forward-looking atlas

FORWARD-LOOKING ATLASFreight transport in North-Western Europe:bottlenecks, missing links,underused infrastructures and alternative routes

Weastflows project - Action 1 - 3rd and 4th deliverables - April 2015

Introduction ........................................................................................................................p.5

1/ Reminder of key stakes involved in freight transport...............p.7

1.1 Infrastructures and inter-regional freight exchanges ..........................................p.8

1.2 The European transport policy ..................................................................................p.10

2/ Bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures ..........................................................p.11

About the analysis of bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures ..........................p.12

2.1 Threats and opportunities of the infrastructure network: a global approach ............p.13

2.2 Threats and opportunities of the infrastructure network: a regional approach .........p.14

3/ Alternative East-West routes ...............................................................p.17

3.1 Transport corridors and alternative routes .............................................................p.18

3.2 “Northern” alternative route ........................................................................................p.20

3.3 “Southern” alternative route ........................................................................................p.22

3.4 Complementary sections: the United Kingdom and Ireland .............................p.24

3.5 Complementary sections: Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands .....................p.26

Conclusion Towards a redistribution of flows in North-Western Europe? ......p.31

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................p.32

Map index ............................................................................................................................p.33

Already published ........................................................................................................p.35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbl ®AURH - 2015/04

Forward-Looking Atlas - North-Western Europe freight transport: bottlenecks, missing links, underused infrastructures and alternative routes - AURH - April, 2015 5

AURH has been a partner in the Interreg IV B Weastflows European project since 2011, with the following goals:• identifying and describing the infrastructure network adapted to freight transport;• assessing stakes involved in freight transport taking place in North-Western Europe;• pinpointing “issues” such as bottlenecks and missing links and proposing “remedies” for

them through alternative routes to facilitate exchanges.

The mobility of passengers and freight is considered as a historic cornerstone in the construction of what is now Europe, and the quality of transport infrastructures remains a key asset in Europe’s attractiveness. The European transport policy is consequently at the intersection of economic, social, technological and environmental stakes which require a transversal approach in order to ensure optimal mobility for its citizens and freight in the E.U. In 2011, the European Commission’s white book stated there would be “highly increased traffic by 2050, up to 50% for passengers and 80% for freight.”

The Forward-Looking Atlas focuses on identifying and analysing bottlenecks and missing or underused infrastructures, to determine alternative routes to the main transport corridors defined by the European Commission. Our goal is to favour modes with low environmental impacts, to avoid congestion, to use infrastructures that are currently underused and to identify preferential East-West directions.

This report includes three parts:• the first one is a synthetic analysis of the stakes involved in freight transport in NWE;• the second targets bottlenecks, missing or underused infrastructures;• the last part proposes and analyses routes which complement those proposed by the

European Commission (TEN-T corridors).

This partnership-based undertaking is the third stage in work done by AURH for Weastflows and continues and concludes the two atlases previously published: • The Atlas of freight transport infrastructures in North-Western Europe, published in June,

2013;• The Analytical Atlas, published in September, 2014.

We hope that Weastflows, generally speaking, and this report, in particular, will participate in improving knowledge on the infrastructure network at the North-West European level as well as the comprehension of stakes involved in modal changes, fluidity and sustainable development.

The Geographical Information System designed for the Weastflows project

Work undertaken by AURH corresponds to a geomatics approach, with a Geographical Information System dedicated to freight transport. Primary data in the infrastructure network is the base of the system. This includes roadways, railways, inland waterways, sea transport as well as multiple mode hubs, such as ports, railroad stations and airports. This network is coherent in all of North-Western Europe and is standardised with the TEN-T classification as well as capacitive knowledge (morphology of the roadway network, electrification of railways, ECMT classification of inland waterways, depth of ports).

Complementary information has been included, such as maritime liaisons, and some key regional information, in particular concerning railways. This selection was mapped out on the Atlas of the main freight transport infrastructures in North-Western Europe, analysed in the Analytical Atlas and simplified into hubs and modal sections in The Forward-Looking Atlas in order to allow their combination to map out key routes.

A set of useful data was thus drawn up on congested areas and routes as well as underused and missing infrastructures in order to complete the analysis of the infrastructure network. This was a transnational and collaborative approach between the project’s partners and observers. We have also drawn up a set of data concerning European corridors and alternative solutions. All of this information, which can be accessed through an open license or open data, feeds into the GeoWeastflows interactive cartography platform (http://geo.weastflows.eu) as well as the shared reference data set.

INTRODUCTION

1/ Reminder of key stakes involved in freight transport

Forward-Looking Atlas - North-Western Europe freight transport: bottlenecks, missing links, underused infrastructures and alternative routes - AURH - April, 20158

0 50 10025Km

Data source Eurostat - 2012Boudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI ®AURH -2014/05$

North Range900 Mt

AtlanticCoastline

29,8 Mt

Coastline ofthe British and Irish Isles500 Mt

Paris

London

Dublin

Brussels

Amsterdam

Luxembourg

Shetland, Scotland Shetland

Infrastructure densityMaritime port traffic

North-Western Europe corresponds to 817,000 km2 of area, with over 173 million inhabitants who are unevenly distributed. Ireland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Northern part of France, the Western part of Germany and the Southern part of the Netherlands make up this area, which has a huge coastline. Sixty-five ports total freight traffic that exceeds 1.5 billion tonnes, headed by the Northern Range ports, in particular Antwerp and Rotterdam, which are the key inbound sea ports for Europe.This port network is backed by a terrestrial network of infrastructures exceeding 90,000 km, broken down as follows: 46% of roads, 42% of railways, 12% of navigable inland waterways.

The grid analysis of infrastructure density per type allows us to highlight six regional areas which concentrate on stakes linked to modal changes and flow massification: the Glasgow - Edinburgh route, the centre of the United Kingdom, Greater London, the Benelux - Rhine River Basin area, the Seine River Valley and the Saône River Valley.The Benelux -Rhine River Basin aggregate, as well as the Seine River Valley, are the only regions in North-Western Europe where modal transport changes can massively take place both by inland waterways and by rail.

