2009 12 Ten Connect Final Report

Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast
and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T, Tak-

ing into Consideration the External Di-
mension of the Union.
Final Report
December 2009
Co-ordinator
Tetraplan A/S
Copenhagen, Denmark
Partners
BMT Transport Solutions

Hamburg, Germany
DTU-Transport, Department of Transport, Technical University of Den-

mark
Lyngby, Denmark
Institute for Regional Research, Christian Albrechts University

Kiel, Germany
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds

Leeds, UK
ISIS, Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems

Rome, Italy
Mcrit Srl
Barcelona, Spain
Rapidis
Charlottenlund, Denmark
Systema, Systems Planning and Management Consultants s.a.

Athens, Greece
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors con-
tributing to it and they do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commis-
sion and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission or its DG
TREN services.
Final Report
Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of

Traffic on the TEN-T, Taking into Consideration the Exter-
nal Dimension of the Union.
Report information
Report no: TenC704_001
Title: Report on Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-
T, taking into Consideration the External Dimension of the Union – Final
Report
Authors: Morten S. Petersen, Helena Kyster Hansen (Tetraplan), Christian O.

Hansen, Jeppe Rich (DTU Transport), Andreu Ulied, Efrain Larrea
(Mcrit), Alan Pearman, Jeremy Shires (ITS), Riccardo Enei (ISIS), Artem
Korchenevych, Johannes Bröcker (CAU), Peter Leder, Roxana Gohkale,
Tobias Merten (BMT), Tom Granberg (Ramböll), Radosav Jovanovic
(Faculty of Transport, University of Belgrade)
Version: 2.2
th
Date of Publication: December 14 , 2009
This document should be referenced as:

Petersen M.S., Bröcker J., Enei R., Gohkale R., Granberg T., Hansen C.O., Hansen H.K.,
Jovanovic R., Korchenevych A., Larrea E., Leder P., Merten T., Pearman A., Rich J.,
Shires J., Ulied A. (2009): Report on Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on
the TEN-T, taking into Consideration the External Dimension of the Union – Final Report,
Funded by DG TREN, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Project Information
Project Acronym: TENconnect
Project Name: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on the

TEN-T, taking into Consideration the External Dimension of
the Union
Contract Number: TREN B1/159-2007
Duration: 1.01.2008 – 30.11.2009
Commissioned by: European Commission DG TREN
Lead Partner: Tetraplan A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark
Partners: BMT Transport Solutions, Hamburg, Germany

DTU-Transport, Department of Transport, Technical University of Den-
mark, Lyngby, Denmark
Institute for Regional Research, Christian Albrechts University, Kiel, Ger-
many
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
ISIS, Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems, Rome, Italy
Mcrit Srl, Barcelona, Spain
Rapidis, Charlottenlund, Denmark
3
Final Report
Systema, Systems Planning and Management Consultants s.a., Athens,

Greece
Subcontractors:
Faculty of Transport Planning, University of Belgrade, Serbia
InformiGIS, Charlottenlund, Denmark
Ramböll, Espoo, Finland
SUDOP, Praha, Czeck Republic
Technical University of Vilnius, Lithuania
University of Szczecin, Poland
4
Final Report
Table of Contents
1 Introduction by the owner of the study.............................................................. 15
2 Introduction........................................................................................................... 17
3 Executive summary.............................................................................................. 19
3.1 Overview of the TENconnect study......................................................................... 19
3.1.1 The work tasks ........................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Main results and conclusions.................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Scenarios and forecasts ......................................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Trans European Core Networks ............................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Analysis of Bottlenecks ........................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Evaluation of projects.............................................................................................. 25
3.2.5 Other tasks.............................................................................................................. 26
4 Traffic Forecasts for 2020 and 2030 ................................................................... 27

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 27
4.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 27
4.1.2 Overview of TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model improvements ................................ 28
4.2 Baseline 2005 ......................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Data collection......................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 2005 update results................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Drivers for passenger and goods transport ............................................................ 38
4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 38
4.3.2 Drivers and trends for passenger transport ............................................................ 38
4.3.3 Drivers and trends for freight transport ................................................................... 43
4.3.4 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 44
4.4 Scenarios for 2020 and 2030.................................................................................. 45
4.4.1 Overview of scenarios............................................................................................. 46
4.4.2 Baseline .................................................................................................................. 48
4.4.3 Sustainable Economic Development Scenario....................................................... 56
4.5 Forecasts for 2020 and 2030 with the new TRANS-TOOLS model ....................... 61
4.5.1 Baseline .................................................................................................................. 61
4.5.2 Sustainable Economic Development scenario ....................................................... 70
4.5.3 Sensitivity tests ....................................................................................................... 74
4.5.4 MEDA and TRACECA traffic................................................................................... 76
5 Identification of major transnational axes ......................................................... 83

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 83
5.2 Policy-requirements ................................................................................................ 83
5.3 Methodology proposed: A 5-step process .............................................................. 85
5.4 Indicators proposed for each step........................................................................... 86
5.4.1 Long-distance users (road and rail traffics)............................................................. 86
5.4.2 Multimodal accessibility to ports and airports ......................................................... 88
5.4.3 Connectivity to cities ............................................................................................... 92
5.4.4 Regional endowment (relative density of axes) ...................................................... 95
5.4.5 Land-use impacts (proximity to sensitive areas)..................................................... 97
5.5 Bottlenecks and missing links evaluation ............................................................... 98
5.6 Conclusions: Exemplified trans-national axes identified....................................... 101
6 Bottlenecks ......................................................................................................... 109

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 109
5
Final Report
6.2 Definition of bottlenecks.........................................................................................109

