transport investment priorities under structural and...
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 Portugal
Final
Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV
Rotterdam, September 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 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 8
1.3 The Country Report 8
1.4 Structure of the report 8
2 Transport Sector: current situation 10
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Portugal 10
2.3 Situation per mode of transport 11
2.3.1 Roads and road transport 11
2.3.2 Railways 13
2.3.3 Urban public transport 15
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 16
2.3.5 Sea ports 17
2.3.6 Airports 18
2.3.7 Trends and indicators 19
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 20
3 Accessibility analysis 22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 22
3.3 Transport needs 23
4 Previous support programmes 29
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure 29
4.2 EU funding 29
4.3 Other sources of financing 31
5 National Transport Strategy 34
5.1 Introduction 34
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 34
5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013 36
5.4 Main objectives of the OP 36
5.5 Priorities in OP by sector 36
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 38
6.1 Introduction 38
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 39
6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 40
7 Impact assessment of scenarios 43
7.1 Introduction 43
7.2 Methodology 43
7.3 Scenarios 45
7.4 Impact assessment 49
7.5 European effects 60
8 Conclusions on investment priorities 66
8.1 Introduction 66
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 66
Annex A: TEN-T priorities 69
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 2020.1 The priority projects include:
“the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in mind the general
objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance, interoperability and
the reduction of bottlenecks”.
For the new programming period 2007-2013 the Commission seeks to strengthen the
strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better
integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the
draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic
Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect to the priorities of the Community with a
view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development”2.
To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the
Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The
present evaluation 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
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 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 Portugal. 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).
Part A: Needs assessment current situation
2 Transport Sector: current situation
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Portugal. 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
Portugal.
2.2 Portugal
Portugal has a particular geographical location in
Europe, which could be seen as a disadvantage. Being
located in Europe’s periphery, Portugal depends on
the relationship with the Spanish transport
infrastructure to reach the rest of Europe by land. Due
to these circumstances, cross-border projects such as
the TEN-T priority projects have a particularly
significant role in Portugal’s development.
On the other hand, Portugal’s geographical position
can also be seen as a benefit. Its long extension of
Atlantic coastline and the characteristics of the
seaports, can position Portugal as a privileged entry
point for freight coming from the rest of the World
into Europe.
Besides the mainland, the Portuguese territory
comprises two archipelagos located in the Atlantic
Ocean: Madeira, whose capital – Funchal – is 963 km
southwest of Lisbon; and Azores, whose capital –
Ponta Delgada – is 1,564 km west of the Portuguese
mainland.
Basic data
Population 10.53 million
Total area 91,900 km2
Population density 114.6 inh/km2
Main cities Lisbon, Porto
Source: Eurostat
About 70% of Portugal’s population lives in the coastal area form the Spanish border to
Lisbon. The southern part and the hinterland of the coastal area are not densely populated.
More than 10% of the population lives in the cities of Lisbon and Porto.
Economic data
GDP mp (2004) 143.0 bn€
Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 58.7%
Government deficit as % of GDP
(2004)
-3.2%
GDP per capita, Portugal (2004) 13.600 €
GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25.800 €
GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22.700 €
Source: Eurostat
After a strong economic growth period in Portugal, which ended by 2000, came a period
of economic stagnation which has lasted until today, and which has limited the amount of
public resources available for investment, like in the transport sector. This problem as
been further compounded by the fact that public deficit in Portugal has been breaching
the Euro zone limit of three percent of GDP since 2001, and the government is now
slashing state spending in an effort to reign in public deficit.
2.3 Situation per mode of transport
2.3.1 Roads and road transport
Infrastructure
The road network in Portugal has steadily improved from the time Structural and
Cohesion support began in the late 1980’s. Throughout the 1990’s, many new roads and
highways were created or upgraded, with the National Road Plan (which includes
highways, national roads and regional roads) encompassing almost 12.7 thousand km by
the end of 2004, compared to about 9.7 thousand km a decade earlier. Many of the older
and smaller roads which existed prior to the accession have progressively been placed
under the care of the municipalities or, in some cases, phased out. Total length of these
roads has decreased from 8.7 thousand km in 1995 to less than 8.0 thousand km in 2004.
Table 2.1 Length of road network in Portugal (1995-2004) in kms
1995 2004
% change
Motorways - Main Routes 2,558 1,985 -22%
Motorways - Complementary Routes 2,416 1,294 -46%
Other National Roads 4,768 4,910 3%
Regional Roads 0 4,500 -
Municipal Roads 8,703 7,987 -8%
Total 18,445 20,676 12%
Source: Portuguese Statistical Office (INE), NOTE: in 1999 part of the highways were relabelled into regional
roads
The total length of the Trans-European Road Network in Portugal has hardly changed in
the period 1995-2004 (2,378 km in 1995; 2,291 km in 2004). Nevertheless this
infrastructure has been considerably improved with many road sections being upgraded
from common roads to highways or expressways. For example, the road connection
between Lisbon and Caia, linking the NUTS II PT13 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and PT14
Alentejo to ES43 Extremadura, had only about 43% of its 226 km upgraded to motorway
standards in 1995, while today it is fully upgraded.
The overall motorway density in Portugal is significantly higher than the EU15 and EU25
averages.
Table 2.2 Motorway density in Portugal in kms motorways/1000 km2
Length motorway/1000 km2
Portugal (2004) 25
EU15 16
EU25 14
Source: Eurostat
Distribution of the road infrastructure is not uniform. The NUTS II regions of PT13
Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (the Lisbon region) and PT11 Norte (northern Portugal) has the
greatest length of road per km2. The Lisbon region has the highest concentration of
national roads in the country, while the northern region has the highest concentration of
municipal roads. These two regions are, by far, the most densely populated,
encompassing about ¾ of the national population and GDP.
Demand
Passenger transport volumes have increased in the 1997-2000 period receded in the two
following years and recovered in 2003. Annual demand has varied between 503 and 641
million passengers; and 8,178 and 9,869 million passenger-kilometres.
The private car ownership in Portugal is above the European average.
Table 2.3 Car ownership Portugal
Portugal (2003) EU15 (2002) EU25 (2002)
Cars/1000 inh 572 491 459
Source: Eurostat
Freight traffic in 1996-1999 averaged a little over 24,000 million tonne-kilometres each
year, with about 60% of this being national traffic. This corresponded to a relatively
prosperous period for businesses. In 2000-2003, total traffic averaged only 20,000 million
tonne-kilometres / year, and the weight of national traffic decreased to 43%. There was a
significant drop in national traffic in this period (although international traffic totals did
not change significantly), which coincided with a period of economic stagnation. In 2004,
however (and despite the fact that economic difficulties persisted), traffic totalled almost
37,000 million tonne-kilometres, of which 47.5% was national traffic.
Road charging
Portugal’s road user charging policy has contributed to a well-developed road network
where most of the motorways are toll-roads. In a market where a large part of the
motorists use electronic road user charging, Portugal has introduced integrated services
like fuelling and parking.
Road accidents
The number of fatal road accidents in Portugal is steadily decreasing from 265 per million
inhabitants in 1990 to 147 in 2003. However, this is still substantially above the EU25
average.
Table 2.4 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants)
Portugal EU25
1993 2000 2003 2003
265 183 147 102
Source: Eurostat
When measured in fatalities per million cars, road safety in Portugal (257) is also above
the European average in 2003 (220).
2.3.2 Railways
Infrastructure
Railway track modernization investments have been underway in Portugal almost since
the beginning of Structural and Cohesion support, and, while not all goals envisioned for
the rail modernization were achieved yet, there has been progress. About 85% of all
railway lines in operation in 1993 was single track, a figure which dropped to under 79%
by 2004, as more rail sections were upgraded to double or quadruple track (an increase of
35%, from 449 to 607 km). Total percentage of electrified rail rose from 29% to 46%, and
practically all double / quadrupled track railway is now electrified (an increase of 45%,
from 408 to 591 km). Over 200 km of single track railway were phased out as well.