For further information on stakes involved in freight transport in North-Western Europe, consult the Analytical Atlas, published in September, 2014.

Infrastructures and inter-regional freight exchanges1.1

Analyse croisée des infrastructures*

Europe du Nord-Ouest

Éléments de contexte

Concentrations multimodales

Concentrations bimodales

Concentrations mono-modales

Concentration forte de réseaux routier,ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de portset de terminaux ferroviaires

Concentration forte de réseaux routieret ferroviaireConcentration forte de réseaux ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau routier

Pas de données**

Région d’infrastructure de transport

Concentrations cumulées d’infrastructures

* seules les infrastructures adaptées pour le transport de marchandises ont été prises en compte pour cette analyse** l’absence de données peut signifier qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure ou qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure adaptée pour le transport de marchandises

Cross analyses of infrastructures network*

North-Western Europe

Contextual information

Multimodal concentrations

Bimodal concentrations

Single mode concentrations

High concentration of road, railwayand inland waterway networks

High concentration of ports andrailway terminals

High concentration of road and railwaynetworksHigh concentration of railway andinland waterway networks

High concentration of inland waterway networks

High concentration of road networks

No data**

Infrastructure region

Cumulated infrastructure concentrations

* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have been considered** no data can mean no infrastructures or no infrastructure relevant for freight transportation

0 50 10025Km

®AURH $ Data sources: Weastflows project, powered by AURH

- 2014/06

Centre of United Kingdom

London area

Seine Valley

Benelux and Rhine basin

Glasgow - Edinburgh axis

Saône Valley

Shetland, Scotland Shetland

Trafic total de marchandisespar principaux ports*en milliers de tonnes, en 2012 Range Nord

Façades maritimes

400 000

1 000

100 00050 00010 000

Façade des Îles Britanniques

Façade Atlantique

Façade maritime500 Mt Trafic total en millions de tonnes par

façade maritime


Éléments de contexteCapitale

*sélection des ports ayant un trafic supérieur à 1 million de tonnes

Total freight trafficby main ports*per thousand tonnes, in 2012

North Range

Maritime coastlines

400,000

1,000

100,00050,00010,000

Coastline of the British and Irish Isles

Atlantic coastline

Maritime coastline500 Mt Total trafic in millions of tonnes

per maritime coastline

*selection of ports with a freight traffic over 1,000 thousand tonnes


Contextual informationCapital city


The analysis of estimated freight exchanges between regions in North-Western Europe, in tonnes, including all types and modes of freight, carried out using an origin-destination matrix structure highlights three subsystems that are not connected between themselves and are rarely transnational: • the first one, which is transnational and on the Rhine River, is very intense from Rotterdam to

Dortmund, with Duisburg/Dusseldorf as an intersection;• the second one is British, and highlights a concentration of exchanges in the centre of the

United Kingdom;• the last one, smaller, is French and shows a lower volume in exchanges as well as the

absence of any East-West corridors.Three peripheral areas were identified: Ireland, Scotland and the Centre-Eastern part of France.

The analysis of tonnes-kilometres according to the different modes shows the intensity in short liaisons. It also highlights preferential long distance liaisons as well as maritime links.The Rhine River and centre of the United Kingdom are confirmed in the intensity of their exchanges. The first by the inland waterway and railway mode, whereas the latter only uses roadways.Dominant interactions in the maritime mode connecting the North-East to the United Kingdom, take place mainly in Rotterdam for both input and output. They confirm the position of this port as a European multiple mode hub whilst posing the question of long-term sustainability of this concentration.

Analyse croisée des infrastructures*



Concentrations multimodales

Concentrations bimodales

Concentrations mono-modales

Concentration forte de réseaux routier,ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de portset de terminaux ferroviaires

Concentration forte de réseaux routieret ferroviaireConcentration forte de réseaux ferroviaire et fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau fluvial

Concentration forte de réseau routier

Pas de données**

Région d’infrastructure de transport

Concentrations cumulées d’infrastructures

* seules les infrastructures adaptées pour le transport de marchandises ont été prises en compte pour cette analyse** l’absence de données peut signifier qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure ou qu’il n’y a pas d’infrastructure adaptée pour le transport de marchandises

Cross analyses of infrastructures network*



Multimodal concentrations

Bimodal concentrations

Single mode concentrations

High concentration of road, railwayand inland waterway networks

High concentration of ports andrailway terminals

High concentration of road and railwaynetworksHigh concentration of railway andinland waterway networks

High concentration of inland waterway networks

High concentration of road networks

No data**

Infrastructure region

Cumulated infrastructure concentrations

* only relevant freight transport infrastructures have been considered** no data can mean no infrastructures or no infrastructure relevant for freight transportation

Freight exchanges per transport modeMain freight exchanges

9

300 - 1 0001,001 - 1,996

985 - 1,8151,816 - 3,141

2,053 - 3,5003,501 - 4,389

872 - 1,5001,501 - 8,586

in million tonnes-km

Main interactions per mode* inside North-Western Europe

* Main interactions per mode were selected after having determined a significant threshold that is specific to each interaction mode in million tonnes per km

All interactions inside North-Western Europe


Geozone

Contextual informationGeometrical centre of Geozone

Capital

ROAD

MARITIME

RAILWAY

INLAND WATERWAY

300 - 1 0001 001 - 1 996

985 - 1 8151 816 - 3 141

2 053 - 3 5003 501 - 4 389

872 - 1 5001 501 - 8 586

en millions de tonnes-km

Principales interactions par mode* à l’intérieur de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

* la sélection des principales interactions par mode a été établie d’après la détermination d’un seuil significatif et spécifique à chaque mode, en millions de tonnes-km

Toutes les interactions


Géozone

Éléments de contexteCentre de géozone

Capitale

ROUTE

MER

FER

FLEUVE

Principales interactions* entre géozones

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652

5 039 - 6 847

Géozone recevant ou émettant une ou plusieur(s) interaction(s) supérieure(s) à 18 Mt