6.3 Road transport .......................................................................................................111
6.3.1 Bottlenecks in Road Transport ..............................................................................111
6.3.2 Definition of Capacity Bottlenecks .........................................................................112
6.3.3 Definition of Condition Bottlenecks ........................................................................113
6.3.4 The Road Network .................................................................................................114
6.3.5 Capacity Related Problems ...................................................................................115
6.3.6 Limitations in identification of capacity bottlenecks ...............................................117
6.3.7 Results of Road condition inventory ......................................................................119
6.4 Rail .........................................................................................................................122
6.4.1 Definition of capacity..............................................................................................122
6.4.2 Subcategories of rail system bottlenecks ..............................................................122
6.4.3 Types of bottlenecks covered in this study ............................................................124
6.4.4 Delimitation of rail corridors ...................................................................................126
6.4.5 Identification of bottlenecks ...................................................................................127
6.5 Ports.......................................................................................................................132
6.5.1 Bottlenecks for container traffic .............................................................................132
6.5.2 Bottlenecks for bulk traffic......................................................................................132
6.5.3 Summary of identified port bottlenecks..................................................................135
6.5.4 Inland navigation bottlenecks ................................................................................138
6.5.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................139
6.6 Air transport ...........................................................................................................141
6.6.1 Airspace bottlenecks..............................................................................................141
6.6.2 Airport bottlenecks – definitions and methodology ................................................142
6.6.3 Results ...................................................................................................................145
6.7 Social Bottlenecks..................................................................................................153
6.7.1 Political objectives..................................................................................................154
6.7.2 Social institutions ...................................................................................................155
6.8 Border issues .........................................................................................................156
6.8.1 Bottlenecks at borders – Road transport ...............................................................156
6.8.2 Bottlenecks at border – Rail transport ...................................................................158
6.9 Environmental bottlenecks.....................................................................................158
6.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................158
6.9.2 The effect of congestion.........................................................................................160
6.9.3 Violation of air pollution and noise limits................................................................161
6.9.4 Conflicts between NATURA 2000 sites and infrastructure development ..............164
7 Evaluation of projects.........................................................................................169
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................169
7.2 Development of projects ........................................................................................169
7.2.1 Definition of projects ..............................................................................................169
7.2.2 Specification of projects .........................................................................................169
7.3 Improvement cost estimates..................................................................................170
7.3.1 Background............................................................................................................170
7.3.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................170
7.3.3 Average costs ........................................................................................................170
7.4 Traffic forecasts .....................................................................................................171
7.5 Consumer Surplus .................................................................................................172
7.6 Assessment of environmental and transport impacts............................................172
7.6.1 The framework for the assessment .......................................................................172
7.6.2 Air pollution and climate change............................................................................173
7.6.3 Noise ......................................................................................................................175
7.6.4 Accidents ...............................................................................................................175
7.6.5 The relationship with TRANS-TOOLS traffic assessments for projects ................175
7.7 Assessment of economic impacts .........................................................................176
7.7.1 The TEN-Connect trade impact model (TIM).........................................................176
7.8 Cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis..................................................................177
7.8.1 Cost-benefit analysis..............................................................................................177
6
Final Report
7.9 Assessment of the methodological framework ..................................................... 178

7.9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 178
7.9.2 TRANS-TOOLS model limitations and possible improvements............................ 178
7.9.3 Freight surplus ...................................................................................................... 180
7.9.4 Project costs and CBA assumptions..................................................................... 181
7.9.5 User revenues and transport feedback................................................................. 181
7.9.6 Land-use effects and GDP.................................................................................... 182
7.9.7 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 182
8 Analysis of transport costs along competing trade routes ........................... 185

8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 185
8.2 Identification of future intercontinental transport demand..................................... 185
8.3 Transport options .................................................................................................. 187
8.4 Methodology and data evaluation ......................................................................... 187
8.4.1 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 187
8.4.2 Description and evaluation of data sources.......................................................... 191
8.5 Results .................................................................................................................. 192
8.5.1 Transport cost and lead time by main mode and OD pairs .................................. 192
8.5.2 Maritime transport ................................................................................................. 196
8.5.3 Road transport ...................................................................................................... 196
8.5.4 Rail transport......................................................................................................... 196
8.5.5 Potential economies of scale for overland transport............................................. 197
References: ................................................................................................................... 199
Annex 1: TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model ................................................................. 205