The total length of the railway track in operation amounts to 2,836 kilometres in 2004. In
the following table it is shown that the railway density in Portugal is substantially below
the EU average.
Table 2.4 Railway density
Railway line/1000 km2 Railway line/100,000 inh
Portugal (2004) 31 27
EU 67 42
Source: Eurostat
The two largest NUTS II regions, PT14 Alentejo and PT12 Centro, have the greatest
length of rail. Compared to the national average, these regions, as well as PT15 Algarve,
have a considerable amount of rail per 100,000 inhabitants.
Figure 2.1 Railway network Portugal
Means
Total carrying capacity of the railways was about 213 thousand passengers (half of which
seated) and 173.5 thousand tons of freight by the end of 1998.
Demand
Passenger demand has steadily decreased from 1993 with about 209 million passengers
carried in 1993 and just 152.6 million in 2004. Freight traffic, on the other hand, has
increased significantly, despite the economic difficulties since 2000. Total freight carried
in 1993 was about 7.85 million tons; in 2004 it reached 11.15 million tons.
As for freight demand, it has increased in the past decade from 2,019 million tkm in 1995
to 2,282 million tkm in 2004 – a 13% increase. International freight traffic (which
accounts for about 15% of all traffic) has increased by 39.5% over the same period, while
national traffic increased by 9.3%.
2.3.3 Urban public transport
The Lisbon underground system has continuously been expanded and upgraded since its
creation in the 1950’s, and most especially since the beginning of the Union’s structural
and cohesion support. In the last decade alone, it has almost doubled in length from 18.9
km in 1995 to 35.5 km in 2004. It runs on standard 1,435 mm gauge, unlike the surface
rail, which in Portugal is almost exclusively of Iberian gauge.
Still in the Lisbon area, a light rail service on the south bank of the river Tagus (just
across the river from Lisbon) is in the construction stage; it will span 28 km and begin
operations in 2006. Another light rail, running around the outer ring of Lisbon, is in its
early planning stages.
The importance of the tram has declined in Lisbon over the past decade, with the
deactivation of part of the network and of some of the obsolete rolling stock. There has
been investment in this system in recent years, however, most noticeably in ten new
three-section articulated trams.
A light rail service has been in operation since 2003 in Porto, Portugal’s second most
populous city. By the end of 2004, it already spanned 15.6 km, and a second phase will
increase this network by some 30 km. Trams have been virtually removed in Porto,
particularly since the light rail service began (whereas 50 years ago the network spanned
for almost 250 km). In the past, trolleybuses had some importance in Porto as well, but
they were completely phased out in 1997.
Trolleybuses are still an important means of transport in Coimbra (central Portugal), even
though some routes have recently been eliminated. A light rail system has also been in the
planning stages for some time.
The other cities – besides Lisbon, Porto and Coimbra - with a significant fleet of buses for
urban transport are Braga and Funchal.
Means
The Lisbon urban transport operator currently has a fleet of about 800 buses, almost
entirely single-decked (of which 40 run on natural gas), 10 large articulated trams and 45
small trams (old four-wheelers). The Lisbon bus fleet offers the most seat-kilometres
(about 4,000 million yearly for the past decade); while the Lisbon underground is
presently second, having increased its supply by 80% in the past decade, despite the fact
that the original series of rolling stock (some of which in service since the 1960’s) were
phased out between 1999 and 2002.
The Porto urban transport operator has a fleet of about 540 single-decked buses (of which
175 run on natural gas) and about 5 working trams. The bus supply has declined by over
11% in the past decade, while trams have declined to almost nothing and electric cars
have ceased to operate. The light rail system has, to some extent, replaced this lost supply
– however, total urban transport supply by the end of 2004 in Porto was about the same as
in 1996 (while demand has decreased, as shown in the following section), in a city which
is known to be prone to traffic problems.
Demand
Total demand in Lisbon has remained almost the same in the period 1996-2003, although
demand for underground transport is now nearly as much as for bus transport (whereas in
1996 it was only about 39% of bus demand). In terms of utilization coefficient, and
comparing with the figures presented in the previous section, bus and tram supply in
Lisbon has had a utilization coefficient of 27% over the past decade, while the
underground has had a coefficient of only 18% (a figure which has somewhat improved
over the last two years, as demand increased).
As for Porto, total demand (served almost entirely by the bus mode) has declined by
about 7% over the past decade. The bus mode has had a utilization coefficient of 30%,
but the new light rail system only had a coefficient of 10% over the two years it has been
operating. It is expected that demand for this system will increase over time, and with the
construction of the 2nd
phase of the light rail’s network.
Coimbra discontinued part of its trolleybus routes during the past decade. Total demand
has dropped by over 20%, but this has apparently been a result of the cut on trolleybus
routes in 2000 – demand has actually increased (by 13%) between 2000 and 2004. The
system has kept a high utilization coefficient: 34% over the period.
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport
Historically, inland waterways have not been significant as a means of transport, except at
the mouth of the rivers Tagus (in Lisbon) and Sado (in Setubal, an important secondary
city in the Lisbon region). In Lisbon, the completion of a new bridge crossing over the
Tagus (the Vasco da Gama Bridge, in 1998) made the ferries obsolete, which has caused
a dramatic decrease in both passengers and vehicles carried in inland water transport (a
40% drop in passengers between 1998 and 2004, and a 71% drop in vehicles over the
same period). Since 1995, the ferry fleet (which was considerably aged) has been
modernized with the acquisition of 13 new catamaran ferries. 18 Older vessels remain in
service as well.
As for the Sado crossing at Setubal, passenger demand did not change considerably over
the past decade (about 1.6 million passengers / year). Vehicle demand did drop by 21%,
though. International traffic by inland waterways is even less significant.
2.3.5 Sea ports
Infrastructure
Portugal has 22 seaports available, of which the most significant, in terms of commercial
shipping, are Lisbon (PT13 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo), Sines (PT14 Alentejo), Leixões
(PT11 Norte), Setubal (PT13 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo) and Funchal (PT3 Madeira).
Together, these 5 seaports handle over 90% of all vessels coming to Portugal each year,
measured in dwt.
Means
In terms of maritime traffic, the Portuguese Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical
miles from the coast) is crossed by some of the main shipping lanes passing through the
Mediterranean, northern Europe, Africa and America. Much of the worldwide freight
carried by sea passes along the Portuguese coast. In particular, it is estimated that about
12 oil tankers cross the Portuguese EEZ per day, carrying 30% of all crude produced
worldwide. Many of these tankers will travel near the coast as they head for northern
Europe or back into the Mediterranean.
A state-of-the-art Vessel Traffic System (VTS) radar system is being set up to monitor
the Portuguese EEZ. Commissioned in December 2004, it has a twofold objective of
protecting Europe’s outer borders and at the same time improving maritime safety and
environmental protection. The most dangerous zones in terms of accidents and spills in
Portugal are the harbours and its approaches, mainly those with oil and chemical products
terminals (Sines, Lisbon, Aveiro), as well as the St. Vincent Cape (the south-western tip
of Europe), due to the intense maritime traffic and the extreme proximity to the coast.
This is particularly significant considering that petroleum products and crude oil make up
almost one half of all products passing through Portuguese seaports today.
Demand
Petroleum products and crude petroleum make up almost one half of all products passing
through Portuguese seaports. While crude petroleum is mostly unloaded from ships,
bound for Portuguese refineries, there is almost the same volume of petroleum products
loaded and unloaded at the seaports. Solid mineral fuels are the third most important
group, mostly being unloaded. Cement, lime and manufactured building materials are
also a very significant group; this is mostly being loaded onto ships.
While the total amount of freight handled at Portuguese seaports has varied little in the
past decade (about 55-60 million tons yearly), the types of freight being handled have
changed over time. Movement of goods falling into the categories “Cement, lime,
manufactured building materials” and “Crude and manufactured minerals” have more
than doubled over the past ten years, while “Metal products” and “Glass, glassware and
ceramic products” also increased significantly. On the other hand, “Live animals and
sugar beet”, "Wood and cork” and "Coal chemicals and tar” decreased by over 50% in the
last decade. Petroleum products also had a significant decrease.