Géozone



Centre de géozoneen kilo-tonnes par an

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652Toutes les interactions

Major interactions* between geozones

18 652 - 40 470

6 848 - 18 652

5,039 - 6,847

* Main interactions represent interactions exceeding 5 million tonnes

Geozones receiving or emitting one or several interactions exceeding 18 mT

Geozone



Geometrical centre of Geozone

in thousands of tonnes per annum

18,652 - 40,470

6,848 - 18,652

All interactions inside North-Western Europe

(in tonnes-kilometre)(in tonnes)


TEN-T corridors in North-Western EuropeIn October, 2013, the European Commission made its new policies on transport infrastructures public. The priorities were consistent with Weastflows’ goals: building missing links, reducing bottlenecks, developing multiple mode connections, reducing greenhouse gas by developing alternative methods of transport, other than roads and lastly, developing East-West routes.

Amongst the nine transport corridors selected by the European Commission, five are located in the North-West European area. Four have East-West direction section (cf. map):• the “Atlantic Corridor” in its Le Havre - Mannheim and Le Havre - Strasbourg

section;• the “North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor” in its “Cork - Dublin- Brussels” section;• the “North Sea - Baltic Corridor,” from Antwerp and Rotterdam towards Berlin;• the “Rhine River - Danube Corridor,” which is a continuation of the Atlantic

Corridor, and only flows in an East-West direction.

The only corridor going in a North-South direction is the “Rhine-Alps” corridor, which connects Rotterdam to Genoa.

This new transport layout strengthens the “Blue Banana” as the key European backbone where infrastructures converge. It links peripheral areas to central ones, though it increases congestion and has few alternative itineraries. Some structuring routes seem to be missing, for example, from Paris to Dijon.

Port ayant un trafic total supérieurà 50 millions de tonnes annuel


Corridors RTE-T concernantl’Europe du Nord-Ouest


Reste de l’Europe

Banane bleue (dorsale européenne)

Axe Ouest/Est de fortes densités(population et industrielle)

«Orange Pumpkin»(dynamique Est Européenne)

Dynamiques territoriales

Principale voie d’accés maritime

Tronçon de corridor orienté Ouest-Est

Tronçon de corridor orienté Nord-Sud

Ville connectée à un corridor

Capitale connectée à un corridor

Ligne de fracture des concentrationsdémographiques et industrielles

Port with a total traffic up to50 million annual tonnes


TEN-T corridors connectingNorth-Western Europe


Rest of Europe

East-West direction corridor section

North-South direction corridor section

City connected to a corridor

Capital connected to a corridor

The European transport policy1.2

0 100Km

Data source powered by AURHBoudaries ©MBR and EuroGeographics,©ESRI Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, ODblCommission européenne, TENtec, ®AURH -2013/06$

Cork

Le Havre Lille

Metz

Dijon

BordeauxLyon

Dover

Liverpool/Manchester

BirminghamFelixstowe

Southampton

Strasbourg

Basel

Gênes

MannheimStuttgart

FrancfurtKölnDusseldorf

Hanover

AntwerpRotterdamZeebrugge

Gent

Liège

OsnabrückUtrecht

Calais

Belfast

Glasgow Edinburg

MarseilleVitoria

Bilbao

London

Dublin

Paris

Brussels

Amsterdam Berlin

Praha

Wien

Luxembourg

Bern

Hamburg

To Bucharest(Romania)and the Black Sea

To Ostava (Bulgaria) and Ukraine

to Warsaw(Poland)and Belarus

To MadridLisbonAlgeciras

Bremerhaven

Immingham

2/ Bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures


This is an analysis that had to be carried out before seeking alternative routes. The goal is firstly to draw up a geography of congested areas, missing or underused links for all types of transport infrastructures, whether they concern inland waterways, railways, roads or the sea. Here, we will be pinpointing situations where problems were circumvented or postponed by dealing with traffic saturation, opportunities and stakes related to freight transport. Thus, the “issues” networks have, which hamper exchanges, find their “remedies” in the creation of bypasses or by turning to underused infrastructures.

What types of data were used?

As there is no European reference data set on the structural use of infrastructures which would allow us to assess their level of use, AURH designed and carried out a qualitative opinion survey. This survey was taken by project partners as well as many experts including infrastructure administrators for its French part (RFF, VNF, HAROPA, etc.).

This “expert’s opinion” survey took place online with a questionnaire (Google Forms®), from November, 2014 to January, 2015. The new functions of GeoWeastflows were used, and in particular, the possibility to key in geographical information online. Roughly forty pieces of information were gathered by fifteen different contributors.

The following criteria were used to justify data collection:• information sought can apply to sections of an infrastructure network (roads, railways or

inland waterways), or to hubs (pots, railway terminals, etc.), and can be, without this being necessary, a part of an on-going study or project;

• problems identified have no “geographical boundaries”;• information gathered concerns both local traffic as well as traffic at a European level.

Complementary data sources stemming from work done in the framework of TEN-T corridors were also used, and in particular “Work Plans” of the “Rhine River - Alps” and “North Sea - Mediterranean” corridors, which can be accessed at the following address:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-guidelines/corridors/corridor-studies_en.htm.

What were the results?

The information gathered was integrated and laid out in the Weastflows Geographical Information System as points and lines. Approximately one hundred objects located on existing infrastructures were pinpointed. Because this system has an open and reusable status category, published under GeoWeastflows, others will be able to complete or update this information.

It must be noted that this information is non-exhaustive and lacunary for some regions, in particular for the United Kingdom. Nevertheless it gives a preliminary approach to dealing with bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures. Consequently, a complete cartography of North-Western Europe, and three regional highlights were proposed: the Seine River Valley and Northern France, Benelux and the Rhine River Valley.

About the analysis of bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures

Why must bottlenecks, missing and underused infrastructures be analysed?


