Study on Strategic Evaluation on

Transport Investment Priorities

under Structural and Cohesion

funds for the Programming Period

2007-2013

No 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014

Country Report Romania

Final

Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO

ECORYS Nederland BV

Rotterdam, November 2006

ECORYS Nederland BV

P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam

Watermanweg 44

3067 GG Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68

E netherlands@ecorys.com

W www.ecorys.com

Registration no. 24316726

ECORYS Transport

T +31 (0)10 453 87 59

F +31 (0)10 452 36 80

Table of contents

1 Introduction 7

1.1 Background 7

1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 8

1.3 The Country Report 8

1.4 Structure of the report 8

2 Transport Sector: current situation 10

2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Romania 10

2.3 Situation per mode of transport 11

2.3.1 Roads and road transport 11

2.3.2 Railways 14

2.3.3 Urban public transport 15

2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 16

2.3.5 Sea ports 16

2.3.6 Airports 17

2.3.7 Trends and indicators 17

2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 19

3 Accessibility analysis 20

3.1 Introduction 20

3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 20

3.3 Transport needs 21

4 Previous support programmes 27

4.1 EU funding 27

4.2 Other sources of financing 27

5 National Transport Strategy 30

5.1 Introduction 30

5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 30

5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013 30

5.4 Main priorities of the SOPT 31

5.5 Transport priorities in the Regional OP 32

6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 34

6.1 Introduction 34

6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 35

6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 36

7 Impact assessment of scenarios 39

7.1 Introduction 39

7.2 Methodology 39

7.3 Scenarios 41

7.4 Impact assessment 48

7.5 European effects 58

8 Conclusions on investment priorities 64

8.1 Introduction 64

8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 64

8.3 Comparison with OP Transport 2007-2013 67

Annex A: TEN-T priorities 70

Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis 76

7

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States created a new challenge for its

Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU increased substantially, and will further

increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. 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 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 2020.1 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 2007-2013 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 can be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The strategic

evaluation feeds in the process of determining transport investment priorities and the

preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and operational programmes.

As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness and consistency of Fund

assistance.

1 Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004. The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to € 225 billion at the 2020

horizon. 2 COM(2004)492

8

1.2 The Strategic Evaluation

The strategic evaluation is directed to 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 2007-2013.

1.3 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 Romania. Its main aim is to

give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in

Romania 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).

9

Part A: Needs assessment current situation

10

2 Transport Sector: current situation

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Romania. 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

Romania.

2.2 Romania

Romania is one of the most populated countries in Eastern Europe, with over 21 million

inhabitants. It is located at the future edge of the European Union, close to large non-EU

countries like Ukraine, Russian Federation and Turkey. Its location gives rise to a

potential for international transit traffic.

The country has an oval shaped mountainous Carpathian range from northeast via the

centre to northwest, the southeast part of the country being relatively low lying plains.

The north-western part of the country consists of higher plateaus.

11

Basic data

Population 22.3 million

Total area 237,500 km2

Population density 93.9 inh/km2

Main cities Bucharest, Constanta, Ploiesti, Cluj-Napoca

Source: Eurostat

The EU is the largest trading partner of Romania accounting for 71% of total bilateral

trade. Unemployment is reported to be low at 6.6% and inflation fell below 10% in 2004.

Major privatisations took place in the industrial sector and the energy sector.

Economic data

GDP (2004) 6.1 bn€

Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 18.5%

Government deficit as % of GDP (2004) -1.4%

GDP per capita, Romania (2004) 2,800 €

GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 €

GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 €

Source: Eurostat

The GDP per capita in Romania is one of the lowest in the transition economies of

Central and Eastern Europe. Compared to Poland for instance, Romania’s GDP per capita

is 50% lower.

2.3 Situation per mode of transport

2.3.1 Roads and road transport

Infrastructure

The public road network totals nearly 80,000 km, of which 15,700 km are national roads

and 63,700 km are county and local roads. Of the total some 20,900 km are “modernized”

roads; the remaining roads are paved, but in need of rehabilitation, and gravel/earth roads.

The total motorway length is modest, at 210 km. Of the total length of the TEN-T road

network in Romania some 4,600 km have been rehabilitated.

Table 2.1 Length of road network in Romania (1995-2004) in kms

1995 2004

% change

Motorways 210 -

National roads 14.683 15.712 7,0%

Local roads 58.176 63.742 9,5% Source: Statistical Yearbook 2004, National Institute of Statistics 2005

12

The motorway network in Romania comprises the following sections:

• A1 Bucharest – Pitesti 95.8 km west from Bucharest

• A2 Fetesti – Cernavoda 17.5 km across the Danube between Bucharest and Constanta

• A2 Bucharest – Drajna 97.3 km east from Bucharest.

The motorway network has a significantly lower density than in countries of the EU25 and

other neighbouring countries. Furthermore, there is currently no motorway connection to the

EU motorway network.

Table 2.2 Motorway density in Romania

Length motorway/1000 km2

Romania (2004) 0.88

EU15 16

EU25 14

Source: Eurostat

Means

There are 0.5 million freight transport vehicles registered. The truck renewal rate is

relatively high, at 9 percent per year.

There are some 3.2 million passenger cars registered, which makes car ownership at

around 150 per 1,000 inhabitants relatively low compared to EU25/EU10 and

neighbouring Bulgaria.

Table 2.3 Car ownership Romania

Romania (2004) EU15 (2002) EU25 (2002)

Cars/1000 inh 150 491 459

Source: Eurostat

Demand

Traffic has grown on average at 2% per year since 1990, and at 3.7% per year since 2000.

The percentage of heavy vehicles in traffic is presently around 23%. Despite this

substantial share in traffic, road freight movements dropped in volume since 1990, to

some 300 mln tonnes in 2004. Annual average daily traffic on the road network is

reported to have grown by 17% since 1995.

Table 2.4 Evolution road traffic 1995-2005 (AADT)

1995 2005 Percentage change

Total 3,857 4,531 17.4%

Heavy vehicles3 889 1,042 17.2% Source: NCMNR

3 The definition of a Heavy vehicle as defined by NCMNR is any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight including minibuses, vans and what would be classified elsewhere in Europe as non HGV. Articulated HGVs may be double counted as trailers are recorded as separate vehicles in the census data.

13

Road charging

In the past road financing was arranged through a road fund, which received around 45

percent of the fuel excise tax income. This income was divided between the national

roads (65 per cent) and local roads (35 percent). The road fund income covered the

administrative expenses, routine maintenance, loan service payments and limited

rehabilitation costs of the national roads. It also covered most costs of county roads'

rehabilitation and maintenance.

Recently, the fuel tax has been removed as a direct income to the road administration

NCMNR, when it was transformed into an excise duty which is allocated directly to the

State Budget.

A road vignette payment system (the vignette provides a vehicle with the right to use the

national road and motorway network) started in 2002, with phased implementation; it is

to be fully implemented by 2008. The amounts collected by this system are now directly

allocated to the NCMNR for road maintenance.

In 2005 the vignette system has been extended to passenger cars. In addition the bridges

crossing the Danube River are tolled. The toll revenues in 2004 were about 7.2 million

Euros, which is also allocated directly to NCMNR. In addition NCMNR collects charges

for overloaded vehicles.

The total direct income, however, is too low in relation to the full cost of road

maintenance for the national road network. Thus, NCMNR is reliant on the State budget,

IFIs and/or commercial loans in order to fund the shortfall.

Road accidents

The Romanian road network is characterised by main roads passing many villages and

towns. As there are virtually no bypasses, all local and through traffic has to pass through

the town centres. This can result in unsafe situations.

Nevertheless, the number of traffic deaths per 1,000,000 inhabitants in Romania is similar

to the EU25 and EU15 averages. However, if the low level of vehicle ownership and

usage rate of Romania is considered, the accident rate per million vehicle-km or the

number of passenger cars on the road is significantly higher than in other countries (see

table 2.5). As car ownership and utilisation my rise in the (near) future, the accident rate

may go up if no measures are taken. In this respect it is positive that according to

Romanian statistics the number of serious road accidents has declined from around 9,000

per year in the early 1990s to 6,900 in 2005.