Table 2.5 (international) Cargo handled in ports (in tons)
Total Loaded in Portugal Unloaded in Portugal Transit
1995 60.897.665 16.802.194 44.095.471 13.968.350
2000 56.403.235 12.588.670 43.814.565 10.023.957
2004 59.623.855 15.999.821 43.624.034 10.494.223
Source: Portuguese Statistical Office (INE)
2.3.6 Airports
Infrastructure
There are fourteen airports in Portugal, as well as a number of smaller airfields. Lisbon,
Porto and Faro airports are the main airports, and the other eleven are located in the
insular regions of Açores and Madeira.
While these eleven airports are crucial for their regional economies, they cannot be
compared to the three main airports on the mainland in terms of traffic. There is an airport
in each of the eleven inhabited islands in these regions, although most of them have only
very modest capacity and traffic levels. On the other hand, on the mainland, the regions
of PT14 Alentejo and PT12 Centro have no airports (although the new Lisbon Airport
will be located in the Centro region); for it has not been deemed necessary in light of the
existing transport infrastructure and potential demand (Alentejo in particular has a very
low population density).
The five most important airports are:
• Lisbon airport, which serves the capital, has the most traffic and the greatest capacity
in every respect. Demand for this infrastructure has increased significantly over the
years, and a new airport has been planned, which will soon be in the construction
stage, with greater capacity and located outside the city limits.
• Sá Carneiro Airport, which serves the city of Porto, the second most populous urban
area. Demand for this airport has been increasing and there are plans for its upgrading
in the near future.
• Faro Airport serves southern Portugal, and most specifically, the tourist region of
Algarve. Demand growth over the past decade has not been as significant as in
Lisbon and Porto.
• Funchal Airport is the largest in the insular region of Madeira, and also has
significant traffic. Its capacity has recently been improved.
• John Paul II Airport in Ponta Delgada is the largest in Açores, and crucial for the
regional economy of this remote and poor region. Traffic is not as noteworthy here,
despite strong demand growth in the last decade.
Means
Amongst the Portuguese operators to be seen at Portuguese airports are TAP - Air
Portugal, Portugália, SATA, Aerocondor, Euro-Atlantic Airways, Air Luxor and YesAir.
TAP accounts for more than half of all movements at Lisbon Airport, Portugália and
SATA are also very significant. Among foreign operators, Lufthansa and Air France
handle the most passengers.
Demand
Not only is Lisbon Airport the one with the highest demand, it has also been the one with
the highest demand growth in both number of yearly flights and passengers. Demand in
Lisbon has grown by 74% in 1995, and this airport now accounts for 47% of all flights
(only 41% in 1995). Demand in Porto and Ponta Delgada has grown by around 58% and
in other airports by less than 25% in the same period.
Figure 2.2 shows the evolution concerning the total number of passengers yearly.
Demand growth in Lisbon over the last decade has reached 72% (this airport now
accounts for 48% of all passengers, compared to 42% in 1995). Ponta Delgada has grown
by 80%, which is also very significant, although it still handles a modest amount of traffic
today. Funchal and Porto had a demand growth of 55% and 46%, respectively, and the
remaining airports had a growth of 22-24%.
Figure 2.2 Number of passengers on each airport 1995-2004
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Lisbon
Porto
Faro
Ponta Delgada
Funchal
Others
Source: Portuguese Statistical Office (INE),
Regarding air cargo, there was substantial growth until 2000, particularly in Porto, but
since the beginning of economic stagnation in Portugal, demand in the two main airports
has dropped – by the end of 2004, total volume of freight and mail handled in Lisbon and
Porto airports was about the same as it had been in 1995. On the other hand, the airports
of Funchal, Ponta Delgada and the smaller airports on the islands have had an increase of
about 50% each. Nevertheless, Lisbon still handles 65% of all air freight and mail (it
handled 69% in 1995).
2.3.7 Trends and indicators
Modal split
The share of car transport for passenger transport (87%) in 2002 in Portugal is
substantially above the EU15 and EU25 averages. In contrast, the share of rail transport is
only half of the European average.
Table2.6 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 2002)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro
Situation 2002
Portugal 87.0 9.1 3.4 0.6
EU15 83.5 8.8 6.6 1.0
Source: Eurostat
In freight transport, measured in tonne-kilometres, road is also the dominant mode with a
share of 87%, which is far above the EU average figures. However, this is not due to the
low share of rail, since rail transport is almost equal to the EU15 average and slightly
below the EU25 average. The main differences in the modal split in Portugal are caused
by the negligible share of inland waterway transport and pipeline transport.
Table2.7 Modal split freight transport (share in tonkilometers, 2002)
Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline
Situation 2002
Portugal 87.0 13.0 - -
EU15 75.5 12.9 6.9 4.6
Source: Eurostat
Figure 2.5 Development of the modal split in freight transport
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system
Having analysed the available national sources on the present state of the transport
infrastructure in Portugal, a SWOT analysis is presented.
-
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(mln
to
nn
es-k
m)
Strengths Weaknesses
• Excellent geographical location by the Atlantic
Ocean; growth potential for the maritime
infrastructure.
• Well developed road/motorway network
• Much experience with EU financing of
infrastructure projects
• Peripheral geographical location within the
European Union
• Differences between the Portuguese and
European railway gauge and signalling standards
• Traffic problems in urban areas aggravated by an
excessive dependence on individual automobile
transport and rapid urban population expansion
• High road accidents rate partly caused by poor
infrastructure design and maintenance
• Lack of an integrated logistics, transport and
intermodality vision
• Low share of railways in passenger movements
Opportunities Threats
• Available EU support for the overall
modernization and upgrading of the Portuguese
transport infrastructure
• Conditions for the improvement of the main
urban transportation systems, and most
especially its intermodal connections, as well as
the implementations of more advanced and
environmentally friendly means of transportation
and related technologies
• Decreasing role of railway transport
• Declining role of public transport, in particular in
urban areas
• Poor economic performance causing lack of
national resources, both public and private, for
transport-related investment; depleted local
budgets will mean public investment in the near
future will be at a modest pace
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 Index (API), which
forms a central role in the approach, is explained. The higher the value of the index, the
higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled as the “red flag”
analysis.
This composite Accessibility Problem Index is a combined measure, which addresses
transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate
explanation is provided in Annex B). As such the accessibility analysis is much more
linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of
the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis
identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation
(2006).
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess
the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national
transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and
rail systems in each country 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
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 B
gives a more elaborate description of the composite Accessibility Problem Index.
3.3 Transport needs
The composite Accessibility Problem Index takes account of the transport system quality
(travel speed), population density and regional disparity. Figure 3.1 depicts the population
density between the regions in Portugal. The two major urban centres Lisbon (population
517,000) and Porto (population 263,000) clearly stand out, whereas the next-largest cities
Braga, Coimbra and Guimares are parts of larger regions with low overall population
density. The capital city region of Lisbon is also the economic centre of the country, with
highest per capita GDP level (see Figure 3.2).
The new accessibility
indicator recognises
transport network
quality, population
density and regional
disparity
Figure 3.1 Population density (population/sqkm), 2006
Figure 3.2 GDP/capita (Euro of 2005), 2006
The results of the analysis of regions with accessibility deficits that could be addressed by
European policy are presented in Figures 3.3 to 3.6. These figures show the spatial
distribution of the Accessibility Problem Index in Portugal 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 Portugal is compared with the European average, it becomes apparent
that road accessibility in most regions of Portugal is better than the European average
(Figure 3.4). Rail accessibility is significantly below the European average as indicated
by the orange and red shades of the map (Figure 3.6).
Regional imbalances
Figure 3.3 shows the spatial distribution of road accessibility in Portugal seen from a
national perspective. There is a clear decline in road accessibility form south to north,
with the north-western regions being relatively disadvantaged. As Figure 3.4 shows, even
these regions are only slightly below the European average, though.
