article 49.3 study - european commission...article 49.3 of the ten-t regulation (eu) 1315/2013 and...

1

ARTICLE 49.3 STUDY: REVIEW OF EXISTING SOURCES OF INFORMATION / DATA AND SUPPORT FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEN-T NETWORK

Final Report June 2016

Article 49.3 study

2

Date 30/06/2016 Prepared by: Maria Rodrigues, Nadezda Iakovleva, Menno Menist, Arnaud Burgess (PANTEIA) Riccardo Enei, Carlo Sessa (ISIS) Overview of the consortium:

Panteia B.V. is a Netherlands-based consultancy, including the formerly NEA Transport Research and Training, with extensive experience in undertaking European transport and policy studies on behalf of DG-MOVE, with a well-established network of contacts, both in the Netherlands and across Europe.

ISINNOVA - the Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems (www.isinnova.org) - is an Italian private research and consulting firm supporting international, national and local public bodies for the analysis, the design, the implementation and the evaluation of sustainable policies in the fields of energy, environment, transport and mobility, urban planning, and knowledge society.

Version Final report Disclaimer 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.

Article 49.3 study

3

Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 6 Résumé ............................................................................................................ 7 Zusammenfassung............................................................................................. 8 Executive Summary (EN) ...................................................................................10 Résumé ...........................................................................................................14 Kurzfassung .....................................................................................................18 1. Scope and rationale of the report ..............................................................22 1.1. Objectives ..............................................................................................22 1.2. Project Structure .....................................................................................23 1.3. Rationale and methodology of the study .....................................................23 1.4. Obstacles and complexity related with the Data ..........................................25 1.5. Structure of the report .............................................................................29 2. Identification of information and data sources .............................................31 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................31 2.2. Identification of the information and data sources .......................................31 2.3. Financial Source: TEN-T and Marco Polo programme and CEF Call Results (INEA) ............................................................................................................32 2.4. Financial Source: EIB Signatures (EIB) .......................................................33 2.5. Financial Source: Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (DG Regio) 34 2.6. Financial Source: Project List from CNC corridor studies 2014 .......................36 2.7. Financial Source: National Projects (Member State) .....................................37 2.8. Technical parameters Source: TENtec ........................................................44 2.9. Technical parameters source: KPI’s Framework from CNC studies 2015/2017 .49 3. Assessment of the material provided by the data sources: Financial investment in project information ........................................................................................52 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................52 3.2. Inventory of the complete information and data sources ..............................56 3.3. Expenditures and number of projects per Member State reported ..................57 3.4. Financial Sources: Expenditures in TEN-T network for 2014 - 2015 ................59 3.4.1. Expenditures per Financial Source ..........................................................59 3.4.2. Expenditures per European Funding Source .............................................60 4. Implementation of the core and comprehensive network: Technical parameters 64 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................64 4.2. Review of information and data with regard to the current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network .............................................64 4.3. Current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network in terms of compliance with the Regulation 1315/2013 ..........................................................68 5. Analysis of the realisation of the TEN-T network ..........................................72 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................72 5.2. Realisation of TEN-T Network 2014 - 2015 .................................................72 5.3. Progress made by Member States ..............................................................78 Austria ...........................................................................................................80 Belgium .........................................................................................................84 Bulgaria .........................................................................................................87 Croatia ...........................................................................................................91 Cyprus ...........................................................................................................94 Czech Republic ..............................................................................................97 Denmark ...................................................................................................... 101

Article 49.3 study

4

Estonia ........................................................................................................ 104 Finland ........................................................................................................ 107 France ......................................................................................................... 111 Germany ...................................................................................................... 115 Greece ......................................................................................................... 120 Hungary ....................................................................................................... 123 Ireland ........................................................................................................ 127 Italy ............................................................................................................ 130 Latvia .......................................................................................................... 134 Lithuania ..................................................................................................... 138 Luxembourg ................................................................................................ 142 Malta ........................................................................................................... 144 The Netherlands .......................................................................................... 148 Poland ......................................................................................................... 151 Portugal ....................................................................................................... 154 Romania ...................................................................................................... 157 Slovakia ....................................................................................................... 161 Slovenia ....................................................................................................... 164 Spain ........................................................................................................... 168 Sweden ........................................................................................................ 171 United Kingdom ........................................................................................... 175 6. Reporting strategy ................................................................................. 180 6.1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 180 7. Main Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................. 187 Annex 1. Updated Mailing List from Member State .............................................. 191 Annex 2. List of the National Programmes per Member State ............................... 192 Annex 3 : Data collection template for the financial funding sources ..................... 193 Annex 4 : Data collection template for the Member States ................................... 194 Annex 5 Guidelines for MS ............................................................................... 195 Annex 6 FAQ’s ................................................................................................ 196 Annex 7 Country Fiches for the MS Progress ...................................................... 197 Annex 8: Progress indicator calculation ............................................................. 198 Annex 9 Matching application ........................................................................... 199

Article 49.3 study

5

List of Acronyms CEF Connecting European Facility CF Cohesion Fund CNC Core network corridorc DG ENV European Commission Directorate-General for Environment DG ENER European Commission Directorate-General for Energy EIB European Investment Bank EC European Commission EU European Union ERDF European Regional Development Fund EUR Euro KPI Key Performance Indicator INEA Innovation and Networks Executive Agency IWW Inland waterways MS Member State RRT Rail road terminal TEN-T Trans-European Networks - Transport

Article 49.3 study

6

Abstract This study aims to support the European Commission Services in the preparation of the Progress Report to comply with EC obligations as defined in Article 49.3 of TEN-T Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 and Article 22 of the CEF Regulation (EU) 1316/2013. The Progress Report will be submitted as a legal obligation to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions with regard to the implementation and development of the trans-European network. The reporting period to be covered is 2014 and 2015 and the scope is the core and comprehensive TEN-T network. A review and assessment of the information and data provided by the European Commission (e.g TENtec database), INEA (TEN-T and CEF Programmes), DG Regio (CF and ERDF), EIB and Member States, identified the financial and technical data sources which show the realisation of the TEN-T network in the reporting period 2014/2015. The assessment of this data and information indicates the level of realisation of the TEN-T network for this period. The progress reached by the 28 Member States is presented overall and per Member State, showing the investment in terms of projects, the technical realisation of the network and an analysis of the realisation pointing out the areas where attention should be paid. The reporting strategy designed for the Progress Report is as follows:

Figure 1 – Reporting strategy (Source: Panteia)

In addition to the Regulation obligations, the study would be a useful input for the work of the European Coordinators as it allows them to have detailed insight in the implementation stage of the core network corridors and the respective financial needs for their realisation. This would equally be an important contribution to the mid-term review of the current multi-annual financial framework.

Article 49.3 study

7

Résumé L’objectif de cette étude consiste à soutenir les services de la Commission européenne pendant la préparation du rapport d’avancement, afin de se conformer aux obligations définies dans l’Article 49.3 du règlement de TEN-T (EU) 1315/2013 et l’Article 22 du règlement CEF (EU) 1316/2013. Le rapport devrait être soumis au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions sur la mise en œuvre et le développement du réseau de transport transeuropéen (RTE-T). La période considérée est 2014-2015 et le périmètre englobe le réseau central et le réseau global du RTE-T. Un examen et une évaluation des données et informations fournis par la Commission européenne, INEA (programmes RTE-T et CEF), DG Regio (Cohesion Fund et ERDF), la Banque européenne d'investissement (BEI) and les États membres, ont identifié les sources financières et techniques qui montrent la réalisation du réseau RTE-T pendant la période considérée 2014/2015. Les progrès accomplis par les 28 États membres sont présentés globalement et par État membre et indiquent l’investissement en termes de projets, la réalisation technique du réseau et l’analyse de la réalisation qui indique les domaines auxquels une attention particulière doit être accordée. La stratégie de rapport conçue pour le rapport d’avancement est la suivante:

Figure 2 – Stratégie de rapport (Source: Panteia)

En plus des obligations posées par le règlement, l’étude est utile pour le travail des coordonnateurs européens, carl’étude leur permet d’avoir une connaissance plus détaillée sur la mise en œuvre des Corridors du réseau central et les moyens financiers nécessaires à la réalisation. C‘est également une contribution importante à l'examen à mi-parcours du cadre financier pluriannuel actuel.

Article 49.3 study

8

Zusammenfassung Diese Studie dient der Unterstützung der Europäischen Kommission, bezüglich der Erstellung des Fortschrittsberichtes im Hinblick auf die Erfüllung der TEN-V Verordnung (EU) 1315/2013 Artikel 49.3, und der CEF Verordnung (EU) 1316/2013 Artikel 22. Der Fortschrittsbericht wird dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und dem Ausschuss der Regionen vorgelegt. Der Berichtszeitraum erstreckt sich von 2014 bis 2015. Der Anwendungsbereich erstreckt sich auf das TEN-V Kern- und Gesamtnetz. Eine Überprüfung und Bewertung der von der Europäischen Kommission (z.B. TENtec Informationssystem), INEA (TEN-V und CEF Programm), GD REGIO (Kohäsionsfonds und Europäischer Fonds für regionale Entwicklung), EIB und den Mitgliedstaaten zur Verfügung gestellten Informationen und des Datenmaterials, hat die Datenquellen identifiziert, anhand derer die Realisierung des TEN-V Netzes während des Berichtszeitraumes 2014-2015 finanziell und technisch beurteilt werden kann. Diese Überprüfung und Bewertung stellt den Fortschritt der Realisierung des TEN-V Netzes während dieses Zeitraums dar. Die von den 28 Mitgliedstaaten erzielten Fortschritte werden auf EU-Ebene und für die jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten dargestellt. Damit werden Projektinvestitionen, die technische Verwirklichung des Netzes und eine Analyse von Aspekten von besonderem Interesse gezeigt. Dieser Fortschrittsbericht besteht aus den folgenden Elementen:

Figure 3 – Fortschrittsbericht (Source: Panteia)

Zusätzlich zu den von der Verordnung vorgesehenen Verpflichtungen, könnte diese Analyse einen wichtigen Beitrag zu der Arbeit der Europäischen Koordinatoren leisten. Sie wird den Koordinatoren einen ausführlichen Einblick in die Realisierung der Korridore des Kernnetzes bieten, sowie deren entsprechenden finanziellen

Article 49.3 study

9

Erfordernisse. Das wäre ebenso ein wichtiger Beitrag für die Halbzeitüberprüfung/Halbzeitrevision des jetzigen mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens (MFR).

Article 49.3 study

10

Executive Summary (EN) The aim of this study is to support the European Commission Services in the preparation of the Progress Report to comply with EC obligations, as are defined in Article 49.3 of the TEN-T Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 and Article 22 of the CEF Regulation (EU) 1316/2013. The Progress Report will be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, with regard to the implementation and development of the trans-European network. This report presents an overview of the investments made in 2014 and 2015 in the TEN-T network (core and comprehensive network) and the corresponding realisation of the network and also includes a number of conclusions drawn on the level of investment within the network. The pie chart below shows the allocation of expenditures per funding source.

Figure 4 – Expenditues per funding source (Source: Panteia)

For the assessment of realisation, the level of investment per transport mode is compared to the current level of realisation given by the indicators selected to assess the infrastructure network. From the level of investment, and the current indicator realisation, the assessment shows that Rail and Ports are the areas where less attention is needed in terms of connection by rail to ports, track gauge and electrification, as 70% of the investments made in 2014/2015 were in these areas and contributed to the increase of the indicators related to that. Although, the investment level is very low in Airports, the connection by rail is very near to reaching full compliance. This means that relatively minimal attention should be paid to this mode. Road and IWW, are the areas where more attention should be paid, as the indicators show a low level of investment when compared to the needs in terms of infrastructure compliance. Investments in Rail are also contributing to the connections from rail to ports and airports, which in both cases, are already fully compliant or very near full compliance.

Article 49.3 study

11

Table 1 – Realisation of the network.

Mode Type of network Indicators for the

realisation of the TEN-T network

Indicators compliance

Level of investment

Rail

Core network Track gauge 75%

54% Traction 47%

Comprehensive network Track gauge 63%

Traction 37%

Road Core network Total km compliant for type 74%

30% Comprehensive network Total km compliant for type 35%

IWW Core network

CEMT Class IV 0%

6% RIS 84%

Draught 68%

Ports

Core network Connection to rail 100%

10% CEMT Class IV 46%

Comprehensive network Connection to rail 100%

CEMT Class IV 9%

Airports Core network Connection to rail 98%

1% Comprehensive network Connection to rail 92%

This assessment should be seen as indicative, as the quality of the data for this progress report and the assumptions that had to be done, do not allow for specific conclusions to be drawn. Better data quality would enable better conclusions to be drawn and therefore, also better decision-making. This was a good pilot study in order to understand the critical issues and difficulties that are entailed when drafting a Progress Report on the implementation of the TEN-T network, according to the Article 49.3 Regulation 1315/2013 obligations. This understanding contributed to the proposed reporting strategy for the next reporting period, as depicted in the figure below.

Article 49.3 study

12

Figure 5 – Reporting strategy (Source: Panteia)

The financial and technical parameters were identified and templates to facilitate the data collection process were created. An analysis of the current period 2014-2015 was performed (as already mentioned) and it gives an indication of the technical parameters that should be improved through project investments per MS. It also gives the EC an indication as to where more funding is needed. The major critical issues and recommendations are related to:

• Data on the TEN-T implementation availability, quality and harmonisation Data was, without any doubt, the major critical issue of this study and also the aspect from which it was possible to learn more and adapt the reporting strategy accordingly. Some data was unavailable, of low quality or in a format that was not the required format for this analysis. In addition, the data was not harmonised, which made comparison more difficult. In order to guarantee that the data collected is in the right format that is needed for the analysis, templates were created and are part of the reporting strategy.

• Willingness to share the information Not all actors were willing to share information and some proxy’s leading to less than accurate results had to be used. In the MS Consultation, the communication, trusted party and the “helpdesk” period contributed to the good reply rate.

• Duration and timeline The duration of the activities, namely the data collection period, was a critical issue, as it took more time than was foreseen.

Article 49.3 study

13

In addition, the month of April was not the best choice for the data collection, as some countries do not close their financial accounts for that year until May/June. This was taken into account for the reporting strategy.

• Analysis to be performed A major lesson learned here, is that some information is not needed, however, information with regards to the contribution of a project to an indicator, is the only way to be able to analyse the impact of the investment in e.g rail projects on ERTMS in the e.g ERTMS compliance indicator. Some major policy recommendations have also been made:

• TENtec Update: To guarantee the proper data for the analysis that should be performed.

• Decision-making in the areas where more attention is needed: The results from the analysis done with the data collected for this report can contribute towards better allocation of funding in the areas where more attention is needed.

The assessment of realisation as previously mentioned, is indicative due to the data availability. This will need to be further investigated in the next progress report, where the data from TENtec will properly be filled in and correctly updated, and where the projects will also identify as to which KPI they are contributing to. This will allow for a proper analysis in order to show the correlation between both. It will be possible to measure and compare the Progress achieved, which will enable a better understanding of how much the investment in projects is contributing towards the network realisation and policy recommendations, in order to tackle the areas where more attention is required.

Article 49.3 study

14

Résumé L’objectif de cette étude consiste à soutenir les services de la Commission européenne pendant la préparation du rapport d’avancement, afin de se conformer aux obligations définies dans l’Article 49.3 du règlement de TEN-T (EU) 1315/2013 et l’Article 22 du règlement CEF1 (EU) 1316/2013. Le rapport devrait être soumis au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions sur la mise en œuvre et le développement du réseau de transport transeuropéen (RTE-T). Ce rapport contient un aperçu des investissements réalisés en 2014 et 2015 dans le réseau central et le réseau global du RTE-T et la réalisation du réseau, tirant des conclusions sur le niveau d’investissement dans le réseau. Le diagramme indique les dépenses par source de financement :

Figure 6 – Dépenses par source de financement (Source: Panteia)

Pour l’examen de la réalisation, le niveau d’investissement par mode de transport est comparé au niveau actuel de la réalisation montré par les indicateurs sélectionnés, afin d’évaluer le réseau d’infrastructure, aussi par mode de transport. L’examen, tiré du niveau d’investissement et les indicateurs actuels de la réalisation, montre que le chemin de fer et les ports sont les domaines auxquels moins d’attention doit être accordée en termes de liaisons ferroviaires avec des ports, écartement de la voie et l'électrification, comme 70% des investissements réalisés en 2014/2015 étaient dans ces domaines.

1 The Connecting Europe Facility (le mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe)

Article 49.3 study

15

Bien que le niveau d’investissement dans l’aéroports soit faible, les liaisons ferroviaires parvient presque à la conformité totale, de sorte que l’attention accordé à ce domaine devrait être peu. Une attention particulière doit être accordée aux domaines des routes et voies navigables intérieures, comme les indicateurs indiquent un niveau d’investissement faible, comparé aux besoins pour atteindre conformité d’infrastructure. Les investissements dans le secteur des chemins de fer contribuent aussi aux liaisons ferroviaires avec des ports et des aéroports, qui ont tous les deux atteint une conformité très satisfaisante. Table 2 – Réalisation du RTE-T.




Level of investment

Rail


54% Traction 47%


Traction 37%



IWW Core network

CEMT Class IV 0%

6% RIS 84%

Draught 68%

Ports




CEMT Class IV 9%



Il faut considérer cet examen comme indicative, car la qualité des données pour le rapport d’avancement et le nombre d'hypothèses qu’il fallait formuler, ne permettent pas de tirer des conclusions spécifiques. Les meilleures données permettraient de tirer de meilleures conclusions et une meilleure prise de décisions. Cette étude était un bon pilote afin de comprendre les enjeux critiques et les difficultés rencontrées en rédigeant le rapport d’avancement sur la mise en œuvre du réseau RTE-T, conformément aux obligations définies dans l’Article 49.3 du règlement de TEN-T (EU) 1315/2013. Cette compréhension a contribué à la stratégie de rapport proposée pour la prochaine période du rapport, comme l’illustre la figure ci-dessous.

Article 49.3 study

16

Figure 7 – Stratégie de rapport (Source: Panteia)

Les paramètres financiers et techniques ont été identifiés et ensuite les modèles de collecte de données étaient créées. L’analyse de la période actuelle 2014-2015 donne une indication des paramètres techniques qui doivent être améliorés par les investissements de projets par État membre. En plus, pour la Commission Européenne, l’analyse fournit une indication sur les domaines qui ont besoin de plus de fonds. Les problèmes majeurs et recommandations sont liés à :

• Données sur la disponibilité de mise en œuvre du RTE-T , qualité et harmonisation

Sans doute, les données étaient le problème principal de cette étude et l’aspect qui donne le plus de possibilité d’apprendre et d’adapter la stratégie de rapport en conséquence. Certaines données n’étaient pas disponibles, étaient dans un format incompatible ou étaient pas harmonisés et la qualité des données était pas toujours bonne, ce qui rend les comparaisons difficiles. Des modèles de collecte de données étaient créés afin de garantir que les données ont le bon format et sont celles qu’il faut.

• Volonté de partager l'information

Pas tous les acteurs n’avaient la volonté de partager l’information et il fallait utiliser quelques approximations. Pendant la consultation de l’Etat membre, la communication, tiers de confiance et la période de l’assistance, ont contribué à un bon taux de réponse.

• Durée et délai

La durée des activités, notamment la période de collecte de données a exigé plus de temps que prévu et était un problème principal.

Article 49.3 study

17

En plus, le mois d’avril n’était pas le meilleur choix pour la collecte de données, car certains pays ne clôturent pas leur comptes financiers pour cette année jusqu’en mai/juin. Cet élément a été pris en considération pour la stratégie de rapport.

• L’analyse à effectuer

La leçon principale est que certaines informations ne sont pas nécessaires. Cependant, l’information concernant la contribution d’un projet à l’indicateur est la seule façon d’analyser l’impact d’un investissement, par exemple les projets des chemins de fer à ERTMS dans l’indicateur de conformité d’ERMTS. Quelques recommandations politiques majeures sont présentées :

• TENtec mise à jour : afin de garantir que les données appropriées pour l’analyse sont disponibles

• Prise de décisions dans les domaines auxquels plus d’attention doit être accordée : les résultats d’analyse, fait avec les données collectées pour ce rapport, peuvent contribuer à une meilleure allocation de financement dans les domaines auxquels plus d’attention doit être accordée.

L’examen de la réalisation, comme déjà signalé, est indicative à cause des données disponibles. Cette question appelle un examen plus approfondi dans le prochain rapport d’avancement, dans lequel les données de TENtec seront mises à jour correctement et les projets identifieront à quel KPI ils contribuent. Cela permettra de procéder à une analyse correcte qui montre la corrélation entre les deux. Il sera possible de mesurer et comparer les progrès accomplis, qui facilitera une meilleure compréhension du niveau de contribution de l’investissement dans la réalisation du réseau. En plus, cela facilitera de faire des recommandations politiques afin de s'attaquer aux domaines auxquels plus d’attention doit être accordée.

Article 49.3 study

18

Kurzfassung

Das Ziel dieser Untersuchung ist es, die Dienststellen der Europäischen Kommission bei der Vorbereitung des Sachstandsberichts zur Erfüllung der EU-Verpflichtungen gemäß Artikel 49.3 der TEN-V-Verordnung (EU) 1315/2013 und Artikel 22 der CEF-Verordnung (EU) 1316/2013 zu unterstützen. Der Sachstandsbericht wird dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat, dem Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und dem Ausschuss der Regionen in Bezug auf die Implementierung und Entwicklung des transeuropäischen Netzes zur Information vorgelegt. Dieser Bericht enthält eine Übersicht der in 2014 und 2015 vorgenommenen Investitionen in das TEN-V-Netz (Kern- und Gesamtnetz) sowie die entsprechende Realisierung des Netzes, und zieht einige Schlüsse über das Investitionsniveau in das Netz. Kreisdiagramm zeigt die derzeitigen Ausgaben pro Art der Finanzierungsquelle:

Figure 8 – Ausgaben pro Art der Finanzierungsquelle (Source: Panteia)

Für die Bewertung der Durchführung wird das Investitionsniveau pro Transportart mit dem derzeitigen Durchführungsniveau anhand der ausgewählten Indikatoren zur Beurteilung des Infrastrukturnetzes, auch pro Transportart, verglichen. Aus dem Investitionsniveau und der derzeitigen Indikatoren-Durchführung zeigt die Bewertung an, dass der Schienenverkehr und die Häfen die Bereiche sind, die weniger Aufmerksamkeit erfordern im Hinblick auf die Verbindung vom Schienennetz zu den Häfen, die Spurweite und die Elektrifizierung, da 70 % der in 2014/2015 getätigten Investitionen in diesen Bereichen erfolgt sind und damit zur Erhöhung der diesbezüglichen Indikatoren beigetragen haben. Obwohl das Investitionsniveau bei Flughäfen sehr gering ist, erreicht die Verbindung per Schienennetz fast ihre gesamte Erfüllung. Das heißt, dass die Aufmerksamkeit dafür relativ gering sein wird. Der Straßenverkehr und die Binnenschifffahrt sind Bereiche, denen mehr Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden sollte, da die Indikatoren in Bezug auf die Bedürfnisse zur Infrastruktur-Erfüllung ein geringes Investitionsniveau aufweisen.

Article 49.3 study

19

Investitionen in den Schienenverkehr tragen auch zu der Verbindung des Schienenverkehrs zu den Häfen und Flughäfen bei, die in beiden Fällen bereits vollständig oder fast vollständig erfüllt ist. Table 3 – Realisierung das TEN-V-Netz.




Level of investment

Rail


54% Traction 47%


Traction 37%



IWW Core network

CEMT Class IV 0%

6% RIS 84%

Draught 68%

Ports




CEMT Class IV 9%



Diese Bewertung ist als indikativ zu betrachten, da die Qualität der Daten für diesen Sachstandsbericht und die Annahmen, die getroffen wurden, keine spezifischen Schlussfolgerungen erlauben. Bessere Daten würden bessere Schlussfolgerungen und somit bessere Entscheidungen ermöglichen. Diese Untersuchung war eine gute Pilotstudie, um die kritischen Angelegenheiten und Schwierigkeiten zu verstehen, die bei der Erstellung eines Sachstandsberichts über die Implementierung des TEN-V-Netzes gemäß Artikel 49.3 Verordnung 1315/2013 Verpflichtungen auftreten. Dieses Verständnis trägt zu der vorgeschlagenen Berichtsstrategie für den nächsten Berichtszeitraum bei, wie in der unten stehenden Abbildung angegeben.

Article 49.3 study

20

Figure 9 – Fortschrittsbericht (Source: Panteia)

Die finanziellen und technischen Parameter wurden ermittelt und es wurden Vorlagen zur Erleichterung des Datensammlungsprozesses erstellt. Es wurde eine Analyse des derzeitigen Zeitraums 2014-2015 durchgeführt (wie bereits gesagt) und diese ergibt eine Anzeige der technischen Parameter, die durch Projektinvestitionen pro MS verbessert werden müssen. Sie erteilt der EU außerdem einen Hinweis darauf, wo mehr finanzielle Mittel erforderlich sind. Die wesentlichen kritischen Punkte und Empfehlungen beziehen sich auf:

• Daten über die Verfügbarkeit, Qualität und Harmonisierung der TEN-V-Implementierung

Die Daten waren zweifellos der wesentliche kritische Punkt dieser Untersuchung und auch der Aspekt, aus dem es möglich war, mehr zu lernen und die Berichtsstrategie dementsprechend zu ändern. Einige Daten waren nicht verfügbar, in einem Format, das für die Analyse unerwünscht war, nicht harmonisiert, was den Vergleich erschwert, und die Qualität der Daten war nicht immer gut. Um gewährleisten zu können, dass die gesammelten Daten im richtigen, für die Analyse benötigten Format zur Verfügung stehen, wurden Vorlagen erstellt und zum Teil der Berichtsstrategie gemacht.

• Bereitschaft zum Teilen der Informationen

Nicht alle Akteure waren bereit, Informationen zu teilen und in einigen Fällen mussten Annäherungen verwendet werden, die nicht zu so genauen Ergebnissen führen. Bei der MS-Beratung haben die Kommunikation, vertrauenswürdige Partner und der Hotline-Zeitraum zu einer guten Beteiligung beigetragen.

• Dauer und Zeitrahmen

Die Dauer der Tätigkeiten, vor allem der Datensammlungszeitraum, war ein kritischer Punkt, da mehr Zeit benötigt wurde als ursprünglich angenommen.

Article 49.3 study

21

Außerdem war der Monat April nicht die beste Wahl für die Datensammlung, da einige Länder ihre finanziellen Abschlüsse nicht vor Mai/Juni erstellen. Dies wurde bei der Berichtsstrategie berücksichtigt.