Table 2.5 Fatal road accidents, 2002

Fatalities / 1,000,000

inhabitants

Fatalities / 1,000,000

passenger cars

Romania 110 743

EU25 110 239

EU15 100 207 Source: Eurostat Pocketbook: Energy, transport and environment indicators 2005 and SWK Consortium, TA to MTCT, 2006

14

2.3.2 Railways

Infrastructure

The national rail network has 11,050 km of operated track, of which 10,900 km of

standard gauge, 78 km narrow gauge and 61 km broad gauge. Some 3,965 km is

electrified (36%) and 2,965 km are double track (27%). Both percentages are low

compared to EU15.

The TEN rail network is around 20% of total network length and takes almost half of the

rail traffic. A railway rehabilitation program was stared in 1996 in Corridor IV and to

date 90 km has been completed.

Table 2.4 Railway density

Railway line/1000 km2 Railway line/100,000 inh

Romania (2002) 46 51

EU25 67 42

Source: Eurostat

The railway density in Romania is above the EU25 average in terms of density per

population and is slightly below the average in terms of density per 1,000 km2.

The quality of the rail infrastructure is below average standard, leading to speed

restrictions on several routes. On about 27% of the network maximum speed is 50 km/h,

while on another 39% of the network the maximum speed is 80 km/h. The number of

speed restrictions has been increasing in recent years, affecting 624 km in 2001, against

386 km in 1995.

Figure 2.1 Railway network Romania

15

The Romanian government has divided the railway network into two categories:

interoperable and non-interoperable railways. The former, about 70% of the total route

network, would be maintained in compliance with EU regulations and standards. The

latter 30% would be operated either under sub concession agreements or closed. The term

“interoperable” does not imply that it is currently interoperable in the sense of EC

Directive 16/2001.

Means

Railway services are predominantly operated by the State owned Railways CFR. Private

rail freight operators (22 in total) account for 2.5% of the market. The CFR fleet includes

over 2,000 locomotives, 61,000 freight wagons and 5,600 passenger carriages.

The average ages of the fleets of locomotives (over 30 years) and passenger carriages (25

years) are past their normal lifespan.

Demand

Both passenger and freight traffic by rail decreased substantially since 1990. While in

1990 over 400 mln passengers were moved, this amount was just under 100 million in

2004. In terms of passenger kms the drop was even larger, from over 30 bn tot less than 9

bn passenger kms.

Freight movements by rail show a similar drop, from 218 mln tonnes (nearly 49 bn ton

km) to 73 mln tonnes in 2004 (17 bn ton kms).

The share of rail transport in total freight movements has been estimated at 28 percent.

2.3.3 Urban public transport

Infrastructure

Major cities avail of municipal bus services. In addition, Bucharest is the only city in

Romania with a metro network. It consists of 62 km of double track, covering 4 lines and

45 stations. The metro system comprises 3.7% of public transport network. The network

is currently being extended by a total of 7 km and 8 stations

The main public transport operators in Bucharest are RATB, the surface public transport

operator under Bucharest Municipality providing bus, trolleybus and tramway services,

and METROREX, the metro network administrator, subordinated to the Ministry of

Transport. Even if Bucharest has a solid public transport network of trams, trolleybuses,

buses and metro, the vehicles of the fleet used by the public transport operators cannot

cover transport demand, due to the following4:

• The fleet has an insufficient number of vehicles.

• Average wear of the fleet is over 60 percent.

• The infrastructure of surface-rail transport is, on average, 65 percent worn.

• There is no independent public transport authority.

4 Source: Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, Next stop: Sustainable transport, Case study

Bucharest

16

• There is no specific information regarding the volume and dispersion of public

transport demand in the territory.

Demand

Use of metro services dropped from over 160 million passengers in 1995 to 117 million

in 2004. Presently the metro system takes 15% of the public transport passengers in

Bucharest.

The integration of public transport modes in Bucharest needs further attention, since the

networks for bus, trolleybus, and tram (RATB) on the one hand and metro

(METROREX) on the other hand are not efficiently working together. This is hindered by

the fact that no ticket integration exists between RATB and METROREX.

2.3.4 Inland waterway transport

The inland waterway system of Romania is focused on the Danube River in the south of

the country. It also includes the secondary navigable branches of the Danube and the

Danube – Black Sea Canal. The length of the river in or along the border of Romania is

1075 km. The 170 km section between Braila and the Black Sea can handle maritime

shipping.

Romania has 30 inland waterway ports with a combined handling capacity of 52 million

tonnes per annum. The largest ports are Braila, Galati, Tulcea and Sulina (in total 34

million tonnes capacity) which are part of the TEN-T network. The inland ports have 48.5

km of quayside, of which 85% is in poor physical condition due to their age and lack of

maintenance.

Freight traffic on the Romanian inland water transport routes is very low; it has accounted

for only 15,000 tonnes (4.3 million tonne kms) in recent years. Total traffic in the ports

amounted to 71,700 tonnes, but only 31,000 tonnes related to inland water traffic. Almost

all traffic is carried on private vessels.

2.3.5 Sea ports

Infrastructure

Maritime transport is provided by the direct access to the Black Sea through the three

maritime ports of Constanta, Mangallia and Midia. The port of Constanta is by far the

largest of the three and among the largest ports on the Black Sea, with a traffic capacity

of 105 million tonnes per year. It has nearly 30 km of quays with up to 19 m water depth.

It can accommodate vessels with a maximum capacity of 165,000 dwt for bulk carriers

and 250,000 dwt for tankers. The condition of the infrastructure is deteriorating, due to its

old age and prolonged use over 40 years.

Demand

Freight traffic in Constanta fluctuates, due to international economic and political

conditions. It was 43 million tonnes in 2003 and 37.5 million tonnes in 2004.

17

2.3.6 Airports

Infrastructure

Romania avails of 17 civil airports, of which 12 are permanently open for traffic. The

most important airports are the two airports of Bucharest, the airport in Timisoara and the

one in Constanta. These four airports are operated by the Ministry of Transport (MTCT),

while the other 12 are operated by county councils; 1 airport is private.

Demand

Total passengers handled at the airports is growing rapidly (14% in 2004), but still

relatively low at 1.4 million per annum. Most traffic is directed to EU25 countries (70%).

There are 8 commercial airline operators available in Romania, of which TAROM; the

Romanian flag carrier is the largest. There are 58 commercial aircrafts registered.

Table 2.5 Air traffic 2000-2005

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

ATMs 59,464 62,082 66,030 72,648 81,563 105,781

Passengers, ‘000

International 2,089 2,197 2,276 2,550 3,008 3,727

Domestic 274 294 334 351 384 466

Total 2,363 2,491 2,609 2,901 3,392 4,192

Freight & mail,

tonnes

82,967 68,607 16,803 16,179 19,553 21,330

Source: Airport Statistics, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism

NOTE: ATM=Automatic Transport Movement

2.3.7 Trends and indicators

Modal split

The share of cars is increasing in passenger movements, even though car ownership is

still relatively low. Both bus and rail passenger transport dropped considerably since

1990. The share of railways is still substantially above the EU15/25 average.

Table2.6 Modal split passenger transport (share in passenger kilometres)

Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro

Romania (2004)a 75 13 12 -

EU15 (2003) 84.1 8.4 6.3 1.2

EU25 (2003) 83.2 9.0 6.5 1.4 a Source: SWK Consortium, TA to MTCT, 2006 estimate (passenger cars) and National Institute of Statistics

Despite the sharp decline in total freight movements, rail traffic still has a substantial

share of the freight market, with approximately 30%. The role of inland waterway

transport in freight movements is modest at 7%.

18

Table2.7 Modal split freight transport (share in ton kilometres)

Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline

Romania (2004) 64 29 7 -

EU25 (2004) 72.6 16.4 5.6 5.4 Source: Eurostat and Romanian National Institute of Statistics

Figure 2.5 Development of the modal split in freight transport

-

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(mln

to

nn

es-k

m)

19

2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system

The Romanian transport sector is clearly in need of investments in both its networks and

transport fleets. The investments needs not only relate to new infrastructure, but also to

rehabilitation of existing road and rail infrastructure. In doing so, proper attention needs

to be given to the generation of sufficient funds for maintaining the infrastructure and for

improving safety of the roads and railways. With respect to sustainable transport Romania

has a strong starting point in that presently railways (still?) have a substantial role in

freight and passenger traffic. It is important not to loose this potential, as it will be

difficult to regain any ground lost to the road sector.