By preferring East-West routes for freight transport, Europe hopes to develop alternative solutions in congested regions which lead to Northern Range ports, as well as North-South corridors, which are also congested. The goal here is also to tackle European freight traffic growth and ensure that the whole of Europe is correctly connected. (In 2011, the European Commission’s white book forecast there would be highly increased traffic by 2050, up to 50% for passengers and 80% for freight). This map gives a non-exhaustive overview of threats and opportunities in the North-West European transport network. This network is faced with congestion problems that are both structural and economic ones, which are mainly located:• in the most heavily populated and industrialised regions (the “Blue

Banana”), • on structuring transport lines (Rotterdam - Frankfurt - Mannheim,

London – Birmingham – Liverpool – Glasgow, Paris – Lille),• near large European cities: mainly surrounding Paris, London,

Birmingham, Luxembourg, Brussels and Cologne.This leads us to reflect upon solutions to be rolled out to mitigate these problems. One possible response is to move a part of traffic onto an underused infrastructure (in yellow) or to think of building the missing ones (in orange).


Congestion, missing infrastructures, underused infrastructures*


Infrastructurenetwork

Congestedinfrastructure

Missinginfrastructure

Underusedinfrastructure


Rest of Europe

City over 1 million inhabitants

City between 450,000 and 150,000 inhabitantsCity with less than 150,000 inhabitants

London

Mannheim

City between 1 million and 450,000 inhabitantsDublin

Rouen

*Non-exhaustive list

Congestion, liens manquants, infrastructures sous-utilisées


Réseau d’infrastructure

Infrastructure congestionnée

Lien manquantInfrastructure sous-utilisée


Reste de l’Europe

Ville de plus de 1 million d’habitants

Ville entre 450 000 et 150 000 habitantsVille de moins de 150 000 habitants

London

Mannheim

Ville entre 1 million et 450 000 habitantsDublin

Rouen

Threats and opportunities of the infrastructure network: a global approach2.1


Three main elements of congestion stood out for the Seine River Valley and Northern France:• Paris, its outskirts, suburbs and the Francilien belt line;• the Rouen - Paris railway line, with the “Mantes knot”;• the A1 Motorway between Paris and Lille with a high concentration of heavy

vehicles, nearly 20%.The French way of organising networks, in a star-shape, explains a part of this situation.It must be noted that congestion is mainly road traffic congestion and that capacity exists for inland waterway and railway traffic. The Serqueux-Gisors railway line is undergoing an ambitious modernisation programme whose goal is to offer an alternative to the historical Le Havre - Rouen - Paris railway line, suffering from serious structural issues. The carrying out of the new railway line between Paris and Normandy is also an answer to Rouen and Mantes congestion.The Rouen- Amiens - Reims railway line is an itinerary which bypasses Paris and its outskirts and which is currently underused. The Seine River also remains an underused infrastructure, in spite of its high seaworthiness level (ECMT V).In the West, the Le Havre port has large capacity reserves, in particular concerning terminal ports. This situation, linked to an uncongested hinterland and commissioning of a multiple mode terminal, is both an opportunity and a solution at the European level.

The Seine River Valley and Northern France

Threats and opportunities of the infrastructure network: a regional approach2.2

Missing infrastucture*Network concerned

Underused infrastucture*Network concerned

Contextual information*

Airport

SeaportInland portRailway terminal

Inland waterway network

Road network

Railway network

"")

"")

"")

Congested infrastucture*Network concerned


Road network

SeaportUrban node: railway and road network congested

Railway network

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!

Inland waterway networkRailway networkSeaport

o

Infrastructure network


Infrastructures manquantesRéseaux concernés

Infrastructures sous-utiliséesRéseaux concernés


Aéroport

Port maritimePort intérieurTerminal ferroviaire

Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier

Réseau ferroviaire

"")

"")

"")

Infrastructures congestionnéesRéseaux concernés

Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier

Port maritimeNoeud urbain, réseaux routiers et ferroviaires congestionnés

Réseau ferroviaire

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!

Réseau fluvialRéseau ferroviairePort maritime

o



Benelux, a heavily populated and highly industrialised region, is an intersection between maritime and terrestrial flows, because of the presence of Europe’s two largest ports: Antwerp and Rotterdam.Congestion can be observed right in the port terminals, with waiting time that can reach, for example, 92 hours in Rotterdam and 72 hours in Antwerp for barge handling. It then trickles down to the rest of the infrastructure network, and impacts all modes, including inland waterways which often suffer from a lack of equipment when compared with the volume of freight. As an example, the section between Rotterdam, Dordrecht and Emmerich lacks mooring places, in spite of its high capacity.Traffic is organised, by corridor, around very few structuring elements, which reinforces the saturation of this system, particularly so from Cologne to Rotterdam. The obsolescence of some infrastructures, in particular in the Belgian network, linked with higher volumes transported, is also a problem.The railway network, challenged by traveller demand, is also saturated: between Duisburg and Utrecht, Liège and Cologne, as well as the Luxembourg - Namur - Brussels line. Extra capacity is rare within these areas: between Liège and Rotterdam using the Meuse River, in the south between Thionville and Koblenz using the Moselle River or by the Lille - Thionville railway line in the West.

Benelux




Airport



Road network

Railway network

"")

"")

"")



Road network

SeaportUrban node, railway and road network congested

Railway network

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!


o





Aéroport


Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier

Réseau ferroviaire

"")

"")

"")


Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier


Réseau ferroviaire

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!


o


* Recensement non exhaustif



The Rhine River Valley system is in interaction with Benelux port traffics. This is a region where topographical constraints play a huge role, with the “natural” Rhine River Valley bottleneck, which favours North-South relations, in particular between Mannheim, Strasbourg and Mulhouse. This natural barrier must be overcome for East-West relations towards Central Europe, taking into account geographical constraints and traffic that is increasing.Congestion is present in all transport modes, including the Rhine River. Road congestion in most of Luxembourg is also an issue. This can be explained by the accumulation of local traffic with transit traffic.The Moselle River is a capacity reserve as well as an alternative route parallel to the Rhine River. This inter-corridor liaison should be considered.A reservoir of railway capacity between Strasbourg and Mannheim could be an alternative to the congested Mulhouse - Basel - Mannheim route. The Metz - Strasbourg railway line, which is a continuation of the Brussels - Luxembourg line, has speed constraints, which impact service levels.