The accessibility problems for rail show a quite different pattern (Figure 3.5). Here the
regions along the Spanish border and the Faro region in the south benefit from their links
to the more developed rail network in Spain, making them more easily accessible. The
metropolitan regions around Lisbon and Porto are relatively poorly served compared with
their population concentrations. Also the north-western region is relatively poorly served
by rail.
From a European perspective (Figure 3.6), all regions in Portugal have rail accessibility
significantly below the European average. The contrast between the poor state of the rail
system in Portugal and the advanced rail system in Spain becomes obvious. In particular
the superior rail accessibility in the already existing high-speed rail corridors in Spain
between Seville and Madrid and further north stands out.
Figure 3.3 Accessibility Problem Index Road (national), 2006
Figure 3.4 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European), 2006
Figure 3.5 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (national), 2006
Figure 3.6 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European), 2006
Part B: Past transport investment priorities
4 Previous support programmes
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure
Table 4.1 provides an overview of the expenditures on transport infrastructure from
national (public) sources. The respective projects are all co-financed by the Cohesion
Fund and ERDF; the data presented does not include projects fully financed by the
national budget.
Table 4.1 National funding (budget allocation) by mode of transport, 1994-2004 (mln €)
National public
sources
National private
sources
Railways 1,490 0
Roads 2,152 3
Ports 261 8
Airports 275 0
Urban transport 18 0
Other 122
Total 4,319 11
A total amount of € 4.3 billion are domestic public or equivalent expenditure meaning
that they correspond to own or borrowed resources of central, regional and local
administration, public owned companies or entities entrusted with public interest (through
a concession or according to own statutes, for example). Private resources are marginal
although it should be said that part of the data considered as public is in fact private.
4.2 EU funding
During the period 1994-2004 Portugal has received a total amount of almost € 6.2 billion
to co-finance transport projects, of which € 4.1 billion from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and € 2 billion from the Cohesion Fund. With this assistance
it has been possible to carry out total investments amounting to € 10.5 billion, meaning
that the global average rate of co-financing by the EU funds was just 58.8%. All these
figures represent certified expenditure meaning that those amounts have been actually
spent and paid during this period.
The average rate of assistance of the Cohesion Fund was over this period 64.9% while the
corresponding figure for the ERDF was just 56.2%.
Trends in terms of different funds used
Around 33% of the whole expenditure co-financed by the EU in the transport sector over
those 11 years has been paid by the Cohesion Fund. The remaining 67% of funding
belong to the ERDF.
Table 4.2 Breakdown by sub-sector and type of fund, 1994-2004 (mln €)
ERDF CF
Railways 996 737
Roads 2,641 903
Ports 285 152
Airports 99 159
Urban transport 1 93
Other 127 0
Total 4,148 2,045
It is clear that the Cohesion Fund has had a share above the average in financing
Railways, Ports, Airports and Urban Transport; Roads (more than half of total EU funds)
are in fact the only sub-sector where CF financing is below the average.
The main reason for this situation is the fact that projects are approved by the
Commission, which has tried to reduce investment in roads, and to increase investments
in cleaner transports, mainly railways, ports and underground city transport. If the major
project of Funchal Airport in Madeira, assisted together by several operational
programmes financed by the ERDF and as well by the Cohesion Fund, is also taken into
account the whole picture of EU financing can be derived.
The road sub-sector has absorbed 57.2% of the EU funds and the ERDF has devoted
63.7% of its resources to roads. Even for the Cohesion Fund the road sub-sector has
absorbed 44% of the assistance, roads being the first area of spending.
It should not be forgotten that smaller projects carried out by municipalities – a very
significant part of the whole – have only access to ERDF and correspond mostly to roads
and streets. If we would take only the Central Administration and agencies, the output
would be more balanced between roads and railways. Anyway we may say that the CF in
Portugal is more oriented to modes of transport other than roads, the ERDF being the
main provider of resources to the road network across the country (almost 75% of the EU
assistance to this sub-sector was provided by the Regional Fund).
Trends in support to different sub sectors
The ERDF has financed primarily roads: every single year roads have represented more
than half of the resources devoted to the transport sector. Regarding the Cohesion Fund
the situation is radically different: till 1997 roads have kept the first position but since
then railways have received the highest share of the assistance.
All together one cannot say there is a clear trend during the period: with the exception of
1998 the road sub-sector has always had the major share of the EU assistance from 1994
to 2004. The railway sub-sector usually comes second. Urban transport only concerns the
underground network in Lisbon and only from 2001 became an important sub-sector to
Cohesion Fund assistance. On the other hand seaports have got a permanent share in the
Structural and Cohesion Fund assistance: they usually come third.
Extension and modernisation of airports have been an almost permanent sub-sector of EU
structural financing along the years; from 1997 the CF has supported the extension and
improvement of the Santa Catarina airport in Funchal (Madeira) and therefore until 2001
this sub-sector has absorbed a significant share of the CF resources. It is interesting to
notice that only airports and urban transport have been mostly financed through the
Cohesion fund while the other sectors got more resources from the ERDF.
Trends in support to geographical regions
In global terms one cannot say that the spatial distribution of the funds was even from the
regional disparities point of view: around 34.3% of the assistance has been devoted to the
Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region while only 22.3% has been applied to the Norte Region
(with a similar population but with a lower per capita GDP). The same applies to the
relationship between Madeira and Azores: they have both similar population size;
Madeira has a much higher development level and got 7.9% of the funds against 5.8 for
the Azores. The Algarve Region received relatively less of EU funds: with almost 4% of
the Portuguese population it has absorbed only 2.1% of the Funds.
4.3 Other sources of financing
This section gives an overview of other sources of financing for transport infrastructure.
EIB
EIB has been very active in Portugal, with a total loan portfolio of 10.2 bn€ in the period
1994-2006. The overall distribution of loans is: road sector 55%, urban public transport
(metro’s) 20%, rail sector 17%, aviation sector 7% and ports 1%.
The support in the road sector mainly involves co-financing of the construction of toll
motorways. The largest EIB loan was dedicated to the construction of Scut Beira
Litoral/Beira Alta (PPP) in 2001 (470 m€).
In the urban public transport sector, the support is almost fully dedicated to the
construction/extension of the metro network in Lisbon. The loans committed in the
railway sector involved mainly upgrading of the Linha do Norte and purchase of rolling
stock.
PPP financing
The first significant example of public private partnership in Portugal took place in the
mid seventies with Brisa, a private company owned mostly by the State but with private
shareholders, to which a concession had been awarded to implement the main motorway
network in Portugal. In the nineties this policy has been further expanded and today
includes not only motorways (Brisa but as well other private companies are involved in
different concessions), but also sub-regional light train transport (construction and
operation), the operation of specific parts of the railway network and seaport terminals.
The following laws relate to public-private partnerships in Portugal:
• In 1994, Decree-Law No 168/94 approved the basis of the concession of the
conception, project, construction, financing, exploration and maintenance of the new
bridge over the Tagus river in Lisbon, as well as the exploration and maintenance of
the older 25 de Abril Bridge.
• In 1997, Decree-Law No 267/97 approved the rules to be applied in public tenders in
which the concession of highways and associated groups of roads are to be made; this
proved to be fundamental in promoting the economic and social cohesion of the
country and its connection to Europe, with shadow tolls being applied to low traffic,
less developed areas.
• In 1999, Decree-Law No. 384-A/99 approved the basis for the concession of a
dedicated container terminal at Sines seaport, which involved the construction of
infrastructure and facilities.
Finally, it is considered by the Government that the endowing of immaterial inputs should
preferably belong to the State. These include the promotion of R&D in the sector,
innovation, signature of international agreements, finance, professional training and the
creation of knowledge bases accessible to all agents.
The strategic outline for the development of the sea transport mode will take into account
the need to motivate and reinforce the contribution of the private initiative in the sector,
of which the investment destined to support the transformation of Sines seaport into a
transhipment centre are an example.