The Sectoral Operational Programme for Transport (SOPT) contains a SWOT analysis of

the transport infrastructure. This SWOT has been reviewed on the basis of the above

descriptions. This results in the following SWOT table:

Strengths Weaknesses

• Strategic location between EU and large

neighbouring countries

• Extensive rail network available

• A large international sea port available with

access possibilities for large vessels

• Potential for inland waterway transport on

the Danube river

• Competition in road passenger and road

freight sector

• Capacity of the transport network limited

• Quality of road and rail network is low,

partly due to insufficient maintenance.

Speed restrictions on rail network.

• Road network not dense

• Motorway network not yet developed and

without international links

• Limited electrification of the rail network

• Rail rolling stock outdated

• Use of railways is declining

• Danube navigation limited by depth and

width restrictions

Opportunities Threats

• Following EU accession new opportunities

to use additional funds for development of

transport infrastructure

• Potential to develop new cost effective and

environmentally friendly bulk freight and

container traffic by waterborne means on

the Danube River

• Potential to restructure rail operational

services (block trains) to increase the use of

the cost effective multimodal transport

modes

• Insufficient funds available for national co-

financing

• Alternative transit routes outside Romania

are available

• Rail share may decline further if services,

cost level and efficiency will not improve

20

3 Accessibility analysis

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment at a regional level. It

complements Chapter 2 where potential deficiencies have been addressed. The analysis of

the current situation together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion

perspective together form the 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 Index (API), 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 Index is a combined measure, which addresses

transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate

explanation is provided in Annex B). 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 Index

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 has been evaluated from both a national and a European

perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that could 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 needs from the cohesion

policy perspective, an agreement is required on the indicator(s) of accessibility to be used.

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. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the

21

core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions

are central and some are peripheral, i.e. it cannot 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 composite accessibility indicator has been defined which

distinguishes between geographical location and the 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 trade-

off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. Annex B

gives a more elaborate description of the composite Accessibility Problem Index.

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 Romania. In terms of population density, the capital city Bucharest clearly stands out,

whereas the next urban centres Iasi, Cluj-Napoca, Constanta and Timisoara are parts of

larger urban districts (Figure 3.1). Bucharest is also the economic centre of the country

(Figure 3.2). However, it is also apparent that even compared to the new EU member

states Hungary and Slovakia, Romania is a very poor country.

The new accessibility

indicator recognises

transport network

quality, population

density and regional disparity

22

Figure 3.2 Population density (population/sq km) 2006

Figure 3.3 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005) 2006

23

The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that could 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 Romania, 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 Romania is compared with the European average (Figures 3.4 and 3.6),

it becomes apparent that the road and rail systems in Romania are significantly below the

European average, as indicated by the yellow and red shades of the maps.

Regional imbalances

If the spatial distribution of road accessibility in Romania is examined (Figures 3.3 and

3.4), the first things to note are the two corridors of above-average road accessibility

along the two major existing motorways: north-south along the Hungarian border and

west-east between Pitesti and Constanta. However, even these corridors are below the

European average. The other parts of the country are severely disadvantaged, in particular

the northern regions along the borders to the Ukraine and Moldova – which is also due to

the poor state of the roads in these countries.

The situation is worse if rail accessibility is examined. The maps of accessibility

problems in the current rail system of Romania (Figures 3.5 and 3.6) show that almost all

regions in Romania, including Bucharest, are in the highest problem class if European

standards are applied (dark red). In addition there are large differences in rail accessibility

within the country. Again the regions near the Hungarian border have above-average rail

accessibility, as have some regions in the east of the country between Constanta and

Bacau. But even the regions with the highest rail accessibility are well below the

European average.

24

Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), Romania 2006

Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), Romania 2006

25

Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), Romania 2006

Figure 3.7 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), Romania 2006

26

Part B: Past transport investment priorities

27

4 Previous support programmes

4.1 EU funding

Main instruments relevant to Romania were the Phare and ISPA programmes during the

pre-accession period.

Phare funding has mainly benefited interventions in the area of road transport. This is

mainly due to the fact that access roads are eligible for funding under the Phare-supported

regional development or economic and social cohesion schemes, whereas projects in the

rail transport sector would be i) too costly to be accommodated under these programmes

and ii) project preparation of rail transport projects is lengthier than for road transport.

The implementation of ISPA is in line with the country's transport strategy priorities:

Modernisation of well travelled sections of the three Trans-European corridors crossing

the country while maintaining a balance between road, rail and waterways (with emphasis

on improving cross border links). ISPA funding is mainly benefiting road transport (EU

contribution of 522.5 million Euro), followed by rail transport (381.3 million Euro). The

three largest ISPA projects in terms of EU funding are:

• "Rehabilitation of the Bucharest Baneasa-Fundulea - Fetesti sections of the Bucharest

-Constanta railway line in Romania " (2000/RO/16/P/PT/001/01): 231.7 million Euro

• "Rehabilitation of the section Drobeta Turnu Severin-Lugoj on the national road no

6" (2001/RO/16/P/PT/006): 138.0 million Euro

• “Rehabilitation of the railway section Campina - Predeal on the Bucharest - Brasov

railway line in Romania" (2003/RO/16/P/PT/007): 149.6 million Euro5

It is worth mentioning that ISPA funding is not limited to infrastructure works only.

Recently, a tender has been launched for the establishment of a Transport Strategy as a

basic framework for investment programming in the Romanian transport sector for the

period 2005–2025.

4.2 Other sources of financing

This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure.

EBRD

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has committed loans

in Romania for the amount of 310.7 million Euro in the period 1993-2004 in 7 transport

5 This project has not started yet; in fact the tender process is still ongoing.

28

projects. A total of 220 million Euro is related to roads rehabilitation and construction of

motorways. Furthermore, EBRD co-financed two rail rehabilitation projects and one port

project (Constanta).

EIB

European Investment Bank’s (EIB) involvement has been financing motorways and roads

(11), metro (4), railways (3), inland waterways (1) and air fleet renewal (1) projects; in

total 20 projects in the period 1994-2005. The total cumulative lending for motorway

construction amounted to some 2.5 billion Euro. The most recent loan was 300 million

Euro in 2005 for the rehabilitation and upgrading of railway section between Curtici and

Simeria on Pan-European Corridor IV.

PPP financing

To date, the approach towards construction has remained traditional, namely using

construction contracts. The development of new methods, such as design-build-operate

(DBO) contracts and public private partnerships (PPP), have been considered, however

such initiatives have been successful to date.

One example is the intended PPP construction for the Bucharest-Brasov. The plans were

first revealed in February 2002 as part of a 2.3 billion infrastructure programme

encompassing seven projects. The EBRD has rejected to commit a loan for this PPP

project, because this large and complex project was ill-prepared.

Currently, the legal framework for PPP’s in Romania is not likely to allow for private

sector participation. The status and content of the law for completing and amending the

Government Decision no 16/2002 regarding PPP contracts needs to be studied. There is

already a law on concession regimes (219/1998), however to what extend this allows for

private sector participation also remains to be studied.

The EBRD has identified concessions for various airports in Romania as a potential area

for PPP in the near future.

29

Part C: Future transport investment priorities

30

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 and

resulting investment priorities. In the next chapter these investment priorities are

confronted with an analysis of possible sources of financing, and other factors such as

their contribution to EU policy objectives, the administrative capacity of the country, the

socio-economic impacts in relation to the costs of the projects, and the extent to which the

projects contribute to the needs identified in Part A of this report. Finally the overall

impact of the proposed investment priorities is assessed.

5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning

There is presently no national transport policy as such. The Phare-funded “General

Master Plan Study (1999)” provided some of the building blocks for a transport strategy.

It is anticipated that early 2007, ISPA financed technical assistance will start to establish

a transport strategy as a basic framework for investment programming in the Romanian

transport sector up to 2025. This long term strategy should include preparation of a short-

to-medium-term transport master plan and investment programme covering analysis,

evaluation and ranking of a pool of projects within the jurisdiction of the Romanian

Ministry of Transport, Constructions and Tourism (MTCT). Furthermore, the strategy

should cover identification and classification of possible additional objects for transport

investment for the long-term.

5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013

The government of Romania has recently finished drafting its Sectoral Operational

Programme for Transport (SOPT), one of seven operational programmes under the

“Convergence” Objective.