Rhine River Valley




Airport



Road network

Railway network

"")

"")

"")



Road network

SeaportUrban node, railway and road network congested

Railway network

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!


o





Aéroport


Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier

Réseau ferroviaire

"")

"")

"")


Réseau fluvial

Réseau routier


Réseau ferroviaire

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!!


o


* Recensement non exhaustif


3/ Alternative East-West routes

0 100Km


Immingham

Leeds/Sheffield

FrancfurtKoblenz

Cork

Le Havre Lille

Metz

Dijon

BordeauxLyon

Dover



Southampton

Strasbourg

Basel

Gênes

MannheimStuttgart

KölnDusseldorf

Hanover


Gent

Liège

OsnabrückUtrecht

Calais

Belfast

Glasgow Edinburgh

MarseilleVitoria

Bilbao

London

Dublin

Paris

Brussels

Amsterdam Berlin

Praha

Wien

Luxembourg

Bern

Hamburg





Bremerhaven


Transport corridors and alternative routes3.1

The goals of the Weastflows project are to identify alternative East-West routes for congested areas by employing underused infrastructures and by favouring other transport modes than roads. Opportunities are located in the West part of Europe, where the infrastructure network is the least saturated and where gateway projects are already underway: the Limerick/Shannon Gateway, Seine Gateway® or the Liverpool/Manchester Gateway.Two East-West routes are proposed as a complement to the TEN-T corridors:• the “Northern” route (in orange on the map): Shannon/Limerick – Dublin – Liverpool –

Immingham - Rotterdam, doubled in the North, by Glasgow – Edinburgh – Rotterdam;• the “Southern” route (in yellow on the map): Shannon/Limerick – Le Havre – Paris –

Metz – Mannheim - Strasbourg – Stuttgart – Nuremberg.There are eleven section which interconnect with the corridors (in green on the map), thus completing the grid and making up a third set.This contribution aims to better connect peripheral areas, focus on hubs, avoid congestion and build on the potentials of under-used infrastructures.Links between Ireland and the United Kingdom with the continent are strengthened with two connections in the West: Limerick and Portsmouth, and two in the East: Immingham and Edinburgh. The port of Le Havre is further reinforced in its position as the western entrance port into the European continent. Shannon/Limerick, which are not a part of the TEN-T corridors, are connected to two new roads.

Focus on the “Northern” route (in orange on the map)The “Northern” route connects Ireland and the United Kingdom to the continent. It is mainly a maritime connection where key ports, in particular Rotterdam and Immingham, as well as the centre of the United Kingdom, which is not present in the TEN-T network, are all interconnected.This is an alternative route to the North Sea-Mediterranean corridor. It bypasses the English Channel, the Pas-de-Calais strait and Greater London. It uses the maritime mode as an alternative to roads or railways.

Focus on the “Southern” route (in yellow on the map)The “Southern” itinerary connects Ireland directly to the continent via Le Havre. It completes the Atlantic Corridor:• by identifying a bypass for Greater Paris;• by continuing up to Nuremberg to facilitate its interconnection with the Rhine/Danube

River corridor in order to avoid using the heavily congested Strasbourg-Mannheim route. This itinerary has four modes and the main one is the rail, with over 1,800 km of railways.

Focus on complementary sections (in green on the map)Complementary sections aim to strengthen intra-European connectivity. They mainly run from North to South. They accompany itineraries proposed by Weastflows and make up an indispensable complement for the TEN-T network to mitigate congestion.In the United Kingdom, this is a means of proposing an alternative route to the Glasgow - Liverpool - Birmingham - London route, which is congested both for its roads and railways (the West Coast Main Line), connecting Edinburgh to London through Leeds and Sheffield.

On the continent, this offers a road and rail complement to two branches of the Rhine River - Alps corridor whilst completing the North Sea - Mediterranean corridor by two parallel sections, one of which structures North-South relations and the other which gives an alternative itinerary to the congested Rhine River axis.

0 100Km


Immingham

Leeds/Sheffield

FrancfurtKoblenz

Cork

Le Havre Lille

Metz

Dijon

BordeauxLyon

Dover



Southampton

Strasbourg

Basel

Gênes

MannheimStuttgart

KölnDusseldorf

Hanover


Gent

Liège

OsnabrückUtrecht

Calais

Belfast

Glasgow Edinburgh

MarseilleVitoria

Bilbao

London

Dublin

Paris

Brussels

Amsterdam Berlin

Praha

Wien

Luxembourg

Bern

Hamburg





Bremerhaven

North-Western Europe, TEN-T corridors and complements

0 100Km


Cork

Le Havre Lille

Metz

Dijon

BordeauxLyon

Dover



Southampton

Strasbourg

Basel

Gênes

MannheimStuttgart

FrancfurtKölnDusseldorf

Hanover


Gent

Liège

OsnabrückUtrecht

Calais

Belfast

Glasgow Edinburg

MarseilleVitoria

Bilbao

London

Dublin

Paris

Brussels

Amsterdam Berlin

Praha

Wien

Luxembourg

Bern

Hamburg





Bremerhaven

Immingham

Corridors RTE-T concernant l’Europe du Nord-Ouest

Éléments de contextePort ayant un trafic total annuelsupérieur à 50 millions de tonnes


Reste de l’Europe

Ville connectée à un corridorCapitale

Tronçon de corridor orienté Ouest-EstTronçon de corridor orienté Nord-Sud

Itinéraires alternatifs

Tronçon alternatif orienté Ouest-Est

Tronçon alternatif orienté Nord-Sud

Itinéraire «Nord»

Itinéraires «Sud»

Barreau complémentaire

TEN-T corridors connecting North-Western Europe

Contextual informationPort with a total traffic up to50 million annual tonnes


Rest of Europe

City connected to a corridorCapital connected to a corridor

East-West direction corridor sectionNorth-South direction corridor section

Alternative routes

East-West direction alternative corridor sectionNorth-South direction alternativecorridor section

