% 7% 0% 2% 3,810

LT 23% 41% 0% 8% 2% 24% 0% 2% 0% 142

LU 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2

LV 0% 52% 0% 0% 4% 32% 0% 0% 13% 94

MT 0% 89% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12

NL 6% 14% 0% 0% 11% 26% 14% 31% 0% 46

PL 17% 41% 5% 0% 1% 16% 2% 19% 0% 2,172

PT 5% 54% 0% 0% 2% 16% 15% 1% 6% 3,229

SE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 75

SI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 8

SK 28% 69% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 243

UK 12% 29% 10% 5% 10% 20% 12% 0% 1% 579

Total 7,670 14,594 4,217 898 1,702 2,204 1,163 604 791 33,844

Total 23% 43% 12% 3% 5% 7% 3% 2% 2%

Obj. 1 7,487 14,245 4,205 884 1,439 2,113 923 562 495 32,353

Obj. 1 23% 44% 13% 3% 4% 7% 3% 2% 2%

Obj. 2 183 350 12 14 263 90 240 42 296 1,491

Obj. 2 12% 23% 1% 1% 18% 6% 16% 3% 20%

Note: The “Others” category includes: waterways, intelligent transport system, cycle tracks. Investment in ports inAustria refers to inland waterway ports Source: Country reports and Work Package 1.


36

TABLE 3.7 ERDF EXPENDITURE BY TRANSPORT MODE (% & ABSOLUTE VALUE)

MemberState

Rail Roads Motorways Airports PortsUrban

transportMultimodaltransport

Others UncategorisedTotal

expenditure(€M)

AT 27% 0% 0% 36% 36% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4

BE 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 92% 33

CZ 16% 53% 0% 2% 2% 20% 0% 7% 0% 199

DE 16% 62% 18% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3,049

DK 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 3

EE 2% 53% 0% 6% 31% 0% 0% 9% 0% 26

ES 28% 60% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 9,940

FI 0% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 0% 37% 27

FR 4% 35% 1% 5% 22% 2% 10% 2% 19% 878

GR 25% 19% 43% 3% 4% 5% 0% 0% 1% 5,346

HU 1% 93% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 199

IE 0% 68% 0% 0% 0% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1,107

IT 34% 24% 10% 8% 8% 6% 7% 0% 2% 3,315

LT 23% 41% 0% 8% 2% 24% 0% 2% 0% 109

LU 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2

LV 13% 52% 0% 0% 4% 32% 0% 0% 0% 63

MT 0% 90% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9

NL 6% 15% 0% 0% 10% 27% 13% 29% 0% 34

PL 13% 44% 5% 0% 1% 17% 1% 19% 0% 1,202

PT 6% 54% 0% 0% 2% 16% 15% 1% 7% 2,894

SE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 67

SI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5

SK 36% 62% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 134

UK 12% 32% 9% 5% 10% 20% 12% 0% 1% 479

Total 6,291 13,410 3,525 808 1,320 1,745 993 375 657 29,124

Total 22% 46% 12% 3% 5% 6% 3% 1% 2%

Obj. 1 6,149 13,104 3,516 794 1,107 1,669 785 344 427 27,896

Obj. 1 22% 47% 13% 3% 4% 6% 3% 1% 2%

Obj. 2 142 306 8 14 213 76 207 32 229 1,228

Obj. 2 12% 25% 1% 1% 17% 6% 17% 3% 19%

Note: The “Others” category includes: waterways, intelligent transport system and cycle tracks. Cyprus has beenexcluded from the list as no ERDF resources have been spent in transport. Investment in ports in Austria refers toinland waterway ports Source: Country reports and Work Package 1.

3.83 The tables demonstrate that most ERDF resources have been allocated and spent onroad projects: 46% of total ERDF expenditure co-financed national or local roads,while 12% was assigned to motorway projects. It can also be seen that those areas thatreceived Objective 1 funding invested some 60% of their resources in road andmotorway infrastructure with the next significant category being rail, in line with thegeneral approach in terms of strategy discussed above. Objective 2 areas also allocated


37

more expenditure to roads than to any other category, although the relative differencesbetween shares across modes are less, indicating a more balanced approach totransport investment.