The total budget of the SOPT over the programming period 2007 – 2013 is estimated at

about 5 billion Euro. Out of these, 4.0 million Euro represent the Community financial

support (Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund), while national co

financing will amount to about 995 million Euro.

31

In parallel to the SOPT, a Regional Development OP has been developed. Both

programmes integrate towards a common development strategy in order to achieve a

coherent transport system providing for spatial cohesion and interoperability with the

European Union transport systems.

5.4 Main priorities of the SOPT

The following list of priority axes has been identified:

1. Modernization and development of TEN-T priority axes

2. Modernization and development of the national transport infrastructure outside

the TEN-T priority axes

3. Upgrade the railway passenger rolling stock on the national and TEN-T railway

networks

4. Sustainable development of the transport sector

5. Technical Assistance

Each SOPT priority axis can be funded by either the CF or the ERDF, but not both; and

will be supported by one or more operations. For each priority axes, key areas of

interventions have been identified as described below.

Under priority 1:

• Modernization and development of road infrastructure along TEN-T axis 7

• Modernization and development of railway infrastructure along TEN-T axis 22

• Modernization and development of water transport infrastructure along TEN-T axis

18

Under priority 2:

• Modernization and development of national road infrastructure

• Modernization and development of national railway infrastructure

• Modernization and development of river and maritime ports

• Modernization and development of air transport infrastructure

Under priority 3:

• Upgrade the railway passenger rolling stock with up to date train units

Under priority 4:

• Promote inter-modal transport

• Improve traffic safety across all transport modes

• Minimize adverse effects of transport on the environment

Under priority 5:

• Provide support for effective SOPT managing, implementing, monitoring and

controlling

• Provide support for information and publicity regarding SOPT

Co-financing from Cohesion Fund

The following projects have been identified so far for Cohesion Fund co-financing

(Priority 1):

• Construction of the northern arm of the TEN-T-7 motorway between Nadlac-Arad-

Timisoara – Lugoj – Sibiu – Pitesti- Bucuresti – Constanta (corridor IV)

32

• Rehabilitation/upgrading/modernization of the TEN-T-22 railway including the

sections: Curtici - Simeria, Simeria-Coslariu, Coslariu – Sighisoara, Sighisoara-

Brasov, Brasov-Predeal and Caroiva-Calafat.

• Improving navigation conditions on the TEN – T- 18 (Danube river) on the section:

Calarasi – Braila; also works will continue at the jointly owned Romanian-Bulgarian

section, on the Danube – Black Sea Canal and on the Poarta Alba – Midia Navodari

Canal.

• Modernization and development of airport infrastructure for the four national airports

under the authority of MTCT.

Co-financing from ERDF

Under Priority 2, no specific projects are mentioned, apart from investing in the port of

Constanta in facilitating port operations and efficiency, increase container stacking and

handling capacity and increase vessel safety.

Under Priority 3 modernization and development of national roads, railway, river and

maritime infrastructures are foreseen. With respect to the road network this includes

priority sections on TEN-T as well as outside TEN-T, providing access to less developed

regions and areas with high potential. For the railways this priority aims at ensuring

interoperability of the conventional railway network with European network by equipping

train sets with the European Train Control System (ETCS), introducing electronic

centralisation equipment, developing IT systems, etc.

Priority 4 deals specifically with replacement of the railway rolling stock.

Priority 5 addresses the issue of sustainability, by promoting intermodal transport by

among others the creation of logistical centres. Initiatives will include new multi-modal

freight platform on the international airport, was well as allowing the Constanta port to

become a link point in the Black Sea zone, within the logistic chain of the upcoming

multi-modal maritime bases on TEN T 7 and 22 axes with the Black Sea branch of the

Motorways of the Sea Southeast Europe (TEN-T-21). It will also include upgrading,

extension and development of the metro system of the capital. Lastly, under this priority a

number of initiatives will be taken by MTCT to ensure implementation of European

safety and security standards across all transport modes.

5.5 Transport priorities in the Regional OP

The global objective of the ROP is to:

accelerate the economic growth of the Romanian Regions, giving priority to the Regions

lagging behind, so that, by the end of the programming period, the disparities between

the more prosperous and the less developed Regions, in terms of infrastructure

development and business environment, addressed by this programme, to diminish.6

6 See Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 (April 2006), page 87.

33

Under Priority Axis 1 Improvement of regional and local infrastructure, the

rehabilitation/modernization of the county and local transport network is foreseen.

The operations will focus on:

• Ensuring connection with the road and rail national networks and with the European

transport networks (TEN-T).

• Connecting the national intermodal infrastructure with the national roads

• Facilitation of the connections between the main urban centres, as well as between

these and periphery areas, to allow the lagging-behind regions to attract investments.

• Accessibility of less developed areas.

• Elimination of road bottlenecks and safe crossing of localities.

• Rehabilitation and modernisation of regional/local airports and ports which are not

foreseen in the SOPT.

34

6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments

(2007-2013)

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”7.

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 20058. 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 factor 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.

7 COM(2004)492 8 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.

35

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 2007-2013

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 objective9. 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 inter-modality 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.

9 Decision n°. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April 2004.

36

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:

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 45 m€), 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. EIB has

been very active in Romania in the previous decade, especially in supplying loans for

roads and motorway investment, but also in railway infrastructure and investment in the

Bucharest metro line. It is expected that the level of EIB involvement in the coming

decade will be stable.

In addition to EIB, EBRD will become more active in Romania, as recently announced in

their annual meeting. EBRD expect the EU-8 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,

Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) to ‘graduate’ by 2010. The Bank’s investment

in these countries will decline and next year probably closing of offices will start.

Romania is one of the countries mentioned to which EBRD resources will be shifted.

It can be expected that important areas for EBRD investment will be road and rail

rehabilitation, together private sector participation in airports.

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.

TEN-T budget

EIB

EBRD

PPPs

37

Experience with PPPs in Romania is limited. The intended PPP for the motorway

Bucharest-Brasov has failed and lessons should be learnt. An important basic element for

a successful PPP project is the fact that a project should be well prepared and mature.

This seems to be one of the reasons for the failure of the Bucharest-Brasov project.

Both EBRD and EIB can also get involved if PPP constructions are considered through

direct equity participations.

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 Destination

TEN-T TEN projects, especially cross border sections

EIB Motorways, and to a lower extent railways

EBRD Railways, airports and state roads rehabilitation

PPP & private capital Income generating transport investments: ports,

airports, toll roads, logistic centres

Appropriateness of the transport policy

Apart from the investment policy of Romania, other aspects of the country’s transport

policy are relevant to contribute to EU and national policy objectives. Three specific

elements are identified on the basis of the analysis of the current transport system:

• Transport safety

• Promoting transport by inland waterway

• Transport pricing and charging

Transport safety is clearly an area for attention, as accident levels, measured in fatalities

in relation to car ownership and traffic, are considerably above the EU average.

Improving road safety has not been one of the priorities of the Romanian transport policy

in recent years. Therefore additional measures are needed to raise awareness and improve

road safety levels, especially on the national (non-TEN) road network.

Romania is making progress in promoting transport by inland waterways, especially on

the Danube. The number one development priorities in this respect are related to the

Danube, i.e. to eliminate the bottlenecks on the Rhine-main-Danube corridor and to

improve the navigability. The promotion and stimulation of inland waterway transport is

also one of the priorities of the EU Transport Policy and Romania is one of the key

countries that can contribute to connect the North Sea with the Black Sea.

Romania should put more efforts in the field of internalising external costs and creating a

fair and transparent price structure for all modes of transportation. The government

should pay more attention to the generation of income from the users of the transport

system. This is specifically important with respect to the financing of the maintenance

and operation of the state road network and possibly also the rail network.

38

Administrative capacity

The institutional capacity within key agencies to programme and/or implement transport-

sector programmes is widely acknowledged as a significant problem in Romania. The

institutional capacity to absorb assistance therefore has to be an integral part of any

discussion on transport strategy in Romania.

There is a growing acknowledgement on the part of both public sector bodies themselves

and external commentators that administrative capacity weaknesses could constitute a

major barrier to Romania successfully absorbing EU assistance and implementing its

transport investment programme over the coming years. Much greater attention is

therefore being focused on concrete measures to enhance overall absorption capacity with

such activities now taking a more prominent position alongside discussions on the

priorities themselves.

