transport investment priorities under structural and ... · describes the situation per mode of...
TRANSCRIPT
Study on Strategic Evaluation on
Transport Investment Priorities
under Structural and Cohesion
funds for the Programming Period
2007-2013
No 2005.CE.16.0.AT.014
Country Report Greece
Final
Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV
Rotterdam, August 2006
ECORYS Nederland BV
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands
T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
W www.ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726
ECORYS Transport
T +31 (0)10 453 87 59
F +31 (0)10 452 36 80
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 2
1.3 The Country Report 2
1.4 Structure of the report 2
2 Transport Sector: current situation 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Greece 4
2.3 Situation per mode of transport 5
2.3.1 Roads and road transport 5
2.3.2 Railways 8
2.3.3 Urban transport 13
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 14
2.3.5 Sea ports 14
2.3.6 Airports 17
2.3.7 Analysis modal split 18
2.4 Current Transport policy 19
2.5 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 21
3 Accessibility analysis 23
3.1 Introduction 23
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Indicator 23
3.3 Transport needs 24
4 Previous support programmes 30
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure 30
4.2 EU funding 30
4.3 Other sources of financing 32
4.4 Conclusions 33
5 National Transport Strategy 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 35
5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013 35
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 37
6.1 Introduction 37
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 38
6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 39
7 Impact Assessment of scenarios 43
7.1 Introduction 43
7.2 Methodology 43
7.3 Scenarios 45
7.4 Impact assessment 51
7.5 European effects 61
8 Conclusions on investment priorities 64
8.1 Introduction 64
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 64
Annex A TEN-T priorities
Annex B Accessibility “Red Flag” Analysis
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States clearly creates a new challenge
for its Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU have increased substantially and
will further increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. This is an
explicit point of attention as the Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and
social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of
development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or
islands, including rural areas. This aim lies at the core of the Commission’s regional
policy.
One of the key elements of the cohesion policy of the Commission is the contribution of
the development of new transport infrastructure to regional economic development.
Extensive spending has taken place in this domain under ERDF, Cohesion Fund and
ISPA.
One of the prominent initiatives in the European Union in this respect is the development
of the Trans-European transport networks (TEN-T). In 2003 the Commission has
identified the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T up to 20201. The priority projects include:
“the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in mind the general
objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance, interoperability and
the reduction of bottlenecks”.
For the new programming period 2007-2013 the Commission seeks to strengthen the
strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better
integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the
draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic
Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect to the priorities of the Community with a
view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development”2.
To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the
Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The
present evaluation should be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The
strategic evaluation should feed in the process of determining transport investment
priorities and the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and
1 Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004. The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to € 225 billion at the 2020
horizon. 2 COM(2004)492
2
operational programmes. As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness
and consistency of Fund assistance.
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation
The strategic evaluation is directed at the transport sector.
Three specific objectives have been formulated for this strategic evaluation:
• To provide an analysis of the situation in selected fields relevant to transport, using
structural indicators across Member States, plus Romania and Bulgaria;
• To assess the contribution of Structural and Cohesion funds relative to the current
and previous programming periods and draw lessons of relevance for the purpose of
the study in terms of identification of potential shortcomings in the development of
transport priority projects that might have hampered the utilization of those funds or
their expected benefits;
• To identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields and identify potential investment
priorities of structural and cohesion funds for the programming period 2007-2013.
1.3 The Country Report
The strategic evaluation results in specific country reports for all 15 countries and a
synthesis report. The current report is the Country Report for Greece. Its main aim is to
give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in
the country and to address areas for future intervention. Where relevant this accompanied
by recommendations with respect to the overall transport policy of the country. The
country reports feed into the joint programming effort with the Member States for the
next period, as will be detailed in the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the
subsequent Operational Programmes.
1.4 Structure of the report
The report is structured around three building blocks.
• First a needs assessment is presented based on an analysis of the current transport
systems and a modelling analysis which reveals the current (relative) level of
accessibility per region. This leads to first conclusions strengths and weaknesses
of the current transport system and related transport investment needs (Part A).
• Next an overview is presented of the transport investment priorities in the past
period (Part B).
• Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified. This builds
on the needs assessment in the first part but also addresses other factors such as
the contribution to EU and national policy objectives, the availability of other
sources of funding and the administrative capacity of the country (Part C).
3
Part A: Needs assessment current situation
4
2 Transport Sector: current situation
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Greece. After a brief
introduction on the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it first
describes the situation per mode of transport. The analysis of the current situation is
summarized in a SWOT table on the main strengths and weaknesses. The assessment of
the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport policy issues in
Greece.
2.2 Greece
Greece is located in Southern Europe, bordering the Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea, and the
Mediterranean Sea, between Albania and Turkey. The country’s terrain is mostly
mountains with ranges extending into the sea as peninsulas or chains of islands. Greece is
clearly a peninsular country, possessing an archipelago of about 2,000 islands.
5
Basic data
Population 11.0 million
Total area 131,940 km2
Population density 80.3 inh/km2
Main cities Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras, Irakleio and Larissa
Greece is a services dominated economy. Some 72% of GDP is generated in the services
sector, followed by industry (22%) and agriculture (6%). Within the services sector the
role of tourism activities, which provide 15% of GDP, is clear. Immigrants make up
nearly one-fifth of the work force, mainly in unskilled jobs. Greece is a major beneficiary
of EU aid, equal to about 3.3% of annual GDP. The Greek economy grew by about 4.0%
for the between 2003 and 2005, largely because of an investment boom and infrastructure
upgrades for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Economic growth slowed to about 3% in
2005. Greece has not met the EU's Growth and Stability Pact budget deficit criteria of 3%
of GDP since 2000. Public debt, inflation, and unemployment are above the Euro-zone
average. To overcome these challenges, the Greek Government is expected to continue
cutting government spending, reducing the size of the public sector which currently
stands at approximately 40% of GDP.
Economic data
GDP (2004) 168.4 bn€
GDP per capita, Greece (2004) 15,200 €
GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 €
GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 €
Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 108.5
Government deficit as % of GDP (2004) -6.9%
Unemployment rate 10.5%
Source: Eurostat
2.3 Situation per mode of transport
2.3.1 Roads and road transport
Infrastructure
The Trans European Road network in Greece, planned for year 2010, (Decision
1692/96/EC) consists of 4,333 km road sections of which 1,172 km operate today in
Motorway standards, while 205 km more are under construction to complete Via Egnatia.
Additional 2,956 km operate as single carriageway highways, of which
• 149 km are expected to be upgraded to motorway standards by public funding
within the current programming period.
• 755 km are planned for upgrade to Motorway standards using PPP schemes.
The rest is set as high priority road network for upgrading seeking funding during the 4th
Programming period 2007-2013.
6
Furthermore, road links to crossing points along the northern boarding of Greece are
planned for construction or upgrade, giving access from via Egnatia (East - West
Motorway axis) to Pan European corridors VI and X.
About 5,000 km national and more than 29,000 km provincial road network provide
accessibility to this Trans European network within Greece.
Table 2.1 Motorway density in Greece
Length motorway/1000 km2
Length motorway/100,000 inh
Greece (2004) 8.9 10.6
EU15 16 13.8
EU25 14 12.2
Source: Eurostat (2005)
It should be noted that, during the decade 1991 - 2001, the total length of Greek
motorway network increased with a factor 4.3. This increase, partly achieved due to the
EU financial contribution, concerns both the construction of new infrastructure and the
upgrading of part of the existing network.
The main road axes (see figure 2.1) are:
• Egnatia motorway. Motorway (Via Egnatia) spanning Northern Greece from its
western to its eastern border, starting from Igoumenitsa, and running to the
village of Kipoi on the Turkish border. In 2004, 444 km of Egnatia motorway
were constructed, while its total length upon completion will amount to 670km.
• The main North-South road axis of the country (P.A.TH.E.), which connects
Patras, Athens, Thessaloniki and Evzoni at the borders with FYROM and belongs
to the Trans - European Motorway system and runs along the north coast of
Peloponnisos, and the east coast of the Greek mainland. In June 2003, 462 km
were constructed or upgraded at motorway standards, while the total length of the
axis upon its completion will sum up to 774 km.
• The west road axis (Via Ionia) serving the west part of Greece from north to
south (Ioannina – Antirio - Rio- Patras - Kalamata).
• The remaining national road network, providing connection between the major
axes and serving other areas as well. Out of this network the axes of Panagia -
Trikala - Larissa / Lamia (planned for upgrade to form “Central Greece
Motorway”), Lamia - Antirio and Lamia – Agrinio, assure trans regional
connection between the east and the west parts of Greece, separated by Pindos
mountain range.
• The northern road axis of Crete, providing trans-regional transportation on the
island connecting the four major towns Chania, Rethimno, Herakleio and Ag.
Nikolaos. The axis that is currently under construction is expected to complete
under the 3rd
CSF at single carriageway highway standards.
7
Figure 2.1 Major Road network Greece
Means
Table 2.1 gives information on the car ownership in Greece in comparison to the EU15
and EU25.
Table 2.1 Car ownership Greece (2004), EU (2003)
Greece EU15 EU25
Cars/1000 inh 370 495 465
Source: Eurostat, National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG)
8
During the period of 1994-2004, passenger car ownership in Greece increased by 96%,
while at the same time the average EU increase is estimated at less than 25%. At the same
time the number of trucks was increased by 36% (1.2 million trucks in 2004) while the
motorcycles fleet increased considerably as well.
Demand
The increase in car ownership is also reflected in the total transport performance by
passenger cars (in passengerkilometers). It is estimated that car travel grew with 5.6% per
annum on average in the period 1994-2002.
Car travel has to a certain extent replaced intercity bus demand, especially on shorter
distances. The bus fleet has shown a limited increase of about 1% annually.
Table 2.2 Intercity bus traffic
Total kilometrage
(1000)
Passengers (1000) Passenger kilometres
(million)
1994 316 152 5.16
2002 301 134 7.90
Source: NSSG
Road accidents
Greece presents a considerably high accident index. In 20033 the country had 15,751 road
accidents with 22,342 people suffering casualties of which 1,605 people were reported
killed. That means that more than one out of ten road accidents involves fatalities.
Table 2.3 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants)
Greece EU25
1994 1998 2003 2004
176 204 146 109
Source: Eurostat, NSSG
There has been a significant reduction in fatalities due to road accidents in Greece in
recent years (following a period of steep increase in 1990s). On 1998 the number of
fatalities amounted to 2,182, which decreased to 1,605 in 2003 (reduction of 4.7% per
annum). Certainly this decreasing trend becomes even more important if the constant
increase in total exposure (vehicle-km) in the road network is considered. Spending on
traffic enforcement has grown sixfold in the period 1998-2003. Also upgrading of roads
has had a positive contribution to the accident rate.
2.3.2 Railways
Infrastructure
The Greek railway network due to the mountainous terrain of the country is relatively
limited with general alignment dating back to late 1800, early 1900. Considerable
3 National Statistical Service of Greece – Greece in Figures, 2005
9
investments are made since 1980, aiming to upgrade the existing sections. This is
expected to continue in the upcoming years. In 2004, the operating railway network was
approximately 2,449km long, consisting of 65% of standard gauge line (Attiki, Central
Greece, Thessalia, Makedonia and Traki) and 35% of metric gauge line (Peloponnesus).
Table 2.4 Railway density (2003)
Railway line/1000 km2 Railway line/100,000 inh
Greece 18 22
EU25 50 43
Source: Eurostat (2005)
Figure 2.2 Railway network
10
The main rail network (see figure 2.2) consist of:
• The line “Piraeus - Athens - Thessaloniki - Idomeni” through which the largest part
of the total transport product is being carried,
• The line “Thessaloniki - Alexandroupoli - Ormenio”, that runs along the northern part
of Greece, and provides railway connection with Bulgaria and Turkey, and finally,
• The line “Athens - Patra”, that connects the capital, by rail, with one of the country’s
western gates to Italy and Western Europe.
The current network suffers from a number of weaknesses:
• the railway alignment and morphology of the country with steep gradients and acute
curvatures allows only low speed travel;
• with the exception of the lines of Peloponnesus and Thessaly, the network in
question, is developed mainly linearly, due to the morphology of the continental
Greece, thus limiting the development of railway transportation towards areas non
adjacent to the railway axis.
• the major railway axis ‘Piraeus - Athens - Thessaloniki’ doesn’t provide a connection
with the country’s major commercial ports, namely the ports of Piraeus, Thessaloniki,
Alexandroupolis and the new port in Patras. This fact discourages the development of
combined transportation in Greece;
• there are many single-track lines and a large number of level crossings;
• rail electrification stands at a low level (although electrification is increasing) and
large part of the rolling stock is obsolete;
• incompatibility between Peloponnesus’s line (metric gauge) and the rest of the
network (standard gauge).
