TEM and TER Projects’ Master Plan€¦ · UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005 • Two growth scenarios: Moderate and Optimistic

TEM and TER Projects’ Master Plan

Michalis Adamantiadis, Regional Adviser

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

1UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005

2

UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN

UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005

The TEM and TER Master Plan

• Background• Objectives• Organization • Final Report • Conclusions / Recommendations

3



Background

• Work started in October 2003 • External consultants were engaged• IRU co-funded the road part • Finalized in September 2005

4



ObjectivesInvestment strategy for development of road, rail, combined transport infrastructure in CE & SEEC:

- Identification of core road and rail networks

- Assessment and prioritization of projects

- Availability of resources

- Intermodality, Border crossing facilitation

- Support extension of TEN-T, PETC

5



Organization of Work

• National Experts, Organizations, External Consultants, PCOs, UNECE

• 2 Expert Groups

• Coordination Group

• Work endorsed by TEM and TER Steering Committees

6


UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005TEM – TER Master Plan invited countriesAustria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, F.Y.R.O.M, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine

7



Final Report

• Method of work• Priority categories for projects• Main results• Benefits• Main follow-up directions

8



• Two growth scenarios: Moderate and Optimistic• 2000 was chosen as the base year• 1995-2000-2001-2002-2004 data was used to set trends• Countries were divided in 3 groups:

- Group I: Austria, Greece, Italy- Group II: New EU Member States and acceding - Group III: Non-EU, non-acceding countries

Socio-economic Framework and Growth Scenarios

9



• Population trends• GDP growth • Foreign trade trends • Transport trends

– For Group III, limited or no data available to support forecasts

Socio-economic Framework and Growth Scenarios (cont’d)

10



• Based on forecasted economic and traffic growth • Four Phases

A. Identification ( with three screening levels)B. Forecasting (using scenarios of growth)C. Evaluation (multi criteria analysis)D. Prioritization (in three levels)

Methodology on Evaluation and Prioritization

11



A. Identification• Level 1: Relevance

– Technical standards, TEM-TER goals, On main Axes, Connecting other regions

• Level 2: Readiness– Project well defined, Responsible agent, Time plan

• Level 3: Viability– 10 mill €, IRR, Environmental aspects, Justified need

Methodology on Evaluation and Prioritization (cont’d)

12



B. Forecasting• Performed on macro level• Using alternative scenarios of growth• With data provided by countries


13



C. Evaluation (Multi-criteria analysis)• Socio-economic return of investment• Functionality and coherency of the network• Strategic / political concerns of the network• Direct application of evaluation providing the scores• Compliance with commitments• Financial capability of country (1.5% of GDP)


14



• Priority I: May be funded and implemented rapidly, including on-going projects up to 2010

• Priority II: Require investigations for final definition before likely financing, or to be implemented by 2015

• Priority III: Require further investigations for final definition and scheduling before possible financing, or to be implemented by 2020

• Priority IV: To be implemented in the long run, including projects where insufficient data exist


15



491 Projects of a total value of 102 billion €evaluated and prioritized

319 Road Projects - 49.5 billion €172 Rail Projects - 52.5 billion €

46 billion € of funding is secured (for 45 % of total implementation cost - 60% of projects)

Project Prioritization

16



Road (out of 319 Projects of 49.5 billion € )

• Category I: 152 projects, 25.3 billion € (only for 141)

• Category II: 93 projects, 23.2 billion € (only for 84)

• Category III: 1 project, 0.24 billion €

• Category IV: 73 projects, 0.9 billion € (only for 1)

15.3 billion € of funding is secured (31%) (For 92 Road projects, implementation cost is unknown)

Project Prioritization (cont’d)

17



Rail (out of 172 Projects of 52.5 billion € )• Category I: 128 projects, 32.8 billion €• Category II: 39 projects, 18.2 billion €• Category IV: 5 projects, 0.5 billion € (only for 2)

30.5 billion € of funding is secured (58%)(For 3 Rail projects, implementation cost is unknown)

Project Prioritization (cont’d)

18



19



20


UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005UNECE

TER Master Plan - Projects over TER Network by Category

21



• Analysis of what may me considered as road and rail bottlenecks

• Full consideration of bottlenecks could not be made within set time-frame and available resources, particularly for TER

• TEM and TER Missing links and extensions identified and proposed

Bottlenecks and Missing Links

22



TEM Master Plan Missing Links and Extensions to the TEM

Network

23



TER Master Plan Missing Links and Extensions to the

TER Network

24



• Major parts of the TEM and TER Networks• EU TEN-T and High Level Group• Pan-European Corridors, MEDA• Euro-Asian Transport Links• Sections on which countries proposed projects• TIRS and REBIS studies• Interconnection and continuity of networks

Master Plan Backbone Network and Links

25



TEM Master Plan Backbone Network

26



TER Master Plan Backbone Network

27



Funding – Technical - Institutional Aspects

• Funding not secured for 40 % of projects:– identification of possible sources of funding– eligibility criteria to receive funds– required procedures

• Main sources of funding • Elements analyzed: Initial approach, legal framework, eligibility

criteria, appraisal, examination, monitoring, decision making, contract signature, etc.

• Possibility of private participation, via PPP

28



• Staged construction• National and international perspectives• Inter-country collaboration and interdependence• Shared cross-border infrastructure• Environmental perspective and planning • Harmonized tendering and construction laws• Interoperability and harmonized standards

Funding – Technical - Institutional Aspects (cont’d)

29



• Inventory of border crossing points made• Relevant GIS maps elaborated• Border crossing problems identified • Recommendations for problems alleviation

Border Crossing Issues

30



31



32



ConclusionsPresented a realistic investment strategy in the wider TEM and TER region, which supports the:

- Extension of TEN-T- Implementation of pan-European Corridors- Promotion of intermodal transport- Maximum effectiveness of transport infrastructure

Conclusions / Recommendations

33



Conclusions (cont’d)• Methodological framework for prioritisation• Wider TEM and TER region Backbone Network• Specific projects for implementation up to 2020• Cost estimates for implementation and available finance• Border crossing problems and ameliorative actions• Impacts of the EU Railway infrastructure• Truck and Coach transport infrastructure considerations• GIS background work

Conclusions / Recommendations (cont’d)

34



Recommendations• Ensure the necessary follow-up of the work • Complete missing or insufficient data • Regularly update the Backbone Network• Monitor the implementation of the Master Plan • Present status of Backbone Networks (2010 -2015 -

2020)

• Review of the strategy by 2008

Conclusions / Recommendations (cont’d)

35



• First TEM–TER attempt for an investment strategy • Assist the development of transport infrastructure• Useful to the work of the EC High Level Group • Implementation requires political will and commitment,

close coordination and monitoring• TEM and TER are ready to follow up this work

Remarks

36



www.unece.org/trans

Thank you

Documents

TEM and TER Projects’ Master Plan€¦ · UNECE TEM AND TER PROJECTS’ MASTER PLAN UNECE Transport Division - 26 October, 2005 • Two growth scenarios: Moderate and Optimistic