A risk element in this is that priorities may change with changes in the composition of the

cabinet. Moreover, as staff members are frequently being shifted, the technical capability

to prepare and implement projects could be in danger.

Based on the previously stated arguments, a risk assessment has been prepared with

respect to the administrative capacity in Romania. This assessment is summarized in table

6.2. Moderate to high risk 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 / High Some experience; administrative capacity needs improvement for

preparation and organisation of projects

Roads Moderate Some experience with large construction projects

Rail Moderate/ High Limited experience with large scale investments; restructuring

process still ongoing

Inland waterway Moderate Some experience with IWT projects

Urban transport Moderate Depending on size of project. Limited experience with large scale

projects

39

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 sectors10

.

10 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended

European Union.

40

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

model11

. 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 2007.

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 2007.

Further European integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers

between countries.

11 Which relies on the trans-European transport network database developed by IRPUD (2003) and now maintained and

further developed by RRG (2005)

41

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. Where possible, these projects are based on existing

planned projects and related cost estimates12

. Where no existing data existed, estimates

have been based on existing unit parameters coming from an EU wide infrastructure

needs assessments13

. In all scenarios no further transport projects are implemented after

2016. However, it is assumed that European integration proceeds as it does 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 projects14

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 accessibility15

).

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 studies16

, 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 result 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 2007-2013 and

which are operational by 2016. An important notion with respect to the maximum

scenario is that no budget restriction is applied.

12 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). 13 E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC 14 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. 15 Are projects solving “missing links” in the network. 16 For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006).

42

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 prioritised17

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 return18

)?

• Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both on a

European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport corridors, and

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.

17 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). 18 Based on TEN-STAC

43

Table 7.1 Assessment of priority areas

Sub sector

Co

st-

effe

ctiv

en

ess

Accessib

ility

Su

sta

inab

ility

Territo

rial

Co

hesio

n

Safe

ty

Oth

er s

ou

rces

of fin

an

ce

Railways:

- Modernisation north branch corridor IV / TEN

22 (Constanta-Brasov-Curtici)

- Modernisation south branch corridor IV

(Craiova-Curtici)

- Modernisation corridor IX (Giurgiu-Iasi)

- Modernisation national rail network

- Renewal of railway fleet

0/+

0/+

0

0

0

+

+

0/+

0/+

0

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

+

Roads:

- Modernization north branch corridor IV / TEN

7 (Nadlac-Sibiu motorway)

- Rehabilitation/upgrading of national road

network

+

+

+

+

-

-

0

+

0

+

+

0

Inland waterways:

- Improving navigability Danube (TEN 18)

0

0

+

0

0

0

Ports

- Modernisation and development of Maritime

and River ports

+

+

+

0

+

0

Urban public transport

- Integration public transport modes bus,

trolleybus, tram and metro in Bucharest

0/+

+

+

0

+

0

Intermodal transport

- stimulate intermodal transport

0 0 + 0 + 0/+

Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion

Railways

• The railway network is one of the densest in Europe, but the rail infrastructure needs

upgrading and maintenance. Focus should be on the national railway lines that

represent parts of trans-European Corridors, the TEN-T priority axis (TEN 22) that

connect Romania with neighbouring countries (corridor IV). Less priority is given to

European corridor IX, towards Moldova/Ukraine, because of low passenger and

freight demand.

• Upgrading of the national railway network is especially important for recovering

from fierce competition with road haulage. There are an increasing number of

sections with speed restriction due to deteriorating quality of the infrastructure. Not

only upgrading of the railway infrastructure is important, but also the conditions of

the trains and stations and junctions need to be improved. The renewal of rolling

stock is essential for a better quality of service. To improve the effectiveness of such

investments, however, integrated plans are needed for the various corridors. As transit

corridors are mainly used for freight traffic, while suburban networks are important

44

for passenger travel, the integrated plans should balance the investments, marketing

and operations with these functions. Otherwise dear investment funds may be lost.

Roads

• Romania does not yet have a well developed network of motorways. Priority should

be given to construct such a network, however only where (potential) demand

justifies construction of motorways, else express roads will be sufficient. Future

motorway sections include Nadlac-Sibiu (corridor IV / TEN 7), Bucharest-Constanta

and Bucharest-Brasov.

• The overall standard of the national road network is insufficient, with poor

maintenance impeding the quality. The rehabilitation and upgrading of the national

road network therefore is of utmost importance, especially for regions with low

accessibility. Also, the Romanian Government is recommended to pay attention to

financing of regular maintenance of the state road network.

River

• The potential of the Danube Rivers is not yet fully utilised. Capacity restrictions

prevent this. Investments in the river system will benefit in particular international

traffic. They may be less efficient from a national point of view. An integrated view

is needed, taking into account the full corridor (TEN 18).

Ports

• Modernisation of the ports can help to stimulate sustainable transport modes. Some of

the investments can be performed by private parties, though. The role of the

government could be limited to investments in public infrastructure, quay walls etc.

Urban public transport

• Given its present strong share, urban transport is not to be neglected. As car

ownership is likely to rise, an efficient and high quality urban transport system will

be needed to combat urban congestion. In this respect investment in the urban

transport system, especially in Bucharest, can be efficient as well as contributing to

the sustainability goal.

Intermodal transport

• Development of indermodal terminals should be integrated in the development of rail

freight corridors and/or river system development. There are positive effects to be

expected on sustainability and (indirectly) on safety. Investment need to be fine-tuned

though.

Table 7.2 gives on overview of the proposed priority areas for EU intervention of which

the impacts have been modelled with the SASI model. It also includes the expected areas

that are (potentially) financed by other sources. As the impact of measures to improve

river transport, intermodal transport and urban transport are not included in the SASI

model, these have not been listed.

45

Table 7.2 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding

Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB EBRD PPP

Railways:

- Modernisation north branch corridor IV / TEN

22 (Constanta-Brasov-Curtici)

- Modernisation south branch corridor IV

(Craiova-Curtici)

- Modernisation corridor IX (Girugiu-Iasi)

- Modernisation national rail network

- Renewal of railway fleet

√

√

√

√

?

?

?

?

√

√

Roads:

- Modernization north branch corridor IV / TEN 7

(Nadlac-Sibiu motorway)

- Rehabilitation/upgrading of national road

network

√

√

√

?

?

√

?

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.

46

Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum Road and Balanced Scenarios

TEN/TINA priority road projects:

- Motorway Nadlac-Timisoara-Lugoj - Motorway Cernavoda-Constanta - MotorwayFocsani-Albita - Motorway Brasov-Bucharest National road projects - Brasov - Vestem - Bucharest - Ploiesti - Brasov - Ploiesti - Buzau - Halmeu - Baia Mare - Dej - Baia Mare - Sabaoani - Siret - Braila - Tulcea - Constanta - Focsani - Targu Secuiesc - Basarabi - Constanta - Bucharest - Oltenita - Alexandria - Craiova - Timisoara - Sanicolau Mare - Bucharest - Gaesti - Pitesti - Buzau - Brasov - Brasov - Bacau - Onesti - Adjud - Barlad - Chichis - Toplita - Balauseri - Miercurea Ciuc - Sibiu - Sighisoara - Medias - Iernut - Teius - Copsa Mica

- Targu Mures - Reghin - Toplita - Toplita - Bacau - Reghin - Saratel - Reghin - Apahida - Bistrita - Moisei - Baia Mare - Sighetul Marmatiei - Sighetul Marmatiei - Iacobeni - Satu Mare - Livada - Oradea - Satu Mare - Braila - Slobozia - Calarasi - Ramnicu Sarat - Braila - Cernavoda - Basarabi - Macin - Ceamurlia - Limita jud. Galati - Vaslui - Iasi - Crasna - Husi - Albita - Tecuci - Sendreni - Targu Frumos - Botosani - Suceava - Manoleasa Prut - Botosani - Dorohoi - Alexandria - Turnu Magurele - Caracal - Corabia - Turnu Magurele

