-
March 2016
Authors:
Transport
FINAL REPORT
WORK PACKAGE 5
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes
2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and the
Cohesion Fund (CF)
May 2016
Authors: John Finnegan, Richard
Redfern, Jacopo Signorile
-
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate B - Policy Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester
Contact: Jan-Marek ZIOLKOWSKI
E-mail: [email protected]
European Commission B-1049 Brussels
-
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
2016 EN
Transport
FINAL REPORT
WORK PACKAGE 5
Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes
2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and the
Cohesion Fund (CF)
CCI: 2014CE16BAT042
-
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
ISBN 978-92-79-58527-2 doi: 10.2776/693539
European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1
-
1
Table of Contents
Executive summary 3
Rsum oprationnel 8
Zusammenfassung 14
Section A: Introduction 20
A1 Introduction 20
A2 Evaluation objectives 20
A3 Approach 21
A4 Report structure 23
Section B: Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU 25
B1 Introduction 25
B2 Cohesion policy funding overview 26
B3 Contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks 31
B4 Contribution of cohesion policy to Member State transport networks 38
B5 Conclusions on the contribution of cohesion policy to transport 51
Section C: Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport 52
C1 Introduction 52
C2 Strengths of cohesion policy 52
C3 Weaknesses of cohesion policy 54
C3 Conclusions 58
Section D: Quality of financial analysis of projects 59
D1 Introduction 59
D2 Demographic data 60
D3 Interaction with competing modes and routes 61
D4 Consumer behaviour 62
D5 Tariffing and affordability 63
D6 Investment costs 64
D7 Construction schedule 66
D8 Financial sustainability 69
D9 Financial modelling and approach 70
D10 Summary of conclusions 73
Section E: Catalogue of challenges 74
E1 Introduction 74
E2 Demand analysis 75
-
2
E3 Financial and economic analysis 88
Section F: Conclusions 97
F1 Introduction 97
F2 Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU 97
F3 Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport 98
F4 Quality and completeness of financial analysis 99
F5 Catalogue of challenges 100
F6 Overall Conclusions 101
-
3
Executive summary
The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor
any person acting on the Commissions behalf may be held responsible for the use which
may be made of the information contained therein.
Introduction
This evaluation study forms part of the ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013
programming period of EU cohesion policy. The main objectives and requirements of this
evaluation were to:
Identify the main achievements of cohesion policy in all areas of transport
related infrastructure;
Analyse to what extent the EU support contributed to the creation of
comprehensive transport networks; and
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy intervention in
transport and explore directions this policy should take in the future.
The work carried out for this study and the detailed results obtained are set out in two
Interim Reports. Based on that work, this Final Report:
Summarises the contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU;
Sets out the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of
transport;
Presents the results of the examination of the financial analysis of transport
projects carried out by Member States;
Presents the catalogue of challenges that has been prepared based on the
results of this study; and,
Sets out the overall conclusions of the evaluation.
Contribution of cohesion policy to transport
Cohesion policy can contribute to transport in the European Union (EU) both at a trans-
European level and at the level of individual Member States. The most effective way for
cohesion policy to contribute to the completion of EU wide transport networks is for it to
support the completion of the Trans European Network Transport (TEN-T). The TEN-T
is the outcome of a joint planning process by the Commission and Member States to
define EU-wide priorities for transport.
Cohesion policy has made a significant contribution to the completion of the TEN-T.
Member States placed a high priority on TEN-T road and railroad projects in their funding
decisions. The total cohesion policy allocation to transport was 82.3 bn. Of this, 40.8
bn or 49% was related to TEN-T. Of the 3,875 km of new roads constructed with
-
4
cohesion policy support by the end of 2013, 1,817 km or 47% were new TEN-T roads.
Similarly of the 3,405 km of railroad, which have been either newly built or reconstructed
by the end of 2013 with cohesion policy support, 1,661 km or 49% were TEN-T railroads.
Furthermore, over 23,000 km of roads were reconstructed across the 28 Member States
by the end of 2013 with the cohesion policy support.
Cohesion policy funding has made a significant contribution to the transport networks of
individual Member States. In the course of this evaluation the provision of transport
infrastructure in 15 Member States with highest related cohesion policy allocations has
been examined against the background of all transport development. The total public
investment in transport infrastructure in these Member States for the period 2007-2013
was 494 bn. Cohesion policy expenditure on transport in these Member States
amounted to 52 bn in the same period. This support was concentrated in Member
States that joined the EU in or after 2004. Cohesion policy expenditure on transport
corresponded to the majority of total investment in Lithuania (54%), Hungary (49%) and
Slovakia (45%) over the 2007-2013 programming period. At the other extreme, cohesion
policy expenditure only corresponded to 1% of transport investment by the state in
France over the same period.
In physical terms, 3,851 km of new roads were built until the end of 2013 in these 15
Member States with cohesion policy support. This was equivalent to 1% of the stock of
motorways and state roads in these Member States. A further 21,653 km of roads had
been renewed or refurbished with cohesion policy support. In all, the length of road
network either newly built or reconstructed with the cohesion policy support is equal to
9% of the stock of motorways and state roads by the end of 2013. In the railroad sector,
cohesion policy contributed to the provision of 3,135 km of new or reconstructed railroad,
equivalent to 2% of the network in the 15 Member States.
Based on the work during this study it appears that cohesion policy allocations were well
aligned with current trends in the sector and with transport policy priorities. In particular
cohesion policy funding made a significant contribution to connectivity at the level of the
EU and of individual Member States. This contribution was concentrated in those Member
States and regions which were the intended recipients of the highest relative levels of
cohesion policy support.
Cohesion policy allocation for Member States ranged from 57 bn in Poland to 25 m in
Luxembourg. The resources set aside for transport within the cohesion policy envelopes
ranged from 45% in Poland to 0% in Denmark and Luxembourg. The level of absorption
of cohesion policy funding allocated to transport ranged from 55% in Romania to 105%
in Spain, for those Member States who allocated more than 5 bn to transport.
This co-funding helped to build new and reconstruct existing roads and railways, both
within TEN-T and outside of this network. However, for roads both TEN-T and outside
of this network - the outputs reported by the end of 2013 were concentrated in the
Member States, which joined EU in or after 2004, while the Member States, which joined
EU before that date, account for bigger share of railroad outputs.
The use of cohesion policy funding in the rail sector was focused on the renewal or
upgrading of existing railroad, to increase line speeds and capacity. Significantly, some
stakeholders from Member States highlighted the important role of cohesion policy
funding in supporting large, complex projects that were particularly evident in the rail
sector. In their opinion, such projects may not have been undertaken in the absence of
-
5
cohesion policy funding. By encouraging investment in rail and in urban transport,
cohesion policy has contributed to environmentally friendly transport.
There was a lower level of financial contribution through the cohesion policy 2007-2013
programming period for non-road or railroad investment. However, enhancements were
made to urban transport, airports, ports and cycle paths during the period.
Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport
The strengths of cohesion policy investments in the transport sector included the ability
to support the diverse range of policy objectives across Member States, with allocations
reflecting the needs of individual Member States. This supported ongoing investment in
the TEN-T, contributed towards addressing investment needs for Member States and
assisted in meeting regional/local transport requirements.
Cohesion policy allocations were an important source of funding for transport
infrastructure during the economic recession. It was a key source of funding to promote
investment in large complex infrastructure projects. Many stakeholders noted that, in the
absence of cohesion policy funding, Member States would have focused on lower cost
infrastructure to the possible detriment of addressing identified needs.
The 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming period also played a role in developing the
organisational capacity of Member States. The procedures for securing cohesion policy
funding require Member States to engage in strategic planning of their transport needs.
Member States have also enhanced their capacity to develop and appraise complex
transport investment projects.
A number of weaknesses were also observed regarding the cohesion policy 2007-2013
programming period for transport. These included some difficulties in combining cohesion
policy funding and private finance in PPP structures and a lack of clarity among some
Member States on the application of State Aid rules to investments in transport.
The aforementioned focus of allocations to the TEN-T was noted by some stakeholders as
reducing allocations for addressing regional transport needs, thereby perpetuating
regional disparities. However, on balance the focus on long term transport planning in
Member States as a basis for investments will have ameliorated this risk in practice.
Quality and completeness of financial analysis of transport projects
This study examined the quality and completeness of the financial analysis carried out by
Member States when they develop transport investment projects. This work on financial
analysis considered the quality of the financial analysis undertaken during the ex-ante
stage by Member States, and included both demand and financial aspects of projects. In
all cases by the time a funding decision was made the financial analysis of the project
was complete and accurate, and provided a full basis for decision making on the project.
A number of areas which commonly presented difficulty were identified, as was best
practice amongst Member States in dealing with these difficulties.
The quality of demand analysis varied between projects, particularly in the use of
demographic data such as employment and car ownership. Such data was observed in
many instances to be too spatially aggregate, including the use of national level GDP
forecasts to inform demand analysis. This, and the insufficient consideration of project
interactions with other modes and routes, is considered by the evaluators to have
undermined the accuracy and quality of demand analysis for some projects. However, all
-
6
projects demonstrated an approach consistent with best practice with respect to the
analysis of with project and without project scenarios.