Means
The railway fleet consists of traction units, passenger and freight wagons. The fleet size
has been reduced in the past decade. The largest difference is observed in the reduction in
the number of freight wagons in the period 1994-2004. Also the number of passenger
wagons reduced. In 2004, passenger wagons were almost half (55%) of the ones
operating in 1995.
As electrification of the network is an ongoing project, electric tractions units have to be
included in the fleet in the years to come.
Organisation of railway sector
The Hellenic Railways Organisation (OSE) was formed in 1970 uniting a number of
regional railroads. OSE is responsible for the uniform organisation, operation and
development of rail transport.
Greece is not advanced in terms of rail liberalisation, as the existing environment
provides significant barriers to entry. Only in 2005 the EU Regulation of the first Railway
Package was transposed into national legislation, which gave OSE the obligation to
establish a limited liability company (National Railway Infrastructure Manager Ltd) and
11
one or more limited liability companies to provide passenger and freight transport
services4.
OSE is the only company providing rail (passenger and freight) services in Greece. There
are currently no privately run rail services in Greece. As such it has not yet responded to
the 2nd
Railway package which requires open access to all EU railway undertakings for all
kinds of rail freight transport from January 2007 onwards5. The lack of competition is
hampering further restructuring and des-incentivises further efficiency improvements. It
also has a negative impact on the level of service. Service quality of OSE in the past was
reported to be low6. Market opening has proven to be an important factor in contributing
to a positive performance of rail (freight) markets7.
The current efficiency of the Greek Railways is low. A comparative study on railway
systems in ten EU countries8 showed that efficiency of the Greek Railways has been low
for a longer time. Also recent indicators point at the low efficiency of the Greek railway
system. Figure 2.3 gives an indication of the operational efficiency (expressed in staff per
trainkm).
Figure 2.3 Operational efficiency rail for selected European countries (staff per 1000 trainkms)
0,000 0,100 0,200 0,300 0,400 0,500 0,600 0,700 0,800 0,900
Netherlands
Austria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Bulgaria
Greece
Poland
Lithuania
Romania
Source: ECORYS based on UIC data and NERA (2004), Study on the financing of and public budget
contributions to railways
4 See Steer Davies Gleave (2005), RAILIMPLEMENT, Implementation of EU Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and
2001/14/EC. The transposition of the first Railway Package has taken place notwithstanding the fact that Greece obtained
certain derogations from elements of the Packages until 2008. 5 See SEC(2006)530 6 See Pavantis, Prevedouros (2002), Railroads in Greece, History, Characteristics and Forecasts, Transporttation Research
Record 2002. 7 See SEC(2006)530 8 Christopoulos et. al. (2001) Inefficiency in European Railways: not as inefficient as one might think. In: Journal of Applied
Economics, Vol. IV No.1, May 2001.
12
Another indicator which gives (indirect) information on the competitiveness of rail
transport is the utilisation of the railtrack (see table 2.5). Low utilisation rates signal an
inefficient use of the available infrastructure. Greece ranks amongst the lowest utilisation
figures in Europe. For freight rail transport the country shows even the lowest figure. This
clearly does indicate that the existing railway traffic does have a potential for growth
once the competitiveness and attractiveness of rail (both technically and institutionally) is
brought at a higher level.
Table 2.5 Utilisation of rail infrastructure
Passengers
(1000 pkm/km rail)
Freight
(1000 tkm/km rail)
Passengerkms as a ratio
of tonkms
Bulgaria 556 1204 46%
Cyprus - -
Czech Republic 687 1571 44%
Estonia 209 10949 2%
Greece 704 249 283%
Hungary 1321 1044 127%
Latvia 352 8194 4%
Lithuania 227 6591 3%
Malta - -
Poland 914 2406 38%
Portugal 1313 816 161%
Romania 757 1496 51%
Slovakia 602 2652 23%
Slovenia 651 2848 23%
Spain 1321 792 167%
EU15 1771 1917 92%
EU25 2064 1689 122%
Source: ECORYS based on Eurostat (2005) and UIC (2006)
Demand
Rail transport, both for freight and passenger transport only plays a very modest role in
Greece. Notwithstanding the poor attractiveness of the Greek rail system, rail transport in
Greece increased in the last decade (although still at low absolute levels).
Rail passenger traffic, expressed in passenger kilometres, increased mainly due to the
introduction of the high quality intercity services. This phenomenon was particularly
impressive during the period of 2000-2004, with an increase of 36% mainly as a result
travel time reduction on Athens-Thessaloniki corridor. The transport demand reached
1,668 million passenger kilometres.
The same trend seems to apply to the rail freight transport section as well. The number of
tonne-kilometres summed up to 592 million in 2004, while the respective value in 1994
was 324 million, thus presenting an increase of 82%. Regarding the size of freight
transported, expressed in tones, there was more than a two-fold increase, amounting to
2.97 million tonnes of which 66% for international transportation
13
2.3.3 Urban transport
Infrastructure
Athens and Thessaloniki are the two major urban centres in Greece.
The Mass Transit System of Athens consists of:
• Buses (Operated by ETHEL, Thermal Bus Company)
• Electric Buses (Trolleys) (Operated by ILPAP, Electric Buses of Athens - Piraeus)
• Tram Lines (Operated by Tram S.A.)
• Three Metro Lines (Line 1 operated by ISAP, Electric Railways of Athens - Piraeus,
Lines 2 & 3 operated by Attiko Metro Operation Company S.A.).
• Suburban Railway (operated by Proastiakos S.A.)
The Athens Metro is one of the most modern systems in the world. Line, 1 that is the
oldest and for the most part runs on the ground, connects Piraeus, Athens major port with
the northern suburbs of Athens. The other two lines were constructed mainly during the
late 1990s and the first sections were put to service in 2000. They run entirely
underground. Extensions to both lines are under construction. Suburban railway provides
connection with the Athens International Airport. The expansion of the metro network
over the past years, has greatly contributed to the improvement of the mass transport
system of Athens.
The bus service consists of a network of lines on which normal buses, electric buses, and
natural gas buses run (the largest fleet of natural gas run buses in Europe). There are
many bus lines serving Athens and the suburbs (and the airport).The construction of an
extensive network of bus-lanes, that is continually expanding, has contributed to the
enhancement of the level of service provided by reducing travel times. However average
travelling speed on the bus network still remains relatively low.
Additional urban transport systems for consist of the tram, that runs from the city centre
to the south suburbs and was inaugurated in the summer of 2004, just before the Olympic
games held in Athens and the large number of taxis that are in circulation.
The main means of urban (public) transport in Thessaloniki is the fleet of buses,
providing connection between the city centre and the suburbs, in addition to a fleet of
taxis is used as well.
Thessaloniki with a total population of over 800,000 inhabitants, still remains one of the
few large European cities that lacks a railed track transportation means of any type (metro
or tramway), although the linear development of the city would favour the construction of
such a transportation system.
The main problems with respect to the urban transportation sector in Greece are relatively
low travelling speeds of the bus network (congested urban road network) and the lack of
reliable timetables. The current low level of service discourages the public from using the
public transportation means. The major exception to this situation is formed by the
exceptionally successful operation of the metro system in Athens, reveals the attractivity
Athens
Thessaloniki
14
of the development of railed track means that can be run independently of the prevailing
traffic conditions.
Means
The bus fleet in Athens has been increased by 11% over the past decade reaching some
200 vehicles in 2004. The fleet has been recently remarkably upgraded. It is worth
mentioning that 1,328 of the buses were acquired between 1998 and 2004. On the
contrary, the number of electric buses in circulation seems to decrease especially after the
year 2000, upon commencement of the new metro lines operation. In 2004 there were 372
electric buses running. The new metro system’s (lines 2 and 3) fleet consists of 294
wagons, 126 of which were put to service in 2004.
Demand
An 11% increase in patronage, was noticed over the past four years. This increase is
mainly attributed to the operation of the new metro lines, which attracted in 2004 more
than two-fold the passengers attracted during 2000 the first year of its operation.
Moreover in 2004 the tramway and the suburban railway were put to service attracting
3,284,000 and 600,000 passengers respectively. As far as it concerns the other means of
transport - buses, electric buses, and electric railway - demand didn’t change
significantly.
Table 2.6 Urban transport demand
Mean of transport 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Bus (operated by ETHEL) 384 378 370 379 370
Electric bus 73 84 80 81 80
Electric railways 114 110 109 105 113
Bus (operated by ISAP) 7 6 0 0 0
Metro 70 119 132 149 164
Tramway 3
Suburban Railway 0.6
TOTAL 649 697 691 715 731
Note: excluding trips explicitly performed for the Olympics (approx. 16 mln passengers
Source: Athens Urban Transport Organisation – Annual Report 2005
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport
No inland waterways exist in Greece
2.3.5 Sea ports
Infrastructure
Greece is a peripheral EU country with no common land borders with other Member
States. The morphology of the Greek mainland and the large number of inhabited islands
has led to the development of a network of ports relative wide if compared with the
country’s total population.
15
Greece has a total coast line length of 15,021 km. Along this coastline operate 1,334
ports. These ports serve either short sea shipping passenger and freight traffic (within the
Greek territory or by providing cross border connections) or open sea maritime transport
passenger cruise ships and freight vessels. According to the Hellenic Ministry of
Mercantile Marine, 138 ports are evaluated as major ports, and consist of:
• 96 ports, insular Greece
• 42 ports, mainland
Figure 2.4 Major ports in Greece
The sea ports can play an important role in the development of short-sea shipping within
the EU. Moreover, three trans-European axes end at Greek ports, which are located at the
northern port system (Thessaloniki, Alexandroupolis etc).
One of the issues mentioned with respect to the ports is that the infrastructure hasn’t
always been suitably upgraded in order to meet the requirements of new technology
ships. Also peak capacity problems are reported at summer periods.
16
Port organisation and port efficiency
Recently, for the most important ports 10 independent Port Authorities were founded in
the form of SAs, and the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki were partially privatized. The
corporatisation (and privatisation) of ports is expected to increase efficiency of the ports
in Greece with the involvement of stronger private sector interests. The introduction of
more competition within the ports (private terminal operation is expected to further
contribute to an increase in efficiency.
The available evidence on port efficiency in Greece indicates that further efficiency gains
can be reached (see table 2.7)9.
Table 2.7 Port efficiency indicators (selected European countries)
Port efficiency index (1-7)a
Bulgaria 3.68
Estonia n.a.
Greece 4.28
Lithuania n.a.
Poland 3.34
Portugal 3.81
Romania n.a.
Slovenia n.a.
Spain 4.88
Italy 4.11
Germany 6.38
Belgium 6.17
France 5.39
Finland 6.26
Netherlands 6.64
Port efficiency index: one-to-seven index ranking port efficiency based on surveys performed to representative
firms of each country (1 = low efficiency, 7 i= high efficiency)
Source: X. Clark, D. Dollar, A. Micco (2002), Maritime Transport Costs and Port Efficiency, World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 2781
Demand
Being an island country, passenger transport by sea is important. Passenger transportation
by sea mainly accommodates trips between continental Greece and the islands, between
islands, as well as between Greece and Italy, having to compete only against the air
transport sector. Minor connection exists between Greek islands in the Eastern Aegean
and tourist connections on Turkey’s coast.
9 See also Barros, Athanassiou (2004), Efficiency in European Seaports with DEA: Evidence from Greece and Portugal, in
Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2004, 6, and Wang, Cullinane (2006), The efficiency of European Container terminals and
implications for supply chain management, in: Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2006, 8
Passengers
17
Table 2.8 Embarked-disembarked passengers at the principal ports of Greece
Ports 1994 1998 2001
Average growth % per annum
1994-2001
Iraklion 963 1.048 1.199 3,1%
Patra 1.192 1.532 1.716 5,4%
Piraeus 8.637 9.131 11.043 3,6%
Source: NSSG
During the summer period, transport demand multiplies with regard to the annual average
having as a result the insufficiency of the supply to meet the requirements of the peak
period.
Ports also play an important role in freight transport. Table 2.9 shows the main freight
ports of Greece.