3.84 The tables above also show that there was little variation in the share of the differenttransport modes between the allocation and the expenditure at EU level. Road wasallocated 43% of all ERDF transport resources compared to the 46% mentionedabove, while Rail was allocated 23% compared to the 22% share of actualexpenditure. The same is true for the other transport modes and for breakdown inObjective 1 and 2 Regions. This is also generally the case in the individual MemberStates where the share of expenditure has generally followed the share of allocationexcept in a number of important cases:

The share of expenditure on Rail in Austria was 6% lower than the allocation.The funds were diverted to (Inland) Port and Airport expenditure;

Germany decreased its share of expenditure on Rail by 4% compared to theallocation. The funds were transferred to Road and Motorway projects;

The share of expenditure on Roads in Hungary was 7% higher than the allocation.Part of this increase came from funds previously allocated to Rail investment;

Poland decreased its hare of expenditure on Rail by 4% compared to theallocation. The funds were redistributed to a number of other sectors;

The share of expenditure on Rail in Slovakia was 8% higher than the allocation.The funds were primarily transferred from the Roads sector; and

Latvia re-categorised 13% of its allocation from “uncategorised” to Railexpenditure;

3.85 These observations highlight the fact that there were some significant changes in theuse of ERDF resources in some Member States during the programming period. Inparticular, in the cases of Austria, Germany, Hungary and Poland, the changes were tothe detriment of Rail investment, with only Slovakia and Latvia increasing rail’s shareof expenditure relative to its allocation (although in Latvia’s case this outcome was theresult of correcting an error in categorisation rather than a genuine reallocation).

3.86 The focus on roads expenditure was particularly prevalent in the EU10 MemberStates. It represented more than 90% of ERDF expenditure on transport in Hungary,some 60% in Slovakia, around 50% in Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic and Estonia,and more than 40% in Lithuania, in line with the ERDF strategy for these MemberStates discussed above. Furthermore, a number of EU15 Member States (Spain,Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal) also spent more than 50% of their resourceson road and motorway projects.

3.87 The share of road expenditure in Hungary, the highest of all Member States isparticularly of note as it has a significant rail network. The fraction of ERDF co-financing allocated to rail was already small, and the outturn expenditure share issmaller still. At the other end of the scale, only Austria did not allocate any funds toroad investments14, with the largest share of its allocation and expenditure being

14 This excludes those Member States that have the majority of their investments as “uncategorised”


38

directed to (Inland) Ports and Airports.

3.88 Slovakia allocated the highest share of its transport expenditure to Rail while Finlandand Ireland were the only Member State that did not spend any resources on railtransport.15

3.89 Latvia allocated the largest share of its investment, 32%, to Urban Transport, and thesector received the same share of expenditure. In Ireland, Urban Transport accountedfor the same share of expenditure. These outcomes contrast with the picture moregenerally, with only 8 Member States directing more than 10% of their totalexpenditure to Urban Transport, notwithstanding that the majority of them identifiedcongestion as a challenge for their local transport system.

3.90 Overall, as mentioned in the discussion of strategy above, very little was spent onMultimodal transport initiatives across the Member States. Finland allocated and spentthe largest share of its investment on Multimodal projects but in total only 5 MemberStates allocated 10% or more of their expenditure to this category. However, it islikely that both congestion and multimodal investments have been included in othercategories (primarily road but also rail).

3.91 The Netherlands’ strategy was the most balanced of all the Member States as it did notallocate or spend more than 27% of its ERDF resources on any particular transportmode.

15 Excluding those Member States that have the majority of “uncategorised” expenditure and Malta that does not havea railway. It should be noted that in Ireland, many rail interventions have been categorised as urban transportprojects.