The analysis of consumer behaviour and willingness to pay also varied across the
projects evaluated, with little evidence of variable or induced demand analysis. There
was also an over reliance on national level toll and fare policies, without consideration of
affordability among the target markets. Such factors could have undermined the
accuracy of demand analyses. There was also insufficient evidence of how charges would
vary over the appraisal period of most projects, which introduced more potential
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of forecasting.
The accuracy of forecast construction costs also varied between the projects evaluated.
The economic recession was a central factor in reducing contractor costs for many of the
projects evaluated. The level of project preparation also influenced the outturn costs and
implementation schedules. Examples were noted of good preparatory work, including the
early acquisition of land, leading to cost and time savings, whilst the lack of ground
investigation was an example of poor preparatory work which lead to examples of cost
and schedule overruns.
The financial sustainability of some projects was uncertain due to a lack of evidence on
how maintenance costs would be met. A lack of revenue ring-fencing for operation and
maintenance requirements was identified in many road projects. Tolls were also not
implemented to programme on some projects, introducing further uncertainty about
downstream revenues. The separation of the Infrastructure Manager and Railway
Undertaking responsibilities was also observed to have introduced inaccuracies and
uncertainties within some financial analyses. Overall, cash flow and risk analyses were
considered accurate, although further analysis of risk and the residual value of projects is
recommended.
Catalogue of challenges
This study identified the key challenges faced by Member States as they develop and
appraise transport investment projects, and the effects of these challenges in practice.
Best practices in dealing with these challenges were identified and discussed with
Member State stakeholders. A catalogue of these key challenges has been developed
which sets for each of these challenges:
A summary description;
A detailed technical overview of the challenge;
Warning signs that the challenge in question may arise
The implications of the challenge for the financial analysis of a project;
The implications of the challenge for the financial sustainability of the project;
and
Potential solutions to assist in overcoming each challenge.
These challenges identified were:
Forecasting demand accurately to reflect project location, population trends
and contextual factors;
-
7
The accuracy of demand forecasting relating to the short to medium term
impacts of construction, particularly in the rail sector;
Insufficient assessment of project interaction with competing modes or
routes;
Developing and operating a multi-modal transport model that reflects the
project scope and potential results;
Establishing correct representations of the willingness to pay within transport
cost benefit analysis;
Defining tariffing levels within a national regulatory context;
The accurate calculation of maintenance and operating costs, and the net
present value of projects; and
Estimating construction costs accurately as part of the economic analysis.
The full catalogue is set out in Section E of this report.
Conclusions
A number of overall conclusions can be drawn from this evaluation. Cohesion policy has
made a significant contribution to transport in the EU as a whole and in individual
Member States. A number of important strengths have been observed in how cohesion
policy operates in the field of transport. In particular, the decision making structures in
place and the strategic planning of transport investments required of Member States
ensure that the operation of cohesion policy is tailored to the needs and context in
individual Member States. Investments funded by cohesion policy contribute to the
transport strategy of Member States and of the EU as a whole, and encourage the
development of environmentally friendly transport. Cohesion policy investment in
transport has developed the capacity of Member States to plan and complete transport
investments, has ensured that investment continued in a time of economic crisis and
increased the emphasis places on relatively complex investments such as rail by Member
States.
-
8
Rsum oprationnel
Les informations et les points de vue exposs au sein du prsent rapport sont ceux des
auteurs et ne refltent pas ncessairement la position officielle de la Commission. La
Commission ne garantit pas lexactitude des donnes contenues dans cette tude. Ni la
Commission ni aucune personne agissant en son nom et pour son compte ne saurait tre
tenue responsable de lutilisation faite des informations contenues au sein des prsentes.
Introduction
Cette tude fait partie de lvaluation ex post de la priode de programmation 2007-2013
de la politique de cohsion de lUE. Les objectifs et exigences principaux de la prsente
valuation sont les suivants :
identifier les principaux succs de la politique de cohsion dans tous les
domaines affrents aux infrastructures de transports ;
analyser la mesure dans laquelle laide apporte par lUE a contribu la
cration de rseaux de transports exhaustifs ; et
identifier les points forts et les faiblesses de lintervention de la politique de
cohsion dans le secteur des transports et explorer des directions que cette
politique devrait emprunter lavenir.
Le travail ralis dans le cadre de la prsente tude et les rsultats dtaills obtenus sont
prsents au sein de deux rapports intermdiaires. Sur la base de ce travail accompli, le
prsent rapport final :
rsume la contribution de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des
transports, au sein de lUE ;
nonce les points forts et les faiblesses de la politique de cohsion dans le
secteur des transports ;
prsente les rsultats de ltude de lanalyse financire des projets de
transports mens bien par les tats membres ;
prsente le catalogue de difficults surmonter qui a t dress sur la base
des rsultats de ltude, et
nonce les conclusions densemble de lvaluation.
Contribution de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des transports
La politique de cohsion peut contribuer au secteur des transports dans lUnion
europenne (UE), et cela tant sur le plan transeuropen quau niveau des tats membres
individuels. Le moyen le plus efficace pour que la politique de cohsion contribue la
complte ralisation de rseaux de transports lchelle de lUE est laide apporte la
ralisation du Rseau transeuropen de transport (RTE-T). Le RTE-T est le rsultat dun
processus de planification conjointe entre la Commission et les tats membres, dans le
but de dfinir des priorits chelle de lUE dans le domaine des transports.
La politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille la ralisation du RTE-T. Les
tats membres ont attribu une haute priorit aux projets routiers et ferroviaires dans
-
9
leurs dcisions de financement. Le montant total de fonds assigns par la politique de
cohsion aux transports slevait 82 300 millions deuros. Sur ce montant, 40 800
millions deuros (ou 49 %) concernait le RTE-T. Sur les 3 875 km de nouvelles routes
construites jusqu fin 2013 grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion, 1 817
km (ou 47 %) taient de nouvelles routes RTE-T. Dune manire similaire, sur les 3 405
km de chemins de fer, soit nouvellement construits, soit reconstruits jusqu la fin de
2013, grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion, 1 661 km (ou 49 %) taient
des chemins de fer RET-T. En outre, plus de 23 000 km de routes ont t reconstruites
dans les 28 tats membres jusqu la fin 2013, grce au soutien de la politique de
cohsion.
Le financement fourni par la politique de cohsion a constitu une contribution de taille
aux rseaux de transports des tats membres individuels. Dans le cadre de cette
valuation, loffre en matire dinfrastructures de transports dans 15 tats membres
ayant bnfici des allocations de fonds les plus leves de la part de la politique de
cohsion a t tudie, et compare au dveloppement des transports en gnral. Le
montant total de linvestissement public dans les infrastructures de transports dans ces
tats membres, pour la priode 2007-2013, slevait 494 milliards deuros. Les
dpenses de la politique de cohsion pour les transports dans ces tats membres
slevaient 52 milliards deuros pendant la mme priode. Ce soutien sest concentr
sur les tats membres ayant rejoint lUE en 2004, ou par la suite. Les dpenses de la
politique de cohsion pour les transports ont reprsent la majorit des investissements
totaux en Lituanie (54 %), en Hongrie (49 %) et en Slovaquie (45 %), pendant la
priode de programmation 2007-2013. lautre extrme, les dpenses de la politique de
cohsion nont reprsent que 1 % des investissements dans les transports par ltat en
France, pendant la mme priode.
En termes physiques, 3 851 km de nouvelles routes ont t construits jusqu la fin 2013
dans ces 15 tats membres, grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion. Il
sagit l de lquivalent de 1 % des autoroutes et des routes nationales dans ces tats
membres. En outre, 21 653 km de routes ont t rnoves ou remises en tat grce au
soutien de la politique de cohsion. En tout, la longueur du rseau routier soit
nouvellement construit, soit rnov, grce au soutien de la politique de cohsion,
reprsentait 9 % des autoroutes et des routes nationales fin 2013. Dans le secteur
ferroviaire, la politique de cohsion a contribu la mise disposition de 3 135 km de
voies ferres nouvelles ou rnoves, soit lquivalent de 2 % du rseau ferroviaire de ces
15 tats membres.
Sur la base du travail men pour la prsente tude, il apparat que les allocations de
fonds fournies par la politique de cohsion se sont bien alignes sur les tendances
actuelles du secteur et les priorits de la politique de transports. En particulier, le
financement fourni par la politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille la
connectivit lchelle de lUE, ainsi que dans les tats membres individuels. Cette
contribution sest concentre sur les tats membres et les rgions qui taient les
destinataires viss par les niveaux relatifs les plus levs daide dans le cadre de la
politique de cohsion.
Les allocations de fonds fournies par la politique de cohsion dans les tats membres ont
reprsent de 57 milliards deuros en Pologne 25 millions deuros au Luxembourg. Les
ressources alloues aux transports dans le cadre des enveloppes de la politique de
cohsion ont reprsent de 45 % en Pologne 0 % au Danemark et au Luxembourg. Le
degr dabsorption des financements fournis par la politique de cohsion allous aux
-
10
transports a reprsent de 55 % en Roumanie 105 % en Espagne, dans les tats
membres qui ont attribu plus de 5 milliards deuros aux transports.