• Durchzuführende Analyse

Daraus wurde vieles gelernt, z.B. dass einige Informationen nicht erforderlich sind, obwohl Informationen im Hinblick auf den Beitrag eines Projekts zu einem Indikator die einzige Möglichkeit darstellen, die Auswirkung der Investition in EU-Schienennetzprojekte auf ERTMS im EU-ERTMS-Erfüllungsindikator zu analysieren. Außerdem wurden einige wesentliche Politikempfehlungen erteilt:

• TENtec Update: Um die richtigen Daten für die Analyse gewährleisten zu können, sollte dieses durchgeführt werden.

• Entscheidungen in den Bereichen, für die mehr Aufmerksamkeit erforderlich ist: Die Ergebnisse aus den Analysen mit Hilfe der für diesen Bericht gesammelten Daten können zu einer besseren Zuteilung von finanziellen Mitteln in den Bereichen, für die mehr Aufmerksamkeit erforderlich ist, beitragen.

Die Bewertung der Durchführung ist, wie bereits gesagt, aufgrund der verfügbaren Daten indikativ. Dies muss im nächsten Sachstandsbericht weiter untersucht werden, bei dem die Daten von TENtec ordnungsgemäß eingetragen und richtig aktualisiert werden und bei dem die Projekte auch angeben, zu welchem KPI sie beitragen. Dies ermöglicht eine gute Analyse, um den Zusammenhang zwischen beiden wiederzugeben. Es wird möglich sein, die erzielten Fortschritte zu messen und zu vergleichen, wodurch ein besseres Verständnis davon ermöglicht wird, inwiefern die Investition in Projekte zur Netzrealisierung und zu Politik-Empfehlungen beiträgt, um die Bereiche zu versorgen, für die mehr Aufmerksamkeit erforderlich ist.

Article 49.3 study

22

1. Scope and rationale of the report This report corresponds to the Final Report of the DG MOVE study “Article 49.3 study: Review of existing sources of information / data and support for the preparation of the progress report on the implementation of the Ten-T network”, as specified under the contract MOVE/B1/2015 - 625.

1.1. Objectives The general objective of this study is to support the European Commission Services in the preparation of the Progress Report to comply with EC obligations as defined in Article 49.32 of TEN-T Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 and Article 22 of the CEF Regulation (EU) 1316/2013. The Progress Report will be submitted for information to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions with regard to the implementation and development of the trans-European network. The reporting period to be covered is 2014 and 2015 and the scope is the core and comprehensive TEN-T network. A review and assessment of the information and data provided by the European Commission (e.g TENtec database), INEA (TEN-T and CEF Programmes), DG Regio (CF and ERDF), EIB and Member States, identified the financial and technical data sources which show the realisation of the TEN-T network in the reporting period 2014/2015. The assessment of this data and information indicates the level of realisation of the TEN-T network for this period. The progress reached by the 28 Member States is presented overall and per Member State, showing the investment in terms of projects, the technical realisation of the network and an analysis of the realisation pointing out the areas where attention should be paid. In addition to this assessment, a reporting strategy and due methodology to be used for the upcoming annual reports is drafted, with indicators to measure the progress in terms of network realisation. In addition, the study will be useful input for the work of the European Coordinators as it allows them to have a detailed insight in the implementation stage of the core network corridors and the respective financial needs for their realisation. This would equally be an important contribution to the mid-term review in 2016 and the start of the negotiations with regard to the next multi-annual financial framework.

2 Every two years starting from 21 December 2013, the Commission shall publish a progress report on its implementation, which shall be submitted for information to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The report shall cover the use of the various forms of financial assistance mentioned in paragraph 1, for the various transport modes and other elements of the core and comprehensive networks in each Member State.

Article 49.3 study

23

The objectives of the study can be broken down into the following more specific activities, which, rather straightforwardly, correspond to activities/ tasks in the project that are described in the next subchapter.

1.2. Project Structure The report consists of the description of the 4 phases and due activities carried out during a 6-month period (from January 2016 until June 2016) as mandated by the terms of reference: Phase 0: Inception phase Phase 1: Screening and review of the existing material and first assessment Phase 2: In depth Assessment Phase 3: Synthesis and Recommendations A summary of the tasks and sub-tasks is shown below:

Table 4: Subdivision of Tasks

Phase Task description Subtasks

0 Inception phase 0.1: Initial preparatory works

0.1: Kick off meeting

1 Screening and review of the existing material and first assessment

1.1: Identify information and data sources

1.2: Data collection

1.3: Data analysis

1.4: TENtec assessment

2 In depth Assessment 2.1: Assessment of the current stage of

implementation and development of the core network

2.2: Assessment of the current stage of implementation and development of the comprehensive network

2.3: Methodology for data collection and analysis

2.4: Definition of the reporting strategy

3 Synthesis and Recommendations 3.1: Synthesis

3.2: Recommendations

1.3. Rationale and methodology of the study In 2013, the agreed new framework for transport infrastructure: guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013[1]) and the Connecting Europe Facility (Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013[2]), was established with the goal of having a blueprint for a new transport infrastructure network which incorporates all transport modes – railway lines, inland waterways, roads, ports, airports and other transport terminals, as well as equipment for innovative and intelligent transport solutions. It also places strong emphasis on Europe’s major global gateways for maritime and air transport – to ensure that Europe’s trade flows are not impeded by constraints (be it in terms of capacity, technology or administrative procedures).

Article 49.3 study

24

With the definition of a comprehensive and core network, the new Regulation provides a strong integrated policy framework, overcoming the current patchwork of infrastructure projects. It aims towards smooth functioning of the internal market and ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion and improved accessibility across the EU. The new TEN-T Regulation sets a clear basis for action with clearly defined deadlines for Member States and relevant stakeholders, such as infrastructure managers, regions and others, as well as the EU. It foresees the development of an integrated, multimodal and intelligent core network by 2030 which will particularly strengthen the connections within the EU. This core network will link major nodes (urban nodes, ports, airports and other transport terminals) through key rail, road, inland waterway, maritime and air transport connections. In addition, a comprehensive network ensuring accessibility of all regions is to be developed by 2050. To accomplish the objective of this study, the following approach has been adopted.

Figure 10 – Approach of the study (Source: Panteia)

Article 49.3 study

25

1.4. Obstacles and complexity related with the Data The review of the existing sources of information / data on the implementation of the Ten-T network presented several obstacles and the complexity of gathering meaningful and reliable data is an outcome of the existing sources format and quality. The obstacles and how they were tackled are presented along the report, whenever an assumption had to be made and/or data had to be disregarded. This influences the analysis done and the results presented have to be considered as indicative results. The table below presents a summary of the obstacles and complexity related with the data, in order to provide a better undertanding of how and which data was provided and included in all the analysis presented in the following chapters.

26

Information Sources

Obstacles/ Complexity related to the data: Data format, quality and reliability Projects disregarded

Recommended solution for the reporting

strategy

CEF (TEN -T

2007-2013 and CEF

2014 Results)

The projects from CEF Programme are organised in a database providing almost all the needed information for this study. The previous TEN-T Programme, now managed by INEA, still had projects running and that information was provided together with CEF Results from 2014. INEA indicates for each project, the beneficiaries, the country location, transport mode, type of project (study, works or mixed), expenditures spent in 2014 and 2015, CEF funding and total cost of the project. This enabled to introduce the data into the financial database and to run the procedures defined to select the relevant projects for analysis (detailed in chapter 3). The information about the budget share for each country, for the horizontal projects that run into more than one country is not presented for CEF projects, neither for any other of the sources, which doesn't enable to consider these "common projects" in the country analysis. According to our methodology, in the future, this should be identified, so that horizontal projects could be analysed at a country level (i.e one project, but specific share per MS). Also, the contribution to the indicator that this project is contributing to, is needed to perform a more detailed analysis of investment in the projects on the network and due realisation of the network. The CEF Results 2015 were not available when the data collection was done. The results were available in the beginning of July. Although, the recommendation for the future to collect the data from the EU Funding sources is between April and June, the results from CEF 2015 can be included when the MS data collection is being done.

The projects that did not match the 6 selection criteria defined for this study (Chapter 3) were disregarded.

Annex 3

EIB

The projects from EIB were provided in a database with aggregated figures. The country, expenditures for 2014/2015, EIB share and total cost of the project is provided. The information about the transport modes(s) were missing, so this was filled in according to the description of the projects. In the future, this information should be requested, to guarantee that the transport mode is identified without any uncertainty.


Annex 3

Article 49.3 study

27

Information Sources



strategy

DG Regio (CF, ERDF, CF+ERDF)

The Projects coming from DG Regio, due to the format of the data provided, were very difficult to tackle and assumptions had to be done. No information about the type of projects is presented, so it is assumed that they are all works and/or mixed (study + works). The information per project only present the total amount/cost of the project and no indication of the duration of the projects, so that extrapolations could be done. The Operational Programmes per country provide the investment in 2014 (2015 is missing). To be able to use this data, the individual projects were associated to the respective Operational Programme, as both excel files had a code for this. This means that the number of projects of DG Regio is underestimate, as it is being considered one project as the Operational Programme that contains a set of projects. This was the only possible way to use this data in a meaningful and reliable way. Due to this, the number of projects is underestimate and also, the expenditures are also only for 2014, so when comparing to the other sources, it is known that the budget for DG Regio projects should also be higher for the reporting period. Finally, the categories Cohesion Fund projects, ERDF projects and ERDF+CF were used but in the future the projects catalogued with CF+ERDF should present the budget splitted to have the two categories CF and ERDF.


Annex 3

MS

The data collected from the MS was requested in a format that would allow to perform the analysis needed for this study. However, there were several obstacles regarding this data request consultation, i.e One month was not enough for the majority of the countries to collect the data; April as the data collection month was not the adecuate, as some countries only have their financial figures closed in May/June; and finally, some of the requested information per project was not provided. Due to the short time to treat the data, there was not enough time to go back with further requests/clarifications to all MS, which means that some information is still missing. MS reported some projects that were also reported via the EU sources, which lead us to create a procedure to detect some duplications of projects more easily. This duplication check is very difficult as different sources have different titles and descriptions of the same projects, which means that although is the same project, it might not be detected. This means that despite this duplication check that was done, some projects might face the risk of being reported twice. In the future, the recommendation is to first collect the information from EU sources and send this to MS to complete. This way, this obstacle will not appear again.


Annex 4

Article 49.3 study

28

Information Sources



strategy

CNC Project list 2014

The projects from the CNC Project list developed in 2014 were used as a starting point to collect projects contributing to the TEN-T networks that were collected by the Consultants together with MS at that time. However, the quality and uncertainty of some of the data for this study purpose was not the best. There is information missing and the funding source identification is the most crucial one, as it is not possible to assign the funding source to some projects. The solution found to be able to include this projects was to created a category called "Other Financial Sources". This should be National/Regional sources, as the projects with EU Funding, were reported by EU Institutions. Also, by the description (which is lacking for several projects) it is not clear if the projects are studies, works or mixed, which again, compromise the reliability of all data collected via the CNC Project List.

The projects that did not match the 6 selection criteria defined for this study (Chapter 3) were disregarded. Projects with start year 2015, as there was uncertainty about them. The Project list was done in 2014 which means that the projects reported with starting date 2015 were a prediction that might not occurred. Projects with no indication about start/end date.

Due to the current format, it is not recommended to use this information source, unless the is it expressly asked Consultants that are performing and will perform this in the future to follow some guidelines.

29

1.5. Structure of the report This report is structured according to the chapters depicted in Figure 11, where the work that has been developed and the outcomes are presented.

Figure 11 – Structure of the report (Source: Panteia)

Chapter 2 – Identification of the information and data sources – presents the overview of all the relevant financial and technical parameters, information and data sources that are needed to accomplish the requirements from Article 49.3. An assessment in terms of the availability and reliability of the existing information was done, and where needed, additional steps were taken to collect the missing information. Chapters 3 and 4 report the assessment of the material provided by the EC, INEA, EIB, DG Regio and Member States. Chapter 3 corresponds to the assessment of the financial information and data collected from INEA, EIB, DG Regio, Project lists per country from the Workplan of the CNC studies from 2014 and the MS data collection request that was harmonised and compiled into a database with information on the expenditures in 2014 and 2015 in the TEN-T network. To guarantee that the projects that actually contribute to the implementation of TEN-T were being selected, a set of criteria were defined and applied. Levels of investment per type of network, type of mode, information source and cost category were applied. Chapter 4 presents the assessment of the technical parameters, information and data collected via TENtec Business Objects and the CNC KPI Framework from 2016. A set of indicators to calcule the current implementation status were defined and calculated per type of network and type of mode. Annexes 1 and 2 consist of the updated mailing list of MS contacts and National Programmes

Article 49.3 study

30

Each chapter has a grey box such as this one, highlighting the critical issues and lessons learned for the reporting strategy and also some recommendations that contributed towards “building” the storyline for Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.

Chapter 5 combines both information and presents the assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network, which is an analysis of the investment in the network in comparison to the realisation achieved. For this purpose, an assessment based on the level of investment and the indicator compliance, has been calculated and areas where attention is needed has also been identified. This assessment was done for the overall network and in addition, a more detailed assessment per Member State was also made. Annex 7 presents a one page summary country fiche for the 28 MS and it is also part of the templates for the reporting strategy. The final and technical parameters excel database is also part of this. Chapter 6 indicates the reporting strategy, including a Gant chart for the next Progress Report. It presents all the tasks that need to be done, including the templates (from Annex 3 to Annex 8) that should be used to collect the information and data needed. Annex 9 is the explanation of the algorithm for the duplication check. There is a short term and a long-term reporting strategy, which is the result from all the lessons learned during this study. Finally, Chapter 7 states all the critical issues, conclusions and recommendations, in terms of the process and transport policy.

Article 49.3 study

31

2. Identification of information and data sources

2.1. Introduction This chapter presents all the information and due data sources identified for the progress report that the EC has to produce up until the end of the year, according to the obligations of Article 49.3 from the Regulation 1315/2013. The objective of this task was the inventory and data collection of all the needed sources, including a preliminary assessment in terms of availability and reliability of the information and data. The methodology used towards the identification of the sources was done via desk research and also through additional meetings facilitated by the EC, with the staff responsible for the production and reporting of the information, e.g INEA. The data collection process begun with comprehensive desk research in order to make effective use of the existing literature and studies that had already been carried out, and where most of the data and information has already been analysed and collected by the Contractor members in the most recent and current year.

2.2. Identification of the information and data sources The data sources and due information are presented below, as well as a brief description of these sources, the data collection method used by the Contractor to acquire the information and data available.

Two types of sources were identified, the financial and the technical parameter sources.

Financial Sources of Information

• TEN-T Programme Results (2007 – 2013) – provided by INEA

• CEF Call Results (2014) – provided by INEA

• EIB (Signatures 2014-2015) – provided by EIB

• DG Regio - Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund (2014) – provided by EC

• Project List from CNC corridor studies (CNC studies from 2014) – from the CNC Workplans (studies 2014)

• National Projects (2014 – 2015) – provided by MS data collection request, as they are not available online for the majority of the MS

Technical Parameters Sources of Information

• TENTtec – via the download of the Business Objects of March 2016

• Corridor studies: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) framework from CNC studies (2015/2017)

Article 49.3 study

32

2.3. Financial Source: TEN-T and Marco Polo programme and CEF Call Results (INEA)

Under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), 24,5 billion Eur has been made available from the EU’s 2014-2020 budget, to co-fund TEN-T projects in the EU Member States. Of this, 11.305 billion eur is only available for projects in Member States that are eligible for the Cohesion Fund. Furthermore, the 2015 CEF Transport Calls for Proposals made 7.6 billion Eur of funding available for projects of common interest in the transport sector. The results of the 2015 CEF call are expected to be announced on 8 July 2016 and after submission of this report, therefore, they have not been analysed in the current study. These results will however, be included in the progress report. The Connecting Europe Facility regulation3 sets out the rules for awarding EU financial support, priority projects and the maximum limits of EU co-financing per type of project. The Commission has set out more specifications for the CEF investment policy priorities in a proposed Commission Delegated Regulation, and estimates of the financial support foreseen for each priority in a Commission Communication. Annual and multi-annual work programmes are used to detail the priorities and total amount of financial support to be committed for each of these priorities in a given year. The first CEF call is from 2014. CEF financial support has primarily two forms:

• grants, which are non-reimbursable investments from the EU budget; and • contributions to innovative financial instruments, developed together with

entrusted financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank, such as: the Marguerite Fund , the Loan Guarantee for TEN Transport (LGTT) and the Project Bond Initiative.

Scope of the information/ data Projects from the core and comprehensive TEN-T network. Data collection method INEA collected the information from the TEN-T Programme and CEF Call results and sent an excel database (308 projects) to the Contractor with specific information per project/MS.

Information available The database provided by INEA contains the following information fields:

• Projects identified per MS, • Transport mode, • Core/comprehensive network, • Total cost of the project, • % of CEF funding, • Start/end date, • Type of project, and

3 Regulation 1316/2013

Article 49.3 study

33

• Description of the project.

The information given covers the reporting period 2014/2015, covering the projects that started before 2014, but were still ongoing in that period.

2.4. Financial Source: EIB Signatures (EIB) The European Investment Bank (EIB) promotes high-quality infrastructure via:

• supporting the links between the 28 EU Member States and connecting the EU and the countries of the European Neighbourhood area,

• further enhancing interconnection and interoperability of existing national networks and access to the basic networks,

• ensuring that the benefits of the Trans-European Networks permeate over the entire EU territory.

The EIB contributes real value-added to TENs energy and transport infrastructure projects, relying on its ability to:

• mobilise on competitive terms the large amounts necessary to co-finance the building of this infrastructure;

• offer maturities tailored to the long construction and operating periods of the schemes concerned; provide structured finance as a complement to commercial bank and capital market funding.

Scope of the information/data

Projects from the TEN-T network, no distinction between the core and the comprehensive network.

Data collection method The Commission had a meeting with the EIB responsible where the objective of this study was presented and the information that was needed from EIB’s projects. EIB collected the information and sent an excel database (65 projects) to the Contractor via the Commission.

Information available

Excel with the information fields: • Project description • Start/end year • Budget from EIB • Total budget of the project

Article 49.3 study

34

2.5. Financial Source: Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (DG Regio)

Regional Policy targets all regions and cities in the European Union in order to support job creation, business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development, and improve citizens’ quality of life. Regional Policy is delivered through three main funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The first two are those relevant for TEN-T network. Scope of the information/data

Projects from the TEN-T network, no distinction between core or comprehensive network. The data available for the expenditures correspond to the year 2014.

Data collection method

The EC provided the information on the projects from DG Regio (CF and ERDF funds) for 2014 via a GIS tool. The database from GIS was converted into an excel file. The table below presents all the programmes that gave funding to TEN-T related projects in 2014 via de CF and ERDF.

Article 49.3 study

35

Table 5 – Programmes that gave funding to TEN-T network projects in 2014

Country code Programme code Title Fund Transport Mode

BG 2007BG161PO001 Operational Programme Regional Development ERDF Road

BG 2007BG161PO004 Operational Programme Transport 2007 - 2013 ERDF+CF Rail

BG 2007BG161PO004 Operational Programme Transport 2007 - 2013 ERDF+CF Road

CY 2007CB163PO058 Operational Programme Greece - Cyprus 2007-2013 ERDF Inland waterways

CZ 2007CZ161PO007 OP Doprava CF Rail

CZ 2007CZ161PO007 OP Doprava CF Road

CZ 2007CZ161PO007 OP Doprava ERDF Inland waterways

DE 2007DE161PO003 Operationelles Programm EFRE 2007 - 2013 Mecklenburg-VorpommeERDF Road

DE 2007DE161PO005 Operationelles Programm Verkehr EFRE Bund 2007-2013 ERDF Rail

DE 2007DE161PO005 Operationelles Programm Verkehr EFRE Bund 2007-2013 ERDF Road

DE 2007DE161PO005 Operationelles Programm Verkehr EFRE Bund 2007-2013 ERDF Inland waterways

EE 2007EE161PO001 Operational Programme for the Development of Economic EnvironmERDF+CF Rail

EE 2007EE161PO001 Operational Programme for the Development of Economic EnvironmERDF+CF Road

EE 2007EE161PO001 Operational Programme for the Development of Economic EnvironmERDF+CF Inland waterways

ES 2007ES161PO001 Programa Operativo FEDER de la Región de Murcia ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES161PO005 Programa Operativo FEDER de Galicia ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES161PO005 Programa Operativo FEDER de Galicia ERDF Road

ES 2007ES161PO006 Programa Operativo FEDER de Extremadura ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES161PO006 Programa Operativo FEDER de Extremadura ERDF Road

ES 2007ES161PO007 Programa Operativo FEDER de Castilla la Mancha ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES161PO007 Programa Operativo FEDER de Castilla la Mancha ERDF Road

ES 2007ES161PO008 Programa Operativo FEDER de Andalucía ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES161PO008 Programa Operativo FEDER de Andalucía ERDF Road

ES 2007ES161PO009 Programa Operativo Fondo de Cohesión-FEDER ERDF+CF Rail

ES 2007ES162PO009 Programa Operativo FEDER de Castilla y León ERDF Rail

ES 2007ES162PO010 Programa Operativo FEDER de la Comunitat Valenciana ERDF Rail

FI 2007FI162PO001 Itä-Suomen EAKR-toimenpideohjelma 2007-2013 ERDF Rail

FR 2007FR162PO022 Programme opérationnel FEDER RHONE-ALPES ERDF Inland waterways

GR 2007GR161PO004 Operational Programme 'Improvement of Accessibility' ERDF+CF Rail

GR 2007GR161PO004 Operational Programme 'Improvement of Accessibility' ERDF+CF Road

GR 2007GR161PO008 Operational Programme 'Macedonia & Thrace' ERDF Rail

GR 2007GR161PO008 Operational Programme 'Macedonia & Thrace' ERDF Road

HR 2007HR161PO002 Transport ERDF Rail

HR 2007HR161PO002 Transport ERDF Inland waterways

HU 2007HU161PO007 Operational Programme for Transport ERDF+CF Rail

HU 2007HU161PO007 Operational Programme for Transport ERDF+CF Road

HU 2007HU162PO001 Operational Programme for Central Hungary ERDF Inland waterways

IT 2007IT161PO005 Pon Reti e mobilita' ERDF Rail

LT 2007LT161PO002 2007-2013 m. Ekonomikos augimo veiksmu programa ERDF+CF Rail

LT 2007LT161PO002 2007-2013 m. Ekonomikos augimo veiksmu programa ERDF+CF Road

LV 2007LV161PO002 Infrastructure and Services ERDF+CF Rail

LV 2007LV161PO002 Infrastructure and Services ERDF+CF Road

MT 2007MT161PO001 Operational Programme I - Investing in Competitiveness for a Bette ERDF+CF Road

PL 2007PL161PO002 Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Srodowisko ERDF+CF Rail

PL 2007PL161PO002 Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Srodowisko ERDF+CF Road

PT 2007PT16UPO001 PO Temático Valorização do Território 2007-2013 ERDF Rail

PT 2007PT16UPO001 PO Temático Valorização do Território 2007-2013 ERDF Road

RO 2007RO161PO003 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport ERDF+CF Rail

RO 2007RO161PO003 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport ERDF+CF Road

RO 2007RO161PO003 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport ERDF+CF Inland waterways

SI 2007SI161PO002 Operativni program razvoja okoljske in prometne infrastrukture za o ERDF+CF Rail

SI 2007SI161PO002 Operativni program razvoja okoljske in prometne infrastrukture za o ERDF+CF Road

SK 2007SK161PO004 OP Transport ERDF+CF Rail

SK 2007SK161PO004 OP Transport ERDF+CF Road

UK 2007UK161PO002 West Wales and the Valleys ERDF Convergence programme ERDF Road

Article 49.3 study

36

Each Programme code has a set of projects, but the information on the expenditure for 2014 is only given at Programme level. Therefore, in the database, the information is presented by the Operational Programmes.

2.6. Financial Source: Project List from CNC corridor studies 2014 In January 2014, the European Union started a new transport infrastructure policy. This “new” policy aims towards connecting East and West, North and South in a high quality infrastructural network, aiming to close the gaps between Member States “individual transport networks”, to enable a smooth functioning of the internal market and overcome technical barriers, such as incompatible infrastructure standards. Both regulation 1315/2013 and 1316/2013 set out a framework covering all development of such an infrastructural network. Nine trans-European corridors are defined under the TEN-T guidelines (regulation 1315/2013) and for each member one European Corridor and European Coordinator have been assigned, responsible amongst others, for writing a corridor specific work plan. Once approved, the work plans will guide the development of the corridor in the short and longer term. In accordance with the completion target of the core network (as stated under regulation 1315/2013), the time horizon of these work plans is set for 2030, where they will set the framework for investment in transport infrastructure. Each work plan consists of the following:

1) A detailed definition of the alignment of the corridors 2) A market analysis 3) Identification of critical issues and corridor development objectives 4) Project list

Project list 2014

Each corridor study includes at least one list of relevant projects, identified by experts in cooperation with Member States, Infrastructure Managers, local bodies and other stakeholders. The experts identified a preliminary list of projects requisite for completing the TEN-T core network. Further in-depth analysis will have a look into the need to capture all the projects which are needed to comply with the European law – i.e. fully complete the core network by 2030 – and to ensure these projects reach technical and financial maturity in time. The project list will be the source of information used to collect the information of all projects on the CNC network. The projects identified for all nine corridors in the studies present the situation shown in the following graph:

Article 49.3 study

37

Figure 12 – Total investment per corridor (Source: Corridor studies 2014)

Scope of the information/data Only projects from the 9 corridors (part of the core TEN-T network) were collected. Data collection method

The project list from each of the 9 corridors was included in the work plans from the CNC studies from 2014. A database with those projects was created by the Consultants. Currently, the new project list from the CNC’s is being updated and validated, which means that there could be a project included for 2015, that was not indicated in the project list from the studies from 2014. Unfortunately, this task is still being carried out by the 9 Contractors and this check could not be done for this study.