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 205
Overview of model improvement .................................................................................... 205
Update of networks ......................................................................................................... 206
New passenger trip matrices 2005 ................................................................................. 207
New TRANS-TOOLS passenger model ......................................................................... 212
Assignment model .......................................................................................................... 213
Trade prediction model and impact model ..................................................................... 215
Annex 2: Assignment results for road and rail traffic, 2005, Details....................... 217
Annex 3: Assignment results for road and rail traffic, 2030 Baseline, Details....... 219
7
Final Report
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Overall description of the TENconnect study ..................................................19
Figure 3.2. Exemplified core network for European road traffic ........................................23
Figure 4.1. Adjustment of zonal system for the Trans-TOOLS model version 2...............28
Figure 4.2. Development in GDP in constant 2000 prices from 2000 to 2005 .................30
Figure 4.3. Population changes from 2000 to 2005 by age group ...................................31
Figure 4.4. Changes in car ownership (pass. cars per 1000 inhabitants) from 2000 to
2005 ...................................................................................................................................32
Figure 4.5. Changes in transport costs in constant 2000 prices for road and rail from
2000 to 2005......................................................................................................................32
Figure 4.6. Links in TRANS-TOOLS road network with traffic counts, 2005....................34
Figure 4.7. Observed and calculated passenger km by car in the TRANS-TOOLS version
2 model ..............................................................................................................................36
Figure 4.8. Divergence between observed and calculated trips by airport, 2005, TRANS-
TOOLS version 2 ...............................................................................................................37
Figure 4.9. Example of KTEN drivers ...............................................................................40
Figure 4.10. Population growth 2030 against 2005 in EU27, Baseline .............................49
Figure 4.11. Population development by age group 2005 – 2030, Baseline.....................49
Figure 4.12. Development in GDP per capita in constant prices, 2005 – 2030, Baseline 50
Figure 4.13. Development in passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants, 2005 – 2030, Baseline
...........................................................................................................................................51
Figure 4.14. Oil price development 2005 - 2030 ...............................................................51
Figure 4.15. Road infrastructure development in Baseline, 2030 .....................................55
Figure 4.16. Rail infrastructure development in Baseline, 2030......................................55
Figure 4.17. Population 2030; Sustainable Economic Development compared to baseline
...........................................................................................................................................56
Figure 4.18. Population by age group 2030: Sustainable Economic Development
compared to Baseline ........................................................................................................57
Figure 4.19. Car ownership (passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants) 2030; Baseline and
Sustainable Economic Development.................................................................................58
Figure 4.20. Road infrastructure development in the Sustainable Economic Development
Scenario compared to baseline, 2030 ...............................................................................60
Figure 4.21. Rail infrastructure development in the Sustainable Economic Development
Scenario compared with Baseline, 2030 ...........................................................................60
Figure 4.22. Growth in passenger km by car 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline .....................63
Figure 4.23. Growth in vehicle km 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline......................................63
Figure 4.24. Traffic loads on the Baseline 2030 network ..................................................64
Figure 4.25. Growth in passenger km by rail 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline .....................64
Figure 4.26. Growth in intra European arrivals and departures by air 2005 – 2020/2030 -
Baseline .............................................................................................................................65
Figure 4.27 Growth 2005 to 2030 in domestic tonnes by mode and commodity in
coverage area for the TRANS-TOOLS model...................................................................66
Figure 4.28 Growth 2005 to 2030 in international tonnes by mode and commodity in
coverage area for the TRANS-TOOLS model...................................................................67
Figure 4.29. Growth in tonne km by trucks 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline ........................68
Figure 4.30. Growth in tonne km by rail 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline .............................68
Figure 4.31. Traffic loads in tonnes on the Baseline 2030 rail network.............................69
Figure 4.32. Freight transport in tonne km by IWW 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline ...........70
Figure 4.33. Growth in passenger km by car 2030 Sustainable Economic Development
against Baseline ................................................................................................................71
Figure 4.34. Growth in passenger km by rail in Sustainable Economic Development
against Baseline 2030 .......................................................................................................72
Figure 4.35. Growth in tonne km by road in Sustainable Economic Development against
Baseline 2030 ....................................................................................................................73
Figure 4.36. Growth in rail freight transport in the EU27 countries in Sustainable
Economic Development compared to Baseline 2030........................................................73
Figure 4.37. Tonne km by Inland waterway in Sustainable Economic Development and
Baseline 2030 ....................................................................................................................74
8
Final Report
Figure 4.38: Long-distance trips and change in GDP...................................................... 75