Ce cofinancement a contribu la construction et la rnovation des routes et des voies
ferres existantes, et cela tant dans le cadre du RTE-T quen dehors de ce rseau.
Nanmoins, pour ce qui est des routes (dans le cadre du RTE-T ou en dehors de ce
rseau), les rsultats communiqus fin 2013 se trouvaient concentrs dans les tats
membres ayant rejoint lUE en 2004 ou par la suite, alors que les tats membres ayant
rejoint lUnion avant cette date prsentent des rsultats plus importants dans le secteur
ferroviaire.
Lutilisation des fonds allous par la politique de cohsion dans le secteur ferroviaire sest
focalise sur la rnovation ou la mise jour des vois ferres existantes, afin daccrotre la
vitesse des lignes et leur capacit. Dune manire significative, certaines parties
prenantes des tats membres ont soulign le rle important jou par les fonds allous
par la politique de cohsion pour soutenir des projets complexes et de grande envergure,
notamment dans le secteur ferroviaire. De leur point de vue, lesdits projets auraient pu
ne pas tre mis en uvre en labsence de financement de la part de la politique de
cohsion. En encourageant les investissements dans les transports ferroviaires et
urbains, la politique de cohsion a contribu la mise en place de transports respectueux
de lenvironnement.
La contribution financire dans le cadre de la politique de cohsion, pendant la priode de
programmation 2007-2013, a t plus faible concernant les investissements non routiers
ou ferroviaires. Nanmoins, des amliorations ont t apportes aux transports urbains,
aux aroports, aux ports et aux voies cyclables pendant cette priode.
Points forts et faiblesses de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des
transports
Parmi les points forts des investissements de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des
transports, on peut citer la possibilit de soutenir un large ventail dobjectifs politiques
lchelle des tats membres, avec des allocations de fonds qui refltent les besoins
individuels de ces derniers. Ceci a permis de maintenir un investissement constant sur le
RTE-T et a contribu rpondre aux besoins en investissements des tats membres,
ainsi qu satisfaire les exigences rgionales/locales en matire de transports.
Les fonds allous par la politique de cohsion ont constitu une source importante de
financement pour les infrastructures de transport pendant la rcession conomique. Il
sest agi dune source essentielle pour la promotion des investissements dans des projets
dinfrastructures complexes et de grande envergure. De nombreuses parties prenantes
ont signal quen labsence du financement apport par la politique de cohsion, les tats
membres auraient ax leurs efforts sur des infrastructures moins coteuses,
possiblement au dtriment des besoins identifis.
La priode de programmation 2007-2013 de la politique de cohsion a galement jou un
rle dans le renforcement des capacits organisationnelles des tats membres. Les
procdures permettant dobtenir des financements dans le cadre de la politique de
cohsion exigent que les tats membres adoptent une planification stratgique pour ce
qui est de leurs besoins en matire de transports. Les tats membres ont galement
renforc leurs capacits dans le domaine du dveloppement et de lapprciation des
projets complexes dinvestissement sur les transports.
-
11
Certaines faiblesses ont galement t notes concernant la priode de programmation
2007-2013 de la politique de cohsion, pour ce qui est des transports. Parmi ces
faiblesses, on peut citer les difficults pour associer les fonds fournis par la politique de
cohsion et les financements privs dans les structures de financement public-priv, ainsi
que le manque de clart, dans certains tats membres, dans lapplication des rgles sur
les aides dtats aux investissements dans les transports.
Certaines parties prenantes ont voqu que la concentration mentionne prcdemment
des allocations des fonds sur le RTE-T a rduit les fonds allous la satisfaction des
besoins des transports rgionaux, perptuant ainsi les disparits rgionales. Nanmoins,
dans lensemble, il apparat que laccent mis sur la planification des transports sur le long
terme dans les tats membres en tant que base des investissements aura rduit ce
risque, en pratique.
Qualit et exhaustivit de lanalyse financire des projets de transports
Cette tude sest penche sur la qualit et lexhaustivit de lanalyse financire mene
par les tats membres lors du dveloppement de leurs projets dinvestissement dans les
transports. Ce travail a valu la qualit de lanalyse financire entreprise au stade ex
ante par les tats membres, comprenant la fois la demande et les aspects financiers
des projets. Dans tous les cas, au moment de ladoption de la dcision de financement,
lanalyse financire de chacun des projets sest avre complte et prcise, fournissant
une base exhaustive pour la prise de dcision dans le cadre de ces derniers. Certains
domaines posant habituellement difficult ont t identifis, ainsi que les meilleures
pratiques au sein des tats membres pour y remdier.
La qualit de lanalyse de la demande sest avre variable en fonction des projets,
notamment dans lutilisation de donnes dmographiques telles que celles concernant
lemploi et la possession dune voiture. Il a t constat que, souvent, de telles donnes
avaient t rassembles dune manire trop spatialement agrge, y compris par le biais
du recours des prvisions du PIB au niveau national pour informer lanalyse de la
demande. Ceci, ainsi que la prise en charge insuffisante des interactions des projets avec
dautres modes de transport et itinraires, est considr par les valuateurs comme
ayant nui lexactitude et la qualit de lanalyse de la demande pour certains projets.
Nanmoins, tous les projets ont retenu une approche cohrente par rapport aux
meilleures pratiques pour ce qui est de lanalyse des scnarios avec projet et sans
projet .
Lanalyse du comportement des consommateurs et de leur volont de payer a, elle aussi,
vari en fonction des projets valus, avec peu dindications sur lanalyse des variables
ou de la demande induite. De mme, une trop forte dpendance par rapport aux
politiques nationales de page et tarifaires a t constate, sans tenir compte de leur
accessibilit financire dans les marchs cibles. Ces facteurs pourraient avoir nui
lexactitude des analyses de la demande. Par ailleurs, peu dlments ont t rassembls
quant la manire dont les charges pourraient varier pendant la priode value dans la
plupart des projets, ce qui a donn lieu une incertitude potentielle plus grande
concernant lexactitude des prvisions.
Lexactitude de la prvision des cots de construction a vari, elle aussi, en fonction des
projets valus. La rcession conomique a constitu un facteur essentiel pour la
rduction des cots de sous-traitance dans le cadre de nombreux projets valus. Le
degr de prparation du projet a, lui aussi, exerc une influence sur les cots finaux et
-
12
les calendriers de mise en uvre. Des exemples de bon travail prparatoire ont t
identifis, dont lacquisition prcoce de terres, ce qui a permis dconomiser aussi bien du
temps que de largent, alors que le manque d'enqutes de terrain a constitu un exemple
de mauvais travail prparatoire menant des dpassements des cots et des dlais
prvus.
La viabilit financire de certains projets sest avre incertaine, en raison du manque
dlments factuels concernant la prise en charge des cots dentretien. Labsence
daffectation des recettes concernant les ncessits en termes dexploitation et
dentretien a t identifie dans de nombreux projets routiers. De mme, les pages
ntaient pas mis en uvre des fins de programmation dans le cadre de certains
projets, ce qui a introduit une incertitude supplmentaire quant aux recettes en aval. Il a
galement t constat que la sparation des responsabilits des gestionnaires des
infrastructures et des entreprises ferroviaires avait, elle aussi, introduit des imprcisions
et incertitudes au sein de certaines analyses financires. Dans lensemble, les analyses
des flux de trsorerie et des risques ont t estimes correctement, bien quune analyse
plus approfondie des risques et de la valeur rsiduelle des projets soit prconise.
Catalogue des difficults
La prsente tude a identifi les difficults cls auxquelles les tats membres se voient
confronts lorsquils dveloppent et valuent leurs projets dinvestissement dans les
transports, ainsi que les effets de ces difficults sur le plan pratique. Des meilleures
pratiques pour faire face ces difficults ont t identifies et voques avec les parties
prenantes des tats membres. Un catalogue de ces difficults cls a t dress. Il
contient, pour chacune des difficults identifies, les lments suivants :
une brve description ;
un aperu technique dtaill de la difficult ;
des signes annonciateurs de la possible apparition de la difficult en
question ;
les implications de la difficult pour lanalyse financire dun projet ;
les implications de la difficult pour la viabilit financire du projet, et
les solutions potentielles pour contribuer relever la difficult.
Les difficults identifies sont les suivantes :
prvoir la demande avec prcision, afin de reflter lemplacement du projet,
les tendances de la population et les facteurs contextuels ;
la prcision de la prvision de la demande par rapport aux impacts court et
moyen terme de la construction, notamment dans le secteur ferroviaire ;
lvaluation insuffisante de linteraction du projet avec les moyens de
transport ou les itinraires concurrents ;
le dveloppement et la mise en uvre de modles de transport multimodaux
refltant la porte du projet et ses rsultats potentiels ;
-
13
la dfinition de reprsentations correctes de la volont de payer dans le cadre
de lanalyse de rentabilit des transports ;
la dfinition des niveaux tarifaires dans le cadre du contexte rglementaire
national ;
la prcision du calcul des frais dentretien et dexploitation, ainsi que la valeur
nette actuelle des projets, et
lestimation prcise des frais de construction dans le cadre de lanalyse
conomique.