39

4. TASK 2: COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE MAIN FINANCIAL ANDPHYSICAL OUTCOMES FROM ERDF INVESTMENTS

Study requirements

4.1 The aim of this task is to provide detailed statistical information on the contribution ofthe ERDF programme co-financing across both Objective 1 and 2 regions. It willprovide a quantitative assessment of the programmes, illustrating their results in termsof real as well as financial outcomes. This task is divided into three sub tasks, whichinclude obtaining the raw data for the analysis (the first two sub tasks) as well as areview of the effectiveness (the third sub task) of 11 national Operating Programmes(OPs) focusing on transport:

Task 2.1 Main output and results: The main aim of this task is to gatherinformation on the key outputs from the various programmes, using as a basis theinformation provided by Work Package 2 on the ex-post evaluation on datafeasibility, and integrating it with other information sources set out below. Theapproach that was adopted for the selection of the programming documents thatrequired a more detailed analysis was set out in our Inception Report.

FIGURE 4.1 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES SELECTION: OVERVIEW

ERDF

226

ERDF &Basic Infrastructure

ERDF &Transport

SelectedOP

195

154

50

ERDF > 5mil

137

ERDF

226

ERDF &Basic Infrastructure

ERDF &Transport

SelectedOP

195

154

50

ERDF > 5mil

137


40

Task 2.2 Investment patterns from the codification exercise: The aim of this taskis to review the manner in which investments were undertaken in each MemberState by comparing the difference in intervention patterns in Objective 1 and 2regions in relation to the transport strategies assessed in Task 1. For this task, allEU25 Member States will be assessed. The output will be provided in spreadsheetform, accompanied by a note, covering all countries, setting out the maindifferences between the regions as well as the differences with the originalstrategies.

Task 2.3 Effectiveness: results compared to targets: The aim of this task is toreview the 11 Sectoral National Transport and Environmental InfrastructureProgrammes of the ERDF. We will also clarify, through discussion with therelevant national authorities, whether any modifications took place during theprogramming period.

Approach to analysis

4.2 The approach that has been adopted in this task has been firstly to agree with theCommission a cut-off date for the data to be included in the analysis. This will ensurethat the work is carried out consistently across all Member States and facilitate futurecomparison and aggregation.

4.3 Having agreed a cut-off year of 2007, we proceeded to contact each of the managingauthorities with responsibility for collecting the required information to request thatthey made this available to the study team. In the majority of cases we made initialcontact by telephone and followed up with an e-mail request containing both theinformation request and the Commission’s introductory letter (introducing SteerDavies Gleave as the consultant undertaking this analysis for the Commission).

4.4 The analysis for this task has already commenced as it is closely related to the workthat needs to be undertaken for the regional case studies in Task 3 (set out in thefollowing Chapter). We have already gathered substantial amounts of information inrelation to the national programmes of Italy, Spain and Greece in recent weeks andthese will be the first programmes to be analysed under Task 2.1. Moreover, theinformation that we have received, along with the interviews and discussions we havehad with the relevant managing authorities for the programmes in these threecountries, have provided us with the necessary information to commence the analysisfor Task 2.3.

4.5 A standard template Excel spreadsheet (included in Appendix B) has been developedthat will be completed by Steer Davies Gleave for each of the transport elements ofthe Operational Programmes (OPs). We have also provided this template to themanaging authorities that we have met to help them in identifying the information thatthey are to provide for this study. We are not expecting them to complete thespreadsheet, but we believe it will assist them in identifying the documents includingthe information required for this analysis.

4.6 The Second Intermediate Report will have at least the 9 required Member Statescompleted as requested and will include all the information available both from deskresearch and additional fieldwork.

4.7 In relation to Task 2.2, the study requires a review of financial information for the


41

transport sector, as identified in the classification of expenditure across all MemberStates. The information has been made available through the work undertaken inWork Package 1 and the work related to gathering the information and bringing ittogether in the codification exercise has been completed and submitted separately tothis report. Subsequently this information will be brought into the wider analysis withthe rest of Task 2 that will form the basis for the recommendations in the Final Report.