Figure 4.39: Long-distance trips and change in Fuel costs............................................. 75
Figure 4.40. Effect on growth in trade volumes based on a 10 % growth in GDP ........... 76
Figure 4.41: Freight transport (general cargo, unitised freight and solid bulk together) for
2000 .................................................................................................................................. 77
the GES scenario (2025) .................................................................................................. 77
the MEG scenario (2025).................................................................................................. 78
the FEI scenario (2025) .................................................................................................... 78
Figure 4.45: Freight transport across the Mediterranean Sea (MEDA data).................... 80
Figure 5.1. Relative road interregional traffic over total traffic 2005 (Trans-Tools): links
with more than 50% inter NUTS3 traffic ........................................................................... 85
Figure 5.2. Relative volume of passenger trip-km according to nationality of trip ............ 87
Figure 5.3. Relative volume of passenger road trips according to the length of the trip
measured in time .............................................................................................................. 87
Figure 5.4. Relative volume of passenger rail trips according to the length of the trip
measured in time .............................................................................................................. 88
Figure 5.5. Relative road long-distance traffic over national average traffic 2005 (TRANS-
TOOLS) by link. Links with loads between 2 and 5 times higher than national average. 90
Figure 5.6. Road links connecting ports to their closest MEGA cities .............................. 92
Figure 5.7. MEGA cities as defined by ESPON................................................................ 93
Figure 5.8. Road links connecting closest three MEGA cities.......................................... 95
Figure 5.9: Road network density by NUTS2 ................................................................... 97
Figure 5.10: Road core network in relation to CDDA in the Southern Alps zone............. 98
Figure 5.11. Road bottlenecks (in red) and missing links (in green) ................................ 99
Figure 5.12. Rail bottlenecks (in red) and missing links (in green)................................. 100
Figure 5.13: Exemplified Road Trans-European core network proposal A .................... 102
Figure 5.14: Exemplified Road Trans-European core network proposal B .................... 103
Figure 5.15: Exemplified Rail passenger Trans-European core network proposal A..... 104
Figure 5.16: Exemplified Rail passenger Trans-European core network proposal B..... 105
Figure 5.17: Exemplified Rail freight Trans-European core network proposal A ........... 106
Figure 5.18: Exemplified Rail freight Trans-European core network proposal B ........... 107
Figure 6.1. A distance – time diagram indicating two types of bottlenecks .................... 110
Figure 6.2: Traffic Variations at Highway 14 (Location Point 606) in Finland................. 112
Figure 6.3: Only a few by-pass roads exist in Romania. The main highways split towns
and villages in parts ........................................................................................................ 114
Figure 6.4: Networks used in the study as the basis for analysis of road bottlenecks ... 114
Figure 6.5: Congested road links in Eastern Europe in the morning peak hour, 2030... 115
Figure 6.6: Identified capacity shortages in the road network 2030 (traffic is higher than
16 x one hour calculated capacity).. ............................................................................... 117
Figure 6.7: Bottlenecks in Bulgaria related to both congestion and road condition ....... 118
Figure 6.8: Road Bottlenecks in Romania. ..................................................................... 119
Figure 6.9: Modelled road capacity bottlenecks 2030 and condition bottlenecks based on
inventory 2008. ............................................................................................................... 121
Figure 6.10: Horizon of expectation for train operations................................................. 122
Figure 6.11: Typical train density graph ......................................................................... 123
Figure 6.12: Liberalisation Index, 2007; Sources: IBM Business Consulting, Deutsche
Bahn AG ......................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 6.13: Rail freight bottlenecks 2008 ...................................................................... 128
Figure 6.14: Rail freight bottlenecks 2030 ...................................................................... 129
Figure 6.15: Passenger rail bottlenecks 2008 ................................................................ 130
Figure 6.16: Passenger rail bottlenecks 2030 ................................................................ 131
Figure 6.17: Liquid bulk volumes of selected EU ports .................................................. 133
Figure 6.18: Dry bulk volumes of selected EU ports ...................................................... 133
Figure 6.19: Maritime and inland navigation in selected ports (clusters) in 2020 .......... 139
Figure 6.20: Maritime and inland navigation in selected ports (clusters) in 2030 .......... 140
9
Final Report
Figure 6.21. European airports: demand vs. capacity situation in the Design Peak Hour,
2020, Baseline Scenario..................................................................................................153
Figure 6.22. The European road network and congested links in the morning peak hours
7 – 9, baseline 2030 ........................................................................................................160
Figure 6.23. Traffic flows of more than 6 m. vehicles per year on main road in urban
agglomerations - 2030 .....................................................................................................163
Figure 6.24. Number of airports with ATM higher than 50,000 per year, 2030 ...............164
Figure 8.1: Illustration of trade and transport matrix........................................................189
Figure A1.1. Adjustment of zonal system for the Trans-TOOLS model version 2. .........205
Figure A1.2 Links in TRANS-TOOLS road network with traffic counts, 2005 ...............207
Figure A1.3. Improvement in divergences between observed and calculated traffic in the
road network, 2005. .........................................................................................................208
Figure A1.4. Observed and calculated passenger km by car in the TRANS-TOOLS
version 2 model ...............................................................................................................209
Figure A1.5. Divergence between observed and calculated trips by airport, 2005, TRANS-
TOOLS version 2 .............................................................................................................210
Figure A1.6. Available traffic counts on the rail network in Europe, 2005.......................211
Figure A1.7 Freight flow prediction scheme ...................................................................215
10
Final Report
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Aggregate model results for 2005, Baseline 2030 and Sustainable Economic
Development (SED) 2030 for EU 27 excl. Cyprus and Malta........................................... 21
Table 4.1. Number of network edits in updating from 2000 to 2005................................ 33
Table 4.2. Number of passenger trips included in the original (version 1) and new (version
2) TRANS-TOOLS model ................................................................................................. 35
Table 4.3. Comparison between observed and calculated transport figures for EU25 in
2005 (version 2 model) ..................................................................................................... 35
Table 4.4. Drivers and their linkage to TRANS-TOOLS variables................................... 41
Table 4.5. Development assumptions for 2020 and 2030 applied in the TRANS-TOOLS
model runs ........................................................................................................................ 47
Table 4.6 Forecasted m. passenger trips in Baseline 2020 and 2030 ............................ 61
Table 4.7 Forecasted lifted tonne (m. tonnes) in Baseline 2020 and 2030 ..................... 62
Table 4.8 Aggregate model results for Baseline 2020 and 2030 for EU 27 excl. Cyprus
and Malta .......................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.9 Aggregate model results for 2020 and 2030 Baseline and Sustainable
Economic Development scenario for EU 27 excl. Cyprus and Malta ............................... 70
Table 4.10. Change in trips related to a 10 % change in the analysed drivers ................ 74
Table 4.11: Freight flow in ´000 tonnes for the year 2005 and 2030 (TRACECA data) ... 79
Table 4.12: Freight transport between Morocco and Europe (MEDA data) ..................... 80
Table 4.13: Freight transport between Morocco and Europe divided into handling types
(MEDA data) ..................................................................................................................... 81
Table 4.14: Passenger flows between Morocco and Europe (MEDA data) ..................... 81
Table 5.1. Airports considered in the definition of the Core Network ............................... 91
Table 5.2. Ports considered in the definition of the Core Network ................................... 91
Table 5.3. EU MEGA cities as defined by ESPON........................................................... 94
Table 5.4. Additional cities considered ............................................................................. 94
Table 5.5. Key indicators for network density measurements.......................................... 96
Table 5.6. Rough cost estimates related to missing links and bottlenecks .................... 100
Table 6.1: Port bottlenecks (capacity, social) by port range and main cargo type
2020/2030 ....................................................................................................................... 137
Table 6.2. Airports with more than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak hour in
2020, BASE Scenario ..................................................................................................... 147
Table 6.3. Airports with more than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak hour in
2020, SUST scenario...................................................................................................... 151
Table 6.4. Environmental impacts: PM and NOx emissions by transport mode and area
(tonne of emissions) for congested links in the peak hours 7-9 - reference year 2030. 161
Table 6.5 Environmental impacts: CO2 emitted by transport mode (tonne) for congested
links in the peak hours 7-9 – reference year 2030 ....................................................... 161
Table 6.6. Social impacts: time delay by area type and zone (hours) for congested links in
the peak hours 7-9 – reference year 2030 ................................................................... 161
Table 7.1. Estimation of investment costs for European transport infrastructure.......... 171
Table 7.2. Estimation of maintenance costs for European transport infrastructure ..... 171
Table 8.1. Forecast EU 27 imports from China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea 2005 –
2030 in 1.000 tonnes by mode of transport .................................................................... 186
Table 8.2. Forecast EU 27 exports to China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea 2005 –
2030 in 1.000 tonnes by mode of transport .................................................................... 186
Table 8.3: Asia-Europe Demand in million TEUs – Head haul only ............................... 187
Table 8.4: Difference (%) in transport costs and lead times by country-to-country ODs195
Table A1.1. Number of network edits in updating from 2000 to 2005 ........................... 207
11
Final Report
Abbreviations applied in the report
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AC Accident Cost
ACC Area Control Centres
ACI Airport Council International
ADNA Airport Do Nothing Assessment
AH Asian Highway
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATM Air Traffic Management
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CDG Charles De Gaulle
CEPI Centre D’etudes prospectives et d’informationes internationales
CGEurope Computational Generalised Equilibrium Model for Europe
CTG Challenges to Growth
DHC Declared Hourly Capacity
DPH Design Peak Hour
EC European Commission
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
EEC EUROCONTROL Experimental Sector
EIA Environmental Impact Analysis
EIA Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy
EU12 Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lux-
embourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom
EU15 EU12 countries plus Austria, Finland and Sweden
FDNA Flow Do Nothing Assessment
FEI Full Economic Integration
GA-based Generation-Attraction based
GES Global Economic Slowdown
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
IEA International Energy Agency
ITS Intelligent Transport System
IWW Inland Water Ways
JRC European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
LNG Liquid Natural Gas
LOS Level of Service
LTF Long Term Forecast
MCA Multi Criteria Analysis
MEC Marginal External Costs
MEG Medium Economic Growth
MEDA Euro - Mediterranean Partnership
MPME Multiple Path Matrix Estimation
NOX Nitrogen Oxide Connections
NST/R Standard Goods Classification for Transport Statistics (Nomencla-
ture uniforme des marchandises pour les statistiques des trans-
ports)
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
OD-based Origin-Destination based
PC-based Production-Consumption based
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PCU Passenger Car Unit
PM Particulate Matters
POD Port of Discharge
12
Final Report
PPP Public Private Partnership