Le catalogue complet est prsent dans la section E du prsent rapport.
Conclusions
Certaines conclusions gnrales peuvent tre tires de la prsente valuation. La
politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille au secteur des transports
lchelle de lUE et de ses tats membres. Certains points forts importants ont t
constats dans le fonctionnement de la politique de cohsion dans le domaine des
transports. En particulier, les structures de prise de dcision en place et la planification
stratgique des investissements dans les transports ont exig des tats membres quils
sassurent que le fonctionnement de la politique de cohsion soit taill sur mesure par
rapport aux besoins et au contexte dans les tats membres individuels. Les
investissements financs par la politique de cohsion contribuent la stratgie en
matire de transports des tats membres, ainsi qu celle de lUE dans son ensemble. De
mme, ils encouragent le dveloppement de transports respectueux de lenvironnement.
Les investissements fournis par la politique de cohsion ont renforc les capacits des
tats membres en matire de planification et dachvement des investissements dans le
secteur des transports. Ils ont galement assur la disponibilit continue de fonds par
temps de crise conomique et encourag les tats membres mettre un accent accru sur
les investissements complexes tels que ceux dans le secteur ferroviaire.
-
14
Zusammenfassung
Die Informationen und Ansichten, die in diesem Bericht wiedergegeben werden, sind die
der Autoren. Sie entsprechen nicht zwangslufig der offiziellen Meinung der Kommission.
Die Kommission bernimmt keine Gewhr fr die Richtigkeit der in dieser Studie
verwendeten Daten. Weder die Kommission noch Personen, die im Namen der
Kommission handeln, sind fr die Verwendung der nachstehenden Informationen
verantwortlich.
Einleitung
Die Evaluationsstudie ist Teil der Ex-Post-Evaluierung der EU-Kohsionspolitik in der
Programmperiode von 2007-2013. Die Hauptziele und Anforderungen dieser Evaluation
lauteten wie folgt:
Die wichtigsten Erfolge der Kohsionspolitik in smtlichen Bereichen der
transportbezogenen Infrastruktur bestimmen,
analysieren, bis zu welchem Grad die EU-Frderung zu der Entstehung von
flchendeckenden Verkehrsnetzen beigetragen hat und
die Strken und Schwchen bei Interventionen der Kohsionspolitik im
Bereich Verkehr ausmachen und untersuchen, welche Richtung diese Politik
knftig einschlagen soll.
Die fr diese Studie durchgefhrten Arbeiten sowie deren detaillierte Ergebnisse sind in
zwei Zwischenberichten dargelegt. Basierend auf dieser Arbeit leistet dieser
Abschlussbericht Folgendes:
Er fasst zusammen, welchen Beitrag die Kohsionspolitik zu Verkehrswegen in
der EU geleistet hat,
erlutert die Strken und Schwchen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr,
prsentiert die Untersuchungsergebnisse der Finanzanalyse von
Verkehrsprojekten, die von Mitgliedstaaten durchgefhrt wurden,
stellt den Katalog an Herausforderungen vor, der von den Ergebnissen dieser
Studie abgeleitet wurde und
fhrt die umfassenden Schlussfolgerungen der Evaluierung auf.
Der Beitrag der Kohsionspolitik fr den Bereich Verkehr
Die Kohsionspolitik der Europischen Union (EU) kann sowohl auf transeuropischer
Ebene als auch auf Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten ihren Beitrag zum Verkehr leisten. Am
wirksamsten kann die Kohsionspolitik zur Vervollstndigung der EU-weiten
Verkehrswege beisteuern, indem sie die Fertigstellung des transeuropischen
Verkehrsnetzes (TEN-V) untersttzt. Das TEN-V ist das Ergebnis eines gemeinsamen
Planungsprozesses der Kommission und der Mitgliedstaaten, bei dem EU-weite Prioritten
fr die Verkehrsplanung festgelegt werden.
Die Kohsionspolitik hat einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Vollendung des TEN-V geleistet.
Bei den Finanzierungsbeschlssen haben die Mitgliedslnder den Straen- und Schienen-
-
15
Projekten des TEN-V einen hohen Stellenwert beigemessen. Insgesamt wurden dem
Bereich Verkehr im Rahmen der Kohsionspolitik Mittel von 82,3 Milliarden zugewiesen.
40,8 Milliarden bzw. 49 % davon wurden im Rahmen des TEN-V vergeben. Von den
3.875 km neuer Straen, die bis Ende 2013 mit Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik gebaut
wurden, waren 1.817 km bzw. 47 % neue TEN-V-Straen. Entsprechend waren von
3.405 Schienenkilometern, die bis Ende 2013 entweder neu verlegt oder mit Mitteln der
Kohsionspolitik umgebaut wurden, 1.661 km bzw. 49 % TEN-V Schienen. Darber
hinaus wurden in den 28 Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende 2013 ber 23.000 Straenkilometer
aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik saniert.
In den jeweiligen Mitgliedslndern hat die Frderung durch die Kohsionspolitik einen
entscheidenden Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Transportnetzes geleistet. Im Lauf dieser
Evaluierung wurde der Aufbau von Verkehrsinfrastruktur in 15 Mitgliedslndern mit den
hchsten Zuweisungen aus dem Bereich der Kohsionspolitik mit der gesamten
Verkehrsentwicklung verglichen. Die ffentlichen Gesamtinvestitionen in
Verkehrsinfrastruktur in diesen Mitgliedstaaten lag im Zeitraum von 2007-2013 bei 494
Milliarden. Im gleichen Zeitraum lagen die Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik fr den Bereich
Verkehr in diesen Mitgliedslndern im gleichen Zeitraum bei 52 Milliarden. Diese
Frderung konzentrierte sich auf Mitgliedstaaten, die der EU 2004 oder nach 2004
beigetreten waren. Die Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik fr Verkehr entsprachen in der
Programmperiode von 2007-2013 dem Groteil der Gesamtinvestitionen von Litauen
(54 %), Ungarn (49 %) und der Slowakei (45 %). Auf der anderen Seite haben die
Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik in Frankreich im gleichen Zeitraum lediglich 1 % der
Verkehrsinvestitionen ausgemacht.
In absoluten Zahlen wurden in diesen 15 Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende 2013 3.851 km neue
Straen mit Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik gebaut. Das entspricht 1 % der bereits
bestehenden Autobahnen und anderer staatlicher Straen in diesen Mitgliedstaaten.
Weitere 21.653 km Autostraen wurden aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik erneuert oder
instand gesetzt. Alles in allem entspricht der Umfang der aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik
neu gebauten oder sanierten Verkehrswege Ende 2013 9 % der bereits bestehenden
Autobahnen und anderer staatlicher Straen. Im Eisenbahnsektor hat die
Kohsionspolitik dazu beigetragen, 3.135 Schienenkilometer neu zu verlegen oder
instand zu setzen. Das entspricht 2 % des Schienennetzwerks der 15 Mitgliedstaaten.
Die Untersuchungen im Rahmen dieser Studie scheinen zu belegen, dass die Mittel der
Kohsionspolitik gut auf die aktuellen Trends im Sektor und auf die Prioritten der
jeweiligen Verkehrspolitik abgestimmt sind. Die Mittelvergabe der Kohsionspolitik hat
vor allem fr den Vernetzungsgrad auf EU-Ebene sowie der einzelner Mitgliedstaaten
einen mageblichen Beitrag geleistet. Dieser Beitrag war in denjenigen Mitgliedslndern
und Regionen konzentriert, die auch die beabsichtigten Empfnger der relativ gesehen
hchsten Zuwendungen der Kohsionspolitik waren.
Die Zuwendungen der Kohsionspolitik fr Mitgliedstaaten lag zwischen 57 Milliarden in
Polen und 25 Millionen in Luxemburg. Die Mittel, die im Finanzrahmen der
Kohsionspolitik fr Verkehrswege bereit gestellt wurden, reichen von 45 % in Polen bis
0 % in Dnemark und Luxemburg. Der Grad der Ausschpfung der Kohsionspolitik-
Frderung fr Verkehrswege reichte von 55 % in Rumnien bis 105 % in Spanien (bei
Mitgliedstaaten, die mehr als 5 Milliarden fr Verkehr bereitgestellt hatten).
Diese Kofinanzierung untersttzte den Bau neuer und die Instandsetzung bereits
existierender Straen und Schienenwege, sowohl im Rahmen des TEN-V als auch
-
16
auerhalb dieses Netzwerks. Die Ausgaben fr Straen innerhalb des TEN-V, aber auch
darber hinaus waren bis Ende 2013 vor allem in Mitgliedslndern konzentriert, die der
EU 2004 oder danach beigetreten waren. Mitgliedstaaten, deren Beitritt zur EU vor 2004
stattfand, hatten demgegenber grere Ausgaben im Bereich Schienenwege zu
verbuchen.