Table 2.9 Loaded-unloaded goods at the principal ports of Greece (1000 tonnes)
Ports 1994 1998 2001
Average growth % per annum
1994-2001
Volos 6.192 3.739 6.865 1,5%
Elefsina 14.309 16.395 18.162 3,5%
Iraklion 2.159 1.547 1.721 -3,2%
Thessaloniki 13.073 11.911 12.692 -0,4%
Piraeus 8.942 12.777 13.598 6,2%
Source: NSSG
2.3.6 Airports
Infrastructure
Greece possesses an extended network of 39 airports. The country’s five major airports
(Athens, Thessaloniki, Heraklion, Rhodes, and Corfu) serve 85% of the total air traffic.
Twenty of the remaining 35 airports also accommodate international charter flights.
Approximately 75% of the tourist trips are performed by air.
The busiest airport is the Athens International Airport (El. Venizelos), which acts as a
connecting node between the airport network of Greece and south-eastern Europe. In
2002, the transport demand of the specific airport reached 4.1 million passengers on
domestic flights and 7.6 million on international flights. Second in size of traffic, is the
airport of Heraklion, which shows high seasonal fluctuations in traffic numbers (4.8
million passengers in 2002), and third, the airport of Thessaloniki, which is expected to
play a continuously increasing role in the air traffic of Balkan countries and north-eastern
Europe (3.2 million passengers in 2002).
Two companies, Olympic Airlines (the national carrier) and Aegean Airlines, which is
private company, provide air transport in Greece. Olympic Airlines, based in Athens
International Airport, has been established in 1957 and operates 40 aircrafts. Aegean
Airlines was recently established in 1999 and operates a fleet of 20 airplanes.
18
Demand
Air traffic, concerning national and international flights, has considerably increased over
the last decade. Specifically during the last five years, a remarkable increase in the total
passenger transport has been noticed, with an annual growth figure of 7%, which is
accounted for by an 11% increase in domestic flights and a 5% increase in international
flights. In 2002 the total passenger traffic on both domestic and international flights
reached 33.4 million passengers. With respect to domestic travel the increased use of
smaller aircraft (average 60 passenger/aircraft) is noticeable while the size of aircraft on
international destinations tends to increase.
Due to the seasonality characteristics of most Greek airports, a major increase in air
traffic is observed (10 - 15%) during the peak months (July - August).
2.3.7 Analysis modal split
The comparison of the modal split in passenger travel demand but also freight demand
reveals the relative weak position of rail in the transport mix, although some
improvement are noticeable for both passenger transport (slight increase from 2004 on
2003 after a longer period of decline) and freight transport. Service improvements and
linking rail infrastructure to ports may have a positive impact in this situation (especially
for freight) in the future the natural morphology of the country poses natural limits to this
mode of transport.
Freight centres and freight villages also seem to have potential, especially serving sea-
road and sea-rail intermodal transport. A new law on the establishment and operation of
freight centres is in force since summer 2005, which until now has led to the
establishment of a new freight centre in the Attica region serving rail/road and sea
transport. Another freight village is operating in northern Greece since 2 years.
Road transport is by far the dominant mode in Greece. It can be expected that car
ownership will further increase with economic development (see also table 2.1) which
will further strengthen the position of road transport in future especially on medium to
longer distance trips. The urban tram & metro system has clearly proven to be
competitive in (congested) urban areas.
Table 2.10 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 2003)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro
Situation 2003
Greece 71.5 25.1 1.8 1.6
EU15 84.1 8.4 6.3 1.2
Percentage change 1995-2002
Greece 7,1% 1,3% 0,0% 9,0%
EU15 1,7% 0,8% 1,4% 1,9%
Source: Eurostat (2005)
19
Table 2.11 Modal split freight transport for inland modes (share in tonkilometers, 2004)
Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline
Situation 2004
Greece 97.2 2.8 - -
EU15 75.7 13.2 6.5 4.5
Percentage change 1995-2004
Greece 5,7% 8,5% - -
EU15 3,3% 1,7% 1,2% 1,1%
Source: Eurostat (2005)
2.4 Current Transport policy
This section summarizes some key issues with respect to the policy of Greece with
respect to the transport sector and puts them in the light of EU policy objectives.
Railway revitalisation
Considerable investment has been and is planned with respect to the railway sector with
the aim to increase the relative modest share of rail transport in the country. A large part
of the activities take place in the programmes that are jointly financed by the Commission
and Greece (OPs). Actions are directed at:
• Improved interconnections with other networks
• Improved quality of the railway service (and rail network)
• Modernization of Hellenic Railways
Air transport facilitation
The main focus in this area is directed at improvement and increased efficiency of the air
transport system.
Building the TENs
This has been one of the focus areas of the Greek policy until this moment. Especially the
construction of the PATHE and Via Egnatia Motorways has received considerable
attention in the past.
Improved road safety
Partially due to the increased efforts of the Greek government in this area accidents rates
have reduced over the past period. Investments related to this policy action are relatively
limited (approx. 1% of total investments). Actions are directed at improved instruction,
training & examination, increased enforcement and increased awareness of drivers.
Developing high-quality urban transport
Substantial funds have been spent on this policy line, with clear success if one judged the
increase of urban transport in the past period. This involves both modernisation of
existing urban transport (fleet renewal, line upgrading), construction of new lines (e.g.
Athens metro) and action to improve interconnectability.
20
Charging for transport
In Greece the policy of having users pay for roads was introduced in 1927 for highways
around the cities as well as between cities. Since then the motorway network has been a
toll system. The toll motorway system in Greece follows the main Patras - Athens -
Thessaloniki axis. The length of the toll network in service is 871 km, compared with
9,119 km of main (national) roads and 29,192 km of regional/local roads. There are 16
toll stations. This is an "open" system based on the distance travelled and vehicle type.
The operator is the Greek National Road Fund (TEO), a government organization.
Collected revenues supplement general State revenues. There is no specific policy with
regard to toll pricing levels. Levels are not commonly adjusted to inflation rates. With
respect to road users a special fuel tax is levied by the State to construct and maintain
highways, but also develop other transport infrastructure.
Rail transport is performed by the Hellenic Railways Organisation (OSE). Subsequently,
the associated market is practically still regulated. OSE is directly accountable to the
MTC.
Inter-island sea transport within Greece has been partly deregulated in terms of general
developments (cabotage). Competition has been developed in most connections with
islands that are identified as attractive tourist destinations. Pricing thought, is still
regulated by the MTC on most lines.
Environmental sustainability of the transport system
Environment protection and enhancement constitutes a major issue for all Greek regions,
but the significance of this priority varies among them. With respect to transport-
generated pollution aspects, most problems are found around large urban centres.
Traffic demand management has been the main source of efforts to confront with this
problem so far, while the promotion of alternative fuels and environment-friendly
vehicles (EFV) has not been developed.
In terms of this effort to confront with air pollution, Greek authorities are trying to
promote railway as a reliable alternative to road transport, both for freight and passengers
–the latest represent a target group in interurban as well as in urban context. This includes
a major modernisation plan that has been initiated by OSE (Hellenic Railways), including
doubling of the track, electrification and signalling, rolling stock modernisation and the
introduction of higher speed services.
Other actions of OSE to the fulfilment of its interoperability-related obligations, as stated
in the White Paper for transport, include a tender for the provision and settlement of
Global Mobile Communication System for Railways (GSM-R).
The Community legislation and guidelines with respect to Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIA) have been encompassed in Greek legislation. The Strategic Impact
Assessment (SEA), which assesses the impacts beyond the individual project, as
expressed in Directive 2001/42 should be incorporated in Member States’ national
legislation by July 21st 2004 the latest. There is no formal and complete incorporation of
EIA and SEA
21
this directive 2001/42 in Greece yet, neither some other sort of established strategic
assessment.
Public- private-partnerships (PPP)
Until recently, there was no particular framework governing the deployment of
construction projects involving Public Private Partnership (PPP).
However, there are three major examples of successful implementation of such projects,
prior to the establishment of a pertaining Law. These involve the construction of Athens’
new International Airport, the Attica motorway (Athens bypass) connecting Athens to the
new airport and the Rion-Antirrion Bridge. These projects are fully operational today.
The construction of infrastructure with PPP is now a widely acceptable policy, and most
of the new major road axes to be constructed are scheduled to use this scheme
2.5 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system
In conclusion the following SWOT analysis can be prepared for the transport sector in
Greece.
Strengths Weaknesses
• Experience, know-how for the development of
interurban transportation networks;
• Extensive network of ports and airports;
• Major motorway axes (PATHE & Via Egnatia)
largely completed or to be completed on short term;
• Relatively extensive regional/ provincial road
network;
• Relatively high percentage of the transportation
fleet is already modernized;
• Improved border connections (rail & road)
• Efficient system of intermodal connection between
Greece –EU (road/sea) through Italy
• Strong development public transport system in
Athens
• Increasing experience with PPP infrastructure
projects
• (very) High system dependency on road transport
(97%);
• Limited number of motorways as percentage of
total road network;
• Insufficient access to cargo distribution centres
(ports, industrial areas), insufficient inter-
connection of means and networks;
• Insufficiency of infrastructures and facilities for
combined /intermodal transportation;
• Difficult morphology to establish extensive rail
network;
• Limited modernisation on existing rail network;
• High percentage of road traffic accidents
• Insufficient port infrastructure / facilities, in
combination with lack of rational operation of sea
transport
• Insufficient service provided in peripheral areas
• Partial release of transport in relation to EU
policies, state controlled pricing of fares
• Inefficient operation of many providers of
transport services
• Under-estimation of cost regarding the usage of
road infrastructure (external cost, deterioration,
new investments)
• Design and politics from many involved ministries
(fragmented policy formation process)
22
• Delays in the delivery times of projects and the
fulfilment of investment programs
• Lack of customer-oriented strategy
• Lack of credibility by the citizens in relation to the
provided services
Opportunities Threats
• Stability of the political and financial environment
• Continuity in Community Funding
• EU policy that promotes:
o The completion of the Trans-European networks
o The development of combined transportation
o The development of environmental friendly means
of transport
o Transportation safety
• Technological development that allows for new
opportunities regarding the development of
services and the organization of the authorities
• The perspective of implementing PPP projects
• Normalization of the political and financial situation
in South-eastern Europe combined with the new
role of Greece as formed by the changes in
composition of the EU (affiliation of Romania and
Bulgaria in EU, in 2007)
• Continuing improvement of the connection with the
adjacent areas
• Congestion of the road network that causes
problems in urban road transportation (chances for
public transport)
• Establishment of a Metropolitan Urban
Transportation Authority for Athens and
Thessaloniki providing integrated operation and
policy as far as the urban transportation is
concerned.
• Insufficiency of investment funds;
• Exaggerated development of road infrastructure;
• Lack of synergies among the stakeholders;
• Insufficient institutional framework;
• Lack of political (and implementation)
commitment for rationalisation, deregulation and
liberalisation of the transport sector;
• Difficulties in the implementation of reorganization
programmes regarding the operation of the
implementation authorities;
• Improvement of the living standard level that
favours the use of private passenger cars;
• Continuing delays in the completion of investment
programmes and fund absorption
• Competition between private cars and public
transport (especially in view of increasing
welfare)
23
3 Accessibility analysis
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment on a regional level.
It clearly complements chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is
described where potential deficiencies are addressed. The analysis on the current situation
together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion perspective forms a basis
for identifying possible investment priorities.
In this chapter, first a description of the needs assessment methodology is presented.
Especially the determination of the “composite accessibility problem indicator” which
forms a central role in the approach is explained. The higher the value of the index, the
higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled as the “red flag”
analysis.
This composite accessibility problem indicator is a combined measure, which addresses
transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate
explanation is provided in Annex C). As such the accessibility analysis is much more
linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of
the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis
identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation
(2006).
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Indicator
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess
the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national
transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and
rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European
perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be
addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals
competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is
directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in
promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives.
To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion
policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required.
Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of
both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the
24
transport system. As a result they always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the
core to the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions
are central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all
regions. Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport
provision.
This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in
the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator
would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of
the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the
competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to
invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest
congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing
gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter
to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union.
To avoid this dilemma, a new composite accessibility indicator was defined which
distinguishes between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator
assumes that people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of
accessibility (measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can
demand to be able to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow
flies") as the people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the
utilitarian principle of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of
densely populated regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only
few inhabitants. And finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions
with severe deficits in accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic
effects by transport investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility.
These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which
postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely
efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly
accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring
the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational trade-
off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion. Annex C
gives a more elaborate description of the Composite Accessibility Problem Indicator.