PPP Purchasing Power Parity
SBR Standard Busy Rate
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research
SMCP Social Marginal Cost Pricing
TAR Trans Asian Railway
TEM Trans European Motorways
TEN-T Trans-European Network for Transport
TER Trans European Railways
TIM Trade Impact Model
TIR Transport Internationaux Routiers
TPM Trade Prediction Model
TRACECA Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia
TTM2 TRANS-TOOLS Model version 2
UN United Nations
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
VOC Vehicle Operating Cost
VOT Value of Time
13
Final Report
14
Final Report
1 Introduction by the owner of the study
As one of the preparatory works for the current TEN-T policy review, the Commission
launched a study called "TENconnect" ("Report on Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analy-
sis of Traffic on the TEN-T, Taking into Consideration the External Dimension of the Uni-
on"), with the goal to create a data base on traffic flows throughout the Union's territory
and beyond, as an input for further decisions.
The study had been commissioned to a consortium under Tetraplan A/S, Copenhagen as
the lead partner. It started on January 1, 2008 and was terminated on November 30,
2009, after some adjustments. In particular, the idea to create a Core Network, applying a
sound, rational and transparent strategic network planning methodology, only arose du-
ring the elaboration of the Green Paper. Therefore, the authors of the study were invited
to come up with their proposal for such a methodology and to illustrate it.
It has to be stated that the proposal included in the final report does not reflect the opini-
on of the Commission and does in no way prejudice neither the methodology (which is
being developed now, using not only some input from the study but also from expert
groups) nor the results in terms of Core Network configuration and density.
Due to the recent economic downturn, which could not be taken into account during the
elaboration of the study, the traffic flows shown in the final report, in particular the fore-
casts, need a further revision. Consequently, it is foreseen to update these calculations,
however on an actualized basis and, at the same time, taking advantage of the interme-
diate further development of the European traffic model TRANSTOOLS.
15
Final Report
16
Final Report
2 Introduction
This report is the final report in a series of reports developed in the TENconnect project.
The project has been dealing with analysis of the existing Trans European Network for
Transport (TEN-T) as part of the process of developing the forthcoming EU transport
policy from 2010 and onwards.
The project has been dealing with many aspects of the TEN-T, from analysis of the exist-
ing traffic flows, forecasts of traffic flows until 2020 and 2030 and identification of major
axes taking into account a number of aspects like cohesion, internal market and access
to neighbouring countries. Based on the findings, the project has proposed an outline of a
TEN-T core network. Analysis has been carried out as to identification of bottlenecks and
missing links on the main European transport networks, and this has resulted in definition
of a number of improvement projects of European interest. The project has also identified
the parts of the priority projects not yet implemented, and thus eligible for a screening and
evaluation.
The methodology for the evaluation has been elaborated. However, the project proposed
to improve the TRANS-TOOLS model version 1 from 2007 and this part of the project has
demanded far more resources and time than originally anticipated. The results from the
improved TRANS-TOOLS model version 2 seem promising and have been used for
screening the feasibility of the proposed projects.
The project has also been dealing with a specific analysis of transport costs related to
freight transport between East and South Asia on one side and Europe on the other side
in order to investigate the competitiveness of overland routes to Europe. The results of
this part of the study are reported in a specific report, and only a short summary is in-
cluded in the present final report.
During the project a number of reports have been developed. They are all provided under
the same heading referring to the contract name:
Traffic Flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T, taking into
Consideration the External Dimension of the Union.
Intermediate report 2, May 2008
Intermediate report 3, June 2008
Drivers and scenarios, December 2008
TRANS-TOOLS model version 1: Data and calibration 2005, June 2008
TRANS-TOOLS model version 1: Forecast 2020 and 2030, June 2008
TRANS-TOOLS model version 2: Calibration 2005 and forecasts 2020/2030, December