Der Einsatz von Mitteln aus der Kohsionspolitik im Schienensektor war auf die
Erneuerung oder den Ausbau des bereits existierenden Schienennetzes ausgerichtet, um
so Liniengeschwindigkeit und Kapazitten zu erhhen. Bezeichnenderweise hoben einige
Vertreter aus Mitgliedslndern die wichtige Rolle der Kohsionspolitik-Frderung bei der
Untersttzung groer, komplexer Projekte hervor, die insbesondere im Schienensektor
offenkundig wurde. Ihrer Ansicht nach htten solche Projekte mglicherweise nicht ohne
Frdermittel der Kohsionspolitik realisiert werden knnen. Durch die Frderung von
Investitionen in Schienennetz und stdtische Verkehrsnetze hat die Kohsionspolitik zur
Umsetzung umweltfreundlicher Verkehrslsungen beigetragen.
Whrend der Programmperiode von 2007-2013 wurden Investitionen in Schienenverkehr
und andere Verkehrswege weniger stark gefrdert als Investitionen im Straenbau.
Nichtsdestotrotz gab es in diesem Zeitraum Verbesserungen im Bereich stdtischer
Verkehrsnetze, Flughfen, Hfen und Fahrradwege.
Strken und Schwchen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr
Zu den Strken der Kohsionspolitik-Frderung im Bereich Verkehr gehrte die Fhigkeit,
eine Vielzahl von politischen Zielsetzungen der verschiedenen Mitgliedslnder zu
untersttzen, wobei die Zuwendungen sich an den Bedrfnissen der einzelnen
Mitgliedslnder orientieren. Dies frderte fortlaufende Investitionen in das TEN-V, trug
dazu bei, Investitionsbedrfnisse in Mitgliedstaaten aufzuzeigen und half,
regionale/lokale Verkehrsanforderungen zu erfllen.
Die Zuwendungen aus der Kohsionspolitik waren whrend der wirtschaftlichen Rezession
eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle. Sie war darber hinaus eine bedeutende
Frderungsquelle, um Investitionen in groe Infrastrukturprojekte zu frdern. Viele
Vertreter der Mitgliedslnder haben angemerkt, dass sich EU-Mitgliedstaaten ohne
Kohsionspolitik-Frderung auf kostengnstigere Infrastrukturlsungen eingelassen
htten und so in Kauf genommen htten, bereits ermittelte Bedrfnisse mglicherweise
zu vernachlssigen.
Die Programmperiode der Kohsionspolitik von 2007-2013 hat auch eine Rolle bei der
Entwicklung der organisatorischen Kapazitt von Mitgliedslndern gespielt. Die Verfahren,
mit denen Mittel aus Kohsionspolitik beschafft werden, bringen Mitgliedstaaten dazu,
sich mit der strategischen Planung ihrer Verkehrsbedrfnisse auseinander zu setzen.
Mitgliedslnder haben zudem ihre Kapazitt erhht, um komplexe
Verkehrsinvestitionsprojekte zu entwickeln und zu ermitteln.
Fr die Frderperiode 2007-2013 der Kohsionspolitik wurden im Bereich Verkehr
indessen mehrere Schwachstellen ausgemacht. Dazu zhlen die Schwierigkeiten bei der
Kombination von Kohsionspolitik-Frderung und privaten Finanzierungen in Strukturen
ffentlich-privater Partnerschaften (PP) sowie mangelnde Transparenz bei einigen
Mitgliedstaaten bei der Anwendung der Vorschriften zu staatlicher Beihilfe bei
Investitionen im Bereich Verkehr.
-
17
Die bereits erwhnte Konzentration auf Zuwendungen fr das TEN-V fhre aus Sicht
mancher Akteure dazu, dass Zuwendungen fr regionale Erfordernisse im Bereich
Verkehr reduziert und dadurch regionale Ungleichheiten begnstigt werden. Alles in allem
wird der Fokus auf eine Langzeitplanung der Mitgliedstaaten im Bereich Verkehr als
Investitionsgrundlage dieses Risiko in der Praxis allerdings mindern.
Qualitt und Vollstndigkeit der Finanzanalysen von Verkehrsprojekten
Diese Studie untersuchte die Qualitt und Vollstndigkeit von Finanzanalysen, die von
Mitgliedstaaten bei der Entwicklung von Verkehrsinvestitionsprojekten durchgefhrt
werden. Diese Arbeit der Finanzanalyse hat auch die Qualitt der Finanzanalyse
bercksichtigt, die von den Mitgliedstaaten in der Vorphase durchgefhrt wurde und die
sowohl die Anforderungen als auch die finanziellen Aspekte von Projekten beinhaltete.
Bei allen Projekten war die Finanzanalyse zum Zeitpunkt, als die Entscheidung zur
Frderung getroffen wurde, vollstndig und fehlerfrei und lieferte so eine umfassende
Grundlage fr die Entscheidungsfindung des jeweiligen Projekts. Es wurden allerdings
auch einige Bereiche ermittelt, in denen es immer wieder zu Problemen kam, z. B.
vorbildliche Verfahren der verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten beim Umgang mit diesen
Problemen.
Die Qualitt der Bedarfsanalyse schwankte bei den Projekten, insbesondere beim Einsatz
demographischer Daten wie Beschftigungsquote und Fahrzeugbestand. Diese Daten
waren in vielen Fllen rumlich zu stark verdichtet, das gilt auch fr die Auswertung von
Prognosen zum Bruttoinlandsprodukt, die Auskunft ber die Bedarfsanalyse geben sollen.
Dies sowie die unzureichende Bercksichtigung von Projektwechselwirkungen mit
anderen Modalitten und Streckenverlufen haben nach Ansicht der Gutachter dazu
beigetragen, bei einigen Projekten die Genauigkeit und Qualitt der Bedarfsanalyse zu
unterminieren. Nichtsdestotrotz entsprach die Herangehensweise bezglich der Analyse
von Szenarien mit Projekt und ohne Projekt bei allen Projekten den Best-Practice-
Vorgaben.
Die Analyse von Konsumentenverhalten und Zahlungsbereitschaft variierte bei den
evaluierten Projekten, dabei gab es kaum Hinweise auf eine vernderliche oder induzierte
Bedarfsanalyse. Auf nationaler Ebene konnte auch eine bermige Abhngigkeit von
Mautverfahren und Tarifpolitik ausgemacht werden, ohne Bercksichtigung der
Bezahlbarkeit bei den Zielmrkten. Diese Faktoren htten die Genauigkeit der
Bedarfsanalyse schwchen knnen. Es gab zudem unzureichende Hinweise darauf,
welchen Schwankungen die Gebhren whrend des Beurteilungszeitraums unterliegen,
was zu grerer potenzieller Ungewissheit bezglich der Genauigkeit der Prognosen
fhrte.
Auch die Genauigkeit der prognostizierten Konstruktionskosten schwankte bei den
verschiedenen untersuchten Projekten. Die wirtschaftliche Rezession war bei vielen
evaluierten Projekten ein zentraler Faktor bei der Kostenverringerung fr
Bauunternehmen. Das Ausma der Projektvorbereitungen beeinflusste auch die
Endkosten und den Umsetzungszeitplan. Es lieen sich Beispiele guter
Vorbereitungsarbeiten ermitteln, z. B. die frhe Erwerbung von Grundstcken, was zu
Kosten- und Zeiteinsparungen gefhrt hat, wohingegen mangelnde
Baugrunduntersuchungen als Beispiel fr mangelhafte Vorbereitungsarbeiten ausgemacht
wurden, die zudem zu Budget- und Zeitplanberschreitungen gefhrt haben.
-
18
Die finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit einiger Projekte war aufgrund mangelnder Nachweise fr
die Bezahlung von Wartungs- und Instandhaltungskosten schwer kalkulierbar. Bei vielen
Straenprojekten wurde mangelnde Zweckbindung der Einnahmen fr Betriebs- und
Wartungs- bzw. Instandhaltungsvorgaben identifiziert. Bei manchen Projekten wurden
die Mautgebhren nicht in das Programm implementiert, sodass es zu weiteren
Unsicherheiten bezglich der nachgelagerten Einnahmen kam. Auch die getrennten
Verantwortlichkeiten von Infrastruktur-Management und Eisenbahnunternehmen wurde
bei einigen Finanzanalysen als Ursache fr Ungenauigkeiten und Ungewissheiten
ausgemacht. Alles in allem bewertete man die Geldfluss- und Risikoanalysen als
fehlerfrei; dessen ungeachtet empfehlen die Gutachter weitere Risikoanalysen sowie
Analysen ber den Restwert von Projekten.