2.7. Financial Source: National Projects (Member State) The information about national projects that are neither EU funded, nor included in the CNC project list was not possible to obtain through desk research. The National Programmes do not provide this information nor the sources where the information can be found. The National Programmes on Transport per MS with the strategic/operational programmes are listed in Annex 2. In order to collect the information on these projects, an MS Consultation was launched on the 8th of April 2016 with a data collection request to report on the investment in projects done in 2014 and 2015, according to the defined criteria for project selection. The data was collected in two rounds. First, a request to report the investments done in each MS was sent on the 8th of March. As a part of the data collection, the MS were asked to indicate the source and, if publicly available, the website where the requested information can be found. However, the majority of MS did not include any information on this issue. Therefore, a second request, stressing this initial request, was sent to the MS asking them to provide information about the publicly available sources that can be used for collecting this type of data in the future, which will prevent additional reporting work

Article 49.3 study

38

for MS. The table below provides the information collected within the consultation process. Table 6: Source of information from national MS

MS Way of filling in the information about projects

Source of information Availability in english language

Austria Manually Information similar to requested is available only for rail. Report name: ÖBB Rahmenplan 2016-21 / ÖBB framework programme 2016-21, Source: ÖBB Infrastruktur AG; Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie; Bundesministerium für Finanzen; Online source: http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/gesamtverkehr/ausbauplan/downloads/rahmenplan_oebb_2016.pdf

No

Belgium Manually Not available -

Bulgaria Manually Source: Unified management information system for the EU structural instruments in Bulgaria; Online source http://umispublic.government.bg/opOPProfileFinExec.aspx?op=6

No

Croatia Manually Not available -

Cyprus Manually Not available -

Czech Republic

Manually Online sources: http://www.szdc.cz/modernizace-drahy/prehled-staveb.html https://www.rsd.cz/wps/portal/web/mapa-projektu#/?poitype=construction&constructionstatus=constructionStatus_realization

Partly

Denmark Manually Source: Network statement Online source: http://uk.bane.dk/visArtikelBred_eng.asp?artikelID=24062 Information about major rail projects: http://uk.bane.dk/visArtikel_eng.asp?artikelID=907 Information about road projects: http://vejdirektoratet.dk/en/projects/pages/default.aspx http://vejdirektoratet.dk/da/viden_og_data/sider/default.aspx

Yes

Estonia Manually Information is available publicly for port of Tallinn in the form of annual report: http://www.ts.ee/majandusaasta-aruanded, For all companies registered in Estonia, annual reports are available for a fee at: https://ariregister.rik.ee/index.py?lang=eng&sess=2565265886986953748653990537269812670079958457401592404241159051

No

Finland Manually Not available -

http://uk.bane.dk/visArtikelBred_eng.asp?artikelID=24062

http://uk.bane.dk/visArtikelBred_eng.asp?artikelID=24062

http://uk.bane.dk/visArtikel_eng.asp?artikelID=907

http://vejdirektoratet.dk/en/projects/pages/default.aspx

http://vejdirektoratet.dk/en/projects/pages/default.aspx

Article 49.3 study

39

France Manually Not available -

Germany Provided a source, part of the projects filled in manually

Source: Bundeshaushalt 2016. Verkehrswegeinvestitionen des Bundes - Anlage zum Einzelplan 12 -

No

Greece Manually Report name: ROAD - PORT - AIRPORT DATA COLLECTION, Source: O.P. "Transport Infrastructure, Environment & Sustainable Development", Ministry of Economy, Development & Tourism Report name: TOTAL RAIL FINAL DATA COLLECTION, Source: ERGOSE

-

Hungary -

Ireland Manually Not available -

Italy Provided a source

Source: OPENCANTIERI Online source: http://opencantieri.mit.gov.it/

No

Latvia Manually Not available -

Lithuania Manually Not available -

Luxembourg

Manually Not available -

Malta Manually Not available -

The Netherlands

Manually Report name: Rijksjaarverslag 2014 Infrastructuurfonds, Rijksjaarverslag 2015 Infrastructuurfonds, MIRT projectenboek 2014, MIRT projectenboek 2015 Online source: www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/jaarverslagen/2015/05/20/infrastructuurfonds/a-infrastructuurfonds.pdf / https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2016/05/18/infrastructuurfonds-2015 / http://mirt2015.mirtprojectenoverzicht.nl / http://mirt2015.mirtprojectenoverzicht.nl

No

Poland Manually Not available -

Portugal Manually Not available -

Romania Manually Not available -

Article 49.3 study

40

Slovakia Manually Report name: Partially mentioned in Annual reports on the implementation of the Operational Programme Transport (2007 - 2013) and Operational Programme Integrated Infraštructure (2014 - 2020) Online source: http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php?ids=551

No

Slovenia Manually Not available -

Spain Manually Not available -

Sweden Manually Not available -

United Kingdom

Manually Not available -

As it can be seen, some of the information is available from public sources for 10 countries. At the same time, the majority of the MS underlined that the existing sources usually have different scopes that are needed for reporting in accordance with Article 49.3. Furthermore, the available sources often do not provide the required level of detail. The databases that can be used to obtain the necessary information are, in the majority of cases, in the hands of infrastructure managers. These databases cannot be processed without special knowledge and often contain confidential data. Due to the difference in scope of existing public databases and the scope of requested information, only 2 MS chose to provide the consultants with the information source, so that the latter could find the requested information themselves. The remaining 26 MS filled in the table manually. MS Consultation Process The MS Consultation process was supposed to run between the 8th of April up until the 9th of May 2016. Due to the difficulty faced by several MS to accomplish that deadline, the deadline was extended until the 31st of May. The objective of the MS consultation was to ensure the completeness of the project database by collecting the information about the projects that have not been reported via other sources (CEF call results 2014, TEN-T results from 2007-2013, CNC Project List, CF and ERDF and EIB). The main steps of the MS consultation are described below, as well as typology of questions raised by the MS and critical issues that were encountered during the process of data collection. The main steps undertaken during the process of MS consultation are shown in Figure 13.

Article 49.3 study

41

Figure 13: Main steps in process of MS consultations

The Article 49.3 study was presented to the MS at the TEN-T Committee on the 16th of March 2016.4 It was agreed that the consortium Panteia – ISINNOVA would contact all MS on the 8th of April 2015 with the request to provide the projects that shall be included in the database. The objectives of the data collection exercise were to: 1. Identify national data/information sources existing in each Member State where

the information/data about the infrastructure projects can be (partially) found. The availability of these data sources would allow future data collection to be conducted without new requests to the MS.

2. Collect the information for the years 2014 and 2015 about the projects from the core and comprehensive network in each MS, that contribute to the TEN-T implementation and have not been reported to the EC via other sources (CEF call results 2014, TEN-T results from 2007-2013, CNC Project List, CF and ERDF and EIB).

Several criteria were set to define the projects that had to be reported:

• Projects shall be located on the core or comprehensive network; • Projects shall be running between 2014 and 2015, regardless of the start date; • Type of projects: only works (implementation) and/or mixed projects, but not

studies. Pilot works should be classified as "works"; • Type of works: works that lead to new infrastructure developments or are

related to upgrading / rehabilitating existing infrastructure. Current maintenance should not be included;

• Projects shall contribute to the objectives of TEN-T (article 4): Cohesion, Efficiency, Sustainability, Increasing the benefits for its users;

• The total costs of projects in 2014-2015 shall be over 1 million. The latter criteria was added at a later date, based on the question from some MS related to the size of projects that are to be included.

Article 49.3 study

42

The data collection template and the guidelines on how to fill in the data collection request (Annex 4, Annex 5 and Annex 6) was designed by the Contractor and discussed with the European Commission.

Figure 14 – Data collection template. Source: Panteia

This data collection file was organised in the 5 sheets described below:

• Data collection 1: contained the request on the identification of data/information sources and used reporting tools.

• Data collection 2: provided the template to fill in the information about project data information.

• Guidance notes: provided guidance notes on how to fill in the data. • Contact person: shall be filled in with contact details of the person responsible

for filling in the questionnaire • Consultant contact details: contains the consultants contact details.

The EC provided a list with the MS validators with the up-to-date contacts by the Contractor. This list can be found in Annex 1. The data request was sent on the 8th of April 2016 and the MS were asked to provide the information by the 9th of May. It shall be noted that only around 30% of MS provided the data by the announced deadline. Furthermore, the consultants received a number of requests to extend the deadline for this exercise. After the consultation with the EC it was agreed upon to extend the deadline in steps: second deadline was scheduled for the 13th of May 2016, third deadline for the 20th of May 2016, fourth and

Article 49.3 study

43

final deadline for the 31st of May 2016. It was agreed upon that after this date the collection of information would be closed and all the information received afterwards would be disregarded. The agreement was drawn up in order to allow the Contractor to start the exercise of analysing the database. Nevertheless, as some crucial data were received after the 31st of May 2016, they were still included for analysis. In this manner data was collected from all MS. Such a high response rate was not expected in the beginning of the data collection exercise. Furthermore, an important factor that contributed to the very high response rate was the “helpdesk” organised by the Contractor. Overall, about two hundred questions from the MS were received. The figure below presents the nature of the questions, which is relevant in order to identify what needs to be better explained or facilitated in the data collection exercise in the next reporting period.

Figure 15: Nature of the questions from MS. Source: Own source

Approach questions – questions regarding the type of projects that shall be reported in terms of their location and scale and process of collecting information. Availability of information - concerns about availability of information for 2015 or difficulties with obtaining the requested data. Extension of deadline – requests to extend deadline. Filling in the table - questions clarifying the format that shall be used when filling in the table. Future reporting – questions about the process of performing this exercise in future. Provision of information – questions about the process of providing information to consultants. Request for data collected from EU sources – requests to provide the data collected from CEF call 2014, CEF call 2007-2013, CNC Project List, EIB, ERDF.

Article 49.3 study

44

Timeline question – clarifying questions about the period for which the projects shall be included. A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) table was produced, in addition with the replies and can be found in Annex 6. Not all MS reported only relevant projects, therefore, after compiling the database the Contractor made an additional check and excluded some projects based on their timeline or costs.

2.8. Technical parameters Source: TENtec One of the barriers in developing a Europe-wide infrastructure policy has been the lack of a common source of reliable information able to show the current status of the network, its evolution, and ongoing projects and investments. This has been addressed through the TENtec information system. A key advance made by TENtec, has been the establishment of a harmonised information system underpinned with a strong legal basis. TEN-T Regulation 1315/2013 sets requirements in Article 49 for Member States to transmit annual data to TENtec, and for the Commission to ensure that TENtec is easily accessible. Thus, there is a clear legal requirement for annual information to be submitted to the system, and in return for the system to be accessible. TENtec has become the official tool for mapping and monitoring the development of the TEN-T network. It is accompanied by an online portal, so it is now a natural reference point for analysing cross-border infrastructure investments. The TENtec database is used for storing and managing technical, geographical and financial data for the analysis, management and political decision-making related to TEN-T and the underlying funding programme, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). To date, TENtec has set up network databases (digital maps) for the three main modes of inland transport, road, rail, and inland navigation, covering the TEN-T core and comprehensive networks. Via the TEN-T committees and via the 2014 TEN-T Core Network Corridor (CNC) studies, network data has been collected and uploaded into the system, providing the European Commission with the means of identifying critical issues, transport “bottlenecks” and issues related to interoperability across borders. If properly updated, TENtec will enable the analysis of the corridors evolution by providing the data for KPI calculation. The KPIs are used to assess and monitor the evolution of the corridors and the potential effects of individual projects or groups of projects upon infrastructure interoperability and performance. Furthermore, including financial information in TENtec would enable the analysis on how much the financial support given contributes to the TEN-T implementation. Meanwhile, at present, there is a number of limitations within TENtec. These limitations mainly concern the lack of data for some sections and modes, as well as inconsistency of the provided information (e.g. in terms of units). Therefore, there is a need to increase the information content and strengthen it in terms of accuracy, completeness and consistency. Presently, a number of studies are ongoing in order to improve the quality of information available and provided in TENtec.

Information available Technical, geographical and financial data about railway, inland waterways, road, maritime, air and multimodal transport infrastructure. Scope Projects from the core and comprehensive TEN-T network.

Article 49.3 study

45

Data collection method

A database was constructed by downloading all the business objects and corresponding shape files from TENtec. This database was assessed in terms of the current status in terms of available and updated information and it was the source used to calculate the indicators to assess the current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network, in particular, in terms of its compliance with the regulation requirements. TENtec is the best technical parameter source of information, as it is information provided and validated by all MS and should be updated on a regular basis.

Preliminary assessment of TENtec in terms of availability and quality of the data

To decide whether TENtec could be the main technical parameter source, there was the need for understanding to which extent TENtec could be used as a source for the calculation of technical parameters of the TEN-T network to measure the progress in implementation of infrastructure projects. To do this, the TENtec Business Objects from March 2016 were downloaded and the completeness of the database was reviewed in terms of: • Availability of the parameters per transport mode and MS • Availability of complete sets of data for the years 2014 and 2015 The findings of the assessment regarding the completeness of information are presented below. With the goal of selecting indicators to measure and monitor the current state of implementation of the TEN-T network, special attention is given to the availability of data required for calculation of the indicators presented in Chapter 4. At this moment eight categories of data are available in TENtec: • Airports, • Bridges, • Dams Locks, • Inland Waterways (IWW), • Ports, • Rail, • Road, • Rail-Road Terminals. However, there is almost no information on bridges and only contains data on bridge location and GIS ID. Furthermore, very little information is filled in for dam locks. There are 358 parameters available for all the categories together. It should be noted that for some categories much more detailed information is foreseen in TENtec, which is reflected in the number of parameters defined for each category. If TENtec contained all requested data, then the most detailed information would be available for Rail and IWW (82 and 70 parameters respectively) and the least detailed information would be available for bridges and dam locks (17 and 8 parameters respectively). Although, the set of data seems almost complete (for some parameters) for 2014 and 2015, it was observed that the data filled in for 2015 is the same as for 2014. This means that for this reporting period, TENtec will only provide accurate information for 2014 on the current state of implementation of the TEN-T network. At the moment, there are three ongoing studies that are aimed at filling in the information and making

Article 49.3 study

46

updates for 2015. In the future, TENtec may be updated yearly, which would significantly simplify the assessment of the progress in implementation of the TEN-T network. The quality of information varies significantly between parameters. For Rail, as well as for other categories, the majority of the columns that contain a complete set of data are the basic ones, such as section name, length and GIS ID, which do not provide any information about the state of implementation of the TEN-T network. At the same time, the completeness of the columns containing the information required for calculation of selected indicators is relatively high. The information is available for Electrification – 87%, Track gauge – 86%, Max axle load - 73%; Max train length – 61%. It should be noted that the data on the ETCS Level is available for 77% of the sections, while data on the GSM-R status is not available at all. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the ERTMS implementation5. For Road, in relation to the established indicators, the information is only available for the road type. The completeness of data is good, as 86% of the information is available. With regards to the other 29 meaningful6 parameters, 12 of them contain the information for more than 40% of the sections. With regards to IWW, the availability of information is worse than for rail and road. Only 7 out of 32 meaningful parameters contain any information. At the same time, parameters for which the data are available allow for the calculation of the majority of chosen indicators: CEMT class IV – 90% of the required data is available, Maximal draught of vessel/convoy – 81%, Intelligent Transport Systems (RIS) – 84%. The data is not available for Permissible Height under bridges, as this parameter is not a part of TENtec. For Ports, the data completeness is considered to be relatively good as some data is available.for 23 out of 32 meaningful parameters. For 10 parameters the data completeness is more than 40%. With regards to the indicators for the parameter, the following observations are made: Connection with rail - 66% of information is available, Connection to IWW CEMT IV – 21%, Availability of clean fuels -0%, Facilities for ship generated waste – 0%, Availability of at least one freight terminal open to all operators in a non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges is not included in TENtec, although according to the new KPI framework developed in the corridor studies, this is one of the compliance KPIs that is being measured for the 9 CNCs. The highest completeness of the TENtec data is observed for Airports, for which all parameters contain some information. For 12 out of 17 meaningful parameters more than 40% of the information is available. In relation to indicators selected to measure the current state of implementation of the network, the data completeness is as 5 The two main components of ERTMS are the European Train Control System (ETCS), a standard for in-cab train control, and GSM-R, the GSM mobile communications standard for railway operations. Both these components shall be installed on the section in order for it to comply with ERTMS requirement. If the data for GSM-R level are available in TENtec it would be possible to combine it with the ETCS level and estimate the state of ERTMS implementation. 6 Parameters that contain information about TEN-T infrastructure implementation or reflect changes in the infrastructure performance, on the opposite to the basic parameters that describe the section and are known from the very beginning (such as e.g. Member State Name or GIS ID).

Article 49.3 study

47

follows: Connection to rail – 91%, Availability of at least one terminal open to all operators in a non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges – parameter not available, Availability of clean fuels – parameter not available. Furthermore, it is observed that the completeness of the information regarding passenger and cargo volumes is quite high. For Rail Road Terminals the availability of information is quite poor. Though 6 out of 9 meaningful parameters contain some information, the completeness of data varies between 2% and 29%. For the indicators that would be interesting to calculate, data is not available as the required parameters (Capability for Intermodal (unitised) transhipment, 740m train terminal accessibility, Electrified train terminal accessibility, Availability of at least one freight terminal open to all operators in a non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges) are still missing. Though some data is available on connection to rail, the parameter used does not reflect whether this connection is electrified. The data for Bridges, as well as for Dam Locks is not available at all. At the same time, it is questionable whether this data would provide additional value, with the exception of the height of bridges, which can be added to IWW data. This preliminary assessment contributed to the selection of the calculated indicators in Chapter 5, as data availability was a requirement for that exercise. The table below summarises the % of information filled in for the parameters needed to calculate the indicators. Table 7: Completeness of the data in TENtec per type of mode/indicator/year

Transport mode/network

Indicators Year

% of information filled in

Rail network Track gauge 1435 mm (%) 2014 86%

2015 86%

Electrification (%) 2014 87%

2015 87% Road network

Motorway type (%) 2014 86%

2015 86% IWW

CEMT class 2014 90%7

2015 90%8

Maximal draught of vessel/convoy

2014 81%

2015 81%

Intelligent Transport Systems (RIS)

2014 84%

2015 84% Ports

Connection with rail 2014 66%

2015 66%

7 Although apparently seems filled in, the majority of the data is zero, which means that it is not corrected and therefore not reliable 8 Same as previous.

Article 49.3 study

48

Transport mode/network

Indicators Year

% of information filled in

Waterway connection (CEMT class)

2014 21%

2015 20% Rail

Connection with rail 2014 91%

2015 91% Identify the aspects to be improved A general need for improvement, identified from revision of TENtec, refers to increasing the filling rate of the system. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that the data for 2015 is not simply copied from 2014. However, the consultants expect that these issues will be addressed(to a certain extent) within the studies that are ongoing. Further issues that require improvements are listed in the table below. Table 8: Required improvements in TENtec

Category Required improvements Rail No need for improvement in terms of adding new parameters Road Addition of parameter Availability of clean fuels IWW Addition of parameter Permissible Height under bridges Ports Addition of parameter Availability of at least one freight

terminal open to all operators in a non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges

Improvement of quality of information, in the first turn, for parameters that need to be reported to estimate the progress of implementation of TEN-T network: Availability of clean fuels, Facilities for ship generated waste, Connection to IWW CEMT IV

Airports Addition of parameters: Availability of at least one terminal open to all operators in a

non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges Availability of clean fuels

Rail Road Terminals

Addition of parameters: Capability for Intermodal (unitised) transhipment, 740m train terminal accessibility, Electrified train terminal accessibility, Availability of at least one freight terminal open to all

operators in a non-discriminatory way and application of transparent charges

An improvement of data quality is needed with regards to the categories Bridges and Dam Locks, but is not seen as a first priority. The main required improvement is related to the upload of the information on a more regular basis, so that whenever this progress report is done, data for the reporting period of analysis can be found in TENtec.

Article 49.3 study

49

2.9. Technical parameters source: KPI’s Framework from CNC studies 2015/2017

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were already used in the 2014 CNC studies. In the 2015-2017 CNC studies the KPIs will again be updated to assess and monitor the evolution of the corridors and the potential effects of individual projects or groups of projects upon infrastructure interoperability and performance. A common, or “generic” KPI framework has been developed for all nine corridors, in order to permit comparability across the entire network. The primary goal of KPIs is to measure the evolution of each of the nine CNCs over time. This can be achieved through the calculation of a set of KPI parameters for each reference year, in order to allow for the monitoring of compliance levels against the infrastructure quality targets set out in the Regulation 1315/2013. The 2014 KPIs were assessed in the 2015-2017 CNC studies, to make sure that one common approach among all corridors would be used to assess and monitor the evolution of the corridors. By defining a common set of KPIs, their respective data sources, and calculation methodologies, the Commission will be provided with:

• An annual determination of CNC evolution progress through a well-defined method based on TENtec

• A coherent way of assessing the corridor infrastructure and traffic growth across all corridor studies

• Comparison of the nine CNC corridors in terms of their evolution, and • A structure to assist in the analysis of investment projects

The foundation of the KPIs is based on five key characteristics that each defined KPI should comply with. KPIs should be:

• Based on the existing EU strategic framework; • Quantifiable; • Available from public statistical sources; • Capable of being aggregated to corridor level; • Relevant for the assessment of a corridor’s performance.

Scope of the information and data Indicators for the CNC TEN-T networks. Data collection method

Due to the participation of Panteia in 7 out of the 9 CNC corridors and responsible for the KPI Working Group established in 2015 for the CNC studies, the KPI framework is used and recommended for this study.

As previously mentioned this chapter does not present an analysis of the information collected, as that is the subject of Chapter 4.

The following grey boxes present the critical issues, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations from the data sources related activities.

Article 49.3 study

50

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE DATA SOURCES

1. DATA SOURCES: FINANCIAL INFORMATION

• Data sources of information were identified and these should be the sources of information recommended in the reporting strategy.

• To collect the projects that are not funded by TEN-T, CEF, EIB and DG Regio, the CNC project list from the studies of 2014 were used, although they only have projects for the CNC network. This is not a problem for the next progress report, as the current CNC studies are collecting the projects per MS. This could be a problem if this project list identification is not done in the future. This can be solved by increasing the burden on the MS, and asking them for all the projects in the core and comprehensive networks. Another solution that could facilitate the data collection if the CNC continue, is to do the data collection for the CNC projects and remaining core and comprehensive network at the same time, to avoid sending two requests to the same MS.

• To collect the remaining core and comprehensive projects that contributes to

the implementation of the TEN-T network, as the online sources could not be found for the majority of the MS or were not in English, a data collection request was sent to the MS, using a specific excel template and guidelines (see Annex 4 and 5). Some freedom in terms of describing the projects was given to the MS, which made the harmonization and analysis more difficult. Some of the projects did not have the financial information filled in and therefore, they were disregarded in this study. Annex 4 is the recommended template in the reporting strategy, where the fields have drop lists, to avoid writing free text which does not enable easy analysis. Although some MS identified part of the data as being publicly provided online, the existing sources usually have different scopes than needed for reporting according to Article 49.3 and do not provide the required level of details.

• Given the state of the art situation it is possible to conclude that, at least in the

coming several years, there will be no possibility to collect information for the progress report according to the obligations of Article 49.3, without sending a data request to MS.

• To avoid that the MS report projects that were already reported via the other sources and to facilitate the task for MS, the recommendation for the reporting strategy is to perform first this data collection from the known data sources (INEA, EIB, DG Regio, CNC Project list). This list per country should be provided to the MS together with the data request about national projects.

Data collection method recommended for the reporting strategy: • Data collection template for the Financial Funding Data Sources: Annex 3 • Data collection template for the MS and Guidelines: Annex 4 and Annex 5

Article 49.3 study

51

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE DATA SOURCES

2. DATA SOURCES: TECHNICAL PARAMETERS INDICATORS

• KPI Framework from the CNC studies from 2016 should be the one to be followed. The indicators should be the same ones considered to indicate the network compliance to the Regulation 1315/2015. This KPI Framework provides a glossary and a calculation method, which was used in this study and should be used in the future. This enables coherence between the studies and some harmonisation in terms of indicators calculation. Also, MS are already used to this indicators as the ones that shall be used to measure compliance, which facilitate their understanding and acceptability.

• TENtec is the most suited source of information for the technical parameters for the

28 MS that are needed to calculate the indicators that are measuring TEN-T network realisation in terms of compliance to the Regulation 1315/2015. Why use TENtec?

o It is the most complete database at EU level for transport technical parameters.

o It is supposed to have information provided and validated by all MS. o Should be updated on a regular basis, according to the Regulation. o Data filled in for 2014 and 2015 (although, for the moment, the figures for

2015 are the same as the ones for 2014, for default). o The EC launched 3 studies that will run until 2017, that will update the figures

from TENtec for 204 and 2015. o Contains the technical parameters for the core and comprehensive network. o Contains some parameters that are needed to calculate the compliance

indicators filled in for than 80-85% of the total network, which enables to calculate indicators that can be a proxy of the reality.

Current weak points of TENtec:

o The data for 2015 is the same as for 2014, so it does not allow for measuring of the progress from 2014.

• There is a need of an update on a more regular basis of TENtec.

• The field “stage of completion” of the network does not seem to be correct, as some sections are classified as planned but there are completed in reality. Due to this, for the indicators calculation it was considered all section stages. The correct way, should be consider only the sections that are completed.

• Although, the definition of the compliance for road type has changed, TENtec

definition for motorways, seems to also include expressways, so the indicator is well calculated.

Article 49.3 study

52

3. Assessment of the material provided by the data sources: Financial investment in project information

3.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the assessment of the information collected from the previously identified data sources, in terms of the projects running/funded during the reporting period of the progress report: 2014 and 2015. The objective of this task is to collect and analyse all the information on the projects that contribute to the implementation of the TEN-T network. To accomplish this objective, a methodology was defined and the criteria for one project to be considered as contributing to the implementation of the network was developed.

The flowchart below represents the methodology followed to assess the information provided by INEA, EIB, DG Regio, Projects from the CNC Project List from 2014 and from the MS Consultation Exercise.

Figure 16 - Methodology adopted for the identification of the list of projects to be considered in the reporting period (financial information per project). Source: Panteia

Procedure A – Harmonisation of the database

Due to the fact that six different sources were used to create the database, the harmonisation of data was one of the crucial steps. It was observed that the type and format of data obtained from different sources had significant differences. The overview of the data available in each source is presented in Table 9. It should be noted that in Table 9, sign “V” indicates that a relevant column exists for a certain source, but does not show whether it is filled in with the data.

Article 49.3 study

53

Table 9: Comparison of data types provided in diffeent sources

Required data for database

MS Request INEA CEF call 2014

INEA -+TEN-T/CEF call 2007-2013

CNC Project List

EIB

DG Regio ERDF+CF

Location country name V V V V V V

Location section name V V V V Section TENT V Project title V V V V V V Project short description V V V V V Type of project V Project start Date V V V V V Project end Date V V V V V To which objective (article 4 from Regulation 1315/2013) the project is contributing to

V V

Beneficiary country V V V V V V Type of network: core or comprehensive network

V V V

Mode of transport V V V V V Total expenditure 2014 (Eur) V V V V

Total expenditure 2015 (Eur) V V V Total amount spent with the project* V V V V V Duration of the project*

V can be calculated

can be calculated

can be calculated

can be calculated

* - the field only needs to be filled in if the information for the expenses in year 2014 and 2015 is unknown and only the total amount for the project Harmonisation of the database was done to guarantee that the database and the analysis performed on it would not give misleading outcomes and that it can be used in the future by the EC. Furthermore, significant efforts were made to improve the completeness of the database. The main adjustments were done with regards to:

• harmonisation of dates format • harmonisation of currency units • filling in the missing information in some fields based on the available

information from another field (e.g. country names based on section names, calculation of costs for 2014 and 2015 based on the total costs and duration of the project)

• harmonisation of names of transport modes • harmonisation of project types

For some projects the desk review was conducted to determine those project’s start/end dates and location of the projects in the network (classification between core and comprehensive).