- Craiova - Bechet - Craiova - Calafat - Maglavit - Simian Oravita - Iablanita - Caransebes - Anina - Resita - Voiteg - Voiteg - Moravita - Ghimpati - Gaesti - Caracal - Olanesti - Filiasi - Petrosani - Drobeta Turnu Severin - Tirgu Jiu - Tirgu Jiu - Ramnicu Valcea - Lugoj - Ilia - Baldana - Targoviste - Sinaia - Gaesti - Ploiesti - Pitesti - Brasov - Brad - Alba Iulia - Abrud - Campeni - Stei - Turda - Simeria - Oradea - Arad -Oradea - Varfurile - Chisinau Cris

47

Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum Rail and Balanced Scenarios

TEN Priority rail projects - Fundulea-Fetesti-Constanta - Curtici - Arad - Simeria - Sigishoara - Brasov - Predeal - Campina - Arad - Drobeta Turnu Severin - Craiova - Calafat - Giurgiu - Videle - Bucharest - Ploiesti - Buzau - Focsani - Bacau - Bucuresti - Giurgiu National rail projects - Timisoara - Stamora - Moravita - Cluj - Episcopia Bihor - Doaga - Tecuci - Barbosi - Bucuresti - Pitesti - Ramnicu Valcea - Sibiu - Vantu de Jos - Bucharest - Giurgiu - Gen. Eremia Grigorescu -Tecuci - Barbosi - Bucharest - Urziceni - Faurei - Chitila - Pitesti - Tecuci - Socola - Cristesti Jijia - Halmeu - Oradea - Arad - Harlau - Flamanzi - Dangeni - Saveni - Darabani - Albeni - Seciuri - Alunu

48

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

Average speed of interregional road trips (kph)

National, regional average

Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph)

National, regional average

Economic competitiveness

GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average

Territorial cohesion Primacy rate population (%) National

Primacy rate GDP (%) National

Gini coefficient19 of GDP per capita (0-1)

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 2007-2013, the target year for the model simulations is set at 2031.

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 2031. 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

19 A Gini coefficient is a measure which represent the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of income between NUTS 3

regions (i.e. equal regional GDP/capita)

49

Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (2031 impacts)

Scenarios

Refer-

ence

Maxi-

mum

Road

Maxi-

mum

Rail

Maxi-

mum

Bal-

anced

Objective

Indicator

2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031

Average speed of inter- regional road trips (kph)

30.5 31.5 35.5 +12.6%

31.5 0.0%

35.5 +12.6%

33.8 +7.4%

Average speed of inter- regional rail trips (kph)

19.6 19.6 19.6 0.0%

21.5 +9.6%

21.5 +9.6%

20.7 +5.7%

Economic competitiveness

GDP per capita (Euro)20

1,693 3,528 3,570 +1.2%

3,548 +0.6%

3,589 +1.7%

3,570 +1.2%

Primacy rate (%) population

8.9 8.9 8.9 0.0%

8.9 0.0%

8.9 0.0%

8.9 0.0%

Primacy rate (%) GDP

20.3 18.8 18.9 -0.1%

18.9 +0.1%

18.9 +0.1%

18.9 +0.4%

Gini coefficient of accessibility (0-100)

6.76 7.19 6.28 -12.6%

7.06 -1.8%

6.20 -13.7%

6.80 -5.5%

Territorial cohesion

Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100)

22.15 20.39 20.38 -0.0%

20.41 +0.1%

20.40 +0.0%

20.48 +0.4%

Environmental sustainability

Share of interregional rail trips (%)

25.0 23.7 18.4 -22.3%

31.1 +31.3%

24.8 +4.8%

23.7 -0.0%

Table 7.4 indicates that the overall economic impacts of the scenarios on Romania are not

very large, but also not negligible. The transport improvements of the Balanced Scenario

increase the average income in Romania by more than 40 Euro per capita per year. The

larger part of this effect is due to road investments. The volume of road investments in the

Balanced Scenario is reflected in the larger improvements in interregional travel speed by

road than by rail.

The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact on the spatial structure

of the country, are negligible. The model expects Bucharest to continue its current

population decline so that its share of the national population remains constant. Bucharest

is much more dominant as economic centre. According to the SASI forecasts, this

dominance is likely to decrease as other regions are able to catch up in development.

However, these trends are not significantly changed by any of the transport infrastructure

scenarios. The Gini coefficient of accessibility shows a convergence in accessibility, in

particular of through road projects; the Gini coefficient of GDP per capita shows slight

convergence effect through road projects but polarisation in all other scenarios.

The environmental 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 according to the model increase by more than 30 percent. However, if also the

planned road projects are implemented as in the Maximum Scenario, this effect is more

20 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 Romania would be about twice as high.

50

than overcompensated by the growth in road travel – the effect in the Balanced Scenario

is neutral..

Regional impacts

Figures 7.4 to 7.6 show the spatial distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) per

capita in the regions of Romania in the target year 2031.

Figure 7.4 shows GDP per capita of the regions in the Reference Scenario in the year

2031. Note that a different colour scale than in Figure 3.2 had to be used. It can be seen

that according to the model forecast, the gap in income between Hungary and Romania

has remained, despite Romania's accession to the EU in 2007 and its rapid economic

growth (see Table 7.4). Apart form the higher level, the spatial distribution of GDP per

capita within the country is very similar to the distribution in 2006 shown in Figure 3.2.

Figures 7.5 and 7.6 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 scenario and the Reference Scenario. The more intense the

green shade, the higher the impact. It can be seen that the full transport infrastructure

investments in the Maximum Scenario mainly benefit the eastern regions which had the

greatest accessibility problems (see Figures 3.4 and 3.6) and regions near the Croatian,

Serbian and Bulgarian borders, such as Timisoara, Resita and Drobeta-Turnu-Severin. In

the reduced Balanced Scenario the overall pattern of economic impacts is similar but

significantly lower.

Figure 7.4 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005) 2031 (Reference Scenario)

51

Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Maximum Scenario)

Figure 7.6 Impact on GDP per capita (2031 Balanced Scenario)

52

Figures 7.7 to 7.9 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on

sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips).

Figure 7.7 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3

regions of Romania (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031, i.e.

without 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 north-eastern parts of the

country where rail speeds are above the (national) average and where the road network is

particularly poor (see Figure 3.4).

Figures 7.8 and 7.9 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the policy

scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. Here, too, the reversed traffic light colour

scale is used; so 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): Where rail improvements dominate as in the

Maximum Scenario in the western part of the country and near the west-east corridor

Pitesti-Bucharest-Constanta, significant gains in rail use are achieved. However, where

at the same time new motorways are opened, as in the north-eastern part of the country,

this effect is lost as more travellers are attracted to road than to rail. Figure 7.9 shows

clearly the negative environmental effect of the reduction in rail investment in the

Balanced Scenario: If the rail line between Arad and Craiova is not improved, rail attracts

less passengers in the south-west and south. However, there is some improvement in rail

use because in the Balanced Scenario less roads are built in the north-east.

Figure 7.7 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Reference Scenario (2031)

53

Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Maximum Scenario (2031)

Figure 7.9 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips) in Balanced Scenario (2031)

54

Finally the as 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, both road and rail accessibility in Romania are far below the European average

(Figures 3.4 and 3.6).

Figures 7.10 and 7.11 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 2006. The

comparison with the present situation in Figures 3.4 and 3.6 shows that despite of this

accessibility by both road and rail has improved in most regions due to the ongoing

European integration including the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, which

has led to shorter border waiting times and reduced trade barriers.

Figure 7.10 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Road. Now more regions in Romania

are shaded yellow, i.e. their accessibility has moved closer to the European average.

However, the north-eastern regions near the border to Moldova are still problem regions.

Figure 7.11 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Rail. It can be seen that without rail

improvements large parts of Romania remain very poorly served by rail.

Figures 7.12 to 7.15 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the

Accessibility Problem Index in Romania seen from a European perspective. Compared to

the Reference Scenario in 2031, in both scenarios road accessibility has further improved

in most regions, so that most regions in Romania are now close to the European average,

though in the Balanced Scenario the north-eastern region remain disadvantaged (Figure

7.13). The quality of the rail system of Romania remains poor and uneven despite the rail

improvements in both scenarios, with severely poorly served regions in the north near the

Ukrainian border, in the north-east near the border to Moldova, but in the Balanced

Scenario also in the centre of the country not far from Bucharest (Figure 7.15).