The Government, in permanent interaction with the Ministry for the Environment,
Territorial Planning and Regional Development, is preparing the Priority Infrastructure
Investments Program (PIIP). A summary table was elaborated in the PIIP, including the
priority projects. A list of representative projects is presented here:
Table 4.3 Priority Infrastructure Investments Program, public and private budgets for priority projects (mln €)
Project Total public Total private Total
Road Infrastructure concessions (Lisbon area) 0.00 167.00 167.00
Amarante-Bragança connection 0.00 150.00 150.00
High-speed railway 1,400.00 100.00 1,500.00
New Lisbon Airport 220.00 430.00 650.00
Source: PIIP Report
This investment plan of does not encompass the whole of the investment effort to be
made between 2005 and 2009, but merely presents the projects which will require the
greatest focus and priority, because of the significance of the partnerships with the private
sector and, most importantly, because of its expected benefits.
Part C: Future transport investment priorities
5 National Transport Strategy
5.1 Introduction
This is the first section of Part C which aims to determine transport investment priorities
at a strategic level. This chapter deals with the current national transport policy and
resulting investment priorities. In the next chapter these investment priorities are
confronted with an analysis of possible sources of financing, and other factors such as
their contribution to EU policy objectives, the administrative capacity of the country, the
socio-economic impacts in relation to the costs of the projects, and the extent to which the
projects contribute to the needs identified in Part A of this report. Finally the overall
impact of the proposed investment priorities is assessed.
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning
The transport policy in Portugal is to a large extent reflected in the following documents:
• Operational Programme of Accessibilities and Transport 2000-2006 (POAT);
• White Paper of the Maritime and Port Policy Towards the XXI Century;
• Great Options of the Plan (GOP).
POAT 2000-2006
The objectives for the Portuguese Transport OP (POAT), which correspond to the
objectives of the national strategy for transport, include the creation of conditions for an
increase in productivity and competitiveness of the Portuguese economy, for the
development of a services platform for intercontinental transport, for the improvement of
the quality of life; and for the strengthening of regional cohesion. It should also be noted
that a significant share of the investment undertaken under the transport policy is funded
through the regional OP’s.
Four objectives have been defined for the period 2000-06:
• To create conditions both for the transport system and for its infrastructure to increase
productivity and competitiveness of the Portuguese companies and favour their
integration in the global market, through an integrated approach to mobility
respecting environment and spatial planning.
• To create conditions for the development in Portugal of a services platform capable
of being an interface for long haul transport between Europe, America, Africa and the
Far East;
• To contribute to the improvement of quality of life in urban areas;
• To improve accessibilities necessary for strengthening regional cohesion.
These four objectives are also those of the transport policy in Portugal for this seven year
period. The OP is seen as a major instrument in achieving these objectives and therefore
no specific objectives have been set for it.
On the basis of the four objectives mentioned above, four priority axes have been set for
the 2000-06 Accessibility and Transport OP:
• Integration of the main domestic corridors in the TEN-T;
• Strengthening of inter-modal coordination;
• Strengthening of the national cohesion
• Promotion of quality, efficiency and safety of the transport system.
It is important to stress that a significant part of actions and investments undertaken under
the transport policy – those more directly related with regional development – are funded
through the five regional operational programmes of the Portuguese mainland. Like the
Cohesion Fund, these programmes have a strong contribution to the achievement of the
OP objectives; in the case of the regional OPs ERDF assistance is oriented towards the
strengthening of the transport accessibilities at regional level thus promoting national
cohesion.
Under priority axis 1, two areas were set as priorities: to complete Priority Project nr. 8
(multi-modal connection Portugal-Spain/rest of Europe) and to accelerate the construction
of transversal and longitudinal road corridors (the transversal axis crossing Alentejo
(Sines – Spanish border) and the north-south axis close to the Portuguese-Spanish
border).
Under priority axis 2, three areas were set as priorities: improvement of accessibility to
and performance of seaports, development of the complementary road network and
development of a national logistics network.
Under priority axis 3, two areas were set as priorities: development of railway
connections between urban centres and improvement of road connections between urban
centres (including construction of road rings).
Under priority axis 4, two areas were set as priorities: improvement of quality and
efficiency of the transport system and strengthening of transport safety conditions.
White Paper on the Maritime and Port Policy
The single White Paper ever published in the Portuguese transport policy is the “White
Paper on the Maritime and Port Policy: towards the 21st century”, published in 1997. In
this document an integrated policy in a strategic sector for the Portuguese economy is put
forward.
Great Options of the Plan
The Great Options of the Plan (GOP - Grandes Opções do Plano) is the policy document
where the government states the objectives it wants to achieve across every sector of the
society, thus including transport and public works. In this document an extensive list is
presented with past, present and future projects for the 2002-2006 period (the same period
of time of the present government). The GOP considers the POAT as a reference.
Over recent years, more emphasis has been put into more qualitative aspects of the
transport policy: safety, environment, the quality of life, shift between transport modes,
integration of transport modes, etc. The objectives of the transport policy until 2007 can
therefore be summarized as follows:
• To create conditions for the transport sector to be a factor of competitiveness and
integration of the Portuguese companies in the global market, through an integrated
approach to mobility respecting environment and spatial planning.
• To create conditions for the development in Portugal of a services platform capable
of being an interface for long haul transport between Europe and other continents;
• To contribute to the improvement of quality of life in urban areas;
• To improve accessibilities necessary for strengthening regional cohesion.
Portugal Logistico
Recently, the Portuguese Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Communications
published a plan for eleven logistics parks to be realised by 20133. This plan includes the
construction/extension of intermodal terminals in Maia/Trofa (Porto), Poceirao (Lisbon),
Valenca, Chaves, Guarda, Elvas/Caia, Tunes, Leixoes, Aveiro, Bodadela/Sobralinho and
Sines.
5.3 Operational programme 2007-2013
The Portuguese Transport Operational Programme and regional OPs for the coming
programming period are yet unpublished. Officially the only indication of Portugal’s
priorities for the period 2007-2013 is provided by Priority Infrastructure Investments
Program (PIIP), already mentioned in section 4.3. The list of priority projects for 2007-
2009, to be partly financed with private funds, includes:
• Road infrastructure concessions (Lisbon area)
• Amarante-Bragança connection
• High-speed railways
• New Lisbon Airport
5.4 Main objectives of the OP
The Portuguese Transport Operational Programme and regional OPs for the coming
programming period are yet unpublished.
5.5 Priorities in OP by sector
The Portuguese Transport Operational Programme and regional OPs for the coming
programming period are yet unpublished.
3 Published on 9 May 2006
Priorities for EU funding
The following TEN priority projects are (partly) located in Portugal:
• P03 High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe
o P03.1 Lisboa - Badajoz – Madrid
o P03.5 Aveiro- Salamanca
o P03.6 Lisboa-Porto
• P08 Multimodal Portugal/Spain - rest Europe
o P08.1 Coruna-Lisboa-Sines
o P08.2-3 Lisboa-Valladolid
o P08.4 Lisboa port
• P16 Freight Railway line Sines – Madrid – Paris
o P16.2 Sines-Badajoz
• P19 High-speed Rail interoperability on the Iberian Peninsula
o P19.6 Vigo-Porto
• P21 Motorways of the sea
Regarding the high-speed rail projects, the official government decision dated December
2005, reveals that the section Lisbon-Madrid has the highest priority (envisaged opening
in 2013), followed by Lisbon-Porto (2015). The sections Aveiro-Salamanca, Porto-Vigo
and Evora-Faro are further postponed.
Other priorities in the rail sector include the construction/electrification of the freight
railway line Sines-Elvas/Badajoz.
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments
(2007-2013)
6.1 Introduction
This chapter intends to identify the main areas for transport investments that would merit
EU funding in the period 2007-2013. 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.
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”4.
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 20055. In parallel, Member States have already started preparations for their National
Strategic Reference Frameworks and OPs.
Additional factors influencing investment priorities
As indicated the Strategic Guidelines form the context in which investment priorities for
Community financing should be identified. In addition to these strategic guidelines a
number of other factor shape the eventual establishment of transport investment priorities.