Katalog der Herausforderungen
Diese Studie ermittelte die wesentlichen Herausforderungen fr Mitgliedstaaten bei der
Entwicklung und Bewertung von Verkehrsprojekten sowie die praktischen Auswirkungen
dieser Herausforderungen. Fr die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Herausforderungen
wurden mit Vertretern der jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten Best-Practice-Vorgaben identifiziert
und errtert. Es wurde auch ein Katalog dieser zentralen Herausforderungen entwickelt,
der fr jede einzelne Herausforderung Folgendes festlegt:
Eine zusammenfassende Beschreibung,
einen detaillierten technischen berblick ber die jeweilige Herausforderung,
Warnsignale, die darauf hindeuten, dass die betreffende Herausforderung
entstehen knnte,
die Implikationen der Herausforderung fr die Finanzanalyse eines Projektes,
die Implikationen der Herausforderung fr die finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit des
Projekts und
potenzielle Lsungen fr die berwindung der jeweiligen Herausforderungen.
Folgende Herausforderungen wurden ermittelt:
Den Bedarf zutreffend prognostizieren, sodass er Projektstandort,
Bevlkerungsentwicklung und kontextabhngige Faktoren spiegelt,
die Genauigkeit von Bedarfsprognosen in Bezug auf kurz- bis mittelfristige
Auswirkungen der Bauarbeiten, insbesondere im Schienensektor,
unzureichende Beurteilung der Wechselwirkung des Projekts mit
konkurrierenden Modalitten oder Streckenverlufen,
Entwicklung und Betrieb eines multimodalen Verkehrsmodells, das den
Projektumfang sowie potenzielle Auswirkungen bercksichtigt,
die Ausarbeitung exakter Darstellungen der Zahlungsbereitschaft im Rahmen
von Kosten-/Nutzen-Analysen der Verkehrskosten,
die Definition des Tarifniveaus im Rahmen des nationalen Aufsichtsrahmens,
-
19
die exakte Kalkulation der Wartungs-/Instandhaltungs- und Betriebskosten
sowie der Nettogegenwertsberechnung des Projekts und
die exakte Schtzung der Konstruktionskosten als Teil der
Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalyse.
Der gesamte Katalog ist im Abschnitt E dieses Berichts aufgefhrt.
Schlussfolgerungen
Aus der vorliegenden Evaluierung lassen sich einige Gesamtschlussfolgerungen ziehen.
Die Kohsionspolitik hat einen erheblichen Beitrag zum Verkehrssystem geleistet, sowohl
in der EU insgesamt als auch in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Es lieen sich einige
bedeutende Strken feststellen, wie die Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr funktioniert.
So gewhrleisten insbesondere die gegenwrtigen Entscheidungsstrukturen und die von
den Mitgliedstaaten erforderliche strategische Planung der Verkehrsinvestitionen, dass
der Einsatz der Kohsionspolitik den Bedrfnissen der jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten
entspricht und auf den Kontext vor Ort zugeschnitten ist. Investitionen, die durch die
Kohsionspolitik gefrdert wurden, sttzen die Verkehrsstrategie der Mitgliedstaaten und
der EU als Ganzes, zudem begnstigen sie die Entwicklung umweltfreundlicher
Verkehrssysteme. Die Investitionen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr haben die
Kapazitten der Mitgliedstaaten untersttzt, Verkehrsinvestitionen zu planen und
durchzufhren, sie haben sichergestellt, dass auch in Zeiten der wirtschaftlichen Krise
weitere Investitionen gettigt wurden und die relativ komplexen Investitionen der
Mitgliedstaaten im Schienenverkehr schwerpunktmig erhht.
-
20
Section A: Introduction
A1 Introduction
The Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission (DG
REGIO) undertook an ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming
period. As part of this work DG REGIO commissioned a study referred to as Work
Package 5: Transport from AECOM and KPMG. This report represents the Final Report of
the Work Package 5 evaluation.
A2 Evaluation objectives
The main objectives and requirements of the evaluation were to:
Identify the main achievements of cohesion policy in all areas of transport
related infrastructure;
Analyse to what extent the EU support contributed to the creation of
comprehensive transport networks; and
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy intervention in
transport and explore directions this policy should take in the future.
A particular emphasis was placed on the financial sustainability of cohesion policy
investment, using a selection of major projects to examine the detailed financial data and
forecasting prepared by Member States and submitted to the Commission.
Data on financial progress and physical achievements in all Member States and
programmes was available from the Commissions own monitoring systems and this was
analysed as part of the study. These achievements were placed in context using data
from Eurostat, Member States and the International Transport Forum on overall transport
infrastructure in Member States. This information on overall achievements was
supplemented by a case study approach at the Member State and major project levels.
As with any evaluation, data availability and quality were issues for this study. The timing
of this ex post evaluation meant that much of the co-financed infrastructure in question
was relatively new, or even still in the process of construction. It is therefore too early to
fully investigate the results of these investments. The evaluation therefore concentrated
on the financial inputs and physical outputs of cohesion policy in the area of transport.
Where indications of the results and impacts of the investments have emerged these are
presented. The 2007-2013 programming period was the first one where Member States
provided the Commission with core indicator data on the outputs of cohesion policy.
This was extremely useful and forms the basis for much of the information presented in
this study. However, issues arose in the collation and interpretation of this data, for
example the definitions of the core indicators were interpreted differently by some
Member States. This issue is not expected to reoccur in the 2014-2020 reporting period.
Common indicators have been included in the Regulations for the current programming
period, and their precise definitions have been explained clearly to Member States.
-
21
A3 Approach
This section presents a summary of the approach adopted for each of the evaluation
Tasks. The evaluation was undertaken following a methodological approach specifically
tailored to answer the evaluation questions relevant to each of the Commissions
objectives. A summary of the approach is shown in Figure A.1, followed by a summary of
the work undertaken in each Task.
Figure A.1 Overview of our approach
Task 1: Analysis of
achievements
Task 2:Review financial
analyses
Task 3:Project case
studies
Task 2a
Task 2b
Task 2c
Task 4:"Catalogue of
Challenges"
Task 5:Case studies of CP
Task 6:Seminar
Task 7:Final Report
15 Member States
20 major projects
10 project case studies
6 Member States
Task 1
Task 1 provided an overview of cohesion policy effects on transport investment in
Member States. An analysis of the achievements of cohesion policy in the field of
transport over the 2007-2013 programming period was undertaken. This task
encompassed a quantitative analysis of data on inputs and outputs of cohesion policy in
the field of transport, supported by qualitative stakeholder interviews designed to elicit
the views of informed commentators in 15 Member States selected during the Inception
phase of this study1. These 15 Member States were selected to maximise the level of
insight gained into the spending of cohesion policy funds on transport infrastructure, i.e.
they were selected on the basis of their allocations of cohesion policy funding to
transport.
Task 2
Task 2 reviewed the financial and demand analysis of 20 major projects2 selected in the
Inception phase of this study; these were selected from the 15 Member States used in
Task 1 and to be illustrative of the transport priority themes supported by cohesion
policy. The major projects selected covered the following Member States and transport
priority themes:
Member States: Bulgaria (2), Czech Republic, Estonia, France (2), Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy (2), Poland (4), Romania (2), Slovakia, Slovenia and
Spain; and
1 The Member States were: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 2 Major Projects are defined as those with a total cost of over 50m
-
22
priority themes: Motorways (TEN-T) (4), Motorways (2), National Roads (2),
Regional/Local Roads, Urban Transport (3), Railway (TEN-T) (6), Railway,
Mobile Rail Assets (TEN-T).
The documentation for each project was examined and a judgment provided on the
quality and accuracy of demand and financial assumptions presented within the ex-ante
financial analysis. The key assumptions and theoretical foundations for demand and
financial analysis within these major projects were identified.
Task 3
Task 3 of the evaluation involved preparing case studies for 10 major projects with the
following objectives as defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR):
To verify the correctness of assumptions underlying demand and financial
analyses; and
To understand the context in which projects were implemented.
The major projects were selected from the 20 used in Task 2 of the evaluation, and
covered eight Member States3. The projects were selected to be illustrative of the Priority
Themes and Member States supported by cohesion policy, and on the basis that projects
were near or post completion. The evaluation included a desk-based review of available
documentation and data, supported by in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders.
Task 4
Task 4 saw the preparation of a catalogue of challenges to present an analysis of the
most commonly occurring issues and problems within the ex-ante financial analysis of
major projects. Evidence from Tasks 2, 3 and 5 was used in preparing the catalogue.
Each of the challenges was prepared to provide the following information:
A summary of the challenge;
A technical and more detailed overview of the challenge;
Potential warning signs for the challenge;
Implications of the challenge in question for the financial analysis of projects;
and
Implications of the challenge in question for the financial sustainability of
projects; and
Potential solutions to assist in overcoming each challenge.
Task 5
Task 5 explored the contribution of cohesion policy to national and EU transport policy in
six Member States, which were selected from the 15 used in Task 14. These case studies
dealt with the following evaluation questions:
3 The Member States were: Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Czech Republic, Germany and Estonia, and included Motorways (TEN-T), Railway (TEN-T), Regional/Local Roads, Urban Transport and National Roads 4 The Member States were: France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain. This set of Member States was selected to be illustrative of the range of Member States in the EU by including: large and small Member States; long standing and relatively new Member States; and both Member States carrying out high and low levels of cohesion policy supported transport investment.
-
23
Should cohesion policy have supported all the transport sectors which
received assistance?