55

Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)

Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Reference Scenario (2031)

56

Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (2031)

Figure 7.13 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective) in Balanced Scenario (2031)

57

Figure 7.14 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Maximum Scenario (2031)

Figure 7.15 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective) in Balanced Scenario (2031)

58

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, Romania, 2031

Scenarios

Refer-

ence

Maxi-

mum

Road

Maxi-

mum

Rail

Maxi-

mum

Bal-

anced

Mode

Level

2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031

National 1.000

0.926 0.779 -15.8%

0.927 +0.1%

0.779 -15.8%

0.812 -12.3%

Roads

European 1.622

1.501 1.263 -15.8%

1,503 +0.1%

1.264 -15.8%

1.317 -12.3%

National 1.000

0.954 0.949 -0.5%

0.759 -20.4%

0.754 -20.9%

0.823 -13.7%

Rail

European 1.899

1.813 1.803 -0.6%

1.442 -20.5%

1.433 -20.9%

1.564 -13.7%

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. This

is due to the accession of Romania to the EU and the effects of European integration in

the form of reduced waiting times and other barriers.

There are significant further improvements to the road network in Romania 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 more significant. The differences between the Maximum

and Balanced Scenarios are significant because many motorway projects and several rail

electrification and new rail construction projects contained in the Maximum Scenario are

not included in the Balanced Scenario.

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 pages maps and three-dimensional images of the

spatial distribution of the impacts of the transport infrastructure investments in Romania

are shown (Figures 7.16 to 7.29).

The maps and surfaces show the difference between the Balanced Scenarios and the

Reference Scenario in 2031 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.4: average speed

of interregional road trips (Figure 7.16), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure

7.17), GDP per capita (Figure 7.18) and share of interregional rail trips (Figures 7.19). It

59

can be seen that although the main impacts occur in Romania itself, significant effects

spread beyond national borders21

.

The speed impacts of the road projects (Figure 7.16) spread to the north-west into

Hungary, to the south-west into Serbia and Croatia and to the south into Bulgaria, but to a

small extent also across most of Europe. The European effects are smaller in the

Maximum Scenario (both indicator surfaces are drawn to the same vertical scale).

The speed impacts of the rail improvements in Figure 7.17 also drawn to the same

vertical scale are smaller and clearly show the peaked distribution in the west, centre and

east of the country.

The economic impacts in GDP per capita (Figure 7.18), though small, spread into all

directions and, though only marginally, affect all of Europe.

The environmental impacts in terms of share of rail trips (Figure 7.19) reflect the spatial

distribution of road and rail projects: Rail use increases where the impacts on rail speed

are large and decreases where road speed improvements are dominant – the gains

coincide with the peaks in rail improvement in Figure 7.17 but are more than cancelled

out by the larger peaks in road accessibility in Figures 7.16. As it can be seen in Table

7.4, the net effect of the peaks and sinks in the Balanced Scenario is nearly zero.

21 The impacts on countries outside the modelling area, such as Ukraine and Moldova, are not shown in the diagrams

because these countries are considered only as possible destinations of person trips and shipments of goods.

60

Figure 7.16 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031

61

` Figure 7.17 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031

62

Figure 7.18 GDP per capita: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031

63

Figure 7.19 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts (Balanced Scenario), 2031

64

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 2007-2013 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 2007-2013

The identified priority areas are described per sub-sector. These sub sectors are assessed

on a number of criteria:

Table 8.1 Assessment of priority areas

Sub sector

Co

st-

effe

ctiv

en

ess

Accessib

ility

Su

sta

inab

ility

Territo

rial

Co

hesio

n

Safe

ty

Oth

er s

ou

rces

of fin

an

ce

Railways:

- Modernisation corridor IV / TEN 22

- Modernisation corridor IX

- Modernisation national rail network

- Renewal of railway fleet

0/+

0

0

0

+

0/+

0/+

0

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

+

Roads:

- Modernization corridor IV / TEN 7

- Rehabilitation/upgrading national road network

+

+

+

+

-

-

0

+

0

+

+

0

Inland waterways:

- Improving navigability Danube TEN 18

0

0

+

0

0

0

Intermodal transport

- stimulate intermodal transport

0 0 + 0 + 0/+

Ports

- Modernisation and development of Maritime

and River ports

+

+

+

0

+

0

Urban public transport

- Integration public transport modes bus,

trolleybus, tram and metro in Bucharest

0

+

+

0

+

0

Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion

65

Railways

The Romanian railway system needs upgrading and maintenance. However, investments

in both infrastructure and rolling stock need to follow from an integrated approach in

developing both (international) freight corridors and passenger transport oriented parts

(corridors, sub urban systems) of the rail network. Such an integrated approach needs to

be based on investment, operations and marketing strategies, to make sure that investment

funds are spent in an efficient way. Concentration on (international) freight corridors and

important passenger lines will be most effective.

Investment on the railway lines that represent parts of in particular TEN-T international

priority axis (Curtici-Constanta TEN 22) is likely to achieve high positive results,

provided that they are based on a thorough marketing and operations plan, aimed at

safeguarding a substantial share of the freight movements.

In addition, the rail links to North Eastern part of the country (pan-European corridor IX

towards Moldova) could help to reduce disparities in accessibility between regions, but is

likely to be less cost effective, as less people are affected.

Upgrading of the national railway network can be important for enhancing its competitive

position vis-à-vis road haulage. However, such projects need to be well based on a view

of the market potential that can be realised. In this respect not all speed limitations

necessarily need to attacked in the short to medium term, as they may not always improve

the position of rail (freight) movements sufficiency.

Not only upgrading of the railway infrastructure is important, also the conditions of a

substantial part of the stations and junctions need to be improved in light of enhancing

traffic safety. Such aspects need due attention in the project preparation. The renewal of

rolling stock is essential for a better quality of service. The level of renewal is to be

phased and geared to a rail sector master plan.

The restructuring process of Romanian railways should be given priority, as competition

in the rail freight market is still limited. Competition in this sector will help to achieve the

efficiency levels needed to counter the increasing competition from the road sector.

Intermodal terminals

The development of intermodal terminals is to be fine-tuned to the rail sector master plan,

identifying main rail freight corridors. The experience in other countries is that there is a

role for the government in stimulating intermodal freight terminals in particular in their

early stages. Such a role can be justified on the basis of sustainability goals. The scope of

public investment (including assistance from the EU) is related to socio economic

benefits, the market potential and the attractiveness of the investments in such terminals

to private parties. The outcome of this will depend on the particular situation of the

individual terminal.

Roads

Romania does not have a well-developed network of motorways yet. Priority should be

given to construct such a network, however only where (potential) demand justifies

66

construction of motorways, else express roads will be sufficient. Recommended future

motorway sections include Nadlac-Sibiu (corridor IV / TEN 7), Bucharest-Constanta and

Bucharest-Brasov, as they cater for substantial traffic levels, including international

traffic.

In addition to these roads, development of the national road network could be used to

integrate the presently less accessible regions into the Romanian and European society.

This in particular relates to the regions along the Ukrainian and Moldovan borders in the

north and along the Bulgarian border in the south, as even with the investments foreseen,

their accessibility will be lower than average in Romania. The prioritisation of such

investments should also be subjected to cost-benefit analysis, to ensure that such

improvements also benefit economic growth.

The overall standard of the national road network is insufficient, with poor maintenance

resulting in low quality. More financing needs to be allocated to road maintenance, in

order to ensure that the past and future investments will indeed have the expected effect.

Thus, the Romanian Government is recommended to pay attention to financing of regular

maintenance of the state road network.

Road safety is an important policy item, as the level of car ownership and mobility is

expected to increase over the next decades. This calls for specific attention for road safety

in the design of improvements, including bypasses of cities/towns, as well as proper road

safety enforcement and awareness campaigns.

Inland waterways

The priority of improving the navigability of the Danube (TEN 18) depends very much

on the expected (future) use. This is to a large extent related to the international traffic

flows between the Black Sea and Central/Western Europe. In this respect an overall,

international view and approach on the Danube is needed, rather than one which hinges

on national priorities. It is thus recommended that investments in the Romanian part of

the Danube are closely linked to a development plan for the whole river corridor and

therefore to the scope and timing of improvements in other stretches, outside Romania.

As with respect to the importance for national movements, this might be restricted, as

many main population centres are (far) away from the river.