3.3 Transport needs
The composite Accessibility Problem Index takes account of the transport system quality
(travel speed), population density and regional disparity. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 depict the
population density and the regional distribution of income between the different regions
in Greece. In terms of population density, the capital city region of Athens (3.2 million
population) clearly stands out, whereas the next urban centres Thessaloniki, Patras,
Peristerion, Iraklion and Larissa are parts of larger regions (Figure 3.1). The capital city
region is also the economic centre of the country (Figure 3.2). It is apparent that
compared to the neighbouring Balkan countries Greece is relatively affluent.
The new accessibility
indicator recognizes
transport network
quality, population
density and regional
disparity
25
Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm), 2006
Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005), 2006
26
The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that should be addressed
by European transport policy are presented in Figures 3.3 to 3.6. These figures show the
spatial distribution of the Accessibility Problem Index in Greece first for road and then
for rail from a national and a European perspective for the current situation (2006). The
colour scale of the maps resembles that of a traffic light: green shades indicate average
interregional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow values
indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades indicate
speeds significantly lower than the national or European average.
Overall accessibility
If accessibility in Greece is compared with the European average (Figures 3.4 and 3.6), it
becomes apparent that road accessibility is only slightly below the European average,
whereas rail accessibility in Greece is significantly below the European average as
indicated by the orange and red shades of the map.
Regional imbalances
Figure 3.3 shows the spatial distribution of road accessibility in Greece seen from a
national perspective. There is an obvious distinction between the mainland parts of the
country and the island, for which ferry times reduce average travel speeds. This also
reduces the national average with the effect that most mainland regions in Greece have
above-average interregional travel speeds. However, compared with the European
average, almost all regions in Greece have below-average interregional road travel speeds
(Figure 3.4). Interregional road travel speeds above the European average are found only
in the Egnatia corridor in the north-west and on the Peloponnese.
The spatial pattern of accessibility problems for rail shows a quite different pattern
(Figure 3.5). Again, and not surprisingly, the islands score worst in terms of rail
accessibility; in fact none of the islands has a rail line. However, on the mainland there
exist great disparities in rail accessibility between the Thessaloniki region and the central
parts of the country on the one hand and the regions in the north-west and on the
Peloponnese, which are served very poorly or not at all by rail. From a European
perspective (Figure 3.6), all regions in Greece have rail accessibility below the European
average, with the most serious rail accessibility problems in the north-west and on the
Peloponnese.
27
Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), 2006
Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), 2006
28
Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), 2006
Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), 2006
29
Part B: Past transport investment priorities
30
4 Previous support programmes
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure
No comprehensive registration of government funding for transport investment takes
place. An overview (see figure 4.1) can be presented for national funding of projects that
are also funded by the EU as these are monitored by the management information system
maintained by the Greek Ministry of Economic Affairs. Prior to 2001, the investments in
air transport, maritime and public transport also include projects that were funded by the
national budget alone.
Table 4.1 National funding (budget allocation) by mode of transport, 1994-2004 (mln €), in EU co-funded projects (CF +
ERDF)
Road Rail Maritime Air
Urban
transport
1994-1999 5271 5181 295 30 0
2000-2004 14853 6070 529 327 1257
1994-2004 20124 11252 824 357 1257
Share
1994-1999 49% 48% 3% 0% 0%
2000-2004 64% 26% 2% 1% 5%
1994-2004 60% 33% 2% 1% 4%
Source: Greek Ministry of Economic Affairs
What can be concluded from these figures is the increased focus on road development in
the second period, whereas the share between national public rail and road funding was
practically equal in the first programming period10
. To a certain extent this is
compensated by an increased attention to urban transport projects in the second period.
4.2 EU funding
Also in the destination of EU funding (see table 4.2) there appears to be a stronger focus
on road transport, although on the total period 1993-2004 this is to some extent
compensated by funding for the extension of Athens metro (in 2000-2004). If this latter
project (total allocation 265 m€) is taken into account the increasing attention for rail
10 These observations are not conclusive as other sources on actual expenditure allocations viz. Oscar Faber, Thematic
Evaluation of the impact of Structural Funds on Transport Infrastructure, 2001) indicate that the focus of national funding in
this first period was also on road projects, with metro projects on second place.
31
based transport from 1999 onwards becomes clearly noticeable. The basis for this shift
can be found in the Strategic Reference Frameworks for transport projects funded under
ERDF and Cohesion Funds during 2000-2006 (covering two Operational Programmes
"Roads, Ports and Urban Development" and "Railways, Airports and urban Transport")
with a focus on: Completion of TEN priority road axes; Completing and modernising the
PATHEP rail route; Modernising port infrastructure; Modernising Air Traffic Control.
Table 4.2 EU funding Cohesion Fund (total commitments11) by mode of transport, 1993-2004 (mln €)
Road Rail Maritime Air
Other/urban
transport
1993-1999 680 484 78 260 42
2000-2004 745 504 23 0 265
1993-2004 1425 988 101 260 307
Share
1993-1999 44% 31% 5% 17% 3%
2000-2004 48% 33% 1% 0% 17%
1993-2004 46% 32% 3% 8% 10%
Source: ECORYS, based on Cohesion Funds Annual reports
The available information on spending on transport from EDRF seems to indicate a
different pattern, with a somewhat stronger allocation towards rail projects in the first
programming period. According to the Oscar Faber study (2001) of the total structural
fund allocations of 735 m€ on transport in the first programming period, some 43% is
spent on rail projects. Information on the second period (2000-2006) based on the last
accepted programming documents, indicates a much stronger focus on roads (especially
motorways) which receives 61% of all ERDF funding on transport, followed by rail
(25%).
Related OPs
The current EU funded actions in the transport sector are programmed in 2 major OPs:
OP Road Axes, Ports & Urban Development (RAPUD) is mainly aimed at the
completion of major road axes and basic infrastructure projects in the urban areas of
Athens and Thessaloniki, while OP Railways, Airports & Public Transport (RAPT)
includes interventions across five major sub-sectors, namely railways, urban transport,
airports, freight centres and road safety.
Besides the projects of the two programmes, other actions co-financed by Cohesion Fund
(or CSF projects co-funded by CF) and other funds also contribute to the achievement of
the abovementioned objectives.
The strategic objectives of the Operational Programme RAPUD mainly concern a
comprehensive improvement in the basic road and sea transport infrastructure over the
whole country:
11 Data should be treated as indication only as decisions in later years may alter to earlier commitments. 1993-1999 information
is based on 1999 Annual report Cohesion Fund. 200-2004 is based on total commitments resulting from the respective year
(except for 2000 for which only partial information in this respect is available in the country report).
32
• Integration of the Greek sections of TEN-T networks
• Completion of major networks that make the country’s backbone
• Promotion of international and transit trade
• Promotion of combined transport, by means of ports upgrade and connections
establishment between ports and airports
• Improvement of road safety throughout the country
• Improvement of urban development and quality of life in the country’s major cities
The main objectives of the Operational Programme RAPT may be summarised as
follows:
• Extension and quality enhancement of transport services provided in Greece
• Upgrade of international connections to serve transport demand within and around
the country
• Upgrade of domestic networks, aiming at the promotion of regional development and
social cohesion
• Improvement of safety conditions in transport
• Reduction of adverse environmental impact and achievement of energy savings
• Emergence of the large metropolitan areas’ identity, along with improvement of
urban/suburban public transport modes, both in qualitative and quantitative terms
• Provision of networks for the promotion of intermodal and interoperable transport.
4.3 Other sources of financing
This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure.
EIB
An overview of total EIB lending to Greece is presented in table 4.3. It becomes clear
that apart from direct national budget allocations this source of finance has been
substantial. Over the period 1991-2005 loans of in total 7.5 bn€ have been concluded with
Greece. Also here the clear focus on road development is noticeable, followed by loans
for the development of the new Spata airport of Athens and urban transport (mainly the
Athens metro).
Table 4.3 EIB financing (loans) by mode of transport, 1991-2005 (mln €)
Road Rail Maritime Air
Urban
transport
1991-1999 1240 114 42 646 635
2000-2005 3551 0 35 360 840
1991-2005 4791 114 77 1006 1475
Share
1991-1999 46% 4% 2% 24% 24%
2000-2005 74% 0% 1% 8% 18%
1991-2005 64% 2% 1% 13% 20%
Source: ECORYS, based on EIB loan database
33
PPP financing
EIB has also supplied loans to the three most importants PPP projects which have been
established untill date. These are:
• Spata Airport, Athens,
• The Rion-Antirion bridge, and
• The Essi motorway (northern ring road Athens, connecting the city centre with
the airport).
These projects have set an example to an increasing use of PPP in recent road schemes.
4.4 Conclusions
Transport investments in Greece in the past 15 years have been focused on road
construction. Also the new airport in Athens and the Athens metro absorbed large
amounts of funding. Investment in rail transport have been relatively modest and were
mostly financed from EU support, especially in the second programming period.
34
Part C: Future transport investment priorities
35
5 National Transport Strategy
5.1 Introduction
This is the first section of Part C which aims to determine transport investment priorities
at a strategic level. This chapter deals with the current national transport policy (see also
2.4) and resulting investment priorities.
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning
Strategic planning for transport in Greece is closely linked to the strategic planning which
takes place within the framework of EU mechanisms and funding support to cohesion in
Greece. Greece does not have a formal separate transport policy document such as a
country “white paper”. Most important documents are the operational programmes.
The actions in the transport sector in the current programming period are programmed in
two major OPs (see chapter 4):
• OP Road Axes, Ports & Urban Development (RAPUD)
• OP Railways, Airports & Public Transport (RAPT)
The general objectives of the national transport strategy of Greece are:
• Reduction of social/regional disparities
• Stimulation of economic growth
• Improvement of the quality of life (especially in the main urban areas).
More specific transport related objectives are:
• Securing accessibility throughout the country
• Promotion of transit and facilitating cross-border trade
• Improved road safety
• Promotion of modal shift, a/o by:
o Improvements in urban transport
o Modernisation of railways
5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013
The strategic planning for the next programming period in Greece is at present under
preparation. Drafting was initiated in June 2004 under the responsibility of the Ministry
of Economy and Finance (MNEC). This Ministry co-operates with the Ministries of
Transport, Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, Maritime and the Civil
36
Aviation Authority. It is expected that this will lead to a National Strategic Development
Plan in 2006. This will then be subject to negotiation with the Commission. In parallel
OPs will be prepared which are planned to be submitted to the Commission in the first
half of 2006.
Although no specific OPs have been established at the time of writing this report it is
expected that, regarding the forthcoming 4th program period, the Greek state aims to
continue the transport network upgrading, mainly on the basis of the:
• completing all transport projects financed during the 3rd
program period 2000 - 2006
but not expected to finish till 2008
• upgrading the declared Trans European Network for year 2010.
37
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments
(2007-2013)
6.1 Introduction
This chapter intends to identify main factors that influence the setting of transport
investment priorities for the next programming period.
Community Strategic Guidelines
The context for identifying strategic investment priorities is set by the Community
Strategic guidelines. In accordance with the draft Council Regulation (article 23), the
Council establishes Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect
to the priorities of the Community with a view to promote balanced, harmonious and
sustainable development”12
.
These Strategic Guidelines form the basis for identifying investment priorities, which are
then be elaborated in National Strategic Reference Frameworks at the Member State
level, which are subsequently further detailed in Operational Programmes (OPs) for
thematic areas. A Commission proposal on these Strategic Guidelines was published in
July 200513
. In parallel, Member States have already started preparations for their
National Strategic Reference Frameworks and OPs.
Additional factors influencing investment priorities
As indicated the Strategic Guidelines form the context in which investment priorities for
Community financing should be identified. In addition to these strategic guidelines a
number of other factors shape the eventual establishment of transport investment
priorities. These other factors include:
• Cost-effectiveness of projects;
• Availability of other sources of funding;
• Appropriateness of transport policy
• Administrative capacity to adequately absorb and manage funds.
In the next section the Strategic Guidelines and the other factors are elaborated in more
detail leading to a proposed prioritisation of areas for funding from Cohesion and
Structural Funds.
12 COM(2004)492 13 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.
38
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines
The (draft) Community Strategic Guidelines set the scene for any future transport
investment financed as part of the Commission’s cohesion policy. According to the
communication of the Commission (COM(2005)299) the guidelines with respect to the
expansion and improvement of transport infrastructures for the period 2007-2013
determine clear guidelines for action (see text box 6.1)
Box 6.1 Community Strategic Guidelines: Guidelines for action
The Community Strategic Guidelines distinguish the following guidelines for action:
• Member States should give priority to the 30 projects of European interest, located in Member States and regions eligible under the Convergence objective14. Other TEN projects should be supported where this is a strong case in terms of their contribution to growth and competitiveness. Within this group of projects, cross-border links and those overseen by the specially designated European co-ordinators in the Member States merit special attention. Member States should make use of the co-ordinators as a means of shortening the time that elapses between designation of the planning of the network and the physical construction
• Complementary investment in secondary connections will also be important in the context of an integrated regional transport and communications strategy covering urban and rural areas, in order to ensure that the regions benefit from the opportunities created by the major networks.