Are the investments made in the area of transport by cohesion policy the
ones that fulfil its [transport] objectives?
What should be supported by the cohesion policy in the area of transport?
What are the challenges for the cohesion policy in the area of transport in the
next 10 years?
Has the Common EU Transport Policy influenced the national transport policy
and in what way?
The evaluation included a desk-based review of available documentation and data,
supported by in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders.
Task 6
Task 6 was a seminar for Member State stakeholders, held on 9 October 2015 in
Brussels. The scope of the seminar included:
The presentation of an overview of the evaluation commission;
A discussion of the main challenges within the financial analysis of projects;
The presentation of major project and Member State case study outputs; and
The presentation of the emerging catalogue of challenges.
The seminar was used to explore the emerging findings and to deepen the analysis of
particular issues and challenges.
Task 7
Task 7 was the preparation of this Final Report, bringing together the findings from all
evaluation activities undertaken. The Final Report represents part of a suite of documents
prepared during this evaluation:
The finalised Inception Report for this study was issued to DG REGIO on 20
March, 2015 and presented the agreed methodology to be adopted;
The First Interim Report was issued to DG REGIO on 21 July 2015, presenting
the findings from Task 1 and Task 2; and
The Second Interim Report was issued to DG REGIO on 29 February 2016,
presenting the findings from Tasks 3, 4 and 5.
A4 Report structure
This Final Report brings together the evidence and findings from across the evaluation
and sets out:
Section B: the contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU;
Section C: the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of
transport;
-
24
Section D: the quality and completeness of financial analysis of transport
projects;
Section E: the catalogue of challenges; and
Section F: conclusions.
-
25
Section B: Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in
the EU
B1 Introduction
The work done for this study, particularly Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 5, produced extensive data
sets and qualitative insights on the contribution of cohesion policy to development of
transport infrastructure in Member States. The first and second interim reports include
full presentation of the findings in this area, which are summarised here, focusing on the
cohesion policy support to the creation of comprehensive transport networks both at a
trans-European and at a national, Member State, level.
This section starts with an overview of the level of cohesion policy funding agreed for
each Member State and the allocations made to transport (Section B2). Section B3
describes the contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks using data on
financial inputs from cohesion policy and the outputs of cohesion policy as measured by
core indicators for all 28 Member States. The analysis reflects the allocation of cohesion
policy funding to transport by individual Member States, and within this, the allocation of
funding to the TEN-T.
Section B4 examines the contribution of cohesion policy to the transport networks of
Member States. This requires consideration of the extent of transport networks of
Member States, and the total investment in transport from all sources of funding. This
analysis is therefore based on the 15 Member States selected for detailed examination in
Task 1 of the evaluation. Finally, Section B5 presents main conclusions from this
analysis.
Information included in this chapter comes from the qualitative desk research and
interviews with stakeholders in 15 Member States which, amongst other things, explored
the contribution of cohesion policy funding to transport in these Member States. These
interviews included discussions with officials from Managing Authorities, transport
ministries and beneficiaries of cohesion policy funding in these Member States. Six of the
15 Member States were also the subject of a more detailed case study. This work
provided further insights into the contribution of cohesion policy to the creation of
transport networks, both on a trans-European and individual Member State level.
-
26
B2 Cohesion policy funding overview
A total of 270.3 bn cohesion policy funding was agreed with Member States for the
2007-2013 programming period (Table B.1). The level of cohesion policy funding varied
between Member States, from 57.2 bn in Poland to 25 m in Luxembourg.
Of the 270.3 bn total, 82.3 bn was allocated to carry out interventions in different
areas of transport across the 28 Member States (30.4%). Allocation refers here to the
amount decided in adopted operational programmes for transport related Priority
Themes. The size of allocation to transport within the cohesion policy envelope was also
varied by Member State, from 25.6 bn in Poland (44.9%) to 0 in Luxembourg and
Denmark. The top ten Member States by transport allocation accounted together for
72.8 bn, or 88.1% of the total transport allocation. This group includes 6 Member
States, which joined EU in or after 2004 and included virtually only Convergence regions,
as well as Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany, with significant proportion of Convergence
regions.
Within the transport allocations, Member States distributed different levels of cohesion
policy funding across the areas of transport e.g. road, rail and other (Table B.2). This
was a reflection of the different objectives and policies established in each Member State
for the 2007-2013 programming period.
The data shows that more often than not, the largest proportion of a Member States
allocations was assigned to roads. However, Spain, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia allocated
the greatest proportion of funds to rail. In eight Member States (France, United Kingdom,
Cyprus, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria), predominantly those
with smaller overall amounts, the greatest proportion was assigned to other which
included, for example, multi-modal, urban transport, waterways, port and airport
investment.
-
27
Table B.1 Cohesion policy allocations m (up to the end of 2014)
Total Cohesion
Policy Allocation
Allocation to
Transport
Themes
Transport as %
of Member State
total
Poland 57,178 25,656 45
Spain 26,596 8,226 31
Czech Republic 22,455 7,822 35
Hungary 21,281 6,679 31
Greece 15,846 6,255 39
Romania 15,374 5,471 36
Italy 20,992 4,184 20
Slovakia 9,999 3,384 34
Germany 16,100 3,150 20
Bulgaria 5,488 2,022 37
Portugal 14,558 1,713 12
Lithuania 5,747 1,570 27
Latvia 3,947 1,141 29
France 8,052 1,072 13
Cross Border5 7,986 1,044 13
Slovenia 3,345 946 28
Estonia 3,012 692 23
United Kingdom 5,387 498 9
Croatia 706 230 33
Malta 728 148 20
Ireland 375 84 22
Cyprus 493 81 16
Sweden 935 77 8
Belgium 987 60 6
Netherlands 830 50 6
Finland 977 40 4
Austria 667 6 1
Denmark 255 0 0
Luxembourg 25 0 0
Total 270,323 82,299 30
Source: Operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014
5 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation
-
28
Table B.2 Total allocations to transport themes in m (up to the end of 2014)
Roads
% of
total Rail
% of
total Other
% of
total Total
Poland 15,800 62% 5,468 21% 4,388 17% 25,656
Spain 2,287 28% 4,137 50% 1,802 22% 8,226
Czech Republic 3,922 50% 2,720 35% 1,181 15% 7,822
Hungary 3,140 47% 1,720 26% 1,818 27% 6,679
Greece 4,444 71% 684 11% 1,128 18% 6,255
Romania 3,377 62% 1,692 31% 402 7% 5,471
Italy 702 17% 2,248 54% 1,234 29% 4,184
Slovakia 1,934 57% 1,180 35% 270 8% 3,384
Germany 1,978 63% 766 24% 406 13% 3,150
Bulgaria 991 49% 341 17% 690 34% 2,022
Portugal 809 47% 376 22% 529 31% 1,713
Lithuania 681 43% 580 37% 309 20% 1,570
Latvia 483 42% 256 22% 402 35% 1,141
France 165 15% 201 19% 706 66% 1,072
Cross Border6 314 30% 79 8% 651 62% 1,044
Slovenia 408 43% 450 48% 89 9% 946
Estonia 290 42% 185 27% 216 31% 692
United Kingdom 132 26% 87 17% 280 56% 498
Croatia - 0% 222 97% 8 3% 230
Malta 101 68% - 0% 47 32% 148
Ireland 64 76% 17 20% 4 4% 84
Cyprus 33 41% - 0% 48 59% 81
Sweden 9 11% 12 15% 57 73% 77
Belgium 14 24% - 0% 46 76% 60
Netherlands 5 10% 0.4 1% 45 89% 50
Finland 14 36% 10 26% 15 39% 40
Austria - 0% - 0% 6 100% 6
Total 42,097 51% 23,432 28% 16,771 20% 82,299
Source: Operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014
The overall cohesion policy allocation for transport remained relatively constant over the
2007-2013 programming period. It increased by 359 m from 81.9 bn by the end of
2008 to 82.3 bn by the end of 2014. There was a large increase in favour of Motorways
(TEN-T) (+14%) and Regional/Local Roads (+12%) (Table B.3). This was offset to some
extent by declines in Motorways (-13%) and National Roads (-12%), with an overall
impact of an increase of over 2 bn to road based themes.
Increases in allocation for all types of roads combined were typical for the Member
States, which joined EU before 2004, as 10 of them saw such changes, while only 2
recorded decreases: the Netherlands of 8% (0.4mn) and Portugal of 3% (23.7mn) and
3 did not have any allocation for roads in adopted operational programmes (Denmark
and Luxembourg had no transport allocation at all and Austria did not allocation for
roads).
In contrast, although the allocation for all types of roads combined increased somewhat
for 5 Member States, which joined EU after 2004 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania,
Poland and Romania), it also decreased in 6 other Member States from this category
(Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia). The total allocation for roads
6 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation.
-
29
in adopted operational programmes did not change in Cyprus and Croatia did not have
any amounts associated with roads.