4.8 Based on the information obtained through Task 2.3 discussed above, we will assessthe effectiveness of the programme by reviewing whether the targets that were setoriginally have been achieved or are due to be achieved by the end of theprogramming period. As part of this analysis we will also compare the variousprogrammes in terms of the extent to which they have achieved their individualtargets. The results of this work will be included in the 2nd Intermediate Report.


42

5. TASK 3: REGIONAL AND URBAN CASE STUDIES

Regional case studies - Study Requirements

5.1 To ensure a detailed understanding of the contribution given by the ERDF the studyrequires the preparation of in-depth assessments on a regional basis in the form of 15Regional Case Studies. As with the other elements of the study, the analysis will belimited to Objective 1 and 2 funded regions and it will not cover the Cohesion Fund.

5.2 The aim is to undertake a detailed assessment in selected regions (set out below) withthe aim of understanding the following:

How the national strategy has been translated at the regional level; The role of the regional strategy; In cases where there were cross-border flows, the role of cross border planning;

The importance of filling “missing links”; The programme strategy for ERDF interventions and the extent of coordination

with the Cohesion Fund; The type of transport interventions supported;

The balance between the construction, upgrading and maintenance ofinfrastructure;

The importance of intermodality in the design of the strategy; and With regard to investments in ports, an assessment of the inter-linkage between

investment in port terminals and connections.

Selected case study regions

5.3 In the terms of reference we were required to identify a number of specific regions forthe purposes of the regional case study analysis. The selection was undertakenaccording to a predefined set of criteria and developed following the inceptionmeeting with the Commission. The regions set out below have been selected, based onthe following criteria:

Financial criteria: firstly, we selected the Member States with the largestamount of ERDF resources for transport. We then identified the regions withinthe Member States that received significant amounts of ERDF transport co-financing.

Transport strategic importance criteria: we selected those regions that were ofstrategic importance for transport in that they had major ports or rail hubs or wereon key transport (TEN) corridors and had major funding outside the ERDFprogramme, as well as those regions that border with other Member States.

Transport mode criteria: where possible, we gave priority to regions thatincurred expenditure covering all transport sectors, including roads, railways,ports, airports and urban transport, as well as infrastructure aimed at improvingintermodal transport.

Programme and Objective criteria: we selected regions in order to includeexamples of Objective 1, Objective 2 and phasing out areas. We also identifiedregions that benefited from ERDF resources both for national transportprogrammes and regional operational ones in order to be able to investigate the


43

rationale of national and regional strategies and their coordination/interaction.

5.4 The selected regions are set out in the figure below. The justification for the selectionof these regions is included in the Inception Report.

FIGURE 5.1 SELECTED REGIONS

Regional case studies - Approach

5.5 To date, the work for this Task has focused on preparing the Pilot Regional CaseStudies for Attiki, Puglia and Andalucia. Having agreed the template document withthe Commission, we undertook desktop analysis to obtain relevant information frompublicly available sources. The information was sourced primarily from publishedstatistical sources such as Eurostat and other data gathering organisations as well as


44

from documents that have been published directly by the managing and financingauthorities. We then sought to supplement this material with additional informationfrom relevant stakeholders (such as managing and monitoring authorities, national andregional evaluators, national and regional transport authorities, etc.) by undertakingfocused interviews. To date we have concluded three interviews with relevantstakeholders for each of the pilot studies.

5.6 We have then undertaken some initial case-specific and comparative analysis in orderto inform an understanding the contribution of the ERDF to changing the transportenvironment in the specified region.

5.7 Part of this analysis will include a comparison of Table 5.2 in each of the case studiesthat qualitatively reviews the progress made in the programming period towardscountering the challenges of the specific region.