• Support for rail infrastructure should seek to ensure greater access. Track fees should facilitate access for independent operators. They should also enhance the creation of an EU-wide interoperable network. Compliance and applications of the interoperability and the fitting of ERTMS on board and on track should be part of all projects financed.
• Promoting environmentally sustainable transport networks. This includes public transport facilities (including park-and-ride infrastructures), mobility plans, ring roads, increasing safety at road junctions, soft traffic (cycle lanes, pedestrian tracks). It also includes actions providing for accessibility to common public transport services for certain target groups (the elderly, disabled persons) and providing distribution networks for alternative vehicle fuels.
• In order to guarantee the optimum efficiency of transport infrastructures for promoting regional development, attention should be paid to improving the connectivity of landlocked territories to the Trans-European network (TEN-T) (…). In this respect, the development of secondary links, with a focus on inter-modality and sustainable transport, should be promoted. In particular, harbours and airports should be connected to their hinterland.
• More attention should be paid to developing the “motorways of the sea” and to short-sea shipping as a viable alternative to long-distance road and rail transport.
In addition the Guidelines give specific instructions with respect to the territorial
dimension of Cohesion policy in stressing that Member States should pay particular
attention to prevent uneven regional development and improve territorial integration and
cooperation between and within regions.
14 Decision n°. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April 2004.
39
6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments
As indicated in the introduction a number of other factors determine the eventual
prioritisation of transport investment priorities under the Commission’s cohesion policy
instruments. These will be subsequently elaborated.
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness or value for money stands at the core of any sound investment
programme. It is also fully embedded in the procedures and structure of the cohesion
policy of the Commission in which cost-benefit assessments of proposed projects are
standard procedure. Also EIB applies CBA as standard assessment methodology before
granting new loans.
The cost-effectiveness criterion is especially important if budget resources are limited. In
this case cost-benefit analyses can be used to phase foreseen transport investment in time
or to seek alternatives with a similar functionality that offer a higher value for money.
Availability of other sources of financing
A can be observed from the previous investment programmes other sources of finance
should not be overlooked with respect to future transport investments Apart from public
financing by the country itself important potential sources are:
The Commission recently reached an agreement with the EP on future TEN-T financing.
Total budget available is 7 bn€ for the coming programming period. Financing can be up
to 20%. It should be noted however that this financing is only a fraction of total cohesion
financing (e.g. Cohesion Fund financing for transport approximates 30 bn€), while TEN-
T funds are valid for all EU members. It is expected that TEN-T funds will be focused on
cross-border TEN-T projects.
EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. Past
involvement of EIB in Greece in the period 1991-2005 totalled 7.5 bn€ (in loans). Which
could hamper future involvement of EIB in Greece are the level of high public debt
(109% of GDP in 2004) and the high public deficit (-6.6% of GDP in 2004).
PPPs are explicitly mentioned in the Community Strategic Guidelines as a possible
appropriate method of financing investment when there is significant scope for involving
the private sector. Apart from the financial leverage positive impacts are expected on
implementation and management of projects.
Experience with private involvement in transport infrastructure in the form of PPPs has
been limited until now. However, following the successful implementation of three major
PPP projects (Athens Airport, the Rion-Antirrion Bridge in Patras and the Athens
Bypass)15
, PPP has become widely acceptable in the construction of newly planned road
axes.
15 All three projects included EIB involvement through loans
TEN-T budget
EIB
PPPs
40
The current business climate in Greece is expected to be sufficiently open not to hamper
PPPs.
In summary, other financing sources are expected to relevant for the following areas:
Table 6.1 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Source Destination
TEN-T TEN projects, especially cross border sections
EIB Motorways and to a lesser extent railways
PPP & private capital Income generating transport investments: ports,
airports, logistic centres, toll roads (and bridges)
Appropriateness of the transport policy
In principle Greek transport policy appears to correspond with the main directions of the
EU transport policy.
With respect to pricing the motorway network has a long tradition of tolling. Also other
mechanisms are in place to charge road user for the development and maintenance of the
transport system. Regulation still exists in rail transport and inter-island sea transport
although certain deregulation has taken place with respect to the latter sub-sector. An
important development is the development of competition on most island connections.
Competition in rail transport appears to be absent. During the last years some progress
was made in favour of the deregulation in the transport sector. Air transports operate in an
open environment, rail are under reform due to the new liberalized environment, while
short-sea shipping (cabotage) is not yet fully deregulated. Pricing policy, PSO and crew
composition are still subjects of some regulations that phase out gradually.
Although considerable improvements have been reached, continued attention for road
safety, which is still below the EU average, is required.
Railway modernisation and linking the railway network to other parts of the transport
system remains an important focus in the light of promoting more environmentally
friendly transport.
Increased attention to the role of Strategic Environmental Assessments is required for the
next programming period.
Administrative capacity
The Management Authority (MA) of OP RAPUD was formed in early 2001 and is
directly accountable to the General Secretary for Public Works (GSPW) of the Ministry
of environment, Physical Planning & Public Works (MEPPPW). The MA consists of 4
units. The units have been assigned distinct roles and are supervised by the Head of the
Authority. At the moment, the MA employs 27 persons of higher education, 2 persons of
technological education and 5 high school graduates.
41
A variety of IAs is involved in carrying out the projects listed in the Programme’s
Measures. The General Secretariat for Public Works, responding to identified
requirements for the modernisation of IAs, has formed new entities for each group of
projects. There are three types of IAs involved in OP RAPUD: S.A. (state-controlled)
companies, Special Authorities for Public Works and MEPPPW Directorates. The main
beneficiaries of all projects included in the OP’s Measures is the Ministry of
Environment, Physical Planning & Public Works and the Ministry of Merchant Marine.
The MA of OP RAPT was formed in early 2001 and is directly accountable to the
General Secretary of the Ministry of Transport & Communications (MTC). Its structure is
precisely similar to that of OP RAPUD MA. At the moment, the MA employs 21 persons
of higher education. Overall, the MA employs 26 persons, of which 14 have come from
the public sector and 12 were recruited from MOU S.A.
The affiliated (subsidiary) company of OSE, ERGOSE represents the IA for railway
projects. ERGOSE human resources mainly consist of high-expertise scientific personnel.
The main beneficiary of the OP is OSE (Hellenic Railways Organisation), and the
Ministry of Transports and Communications. Although the establishment of a separate
project organisation is positively assessed, the experience with EU co-financed railway
projects in the past has indicated that the institutional/management capacity of the
railways has been poor, until this moment. Although recent restructuring of the railway
sector (into a railway infrastructure manager and a operating company) may forebode a
positive change in this respect for the next programming period, this still has to be
realised.
Paying Authority (PA) was formed in the end of 2000. The PA is common for CSF, CF
and other EU co-funding initiatives. It is directly accountable to the General Secretary for
Investment and Development of the MNEC. The PA consists of three Units, namely Unit
A for financing flows, Unit B for control issues and Unit C for technical/administrative
support.
In general it is assessed that the manning and quality of staff of MA and PA is adequate
and sufficiently experienced in transport issues and EU-related procedures.
The projects are implemented by the final beneficiaries among which are ERGOSE, a
subsidiary of the Greek Railways Organisation, EGNATIA ODOS and EYDE PATHE.
These are specific organisations set up to manage EU co-funded projects. This has greatly
improved the management of projects.
A number of weaknesses can be identified in the administrative capacity of Greece16
.
Main issues are:
• Deficiencies in project preparation leading to significantly delayed conduction of
studies, over-optimistic planning, costly and insufficient expropriations, as well
as a general state of late-start projects due to immature conditions (preliminary
delays often exceed 4 years), have constituted common problems.
16 See also ECORYS, Ex-post evaluation Cohesion Fund, and
Global View/Speed, Mid Term Evaluation of OP RAPT of CSF (2000-2006).
Assessment
42
• Deficiencies in the tendering process (time consuming tender and contract award
procedures, lack of standard tender documents, technical specifications and prices
analysis);
• Low standard of monitoring & control from responsible authorities. Although this
latter shows some improvement as a result of stricter standards that are applied as
a result of bilateral agreements between national and Community authorities.
Room for improved information systems.
• Overlapping responsibilities. The responsible authorities for transports in Greece
are three ministries (MERPPW, MMM, MTT) with parallel, complementary and
sometimes overlapping responsibilities. So, the development of a Strategic
Transport Plan, involves four Ministries (plus MNEC) with several Bureaus and
Secretariats.
• Capacity of final beneficiaries to deal with the strict and demanding managing
rules.
Especially in the first programming period this has led to frequent problems and low
absorption rates. Essential improvements have been applied institutionally and in the
legislative environment, although it should be noted that this process is still ongoing.
Based on the available information a tentative risk assessment has been prepared with
respect to the administrative capacity in Greece. This assessment has been summarized in
table 6.2. Moderate to high levels indicate that additional attention should be paid to this
aspect in the implementation of the programme.
Table 6.2 Risk assessment administrative capacity
Sector Risk level Explanation
Overall Moderate Project preparation, tendering & contracting, and monitoring
Roads Low Motorways low risk due to extensive experience PATHE & EGNATIA.
Rail Moderate/high ERGOSE: increased efficiency in contract management and tendering
should be aimed at. Risks in contract management and commitment in
OSE.
Ports Moderate Strongly depending on experience of port under consideration. Ports
with ltd experience in large scale projects are assessed as having a
high risk
Airports Moderate/low Previous airport projects have a positive track record regarding the
larger airports of Athens and Thessaloniki.
Urban transport moderate/low Successful implementation of different projects in past period. Risk
dependent on specific scope of project and experience of final
beneficiary.
43
7 Impact Assessment of scenarios
7.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses different scenarios with respect to their impacts on three different
(EU) policy objectives:
• Economic competitiveness
• Territorial cohesion
• Environmental sustainability
In addition the impacts are assessed on the Accessibility Problem Index (see Chapter 3).
First the methodological approach is described, including the SASI model that has been
used to assess the impacts. Next the scenarios are described, followed by a presentation of
the impacts.
7.2 Methodology
The SASI model
The impacts are assessed with the support of the SASI model. The SASI model is a
recursive-dynamic simulation model of socio-economic development of 1330 regions in
Europe. The model was developed to assess socio-economic and spatial impacts of
transport infrastructure investment and transport system improvements. Is has been
applied and validated in several large EU projects including the IASON and ESPON
projects.
The SASI model differs from other forecasting models of regional development by
modelling not only production (the demand side of labour markets) but also population
(the supply side of labour markets). Regional production by industry is forecast by
regional production functions containing production factors capital, labour, regional
endowment and accessibility. Regional population is forecast by a demographic model
including fertility, mortality and migration.
The SASI model is specifically relevant for projects that serve a function on a European
level (e.g. the TEN projects). Such projects cannot be adequately evaluated using
traditional cost-benefit analysis on a national scale, since they are less able to capture the
international effect and the indirect effects occurring in non-transport sectors17
.
17 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended
European Union.
44
Figure 7.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
The reference network
To assess the impacts of new transport investments a reference scenario has been
prepared. This mainly implies an adjustment of the transport network in the SASI
model18
. The dynamic network database of SASI is based on highly detailed pan-
European transport networks with respect to:
• Roads (including short-sea shipping)
• Rail (including ferries)
• Air (including regional airports).
Network calculations are based on travel times or generalised costs including border
waiting times and (political, economic cultural and language) barriers.
The reference network has been updated based on the most recent information from the
countries on implementation schedules and alignment with respect to TEN and national
transport projects (also information on toll is included). The reference network includes
all projects that are already under construction and will be operational in at latest 2007.
In addition the reference scenario assumes the further development of the European
integration with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007.
Further European integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers
between countries.
18 Which relies on the trans-European transport network database developed by IRPUD (2003) and now maintained and
further developed by RRG (2005)
45
7.3 Scenarios
Impacts have been assessed for different scenarios to be able to compare the outcomes
and draw conclusions on the different impacts. Although the study aims to identify
strategic areas for investment priorities these areas need to be “translated” into projects to
enable the SASI model to assess impacts. As a result assumptions have been made on
projects within the scenarios. These projects have not been listed separately as this would
distract the discussion from strategic priorities to projects. Where possible, these projects
are based on existing planned projects and related cost estimates19
. Where no existing
data existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure
needs assessments20
. In all scenarios, after 2016 no further transport projects are
implemented. However, it is assumed that European integration proceeds as in the
Reference Scenario.