The increases in allocation for all types of roads combined were offset by reductions in
the allocation for a variety other themes. Within the EU15, there were large decreases for
rail (- 323 m), as well as airports (- 354 m), ports (- 310 m) and multimodal
transport (- 265 m). In other Member States, there were significant decreases in the
allocations for rail (- 123 m), inland waterways (- 316 m), the promotion of clean
urban transport (- 228 m) and ITS (- 134 m).
The reallocation of resources to roads may reflect the relative ease of developing road
projects. The case studies carried out in Member States suggest that at least some of
them found it difficult to complete rail projects and reallocated some amounts to road.
Table B.3 Change in total transport allocations by Theme for all Member States
2008 - 2014
2008
m
2014
m
2008 -
2014 %
Change
2014 - 2008
m Change
Motorways (TEN-T) 17,482 19,874 14% 2,392
Regional/local roads 9,776 10,997 12% 1,221
Railways 4,105 4,706 15% 601
Mobile rail assets 559 900 61% 341
Urban transport 1,794 2,102 17% 308
Cycle tracks 634 664 5% 30
Multimodal transport 1,635 1,612 -1% -24
Inland waterways (regional and local) 266 195 -26% -70
Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 447 316 -29% -131
Intelligent transport systems 1,090 956 -12% -134
Promotion of clean urban transport 6,167 5,990 -3% -176
Inland waterways (TEN-T) 596 282 -53% -314
Ports 3,533 3,170 -10% -362
Airports 1,851 1,484 -20% -367
Mobile rail assets (TEN-T) 696 266 -62% -430
Motorways 5,133 4,484 -13% -649
National roads 7,659 6,743 -12% -917
Railways (TEN-T) 18,519 17,560 -5% -959
Total 81,941 82,299 0.4% 359 Source: operational programmes in the versions adopted by the end of 2008 and by the end of 2014
Table B.4 compares the cohesion policy allocation to transport with the amount of
expenditure up to the end of 2014. This shows that absorption ranged from 17% in
Austria to over 100% in Sweden, Finland, Cyprus and Spain.7 Of those Member States
which had transport allocations of over 5 bn, the rate ranged from 55% in Romania to
105% in Spain.
The expenditure in excess of the allocation may be due to the common practice of
overbooking, where the managing authorities select projects, whose value is higher than
7 Expenditure in excess of the allocation to certain priority themes is possible because of the common practice of overbooking, where the managing authorities select projects, whose value is higher than the available resources in the programme in order to make sure that problems in implementation of some operations will not prevent them from absorbing the full allocation. However, it does not mean the managing authority is able to spend more than the overall allocation to the programme.
-
30
the resources available in the programme under certain themes in order to make sure
that problems in implementation of some operations will not prevent them from
absorbing the full allocation to these themes.
The opposite, where the expenditure is lower than the allocation may be due to the fact
that transport projects tend to be complex and require substantial amount of time for
preparation and implementation. By consequence, the expenditure related to such
projects would be recorded relatively late in the programming period. However, the low
level of expenditure in comparison to the allocation may be as well a signal of problems
in implementation due to various reasons (for example, inadequate project pipeline or
insufficient administrative capacity).
Table B.4 Comparison of cohesion policy transport allocations with expenditure
(up to the end of 2014)
Allocation ( m) Expenditure ( m) Absorption rate
Poland 25,656 20,897 81%
Hungary 6,679 6,225 93%
Spain 8,226 8,642 105%
Greece 6,255 5,451 87%
Czech Republic 7,822 5,881 75%
Romania 5,471 2,995 55%
Italy 4,184 2,856 68%
Slovakia 3,383 2,262 67%
Germany 3,150 2,588 82%
Bulgaria 2,022 1,567 77%
Portugal 1,713 1,610 94%
Lithuania 1,570 1,448 92%
Latvia 1,141 1,009 88%
France 1,072 674 63%
Slovenia 946 631 67%
Cross Border8 1,044 629 60%
Estonia 692 612 88%
United Kingdom 498 350 70%
Sweden 77 134 174%
Malta 148 143 97%
Cyprus 81 103 127%
Croatia 229 68 30%
Ireland 84 81 96%
Belgium 60 43 72%
Finland 40 67 168%
Netherlands 50 38 76%
Austria 6 1 17%
Luxembourg - - -
Denmark - - -
Total 82,299 67,005 81%
Source: Allocation - operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014; Expenditure - Work
Package 13 of the Ex-post Evaluation
8 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation.
-
31
If the data on transport allocation and expenditure until the end of 2014 are analysed by
priority theme (Table B.5), a marked difference between road and rail in terms of
absorption pace becomes visible. The biggest share of cohesion policy transport
allocation went to TEN-T motorways and TEN-T railways - 19,874 m and 17,560 m.
However, the expenditure by the end of 2014 represented 91% of the allocation under
the former and 69% under the latter. A similar difference is apparent when allocation and
expenditure for all road and rail related priority themes are compared 93% for road
and 68% for rail.
Some stakeholders interviewed for case studies maintained that road investments were
relatively easier to implement than rail projects, also because in many cases the latter
focused on upgrading existing lines. However, it may as well be due to the insufficient
capacity of beneficiaries to implement the projects, which according to the stakeholders
interviewed for this evaluation was the case in Poland and Romania, where the ratio
between expenditure and allocation for rail by the end of 2014 was respectively 44%
and 37%.
Table B.5 Comparison of cohesion policy transport allocation with expenditure
to the end of 2014 by priority theme
Allocation
( m)
Expenditure
( m)
Absorption
rate
Motorways (TEN-T) 19,874 18,108 91%
Railways (TEN-T) 17,560 12,105 69%
Regional/local roads 10,997 10,414 95%
National roads 6,743 6,235 92%
Promotion of clean urban transport 5,990 4,364 73%
Railways 4,706 3,024 64%
Motorways 4,484 4,238 95%
Ports 3,170 2,353 74%
Urban transport 2,102 1,445 69%
Multimodal transport 1,612 1,436 89%
Airports 1,484 1,215 82%
Intelligent transport systems 956 338 35%
Mobile rail assets 900 653 73%
Cycle tracks 664 457 69%
Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 316 59 19%
Inland waterways (TEN-T) 282 216 77%
Mobile rail assets (TEN-T) 266 218 82%
Inland waterways (regional and local) 195 129 66%
Total 82,299 67,005 81%
Source: Allocation - operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014; Expenditure - Work
Package 13 of the Ex-post Evaluation
B3 Contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks
Within the EU, Member States retained the primary responsibility for the planning and
provision of transport networks. This entails a risk that the transport network of the EU
will be developed as a set of individual national networks rather than as an integrated
system that meets the needs of the whole EU in an optimal way. The EU plays a leading
-
32
role in ensuring that this does not happen, engaging with Member States to jointly plan a
pan-European transport network for their mutual benefit.
The main instrument to achieve this objective is the Trans-European Networks
Transport (TEN-T) policy, based on article 170 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. The EU legislation9 defines network of trans-European transport
corridors that has been agreed by the Commission and Member States in order to
support achievement of fully functioning internal market and economic and territorial
cohesion between the various parts of the EU. During the 2007-2013 programming
period, in addition to cohesion policy resources, the TEN-T programme with total budget
of some 8 bn was in place to provide funding for TEN-T investments. For the 2014-2020
programming period Connecting Europe Facility has been established with a total
budget of 26 bn (including 10 bn from the Cohesion Fund).
The TEN-T has been planned on two layers, a comprehensive network and a core
network. The comprehensive network is a relatively high density network which is
designed to provide all the regions of the EU with the accessibility they need. The core
network is a subset of the comprehensive network which is of particularly high priority
due to the volume of transport needs that it meets. Table B.6 summarises the scale of
the TEN-T as defined in 2013. TEN-T infrastructure receiving cohesion policy input during
the 2007-2013 programming period is relevant to the TEN-T as it was defined in 2013.
Table B.6 Scale of TEN-T
Comprehensive
(km)
Core
(km)
Railway Lines 138,072 50,762
Roads 136,706 34,401
Inland Waterways 23,506 12,880
Source: ec.europa.eu
Cohesion policy financial input to the TEN-T
The TEN-T represents the agreed priorities of the Commission and Member States for
completion of EU wide transport networks. Cohesion policy supports this objective by
providing funding for the TEN-T infrastructure.
During 2007-2013 programming period, a significant share of cohesion policy resources
for transport were allocated to the TEN-T. As demonstrated in Figure B.1 below, at the
end of 2014, TEN-T represented 46.5% (38.3 bn) of the total cohesion policy allocation
on transport (82.3 bn).
Member States clearly prioritised TEN-T motorways and TEN-T railways allocating
respectively - 24% ( 19.9 bn) and 21% ( 17.6 bn) of cohesion policy transport
resources to these two themes. As a result, TEN-T infrastructure accounted for a
significant share of the road and railroad infrastructure constructed with financial support
from cohesion policy. On the other hand, the allocation for remaining TEN-T related
themes inland waterways, mobile rail assets and multimodal transport was much
smaller and they all received less than 0.9 bn between them.
9 The most recently adopted legal basis for is Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. OJ L 348/1 of 20.12.2013. The legal basis for the Connecting Europe Fund is