5.8 Each case study lists the major challenges faced by the region and then reviews theprogress made with the investment undertaken and the fulfilment of the objectivesunderpinning the investment as compared to the challenges in each of the regions. Theprogress made with the investment is then categorised as follows:

Achieved (Greater than 97% achieved)

Approaching achievement (The measures identified for the policy are between80% and 97% complete. For example almost all the investment has been made inthat area).

Substantial progress made (The measures identified for the policy are between50% and 80% complete. More than half of the policy is complete).

Some progress made (The measures identified for the policy are between 35%and 50% complete. Still substantial work to be done but there has been someprogress, for example, port infrastructure has been upgraded, but the connectingroads have not be finished).

Not achieved (The measures identified for the policy are less than 35%complete).

5.9 While the fulfilment of objectives underpinning investments is categorised:

High (Policy objectives fully achieved). Medium (Policy objectives partially achieved either because a small number of

measures have been undertaken or because of external factors). Low (Little progress towards policy objectives).

5.10 Further analysis will be developed in the Second Intermediate Report.

5.11 The three Pilot Regional Case Studies are included in Appendix C. We have startedwork on the remaining regional case studies and will prepare the remaining 12 casestudies along similar lines in terms of structure whilst ensuring that each individualregion tells its specific story. Following the completion of all the case studies, we willthen compare outcomes to identify any common themes and issues with implicationsfor the ERDF.


45

Good practice in urban transport - Study Requirements

5.12 In addition to the Regional Case Studies, the Commission also requires the preparationof mini-case studies focused on good practice in urban transport. As with the RegionalCase Studies, the format will follow the recommendations published by DG REGIO, atemplate that will be prepared and agreed with the Commission before it is circulatedto the relevant experts.

5.13 The Commission, and more specifically DG TREN, is seeking to help shape urbantransport policy across Europe, as highlighted in its Green Paper on Urban Transport.The ERDF has helped many towns and cities improve their urban transportenvironment through Objective 1 and 2 resources (outside the URBAN programmes).A number of projects that have been undertaken have focused on reducing trafficcongestion, pollution, lost travel time and energy problems through the use ofinfrastructure investments, as well as on general improvements to public transport andincreasing its use.

Good practice in urban transport - Approach

5.14 Our preliminary analysis has shown that various towns and cities within a number ofthe above mentioned regions have undertaken projects that could be described asbeing good practice. Given the work done to date on this study it is too early to set outfirm proposals in relation to examples of good practice in urban transport. These willbe identified as we develop the various regional studies. In the interviews that we havealready undertaken for the regional case studies, the managing authorities and othershave been asked to nominate potential urban transport projects that could be used asexamples of good practice. We are collecting these proposals and reviewing thebenefits that the projects have brought to the local community. We will propose threeexamples to the Commission having undertaken this review.


46

6. TASK 4: CASE STUDIES ON SPECIFIC ISSUES

Study requirements

6.1 Task 4 requires the preparation of two specific case studies on Road Safety (takenfrom experience in Poland and Portugal) and two on Regional Airports to be proposedby the consultant.

Approach to the Road Safety analysis

6.2 The aim of this sub-task is to analyse whether the interventions that have been made tothe infrastructure have had a positive effect in terms of improved road safety.

6.3 Within this task we will focus on the assessment of the impact of the traffic measuresundertaken in Poland and Portugal. The work will revolve around a review of thebackground, identification of the main activities and analysis of the monitoring andevaluation undertaken in connection with these measures. The chosen approach isbased on the application of sociological, psychological and technical principles.

6.4 The evaluation will be based on the assessment model proposed by Cotter et al (2008).According to this model the steps which have to be taken are:

Task analysis: general background (including traffic safety situation) anddescription of the measure(s) pursued;

Behaviour checklist: what behavioural aspects and details will have to be lookedat and/or considered;

Hypothesis generation tools: theories, models and r

Documents

EX POST EVALUATION OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 2000-2006… · 2011-12-12 · Figure 6.1 Road safety case study work plan 47 Figure 7.1 Road link attributes 54 Figure 7.2 Rail passenger