2008
Task 2: Identification of major trans-national axes, June 2008
Bottlenecks, December 2008
17
Final Report
TRANS-TOOLS model version 2, Model and data improvements, October 2008
Assessment of Infrastructure Packages - Final, December 2008
Identification of future intercontinental transport demand, December 2008
Transport costs in intercontinental freight transport flows, December 2008
GIS database, Final report, December 2008
The project has also provided a mapping of the existing TEN-T maps into the TRANS-
TOOLS road and rail model networks for 2005. This has resulted in DG-TREN now hav-
ing a complete mapping of the existing TEN-T networks which can be used for future runs
with the TRANS-TOOLS model.
Apart from these reports and mappings the project has produced a number of working
papers and presentations.
The project has been followed closely by the project steering group and a number of
valuable discussions have been carried out with the steering group. Also three meetings
have been carried out with the TEN-committee, comprising national experts from the
different member states. Valuable input on forecasts and future network plans has been
received from this committee. Finally a peer group comprising Arnaud Burgess (TNO),
Eckhard Szimba (IWW), Kjell Dahlström (SIKA), Olaf Meyer-Rühle (Progtrans) and Sean
Newton (NEA) commented on the draft final report. These valuable comments have been
addressed in this final version of the project report.
The study has been carried out by Tetraplan A/S in co-operation with the project partners
DTU Transport at the Technical University of Denmark, BMT Transport Solutions, ISIS
Rome, Institute for Regional Development at the Christian Albrechts University, Institute
for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds, Rapidis, Systema and Mcrit srl. This core
group of partners have engaged Ramboll Finland, SUDOP, University of Szczecin, Tech-
nical University of Vilnius, University of Belgrade and Informi GIS as subconsultants.
18
Final Report
3 Executive summary
3.1 Overview of the TENconnect study
3.1.1 The work tasks

The work within the TENconnect project is illustrated with the following Figure 3.1. The
main work comprises Task 1: Traffic flows, Task 2: Corridor identification, Task 3: Identifi-
cation of bottlenecks and task 4: Assessment of policy on infrastructure packages. The
flow between the tasks is described with the arrows in the figure below. Two minor, al-
though also important tasks, have comprised task 5: Transport costs on alternative routes
and Task 6: Establishing a GIS database and transfer this to the Commissions’ GIS sys-
tem. Finally has a major task in the project been the improvement of the TRANS-TOOLS
model, which is being lifted from the 2007 version 1 to a new improved 2008 version 2.
Figure 3.1: Overall description of the TENconnect study
3.2 Main results and conclusions
The study “Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T,
Taking into Consideration the External Dimension of the Union.” was initiated in Septem-
ber 2007 and has reached a number of important targets during its implementation. TEN
has been developed in order to promote the free flow of passengers and goods between
the Member States and as such the networks are trans-national. The study has devel-
19
Final Report
oped a concept for identifying Trans European Networks for the main transport modes.
The study has also applied the suite of transportation models, economic models and envi-
ronmental models developed in a series of research projects for analysing Commission
strategies within the field of infrastructure. Importantly, the study has detailed and im-
proved the Commission’s TRANS-TOOLS model. The study has also carried out an
analysis of transport networks in EU, including an inventory of main roads in the Eastern
part of EU, in order to identify bottlenecks in the infrastructure systems. Based on the
bottleneck analysis and the analysis of Trans European Networks a number of projects
were identified for economic evaluation, among them also the parts of the present priority
projects expected to be initiated after 2010.
Further, the project has delivered a specific analysis of the characteristics of the compet-
ing transport routes between major Asian trading partners and Europe. The project has
also established a GIS interface to the Commission’s existing TEN maps.
3.2.1 Scenarios and forecasts

An important tool for the assessments have been TRANS-TOOLS, the new Commission
transport model which was developed in the 6th Framework program and made ready for
applications in autumn 2007. An in-depth analysis of the TRANS-TOOLS model revealed
that in order to obtain more plausible results it would be required to improve the model in
different ways. An obvious example is the zone system where Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey,
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were one zone each. This gave very rough estimates of the
traffic in the eastern part of EU. Another example was a rather complicated way of speci-
fying inputs for the passenger model.
The project has updated the TRANS-TOOLS base year to 2005. This means that net-
works, socio-economic data etc in the base year has been updated from 2000 to 2005.
This has improved considerably the accuracy of the network data. This update has been
combined with a completely new passenger model and an updated trade module in the
freight model. On an aggregated level a high degree of conformity with observed 2005
transport data was reached for particularly the passenger transport.
TRANS-TOOLS is a sequential state-of-practice transport model, hence, it has all the