These other factors include:
• Cost-effectiveness of projects;
• Availability of other sources of funding;
• Appropriateness of transport policy
• Administrative capacity to adequately absorb and manage funds.
4 COM(2004)492 5 COM(2005)299 Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013.
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.
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 objective6. 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.
6 Decision n°. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 29 April 2004.
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 billion € for the coming programming period. Financing can
be up to 20%. It should be noted however that this financing is only a fraction of total
cohesion financing (e.g. Cohesion Fund financing for transport approximates 45 m€),
while TEN-T funds are valid for all EU members. It is expected that TEN-T funds will be
focused on cross-border TEN-T projects.
EIB financing is another source of financing available for transport investment. EIB has
been very active in Portugal in the previous decade, especially in supplying loans for
motorway investment, but also in railway infrastructure and investment in the Lisbon
metro lines. Further involvement of EIB may become more difficult for Portugal. An
important criterion is the level of public debt, which should be below 60% of GDP. In
Portugal this currently stands at around 59%.
EBRD will not become more active in Portugal, since this is not a focus country. The
focus of EBRD is shifting towards the candidate countries (Bulgaria, Romania).
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 is
present in Portugal. The following PPP projects in the transport field related to the
Cohesion Fund exist in Portugal:
• construction of toll motorways by Brisa (10 projects over the period 1993/99);
TEN-T budget
EIB
EBRD
PPPs
• construction of the new bridge over the Tagus river in Lisbon (1 project);
• construction of shadow toll motorways (no project was yet co-financed by the
Cohesion Fund, but it is explicitly mentioned in the Reference Framework);
The current business climate in Portugal 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, railways, metro
EBRD -
PPP & private capital Income generating transport investments: toll
motorways, ports, airports, logistic centres
Appropriateness of the transport policy
Rebalancing the modal partition in Portugal will require further investment on the railway
mode, (including the creation of new high-speed and conventional rail routes and services
and the standardization of gauge and signalling standards); on road and rail accessibilities
to urban areas, and its interconnection with urban transport systems; and on the national
logistics network, which can be greatly improved with future investments such as the
creation of intermodal corridors connecting Portugal’s primary economic centres to the
rest of the European Union.
Rail liberalisation is delayed, in practice there is hardly any competition for the state
owned railway company CP. According to the rail liberalisation index study (IBM, 2004)
this is caused by a lack of transparency regarding access criteria.
To date the road network is well-developed; most of the motorways are toll-roads. There
is no specific policy foreseen to favour rail instead of road transport. The promotion of
new funding sources for the road sector, which is being studied, will allow larger social
justice, by revising the existing legislation on the taxation system and applicable highway
fees. In this way, the users will pay in accordance with their infrastructure use.
Road safety in Portugal is, measured in fatalities per inhabitant and per million cars,
above the European average. Therefore, improving the road safety should be a priority in
the transport policy.
Administrative capacity
The institutional framework for the implementation of the Structural Funds in Portugal
has been set up by national legislation in April 1990, and although some changes have
been introduced since then, the model essentially remains the same to date.
An analysis of the number, skills and experience of the technical staff in charge of
assessment, approval, monitoring, control and evaluation of applications and projects
demonstrates that an additional effort should be made in order to ensure sound
management and full performance of all tasks ascribed to the management entity. An in-
depth analysis shows in fact that a technical review of the projects is not made before
approval, that there is no available staff for on-going project monitoring, and that the
control function should be enhanced. A mix of new staff and experienced experts are
present in all entities in charge of both Cohesion and Regional Funds, and this cannot
really be considered as a major problem for implementation.
The next Structural and Cohesion Fund programming period will be crucial to solve some
of the remaining problems in the transport sector, since it might be the last significant
financial package that Portugal will get from the European Union to deal with such
matters. On the other hand, 2007-13 will experience a reduction of resources compared
with the previous programming period which means that quantity should be replaced with
quality and the resources should be concentrated in a number of limited areas and
projects. This means that a more rigorous project assessment and decision-making model
should be put in place to ensure selectivity and to guarantee the appropriate decisions in
the key areas for transport development as a crucial factor for competitiveness of the
country and of its economic agents.
It is therefore necessary to bolster the technical capacity within the public administration
for dealing with project evaluation, financing models and its impact on the public budget
on the medium and the long term. It is also necessary to implement more rigorous
procedures in evaluating public projects, both in the selection and the execution phase,
and focus on the overall need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public
investment in Portugal. Social factors must have bearing on the investment decision
process, but the financial sustainability of a public investment must, as a rule, be the
dominant consideration, especially considering Portugal’s current budgetary difficulties.
The use of public-private partnerships and other non-traditional financing models should
be extended when feasible, always keeping in mind the need for fulfilling the project’s
calendar.
Based on the above stated arguments a risk assessment has been prepared with respect to
the administrative capacity in Portugal. 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 Low-Moderate Experience with CF and ERDF is large for most authorities.
Some weaknesses, in terms of project evaluation, financing models and
its impact on the public budget on the medium and the long term
Roads Low-Moderate There has been relatively much experience with road construction in
different regions in Portugal.
Rail Moderate Depending on complexity of project.
Ports Low-Moderate Depending on specific port and experience with large scale
investments.
Urban transport Moderate Depending on city. Higher risk in cities with relative lack of experience in
large scale investment programme
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 sectors7.
7 See e.g. Rothengatter, The relevance of Transeuropean Transport Networks for Integration and Growth in the Extended
European Union.
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 model8.
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 Portugal and Romania to the European Union in 2007.
Further European integration results in reductions in waiting times and lower barriers
between countries.
8 Which relies on the trans-European transport network database developed by IRPUD (2003) and now maintained and
further developed by RRG (2005)
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 estimates9. Where no existing data
existed, estimates are based on existing unit parameters in EU wide infrastructure needs
assessments10
. 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 projects11
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 accessibility12
).
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 studies13
, projects identified on the basis of interviews
that have been carried out in the countries, or projects that can be additionally identified
on the basis of the needs assessment in Part A of this report (including the “red flag”
analysis).
This result in a scenario of all TEN priority projects and additional national projects that
are planned to be constructed (or start with construction) in the period 2007-2013 and
which are operational by 2016. An important notion with respect to the maximum
scenario is that no budget restriction is applied.
9 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). 10 E.g. TINA, TEN-Invest, TEN-STAC 11 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. 12 Are projects solving “missing links” in the network. 13 For example the recent study carried out by VTT on the Pan-European corridors (VTT 2006).
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 prioritised14
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 return15
)?
• 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).
In addition, the Portuguese HSL plans have been analysed by using an international
comparison study16
. This has been done by looking into the combination of potential
demand and benefits from a number of case studies. In Annex C the relationship between
potential demand, time savings and distance is presented.
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.
14 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). 15 Based on TEN-STAC 16 “High Speed Rail: International Comparisons”, February 2004, Steer Davies Gleave. Prepared for the British Commission
for Integrtaed Transport.
Table 7.1 Assessment of selected areas for road and rail investment
Sub sector
Co
st-e
ffectiv
en
ess
Accessib
ility
Su
sta
inab
ility
Territo
rial
Co
hesio
n
Safe
ty
Oth
er s
ou
rces o
f
finan
ce
Railway:
- HSL Lisbon-Porto
- HSL Lisbon-Elvas/Badajoz-Madrid or Aveiro-
Salamanca
- Sines-Elvas multi-modal
-/0
-
-/0
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
Roads:
- Completion motorway Lisbon-Valladolid
- Completion main road 2 (IP2) Vale Benfeito-
Beja
- Completion main road 8 (IP8) Sines- Baleizão
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
0
0
+
0
0
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
Railways
• For the railway infrastructure still many improvements are to be made, which aim at
improving the infrastructure in terms of capacity, speed and safety. The optimization
of the railway system must take into account today’s needs and demand, but it cannot
ignore the existing infrastructure. Therefore, a number of aged routes have had
extensive modernization works since the 1990’s, most noticeably the Lisbon-Porto
connection, but these works are still underway and their full benefit has not yet been
attained.