Article 49.3 study

54

The harmonisation of the database turned out to be a very time consuming, but crucial task. It enabled an efficient processing of the data using simple filters. A number of conclusions have been drawn for the future reporting process:

• In the template sent to MS, where possible, it is necessary to limit the choice of data that can be typed in a cell to a predefined set of options. In particular, this is relevant for the fields “Type of project” and “Mode of transport”.

• For the fields “Project start Date” and “Project end Date”, there is no need to request data on the month when the project started, as a significant share of the sources do not contain this level of detail. In future MS data requests it is necessary to emphasise the format in which the data shall be provided.

• Additional explanations about the timeline of requested projects is needed as some MS provided the projects that were not running in 2014-2015.

Procedure B – Application of the project criteria filter

To guarantee that the projects included in the database are those that contribute to the TEN-T implementation and studies or current maintenance projects are not being reported, 6 selection criteria have been defined and applied:

• Projects shall be located in the core or comprehensive networks • Projects shall be running between 2014 and 2015, regardless of the start date • Type of projects: only works (implementation) and/or mixed projects, but not

studies. Pilot works should be classified as "works" • Type of works: works that lead to new infrastructure developments or are

related to upgrading / rehabilitating existing infrastructure. Current maintenance should not be included.

• Projects shall contribute to the objectives of TEN-T (article 4): Cohesion, Efficiency, Sustainability, Increasing the benefits for its users.

• The total costs of the projects for the period of 2014 and 2015 shall be over 1 million.

An additional requirement was stated in the request to MS, which specified that consultants were looking for the projects that are not being reported via the other sources coming from EU and financial institutions: corridor project list from 2014, EIB/CEF/TEN-T programme/DG Regio. It should be noted that in order to fulfil this requirement, 5 MS requested the consultants to provide the database with the information from the sources mentioned above. Therefore, the recommendation is that in the future reporting process, the basic database using the data available from the CNC project list, TEN-T Programme + CEF, EIB, DG Regio (CF, ERDF) will be created as a first step and provided to the MS together with the data request on national projects. This will decrease the number of duplicated projects reported via different sources.

Procedure C – Application of a duplication check procedure

Creating the database using the data from different sources leads to a problem of double entries, when the same project is reported several times via different sources. This is considered to be an important issue as it can lead to misleading results of the analysis. One recommendation to reduce the number of duplications is discussed above. However, even if the MS made sure not to report the project that is already included in the database, there would still be a possibility that the same project would be mentioned in several EU sources (e.g. CNC project list and CEF database). This implies that in order to prevent double counting of projects and associated financial costs, there is a need to find and erase the duplicated entries.

Article 49.3 study

55

To conduct the duplication check, the Contractor designed an algorithm to be applied to the database to identify the potential projects that are included more than once. A number of rules were identified which were used to compare each entry to all the other entries in the database and to identify potential duplications. A more detailed description of the created algorithm is provided in Annex 9. After applying this procedure, the duplicated projects were removed from the database. It should be noted that when considering the extensive size of the database (around 3000 projects), this automated procedure for determining duplications deemed to be highly relevant and will be used in future reporting. A number of issues were discovered when running the duplication check procedure:

• Information in national languages. Several countries provided information in their national languages. In this case, the algorithm was not able to match these projects with the ones from the CEF and TEN-T programmes, EIB loans database, DG REGIO and the Core Network Corridors project list from 2014.

• Use of national spelling and symbols. Even if the data was provided in English, the majority of MS used national language keyboard settings to type the names of nodes and sections. This reduced the ability of the algorithm to match these names with the ones written in English.

• Different approaches to project reporting. It was observed that the sources such as CEF and EIB report one project for a certain section / node. These projects often include upgrading of several infrastructure components in the same area. At the same time, MS usually report separate projects that address different components of the infrastructure, even if they are located on one section / node. Furthermore, the sectioning of the projects often differs in EU sources and MS data, which create additional problems when trying to identify whether there is a duplication or not. As an example, the case of a road project in Germany can be used. For the projects related to Autobahn A7, a different number of projects, as well as different sections are included from various sources: EIB – 1 project, CNC project list – 3 projects, MS data – 46 projects. In order to understand whether these projects overlap and to a which degree, very detailed research is needed for comparison of the sections and interventions in each project. The first one represents a serious challenge as the process of mapping all projects is expected to be very time consuming. Therefore, recommendations would be:

• To report all the projects according to the sections specified in the TENtec. sections.

• To develop guidelines on the way of reporting the projects. This should elaborate on:

o how the reporting of the project should be done in case there are two different types of interventions on one section and

o what to do if the project covers more than one TENtec section. The proposed solution would significantly facilitate the process of the duplication check. At the same time, consultants recognise that implementation of these recommendations would require adjustments in the reporting systems of EU sources, which does not seem to be realistic in the near future. Therefore, it is important to mention that even without the proposed adjustments, the developed algorithm for the duplication check still allows for the identification of a significant number of double entries and improves the quality of the database. However, 100% exclusion of repeated projects is not feasible without changes in reporting systems.

Article 49.3 study

56

3.2. Inventory of the complete information and data sources After the application of the 3 procedures mentioned above, the inventory of the complete information and data source is presented in the financial database attached in excel format. This inventory corresponds to the list of projects that accomplish the criteria set for the reporting period 2014 – 2015. As previously explained, this inventory is the result of the application of the project selection criteria, to guarantee that the projects that have contributed to the TEN-T implementation in 2014 and 2015, are reported in this database. As depicted in the figure below, 57% of the projects are provided by the MS. These are mainly projects located in the core (out of the CNC networks) and comprehensive networks. The project list from the studies from 2014 reported 25% of the projects located in the CNCs9. The CEF Call Programme is presented making the distinction between the previous TEN-T Programme and the current CEF Programme. The previous TEN-t ongoing projects are now being managed by INEA via the CEF Programme, therefore, for the analysis per funding source, these two are analysed together, as in reality they came from the same funding source. There are 5% from the previous TEN-T Programme and 3% from the CEF Results from 2014. EIB reported 3% of the projects. DG Regio, via CF and ERDF reported altogether 8% of the projects. The category designed as ERDF+CF, was provided by the DG Regio and it does not correspond to the sum of the other two. This means that more than half of the projects are reported via the MS Consultation (57%), which makes the data collection request extremely relevant and the key source of information on the projects carried out in the TEN-T network. The second major contributor to the project reporting is the Project List from the CNC.

Figure 17 –Projects reported by information source.

9 There were some projects collected via the CNC Project List that were not considered for the analysis, as there was some uncertainty regarding their funding. The CNC Project List was done in 2014, meaning that the projects with start date 2015 are uncertain in terms of investment, as they might not have been funded or the MS might have faced a delay for those. For these reason, and to guarantee that the projects reported in the database are the ones that had funding in 2014 and 2015, these where disregards.

Article 49.3 study

57

3.3. Expenditures and number of projects per Member State reported The expenditures and number of projects per MS can be calculated in two ways:

1. All projects that were running in a certain country are included. In this case, the projects that cover more than one country have also been taken into account when calculating total expenditures per country and the total number of projects.

2. Projects running in a certain country and only within that country’s territory, have been taken into account.

Presenting the data using the first option can result in misleading outcomes. The problem is connected to the fact that for the projects that were running in several countries, no data is available on the division of the expenditures between these countries. Therefore, all expenditures are attributed to each of the countries participating in the project and thereby, results in multiple counting of the same costs. In order to avoid this problem, the further analysis in this report was performed using the second way of estimating expenditures per country. Only the projects that were running in each particular country were considered. Although, this clearly leads to underestimation of expenditures, this is a better proxy to be used, as the other would lead to double counting of projects.

The table below presents the total expenditures per MS, considering . Table 10: Expenditures per country (considering projects running in a certain country and only within that country’s territory)

Member State

Total expenditures

(m Eur)

Number of projects

AT 10.304 104

BE 3.397 57

BG 3.534 39

CY 206 2

CZ 8.322 97

DE 52.047 570

DK 436 24

EE 397 14

EL 15.893 60

ES 82.728 279

FI 3.494 53

FR 4.834 45

HR 1.985 37

HU 9.115 82

IE 374 12

IT 16.704 114

LT 2.025 10

Article 49.3 study

58

Member State

Total expenditures

(m Eur)

Number of projects

LU 666 12

LV 1.735 59

MT 149 15

NL 9.225 100

PL 25.381 243

PT 1.941 42

RO 5.704 76

SE 3.427 50

SI 745 18

SK 4.282 57

UK 4.852 98

Total 273.902 2369 Table 11: Expenditures per country (considering all projects running in a certain country, including cross boarders projects)

Country

Expenditures for 2014-2015 (m Eur) Number of projects

AT 10.678 112

BE 4.716 74

BG 3.603 41

CY 381 5

CZ 8.553 103

DE 53.153 603

DK 867 35

EE 941 22

EL 16.142 65

ES 83.862 302

FI 4.158 70

FR 7.865 77

HR 2.201 40

HU 9.363 87

IE 775 19

IT 18.124 133

LT 2.032 11

LU 744 15

LV 2.103 63

MT 288 16

NL 9.864 116

PL 25.593 246

PT 2.547 56

Article 49.3 study

59

Country

Expenditures for 2014-2015 (m Eur) Number of projects

RO 5.984 81

SE 4.023 67

SI 1.039 27

SK 4.559 60

UK 5.541 117

Total 289.699 2663

3.4. Financial Sources: Expenditures in TEN-T network for 2014 - 2015

3.4.1. Expenditures per Financial Source From the analysis of the expenditures per identified funding source, 63% of the budget comes from Member State/National Funds. This can be private or public investment, from the national/regional authorities and/or inframanagers/ operators. Around 14% is coming from EU Financial sources such as CEF (1%10), Cohesion Fund (2%)11, EIB (1%), ERDF (2%) and ERDF+CF(9%). There are 23% of the budget that is classified as “other financial sources”, as these belong to the projects reported via the CNC Project List, where two situations occurs. Part of the projects don’t identify the funding source and the other part don’t present the share from each funding source, which doesn’t enable to properly allocate them. This sources should be national/regional sources and not EU Funds, as these were reported via the EU sources. This was one of the reasons why it is not recommended to use the CNC Project List in the future and to change the templates to be used in the reporting strategy for the next reporting period.

10 The projects from CEF only report the previous TEN-T Programme projects that were still ongoing in 2014/2015 and the Results from 2014 CEF Call. The results from 2015 were released on the 8th of July, and therefore not on time to be considered in this study analysis. 11 DG Regio projects (CF, ERDF and CF+ERDF) only report the expenditures from 2014, as the figures from 2015 were not available yet.

Article 49.3 study

60

Figure 18 – Expenditures in 2014-2015 per funding sources.

3.4.2. Expenditures per European Funding Source The Financial instruments/sources for TEN-T network are INEA via CEF funds, EIB via the loans and DG Regio via the Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund. As depicted in the figure, the major contributor to the TEN-T network, with 61% of the budget is the category ERDF plus Cohesion Fund. There are also single funding for ERDF and CF, where each one are funding around 11% and 13% respectively. EIB is investing 9%, while CEF is contributing with 6%.

Figure 19 – Expenditures in 2014-2015 per EU Funding source

The following grey boxes present the critical issues, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations from the financial information/sources assessment.

Article 49.3 study

61

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION/SOURCES

• The request for information from INEA, EIB and DG Regio was done without using a specific template, which made the exercise of having a database with all the information harmonized, very difficult and was also a critical issue for the analysis of the information. Differences in the transport mode classifications, data format, etc and missing information. Different data formats, different transport modes and types of project categorisation, missing information, duplicated projects (reported via different sources) forced an intermediate step of harmonising this information from the different sources before analysing the results. This led to the definition of the 3 procedures that are recommended for the reporting strategy. It is only after this important step, that the database will be ready to be used for the analysis foreseen. To facilitate this part, as part of the reporting strategy, the recommendation is to use a common template for the data collection of the financial sources (Annex 3 and also Annex 4 and 5 with Guidelines and FAQs), with the information and format needed.

• Duplication of projects: It should be noted that when considering the vast size of the database (around 3000 projects), this automated procedure for determining duplications is deemed to be highly relevant and is recommended for the report strategy as one of the steps to be taken, before starting the analysis of the data. The proposed solution would significantly facilitate the process of the duplication check. At the same time, consultants recognise that implementation of these recommendations would require adjustments in the reporting systems of EU sources, which does not seem realistic in the nearest future. Therefore, it is important to mention that even without the proposed adjustments, the developed algorithm for the duplication check still allows for the identification of a significant number of double entries and improves the quality of database. However, 100% exclusion of the repeated projects is unfeasible without changes to the reporting systems.

• At the same time, one important finding of the performed exercise is that a number

of MS are willing to discuss the reporting process for future reports. Furthermore, some MS consider the possibilities of creating new databases or adjusting existing ones to be in line with the data needed by the EC to report on implementation of TEN-T infrastructure. Even if only for a couple of MS, this would facilitate the data collection process for both sides – EC and MS.

• In addition, it was identified that the field transport mode is the common base between the financial investment in projects and the technical parameters and this classification of transport modes used in TENtec, is the one recommended to be used. The objective is to be able to analyse how much an investment in e.g rail related projects contributes to the technical performance indicators defined in Chapter 5. Additionally, to enable the measurement of the impact of the projects on the indicator, the template recommended for the reporting strategy includes a column where the contribution of the project reported in relation to the indicator is identified.

• This allows for future relevant analysis that could help EC decision-making on

where to invest (more and less). For example, the current analysis in Chapter 6 shows where the network is performing to a lesser extent, or farther from compliance. After identifying where this is happening, the EC should fund more projects within that area.

Article 49.3 study

62

• The analysis per country also allows the EC to understand where the MS, together

with the EC, should invest to reach compliance targets. Of course, there are projects that contribute to other objectives stated in the Regulation but do not have a direct impact on the indicators selected. The screening of the projects to be funded have to keep both in mind, and is depenent on the policy that the EC wishes to follow.

• The creation of an internal code for the project and filling in the TENtec ID (MS projects and other sources), facilitates the location of the projects in the network and detects duplications. Additionally, it would allow for related financial info within the section of the technical parameter indicator. In this case, the MS were unable to provide this information.

• As 57% of the projects are reported via the MS Consultation, this implies that the data collection request to MS is extremely relevant and therefore, the key source of information for the projects performed in the TEN-T network.

Article 49.3 study

63

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION/SOURCES MEMBER STATE CONSULTATION Missing information Quality of records (not all the requested fields are filled in) The missing information was mainly a problem for the data obtained from public sources. In which case much of important information needed for analysis, was not available. For example, the information obtained from the German source was missing the project end date, as well as expenditures for 2014 and 2015, while only total costs were provided. Therefore, it was not possible to estimate the expenditures in the reporting period. In the case of Italy, the project titles and project short descriptions were missing. In some cases, where it was possible based on available data in other cells, the Contractor filled in the missing information. However, given the extensive size of the database this exercise proved to be very time consuming. A possible solution could be the harmonisation of the national reporting sources. As it was discovered during the MS consultation, a number of MS are considering the possibility of adjusting the national reporting sources or establishing new ones. The data from the CNC Project list did not identified properly the funding sources of the projects. For a large majority, the funding source is not identified and for the remaining projects it is indicated the sources but not the share from each one. This corresponds to 27%, in terms of expenditures, that it was not possible to allocate to a funding source. This led to the templates from annex 3 and 4, to guarantee that in future this does not happen again. It is concluded that at present and even for the MS where public available sources providing the information on TEN-T projects exists, the type of data provided is not sufficient to enable the analysis required under Article 49.3. Quantity of records (not all the projects are reported) Due to the fact that accountability for 2015 will not be closed until mid/end of 2016 for several MS, the data on the projects running in 2015 could not be reported. In order to enable the collection of the full data set, the month of the data request to the MS can be changed. This would guarantee that MS have their financial data accounts closed, therefore, making it easier for them to provide the complete and final data required. Information in different formats The MS provided the information in different formats, particularly with regards to dates, costs, types of projects and transport modes. In order to prepare the database to run duplication check algorithms and conduct an analysis, harmonisation of the data was needed. The harmonisation procedure is described in Chapter 3. In order to avoid this problem in the future, the columns ‘type of project’ and ‘transport mode’, shall be filled in using the predefined options from the dropdown list. Additional emphasis on the data request shall be given by explaining the format of the data provided. Duplication of projects After the data was collected, it was observed that some projects that were reported by MS were also included in some of the EU sources. This would lead to double counting of projects and associated financial costs. The manual check of the database turned out to be very difficult due to the extensive amount of records. Therefore, the Contractor developed an algorithm for duplication checking that allows for the most probable duplications to be determined. However, a number of critical issues were discovered when applying the algorithm, which relate to: language in which the information is provided, using national characters and different approaches to project reporting. These problems are described in Chapter 3 in more detail. Month for reporting The financial figures for some countries have only just been closed in June, therefore, it is recommended to send the data collection request in July, but to receive the inputs in September. 100% success rate for the received inputs from the MS Consultation process

Article 49.3 study

64

4. Implementation of the core and comprehensive network: Technical parameters

4.1. Introduction This chapter shows the information and indicators selected to present the current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network, focusing on the compliance required by the Regulation 1315/2013. The objective is to define the indicators and how they should be calculated, to use them to describe the current state of implementation and to monitor the progress achieved in each one of the future reporting periods. This study contributes to the preparation of the first progress report from the EC on the implementation of the TEN-T, meaning that it is taking a snapshot of the current status and in the next progress report, the progress measured by the same indicator calculation can be done.

4.2. Review of information and data with regard to the current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network

This chapter presents the selection of indicators to be used, their description, the source and formula used to calculate them and an analysis of the results per Member State. The European data source that contains the technical parameters needed to calculate the indicators is TENtec. After the assessment reported in Chapter 4 and with the developments that are ongoing and foreseen, this should be a very good tool to calculate the indicators that allow the monitoring and reporting on the progress achieved in TEN-T network. The methodology used identified the data sources in TENtec and also aligned the indicator selection and their definition with the KPI framework defined this year for the 9 corridor studies. After this assessment, the list of the indicators recommended to be used is presented below and are aligned with the KPI framework defined for the CNC corridors. Table 12 – Indicators and due calculation method used in the KPI Framework from the CNC Studies (2016)

Mode Indicators Passenger P Freight F Unit Calculation

Rail

Electrification P/F % Electrified rail network kms as a proportion (%) of relevant rail network kms.

Track gauge 1435mm P/F % Standard (1435mm) track gauge as a proportion (%) of relevant rail network kms.

ERTMS implementation P/F %

Length of Permanent Operation (excluding operational test lines) of both ERTMS and GSM-R on rail network, as a proportion (%) of relevant rail network kms.

Article 49.3 study

65


Line speed>=100km/h in accordance with art. 39 para. 2. Item a) (ii) of

the Regulation 1315/2013

F

Length of Freight and combined line with allowing for a maximum operating speed greater than or equal to 100 km/h, as a proportion (%) of relevant rail network kms without load restriction.

Axle load (>=22.5t) F

Length of Freight and combined line with a permitted axle load greater than or equal to 22.5 tonnes, as a proportion (%) of relevant rail network kms.

Train length (740m) F

Length of Freight and combined line with a permitted train length greater than or equal to 740m, as a proportion of relevant rail network kms.

Road

Express road/ motorway P/F

Road network kms classified as motorway or express road, as a proportion (%) of road section kms.

Availability of clean fuels P/F

Number of fuel stations offering plug-in electricity, hydrogen, liquid biofuels, LNG/CNG, bio-methane or LPG along road sections or within 10km from its junctions. (Units will be absolute number, not %)

IWW

CEMT requirements for class IV IWW F

Length of Inland waterways classified as at least CEMT class IV, as a proportion (%) of waterway network kms.

Permissible Draught (min 2.5m) F

Inland waterway network kms permitting a vessel of 2.5m draught, as a proportion (%) of waterway section kms.

Permissible Height under bridges(min. 5.25m) F

Inland waterway network kms with vertical clearance of at least 5.25m under bridges, as a proportion (%) of waterway section kms.

RIS implementation (% of km on which the

minimum requirements set out by the RIS directive are met)

F

Inland waterway network kms on which the minimum technical requirements of the RIS directive are met, as a proportion (%) of waterway section kms.

Ports

Connection to rail F

Number of ports with a rail connection as a proportion (%) of the number of relevant12 core and comprehensive ports.

Connection to IWW CEMT IV F

Number of ports with a (hinterland) inland waterway connection of at least CEMT IV class, as a proportion (%) of the number of relevant core and comprehensive ports.

Availability of clean fuels F

Number of ports offering (at least one of) LPG, LNG, liquid biofuels, or synthetic fuels as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive ports.

12 As it was discussed in Chapter 4, there is a need to add columns to TENtec showing the applicability of the estimation of each node to KPIs: For Ports - Connection to rail and Connection to IWW CEMT IV; For Airports - Connection to rail

Article 49.3 study

66


Availability of at least one freight terminal open to all operators in a non-discriminatory way and

application of transparent charges

F

Number of ports with at least one open access terminal, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive ports.

Facilities for ship generated waste (only for

seaports) P/F

Number of seaports offering facilities for accepting PRF mandatory (MARPOL13 Annexes I, IV, and V) categories of ship-generated waste, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive ports.

Airports

Connection to rail P/F

Number of airports with a rail connection as a proportion (%) of the number of relevant core and comprehensive airports.

Availability of at least one terminal open to all operators in a non-

discriminatory way and application of

transparent, relevant and fair charges

P/F

Number of airports with at least one open access terminal, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive airports.

Availability of clean fuels P/F

Number of airports offering liquid biofuels or synthetic fuels for aeroplanes, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive airports.

Rail Road Terminals

(RRT)

Capability for Intermodal (unitised) transhipment F

Number of road rail terminals with the capability of handling intermodal units, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive RRTs.

740m train terminal accessibility F

Number of road rail terminals with the capability of handling 740m trains (without decoupling), as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive RRTs.

Electrified train terminal accessibility F

Number of road rail terminals with the capability of handling electrified trains, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive RRTs.

Availability of at least one freight terminal open to all

operators in a non-discriminatory way and

application of transparent charges

F

Number of RRTs with at least one open access terminal, as a proportion (%) of the total number of core and comprehensive RRTs.

The process followed to collect the information to calculate the indicators is depicted in the figure below.

13 http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-%28MARPOL%29.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-%28MARPOL%29.aspx

http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-%28MARPOL%29.aspx

Article 49.3 study

67

Figure 20 – Process followed to calculate the indicators

From the data sources of information already mentioned, two procedures were performed, a) the complete sets of available data were identified and collected and a shortlist of indicators were calculated for 2014 and 2015, distinguishing between the core and comprehensive network type. As previously mentioned, this will not be a problem in the future, when TENtec is updated for all the existing parameters. As this is the first calculation for the first progress report and at this moment the data in TENtec is the same for 2014 and 2015, it is not possible to measure the progress on the implementation between 2014 and 2015. The steps to calculate the indicators are presented below:

The attached excel database has been prepared to receive the missing/updated figures from TENtec and update the indicators automatically, as well as calculate the progress indicator. The preliminary assessment described in Chapter 2, shows that TENtec can be used and should be the perfect tool/source to be used in the future to calculate the list of indicators to show the MS implementation progress. However, at present, not all indicators could be calculated due to the current data availability. The table below presents the indicators that we were able to calculate for the overall network, but in the next chapter they will be presented per separate Member State.

Article 49.3 study

68

4.3. Current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network in terms of compliance with the Regulation 1315/2013

The current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network in terms of compliance with the Regulation 1315/2016, is presented in the table below. The results are presented by ‘type of network’ and ‘type of mode for the overall network’. It should be noted that according to the Regulation 1315/2013, the compliance of the core network shall be achieved by 2030, while compliance of the comprehensive network, by 2050. A key aspect to be stressed again, is that these indicators are calculated based on the availability of data in TENtec. This means that the missing data for some sections/countries might influence the final result, as the quality of the result comes from the quality of the data. Table 13 – Current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the network in terms of compliance with the Regulation 1315/2013 (supply side).(Source: Data calculated using TENtec Business Objects from March 2016)14

ModeIndicators for the realisation

of the TEN-T network Type of network 2014 2015

Core network 75% 75%Comprehensive network 63% 63%Total 70% 70%Core network 47% 47%Comprehensive network 37% 37%Total 42% 42%Core network 73% 74%Comprehensive network 35% 35%Total 52% 52%

CEMT Class IV Core network 0% 0%RIS Core network 84% 84%Draught Core network 68% 68%

Core network 100% 100%Comprehensive network 100% 100%Total 100% 100%Core network 46% 46%Comprehensive network 9% 9%Total 24% 24%Core network 98% 98%Comprehensive network 92% 92%Total 94% 94%

Airports Connection to rail

Ports

Connection to rail

CEMT Class IV

IWW

Road Total km compliant for type

Rail

Track gauge

Traction

In general, the current situation for the indicators that are able to be calculated shows that 50% of them are already between 75 and 100%, in terms of realisation towards compliance, while the other half is still below 75%.

14 As already mentioned, the data was not reliable for this indicator calculation and therefore, it was not considered for analysis to avoid misleading conclusions.

Article 49.3 study

69

In the next chapter, where the investment level per transport mode is presented, it will be possible to identify the situations where attention should be paid and the situations where the level of investment seems to contribute to the increase of the indicators for the future. This means that even if the indicator is below 100%, the issue is being tackled. Looking at the current state per transport mode: Rail The results shows that the track gauge of 1435mm is compliant on 75% of the network (core network). A better look into the MS data in the next chapter enables us to identify which countries are already compliant and which ones are still far behind. The electrification indicator is very low at present. Around 47% of the network is compliant with this and this means that even if there are some projects foreseen, this area should still be an area where more investments should be made, otherwise it will be difficult to reach compliance on this indicator by 2030. The progress on the core network, in comparison to the comprehensive network, always reaches a higher percentage in terms of realisation. This is easily justified as the core network has more projects that are financed by the EC, while the comprehensive network is more dependent on national/regional funding and MS strategic options. In the next progress report, there should be an increase on both indicators as taken from the list of projects per country that are ongoing and foreseen up until 203015, Road The indicator calculated for the road is the total amount of kilometres compliant for motorways/expressways, which despite the change in the definition, the indicator is still well calculated as the data used from TENtec only contains motorways, rural lanes and urban roads. The indicator is calculated using the motorways (for which it is assumed that these contain the expressways) and is therefore, correct. This indicator is around 73% for the core network. Investment is still needed in order to reach the compliance for roads. Inland waterways For RIS, the network is already above 80%, which means that the investment in this type of projects has been done in the past and have contributed to the results reached in 2014/2015. The permissible draught (min of 2,5m) indicator is still below 75%, being the lowest indicator for inland waterways and one that requires more attention. Ports The connection by rail for ports is already compliant, although, improvements may of course be needed for the identification of possible missing links and therefore, this issue should be tackled. The connection of the CEMT Class IV to the ports is not a very trustworthy indicator, as the information filled in in TENtec is not complete. This is considered to possibly be applicable to all ports, which in reality, need to be checked

15 Knowledge from the projects foreseen until 2030 in the CNC current studies.

Article 49.3 study

70

port by port. This indicator should be calculated with better data in the next reporting period and assessed in that moment. Airports The connection by rail to airports is very near compliance, with 98% already achieved for the core network. Depending on the investment in projects that contribute towards improving and/or achieving this indicator, investments may or may not be needed. The level of completeness of the information in TENtec for the selected parameters is above 80/90% (except for ports) on the parameters needed for the calculation of these indicators. This means that the results can be considered as a good proxy. Nevertheless, if the missing parameters are included in TENtec, these indicators may show a slight change. A stand-alone analysis of the current state of implementation cannot be read as problematic per se. If there are projects already foreseen for the future, then this implementation will present better results and may reach compliance by 2030. This is the reason why this will be assessed in Chapter 5, together with the investments in projects already realised in 2014/2015.