usual limitations of transport modelling. Uncertainty increases as future scenarios signifi-
cantly change compared to base year. It cannot model major shifts in travel behaviour
and trade relations because the model is estimated on basis of actual travel behaviour
and trade in the base year.
TRANS-TOOLS has a very large geographical coverage area. It limits the level of detail
which can be addressed by the model due to complexity and computing time. Only major
links in the networks are included in the model and zones are large. The model focuses
on long-distance travel and local travel is only included to complete the picture.
While road congestion on interurban roads is considered, the model treats rail and air
modes without capacity restrictions with a tendency to over predict future demand. It is
common practice in large scale models due to the complexity of capacity modelling.
Two scenarios were established for 2030, a Baseline scenario prolonging existing trends
and a Sustainable Economic Development scenario anticipating a higher level of eco-
nomic development and integration in EU. Also a Baseline 2020 scenario was defined.
Defining scenarios require input concerning demographic and economic development,
input related to transport costs for the different transport modes and input related to net-
works and their development.
20
Final Report
The Baseline scenario is made up of existing forecasts and trends, and assuming certain
transport policies already under discussion being implemented. This implies e.g. that
external costs are internalised for truck transport, using the results of the IMPACT study
and being in line with the Vignette directive impact analysis carried out by JRC also ap-
plying the TRANS-TOOLS model. Vehicle operating costs for road vehicles are influ-
enced by the price of oil, which is expected to follow the IEA estimates from March 2008,
and the technological development which is supposed to improve fuel efficiency with 0.5
% per year, combining the effect of a change in fuel consumption and also improving
engine efficiency. Assumptions are also made for the other transport modes which have
been translated into changes in fares and transport costs. As for the infrastructure Mem-
ber States’ already agreed plans expected to be completed within the next 10 years have
been included as have the priority projects already completed, under construction or ex-
pected to be initiated before 2010. In the Sustainable Economic Development scenario all
priority projects are assumed to be completed, and projects relieving bottlenecks and
projects related to development of axes to the neighbouring countries are assumed to be
finalised.
The air transport network in both scenarios is assumed to develop only slightly, the main
differences from 2005 being inclusion of some low cost routes from East and Central
European destinations to London, Paris, Brussels and some holiday destinations in Spain
and Greece. No changes apart from the development projects on the Danube and the
Seine – Scheldt channel are foreseen for Inland Waterways.
The TRANS-TOOLS model has been used to identify the future traffic levels in the two
scenarios. The calculations have been performed with both the original TRANS-TOOLS
model, though with the base year 2005, and with the new version of the TRANS-TOOLS
model. The latter forecasts have been used for the review of the priority projects and the
sample packages, while the former forecasts were used for identification of the core net-
works as mentioned below and the bottleneck analysis.
The Baseline scenario for 2030 indicates an increase in the number of passenger trips in
Europe (the complete coverage area of the TRANS-TOOLS model) of about 29 % and in
lifted tonnes of about 24 %. Passenger kilometres for transport by passenger cars and
passenger trains in EU, and tonnes kilometres for transport by road, rail and Inland wa-
terways in EU are expected to develop as indicated in Table 3.1 in the Baseline 2030
scenario and the Sustainable Economic Development 2030 scenario respectively.
Table 3.1 Aggregate model results for 2005, Baseline 2030 and Sustainable
Economic Development (SED) 2030 for EU 27 excl. Cyprus and Malta
Diff.
Model Diff. Model
Model SED/Base-
Mode 2030 2030/2005 2030
2005 line
Baseline (%) SED
(%)
Passenger
Passenger car, 1000 m. pkm 4507 6076 35% 6763 11%
Railway, 1000 m. pkm

375 659 76% 787 19%
(excl. Tram and Metro)
Truck, 1000 m. tonne km 1712 2442 43% 2596 6%

Freight
Railway, 1000 m. tonne km 447 797 78% 894 12%
IWW, 1000 m. tonne km 130 181 39% 207 15%
21
Final Report
Both passenger km and tonne km increases faster than trips and lifted tonnes indicating
that transport distances are expected to increase in the future. The increase in passenger
trip distance is primarily related to rail trips and in freight transport mainly to the road and
rail modes. The expected continuous development of high speed train connections could
be one of the reasons for this development in passenger transport.
Tonne km in Inland freight in EU increases with 49 %, the highest growth being envis-
aged for rail transport with 78 %. This would mean that rail freight transport would ac-
count for 33 % of all inland freight in EU in 2030 compared to only 26 % in 2005. The
major rail fright flows in 2030 are linked to the development in Russia and the outlet to the
Baltic countries and via Poland to Germany. It is bulk commodity groups which are devel-
oping fast in these relations.
In the Sustainable Economic Development scenario passenger and tonne kilometres are
increasing over the level of the Baseline scenario. This is expected because the eco-
nomic growth is higher in the Sustainable Economic Development scenario.
The resulting trips by passenger cars and trucks and rail tonnes and rail passengers are
assigned to the respective networks. The results of the assignment are applied in the
analysis of bottlenecks. The results of the model runs are also applied in development of
criteria for identifying examples of Trans European Core Networks.
3.2.2 Trans European Core Networks