• The plans for the HSL involve the construction of the line Lisbon-Porto, including the
rejection of the upgrading of the present conventional line (Linha do Norte).
Secondly the connection Lisbon-Madrid through Elvas is considered to be one of the
priorities. An alternative route to Madrid is Lisbon-Aveiro-Salamanca, which is
currently low on the priority list of the Portuguese government.
• Regarding rail freight, the construction/upgrading of the Sines-Elvas line is
considered important. The actual demand for rail freight traffic is however largely
depending on the development of the port of Sines.
Roads
• Since accession, Portugal has had an enormous development in road infrastructure.
Today, road travel times between urban centres have been significantly reduced, as a
consequence of the improvement in the national road network. At the same time, a
persistence of traffic problems inside the urban centres can be observed, one of the
major shortcomings in the roadway infrastructure being the distributor roads in the
metropolitan areas.
• Investments are foreseen to complete the Lisbon-Valladolid motorway (scheduled for
2010). Secondly completion of the main roads nr2 and nr8 is foreseen to be funded,
in order to complete the road network.
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 EBRD PPP
Railway:
- HSL Lisbon-Porto
- HSL Lisbon-Elvas/Badajoz-Madrid or Aveiro-
Salamanca
- Sines-Elvas multi-modal
√
√
√
√
√
?
√
√
Roads:
- Completion motorway Lisbon-Valladolid
- Completion main road 2 (IP2) Vale Benfeito-
Beja
- Completion main road 8 (IP8) Sines- Baleizão
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
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.
Figure 7.2 Road network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios
Figure 7.3 Rail network in Reference, Maximum and Balanced Scenarios
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 coefficient17 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.
17 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).
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)
52.4 52.4 53.2 +1.5%
52.4 +0.0%
53.2 +1.5%
52.9 +1.0%
Average speed of inter- regional rail trips (kph)
20.7 20.8 20.8 0.0%
28.3 +35.8%
28.3 +35.8%
23.9 +14.6%
Economic competitiveness
GDP per capita (Euro)18
13,814 28,075 28,113 +0.1%
28,482 +1.5%
28,519 +1.6%
28,172 +0.3%
Primacy rate (%) population
19.4 20.2 20.2 +0.0%
20.2 +0.0%
20.2 +0.0%
20.2 +0.0%
Primacy rate (%) GDP
33.3 33.6
33.6 +0.0%
33.9 +0.9%
33.9 +0.9%
33.6 +0.0%
Gini coefficient19 of accessibility (0-100)
3.94 4.01 3.81 -4.8%
3.58 -10.6%
3.40 -15.3%
3.67 -8.4%
Territorial cohesion
Gini coefficient of GDP per capita (0-100)
20.04 19.79 19.79 +0.0%
20.07 +1.4%
20.07 +1.4%
19.81 +0.1%
Environmental sustainability
Share of interregional rail trips (%)
15.7 15.7 15.5 -1.5%
28.8 +83.6%
28.5 +81.3%
23.2 +47.7%
Table 7.4 indicates that the economic impacts of the scenarios on Portugal are significant.
The transport improvements of the policy scenarios increase the average income in
Portugal by up to 1.6% or 440 Euro per capita per year. This effect is almost completely
due to the rail investments, which, when effective, increase interregional rail speeds in
Portugal 25 times as much as the planned road investments.
The impacts on the cohesion indicators, which reflect the impact on the spatial structure
of the country, are also quite significant. The model expects capital region of Lisbon,
which contains one fifth of the national population, to grow faster than the population of
Portugal, so that its share of the national population increases slightly. The Lisbon region
is even more dominant as economic centre – it produces a third of the GDP of the
country. According to the SASI forecasts, this dominance will even increase through the
new transport infrastructure, again mainly rail. This is also expressed by the Gini
coefficient of GDP per capita, which grows substantially in the Maximum Rail and
Maximum scenarios. The Gini coefficients of accessibility, however, show a convergence
effect of the rail projects. This is no contradiction as they mainly serve the metropolitan
regions of Lisbon and Porto, which had the greatest rail accessibility deficits (see Figure
3.5).
The environmental effects of the policy scenarios in terms of increased rail share are very
significant. If only rail projects were implemented as in the Maximum Rail Scenario, rail
use for interregional rail trips (including trips abroad but excluding air travel) would
18 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.
19 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).
increase by 80 percent. If also the planned road projects are implemented as in the
Maximum Scenarios, this effect is only slightly reduced by the growth in road travel. In
the Balanced Scenario, in which the high-speed rail links Aveiro-Salamanca and Badajoz-
Madrid are not included, the gain in rail share is less, but still substantial.
Regional impacts
Figures 7.4 to 7.6 show the spatial distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) per
capita in the regions of Portugal in the target year 2031.
Figure 7.4 shows GDP per capita of the regions in the Reference Scenario in the year
2031. A comparison with the distribution of GDP per capita in 2006 in Figure 3.2 shows
that according to the model, apart from the higher level, the spatial distribution of GDP
per capita within Portugal remains similar, with the Lisbon and Porto regions being the
economic centres and the regions in the north-east lagging behind.
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 show the effects of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the
distribution of GDP per capita. The impact maps show the percentage differences in GDP
per capita between the policy scenarios and the Reference Scenario. The more intense the
green shade, the higher the impact. The transport infrastructure investments mainly
benefit the coastal regions north and south of Lisbon as well as the rail and motorway
corridors to the south of Spain. Because of the substantial reductions in investment in the
Balanced Scenario, the economic effects in the Balanced Scenario are much weaker.
Figure 7.4 GDP per capita (in 1,000 Euro 2005), Reference Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.5 Impact on GDP per capita, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.6 Impact on GDP per capita, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figures 7.7 to 7.9 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on
sustainability (as expressed in the share of interregional passenger rail trips).
Figure 7.7 shows the average share of interregional rail trips originating in the NUTS-3
regions of Portugal (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 Figure 3.5) with generally low percentages of rail use in Portugal
and high percentages in the high-speed corridors in Spain.
Figures 7.8 and 7.9 show the combined effects of the road and rail projects in the
Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the share of interregional rail trips – again the two
maps are identical. 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 particular the effects of the new high-speed rail line between Lisbon and
Porto and the two high-speed rail connections with Spain (Lisbon-Aveiro-Salamanca and
Lisbon-Badajoz-Madrid) lead to significant shifts from road to rail. In the Balanced
Scenario this effect is much reduced and in the affected regions in Spain even leads to
lower shares of rail use due to the concurrent road projects.
Figure 7.7 Sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Reference Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.8 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.9 Impact on sustainability of transport (share of interregional rail trips), Balanced Scenario, 2031
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 most regions of Portugal is better than the European
average, whereas rail accessibility is significantly below the European average (Figures
3.4 and 3.6).
Figures 7.10 and 7.11 show the Accessibility Problem Index for road and rail in the year
2031 in the Reference Scenario from a European perspective20
. 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, which has led to shorter border
waiting times and reduced trade barriers. Figure 7.10 shows the Accessibility Problem
Index Road. Now even more regions in Portugal are coloured in a green shade, i.e. their
road accessibility is now above the European average of 2006. Figure 7.11 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 Portugal would remain poorly
served by rail.
Figures 7.12 to 7.15 show the impacts of the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios on the
Accessibility Problem Index in Portugal seen from a European perspective. Compared to
the Reference Scenario in 2031 (Figure 7.10), road accessibility has improved further
only little in both scenarios (Figures 7.12 and 7.14). The improvements in rail
accessibility in the Maximum Scenario (Figures 7.13) are much larger and focussed on
the three major rail projects, the high-speed rail lines Lisbon-Porto, Aveiro-Salamanca
and Badajoz-Madrid. In the Balanced Scenario (Figure 7.15) the two high-speed rail
connections to Spain are not included, so the effects on rail accessibility are much
smaller.
20 Note that the Accessibility Problem Index for 2031 is also calculated in reference to the national and European average of
the base year 2006 in order to show changes in accessibility.