The following grey boxes present the critical issues, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations from the technical parameters indicators assessment.

Article 49.3 study

71

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL PARAMETERS INDICATORS ASSESSMENT Current weak points of TENtec:

o Does not allow for calculation of all the indicators proposed. o Parameters as the applicability of a certain parameter should be included in

TENtec, to avoid estimations lower than in reality. E.g From the data in TENtec, one might assume that the indicator for the rail connection to airports is worse than reality for Cyprus, as it is classified as zero. In reality, Cyprus does not have railway services, so this is not applicable.

• The recommendation for the reporting strategy is to download TENtec Business Objects and update the parameters used for the indicators calculation for the next reporting period. With the availability of other parameters that enable the calculation of the indicators from chapter 4, the full list of indicators should be calculated.

• The current missing information/parameters to calculate those indicators were recommended by CNC studies to be included in TENtec, which, again, makes TENtec the best source of EU transport technical parameters.

• A key aspect to be stressed again, is that these indicators are calculated based on the availability of data in TENtec. This means that the missing data for some sections/countries might influence the final result, as the quality of the result comes from the quality of the data.

• In general, the current situation for the indicators that are able to be calculated shows that 50% of them are already between 75 and 100%, in terms of realisation towards compliance, while the other half is still below 75%.

• In the next chapter, where the investment level per transport mode is presented, it

will be possible to identify the situations where attention should be paid and the situations where the level of investment seems to contribute to the increase of the indicators for the future. This means that even if the indicator is below 100%, the issue is being tackled.

Article 49.3 study

72

5. Analysis of the realisation of the TEN-T network

5.1. Introduction The analysis of existing information and data with regards to the current state of implementation of the infrastructure on the core and comprehensive networks implies in particular, the compliance with the Article 39 “Infrastructure requirements” of the Regulation (EU) 1315/2013. The analysis reported in this chapter will verify on the one hand, the infrastructure network compliance with the requirements set out in Chapter 2 and in the Art. 39 of the Regulation, for which the technical indicators from Chapter 4 have been used. On the other hand, it verifies the analysis of the progress made by Member States in implementing projects and investments made for that purpose, while taking the various forms of financial assistance into consideration. The review and analysis of the use of the various forms of financial assistance complete the analysis of the state of implementation. This step takes into account the EU funding (e.g. previous TEN-T programme, CEF, Cohesion Fund (CF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Operational Programme Transport 2007 – 2013 (DG Regio), EIB, national funds) described in Chapter 3. The analysis provides detailed conclusions for the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ networks by assessing the realisation of the network and drawing conclusions on the levels of investment and the output reached in terms of infrastructure compliance. Although, the information collected corresponds to the investments made in 2014 and 2015, a large percentage of the projects are long lasting and will be ongoing in the coming years. This will mean an improvement of the current technical indicators calculated for 2014/2015. Additionally, if a project is contributing to the improvement of a certain indicator, this should result in good progress of the corresponding indicators in the coming years and when the project has finished. In the current analysis and due to the current data availability and format provided, it is only possible to relate the transport mode to the project that the project is contributing to, but not the specific indicator. In the future and with the proposed reporting strategy, this will be easier to link and analyse. In the current analysis, a proxy is used and it is considered that if a project contributes to the improvement in the rail network, it will contribute towards improving the rail indicators in general. The assessment is presented for the entire TEN-T Network and then further analysed by core and comprehensive network in this chapter. An analysis showing Member State progress is presented in Chapter 5.3, where information, technical parameters and financial information is presented and an assessment of the realisation is done per MS.

5.2. Realisation of TEN-T Network 2014 - 2015 This chapter presents the current state of implementation and the progress achieved per transport mode in the period between 2014 and 2015. It presents an assessment

Article 49.3 study

73

of the realisation of the TEN-T network by comparing the the indicative status of the indicators compliance with the levels of investment. As mentioned before, the targets for compliance (100% of achievement) are the same for the core and comprehensive network, although with different timelines, i.e 100% until 2030 for the core network and 100% until 2050 for the comprehensive network. The table below presents the current situation for the TEN-T network, as an example of the detailed analysis done for the Member States (chapter 5.3). Table 14 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 ( Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)




Level of investment

Rail


54% Traction 47%


Traction 37%



IWW Core network

CEMT Class IV 0%

6% RIS 84%

Draught 68%

Ports




CEMT Class IV 9%



The calculation of the indicators compliance is based on the TENtec data, downloaded in March 2016, and therefore it is linked to the current filling rates of TENtec for 2014 (as presented in table 7, Chapter 2). This justifies why some of the indicators shows 100% of compliance, when it is known that it cannot be the case. It is related with the filling rate of the indicator and the current data that was provided and validated by the MS. As already mentioned in Chapter 2, the data for 2014 and 2015 will be completely and accurately filled in by the current studies launched by the European Commission. This lead to the recommendation regarding the relevance of the completeness and accuracy of the data in TENtec and the necessity to have MS filling in this information on a more frequent basis. The table shows that the highest investment was done for rail (54% of the total investment done), which is in line with the lower levels of the indicators’s compliance (less than 75% for all indicators). This also means that in the future these should be the indicators with the highest variation, as despite the investment was done in 20145/2015, the realisation in terms of actual realisation will happen in the coming years. This also shows that EU and MS are aware that these are the indicators that are more far to reach compliance and made an effort to improve this situation so that compliance in 2030 and 2050 could be reached.

Article 49.3 study

74

The same is applicable for road, as indicators’compliance is also below 75% and the investment level was high, 30%. This does not mean that compliance will be reached, but it means that attention is still being paid to these two modes. For IWW, the investment was low, 6%. While for RIS, 84% of compliance is already reached, for the drught, this is still very far compliance, which means that more attention should be paid to IWW. For ports, in terms of the connection to rail, both are compliant, according to the data in TENtec. CEMT Class IV should be an aspect to pay attention, as the investment, although it was the third highest investment given, doesn’t seem to be enough to reach compliance in 2030/2050. The investment level is 10%. On one hand, airports had the lowest level of investment (1%), but on the other hand, both core and comprehensive network are very near compliance, which justifies the low investment and represent the mode where less attention is needed. This is an indicative assessment of the realisation of the network, based on the indicators that were possible to calculate, which doesn’t mean per se that the ones that are already with 100% or near 100% don’t need more investment. Most of the times there are improvements needs and other aspects where attention needs to be paid to asure that the objectives from the Regulation are being reached. The following paragraph’s present a more detailed assessment per mode and due indicators. Rail The current classification of the projects does not allow for the identification of the exact investment in projects related to the track gauge or traction, therefore, the analysis includes the entire investment in the rail network for 2014/2015. The investment in rail corresponds to 54% of the total investment in the TEN-T network, a little bit higher for the core network, as it is shown in the table below. In terms of technical indicators, the track gauge and electrification compliance is respectively 75% and 47% for the core network. This means that attention is being paid to this mode and due aspects, and the investment level is already high. However, specially for the traction, attention might still be needed. In the next progress report, an analysis of the progress indicator should be performed to gain a better understanding of whether this investment in the rail network is contributing to an increase in the compliance for these indicators. If not, then the investment made is not fully contributing towards improvement of the compliance, but can however, be contributing towards other TEN-T objectives (Regulation 1315/2015, article 4). If yes, then the investment made is contributing in a positive way towards reaching full compliance.

Article 49.3 study

75

Table 15 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 for RAIL (Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)

Progess in network implementation



Core network 75% 75%Comprehensive network 63% 63%Total 70% 70%Core network 47% 47%Comprehensive network 37% 37%Total 42% 42%

Investment in the network

Mode % of the total expenditures

54%40%46%60%

Rail

Traction

Rail Comprehensive 2.747,5Comprehensive, Core (Not defined)

Type of network Total expenditures (2014+2015 in mln €)

Total 139.046,7

49.663,1Core 86.636,2

Track gauge

Road The current classification of the projects does not allow for the identification of the exact investments in projects related to the compliance with the motorway/expressway road types. The analysis therefore, includes the entire investment made in the road network for 2014/2015. The investment in roads corresponds to 30% of the total investment in the TEN-T network for these transport modes. With an investment of 17% in the core network, and the indicator level of 74%, it is recommended to pay more attention regarding the investments needed to reach compliance. In terms of technical indicators, the total number of km that are compliant for motorways/expressways is 74% for the core network, where 100% compliance needs to be reached by 2030. Comprehensive network is much lower and therefore has also a higher investment, as shown in the table below. The inv In the next progress report, an analysis of the progress indicator should be performed in order to gain a better understanding of whether an increase in the investment in the road network is contributing towards an increase in the compliance for these indicators. If not, then the investment made is not fully contributing towards improving the compliance, but can however, be contributing to other TEN-T objectives (Regulation 1315/2015, article 4). If yes, then the investment made is contributing in a positive way towards reaching full compliance.

Article 49.3 study

76

Table 16 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 for ROAD (Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)




Core network 73% 74%Comprehensive network 35% 35%Total 52% 52%



30%57%44%17%

Road Total km compliant for type

Road Comprehensive 3.953,4Comprehensive, Core (Not defined) 48.382,9Core 24.879,4


Total 77.215,7

Ports The current classification of the projects does not allow for identification of the exact investments in projects related to compliance with the connection by rail to the ports and CEMT Class IV. The analysis therefore, includes the entire investment made in the ports for 2014/2015. The investment in ports corresponds to 10% of the total investment in the TEN-T network for these transport modes and is the largest category of investment. In terms of technical indicators, the connection by rail is 100%, while the CEMT Class IV is only 46%, which means that attention should be paid for this. Investment in core ports is higher when compared to comprehensive network, which is aligned with the timelime “urgency” for these ports to reach compliance by 2030. In the next progress report, an analysis of the progress indicator should be performed in order to gain a better understanding of whether an increase in the investment in the ports is contributing towards an increase in the compliance for these indicators. If not, then the investment made is not fully contributing towards improving the compliance, but can however, be contributing to other TEN-T objectives (Regulation 1315/2015, article 4). If yes, then the investment made is contributing in a positive way towards reaching full compliance. Table 17 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 for PORTS (Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)




Core network 100% 100%Comprehensive network 100% 100%Total 100% 100%Core network 46% 46%Comprehensive network 9% 9%Total 24% 24%



10%1%2%

16%

25.151,6


Connection to rail

Ports

CEMT Class IV

Total

Ports Comprehensive 70,5Comprehensive, Core (Not defined) 2.093,0Core 22.988,1

Article 49.3 study

77

Inland Waterways The current classification of the projects does not allow for the identification of the exact investments in projects related to the CEMT Class IV, the RIS and the draught. The analysis therefore, includes the entire investment made in IWW for 2014/2015. The investment in the IWW network corresponds to 6% of the total investment in the TEN-T network for these transport modes and is one of the lowest investment categories. In terms of technical indicators, the CEMT Class IV is 0%16, the RIS 84% and the draught 68%. The draught indicator is the one where more attention should be paid, as the investment of 5% doesn’t seem sufficient to reach the targets by 2030. In the next progress report, an analysis of the progress indicator should be performed in order to gain a better understanding of whether an increase in the investment in the IWW network is contributing towards an increase in the compliance for these indicators. If not, then the investment made is not fully contributing towards improving the compliance, but can however, be contributing to other TEN-T objectives (Regulation 1315/2015, article 4). If yes, then the investment made is contributing in a positive way towards reaching full compliance. Table 18 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 for INLAND WATERWAYS (Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)




CEMT Class IV Core network 0% 0%RIS Core network 84% 84%Draught Core network 68% 68%



6%0%7%5%

Total expenditures (2014+2015 in mln €)

Total 16.065,9Comprehensive 9,0Comprehensive, Core (Not defined) 8.167,3Core 7.889,6

Type of network

IWW

IWW

Airports The current classification of the projects does not allow for the identification of the exact investments in projects related to the connection by rail to the airports. The analysis therefore, includes the entire investment made in Airports for 2014/2015. The investment in the airports corresponds to 1% of the total investment in the TEN-T network for these transport modes and is the lowest investment category. In terms of technical indicators, the connection by rail is 98%, already very near compliance, which means that the low level of investment might be adecuade.

16 After analysing the data in TENtec for this parameter, it was noticed that it is not reliable, so it was decided not to include it.

Article 49.3 study

78

In the next progress report, an analysis of the progress indicator should be performed in order to gain a better understanding of whether an increase in the investment in airports is contributing towards an increase in the compliance for these indicators. If not, then the investment made is not fully contributing towards improving the compliance, but can however, be contributing to other TEN-T objectives (Regulation 1315/2015, article 4). If yes, then the investment made is contributing in a positive way towards reaching full compliance. Table 19 – Realisation of TEN-T network 2014-2015 for AIRPORTS (Source: Panteia based in TENtec data and expenditures provided by the indicated information sources)




Core network 98% 98%Comprehensive network 92% 92%Total 94% 94%



1%2%1%1%

Airports Connection to rail

Airports Comprehensive 156,6Comprehensive, Core (Not defined) 730,9Core 1.302,6


Total 2.190,1

5.3. Progress made by Member States In this chapter an analysis is conducted that aims towards the review of, on the one hand, the information on project investments and on the other, data on the progress of the indicator implementation. The analysis has been conducted at country level with the goal towards linking the projects conducted within the network with improvements in infrastructure. It should be noted that only those projects where data on costs were available, were taken into account. This analysis is considering the projects running solely in one country, as the financial information of cross boarder projects was provided without indicating each country share. This information in terms of budget and number of projects is provided in Chapter 3 (table 11). A summary for the 28 MS is presented in the country fiches in Annex 7 and present the following content:

• General information: o Map with the core and comprehensive network illustrated (Source: TENtec) o Number of projects in 2014/2015 per network type

• Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial investment information o Total project expenditure in 2014/2015 per transport mode and type of

funding source • Realisation of the TEN-T network: technical parameters indicators

o Indicators calculated per transport mode • Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network: levels of financial

investment vs technical compliance realisation o The project’s contribution towards the state of implementation of the

network in 2014/2015.

Article 49.3 study

79

Figure 21 – Example of the country fiche presented in Annex 7.

Article 49.3 study

80

Austria

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Austria is presented in Figure 22.

Figure 22: TEN-T infrastructure in Austria

When looking at projects running solely in Austria, 104 projects have been identified from the reviewed sources. The combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amount to 10.304 m Eur. The majority of projects (76 projects) were running on the core network, while 18 projects addressed the comprehensive network. Furthermore, 10 projects covered both type of networks or the type of network was not specified. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The funding sources used to fund the Austrian TEN-T network in 2014 – 2015 were MS / National funding, CEF and EIB financing. The highest investment was done by the MS / National funding17 – 4.649 m Eur (93%), while EIB financing was significantly lower, 230 m Eur. The funding from CEF correspond to 2% of the total expenditures - 102 m Eur.

Figure 23: Expenditures per funding source

17In this chapter only the expenditures that can be allocated to a financial source based on the available information are analysed. The information about the share of costs for which it is not possible to determine a financial source is presented in Chapter 3.

Article 49.3 study

81

The highest share of the projects (61 projects) are related to rail, followed by road projects (27 projects). In terms of expenditures these are also the transport mode related projects with higher figures. For the other transport modes the number of projects is significantly lower and varies between 5 projects for IWW, 4 for RRT, 3for Ports and 2 for both Multimodal and Airports. In terms of expenditures, the costs of rail projects constitute the largest part of investments (86%) and amount to 8.883 m Eur, while the costs of road projects amount to 949 m Eur (9% of overall expenditures). All other projects combined amount to 472 m Eur. From the distribution of investments, it can be concluded that the improvement of quality of railway infrastructure is a priority for Austria.

Figure 24: Projects per mode of transport Figure 25: Expenditures in 2014-2015 per mode

Furthermore, the projects were analysed in terms of cost categories. The largest category (41%) refers to the projects with the costs between 10 - 50 m Eur, while 28% of projects belong to the cost category of less than 10 m Eur. The categories between 50 - 100 m Eur and more than 200 m Eur correspond to 11% each. Only 2% of the projects presented costs between 150 – 200 m Eur.

Figure 26: Number of projects per costs category

Article 49.3 study

82

Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure From the TENtec data some of the defined indicators were calculated based on the availability of information18. It can be seen that the requirements stated in the Regulation 1315/2013 are fulfilled for IWW and Airports19. Core Ports are compliant with all requirements, while the comprehensive Ports are non-compliant with CEMT class IV. The compliance of Rail and Road, both for the core and comprehensive networks, is less than 100% and improvements are still needed, especially in terms of electrified traction for Rail. Furthermore, no trend is observed in terms of whether core or comprehensive infrastructure shows better compliance with the defined indicators. The fact that the value of the indicator for track gauge is less than 100% most likely signifies that there is a mistake in the TENtec data. According to CNC studies, 100% of the rail network in Austria has a track gauge of 1425 mm.

Figure 27: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Austria Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below presents the indicative status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode. A number of conclusions can be drawn:

• The highest share of the investments is allocated to Rail (86%), while the compliance of infrastructure for this mode of transport is very high for the track gauge but not so high for the traction. This shows that the attention paid to rail is adecuate and the indicators should improve in the future with this investment.

18 The analysis was done based on the indicators, which could be calculated based on the data availability. The fact that the conclusions have been drawn, based on only part of the data, can affect its quality. However, as the goal of this report is to create a basis for future reporting, the available information is considered to be sufficient. 19 The values of indicators are calculated using the data from TENtec. The Consultants have noted that in some cases the calculated values are very likely to be incorrect, however, the correction of data in TENtec is out of the scope of this study.

Article 49.3 study

83

• Although the low level of investment in the Road network, the compliance for this indicator is already very high, which means that this should be appropriate for future compliance.

• According to the data filled in TENtec, for IWW, Ports and Airports are already reaching 100% compliance for these indicators.

Table 20: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Austria

Article 49.3 study

84

Belgium

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Belgium is presented on Figure 28.

Figure 28: TEN-T core and comprehensive infrastructure in Belgium

From the available sources, 57 projects were identified for Belgium, 46 of which were located on the core network, while for 11 projects the type of network was not specified or covered both types of network. In total, the expenditures for Belgian projects in the years 2014 – 2015 amounted to 3.397 m Eur. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Three financial sources were used to fund the projects running in Belgium in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding, CEF and EIB. The highest investment was done via MS / National funding (1.365 m Eur), which corresponds to 87% of all expenditures. The investment made by EIB, which was the second biggest financial source, reached 131 m Eur. CEF contributed with the equivalent to 5% - 75 m Eur.


Article 49.3 study

85

With regards to the transport mode, 49% of the projects were related to Rail. The overall costs for these projects amounted to 1.372 m Eur, representing 40% of the total expenditures. The second largest amount of projects (14 projects) addressed the IWW network, and accounted for 24% of the total expenditures, followed by Road projects that represented 27% of the total costs spread across 7 projects and Ports also with 7 projects (8% of the total expenditures). Only 1 project addressed Airports and represents the smallest share of expenditures (1% of the total costs).


With regards to the scale of the projects, the largest share had a total cost amount varying between 10 and 50 m Eur (21 projectos). The second largest group were the projects with less than 10 m Eur (16 projects) followed by 9 projects in the category between 50 – 100 m Eur. Six projects belonged to the most expensive category with the costs higher than 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure It can be observed that the target values have been achieved for Airports and Ports for Belgium. Improvements are still needed for Rail, Road and IWW, as the values of these indicators are less than 100%. According to the TENtec data, 98% of the core and 73% of the comprehensive Rail network has a track gauge of 1425 mm. Electrified traction is available on 72% of the network. With regards to Roads, it can be seen that the share of motorways was higher in 2014 than in 2015, which seems to be unlikely and could be caused by deficiencies in the TENtec data. A significant distinction can be made between the core and comprehensive infrastructure, where compliance of the core infrastructure is significantly higher.

Article 49.3 study

86

Figure 33: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Belgium Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network Table 21 presents the status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode. The following observations have been made:

• The highest investment done is on Rail, contributes to improve the compliance levels, which is already very high for the track gauge and arund 76% for traction. The high levels of investment shows that attention is already being paid to this.

• For Road and IWW the compliance for the core network is above 90%, which together with the relatively high level investment level demonstrate the attention being paid to these two transport modes networks.

• The low level of investments in Ports and Airports is justified given their 100% compliance to the requirements stated in the Regulation 1315/2013.

Article 49.3 study

87

Table 21: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Belgium

Bulgaria

The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Bulgaria is presented on the Figure 34.

Figure 34: TEN-T infrastructure in Bulgaria

Article 49.3 study

88

In total, 39 projects were reported for Bulgaria, with the combined budget of 3.534 m Eur20. The majority of the projects were running on the core network (21 projects), while 7 projects addressed the comprehensive network. For 11 projects, the location covers both types of network and/or was not defined. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The highest amount of expenditures comes from MS / National financial sources (1.293 m Eur, 64%), followed by ERDF + CF (646 m Eur, 32%). The share of the other financial sources in the total amount of investments was significantly lower: EIB – 40 m Eur (2%), ERDF – 21,9 m Eur (1 %), CF – 12 m Eur (1%), CEF – 3,6 m Eur (0,2%).


With regards to the mode of transport, the largest number of projects addressed Road projects (18 projects), followed by Rail projects (11 projects). For IWW only 6 projects were identified. Multimodal and ITS projects have 2 projects each. The largest investments were made in multimodal projects which amounted to 1.674 m Eur (47% of the total expenditures). The second largest investment was made for Roads and amounted to 1.211 m Eur (34% of total expenditures), while 17% of the total costs were invested in the development of Rail transport. In IWW and ITS, only 1% was invested.

20 It should be noted that the quality of the data from the CNC project list raised serious doubts. In particular, the costs of some of the projects reported via this source were unrealistically high and amounted to hundreds of thousands of millions of eur. In which case the corrections were made based on the assumption that an error was made when filling in the CNC project list and that the data were entered in Eur instead, of m Eur. Therefore, these unrealistically high values were adjusted respectively.

Article 49.3 study

89


The majority of the reported projects had a budget of either less than 10 m Eur (41%). The second highest category comprises projects between 10 - 50 m Eur. The other categories reached around 10/15% of the projects, except the category between 150 – 200 m Eur that had 3% of the projects.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure When analysing the compliance of the infrastructure with the requirements stated in the Regulation 1315/2013, it can be seen that there is a significant difference between the different modes and parameters. Only the IWW network is fully compliant with all requirements. For Rail the compliance with track gauge is 100% for both the core and comprehensive infrastructure, however, the electrification of the network is on a very low level for both the core and comprehensive networks. Only 45% of the core roads are motorways, while for the comprehensive network, this indicator is almost zero. All Ports have a Rail connection, however, the requirement for the IWW connection of the CEMT class IV has not yet been fulfilled. With regards to Airports, 100% of the core airports and 75% of the comprehensive airports are connected to rail.

Article 49.3 study

90

Figure 39: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Bulgaria Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below presents the status of the indicators’ compliance and the level of investments for each mode. It is concluded that:

• Attention should be paid to the Rail and Road modes, which have a low compliance to the stated requirements and at the same time do not receive sufficient funding.

• IWW network is fully compliant with all requirements and therefore, the very low of investment in this transport mode is not perceived as a problem.

• For Ports, attention needs to be paid to the CEMT Class IV. • For Airports, investments are required to connect comprehensive

infrastructure to rail, but the target is for 2050, which means that is still a minor concern.

Table 22: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Bulgaria

Article 49.3 study

91

Croatia

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Croatia is presented on Figure 40.

Figure 40: TEN-T infrastructure in Croatia Overall, 37 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects in 2014 and 2015 amounting to 1.985 m Eur. Twenty two projects addressed the comprehensive network, while for 4 projects addressed both types and/or the type of network was not specified. The remaining 11 projects pertained the core network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The majority of the investment (1.904 m Eur - 95,9%) for the development of the TEN-T infrastructure in 2014 – 2015 was done from MS / National funding. The share for the other funding sources was very small: 66 m eur (3,3%) invested by ERDF, 13 m Eur (0,7%) – by EIB, 1 m Eur (0,1%) – by CF.

Article 49.3 study

92


The projects involved all modes of transport: road, rail, inland waterways, multimodal and airports. Cost-wise, the highest expenditures are documented for the EIB co-financing programme during 2014-2020; the project aims at co-financing ESIF supported schemes in Croatia during the programming period 2014-2020 under a Structural Programme Loan (SPL) and is not mode specific. It is purposed for improving the societal needs (such as pollution abatement). The following figures present Croatia’ s projects mode-wise.


In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. 76% of the projects (28 projects) amounted to 10 m Eur, followed by 16% (or 6 projects) amounting between 10 to 50 m Eur; together these two represented 92% of the projects. The remaining 8% was allocated as follows: 5% or 2 projects for the category between 50 and 100 m Eur and 3% (1 project) for the category above 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution and presents the number of projects per cost category.

Article 49.3 study

93


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for the two years are identical for all indicators. There are no parameter values for inland waterway connections to ports in the comprehensive network. The parameters fully in compliance with the Regulation are: the port connection to rail, the airport connection to rail and the CEMT IV class for inland waterways. For rail, electrification is almost non-existent for both networks and the track gauge, including the current and future works within the network is at 33% for the core network (and 10% for the comprehensive). Road-wise, the motorways cover 28% of the core and 0% of the comprehensive networks. For inland waterways, the RIS implementation covers 90% of the network, whereas, the CEMT and the draught are covered in 23% of the network. The following figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Figure 45: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Croatia Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of conclusions can be made.

Article 49.3 study

94

• The cost of investments in Rail; the first category in number of investments for Croatia is fully justified, given the low level of compliance for both networks (core and comprehensive). Additionally and in particular, with regards to electrification, the same stands for Road and Inland Waterways.

• Higher investments in these modes could improve the state of the infrastructure

• Airport and Port investments aim at improving the multimodal aspects of the nodes.

The following table summarises the findings for Croatia. One important remark is that the EIB project, covering 81% of the expenditures, has not been included in this analysis as it is not aimed at one specific mode. Table 23: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Croatia

Cyprus

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Cyprus is presented in the following figure.