Ports

The modernisation and development of maritime and river ports should lead to an

increase in their efficiency and thus their attractiveness for users. In particular the port

operations, container stacking and handling and vessel safety needs improvement in the

port of Constanta. However, container handling is predominantly a field for private

investments. The global trend in container handling is one of concentration of capacity in

a limited number of private and state owned companies, while comfortable profit margins

are realised.

The role of the government and thus EU involvement could rather be to take away

bottlenecks in the interfaces between ports and the road and rail network, as well as

67

investment in the public infrastructure of the ports (navigation channels, quay walls,

safety devices, port security etc).

Urban public transport

The use of public transport services has seriously dropped combined with an increase in

car ownership, threatening the accessibility of Bucharest. Presently, there is a lack of

coordination between the services provided through bus, trolleybus, and tram (RATB) on

the one hand and metro (METROREX) on the other hand. This is hindered by the fact

that no ticket integration exists between RATB and METROREX.

Moreover, in Bucharest at present no independent public transport authority exists. It is

recommended to start forming such a public transport authority, which would be

responsible for a number of activities, amongst others in the field of finance (through

public service contract arrangements with operators), general policy formulation,

regulatory and associated control, planning, setting (integrated) fares, procurement,

enforcement and infrastructure and equipment. It is advised to develop such a public

transport authority.

Investments in urban public transport, especially in Bucharest, are recommended in order

to counter the expected increase in car use and the associated increase in urban

congestion levels. They can help to improve the sustainability of the urban transport

system, help to reduce road accidents and help to increase efficiency of the urban

economy.

Airports

Despite the mentioning of airports in the SOPT, investments in this sector are not

featuring prominently on the list of recommended priority projects for EU financing. This

is due to various observations. First, if airports have achieved a minimum level of

passengers (e.g. a few millions per annum), private financing can relatively easily be

attracted for airport infrastructure and can be used e.g. to upgrade the terminal buildings.

The role for the government is in that case to ensure proper access services (road, public

transport), as well as safeguarding the safety and security of operations.

Secondly, the strong rise in air transport has negative effects on the environment and is

thus not contributing to a sustainable transport system.

An exception could be made for regional airports, in so far as they help to improve

accessibility of peripheral regions. Even then careful consideration of investments is

needed, though, to balance the costs to the expected (regional) economic effects.

8.3 Comparison with OP Transport 2007-2013

It is worthwhile to compare the priorities mentioned above on a strategic level with the

priorities as stated in the OP Transport 2007-2013 in order to check for consistency.

The table below provides an overview regarding whether or not priorities recommended

in this study are in line with the OP Transport:

68

Table 8.2 Comparison priorities in the OP Transport 2007-2013

Priority In line with OP Transport?

Railways:

- Modernisation corridor IV / TEN 22

- Modernisation corridor IX

- Modernisation national rail network

- Renewal of railway fleet

- Priority axis 1, key area 2

- not mentioned

- Priority axis 2, key area 2

- Priority axis 3

Roads:

- Modernization corridor IV / TEN 7

- Rehabilitation/upgrading national road network

- Priority axis 1, key area 1

- Priority axis 2, key area 1

Inland waterways:

- Improving navigability Danube TEN 18

- Priority axis 1, key area 3

Intermodal transport

- stimulate intermodal transport

- Priority axis 4, key area 1

Ports

- Modernisation and development of Maritime and River ports

- Priority axis 2, key area 3

Urban public transport

- Integration public transport modes bus, tram, metro in

Bucharest

- not mentioned

This table shows that most of the priorities are in line with the OP Transport 2007-2013;

only the modernisation of rail corridor IX to Moldova and the integration of public

transport modes (bus, tram and metro) in Bucharest are not mentioned in the OP.

A comparison with the elements mentioned under priority axis 1 (“improvement of

regional and local infrastructure”) of the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007-

2013 is difficult. The statements regarding the operations in this ROP are rather broad

(e.g. improve accessibility of less developed areas) and also interrelate with the OP

Transport. In any case it is clear that the rail corridor IX and the proposed integration of

urban public transport modes are also not mentioned in the ROP.

It appears that there are also a number of priorities mentioned in the OP Transport, which

are not labelled as such in this study:

• Modernisation and development of air transport infrastructure (priority axis 2, key

area 4)

• Improvements of traffic safety across all transport modes (priority axis 4, key area 2)

• Minimise adverse effects of transport on the environment (priority axis 4, key area 3)

• Technical assistance (priority axis 5)

The argumentation why modernisation of air infrastructure is not mentioned as a priority

is provided in the previous paragraph. The priority to improve traffic safety across all

transport modes is already covered in the rail and road priorities (see previous paragraph).

The priority to minimise adverse effects on the environment is also already captured in

the priority regarding the road network: it relates e.g. to mitigating measures. Obviously,

the recommended priority given to the rail network, inland waterways and urban public

transport all contribute to an envrionmental-friendly functioning of the transport system.

69

The last priority on technical assistance relates to amongst others increasing

administrative capacity to implement the OP Transport. This element is also raised in the

report in section 6.3.

70

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-Kirstein (2015)

- Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009/2012)

- Brenner tunnel (2015)

- Verona-Naples (2007)

- Milan-Bologna (2008)

- Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015)

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)

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)

2015

71

No. TEN project Completion

4 High-speed railway axis east

- Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)

- Metz-Luxembourg (2007)

- Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007)

2007

5 Betuwe line 2006

6 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)

2018

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)

2010

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)

2015

9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed 2001

10 Malpensa Airport completed 2001

11 Öresund fixed link completed 2001

72

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)

2015

13 UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis 2013

14 West coast main line 2008

15 Galileo (not included in reference scenario, only mentioned here for consistency) 2010

16 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)

2020

17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava

- Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015)

- Stuttgart-Ulm (2012)

- Munich-Salzburg (2015)

- Salzburg-Vienna (2012)

- Vienna-Bratislava (2012)

2015

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)

2019

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)

2020

73

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 (2014

- Railway Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015)

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)

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)

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)

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)

2018

25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna

- Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011)

- Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010)

- Brno-Vienna motorway (2013)

2013

74

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)

2020

27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki

- Warsaw-Kaunas (2010)

- Kaunas-Riga (2014)

- Riga-Tallinn (2018)

2018

28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis

- Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012)

- Luxembourg- French border (2013)

2013

29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor

- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)

- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)

2014

30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt

- Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016)

- Compiègne-Cambrai (2016)

2016

CH1 Gotthard axis

- Zimmerberg tunnel (2011)

- Gotthard tunnel (2015)

- Ceneri tunnel (2015)

2015

CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015

Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005;

Spiekermann & Wegener (Swiss projects)

75

Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects

76

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

77

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 trade-

off 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.

78

- It should allow measuring 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 vrm of all trips frsm from a region r to

all other regions s in Europe by mode m in year t is defined as

[ ]

[ ]∑

∑

−

−

=

s

rsmrsms

rs

s

rsms

rmtctftP

dtftP

tv60/)()(exp)(

)(exp)(

)(β

β (1)

where Ps(t) is regional population in year t, crsm(t) is travel time in minutes between

regions r and s by mode m in year t, β is the impedance parameter and drs is airline

distance in km between the central cities in regions r and s calculated from their

geographical coordinates xr, yr and xs, ys by

( ) ( )22

rsrsrsyyxxd −+−= (2)

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 t0 = 2006 to show changes in accessibility:

)()(

)()(

)(00

0

tPtv

tPtv

tvr

r

rm

r

rrm

rm

∑

∑=′ (3)

∑

∑=′

r

rr

r

rr

rtPA

AtP

tp)(

)(

)( (4)

∑

∑=′

r

rr

r

rr

rtGtP

tPtG

tg)()(

)()(

)( (5)

where Ar is the area of region r and Gr(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

79

speed, population density and GDP per capita and values above one indicate above-aver-

age airline speed, population density and GDP per capita of the region.

Index

With these relative indicators, the Accessibility Problem Index qrm(t) of region r by mode

m in year t can be formulated:

[ ] [ ] [ ]γα −−

′′′= )()()()(1

tgtptvtqrrrmrm

(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 2016. The situation in 2016 is based

80

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)22

which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the

individual countries (European Commission, 2005)23

.

22 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), 1-55. 23 European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority Axes and Projects 2005. Luxembourg:

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.