Figure 7.10 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Reference Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.11 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Reference Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.12 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.13 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.14 Accessibility Problem Index Road (European perspective), Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.15 Accessibility Problem Index Rail (European perspective), Balanced Scenario, 2031
Table 7.5 summarises the effects of the four policy 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, Portugal, 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
0.958 0.942 -1.6%
0.959 +0.1%
0.943 -1.6%
0.949 -0.9%
Roads
European 0.917
0.879 0.865 -1.6%
0.879 0.0%
0.865 -1.6%
0.870 -1.0%
National 1.000
0.954 0.954 0.0%
0.438 -54.1%
0.437 -54.2%
0.603 -36.8%
Rail
European 1.959
1.870 1.869 -0.1%
0.859 -54.1%
0.857 -54.2%
1.181 -36.8%
The table reflects the results of the evaluation. There are some improvements in both road
and rail accessibility between 2006 and 2031 already in the Reference Scenario through
the effects of European integration in the form of reduced waiting times and other
barriers. There are relatively small improvements to road accessibility 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
much larger. In the Balanced Scenario the improvements are much reduced, as important
road and rail projects are excluded from this scenario.
7.5 European effects
The effects of transport infrastructure improvements are not confined to the country in
which the construction work actually occurs but reach across borders into neighbouring
countries. The SASI model forecasts these effects.
To demonstrate this on the following pages maps of the spatial distribution of the impacts
of the transport infrastructure investments in Portugal are shown (Figures 7.16 to 7.23).
The maps show the difference between the Maximum and Balanced Scenarios and the
Reference Scenario in 2031 for four of the evaluation criteria of Table 7.4: average speed
of interregional road trips (Figures 7.16 and 7.17), average speed of interregional rail trips
(Figures 7.18 and 7.19), GDP per capita (Figure 7.20 and 7.21) and share of interregional
rail trips (Figures 7.22 and 7.23). It can be seen that although the main impacts occur in
Portugal itself, significant effects spread beyond its national borders.
With respect to all four indicators, the impacts of the planned road and rail projects
spread across the whole Iberian peninsula and well into the south of France. The intensity
of the effects is related to the projects included in the two scenarios: for both road and rail
the effects of the Maximum Scenario are much larger. The cross-border effects on the
Spanish regions of Salamanca, Caceres, Badajoz, Seville and Cordoba are related to the
high-speed rail lines Aveiro-Salamanca and Badajoz-Madrid; as these are not included in
the Balanced Scenario, the cross-border effects of the Balanced Scenario are much
weaker. In the case of the environmental in terms of share of interregional rail trips, this
leads even to a reversal of the effect: whereas in the Maximum Scenario all regions show
a gain in the share of rail trips, in the Balanced Scenario, many regions lose rail trips
because the effect of the concurrent road projects is stronger.
Figure 7.16 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.17 Average speed of interregional road trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.18 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.19 Average speed of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.20 GDP per capita: European impacts, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.21 GDP per capita: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.22 Share of interregional rail trip s: European impacts, Maximum Scenario, 2031
Figure 7.23 Share of interregional rail trips: European impacts, Balanced Scenario, 2031
8 Conclusions on investment priorities
8.1 Introduction
Based on the previous analysis the main areas for transport investments that would merit
EU funding in the period 2007-2013 have been identified. It should be emphasized that
this is based on an analysis that has been carried out at strategic level. Although the areas
identified are expected to result in high potential projects they should still be subjected to
the regular cost-benefit analysis at a project level before being finally selected.
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013
The identified priority areas are described per sub-sector. These sub sectors are assessed
on a number of criteria:
Table 6.2 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:
- HSL Lisbon-Porto
- HSL Lisbon-Elvas/Badajoz-Madrid or Aveiro-
Salamanca
- Sines-Elvas multi-modal
-/0
-
-/0
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
0
Roads:
- Completion motorway Lisbon-Valladolid
- Completion road 2 (IP2), road 8 (IP8)
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
0
+
0
Inland waterways
-
Ports
- Enhance rail connections in ports
+
+
+
0
0
0
Airports
- Relocation of Lisbon airport
-/0
0
+
0
+
+
Urban Public Transport
- Improve integration and intermodality between
different transportation systems
+
+
+
0
0
0
Legend: + positive score; 0 neutral score; - negative score on criterion
Railways
At present the rail network accessibility in Portugal is clearly below EU average.
Therefore, the average rail speed and especially the speed on the links with Spain and the
rest of Europe need to be improved. The assessment of the scenarios reveals that the
planned HSL projects (Lisbon-Porto, Lisbon-Madrid) can have a great impact on the
accessibility and economic growth. However new high speed lines should be carefully
appraised before actually decide on the construction, since these projects do have an
extensive impact on the national budget.
The HSL Lisbon-Porto should also be seen in light of the planned improvements on the
Linha do Norte. Regarding the HSL Lisbon-Madrid, the axis Aveiro-Salamanca-Madrid
should also be carefully assessed, since this might be a better option compared to the
connection through the Spanish Extremadura area.
Roads
As mentioned, since the accession Portugal has had an enormous development in road
infrastructure. Therefore the investment through CF/ERDF is proposed to be limited to
the missing links: finalisation of the motorway Lisbon-Valladolid and completion of the
main roads nr2 and nr8.
Inland waterways
Inland waterways are not relevant as a mean of transportation in Portugal, except as a part
of the Lisbon urban transport system.
Ports
Seaport infrastructure can still be improved by creating better road and rail access and by
streamlining bureaucratic procedures, which would require changes at the institutional
and legal levels. These steps should focus on improving intermodality and the modal
distribution of traffic, on one hand, and helping the national seaports to improve their
competitiveness internationally.
No substantial investment is foreseen funded through the CF or ERDF to improve
intermodality, except for the Sines-Evora multi-modal railway line.
Airports
Air infrastructure in Portugal has one major bottleneck, which is Lisbon airport. It is
located inside the city limits, demand for it has increased greatly, it is practically at
capacity, it cannot be further upgraded (at least considering the foreseeable demand
growth in the near future), and it is the sole airport serving Lisbon.
Improving the situation of Lisbon airport, i.c. through building a new airport in Ota, is
one of the highest priorities, given the negative environmental impacts and potential
worsening of air safety. However, the CF/ERDF will either not be used or only to a very
limited extent.
Urban Public transport
In urban transport, the main shortcomings are:
• the lack of integration and intermodality between different transportation systems
• the inexistence of an authority with effective powers in the urban public transport
sector
• an insufficient amount of bus lanes
The future assistance from the CF/ERDF in this respect is limited to the finalisation of the
extension of the Lisbon metro system.
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
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
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
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
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)
Figure A.1. The TEN priority projects
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
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.
- 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
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
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) which in a few cases differ from the dates notified by the
individual countries (European Commission, 2005).
References:
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.
European Commission (2005): Trans-European Transport Networks. TEN-T Priority
Axes and Projects 2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Annex C: Potential demand for and benefits of
High Speed Rail
This Annex presents part if the results of a study conducted by Steer Davies Gleave in
2004 (‘High Speed Rail: International Comparisons, February 2004, prepared for the
British Commision of Integrated Transport’).
The figure below compares an estimate of the potential demand for rail on the five
potentially biggest routes of at least 200km, in Britain and the other six case study
countries, transposed onto a graph demonstrating where high-speed rail offers a
significant potential journey time advantage. Potential demand, shown on the vertical
axis, is used here as an indicator of the potential benefits of the high speed line. The
assessment of demand has been based on a simple gravity model that we have developed
but which we have not sought to calibrate; although we would not expect this to predict
demand on any individual route accurately, it should indicate the potential magnitude of
demand in each case.
Figure C.1 The potential demand for and benefits of high speed rail
The use of a gravity model is a very simple method of comparing demand for travel
between routes in different countries and ignores the fact that there are many more
complicated factors driving travel demand. However, this does confirm that, of the case
study countries, the potential demand for high speed rail travel is likely to be greatest in
France and Japan.