Article 49.3 study

95

Figure 46: TEN-T infrastructure in Cyprus Overall, 2 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects in 2014 and 2015 amounting to 206 m Eur. For both projects the appartenence of a specific network couldn’t be determined. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The majority of the investment (204 m eur or 98,8%) for the development of the TEN-T infrastructure in 2014 – 2015 was done from MS / National funding. The share for the other funding sources were around 2 m eur - 1,1%.


Mode-wise, the projects were related to multimodal and iww. The following figures present Cyprus’ projects mode-wise: the distribution of projects and costs.

Article 49.3 study

96

Figure 48: Projects per mode of transport Figure 49: Expenditures in 2014-2015 per

mode In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range: one project was classified below 10 m Eur and other one above 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution representing the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for the two years are identical for all indicators. There are no parameter values for inland waterways and rail as the network of Cyprus comprises of road, ports and airports. TENtec shows positive values for rail connections to the Port of Larnaka and the airports of Larnaka and Pafos, however, these values are not applicable. For the road network, compliance has not yet been achieved for either of the two networks; for the core network it is currently at 59% and for the comprehensive network it is at 29%. The figure depicts the abovementioned information.

Article 49.3 study

97

Figure 51: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Cyprus Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network Due to the limited number of projects, the outcomes are non-conclusive. The infrastructure investments were aimed at improving the connectivity and multimodality. Higher investments in the road network could improve the state of the infrastructure. The following table summarises the findings for Cyprus. Table 24: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Cyprus

Czech Republic

The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for the Czech Republic is presented on Figure 52.

Article 49.3 study

98

Figure 52: TEN-T infrastructure in Czech Republic

From the reviewed sources, 97 projects which satisfy the selected criteria, were identified for the Czech Republic. In total, these projects amount to 8.322 m Eur. The majority of projects were implemented on the core network (50 projects), while 27 projects were carried out on the comprehensive network. The type of network was not specified and/or covered both types for 20 projects. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The projects financed in the Czech Republic in 2014 – 2015 had four financial sources: CEF, CF, ERDF and MS / National funding. The expenditures coming from MS/ National funding corresponds to slightly more than half of the total of the expenditures - 3.409 m Eur. The second higher funding source was CF, 46% (3.066 m Eur). ERDF and CEF showed almost the same amount of investments (61 and 60 m Eur respectively).


The most attention, both in terms of total expenditures and number of projects, was given to the Rail network. Seventy projects were running in 2014-2015 to improve the

Article 49.3 study

99

quality of the Czech Rail network, which accounted for 5.874 m Eur or 71% of the total expenditures. There were 23 projects addressing Road, amounting to a total of 2.351 m Eur (28%). For the other modes of transport the number of projects, as well as expenditures, were significantly lower. For IWW, 3 projects were reported with the total costs amounting to 82 m Eur (less than 1%). The smallest investments were made in Airport projects (15 m Eur). For other categories/modes of transport no projects were reported.

Figure 54: Projects per mode of transport

Figure 55: Expenditures in 2014-2015 per mode

The largest share of the projects (42 projects) had a budget of between 10 and 50 m Eur for 2014-2015, followed by the projects with the total costs amounting to less than 10 m Eur (22). The least amount of projects belonged to the cost category between 150 – 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The indicators calculated for the two modes Ports and Airports, show the compliance of the infrastructure with the standards defined in the Regulation 1315/2013. The compliance of the IWW network is 100% for the CEMT class IV waterway connections and RIS implementation, however, 0% for minimum draught. For the Rail and Road infrastructure, the required standards have not been reached. Furthermore, it can be seen that generally, the core infrastructure has a higher compliance than the comprehensive infrastructure.

Article 49.3 study

100

Figure 57: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Czech Republic Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below presents the status of the indicators’ compliance and the level of investments for each mode.

• The high investments in the Rail infrastructure are justified, given the current state of network compliance.

• The second highest investments in Roads are also in line with the infrastructure needs.

• For the IWW network, additional funding is required in order to increase the draught to up to 2,5 m.

• Ports and Airports are compliant with the stated requirements, therefore, the absence of investments in these modes of transport does not seem to be a problem.

Table 25: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for the Czech Republic

101

Denmark

The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Denmark is presented in Figure 58.

Figure 58: TEN-T infrastructure in Denmark

From the reviewed sources, 24 projects were identified for Denmark, which have the total expenditures amounting to 436 m Eur. Ten projects were running on the core network and nine on the comprehensive network. For five projects, no information was available on the type of network and/or covered both types of network.. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Two financial sources were used to fund the TEN-T projects running in Denmark in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding and CEF. The highest amount of investments was done via MS / National funding (405 m Eur), which constituted 94% of all expenditures. The investments made by CEF were significantly lower, around 24 m Eur (6%).

Article 49.3 study

102


The reported projects addressed only three modes/categories: Rail, Road and Ports. The majority of the projects (15 projects) were focused on improving the Rail infrastructure, followed by 8 Road projects. Only 1 project was identified for Ports. In terms of expenditures, the investments in Rail (56%) were followed by Road with 43% and 1% of the investment was done on ports.


With regards to the scale of the projects, the largest share had total costs amounting to less than 10 m Eur. The second largest group was the one with the projects that had a budget within the range of 10 – 50 m Eur (25%). Almost 13% of the projects belonged to the category of costs between 50 - 100 m Eur.

Article 49.3 study

103


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The target values were achieved for Airports and Ports. The Rail infrastructure is not compliant for track gauge (91% for the core network and 46% for the comprehensive network) or traction (34% for the core network and 3% for comprehensive network). For Roads, the compliance of the core infrastructure is quite high (95%), while only 37% of the comprehensive network satisfies these requirements. As there is no IWW network in Denmark, the related indicators are not applicable for evaluation.

Figure 63: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Denmark Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below presents the status of the indicators’ compliance, together with the level of investments for each mode. A number of conclusions can be drawn:

• The investments were almost evenly distributed between Rail and Road, which seems to be in line with the infrastructure needs.

• The low level of investments in Ports seems to be justified, given their 100% compliance.

Article 49.3 study

104

Table 26: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Denmark

Estonia

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Estonia is presented in the following figure.

Figure 64: TEN-T infrastructure in Estonia Overall, 14 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 397 m Eur. The majority of the projects (8 projects) addressed the core network, with only two projects

Article 49.3 study

105

purposed for the comprehensive network. The type of network was not specified and/or covered both types of network for the remaining 4 projects. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information For Estonia, 92% of the investment came from ERDF + CF, namely 365 m Eur. The remaining 8% (33 m Eur) of the expenditures were invested by MS / National funding sources.


Projects funded covered the following modes of transport: road, rail (network-wise) and multimodal, ports and airports (node-wise). Most projects referred to ports (10 out of 14), followed by road (2 projects) and rail and multimodal with 1 project each. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were allocated to rail (79.3% of the total costs), followed by road investments (9%) and ports (12%) and multimodal projects (3,5%). The following figures reflect this remark.



In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of costs ranges. Most projects were either less than 10 m Eur (71%), with 14% of the projects ranging from 10 to 50 m Eur. The categories ranging from 50 to 100 and 100 to 200 m Eur each involved one project. The following figure depicts this distribution and presents the number of projects per cost category.

Article 49.3 study

106


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years are identical. In the set parameter no values were indicated for the gauge, however, the gauge in Estonia did not comply with the EU standards (1524 mm). The inland waterway KPIs were not applicable in the case of Estonia. In terms of performance, the connection of ports and airports to rail was fully compliant for the core and the comprehensive networks. There was no compliance indication for the rail network parameters. For road, the compliance was estimated to be 9% for the core network whereas, there were no figures for the comprehensive network. The figure below depicts the above mentioned information.

Figure 69: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Estonia Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

• Investments in Road, are fully justified, given the level of compliance for both networks (core and comprehensive) and clearly low..

• Investments in Rail, the biggest investment level, are also justified as the traction rate is very low.

Article 49.3 study

107

• Port investments seem to be reasonable given the compliance of their infrastructure to the set targets for the core network; even though the number of projects in ports is high, their total costs are quite limited.

The following table summarises the findings for Estonia (gauge and inland waterway figures are not applicable for Estonia). Table 27: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Estonia

Finland

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Finland is presented in the following figure.

Article 49.3 study

108

Figure 70: TEN-T infrastructure in Finland Overall, 53 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 3.494 m Eur. Almost 72% of the projects (38 projects) addressed the core network and for the remaining projects, 12 belonged to the comprehensive network. For 3 of the projects, the type of network was not indicated and/or covered both types of network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Three funding sources were financing the Finnish TEN-T projects in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding, CEF and ERDF. The majority of the expenditures were covered by MS / National funding (1.424 m Eur), while the other financial sources provided significantly lower share of investments: 24 m Eur (2%) came from CEF and 16 m Eur (1%) from ERDF.


Article 49.3 study

109

All modes were represented in Finland’s projects. Most projects were reported for road (22 projects), rail (15 projects) and ports (10 projects). Multimodal and Airports had two projects each and there was one project for each ITS and RRT. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were allocated to rail (52,2% of the total costs), followed by road investments (16,6%) ports (16,3%) and airports (14,7%). The costs for the remaining modes altogether, did not exceed 0,1% of the total costs. On average (dividing the total costs per mode with the number of projects), airports had the highest expenditures per project (257 m Eur), followed by rail (122 m Eur), ports (57 m Eur) and road (26 m Eur). The following figures present Finland’s projects mode-wise.


In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost ranges. 80% of the projects were in the category of up to 100 m Eur. From this 80%, most of the projects belonged to the lowest category with costs amounting to less than 10 m Eur (38% of the projects), followed by the projects between 10 and 50 m Eur (25%). At the same time, 7 projects (or 13% of the total projects) documented expenditures of more than 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution presenting the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical

Article 49.3 study

110

for all indicators. Finland had a different gauge (1524 mm) for rail than the compliance standards from the Regulation. Electrification was also low, with 28% of the network electrified (44% of the core network and 19% of the comprehensive network). Compliance was also low for road, due to the classified high number of two-lane rural roads. On the other hand, the inland waterway parameters were all fully compliant for both networks. In terms of the rail-wise connection, the network was fully compliant. There was no link between ports and inland waterways. The figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Figure 75: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Finland Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

• The fact that half of the total investments were made in Rail is in line with the infrastructure needs, as the level of compliance for both indicators is currently low.

• The level of investments in Road transport is also justified, as both the core and comprehensive networks require significant improvements.

• Port and Airport investments seem to be reasonable and leading the infrastructure beyond compliance.

• The remaining investments (RRTs, multimodal, ITS) were all low-cost and supported the promotion of innovation and multimodal actions.

The Table 28 summarises the findings for Finland.

Article 49.3 study

111

Table 28: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Finland

France

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for France is presented in the following figure.

Figure 76: TEN-T infrastructure in France

Article 49.3 study

112

Overall, 45 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 4.834 m Eur. Almost 56% of the projects (25 projects) addressed the core network. For 19 projects (42%) the type of network was not indicated and/or covered both types of network and less than 2% was allocated to the comprehensive network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The biggest share of investment came from MS / National funding, which reached 4.198 m Eur (89,5%). Additionally 326 m Eur (7%) were invested via EIB, while 158 m Eur (3,4%) were coming from CEF. The smallest amount (6 m Eur) was covered by ERDF.


All modes were represented in France’s projects, however at different rates. The majority of the projects were documented for inland waterways (2.1% - 20 projects) and ports (4% - 11 projects), followed by rail (10 projects), road (3.8%) and airports (0.6%) had one project. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were allocated to rail (39.5% of the total costs – 3.819 m Eur), followed by ports (4.0%), road covered 3.8% of the expenditures, inland waterway investments (2.1%) while airports, did not exceed 1 % of the total costs. The following figures present France’s projects mode-wise.


Article 49.3 study

113

In addition, the projects (above 1 m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. 67% of the projects amounted to up to 50 m Eur. Most projects belonged to the lowest category with costs amounting to less than 10 m Eur (44% of the projects), followed by the projects between 10 and 50 m Eur (22%). On the other hand, 6 projects (or 13% of the total projects) demonstrated expenditures of more than 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution presenting the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for all indicators. The only parameter in full compliance with the Regulation was the ports’ connection to rail, as well as the airports (only for the core network). To some extent, the rest of the parameters were in compliance, with the rates of the comprehensive network being lower than those for the core network; for instance road (motorways) complied with 94% for the core network and 56% for the comprehensive network. The lowest compliance figures were observed for the core network for rail electrification (72%), inland waterways draught (76%) and ports CEMT connection (79%). Electrification was also one of the lowest values for the comprehensive network with 63%. Lastly, there was no CEMT connection to ports for the comprehensive network. The figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Article 49.3 study

114

Figure 81: Indicators calculated from TENtec: France Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, the following observations can be made.

• Investments in Rail, which is the first category in terms of the amount of investments, are fully justified, given the level of compliance for both types of networks.

• For Road, the investment level was low and could be increased in order to improve the compliance of both the core and comprehensive networks.

• The level of investments in IWW transport was aimed towards achieving full compliance of the network.

• For Ports, the level of investments seem to be in line with the infrastructure needs.

• The rest of the investments (Airports, Multimodal) were all low-cost and supported the promotion of innovation and multimodal actions.

The table below summarises the findings for France.

Article 49.3 study

115

Table 29: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for France

Germany

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Germany is presented in Figure 82.

Article 49.3 study

116

Figure 82: TEN-T infrastructure in Germany

Overall, 570 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 52.047 m Eur. For the majority of the projects (474 projects), the type of network was not specified,and/or covered both, while the remaining 96 projects (or 18% of the projects) were purposed for the core network. No projects were solely identified for the comprehensive network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information For Germany MS/National funding played the key role in terms of the investment in TEN-T network - 44.203 m Eur, which corresponds to 97% of the total investment done in 2014-2015. The other funding sources only contributed with less than 3%: 868 m Eur (1,9%) by ERDF, 389 m Eur (0,9%) – by CEF, 119 m eur (0,3%) – from EIB.

Article 49.3 study

117


For the modes of transport21, the largest share of the projects (294 or 51,6% of the total projects) were related to road, followed by rail and inland waterways (121 and 110 projects respectively). Altogether these three types covered more than 90% of the projects analysed for Germany. For the other modes, the number of projects was significantly lower; 26 for ITS, 16 for ports, 3 for airports, 1 for RRT and 1 for multimodal transport. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were still shared amongst the three modes (road, rail and inland waterways) with the largest shares. The order however, was different; rail projects, even though they were almost one third of the road projects, were – in total - some 4.000 m Eur more expensive, amounting to 21.200 m Eur, whereas, the road project costs were in total 17.410 m Eur. Inland waterway projects ranked third with 11.215 m Eur.



In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. Most projects were less than 50 m Eur (70%), with the majority being less than ten m Eur (37%) and 12% of projects ranged from 50 to 100 m Eur. The ranges from 100 to 200 million Eur depict the lowest share and in total 7% of the projects, while the last 21 The analysis is based on information that was available and known.

Article 49.3 study

118

category of more than 200 m Eur, corresponds to 10% of the projects. The following figure depicts this distribution and presents the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure Some of the defined indicators were calculated from the TENtec data, based on the availability of information22. Figure 87 shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators. Most indicators show no change within one year. Only in the case of electrification, did the percentage decrease from 2014 to 2015. This was due to the fact that a number of sections that were documented as electrified, were no longer electrified23. In terms of performance, the connection of ports and airports to rail within the core network is fully compliant. For rail, the gauge is almost compliant for all types of networks and the electrification is above 70%. For road, the core network is 90% compliant and the comprehensive network 33%. The main problem for IWW is related to the minimum draught. Lastly, there is no value for the CEMT class for the comprehensive ports.

22 The analysis was done based on the indicators for which data was available (to a certain extent). The fact that the conclusions were drawn based on only part of the data is expected to affect the quality. However, as the goal of this report is to create a basis for future reporting the available information is considered to be sufficient. 23 These sections are: Hamburg-Wandsbek <--> Hamburg-Altona (part 1) Hamburg-Wandsbek <--> Hamburg-Altona (part 2) Hamburg-Wandsbek <--> Hamburg-Altona (part 3) Nuernberg-Duerrenhof <--> Hersbruck links Gardelegen <--> Oebisfelde Hof <--> Werdau Bogendreieck Elstal <--> Stendal Nahrsted <--> Gardelegen

Article 49.3 study

119

Figure 87: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Germany Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of observations can be made.

• The highest amount (in Eur) of investments in Rail is justified, as the rail indicators are below 100%.

• The investments in Road, which are quite high, should mainly be aimed towards the comprehensive network.

• The IWW investments are also justified for achieving compliance, as defined in the Regulation.

• Port and Airport investments are still needed to achieve compliance of the comprehensive network.

The following table summarises the findings for Germany: Table 30: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Germany

The assessment for airports is positive as the requirements for the core network have been met for Germany. The same applies to the ports.

Article 49.3 study

120

Greece

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Greece is presented in the following figure.

Figure 88: TEN-T infrastructure in Greece Overall, 60 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 15.893 m Eur. Almost half of the projects (27 projects) addressed the core network. The remaining projects were almost equally shared between the comprehensive network and the projects for which no type of network was identified and/or covered both types. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The majority of the investment done for the development of Greek TEN-T infrastructure network was done via MS / National financial instruments (11.782 m Eur). The second higgest share of investment (3.408 m Eur - 22%) was covered by ERDF + CF, while the other sources investment was significantly lower: CEF - 154 m Eur, ERDF – 88 m Eur, EIB – 81 m Eur.

Article 49.3 study

121

Figure 89: Expenditure per funding source

The investments were done in the following modes of transport: road, rail, (network-wise), ports and airports (node-wise) and two multimodal projects. Most projects referred to road and rail (26 and 27 projects respectively), followed by the other modes. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were allocated to road (58,7% of the total costs), followed by multimodal investments (30,2% and rail 10,7%). The multimodal projects were on average, the most expensive projects, amounting to 4.796 m Eur each. Road projects were the second most expensive with an average value of 346 m Eur. On the other hand, the port and airport projects were the lowest in cost, amounting to 12 and 13 m Eur (on average) respectively. The following figures present these findings.


In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. More than half of the projects were less than 50 m Eur (58% or 35 projects). Eight projects were classified in the middle range from between 50 to 150 m Eur and another six projects in the range from between 150 to 200 m Eur. Lastly, 18% of the projects (11 projects) were valued higher than 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution and presents the number of projects per cost category.

Article 49.3 study

122


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for all indicators, with the exception of road compliance, which increased by 1%24. In general, the compliance was not reached for road and rail. Specifically for rail, all indicators ranked poorly. The electrification rate for instance, was quite low (18% in total), especially for the comprehensive network (only 4% electrified). In terms of performance, the connection of ports to rail was in full compliance for the core and the comprehensive networks and the connection of airports to rail was in full compliance for the core network and close to full compliance for the comprehensive network. The inland waterway indicators were not applicable in the case of Greece. The figure depicts the abovementioned information.

Figure 93: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Greece

24 This change refers to the upgrade of the rural road of almost 21 km from Amfilochia to Agrinio to a motorway.

Article 49.3 study

123

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, the following conclusions can be drawn.

• The biggest share of funding was given to Road, which seems to be justified given the low level of network compliance.

• The level of Rail investments were low at the time and will need to be increased, as the rail indicators showed that the network was far from compliance.

• Port and Airport investments seem to be reasonable, given the compliance of their infrastructure and the set targets for the core network; even though the number of projects in Ports were high, their costs were quite limited (only 0,4% of the total investment costs).

The table below summarises the findings for Greece: Table 31: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Greece

The inland waterways indicators were not applicable in the case of Greece. Furthermore, the assessment of the airports was positive as the connection to rail was in full compliance with the Regulation.

Hungary

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructures for Hungary are presented in the following figure.

Article 49.3 study

124

Figure 94: TEN-T infrastructure in Hungary Overall, 82 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 9.115 m Eur. 72% of the projects (59 projects) addressed the core network, with slightly more than 7% of the projects purposed soley for the comprehensive network. For the remaining projects the type of network was not defined and/or covered both types. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Half of the investments (2.625 m Eur) for the development of TEN-T infrastructure was done via MS / National funding. The second highest funding source was ERDF + CF, with 41% of total investments (2.168 m Eur). The remaining 10% of the expenditures were funded from CF (406 m Eur) and EIB (80 m Eur).

Figure 95: Expenditure per funding source

All modes were represented in Hungary’ s projects, with the exception of air. The majority of the projects were documented for rail (55% - 45 projects) and road (42% - 34 projects). Multimodal transport, inland waterways and ports all had one documented project.

Article 49.3 study

125

In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were documented for rail (73,5% of the total costs – 6.699 m Eur), followed by roadl (14,4% - 1.406 m Eur). The port projects amounted to 11 m Eur and the multimodal less than 1.000 m Eur. Altogether, they represented aproximate 10% of the total expenditures. On average (dividing the total costs per mode with the number of projects), one multimodal transport project demonstrated the highest expenditures (996 m Eur), followed by rail and road. The following figures present Hungary’ s projects mode-wise.


In addition, the projects (above 1 m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. 68% of the projects amounted to 50 m Eur. From this 68%, the projects were almost evenly distributed with those between less than 10 m Eur (37% of the projects), followed by the projects between 10 and 50 m Eur (32%). On the other hand, 10 projects (or 12% of the total projects) demonstrated expenditures of more than 200 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution presenting the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for all indicators. The parameters in full compliance with the Regulation – for both

Article 49.3 study

126

networks - were: the inland waterway features (CEMT class, draught, RIS), the ports’ connection to rail and inland waterways, as well as the airport connection to rail. The track gauge was also in compliance for the core network. The rest of the parameters were to some extent, in compliance with the rates of the comprehensive network, however, to a lower degree than the core network. For instance:

• For rail, the track gauge for the comprehensive network showed a 55% compliance rate;

• For road, the compliance rate was 95% for the core network and 62% for the comprehensive network.

Lastly, the electrification rate was very low for both networks. The figure depicts the above mentioned information. Figure 99: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Hungary

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

• The fact that the highest investments were made in Rail seems to be in line with the infrastructure needs. The most problematic parameter here is electrification, which needs to be improved.

• The level of investments in Road infrastructure was also high and in the longer term, will allow for infrastructure compliance achievement.

• The absence of investments in IWW seems to be reasonable, given the 100% infrastructure compliance.

• The rest of the investments (Ports, Multimodal) were significantly lower and distributed between two projects for the promotion of innovation and multimodal actions.

The Table 32 summarises the findings for Hungary.

Article 49.3 study

127

Table 32: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Hungary

Ireland

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructures for Ireland are presented in the following figure.

Figure 100: TEN-T infrastructure in Ireland Overall, 12 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 374 m Eur. 76% of the

Article 49.3 study

128

projects (9 projects) addressed the core network alone, with slightly less than 8% purposed only for the comprehensive network. For the remaining projects the type of network was not specified in the reviewed sources. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Three funding sources have funded projects in Ireland in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding, EIB and CEF. MS was responsible for over three quarters of the total expenditures (191 m Eur), while EIB covered 22% (55 m eur) and CEF investments amounted to 6 m eur (3%).


The projects were focused on road (network-wise) with 3 projects, rail (network-wise) with 6 projects and 2 IWW and on ports with 1 project respectively. In terms of expenditures, the highest costs were documented for road (61% of the total costs – almost 230 m Eur), followed by rail (14% - 54 m Eur) and finally ports with 5 m Eur and IWW - almost 86 m Eur. The following figures present Ireland’ s projects mode-wise.



In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. 75% of the projects amounted to 50 m Eur, half of which (five projects) were below 10 m and the other four above 10 m Eur. Two more projects were classified within the 50 to 100 m Eur range and one project within the 100 to 150 m Eur.

Article 49.3 study

129

The following figure depicts this distribution representing the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for all indicators. There were no parameter values for inland waterways. Moreover, the track gauge was different from the EU standard. The parameters in full compliance with the Regulation - for both networks - were: the port connection to rail and the airport connection to rail. Two more parameters’ performance was measured:

• For rail, the electrification rate was very low for both networks (3% for the comprehensive network, no electrification for the core network)

• For road, the compliance was 93% for the core network and 24% for the comprehensive network

The figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Figure 105: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Hungary Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of theTEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, the following observations can be made:

Article 49.3 study

130

• More focus should be given to the Rail network, for which both compliance and investments are very low according to the data.

• The largest share of the funds were invested in the development of the Road network. As the compliance of the core Road infrastructure is quite high, focus should be on the comprehensive network.

• A vey low invested was given to Port infrastructure. Although, according to the calculated indicators Ports are in full compliance with the requirements of Article 1513/2013. However, without calculation of the rest of the Port–related indicators, no conclusions can be drawn with regards to whether these investments are justified.

• The absence of investments in Airports is justified, given their 100% compliance with the requirements.

The following table summarises the findings for Ireland. Table 33: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Ireland

Italy

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Italy is presented in the following figure.

Article 49.3 study

131

Figure 106: TEN-T infrastructure in Italy Overall, 114 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 16.704 m Eur. For 58% of the projects (68 projects), the type of network was not identified. There were 46 projects (40%) dedicated entirely to the core network, while no projects were defined for the comprehensive network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information In Italy, the majority of the costs (92% - 13.684 m Eur) related to the TEN-T projects was covered by MS / National funding. The share of investments done by the other financial sources was significantly lower: EIB (643 m Eur - 4%), ERDF (383 m eur - 3%) and CEF (171 m eur - 1%).


Article 49.3 study

132

All modes were covered by the projects identified for Italy. Rail (55 projects), ports (25 projects) and road (21 projects) were the most frequent modes in the project lists. Together, they represented 89,5% of the projects. Airports (6 projects), RRTs (4)and inland waterways (2) represented the remaining 10,5%. One project was not classified in the above mentioned categories. Cost-wise, the most frequent modes (road, rail and ports) were linked to the highest expenditures. In fact, rail covered 65% of the expenditures (10.795 m Eur), followed by road (3.832 m Eur or 22,9%) and ports (1.291 m Eur or 7,7%). Airports ranked fourth with 397 m Eur (2,4%) and RRTs and inland waterways both accounted for costs around 48 m Eur (in total less than 1% of the costs). The following figures present Italy’s projects mode-wise.

Figure 108: Projects per mode of transport Figure 109: Expenditures in 2014-2015

per mode In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. More than 50% of the projects amounted to 50 m Eur and, 22% were below 10 m (25 projects) and 29% (33 projects) were above 10 m Eur. The following two most populated categories were those of more than 200 m Eur with 18% (21 projects) of the projects and 100 to 150 m Eur with 9% (10 projects) of the projects. Lastly, the category of 150 to 200 m Eur comprised 6 projects (or 5% of the total). The following figure depicts this distribution and represents the number of projects per cost category.


Article 49.3 study

133

Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for most indicators25. There were no parameter values for inland waterways connection to ports in the comprehensive network. The parameters in full compliance with the Regulation for both networks were: the port connection to rail and the airport connection to rail. For the other parameters as expected, the compliance was higher for the core network rather than for the comprehensive network, however, with the exception of traction. For the core network:

• For rail, the gauge performance was 92% and electrification 58% • For road, motorways in the TENtec sections covered 94% of the network • For inland waterways:

o CEMT: 70% o RIS: 75% o Draught86%

• Lastly, the CEMT IV connection to ports covers 21% of the ports. The figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Figure 111: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Italy Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, a number of conclusions can be drawn.