In addition to the Reference scenario, two major scenarios have been distinguished:
• The Maximum Scenario, which comprises a listing of possible projects21
which
have been identified in the respective countries;
• The Balanced Scenario, which applies a budget restriction (with in parallel an
assessment of additional financing opportunities). Projects are prioritised on the
basis of their benefit-cost ratio and their contribution to specific objectives and
needs (sustainability, regional disparity, and contribution to accessibility22
).
On the basis of the maximum scenario, two sub-sets are determined: the Maximum Road
Scenario and the Maximum Rail Scenario which illustrates the differential impact of rail
versus road projects.
The Maximum Scenario
The Maximum Scenario is based on an extensive listing of possible investment projects
that have been identified by the national project partners in the project. Where relevant
these projects lists have been extended with projects that have been identified on the basis
of existing network analyses and studies23
, projects identified on the basis of interviews
that have been carried out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified
on the basis of the needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the “red flag”
analysis).
This results in a scenario of all TEN priority projects and additional national projects that
are planned to be constructed (or start with construction) in the period 2007-2013 and
which are operational by 2016. An important notion with respect to the maximum
scenario is that no budget restriction is applied.
19 This can be national studies or information, information on TEN priority projects 2005 (EU 2005), or recent studies on the
Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006). 20 E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC 21 The impact assessment in SASI has only been done on a selected set of road and rail projects. This is done because these
sub-sectors in general will receive the majority of funding and an assessment of their impacts can be done without having
to go into too much project detail. It is assessed that this approach gives sufficient feedback on the potential impacts. 22 Are projects solving “missing links” in the network? 23 For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006).
46
Within the Maximum Scenario two specific sub-sector scenarios are distinguished:
• The Maximum Road Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed road
projects including cross-border transport corridors.
• The Maximum Rail Scenario assumes the implementation of all proposed rail
projects including cross-border transport corridors.
The Balanced Scenario
The Balanced Scenario starts from the Maximum Scenario. First, an assessment is made
of the available EU funding in comparison to the total budget requirements of the
projects. If a budget restriction applies projects are selected and prioritised24
on the basis
of a number of criteria:
• Cost -benefit ratio. Are projects in this field expected to deliver value for money
(socio-economic rate of return25
)?
• Accessibility. Are they contributing to a clear improvement in accessibility both
on a European and national scale (missing links in networks, main transport
corridors, secondary connections to backbone network)?
• Sustainability. Do interventions facilitate modal shift to more environmentally
friendly transport modes;
• Territorial cohesion. Is there a contribution to improving the accessibility of
more backward regions;
• Safety. Do measures contribute to improved transport safety.
The assessment in this respect draws strongly on the finding in Part A of the report
(SWOT-analysis of the transport system and “red flag” analysis).
Finally, an assessment is made to which extent other financing sources could play a role.
In this respect especially the potential of EIB involvement and PPP is included (see also
Chapter 6):
• Other sources of finance. Are projects able or likely to attract other sources of
finance? In those cases application for EU financing might not be necessary.
In addition, the possible impact of limitations in the administrative capacity and changes
in the pricing policy (if large distortions exist in this respect) are taken into account.
Table 7.1 gives an overview of the criteria that have been applied for the sub-sectors road
and rail.
24 In the calculations in certain countries this leads to the elaboration of an interim scenario, which is called the Restricted
scenario (strict application of the budget restriction, i.e. no other sources of finance). 25 Based on TEN-STAC
47
Table 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment
Sub sector
Co
st-
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces
of fin
an
ce
Railway:
- Modernisation rail Patras-Athens corridor
- Modernisation rail axis 22 (Thitorea-
Domokos)
- Rail extension to (heart of) Alexandroupoli
port
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
Road:
- construction of missing links PATHE
- Connections of VIA Egnatia to neighbouring
countries
- Complete missing link on Crete E-W
motorway
- Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia-
Lamia/Larissa-Volos)
- Via Ionia (Ioannina-Antirio-Rio-Patra-Pirgos-
Kalamata)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
-
0
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
Railways
In the railway sector modernisation of the existing railway network is expected to yield
the highest benefits for the country as this will directly increase the attractivity of the
mode. This includes both the modernisation of the railway network itself (e.g.
electrification, rolling stock), but also the institutional organisation and deregulation of
the railway sector (including the deregulation in rail freight transport).
New rail construction in Greece should be treated with care as the morphology of the
country leads to (very) high costs and intrinsic low speeds of rail transport. The main
focus of new rail development should be placed at connecting the existing rail network to
the main ports (including the construction of terminals), with the view to increase to
possibilities for multimodal transport in Greece.
Roads
Although the road sector has received much attention in past investment programmes
motorway density in Greece still remains relatively low in a European perspective26
.
Given the high costs of building roads in mountainous terrain it is advised to focus on the
26 In relation to population density and GDP per region as measured by the Accessibility Problem Index (see chapter 3), the
position of Greece is closer to the European average, which can be mainly contributed to the fact that the large population
centres are relatively well connected.
48
completion of a backbone network which serves as an arterial network in the country and
links the country to neighbouring countries.
Within this concept the construction of missing links in the PATHE and Egnatia
motorways should receive clear attention, including the construction of connections to
neighbouring countries. Also the upgrading to motorway standard of the Via Ionia and
the Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia-Lamia/Larissa-Volos) should be considered in
this respect. Further road development should be directed at connecting regions to the
backbone trunk network through the secondary road network. Specific attention should be
paid in this respect to the accessibility of large urban centres (Thessaloniki and Athens)
and areas which house main economic functions that require transport accessibility (e.g.
ports, multimodal logistics centres and freight villages) and more peripheral regions.
Table 7.2 gives on overview of the assessment which areas for the road and rail projects
can be (potentially) financed by other sources.
Table 7.2 Potential financing sources and expected destination of funding
Sub sector CF/ERDF EIB PPP
Railway:
- Modernisation rail Patras-Athens corridor
- Modernisation rail axis 22 (Thitorea-Domokos)
- Rail extension to (heart of) Alexandroupoli
port
√
√
√
√
√
Road:
- construction of missing links PATHE
- Connections of VIA Egnatia to neighbouring
countries
- Complete missing link on Crete E-W
motorway
- Motorway of Central Greece (Panagia-
Lamia/Larissa-Volos)
- Via Ionia (Ioannina-Antirio-Rio-Patra-Pirgos-
Kalamata)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Location of projects
Figures 7.2 and 7.3 show the location of the expected projects under the Maximum (Road
and Rail) and Balanced Scenarios that have been included in the impact analysis. Within
the Road sector there is no distinction between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios.
49
Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios
TEN priority road projects - Motorway Athens - Thessaloniki - Dual carriageway Thessaloniki - Kulata - Motorway Patras - Athens - Dual carriageway northern Crete National road projects - Motorway Ktismata - Ioannina - Motorway Krystallopigi - Siatista - Dual carriageway Miki - Kozani - Dual carriageway Exochi - Drama - Dual carriageway Makaza -Komotini - Motorway Panagia - Lamia/Larissa-Volos - Motorway Ioannina - Antirio - Rio - Patras - Pirgos - Kalamata - Road Echinos - Bulgaria
50
Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios
TEN priority rail projects - Igoumenitsa - Kalambaka - Kozani - Antirrio - Ioannina - Platiyiali - Rio - Patras - Kalamata - Tithorea-Lianokladi - Domokos National rail projects - Patras - Kiato
51
7.4 Impact assessment
The impacts of the balanced transport scenario are measured as differences between the
Balanced Scenario and Reference Scenario. These impacts are evaluated with respect to
the strategic objectives:
• Economic competitiveness
• Territorial cohesion, and
• Environmental sustainability
The following objectives have been identified to describe the impact on the different
policy objectives:
Table 7.3 Strategic objectives and related indicators
Objective Indicator Level
Average speed of interregional road trips (kph)
National, regional average
Average speed of interregional rail trips (kph)
National, regional average
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro) National, regional average
Primacy rate population (%) National
Primacy rate GDP (%) National
Gini coefficient27 of accessibility (0-100)
National
Territorial cohesion
Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100)
National
Environmental sustainability Share of interregional rail trips (%) National, regional average
It should be realised that these spatial impacts are long term effects, as:
• Location decision of firms result in changes in economic activity and
employment only after some time;
• Secondary effects of economic activity (i.e. attraction of other firms) take even
longer.
This is accounted for in the SASI model by time delays of one to five years. In order to
take due account of the long-term spatial impact of transport infrastructure investments in
the period 2007-2013, the target year for the model simulations is set at 2031.
Overall Impacts
Table 7.4 presents the impacts of the proposed priority transport investments on the above
indicators. For each indicator the table shows the value of the indicator in 2006 and the
indicators values of the five scenarios in 2031. The numbers in italics are the differences
between the indicator values of the policy scenarios compared with those of the
Reference Scenario in 2031 in percent.
27 The Gini coefficient is a measure which represents the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of indicator values
between regions (i.e. equal indicator values in all regions).
52
Table 7.4 Strategic objectives and related indicators (2031 impacts)
Scenarios
Refer-ence
Maxi-mum Road
Maxi-mum Rail
Maxi-mum
Bal-anced
Objective
Indicator
2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031
Average speed of inter- regional road trips (kph)
35.2 36.3 37.8 +4.1%
36.3 0.0%
37.8 +4.1%
37.8 +4.1%
Average speed of inter- regional rail trips (kph)
21.3 21.4 21.4 0.0%
23.4 +9.3%
23.4 +9.3%
23.0 +7.6%
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro)28
13,739 21,548 21,590 +0.2%
21,594 +0.2%
21,635 +0.4%
21,625 +0.4%
Primacy rate (%) population
35.7 35.5 35.5 -0.0%
35.5 0.0%
35.5 0.0%
35.5 0.0%
Primacy rate (%) GDP
37.8 35.2
35.2 -0.0%
35.2 +0.0%
35.2 -0.0%
35.2 -0.0%
Gini coefficient29 of accessibility (0-100)
14.26 14.85 14.59 -1.7%
14.54 -2.1%
14.29 -3.8%
14.33 -3.5%
Territorial cohesion
Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100)
10.25 10.10 10.07 -0.3%
10.10 +0.0%
10.07 -0.3%
10.08 -0.2%
Environmental sustainability
Share of interregional rail trips (%)
21.2 20.0 18.2 -8.9%
+25.5 +27.8%
23.4 +17.0%
22.8 +13.9%
Table 7.4 indicates that the economic impacts of the scenarios on Greece are not very
large but also not negligible. The transport improvements of the policy scenarios increase
the average income in Greece by up to 80 Euro per capita per year. This effect is equally
due to road and rail investments (even though the improvements in rail speed are larger
than those of road speed).
The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact on the spatial structure
of the country, are negligible. The model expects the Athens agglomeration, which
contains more than on third of the national population, to decline in population in line
with the overall population decline in Greece, so that its share of the national population
remains about the same. The Athens region is even more dominant as economic centre.
According the SASI forecasts, this dominance is likely to decrease as other regions catch
up in development. However, these trends are not significantly changed by any of the
transport infrastructure scenarios. The Gini coefficients of both accessibility and GDP per
capita both show a slight convergence effect as a result of both road and rail projects.
The sustainability effects of the policy scenarios in terms of increased rail share are
significant. If only rail projects were implemented as in the Maximum Rail Scenario, rail
use would increase by more than a quarter. However, if also the planned road projects
are implemented as in the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios, this effect is much reduced
by the growth in road travel, but still substantial.
28 The GDP per capita value for 2006 is not an official statistic but a result of the SASI model based on regional GDP per
capita statistics for 2001 by Eurostat. Regional GDP is forecast in the SASI model in terms of international exchange value; in purchasing power standards all GDP figures for Greece would be about twice as high.
29 The Gini coefficient is a measure which represents the deviation from a fully egalitarian distribution of indicator values between regions (i.e. equal indicator values in all regions).
53
Regional impacts
Figures 7.3 to 7.6 show the spatial distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) per
capita in the regions of Greece in the target year 2031.
Figure 7.3 shows GDP per capita of the regions in the Reference Scenario in the year
2031. Because of the growth in GDP per capita a different colour scale as in Figure 3.2
had to be used. It can be seen that according to the model the gap in income between
Greece and the neighbouring Balkan countries has remained substantial, despite
Bulgaria's accession to the EU in 2007. Apart from the higher level, the spatial
distribution of GDP per capita within Greece is similar to the distribution in 2006 shown
in Figure 3.2.