“Northern” route

“Southern” route

Complementary route

Corridors defined by the European Commission

19Forward-Looking Atlas - North-Western Europe freight transport: bottlenecks, missing links, underused infrastructures and alternative routes - AURH - April, 2015


Sections description

Name of the section ModesTotal

length (in km)

Length per mode (in km)

Modal split (in %) Remarkable hubs Connected TEN-T

corridors CommentsRO RA IWW MA RO RA IWW MA MP IWP RT AI

Shannon/Limerick – Dublin Road, Rail 421 225 196 0 0 53.4 46.6 0 0 2 0 0 2 North Sea - Mediterranean Section linking Shannon/Limerick to Dublin

Dublin – Liverpool Maritime 219 0 0 0 219 0 0 0 100 2 0 1 1 North Sea - MediterraneanTransborder section already registered in the corridor North Sea - Mediterranean

Liverpool - Immingham Road, Rail 640 333 306 0 0 52.1 47.9 0 0 5 0 7 4 North Sea - MediterraneanSection linking key hubs in the centre of the United Kingdom

Immingham - Rotterdam Maritime 350 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 100 3 0 2 1North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps; North Sea - Baltic

Transborder itinerary bypassing the Pas-de-Calais strait and Greater London

Glasgow - Edinburgh Road, Rail 270 98 172 0 0 36.4 63.6 0 0 2 0 1 2 North Sea - MediterraneanSection already registered in the corridor North Sea - Mediterranean

Edinburgh - Rotterdam Maritime 712 0 0 0 712 0 0 0 100 2 0 1 2North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps; North Sea - Baltic

Transborder itinerary connecting Scotland directly to the continent

Number of sections 6

Road Rail Inland waterways Maritime TotalLength (in km) 657 675 0 1,281 2,613

Modal split (in %) 25.2 25.8 0 49 100

Concerned countries Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands

Connected urban areas Shannon, Limerick, Dublin, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Immingham, Grimsby, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Rotterdam

“Northern” alternative route3.2

RO : roadRA : railIWW : Inland WaterwayMA : maritime

MP : maritime portIWP : inland waterway portRT : railway terminalAI : airport

Alternative routes, ports, railway terminals, airports

Contextual informationOther infrastructurenetwork

Road networkRailway networkInland waterway networkMaritime link


"

o

# )

Railway terminal (rail - road)Port (maritime or inland)Airport

Interconnection pointbetween corridors

" o#Other railwayterminal

Other port (maritime or inland) Other airport

Itinéraires alternatifs, ports, terminaux ferroviaires et aéroports

Éléments de contexteAutre réseau d’infrastructure

Réseau routierRéseau ferroviaireVoie navigableLiaison maritime


"

o

# )

Terminal ferroviaire (rail - route)Port (maritime ou fluvial)Aéroport

Point d’interconnexion entre corridors

" o#Autre terminal ferroviaire

Autre port (maritime ou fluvial) Autre aéroport

Shannon/Limerick - Rotterdam

Glasgow - Rotterdam

Focus on selected infrastructures: the “Northern” route





length (in km)




Shannon/Limerick - Le Havre Maritime 1,151 0 0 0 1,151 0 0 0 100 2 0 1 1North Sea - Mediterranean; Atlantic

Transborder section connecting Ireland directly to the continent

Le Havre - RouenRoad, Rail, IW

315 85 126 104 0 27 39.8 33.2 0 3 1 1 0 AtlanticTri-modal section, recently registered in the Atlantic Corridor

Rouen - ParisRoad, Rail, IW

640 150 277 213 0 23.4 43.3 33.3 0 1 4 1 2Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean

Tri-modal section, recently registered in the Atlantic Corridor

Rouen - Amiens Road, Rail 254 141 113 0 0 55.5 44.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 Atlantic Greater Paris bypass

Amiens - Reims Road, Rail 407 163 244 0 0 40.1 59.9 0 0 0 1 0 0 AtlanticGreater Paris bypass with a possibility of interconnection with the corridor North Sea - Mediterranean around Compiègne

Paris - Reims Road, Rail 287 142 145 0 0 49.5 50.5 0 0 0 4 4 2Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean

Section already registered in the Atlantic corridor

Reims - Metz Road, Rail 393 183 210 0 0 46.6 53.4 0 0 0 4 0 0Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean


Metz - Mannheim Road, Rail 405 200 205 0 0 49.4 50.6 0 0 0 7 2 0Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps;

Transborder section already registered in the Atlantic Corridor, which allows interconnection with two main cor-ridors: North Sea - Mediterranean and Rhine River - Alps

Metz - Strasbourg Road, Rail 243 115 128 0 0 47.4 52.6 0 0 0 5 0 1Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps


Strasbourg - Stuttgart Rail 181 0 181 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 4 2 3

Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps; Rhine River - Danube

Transborder section partially registered in the corridors Rhine River - Alps, North Sea - Mediterranean and Rhine River - Danube, allowing 4 corridors to interconnect and the continuation of the Atlantic Corridor towards the East

Stuttgart - Nuremberg Road, Rail 412 207 204 0 0 50.4 49.6 0 0 0 3 1 2Rhine River - Alps; Rhine River - Danube; Scandinavia - Mediterranean

Section continuing the Atlantic Corridor towards the East, allowing interconnection with Eastern Europe corridors


Road Rail Inland waterways Maritime TotalLength (in km) 1,443 1,807 318 1,151 4,719

Modal split (in %) 30.6 38.3 6.7 24.4

Concerned countries Ireland, France, Germany

Connected urban areas Shannon, Limerick, Le Havre, Rouen, Amiens, Paris, Reims, Metz, Strasbourg, Mannheim, Stuttgart, Nuremberg