• Investment amounts in Rail for the first category for Italy are fully justified, given the level of compliance for both networks (core and comprehensive), and especially with regards to electrification

• The investments in Road are also in line with the infrastructure needs.

25 Exceptions are: the track gauge, slightly lower in 2015 due to zero values in Firenze Castello <--> Firenze Campo di Marte (previously more than zero) and traction, where electrified sections in 2014 were reported to be non electrified in 2015. These sections were: Empoli <--> Pisa and Bivio P.C Samminiatello <--> Empoli.

Article 49.3 study

134

• Higher investments in the IWW and Port infrastructure are required to improve in ortder to achieve compliance with the set targets.

• Airport and RRT investments aimed at improving the multimodal aspects of the nodes.

The following table summarises the findings for Italy. Table 34: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Italy

Latvia

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Latvia is presented in Figure 112.

Article 49.3 study

135

Figure 112: TEN-T infrastructure in Latvia

In total, 59 projects were identified from the reviewed sources. The combined budget of these projects in 2014 and 2015 amounted to 1.735 m Eur. Thirty six projects were located on core network and twenty projects were located on the comprehensive network. For the remaining three projects the location was not specified and/or covered by both types. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information For Latvia TEN-T network, there were three funding sources, two of them funding in almost equal shares, MS / National funding (470 m Eur) and ERDF + CF (468 m Eur). Furthermore 0,2% of investments were coming from CEF (2 m Eur).


Four modes were addressed by the defined projects: Airports, Ports, Rail, Road. Half of the projects (30 projects) were aimed towards the development of Road infrastructure. The second largest category was the Rail related projects (18 projects), followed by Ports for which 10 projects were identified. The least amount of projects were identified for Airports (1 project).

Article 49.3 study

136

The total expenditures for each mode of transport were in line with the number of projects identified: Road investments constituted 44% of the total expenditures (768 m Eur), Rail – 36% (631 m Eur), Ports – 18.4% (319 m Eur), Airports – 1% (17 m Eur).



In the cost categories, the majority of projects (59%) had a budget of less than 10 m Eur, followed by the projects with total costs amounting to between 10 – 50 m Eur. For the remaining cost categories, a small number of projects were identified: 3 projects(5%) amounted to costs within the range of 50 - 100 m Eur, 1 project (2%) was budgeted between 100 - 150 m and 2 projects (3%) were determined for each of the categories 150 - 200 m Eur and more than 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure According to the TENtec data, target values were only achieved for Airports. For Rail, both in terms of track gauge and electrified traction, the infrastructure compliance was 0%. For Road infrastructure only 5% of the core network and 1% of comprehensive network were motorways. Ports scored high in terms of connection to rail, while their waterway connections were not of CEMT class IV. The latter seems to be a mistake in TENtec database, due to the fact that there are no TEN-T IWW in Latvia and therefore, the Ports were not evaluated against this KPI.

Article 49.3 study

137

Figure 117: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Latvia Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below presents the indicative status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode. A number of conclusions can be drawn:

• Rail and Road score very low in terms of compliance and the level of investments is high, although more attention needs to be paid.

• The low value of the CEMT class IV connection for Ports is a result of the mistake in the TENtec data, therefore according to the calculated indicators Ports are in full compliance with the set requirements. Meanwhile, a significant share of the investments are attributed towards the development of Port infrastructure. However, without the calculation of the remaining Port – related indicators, no conclusions can be drawn on whether these investments are justified.

• The low level of investments in Airport infrastructure is not a problem, since the compliance of both the core and comprehensive infrastructure seems to be 100%.

Article 49.3 study

138

Table 35: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Latvia

Lithuania

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Lithuania is presented in the figure below.

Figure 118: TEN-T infrastructure in Lithuania Overall, 10 projects were identified from the reviewed sources, with combined expenditures for all projects for 2014 and 2015 amounting to 2.025 m Eur. 30% of the projects (3 projects) addressed the core network, and one project was dedicated to

Article 49.3 study

139

the comprehensive network. For 6 projects the type of network was not specified and/or covered both types of network and/or covered by both types of network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The projects funded in Lithuania in 2014 – 2015 were financed via four financial sources: CEF, EIB, and ERDF+CF, MS / National funding. The expenditures coming from ERDF+CF represent 90% of the total expenditures amounting 1.784 m Eur. The other financial sources provided significantly lower investments: MS / National funding was responsible for 7% of total expenditures (148 m Eur), 2% by CEF (30 m Eur) and 1% by EIB (14 m Eur).


Four modes were addressed by the projects identified for Lithuania: rail (6 projects), road (3 projects), and airports (3 projects). Cost-wise, rail and road and almost equally shared the total amount of expenditures with 50% (1.100 m Eur) and 49,9% (1.000 m Eur) respectively. Consequently, airports represented around 0,1% of the total expenditures. The following figures present Lithuania’ s projects mode-wise.



In addition, the projects (above one m Eur) were analysed in terms of cost range. 40% of the projects amounted up to 50 m Eur, 10% were below 10 m and 30% (3 projects) above 10 m Eur. The remaining 60% was allocated as follows: 40% or 4

Article 49.3 study

140

projects for the category above 200 m Eur and 20% or 2 projects for the category between 50 and 100 m Eur. The following figure depicts this distribution and represents the number of projects per cost category.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The figure below shows the relation to the target set in the Regulation for the years 2014 and 2015 for a number of indicators; the outcomes for both years were identical for all indicators. There were no parameter values for inland waterways connections to ports in the comprehensive network. Furthermore, the track gauge –for most of the network- is traditionally 1520 mm, rather than the EU standard of 1435 mm. Lastly, inland waterways were only connected as part of the core network. The parameters in full compliance with the Regulation –for both networks- were: the port connection to rail, the airport connection to rail and the CEMT IV class for inland waterways. Electrification is almost non existent for both networks. Road-wise, the motorways covered 31% of the core network and 8% of the comprehensive network. RIS implementation on the inland waterways covered 68% of the network. With a maximum draught of up to 2m, the network did not comply with the Regulation (minimal draught of 2,5 m). The figure depicts the above mentioned information.

Article 49.3 study

141

Figure 123: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Lithuania Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network When comparing the data on the state of the TEN-T infrastructure with the information on the projects running in 2014 and 2015, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Almost all investments were evenly distributed between Rail and Road. The main focus on these modes seems to be in line with the infrastructure needs, however, other modes of transport also require investments.

• Higher investments in the IWW and Ports could improve the state of the infrastructure.

• The absence of investments in Airports is justified, given their 100% compliance with the requirements of Article 1315/2013.

The Table 36 summarises the findings for Lithuania. Table 36: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Lithuania

Article 49.3 study

142

Luxembourg

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Luxembourg is presented in Figure 124.

Figure 124: TEN-T infrastructure in Luxembourg

From the reviewed sources, 12 projects were identified for Luxembourg. The total costs of these projects for the years 2014 – 2015 amounted to 666 m Eur. Three projects were running on the core network and for 6 projects the type of network was not specified and/or covered both types. Three projects were defined for comprehensive network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Only two funding sources contributed to TEN-T projects in 2014 – 2015, which MS / National funding and CEF. The majority of investments (73 m Eur - 94%) was done via MS / National financial sources, while CEF was responsible for the remaining 6% of investments (5 m Eur).

Figure 125: Expenditures per funding sources

Article 49.3 study

143

All the identified projects were aimed towards improving the rail infrastructure. No projects were identified for the other modes of transport. The largest share of the projects (42%) amounted between 10 – 50 m eur. The category below 10 m Eur and 100 – 150 m Eur each, contained a quarter of all projects. One project belonged to the category 150 – 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure It was observed that in comparison to the other countries, Luxembourg’s infrastructure compliance with the requirements stated in the Regulation 1315/2013, is high. The target values were achieved for Airports, as well as for the Road and IWW network. For Rail, 100% of the core infrastructure and 89% of comprehensive infrastructure had a track gauge of 1435 mm. Furthermore, a total of 87% of the network was electrified. It is notable that in terms of electrification the comprehensive network showed a higher compliance than the core network. All core Ports are connected to rail, however, the requirement for the CEMT class IV IWW connection was not fulfilled.

Figure 127: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Luxembourg

Article 49.3 study

144

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network In the table below the status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode are shown.

• The very high share of investments in Rail infrastructure seems to be justified, considering the fact that improvements are still needed to achieve infrastructure compliance.

• More attention should also be paid to Ports which do not fulfil the requirement for the CEMT class IV IWW connection and at the same time do not receive any investments.

• Other modes show very high compliance with the stated requirements and therefore, do not require significant investments.

Table 37: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Luxembourg

Malta

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructures for Malta are presented in Figure 128.

Article 49.3 study

145

Figure 128: TEN-T infrastructure in Malta

From the reviewed sources, 15 projects were identified for Malta, which in total amount to 149 m Eur. In contrast to the other countries, the majority of the projects (10 projects) were running on the comprehensive network, while 4 projects were implemented on the core network. For 1 project the type of network was not specified. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Two funding sources were responsible for the investment in the TEN-T network related projects in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding and ERDF + CF. The latter one was responsible for 53% of total expenditures (80 m Eur), while 47% of total investment (69 m Eur) came from MS / National funds.


The projects identified for Malta addressed two modes: Ports, Road. The most attention, both in terms of number of projects and expenditures, was given to Roads. There were 13 projects (93%) running towards improvement of the Road infrastructure in 2014 – 2015, with a total budget of 138 m Eur (93% of the total expenditures). For Ports, 2 projects were implemented that amounted to 11 m Eur (7.4% of the total expenditures).

Article 49.3 study

146



In terms of the cost categories, the majority (87%) of the projects had a budget of less than 10 m Eur. One project (7%) belonged to the cost category between 10 – 50 m Eur and one project had a budget in the range of between 50 – 100 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure Only some of the defined indicators were applicable for Malta. These were the ones related to Road, Ports and Airports. The latter mode showed compliance with the requirements stated in the Regulation 1315/2013. All Ports, according to TENtec, had a connection to rail, however, the level of the connection to the CEMT class IV IWW was 0%. This seems to be a mistake in the TENtec database, as Malta does not have Rail or IWW infrastructure and therefore, Ports were not evaluated according these parameters. The same observation was validated for Airports. For Road, the compliance of both the core and comprehensive infrastructure was 0%.

Article 49.3 study

147

Figure 133: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Malta Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network Table 38 shows the status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode.

• For Road infrastructure the compliance is low and in particular, for the comprehensive network, however, a sufficient share of the budget is being invested to improve the situation.

• The fact that Ports and Airports are estimates according to the connection to rail and IWW is a mistake in the TENtec database and therefore, no conclusions can be drawn based on the values of the calculated indicators. To estimate whether the investments in these modes are justified, it is necessary to calculate the remaining indicators.

Table 38: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Malta

Article 49.3 study

148

The Netherlands

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructures for the Netherlands is presented in Figure 58.

Figure 134: TEN-T infrastructure in The Netherlands From the reviewed sources, 100 projects were identified for the Netherlands with total expenditures of 9.224 m Eur in the years 2014 – 2015. The majority of projects were located on the core network (79 projects), while 15 projects were located on the comprehensive network. For 15 projects the type of network was not specified. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Almost all investments (4.957 m Eur - 98%) of the TEN-T projects in 2014 – 2015 came from MS / National financial instruments. The share of other funding was very low: EIB was responsible for 48 m Eur, while CEF was responsible for 29 m Eur.


Article 49.3 study

149

The projects were defined for 5 modes of transport: IWW, Multimodal, Ports, Rail, Road. The majority of the projects (38 projects) addressed the IWW network, while almost a third of the projects aimed towards improving the Roads. The next largest group were the projects that were focused on the improvement of Rail (26 projects). When looking into the division of the expenditures between the modes, it was observed that the situation differed significantly. Almost 59% of all expenditures (5.863 m Eur) were invested in Road. The budget of the IWW related projects in 2014 -2015 was 1.874 m Eur (26%), while the Rail projects accounted for 1.297 m Eur or 13% of the total expenditures.


per mode In terms of cost categories, 43% of the projects had a budget within the range of 10 – 50 m Eur. The second largest cost category was the one with the projects that had total expenditures of less than 10 m Eur. For the other cost groups the number of projects varied between 6 and 11.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure According to the TENtec data, the Netherlands’ infrastructure compliance was in general, better than that of other countries. However, none of the modes completely met the stated requirements. For Ports, the connection to rail, for both the core and comprehensive infrastructures, was 100%. However, the CEMT class IV connection for the comprehensive network was 0%. For Road, the average compliance was 91%. For IWW, the highest compliance of 96% was achieved in terms of the CEMT class IV. Therefore, the IWW network satisfied this criteria. RIS was implemented on 85% of

Article 49.3 study

150

the network, while the minimum draught of 2,5m was preserved on 75% of waterways. With regards to the Airports, all core airports had a connection to rail, while for the comprehensive network, this indicator is 75%.

Figure 139: Indicators calculated from TENtec: The Netherlands Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode is presented in the Table 39.

• Further attention should be given to Rail, for which both analysed indicators showed a low compliance. The current level of investments (13% of the total budget) will not allow the set targets for 2030 to be achieved.

• The largest share of investments was attributed to Road, though the compliance of both the core and comprehensive networks is quite high.

• A significant share of investments given to IWW transport seems to be in line with the infrastructure needs.

• For Ports, the investment level is low at 2%, while there is still a need to improve the IWW connection of the comprehensive Ports to the CEMT class IV.

• Investments are required in Airport infrastructure as only 75% of the comprehensive Airports are connected to Rail.

Article 49.3 study

151

Table 39: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for the Netherlands

Poland

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Poland is presented on Figure 140.

Figure 140: TEN-T infrastructure in Poland

In total 243 projects that satisfy the chosen criteria have been identified for Poland. The budget of these projects combined amounted to 25.381 m Eur. The majority of the projects (147 projects) were implemented on core network and 24 projects concerned the comprehensive network. For 72 projects it is not possible to identify the type of network from the collected data and/or covered both.

Article 49.3 study

152

Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Almost half of all investments came from MS / National funding, which amounted to 11.099 m Eur. The second highest investment (42,2% - 9.403 m Eur) belongs to the ERDF + CF. Additionally, 1.043 m Eur (4,7%) were invested by EIB, while 720 m Eur (3,2%) came from CF. The lower share of expenditures (17 m Eur - 0,1%) was covered by CEF.


As regards modes of transport, the largest number of projects addressed rail (93 projects) and road (82 projects). For each of ports there are 25, for airports 28 projects, while 15 projects targeted Multimodal infrastructure. In terms of expenditures, the largest investments were made in road transport (66% of total expenditures), followed by rail (29% of total expenditures). For other modes/categories the investments were significantly lower and varied between 474 m Eur for Ports, 493 m Eur for Airports and 256 m Eur for Multimodal (2%, 2% and 1% of total expenditures respectively).


per mode The largest share of the projects (91 projects) have managed to keep the costs within the range of 10 – 50 m Eur. Furthermore 57 projects (23%) have a total cost of less than 10 m Eur. The number of projects belonging to the most expensive costs category of more than 200 m Eur amounts to 36.

Article 49.3 study

153


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure The target values were achieved for IWW infrastructure and ports. Rail infrastructure was not compliant neither in terms of track gauge nor in terms of traction. As regards road infrastructure, the values of indicators are very low: only 42% of the core network and 2% of the comprehensive network comply with the stated requirements. When looking at airports, it was observed that 88% of ports are connected to rail, while for the comprehensive network this indicator is 100%.

Figure 145: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Poland Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode are presented in Table 40.

• Rail and road that both score low in terms of compliance, received sufficient funding to improve it, although attention is still needed for both.

Article 49.3 study

154

• The IWW network and ports fulfil the requirements stated in Regulation 1315/2015, therefore the low level of investments in these modes is justified.

• More investments shall be given to the airports as currently the funding of this transport mode represents only 2% of the overall budget.

Table 40: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Poland

Portugal

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Poland is presented in Figure 146.

Figure 146: TEN-T infrastructure in Portugal

Article 49.3 study

155

Forty two projects have been identified for Portugal, which in total amount to 1.940 m Eur. For the majority of projects (23 projects) it is not possible to identify whether they addressed core or comprehensive infrastructure from the collected data and/or cover both types of network. Seventeen projects were carried out on core infrastructure and two on comprehensive. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The two major funding sources of the Portuguese TEN-T network were ERDF and MS / National funding, accounting for 58% (474 m Eur), and 40% (383 m Eur) of total expenditures respectively. The CEF investments in the Portuguese projects amounted to 24 m Eur (2%), while EIB invested 6 m Eur (0,5%).


More than half of the projects (23 projects or 55%) addressed ports, while 8 projects (19%) were carried out on the improvement rail infrastructure. The smallest number of projects aimed to develop airport and multimodal infrastructure (2 and 1 projects). With regard to funding, ports and rail projects had the largest total costs of 714 m Eur (44% of total expenditures) and 764 m Eur (41% of total expenditures) respectively. The costs of road projects amounted to the 10% (317 m Eur) of the total expenditures for Portuguese projects in 2014 - 2015. For airports the expenditures were significantly lower and amounted to 99 m Eur (3%), followed by IWW on which 46 m Eur (1,5%) was spent. The smallest investments were made for Multimodal transport (around 2 m Eur).


per mode

Article 49.3 study

156

The majority of projects cost less than 50 m Eur: 21 projects (50%) fall in the cost category 10 – 50 m Eur and 10 projects (24%) fall in the costs category with expenditure of less than 10 m Eur. Only 1 project (2%) have costs of more than 200 m.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure Only airports have been able to comply with all analysed indicators. As regards ports, both core and comprehensive ports have a connection to rail, but the requirement for CEMT class IV connection is not fulfilled by any of them. Rail shows a very low compliance in terms of track gauge both for the core and comprehensive network. Furthermore, only 52% of the core and 43% of the comprehensive network is electrified. For road the compliance of core infrastructure (94%) is significantly better than the compliance of the comprehensive infrastructure (64%). It was observed that 100% of the waterways in Portugal are of CEMT class IV, while the requirements for minimum draught are adhered to on 74% of IWW network.

Figure 151: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Portugal

Article 49.3 study

157

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode is presented in Table 41.

• The largest share of budget is invested in rail and port infrastructure, which seems reasonable, given the low level of network compliance.

• More investments might be required to upgrade road infrastructure. • For IWW transport the level of investments is very low, though the compliance

of infrastructure is far from the set targets, especially in terms of RIS implementation.

• For Airports the compliance of infrastructure is 100%, therefore the low investments in this mode of transport seem to be justified.

Table 41: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Portugal

Romania

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Romania is presented in Figure 152.

Article 49.3 study

158

Figure 152: TEN-T infrastructure in Romania

From the reviewed sources 76 projects are identified, which amount to 5.704 m Eur. The majority of the projects were running on core network (56 projects), while 9 projects took place on comprehensive network. For the rest 11 projects no data about type of network was available from the collected information and/or covered both types of network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Four financial sources were used to fund the projects for Romania in 2014 – 2015: MS / National funding, CF, EIB and ERDF + CF. The latter one provided the highest share of investments (1.649 m Eur - 51%). The investment made by MS / National funding, which was the second highest financial source, corresponds to 1.526 m Eur (47,3%). Furthermore, 1,6% of the total expenditures were covered by CF (52 m Eur), while 0,1% was funded by EIB (3 m Eur).


Article 49.3 study

159

The Romanian projects address five modes of transport: airports, IWW, ports, rail, road. The largest share is represented by road related projects (34 projects), followed by ports projects (15 projects). For rail 15 projects were identified, which represent 32% of the sample. The number of IWW related projects was 11, while only 1 project was identified for airports. The expenditures for road infrastructure represent 50% of all costs associated with Romanian projects that were running in 2014-2015. The second largest investments (1.881 m Eur) were done in rail infrastructure, while 385 m Eur (10,6% of total expenditures) were invested in Ports.



The majority of the reported projects (46%) have kept the budget within the range of 10 – 50 m Eur. The second largest costs category (20%) is the one with the projects that have a budget o less than 10 m Eur. The smallest number of projects (4%) were identified for the cost category 150 – 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure Ports is the only mode that has complied with all the analysed indicators. Rail infrastructure is compliant in terms of track gauge, however electrification of the network is at a very low level (2% for core and 0,1% for comprehensive network). As regards road infrastructure, 29% of the core network are motorways, while for the comprehensive network the indicator is only 2%. Almost the entire IWW network (91%) is compliant to the analysed indicators. Furthermore, 100% of core airports are connected with rail, while for comprehensive airports this indicator is 80%.

Article 49.3 study

160

Figure 157: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Romania Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below shows the status of indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode.

• For rail and road, which show low compliance with the stated requirements for some indicators, the level of investments is high and needed.

• Attention shall be paid to IWW, as this mode of transport is neither compliant with the Regulation 1315/2013 nor seems to receive sufficient funding.

• The relatively low level of investments in ports is justified, considering the fact that, at least for the calculated indicators, the level of compliance is 100%.

• For comprehensive airports investments are needed in order to connect them to rail.

Article 49.3 study

161

Table 42: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Romania

Slovakia

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Poland is presented in Figure 78.

Figure 158: TEN-T infrastructure in Slovakia

In total 57 projects were identified for Slovakia. The total expenditure for these projects amounts to 4.282 m Eur. The majority of the projects took place on core infrastructure (43 projects), while 6 projects addressed the issues of the comprehensive network. For 8 projects the type of network has not been specified.

Article 49.3 study

162

Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information From the four funding sources for Slovakia, three of them contributed with similar shares. From those, the major contributor was the MS / National funding (1.498 m Eur - 37%), closely followed by ERDF + CF (1.377 m Eur - 34%) and CF with 1.104 m Eur (28%). The EIB investments constituted 1% of the total expeditures amounting to 36 m Eur.


The largest number of projects (36 projects) in Slovakia were aimed to improve road infrastructure, followed by 15 rail projects. Furthermore, 2 projects were carried out to develop ports infrastructure, 2 projects addressed RRTs and 2 projects for multimodal. The largest investments were done in development of road infrastructure, which amounted to 2.550 m Eur (60% of total expenditures). The second biggest investments were done into rail networks and amounted to 1.164 m Eur (27% of total expenditures). For the other modes/categories the investments were significantly lower and amounted to 534 m Eur (12%) for multimodal transport, 7 m Eur (0.2%) for Ports and 26 m Eur (1%) for RRTs.



Almost one third of the projects (17 projects) had costs in the range of 10 – 50 m Eur, followed by 15 projects with costs less than 10 m Eur. The third biggest category of is the one containing the projects with the cost between 50 and 100 m Eur.

Article 49.3 study

163

Figure 162: Number of projects per costs category Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure When evaluating the compliance of infrastructure towards the requirements stated in Regulation 1315/2013 it has been observed that the following indicators meet the defined targets: rail (Track gauge), ports (Connection to rail; CEMT class IV), airports (Connection to Rail). Regarding the other parameters, the compliance of IWW infrastructure to all the indicators is low and amounts to 41% for CEMT class IV and RIS and 13% for minimum draught. Only 57% of the core rRoads are classified as motorways, while for the comprehensive roads the values of this indicator is zero. The requirement for electrified traction for rail is ahderehed to only on 14% of the core and 0% of the comprehensive network.

Figure 163: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Slovakia Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The status of indicators’ compliance and the level of investments for each mode are presented in Table 43.

Article 49.3 study

164

• The highest share of investments is given to road, which is justified by the low level of infrastructure compliance.

• The high investments in rail transport also seem to be in line with the infrastructure needs as currently the electrification of traction is at a very low level.

• Investments in the IWW network are required as the compliance of the infrastructure is low. At the same time no investments were made in this mode in 2014 – 2015.

• Port and airport infrastructure is fully compliant with all the requirements, therefore the absence of investments in this transport mode is not perceived as a problem.

Table 43: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Slovakia

Slovenia

General information The core and comprehensive transport infrastructure for Slovenia is presented in Figure 164.

Article 49.3 study

165

Figure 164: TEN-T infrastructure in Slovenia

From the reviewed sources 18 projects were identified for Slovenia. The total budget of these projects amounted to 745 m Eur. The projects that were implemented on the core network represent the majority of the sample (12 projects), while only 1 project was carried out on the comprehensive network. For 5 projects the type of network was not defined and/or covered both types of network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Slovenia received funding for the TEN-T network implementation from five sources. The two major contributors were MS / National instruments and ERDF + CF, contributing with 37% (192 m Eur) and 36% (188 m Eur) respectively. Regarding EIB (54 m Eur)and CEF (53 m Eur), both contributed with similar shares of 10% of total expenditures. The lowest investment came from CF (38 m Eur - 7%).


The defined projects addressed three modes of transport: ports, rail and road. The majority of the projects (56%) were carried out to develop rail infrastructure. These projects accounted for the largest share of expenditures (49%). Seven projects (39%) addressed road and had a total cost of 336 m Eur (45% of investments). The only port related project had a budget of 42 m Eur (6% of investments).

Article 49.3 study

166



The majority of the projects (12 projects) fell under the costs category 10 - 50 m Eur. The other cost categories have a small number of projects: 3 projects with a budget of 50 – 100 m Eur, 2 projects with a budget of less than 10 m Eur, 1 project with a budget of 150 – 200 were identified.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure Compliance to all analysed indicators was achieved only for airports. For rail infrastructure 100% of the core network has the required gauge of 1.435 mm, however for the comprehensive network this indicator is more than two times lower. The electrified traction is available only on 0,1% of the core and 20% of the comprehensive network. Road core infrastructure meets the stated requirements, while only 47% of comprehensive roads does so. No TEN-T IWW network is available in Slovenia, therefore the related indicators are not applicable. It is also the case that though there are no IWW in the country, TENtec still evaluates Slovenian ports according to their connection to CEMT class IV IWW, which appears to be a mistake. The connection of Ports to rail infrastructure is 100%.

Article 49.3 study

167

Figure 169: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Slovenia Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table showing the indicative status of indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode is presented below.

• Rail infrastructure that shows low compliance both in terms of track gauge and traction electrification receives the highest funding.

• The second largest investments are made in road infrastructure, which seems reasonable considering that for other modes no signigicant problems were observed.

• When judging purely based on the results of calculations, ports show low compliance in terms of CEMT class IV connection combined with low investments. At the same time, as discussed above, it is not correct to evaluate ports according to their connection to CEMT class IV waterways.

• The low level of investments in airports is justified given their 100% compliance with the requirements stated in Regulation 1315/2013.

Article 49.3 study

168

Table 44: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Slovenia

Spain

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure network for Spain is shown in Figure 170.