Figures 7.4 and 7.5 show the effects of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the
distribution of GDP per capita. The impact maps show the percentage differences in GDP
per capita between the policy scenarios and the Reference Scenario. The more intense the
green shade, the higher the impact. The transport infrastructure investments mainly
benefit the western regions along the Ionian Sea due to the road and rail projects there,
the regions in the northern Peloponnese due to the Athens-Patras motorway and the
regions in the far north-east at the Bulgarian and Turkish border due to the new motorway
link to Bulgaria from Komotini. The gain in GDP in the regions around Ioannina in the
Balanced Scenario is less than in the Maximum Scenario because the new rail line
Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani is not included in the Balanced Scenario.
Figure 7.3 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005), Reference Scenario, 2031
54
Figure 7.4 Impact on GDP per capita, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita, Balanced Scenario, 2031
55
Figures 7.6 to 7.8 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on
sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips).
Figure 7.6 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3
regions of Greece (excluding air) in the Reference Scenario in the year 2031, i.e. without
road or rail improvements. The spatial distribution of rail use resembles that of average
rail speed (see Figures 3.5 and 3.6) with higher rail use in the regions in central Greece
and the Thessaloniki area and the north-east.
Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the
Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips. Here, too, the
reversed traffic light colour scale is used; green indicates a higher and red a lower share
of rail trips than in the Reference Scenario. The distribution of impacts follows the
distribution of road and rail projects (See Figures 7.2 and 7.3). In the Maximum Scenario
all central regions, including the Patras region on the Peloponnese, improve in terms of
rail use. In the Balanced Scenario the regions in the north-west gain less because the
Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani rail line is not built. The same happens in the Balanced
Scenario in the south of the Peloponnese if the Patras-Kalamata line is not built. In the
north-east of the country, where there are only road improvements, the share of rail trips
declines.
Figure 7.6 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Reference Scenario, 2031
56
Figure 7.7 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Balanced Scenario, 2031
57
Finally the impacts of the policy scenarios on the composite Accessibility Problem Index
(see Chapter 3) are shown to examine in how far the transport projects contribute to
solving the accessibility problems identified in the red-flag analysis. As it was noted in
Chapter 3, road accessibility in Greece is close to the European average but rail
accessibility is significantly below (Figures 3.4 and 3.6).
Figures 7.9 and 7.10 show the Accessibility Problem Index for road and rail in the year
2031 in the Reference Scenario from a European perspective. It should be remembered
that in the Reference Scenario no new road or rail projects are started after 2006. The
comparison with Figures 3.4 and 3.6 shows that despite of this accessibility has improved
in many regions due to the ongoing European integration, including the accession of
Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, which has led to shorter border waiting times and
reduced trade barriers.
Figure 7.9 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Road. Now most regions in central
Greece are shaded light green, i.e. their accessibility has improved to above the European
average, and some other regions are shaded yellow, i.e. have moved closer to the
European average. Needless to say that the accessibility of the islands continues to be
very poor.
Figure 7.10 shows the Accessibility Problem Index Rail. Here the effects of European
integration are weaker. It can be seen that without rail improvements most parts of Greece
would remain poorly served by rail.
Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show the impacts of the Balanced Scenario on the Accessibility
Problem Index in Greece seen from a European perspective. Compared to the Reference
Scenario in 2031 (Figure 7.9), road accessibility has further improved so that most
regions in Greece, except the congested capital city region, are now above the European
average (Figure 7.11).
Even larger, but more focused, improvements occur in the rail system. The largest
improvements are along the improved sections of the rail line between Athens and
Thessaloniki in the Lamia and Larissa regions as well in the Patras region on the
Peloponnese (Figure 7.12).
58
Figure 7.9 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Reference Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Reference Scenario, 2031
59
Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Balanced Scenario, 2031
60
Table 7.5 summarises the effects of the four scenarios on the Accessibility Problem
Index: index values above one indicate accessibility problems, whereas index values
below one indicate above-average performance.
Table 7.5 Accessibility Problem Index, Greece, 2031
Scenarios
Refer-ence
Maxi-mum Road
Maxi-mum Rail
Maxi-mum
Bal-anced
Mode
Level
2006 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031
National 1.000
0.946 0.896 -5.3%
0.947 +0.1%
0.898 -5.1%
0.897 -5.2%
Roads
European 1.145
1.083 1.026 -5.3%
1.085 +0.2%
1.028 -5.1%
1.027 -5.2%
National 1.000
0.969 0.967 -0.2%
0.815 -15.9%
0.814 -16.0%
0.818 -15.6%
Rail
European 1.370
1.324 1.324 0.0%
1.116 -15.7%
1.115 -15.8%
1.121 -15.3%
The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are significant improvements in both
road and rail accessibility between 2006 and 2031 already in the Reference Scenario
through the effects of European integration, including the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania to the EU, in the form of reduced waiting times and other barriers. There are
significant further improvements to the road network in Greece if the envisaged road
projects are implemented as in the Maximum Road and Maximum Scenarios. The
improvements in rail accessibility in the Maximum Rail and the Maximum Scenarios are
even larger. Because the Igoumenitsa-Kalambaka-Kozani rail line is not included in the
Balanced Scenario, the improvements in rail accessibility in the Balanced Scenario are
smaller.
61
7.5 European effects
The effects of transport infrastructure improvements are not confined to the country in
which the construction work actually occurs but reach across borders into neighbouring
countries. The SASI model forecasts these effects.
To demonstrate this on the following two pages maps of the spatial distribution of the
impacts of the transport infrastructure investments in Greece are shown (Figures 7.13 to
7.16).
The four maps show the difference between the Balanced Scenario and the Reference
Scenario in 2031 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.4: average speed of
interregional road trips (Figure 7.13), average speed of interregional rail trips (Figure
7.14), GDP per capita (Figure 7.15) and share of interregional rail trips (Figure 7.16). It
can be seen that because of its geographical position at the European periphery, the main
impacts occur in Greece itself and only marginal effects spread beyond its national
borders.
The most notable effects are the combined impacts of the road and rail projects in Greece
on the share of rail trips. The improvements on sections of the Athens-Thessaloniki rail
line result in higher shares of rail use in Greece's northern neighbours Macedonia,
Kosovo, Bulgaria and parts of Romania. However, the effects of the road improvements
in Greece are felt in an even wider area, resulting in lower shares of rail use in large parts
of south-eastern Europe. As these reductions in rail travel are not counted in the Greek
average in Table 7.4, the net effect for Greece is positive.
62
Figure 7.13 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.14 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
63
Figure 7.15 GDP per capita: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.16 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
64
8 Conclusions on investment priorities
8.1 Introduction
Based on the previous analysis the main areas for transport investments that would merit
EU funding in the period 2007-2013 have been identified. It should be emphasized that
this is based on an analysis that has been carried out at strategic level. Although the areas
identified are expected to result in high potential projects they should still be subjected to
the regular cost-benefit analysis at a project level before being finally selected.
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013
The identified priority areas for future investment are described per sub-sector. These
priority areas are assessed on a number of criteria (see table 8.1). It should be noted it is
expected for Greece that part of the budget needs to be reserved for completing projects
that already started in the current programming period (2002-2006).
Table 8.1 Assessment of priority areas
Sub sector
Co
st-
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces
of fin
an
ce
Railways:
- Modernisation of rail
- Improving rail connections to ports
0
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
0
0
0
Roads:
- Completion/missing links backbone motorway
network
- Connections to neighbouring countries
- Accessibility urban areas
+
0
+
+
+
+
0/-
-
0/-
+
+
0
+
+
0
+
+
0/+
Ports
- Enhance rail connections in ports
- Port development in key ports
+
+
+
+
+
+
0/+
0/+
0
0
0
+
Urban Public Transport
- High quality urban transport in major cities
0/+
+
+
0
+
+
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
65
Railways
With respect to land transport on the mainland of Greece, the morphology of the country
puts it in a relatively difficult position with respect to rail transport. The analyses reveal
that rail accessibility in Greece is relatively poor from a European perspective. However,
the mountainous area makes rail transport relatively unattractive (slow speed) and
expensive (high investment costs). Another development which is of utmost importance
is the further restructuring of the rail sector through enhanced deregulation and
liberalisation. The current efficiency of the rail service is low and the existing railway
network is heavily underused (even stronger for freight than for passengers). Where
possible competition should be allowed (this will be required for freight as from 2007 as
part of the 2nd
Railway Package).
The interconnection (to the ports) and modernisation of the existing rail network is of
high importance to improve the competitiveness of rail vis-à-vis road transport. The
modernisation of the rail network include the construction of double tracks, high(er)
speed (less level crossings) and electrification.
In the implementation of projects the administrative capacity of the railways sector needs
to be improved. The current institutional/management capacity is reported to be poor.
This leads to a higher risk on failure within projects. This may be further aggravated by
the current restructuring of OSE into a railway Infrastructure manager and a Railway
Operating Company (although this will improve the situation on the longer run). One
option would be to outsource the management of the projects or to further strengthen the
capacity of ERGOSE.
Roads
The geographical location of Greece within Europe places it at the end of several
international corridors. From an international perspective the country places a role in
creating East-West connections between the EU and Asia. The situation in the Balkan and
the economic development of Central and Eastern Europe directly influences transport
demand and transport system requirements in Greece. In future this is expected to lead to
an increased importance of the interconnecting role of especially the road network in
Greece.
Thus the focus of investment should be directed at the completion of the backbone
motorway network in Greece, with a focus on the construction of missing links and the
construction of connections to neighbouring countries (Balkans & Bulgaria). Greece
clearly has discovered the possibility of PPPs in these projects, which are successful in
motorway construction both in terms of quality of the projects and in leveraging
additional sources of finance.
Further road development should be directed at connecting regions to the trunk network
through the secondary road network. This includes connecting centres of economic
activity (ports, urban areas, railway nodes) to the Egnatia and PATHE motorways. The
axes have to be developed into a real network. In the development of the network specific
attention should be paid to the accessibility of large urban centres (Thessaloniki and
Athens) and more peripheral regions. Improvement of the road network clearly
contributes to road safety which is a point of attention in Greece.
66
Ports
Domestically the island character of Greece favours the development of ports and
airports, on the one hand to cater tourism development in the country and on the other
hand to facilitate freight transport (especially through the ports). An adequate port system
which is well connected to the inland transport system (rail and road) is essential in this
respect. In this respect especially the key ports connecting Greece to the rest of Europe
would deserve attention. Main focus would be to provide good hinterland connections
and measures and activities which further improve the port efficiency and thus the
competitiveness of the Greek ports.
The recent process of corporatisation and privatisation of the main ports will also
contribute to a further improvement of port efficiency in due term, especially when this is
combined with more (international) competition within the ports (e.g. in terminal
operation). Also in the port sector this could serve as a means to leverage additional
sources of finance.
Intermodal logistics centres
Connecting the different mode networks is essential to facilitate intermodal transport.
Also the establishment of multimodal logistics centres a main transfer point is necessary
in this respect. With the adoption of a new law on the establishment of freight centres in
summer 2005 and important step has been taken in this respect. The next step will be the
actual development of a network of these centres around economic areas which are served
by different modes and take care that these centres are connected to the networks. EU
funding could be directed at facilitating the establishment of these centres for example
through the construction of the connecting infrastructure.
Urban Public transport
Within the urban agglomerations which are faced with heavy congestion the development
of public transport systems clearly offers room to alleviate transport problems. Whereas
Athens has shown a beneficial development in this respect the city of Thessaloniki (the
second urban conglomeration of Greece) would merit specific attention in this respect.
Also projects involving modern IT based traffic management systems and passenger
information systems (for urban transport) should be considered to alleviate urban
congestion.