“Southern” alternative route3.3

Le Havre - Nuremberg

Shannon/Limerick - Le Havre

Focus on selected infrastructures: the “Southern” route




Other infrastructurenetwork



"

o

# )







Autre réseau d’infrastructure



"

o

# )


Point d’interconnexion entre corridors




Section description


length (in km)




Shannon/Limerick - Cork Road, Rail 226 94 132 0 0 41.7 58.3 0 0 2 0 0 2 North Sea - MediterraneanDirect section connection between two regional economic hubs

Edinburgh - Leeds Road, Rail 788 362 426 0 0 45.9 54.1 0 0 4 0 3 3 North Sea - MediterraneanSecondary itinerary to congested itinerary London - Manchester - Glasgow

Sheffield - Birmingham Road, Rail 288 122 166 0 0 42.3 57.7 0 0 0 0 2 3 North Sea - MediterraneanSecondary itinerary to congested itinerary London - Manchester - Glasgow; Connection between two key industrial regions with heavy flows

Sheffield - London Road, Rail 624 378 246 0 0 60.5 39.5 0 0 0 0 1 3 North Sea - MediterraneanSecondary itinerary to congested itinerary London - Manchester - Glasgow

Felixstowe - London Road, Rail 253 112 141 0 0 44.2 55.8 0 0 4 0 0 1 North Sea - MediterraneanSection connection between London and the largest port in Great Britain

Dover - London Road, Rail 215 58 157 0 0 26.8 73.2 0 0 3 0 0 2 North Sea - MediterraneanSouthern itinerary bypassing Greater London, connecting the West Coast Main Line

Portsmouth - Le Havre Route, Rail 176 0 0 0 176 0 0 0 100 2 0 1 0 North Sea - MediterraneanTransborder section connecting the United Kingdom to the continent; an alternative to the Channel Tunnel


Road Rail Inland waterways Maritime TotalLength (in km) 1,003 1,269 0 176 2,448

Modal split (in %) 41 51.8 0 7.2

Concerned countries Ireland, the United Kingdom, France

Connected urban areas Shannon, Limerick, Cork, Edinburgh, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, London, Felixstowe, Portsmouth, Southampton, Le Havre

Complementary sections: the United Kingdom and Ireland3.4

Focus on selected infrastructures: complementary sections (United Kingdom and Ireland)






"

o

# )










"

o

# )


Point d’interconnexion avec les corridors RTE-T



Edinburgh - London - Felixstowe Portsmouth - Le Havre / Cork - Limerick





length (in km)


Modal split (in %) Remarkable hubs

Connected TEN-T corridors CommentsRO RA IWW MA RO RA IWW MA MP IWP RT AI

Paris - Dijon Road, Rail 592 287 305 0 0 48.4 51.6 0 0 0 3 2 1Atlantic; North Sea - Mediterranean

Missing section from a historical radial road allowing the Seine River basin to be connected to the Rhone River basin

Lille - Metz Rail 391 0 391 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 3 2 1North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps

Rail itinerary only between two industrial regions, an alternative to the Brussels - Luxembourg

Luxembourg - Koblenz Road, Rail 347 186 161 0 0 53.6 46.4 0 0 0 3 1 1North Sea - Mediterranean; Rhine River - Alps

Transborder section completing the Rhine River - Alps corridor, allowing a trimodal itinerary to be created (Moselle is already registered in the TEN-T corridor); Interconnection with the Atlantic Corridor is possible; An alternative itinerary to the congested Strasbourg - Mannheim route

Strasbourg - Mannheim Road, Rail 241 109 132 0 0 45.1 54.9 0 0 0 5 2 2Atlantic; Rhine River - Alps; North Sea - Mediterranean

A transborder itinerary which is a complement to the trimodal infrastructures already registered in the Rhine River-Alps corridor


Road Rail Inland waterways Maritime TotalLength (in km) 581 1,112 0 0

Modal split (in %) 34.3 65.7

Concerned countries France, Luxembourg, Germany

Connected urban areas Lille, Metz, Paris, Dijon, Luxembourg, Koblenz, Strasbourg, Mannheim

Complementary sections: Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands

3.5

Focus on selected infrastructures: complementary sections (Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands)






"

o

# )










"

o

# )


Point d’interconnexion avec les corridors RTE-T



Paris - Dijon and Lille - Metz Luxembourg - Koblenz and Strasbourg - Mannheim


Conclusion


TOWARDS A REDISTRIBUTION OF FLOWS IN NORTh-WESTERN EUROpE?

Work carried out by AURH in the partnership-based and collaborative Weastflows project, has highlighted quite a few challenges for freight transport in North-Western Europe: bottlenecks and congestion, modal changes and better connecting peripheral regions to hubs.

The European Commission defined nine priority transport corridors, four of which pass through North-Western Europe. They bring a response that had been lacking, though it remains insufficient to tackle these challenges. Indeed, these corridors cannot:• propose alternative routes in order to bypass congested areas, in particular in

the “Blue Banana”;• use the potential that peripheral regions such as Ireland, Scotland, the Seine River Valley

and the Atlantic facade have to offer;• consider the maritime mode as an alternative transport mode, especially for short

distances; • optimise, for the western part of Europe, interconnections between corridors because of

the many missing connections (for example, between Paris and Dijon).

With the forecast of an 80% increase in freight traffic in Europe by 2050, congestion of the European backbone is a crucial issue. This congestion can only increase the isolation in peripheral regions and lead to a type of deadlock, where the European hinterlands from Antwerp and Rotterdam cannot be served in a sustainable manner.

Three types of actions could improve this tense situation: • the use of collaborative technological tools; • the search of adapted routes proposing the best offer at the best price;• a solution at the source with other unsaturated or forecast gateways: Le Havre

(Seine Gateway®), Shannon/Limerick, and Liverpool/Manchester.

As a response to this issue, this Forward-Looking Atlas has identified two East/West uncongested alternative routes that are interconnected with TEN-T corridors and favour the rail, inland waterway and maritime modes. Complementary sections, including the roadway mode when justified, complete this approach, to make up a coherent and rebalanced network in the heart of North-Western Europe.