Figure 170: TEN-T infrastructure in Spain

For Spain 279 projects were identified from the reviewed sources. On the core network 86 projects were run in 2014 - 2015, and 15 projects were run on the

Article 49.3 study

169

comprehensive network. For the majority of the projects (178) the type of network is not specified. The combined expenditure for all the projects in 2014 and 2015 was 82.728 m Eur. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information The majority of the investment in TEN-T network (52.433 m Eur - 90,8%) was done by MS / National funding. The share for the other funding sources was significantly lower: 2.779 m Eur (4,8%) by ERDF+CF, 2.003 m Eur (3,5%) – by ERDF, 411 m Eur (0,7%) – by EIB. CEF also contributed with 116 m Eur (0,2% of the total expenditures).


In terms of the amount of projects, most attention is paid to rail and ports infrastructure with 201 projects together. The number of projects for other modes is significantly lower and amounts to 36 projects for road, 28 projects for airports and 11 projects for RRTs. The smallest number of projects were for the improvement of multimodal infrastructure (3 projects). The largest investments were made in the development of Rail infrastructure which accounts for 56.652 m Eur which represents 68% of all expenditures. Around 17.152 m Eur (21% of total expenditures) was invested in Ports, which is the second largest group. The expenditures for other modes, RRTs and Road were significantly lower and vary between 6.253 m Eur (8%) and 2.460 (3%), respectively. Airports and multimodal projects represent less than 1%.



Article 49.3 study

170

The projects were also analysed in terms of the cost category. The largest number of projects (127), which accounts for 46% of all the projects, are the ones that have costs less than 10 m Eur. The following categories with 18% of the projects was the cost category of 10 – 50 m Eur and with 15% more than 200 m Eur. The smallest amount of projects, 6% was derived from the cost categories between 100 – 200 m Eur.


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure For Spain it can be seen that the requirements stated in Regulation 1315/2013 are completely fulfilled only for airports. As for the rail network, the track gauge is below 22% and the electrification of traction is below 50%. Both the core and comprehensive ports are connected to rail and thus comply with the requirements of Regulation 1315/2013. As regards the CEMT Class IV connection, both core and comprehensive ports have a compliance of below 5%. The Core Road network almost achieves the indicated targets. The compliance of IWW is 0% for all parameters. Improvements are still required for all modes of transport, apart from the airports.

Figure 175: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Spain

Article 49.3 study

171

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below shows the status of indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode.

• The rail infrastructure requires significant improvements, therefore the highest share of the budget spent on this mode seems to be justified.

• Road infrastructure receives only 3% of investments, though improvements are needed in terms of comprehensive network.

• Attention shall be paid to the IWW network which is neither compliant with the requirements nor receives any investments.

• For ports the level of investments is high and it is expected that this level of investments shall enable the achievement of infrastructure compliance by 2030.

• Airports are compliant with the stated requirements, therefore the absence of investment in this mode of transport does not seem to be a problem.

Table 45: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Spain

Sweden

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for Sweden is presented in Figure 176.

Article 49.3 study

172

Figure 176: TEN-T infrastructure in Sweden

In total 50 projects were identified for Sweden from the reviewed sources. The combined expenditures for these projects amounts to 3.427 m Eur. The largest share of the projects (38 projects) were implemented on the core network, for 8 projects the type of network was not specified and 4 projects took place on the comprehensive network. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information

For Sweden TEN-T network implementation, the MS/ National Funds was the major contributor, with almost 97% of the total investment done (2.858 m Eur). CEF contributed with a smaller part of 76 m Eur and EIB with 26 m Eur.


Half of the Swedish projects (25 projects) were targeted toward improving rail infrastructure. The combined budget of these projects amounts to 1.135 m Eur (33% of total expenditures). The number of projects for road is approximately half of those for rail (12 projects), however their total budget represents the larger share of

Article 49.3 study

173

expenditures (46%). The third largest investment category is ports, which accounts for 470 m Eur (14% of total investments) divided over 9 projects.



The largest cost category (25 projects) is represented by projects with a budget in the range of 10 – 50 m Eur, followed by the cost category of 50 – 100 m Eur, which contains 9 projects. The third largest cost category (7 projects) is the one with the projects that have a budget of less than 10 m Eur.

Figure 180: Number of projects per costs category Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure When analysing the values calculated from the TENtec data, it can be seen that none of the modes is completely compliant with the requirements stated in Regulation 1315/2013. For rail 89% of the core and 69% of the comprehensive network is compliant in terms of track gauge. As regards electrified traction it can be noted that that the comprehensive network shows a better compliance (54%) than the core infrastructure (48%). Almost half of the core roads are motorways, while for comprehensive infrastructure a big difference between the years 2014 (12% of infrastructure is compliant) and 2015 (69% of infrastructure is compliant) can be seen. The compliance of IWW network to all the indicators is zero. All ports are connected to rail, while the requirement for CEMT class IV connection is not satisfied. Furthermore 92% of irports are connected to Rail.

Article 49.3 study

174

Figure 181: Indicators calculated from TENtec: Sweden Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The status of the indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode is presented in the Table 46.

• Rail and road show low compliance to the stated requirements, however the existing high level of investments would allow the improvement of the quality of infrastructure.

• Attention shall be paid to IWW and ports, which show low compliance to the set targets. The current level of investments in these modes is low (0% and 14% of the total budget respectively).

• Investments are needed to connect comprehensive airports to rail.

Table 46: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for Sweden

Article 49.3 study

175

United Kingdom

General information The core and comprehensive infrastructure for United Kingdom is presented in Figure 182.

Figure 182: TEN-T infrastructure in United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom a total of 98 projects were determined that satisfy the chosen criteria. The combined budget for these projects amounted to 4.852 m Eur. Of the 98 projects, 8 were located in the core network while for the remaining 90 projects it is not possible to identify the network from the collected data. Realisation of the TEN-T network: financial information Four funding sources were identified as funding sources for the TEN-T network in United Kingdom: CEF, EIB, ERDF and MS / National funding. The latter one was responsible for the higher share of expenditures (4.181 m Eur - 91%). The investments coming from other financial were significantly lower: EIB investments amounted to 221 m Eur (5%), ERDF investments – 153 m Eur (3%), and CEF investments – 45 m Eur (1%).

Article 49.3 study

176


For the modes of transport, road projects are associated with the largest amount of projects (82 projects). Rail projects (11 projects), multimodal infrastructure (3 projects) and finally ports (2 projects) follow this. With regards to the expenditures, the largest investment was made for road projects (67% of total expenditures), followed by rail projects (29% of total expenditure). For the port projects and multimodal infrastructure the level of investment is significantly lower. A total of 156 m Eur (3% of total expenditure) was invested in port projects while 26 m Eur (1% of total expenditure) was invested in multimodal infrastructure.



The largest number of projects (53) had a cost below 10 m Eur. Fifteen projects lay within the cost range of 50 – 100 m Eur (15%), while 13 projects (13%) cost between 10 – 50 m Eur, and 10 projects (10%) lay in the cost band of 100 – 150 m Eur. A total of 5 projects (5%) lay in the most expensive category, above 200 m Eur per project.

Article 49.3 study

177


Realisation of the TEN-T network: state of infrastructure It is observed that none of the modes is compliant to all indicators that were calculated. For rail 90% of the core network and 81% of the comprehensive network have a track gauge of 1435 mm. As regards electrified traction in total 33% of the rail network is compliant. For road the core infrastructure scores significantly higher than the comprehensive infrastructure (73% and 15% respectively), however in both cases a lot of improvements need to be made. All ports have connection to rail, while in terms of CEMT class IV IWW connection, in total 13% of Ports satisfy the requirements. The latter seems to be questionable given the fact that no TEN-T IWW network is defined in the United Kingdom. Furthermore 100% of the core and 89% of the comprehensive airports have a connection to rail.

Figure 187: Indicators calculated from TENtec: United Kingdom

Article 49.3 study

178

Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network The table below shows the status of indicators’ compliance and level of investments for each mode.

• The highest share of investments is given to the road infrastructure which seems to be in line with the infrastructure needs.

• Rail infrastructure also receives a significant share of investments which would allow to achieve the network compliance in future .

• When judging purely based on the results of calculations, ports show low compliance in terms of CEMT class IV connection combined with low investments. At the same time, as discussed above, it is not appropriate to evaluate Ports according to their connection to CEMT class IV waterways.

• Investments are needed to connect comprehensive airports to rail.

Table 47: Assessment of the realisation of the TEN-T network for the United Kingdom

The following grey boxes present the critical issues, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations from the assessment of realisation of the TEN-T network.

Article 49.3 study

179

CRITICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR THE REPORTING STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE REALISATION OF THE TEN-T NETWORK

• The analysis provides detailed conclusions for the ‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ networks by assessing the realisation of the network and drawing conclusions on the levels of investment and the output reached in terms of infrastructure compliance.

• Although, the information collected corresponds to the investments made in 2014 and 2015, a large percentage of the projects are long lasting and will be ongoing in the coming years. This will mean an improvement of the current technical indicators calculated for 2014/2015.

• If a project is contributing to the improvement of a certain indicator, this should

result in good progress of the corresponding indicators in the coming years, when the project has finished.

• In the current analysis and due to the current data availability and format provided, it is only possible to relate the transport mode to the project that the project is contributing to, but not the specific indicator. In the future and with the proposed reporting strategy, this will be easier to link and analyse, as it is request to the data sources to identify to which indicator (from the list), the project is contributing to.

• In the current analysis, a proxy is used and it is considered that if a project

contributes to the improvement in the rail network, it will contribute towards improving the rail indicators in general.

• Due to the good investment levels, the assessment shows that rail and ports are the

areas where less attention in needed in terms of connection by rail to ports, track gauge and electrification, as 70% of the investments made in 2014/2015 are in these areas.

• Although, the investment level is very low in Airports, the connection by rail is very near to reaching full compliance. Despite the orange symbol, concern regarding this mode should be relatively low.

• Road and IWW, are the areas where more attention should be paid, as the indicators

show a low level of investment when compared to the needs in terms of infrastructure compliance.

• Investments in rail are also contributing to the connection by rail to ports and

airports, which in both cases, are already fully compliant or very near full compliance.

180

6. Reporting strategy 6.1. Introduction The reporting strategy presented in this chapter is based on the outcome of the critical issues, lessons learned and recommendations already presented in the grey boxes throughout this report. The objective of the reporting strategy is to present the information required according to the Article 49.3 from the Regulation 1315/2013 (Updating and reporting), in order to achieve the reporting obligations set out by the EC. Every two years, starting from December 21st 2013 (the current study should contribute to the first reporting period 2014/2015), the Commission will publish a progress report on its implementation, which shall be submitted for information to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The report shall cover the use of the various forms of financial assistance mentioned in Chapter 226 for the various transport modes and other elements of the core and comprehensive networks in each Member State. The reporting strategy recommended is an adaptation of the strategy followed in this study. Considering the time that is necessary to produce the Progress Report, data collection and analysis should also be included. The templates that have been produced and adapted are part of the reporting strategy presented in this chapter and correspond to the most adequate way of performance and accomplishment of the obligations from Article 49.3. They also enable several analyses to be carried out that could contribute to better policy decisions with regards to the TEN-T network. The process adopted for the reporting strategy is presented below, with the short and long-term horizons taken into account. The short-term horizon considers the current status of the TENtec database and TEN-T policy and what is foreseen for the next couple of years. The long-term horizon takes an evolution of TENtec into account in order to facilitate the direct inclusion of the financial information, as is the case with the technical parameters. These are currently an obligation of the MS and although, Consultants have been working on these parameters, harmonisation of the type of information included, is a particularly difficult exercise.

26 Article 49.1 Regulation 1315-2013 Member States shall inform the Commission on a regular, comprehensive and transparent basis about the progress made in implementing projects and the investments made for that purpose. This shall include the transmission of annual data as far as possible through the interactive geographical and technical information system for the trans-European transport network (TENtec). It shall include all relevant data concerning projects of common interest in receipt of Union funding. The Commission shall ensure that TENtec is publicly and easily accessible and that it contains project-specific and updated information on the forms and amounts of Union co-funding, as well as on the progress of each project. The Commission shall ensure that TENtec does not make publicly available any information which is commercially confidential, or which could prejudice or unduly influence any process of public procurement in a Member State. The Commission shall make available information on financial assistance provided under other Union law, including the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and Horizon 2020, and in the form of loans and financing instruments established by the European Investment Bank.

Article 49.3 study

181

Short term reporting strategy The picture below presents the reporting strategy in terms of inputs, procedures and outputs.

Figure 188 – Reporting strategy process (Source: Panteia)

The inputs correspond to the data needs, which should be collected at the beginning in order to produce the databases with the necessary information for the analysis (output). The procedures referred to are those needed to apply the data received, to harmonise the information that has come from different sources, to exclude some projects that should not be taken into consideraton and to identify projects that were reported by different sources, but correspond to the same project. To facilitate the production of the next progress report, the templates that are to be filled in for data collection have been included as Annexes and are indicated below. The reporting strategy consists of the following 8 steps:

• Step 0: Communication Inform the MS validators of the identified financial sources and that a progress report covering the period 2016-2017, is due by the end of that year and that their contribution will be needed. This should be done via an email or communication, such as the one received for this study in the TEN-T Committee of 2016. This was a crucial step for the current study, as MS were already expecting the request and this facilitated their availability and delivery.

• Step 1:Data collection request to INEA/EIB/DG Regio Send the data collection request to INEA, EIB and DG Region. Use the template produced to collect the data and to guarantee that an assessment of the realisation can be carried out properly in the end. Send the FAQ’s and Guidelines

Article 49.3 study

182

(Annex 5 and Annex 6), together with the excel file (Annex 3), to the EU Financial Sources.

• Step 2:Compilation of the received information

Compile all the financial information received into an excel database and make a selection of the projects per MS.

• Step 3: Data collection request to MS Send the data collection request to the MS, with the project data already filled in for those projects that have been collected. Ask for an email receipt confirmation or ask that the person forward the email to the responsible party. The updated mailing list that was used for this year is in Annex 1. In addition, send the FAQs and the Guidelines. Assign a responsible contact person to follow the process and act as a ‘Helpdesk’. This was one of this year’s request successes, as MS felt they were part of the process and could discuss their questions and comments with someone.

• Step 4: Compilation of the received information from MS Compile all the financial information received into the database and check for missing information.

• Step 5: Apply the procedures A, B and C Apply the project criteria filter to guarantee that the projects are:

• Projects that are located in the core and comprehensive networks. You can consult the core and comprehensive networks in TENtec;

• Projects that run between 2014 and 2015: meaning projects that have started before 2014 but where still ongoing in 2014 and/or 2015 or later: projects that started somewhere in 2014 and/or 2015 and are still ongoing;

• Type of projects: only works (implementation) and/or mixed projects, but not studies;

• Type of works: works that lead to upgrades i.e projects, such as current maintenance, should not be included;

• Projects that contribute to the objectives of TEN-T (article 4). The objectives are indicated below in part B;

• Projects above 1 million Euro

• Step 6: Technical parameters data collection Download the business objects from TENtec and calculate the indicators to the extent that the data allows: Excel file.

• Step 7: Calculation of the Progress Indicator Calculate the progress indicators for the financial and technical information: Annex .

• Step 8: Production and submission of the Progress Report Produce the progress report with the following table of contents: 1. Executive summary (EN, FR, DE); 2. Scope and rationale of the progress report; 3. Project Investment in the network (per mode, per type of network, per financial source, per type of project) – Financial database result: output of Annex 3 and Annex 4; 4. Implementation of the core and comprehensive networks: Technical parameter indicators (per mode, per type of network) – Technical indicator database results;

Article 49.3 study

183

5. Realisation of the implementation and progress achieved since the previous reporting period– output from Annex 8; 6. Progress by MS – country fiches, such as the ones in Annex 7; 7. Main Conclusions; 8. Recommendations.

184

Table of contents Content description Chapters/Tables/Annexes from the current study

1. Executive summary Executive summary in English, German and French Similar to current study 2. Scope and rationale of the progress report

• Present the objectives • Rationale and methodology • Identify the reporting period • Structure of the report

Similar to Chapter 1

3. Project Investment in the network (per mode, per type of network, per financial source, per type of project) – Financial database result: output of Annex 3 and Annex 4

• Identification of the financial sources (should be the same as presented in this report, only update if needed)

• Present the results from the project investment for the reporting year per: • Type of information source: share of number of projects; share of

expenditure • Type of EU Funds: share of number of projects; share of funding given

(Eur) • Type of transport mode; type of network

• Sources identified in Chapter 2

• Similar to Chapter 3

4. Implementation of the core and comprehensive networks: Technical parameter indicators (per mode, per type of network) – Technical indicator database result

• Identification of the technical parameters source • Identification of the indicators possible to calculate • Present the results from the technical parameters indicators compliance per

type of network, transport mode

• Similar to Chapter 4

5. Realisation of the implementation and progress achieved since the previous reporting period– output from Annex 8.

• Present the realisation of the implementation for the overall network, per type of network and transport mode

• Calculate the progress indicators comparing them with the previous reporting period: financial and technical parameters

• Similar to Chapter 5.2 • Annex 8

6. Progress by MS – country fiches, such as the ones in Annex 7.

• Progress achieved by MS in terms of the indicator compliance, level of investment and in terms of the assessment of realisation, identifying the improvements and identifying where attention should be paid

• Annex 7

7. Main Conclusions • Describe the main conclusions and critical issues identified. • This should be based in particular, on the conclusions from the realisation of the

implementation and progress achieved and the Progress made by MS.

8. Recommendations • Recommendations in terms of the process, what could be done to facilitate the process

• Recommendations in terms of the areas that should receive more funding to reach the compliance levels: e.g where CEF/EIB/DG Regio should provide a larger share of the funds

185

The figure below presents the indicative duration of each step and also the best suited month in which to start with it. For example, before May, as several MS do not yet have their closed account figures for the last year, which means that the MS request should not be done before May.

M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12Step 0 Communication Step 1 Data collection request to INEA/EIB/DG RegioStep 2 Compilation of the received informationStep 3 Data collection request to MSStep 4 Compilation of the received information from MSStep 5 Apply the procedures A, B and CStep 6 Technical parameters data collectionStep 7 Calculation of the Progress IndicatorStep 8 Production and submission of the Progress Report

Reporting Strategy Gan Chart

Figure 189 – Reporting strategy Gant Chart. Source: Panteia

Article 49.3 study

186

Long Term Reporting Strategy The lessons learned with this study and the knowledge about the TENtec database, enables to propose a long term reporting strategy, to be applied, as soon as the system allows this. MS have already the obligation to insert the infrastructure parameters data in TENtec, however this process is still difficult for them and therefore the EC has been giving support to this task via launching tenders for a consultant to perform this task. As they already have to do this for the technical parametrs data, they could do it as well directly into TENtec. How the inclusion of data into TENtec could be done: The information requested should be the one from Annex 3 and 4, meaning that the fields in TENtec should be adapted to these ones. This can be an additional window of TENtec, only for the financial information. A function in TENtec should automatically compare the new figures with the ones from the previous reporting period and indicate the progress achieved. This can be done using the Annex 8 as a template. An automatic report should be produced by TENtec and this could be included in the progress report. The figure below shows the process for the long-term reporting strategy.

Figure 190 – Reporting strategy Long Term Horizon (Source: Panteia)

Horizontal projects and projects that are located on multiple TENtec sections For this, MS could indicate the sections where the project is running and the expenditures could be divided equally amongst all the sections. Another option is to calculate a cost per km and apply this to the sections.

Article 49.3 study

187

7. Main Conclusions and Recommendations This study was a good pilot in order to understand the critical issues and difficulties that are entailed when drafting a Progress Report on the implementation of the TEN-T network. The financial and technical parameters were identified and templates to facilitate the data collection process were created. An analysis of the current period 2014-2015 was performed and gives an indication of the technical parameters that should be improved through project investments per MS. It also gives the EC an indication as to where more funding is needed. The reporting strategy was designed while bearing in mind that the majority of the difficulties encountered, to facilitate the next progress report production, will be overcome. The critical issues and lessons learned that contribute to the reporting strategy designed and the recommendations in terms of operational issues and policy recommendations, have been presented throughout the report in the grey boxes. Overall we were able to identify the critical issues and recommendations below:

Data on the TEN-T implementation availability, quality and harmonisation

Data was, without any doubt, the major critical issue of this study and also the aspect from which it was possible to learn more and adapt the reporting strategy accordingly. While identifying the information sources, it was possible to identify which type of information INEA, EIB, DG Regio could provide. INEA provided the most harmonised and complete set of data for this exercise. The fact that the Consultants had a meeting with those responsible for this, also contributed towards achieving the type of data that we were interested in looking at. Data from national projects was the larger constraint, which was be bridged with the data that Panteia had from the project lists for the CNC corridor studies from 2014. The fact that the remaining core and comprehensive networks are not part of this, lead us to the MS Consultation Data request, otherwise, it would have been impossible to obtain this information. As can be seen, 55% was gathered via the MS request and the rest of the information via the CNC Project list. The data quality in terms of missing information, different classifications than the ones mentioned, different data formats and data from TENtec that does not seem reliable, was also a critical point. Recommendation:

• To guarantee a minimum data harmonisation, templates for data collection with drop lists should be used – Annex 3, Annex 4 and Guidelines, such as Annex 5 and Annex 6. This will also guarantee that the needed analysis can be performed, as that data is available.

Article 49.3 study

188

Willingness to share the information While INEA was very interested in this collaboration and facilitated the process, DG Regio’s willingness to cooperate was a bit more arduous. The consequence thereof, resulted in proxy’s having to be added to DG Regio’s data. After the presentation of this pilot study to the TEN-T Committee and the MS, the data request and various email exchanges with MS to facilitate the process, we can say that a good cooperation was achieved. This can be seen via the data request inputs from all MS, with the exception of France and Cyprus, who reported that we had already collected all their projects via other financial sources. Positive aspects towards reaching this stakeholders engagement were a very good communication with a known and trusted party, as Panteia is participating in 8 corridors and therefore, knows the majority of the MS validators. In addition and the fact that the EC was also collecting a very large part of the information via funding sources and corridor studies, was a positive aspect, as the burden was being shared. The ‘helpdesk’ for questions and comments also facilitated the process. A major problem however, was that we learned that they don’t have this information and are reliant on the inframanagers and/or regional government. In caused in some cases, a delay of more than 1 month. Data from private airports and ports was not possible to obtain, as they are not obliged to give this information. Recommendations:

• Communicate the data collection request one or two months in advance • Have a trusted party collecting the data and working as a ‘helpdesk’ • Change the contracts or include that private concessions have to provide this

information to the State in the new ones, • Increase the time for the data collection request Duration and timeline

The duration of the activities, namely the data collection period, was a critical issue, as it took more time than it was foreseen. In addition, the month of April was not the best choice for the data collection, as some countries do not close their financial accounts for that year until May/June. Recommendation: Taking into account that the data collection period for the MS data collection request was not enough and that the month selected was also not the most adecuate, for the reporting strategy, the recommended duration for this activity is 3 months. This should start in July and be finished by September.

Analysis to be performed

A major lesson learned here, is that some information is not needed, however, information with regards to the contribution of a project to an indicator, is the only way to be able to analyse the impact of the investment in e.g rail projects on ERTMS in the e.g ERTMS compliance indicator. The recommended analyses are the ones presented in this report.

Article 49.3 study

189

Current assessment of realisation

This assessment should be seen as an indicative one, as the quality of the data for this progress report and the assumptions that had to be made, do not allow for specific conclusions to be drawn, as the reliability of the data is not above 80%. Table 48 – Realisation of the network




Level of investment

Rail Core network

Track gauge 75%

54% Traction 47%

Comprehensive network Track gauge 63% Traction 37%



IWW Core network CEMT Class IV 0%

6% RIS 84% Draught 68%

Ports Core network

Connection to rail 100%


Comprehensive network Connection to rail 100% CEMT Class IV 9%



Recommendations:

• The new templates created for the data collection and the excel sheet prepared to make these calculations, will enable closely realistic conclusions to be drawn.

• More attention is being given to rail and road. Due to the level of compliance of the indicators and level of investment given in 2014/2015, attention should be paid to ports (CEMT Class IV parameter), IWW and road. Regarding rail, the traction should be object of attention in the future, despite the high level of investment already given. This is highlighted in Chapter 5.3 and the country fiches per MS.

• Better quality data enables better conclusions to be drawn and better decision making.

Major Policy Recommendations

• TENtec Update An annual TENtec update or an update every 2 years, is the most crucial aspect for the Progress Report, in order to meet the requirements of the Regulation 1315/2015 article 49.3. Data availability and reliability is the key for better decision making, as complete, accurate and reliable data are fundamental to have a real picture of the realisation of the TEN-T network. For this reason, the necessity for MS to fill this information is crucial.

Article 49.3 study

190

The current studies launched by the EC to draw-up the data collection plan to identify all data sources per country and technical parameters, are ongoing and will be completed by the end of 2017 (update of TENtec data from 2014 and 2015). In the next progress report, these technical parameter indicators should be recalculated, as the data is expected to be completed and accurate. An intermediate solution is also possible, this data can be recalculated next year, as the data will be available. Additionally, the data for 2016 and 2017 should be updated in 2018. If not, at least 2017 is crucial, so that the progress could be measured.

• Decision making in the areas where more attention is needed The results from the analysis done with the data collected for this report can contribute towards a better allocation of funding in the areas where more attention is needed. Considering the indicators calculated with the current TENtec data and all the assumptions that have been made in order to correlate the financial data with the technical parameters, it seems that Road and IWW require more attention. This conclusion/recommendation is based on the low compliance of the indicators and the lower levels of investment. This will need to be further investigated in the next progress report, where the data from TENtec will be properly filled in and correctly updated, and where the projects will also identify as to which KPI that are contributing to. This will allow for a proper analysis in order to show the correlation between both. Finally, the reporting strategy from Chapter 6, will facilitate the next progress report production, as the process has now been systematised and the templates prepared will enable an almost direct analysis of the MS Progress, as well as the overall realisation of the TEN-T network. It will be possible to measure and compare the Progress achieved, which will enable a better understanding of how much the investment in projects is contributing to the network realisation and policy recommendations, in order to tackle the areas where more attention is required. Another worthwhile aspect that can be mentioned, is the fact that the stakeholders were already involved and committed to this study. This will facilitate the next progress report preparation, as it will be easier for them to identify who the sources of information are, which data they should report and how much time that process will take.

Article 49.3 study

191

Annex 1. Updated Mailing List from Member State

Article 49.3 study

192

Annex 2. List of the National Programmes per Member State

Article 49.3 study

193

Annex 3 : Data collection template for the financial funding sources

Article 49.3 study

194

Annex 4 : Data collection template for the Member States

Article 49.3 study

195

Annex 5 Guidelines for MS

Article 49.3 study

196

Annex 6 FAQ’s

Article 49.3 study

197

Annex 7 Country Fiches for the MS Progress

Article 49.3 study

198

Annex 8: Progress indicator calculation

Article 49.3 study

199

Annex 9 Matching application

article 49.3 study - european commission...article 49.3 of the ten-t regulation (eu) 1315/2013 and...

Documents