67
Annex A: TEN-T priorities
Table A.1. TEN priority projects and major Swiss projects
No. TEN project Completion
1 Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo
- Halle/Leipzig-Nurnberg (2015)
- Nurnberg-Munich (2006)
- Munich-Kufstein (2015)
- Kufstein-Innsbruck (2009/2012)
- Brenner tunnel (2015)
- Verona-Naples (2007)
- Milan-Bologna (2008)
- Rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina-Palermo (2015)
2015
2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London
- Channel tunnel-London (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Liege-Cologne (2007)
- Brussels/Brussels-Rotterdam-Amsterdam (2007)
2007
3 High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe
- Lisbon/Porto-Madrid (2015), including:
- Lisbon-Porto (2013)
- Lisbon-Madrid (2010)
- Aveiro-Salamanca (2015)
- Madrid-Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan (2009)
- Perpignan-Montpellier (2009)
- Montpellier-Nimes (2015)
- Madrid-Vitoria-Irún/Hendaye (2010)
- Irún/Hendaye-Dax (2015)
- Dax-Bordeaux (2020)
- Bordeaux-Tours (2015)
2015
68
No. TEN project Completion
4 High-speed railway axis east
- Paris-Baudrecourt (2007)
- Metz-Luxembourg (2007)
- Saarbrücken-Mannheim (2007)
2007
5 Betuwe line 2006
6 Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divača/Koper-Divača-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian border
- Lyon-St Jean de Maurienne (2015)
- Mont-Cenis tunnel (2018)
- Bussoleno-Turin (2011)
- Turin-Venice (2011)
- Venice-Ronchi Sud-Trieste-Divača (2015)
- Koper-Divača-Ljubljana (2012)
- Ljubljana-Budapest (2015)
2018
7 Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athens-Sofia-Budapest
- Via Egnatia (2006)
- Pathe (2008)
- Sofia-Kulata-Greek/Bulgarian border (2010)
- Nadlac-Sibiu motorway (branch to Bucharest and Constanza) (2007)
2010
8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe
- Railway La Coruňa-Lisbon-Sines (2009)
- Railway Lisbon-Valladolid (2015)
- Railway Lisbon-Faro (2006)
- Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (2010)
- La Coruña-Lisbon motorway (2005)
- Seville-Lisbon motorway (completed 2001)
- New Lisbon airport (2015)
2015
9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer completed 2001
10 Malpensa Airport completed 2001
11 Öresund fixed link completed 2001
69
No. TEN project Completion
12 Nordic triangle railway/road axis
- Road and railway projects in Sweden (2015)
- Helsinki-Turku motorway (2009)
- Railway Kerava-Lahti (2006)
- Helsinki-Vaalimaa motorway (2015)
- Railway Helsinki-Vainikkala (Russian border) (2015)
2015
13 UK/Ireland/Benelux road axis 2013
14 West coast main line 2008
15 Galileo (not included in reference scenario, only mentioned here for consistency) 2010
16 Freight railway axis Sines/Algeciras-Madrid-Paris
- New high-capacity rail axis across the Pyrenees (2020)
- Railway Sines-Badajoz (2010)
- Railway line Algeciras-Bobadilla (2010)
2020
17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava
- Baudrecourt-Strasbourg-Stuttgart (2015)
- Stuttgart-Ulm (2012)
- Munich-Salzburg (2015)
- Salzburg-Vienna (2012)
- Vienna-Bratislava (2012)
2015
18 Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis
- Rhine-Meuse (2019)
- Lanaken lock (2011)
- Vilshofen-Straubing (2013)
- Wien-Bratislava (2015)
- Palkovicovo-Mohács (2014)
- Bottlenecks in Romania and Bulgaria (2011)
2019
19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula
- Madrid-Andalusia (2020)
- North-east (2020)
- Madrid-Levante and Mediterranean (2020)
- North/North-west corridor, including Vigo-Porto (2020)
- Extremadura (2020)
2020
70
No. TEN project Completion
20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis
- Fehmarn Belt fixed rail/road link (2015)
- Railway for access in Denmark from Öresund (2015)
- Railway for access in Germany from Hamburg (2014
- Railway Hannover-Hamburg/Bremen (2015)
2015
21 Motorways of the sea
- motorway of the Baltic Sea (2010)
- motorway of the sea of western Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-east Europe (2010)
- motorway of the sea of south-west Europe (2010)
2010
22 Railway axis Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden
- Railway Greek/Bulgarian border-Kulata-Sofia-Vidin/Calafat (2015)
- Railway Curtici-Brasov (towards Bucharest and Constanta) (2013)
- Railway Budapest-Vienna (2010)
- Railway Břeclav-Prague-Nürnberg (2016)
- Railway axis Prague-Linz (2017)
2017
23 Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Railway Gdansk-Warsaw-Katowice (2013)
- Railway Katowice-Břeclav (2010)
- Railway Katowice-Zilina-Nove Mesto n.V. (2015)
2015
24 Railway axis Lyons/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp
- Lyon-Mulhouse-Mülheim (2018)
- Genoa-Milan/Novara-Swiss border (2013)
- Basel-Karlsruhe (2015)
- Frankfurt-Mannheim (2015)
- Duisburg-Emmerich (2015)
- 'Iron Rhine' Rheidt-Antwerp (2010)
2018
25 Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna
- Gdansk-Katowice motorway (2011)
- Katowice-Brno/Zilina motorway (2010)
- Brno-Vienna motorway (2013)
2013
71
No. TEN project Completion
26 Railway/road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe
- Ireland road/rail modernisation (2010)
- Road/railway axis Hull-Liverpool (2020)
- Railway Felixstowe-Nuneaton (2014)
- Railway Crewe-Holyhead (2012)
2020
27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki
- Warsaw-Kaunas (2010)
- Kaunas-Riga (2014)
- Riga-Tallinn (2018)
2018
28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis
- Brussels-Luxembourg border (2012)
- Luxembourg- French border (2013)
2013
29 Railway axis of the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor
- Kozani-Kalambaka-Igoumenitsa (2012)
- Ioannina-Antirrio-Rio-Kalamata (2014)
2014
30 Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt
- Navigability improvements Deulemont-Gent (2016)
- Compiègne-Cambrai (2016)
2016
CH1 Gotthard axis
- Zimmerberg tunnel (2011)
- Gotthard tunnel (2015)
- Ceneri tunnel (2015)
2015
CH2 Lötschberg tunnel 2015
Source: EC (2005) Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005;
Spiekermann & Wegener (Siwss projects)
72
Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects
73
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model was used to assess the
present and future situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the
national transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the
road and rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European
perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be
addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals
competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is
directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in
promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives.
Figure B.1 Main structure of the SASI model
SASI Model
To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion
policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required.
Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of
both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the
transport system and so always show a steep gradation in accessibility from the core to
74
the periphery. However, public policy cannot change the fact that some regions are
central and some are peripheral, i.e. provide the same level of accessibility to all regions.
Public policy can only alleviate disadvantages through unequal transport provision.
This distinction is relevant for European transport policy. To invest only in transport in
the most peripheral regions with the lowest accessibility according to such an indicator
would benefit only the relatively few people living there and would ignore the needs of
the densely populated central regions to combat traffic congestion and so endanger the
competitiveness goal of the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union. On the other hand, to
invest only in transport in the most densely populated central regions with the greatest
congestion problems would not only lead to ever more traffic but also widen the existing
gap in accessibility between the central and peripheral regions and would so run counter
to the territorial cohesion goal of the European Union.
To avoid this dilemma, a new accessibility indicator was defined which distinguishes
between geographical location and quality of transport. This indicator assumes that
people in the peripheral regions cannot expect to enjoy the same level of accessibility
(measured in traditional terms) as the central regions but that they can demand to be able
to reach relevant destinations with the same travel speed ("as the crow flies") as the
people in the central regions. In addition the indicator recognises the utilitarian principle
of the happiness of the greatest number, i.e. that the transport needs of densely populated
regions should be given more weight than those of regions with only few inhabitants. And
finally, the indicator recognises that economically lagging regions with severe deficits in
accessibility may offer greater potential for stimulating economic effects by transport
investments than regions which enjoy already high accessibility.
These three principles avoid the pitfalls of both an extreme egalitarian view, which
postulates that all regions in Europe enjoy the same level of accessibility and a purely
efficiency-oriented view which postulates that accessibility in the already highly
accessibly central metropolitan areas should be further strengthened because they bring
the largest economic benefits. In other words, the three principles aim at a rational trade-
off between the stated EU goals of competitiveness and territorial cohesion.
The Accessibility Problem Index
The indicator to be developed should have a number of properties to make it easy to
understand and communicate to policy makers and stakeholders:
- It should be a "problem indicator", i.e. high values should indicate large deficiencies in
regional accessibility, whereas low values of the indicator indicate above-average levels
of accessibility.
- It should be standardised in order to be comparable between regions and countries, i.e.
should not reflect the size or affluence of regions or countries.
- It should be independent of the arbitrary or historically subdivision of the territory into
regions, i.e. its magnitude should not change if a region is subdivided into two or more
regions or if two or more regions are consolidated to one region.
- It should be scalable, i.e. it should be possible to vary the impact of the weighting by
population and inverse GDP to reflect different political priorities.
75
- It should allow to measure the development of accessibility over time.
Based on these requirements, an indicator called Accessibility Problem Index was
developed. The calculation of the Accessibility Problem Indicator proceeds in three steps:
Average regional airline speed
The first step in the development of the Accessibility Problem Index is the calculation of
average regional airline speed. Average airline speed vrm of all trips frsm from a region r to
all other regions s in Europe by mode m in year t is defined as
[ ]
[ ]∑
∑
−
−
=
s
rsmrsms
rs
s
rsms
rmtctftP
dtftP
tv60/)()(exp)(
)(exp)(
)(β
β (1)
where Ps(t) is regional population in year t, crsm(t) is travel time in minutes between
regions r and s by mode m in year t, β is the impedance parameter and drs is airline
distance in km between the central cities in regions r and s calculated from their
geographical coordinates xr, yr and xs, ys by
( ) ( )22
rsrsrsyyxxd −+−= (2)
Standardisation
Next average regional airline speed, regional population and regional GDP are
standardised as fractions of the average of all regions in the country (national perspective)
or the average of all regions in Europe (European perspective). To neutralise the effect of
region size, population is replaced by population density and GDP is replaced by GDP
per capita. The benchmark for the standardisation of average regional airline speed is
always the average of the base year t0 = 2006 to show changes in accessibility:
)()(
)()(
)(00
0
tPtv
tPtv
tvr
r
rm
r
rrm
rm
∑
∑=′ (3)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtPA
AtP
tp)(
)(
)( (4)
∑
∑=′
r
rr
r
rr
rtGtP
tPtG
tg)()(
)()(
)( (5)
where Ar is the area of region r and Gr(t) is the GDP of region r. The v'rm(t), p'r(t) and
g'r(t) then are the relative airline speed, relative population density and relative GDP per
capita of region r in year t, respectively. Values below one indicate below-average airline
76
speed, population density and GDP per capita and values above one indicate above-aver-
age airline speed, population density and GDP per capita of the region.
Index
With these relative indicators, the Accessibility Problem Index qrm(t) of region r by mode
m in year t can be formulated:
[ ] [ ] [ ]γα −−
′′′= )()()()(1
tgtptvtqrrrmrm
(6)
where α and γ are weights indicating the relative importance of population density and
GDP per capita, respectively. Note that average regional airline speed and GDP per capita
have negative weights, i.e. the Accessibility Problem Index expresses deficits in average
regional airline speed relative to the national or European average weighted by population
and economic weakness. The index has the following properties:
- The higher the index the more severe is the deficiency in accessibility.
- The influence of weights of population density and GDP per capita can be changed by
changing α and β: values below one imply less influence, zero no weighting.
- Regions with average airline speed, population density and GDP per capita have an
index value of one.
- Index values are independent of region size and are therefore comparable between
regions and countries.
- The index shows improvements in airline speed over time (and not only relative shifts
between regions).
Sensitivity tests with different values of α and γ showed that α = γ = 0.05 gave the most
plausible results and a reasonable level of responsiveness of the Accessibility Problem
Index to changes of accessibility due to European integration and European transport
projects over time.
The application of the Accessibility Problem Index for the evaluation of accessibility
deficits in the country policy briefs use these values of α and γ throughout. The regions
analysed were the NUTS-3 regions or equivalent regions in the 25 countries of the
European Union plus the accession countries Bulgaria and Romania. The overseas
regions of France and the island regions of the Azores and Madeira of Portugal and the
Canary Islands of Spain were excluded from the analysis.
The spatial distribution of the resulting values of the Accessibility Problem Index are
presented in maps using a colour scale resembling that of a traffic light: green shades
indicate average regional travel speeds above the national or European average, yellow
values indicate speeds slightly above the national or European average and red shades
indicate speeds significantly lower than the national or European average. Regions
shaded in red are the targets of the "red-flag" analysis.
For each country first for road and then for rail the national and the European perspective
are presented for the current situation (2006) and for 2016. The situation in 2016 is based
77
on a base scenario of the SASI model without the national projects, i.e. only with the
TEN priority road and rail projects and selected transport projects in Switzerland. The
assumed opening times of the individual projects are those of the 2004 TEN guidelines
(European Union, 2004)30
which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the
individual countries (European Commission, 2005)31
.
30 European Union (2004): Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending
Decision No 1692/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. Official
Journal of the European Union L 201 (Corrigendum to L 167), 1-55. 31 European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority Axes and Projects 2005. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.