The Liverpool/Manchester axis in the North-West is an alternative to Greater London hub congestion. The port of Le Havre, more in the South, is the first port in the Channel coming from the West, as well as an alternative to Northern Range ports. It is interconnected with the United Kingdom, Ireland and the continental part of North-Western Europe. The continuation of the Atlantic Corridor from Shannon/Limerick to Nuremberg has the goal of proposing a better interconnection with the East of Europe, whilst bypassing many of the most congested areas.

The solutions proposed here ask the question of the redistribution of flows as well as the regional rebalancing between major hubs and peripheral areas. They invite us to rethink and redefine priorities of the European transport policy by:• establishing a limit to the massification reached by Antwerp and Rotterdam on a large

part of the Rhine River-Alps corridor;• adding value to these peripheral regions to offer a new territorial development logic;• including the maritime mode as an alternative mode and as a continuation of the terrestrial

modes;• exploring innovative solutions to mitigate the lack of infrastructures in the network, such

as continuity of track clearance, and the electrification level through intensifications and raising the level of services.

More indirectly, and generally speaking, the Weastflows project raises the question of data in Europe. We have noted that information in Europe is often lacking (lacunary, sub-standard or inexact information). Data, however, is a strategic resource. In Weastflows, data has allowed us to have a shared and collaborative vision of stakes involved in freight transport and how this is changing. Europe would win hands down, for all of its projects and developments, by drafting, as soon as possible, a “data bank” to serve the (great) European project.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

AURH would like to give special thanks to the CODAH, HAROPA and the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations for their financial support of this project.

Heartfelt thanks also to Emmanuel Preterre and to CRITT Transport et Logistique who invited us to take part in this project. We would also like to thank Europe as well as the Interreg IV B North-Western Europe programme project managers.

Special thanks to the entire CRITT team for its assistance in this project, to the OpenStreetMap contributors, as well as the OpenStreetMap France Association.

Our work would not have been possible with out the Weastflows project partners and observers. We are especially grateful to the Normand members of this adventure: LSN, IDIT, CTS as well as the Luxembourger partner, LIST (Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology), with whom we had this beautiful baby, who will never stop growning: GeoWeastflows, the interactive mapping platform.

Lastly we would also like to thank: the Le Havre University, Paris Geo (CNRS), Neoma (Rouen Business School), the SNCF network, SNCF Logistics, Voies Navigables de France (VNF), Ports Normands Associés (PNA), Ports de Paris, CPMH, GPMR, the Upper and Lower Normandy Regions, CG 76, Le Havre Développement, Nov@log, the Normandy CCI, the Seine Estuary CCI, the Rouen CCI, the Eure CCI, Paris Seine Normandie®, Delta 3, SOGET, AIVP, CREA, EPFN, SANEF, SAPN, the DREAM, the Seine River Valley Town Planning Agencies (APUR, IAU, AUDAS, AURBSE, AUCAME), as well as the Saint-Nazaire and Strasbourg town planning agencies for the interest in our undertaking, their fruitful exchanges and many contributions.

Last but not least, we would like to thank all of our colleagues from AURH who supported this project and who became truly European citizens during these last four years.


MAp INDEX

• Maritime port traffic ........................................................................................................ p.8

• Infrastructure density ...................................................................................................... p.8

• Main freight exchanges (in tonnes) ........................................................................... p.9

• Freight exchanges per transport mode (in tonnes-kilometre)........................... p.9

• TEN-T corridors in North-Western Europe .......................................................... p.10

• North-Western Europe .............................................................................................. p.13

• The Seine River Valley and Northern France...................................................... p.14

• Benelux ............................................................................................................................ p.15

• Rhine River Valley ........................................................................................................ p.16

• North-Western Europe, TEN-T corridors and complements .......................... p.19

• Focus on selected infrastructures: the “Northern” route ................................... p.21

• Focus on selected infrastructures: the “Southern” route .................................. p.23

• Focus on selected infrastructures: complementary sections (United Kingdom and Ireland) ................................................................................... p.25

• Focus on selected infrastructures: complementary sections (Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).................. p.27


ALREADY pUBLIShED

Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 2 - September 2014

ANALYTICAL ATLASFreight transport in North-Western Europe: regional dynamics, infrastructure and inter-regional exchanges

ATLASMajor North-West Europeanfreight infrastructures

Weastflows project - Action 1 - Deliverable 1 - June 2013

GeoWeastflows platformNovember, 2013 - The interactive cartography tool developed by the Luxembourg Institute of Science Technology (LIST) and AURH, accessible free of charge by simple registration. http://geo.weastflows.eu

Stage N°2 reportJuly, 2014 - The second intermediary progress report on AURH’s actions in the Weastflows project.

Stage N°1 reportJune, 2013 - First intermediary progress report on AURH’s actions in the Weastflows project.

The Atlas of North-Western Europe freight transport infrastructures June, 2013 - 47 maps bringing together context maps, maps by transport mode and regional maps.

The Analytical Atlas of North-Western Europe freight transportSeptember, 2014 - Nearly 30 maps which examine regional dynamics and the infrastructure network and inter-regional exchanges of freight in North-Western Europe.

AURH -Town Planning Agency of the Le Havre and Seine Estuary Area

76063 Le Havre cedex FRANCETel : + 33 (0)235 421788

[email protected] - www.aurhinweastflows.com

Document created with the support of the European INTERREG IV B programme in the framework of the European Weastflows project.

This forward-looking report is AURH’s last contribution to Action 1“Assessment of sustainable transport capacity.”

www.weastflows.eu

Copyright deposit: April, 2015ISBN : 979-10-93006-09-3

Not for sale

With the kind financial support of:

Pub

lishe

r: A

UR

H -

E14

71 -

Prin

ted:

Apr

il 20

15 –

Prin

ter:

La P

etite

Pre

sse,

Le

Hav

re

forward-looking atlas

Business

atlas freight transport

alternative routes aurh

underused infrastructures

missing links

transport corridors

alternative eastwest

regional freight exchanges

european transport policy