The Trans European Networks for the different transport modes have been agreed be-
tween the Commission and the Member States over a number of years. The networks are
in a phase of gradual extension to the neighbouring countries in order to promote trade
and economic cohesion in areas bordering EU. The purpose of this study, thus, was to
identify axes of importance for the EU in terms of economic development and cohesion
and at the same time taking into account better connections to the neighbouring coun-
tries.
The study has resulted in a proposal for a formalised methodology for identifying net-
works of European interest where a number of key indicators have been assessed in
order to provide a comprehensive picture of the road and rail infrastructure networks tak-
ing into account Single Market issues, cohesion and trade with neighbouring countries.
Using this type of methodological concepts makes it possible to define networks on ana-
lytical grounds and thus provide an objective basis for possible discussions concerning
the future Trans European Networks for road and rail. Evidently, many key indicators
could form basis for such a discussion, and the proposal presented in this study could
form the base for further analyses and discussions.
The methodology includes assessing assignment results by link for international and
long-distance national traffic, identifying links between each Metropolitan European
Growth Area (MEGA) and the nearest three other MEGAs, identifying links between
MEGAs and major European airports and ports and ensuring that the density of networks
in terms of km per inhabitant or km per international traveller is comparable for the Euro-
pean countries. The final step analyses the infrastructure networks in relation to land-use
impacts. Using this methodology combining results from the TRANS-TOOLS model with
more general GIS methodologies has provided two different sets of exemplified core net-
works for road, passenger rail and freight rail in Europe, the difference being the length of
the networks and thus the potential investment demand. The networks incorporate the
EU27, Switzerland, Norway and the west Balkan countries. Particularly the process of
ensuring comparable densities may result in links becoming redundant. Therefore, the
exemplified core network for roads presented in Figure 3.2 is an example. The precise
links to include need to be detailed in discussions with the Member States.
22
Final Report
Figure 3.2. Exemplified core network for European road traffic
Having identified the exemplified core networks for road and rail the study identified short-
comings in the networks and established packages of projects which could be prioritized.
This process was carried out partly applying model results and partly carrying out inven-
tory of sections of the road network which were considered particularly relevant in terms
of condition and administrative failures.
3.2.3 Analysis of Bottlenecks

Different types of bottleneck have been analysed, like congested links in the road and rail
networks, links with poor condition, links and nodes with particular problems including
border crossings, airports and ports and social and environmental bottlenecks. It is fair to
say that the project in its outset indicated analysis of bottlenecks in 5 to 10 trans-national
axes, but in the end the bottleneck analysis was extended to covering all main networks
in the EU. Therefore, the use of the TRANS-TOOLS results and similar model results for
the air transport sector has had a more profound importance than originally envisaged.
Different methodologies have been applied for different modes of transport. For road the
use of TRANS-TOOLS results has been facilitated because for each link in the network
information concerning 2030 traffic load and link capacity based on number of lanes is
available. Therefore bottlenecks can be identified as links where traffic exceeds available
capacity. In principle the analysis should be carried out by Time of Day period. However,
23
Final Report
the identified bottlenecks are characterised by having congestion in most hours of the
day. Particularly the southern part of UK has a high level of congested road links.
A specific survey of the condition of important roads in the Baltic countries, East Poland,
and Romania was carried out. A similar inventory already existed for Bulgaria. This sur-
vey indicated that there are needs for improved roads, but also that new or improved
roads need to be planned and constructed taking social and environmental conse-
quences into consideration. Upgrading of roads in existing alignments may lead to more
fatalities, both for road users and those living near by.
Bottlenecks in the rail network were identified based on general assessments of number
of trains which can possibly be served on the different links compared to predicted flows
of passenger and freight trains. Evaluation of capacity of rail infrastructure is less formal-
ised than capacity assessments for roads. Further, the TRANS-TOOLS results for rail are
expressed in passengers or tonnes by link. Translation of these results into number of
trains is carried out based on average occupancy by train. For doing this in a sensible
way a detailed knowledge of the rail system in terms of train composition and load is re-
quired. The results indicate that the rail networks in Germany and UK will be congested,
and also that specific routes like Paris – Marseille and Verona – Innsbruck will be con-
gested unless improvements are carried out. Particularly in peripheral areas a number of
single track links are expected to develop into bottlenecks in 2030.
The bottleneck analysis has also included sea ports and particular bottlenecks in the
maritime systems have been mentioned, mainly related to specific routes where limita-
tions in draught and ship passages exist, e.g. Bosporus and the Kiel Canal. In general the
port capacity in terms of sea/land interface is expected to develop parallel with demand,
although constrains are expected to develop particularly in the Russian Baltic ports. An
increasing challenge is maintaining a smooth interface between the port and its hinter-
land, and social bottlenecks related to location of ports in dense urban areas have also
been identified as a challenge primarily in Genoa, Piraeus and south UK. In the inland
waterway system (IWW) bottlenecks have been identified on the Danube and the link
between Danube and the Rhein.
Analysis of bottlenecks in the air sector has addressed the airspace and the airports. En-
route airspace forecasts are produced only by EUROCONTROL and these forecasts
have not been available for use by the present study. Therefore only airport congestion
has been addressed in the present study. Based on analysis of air traffic and airport ca-
pacity development about 15 airports are designated as congested in 2020, among them
the major airports in London and Paris, and major airports in Germany. The most heavily
congested airport in the future seems to be Istanbul.
Apart from bottlenecks related to traffic congestion or link condition, specific aspects like
administrative bottlenecks, social bottlenecks and environmental bottlenecks were ana-
lysed. The administrative bottlenecks are extremely visible at the borders between EU
and the neighbouring countries, where administrative procedures may take many hours
or even days, far outweighing the time gains obtained by infrastructure improvement.
Removal of such administrative bottlenecks requires streamlining of border procedures
between the EU and neighbouring countries. But different weight and dimension regula-
tions for road haulage within EU and national railway regulations on driver’s education,
inspection of wagons etc create also waiting times and administrative bottlenecks inside
EU which needs to be tackled.
Environmental bottlenecks comprise partly traffic related nuisance inflicted to the popula-
tion living near the infrastructure under consideration and partly conflicts between new
infrastructure development and environmental preservation areas of European interest.
24
Final Report
The inflicted nuisance comprises noise, emissions and fatalities, and based on the
TRANS-TOOLS results the environmental bottlenecks occur mainly in the major urban
areas in Europe.
3.2.4 Evaluation of projects

The analysis of bottlenecks has provided the basis for identification of packages of im-
provement projects particularly in the road and rail network. In the course of the project
the main purpose of the TENconnect project was slightly modified from identifying and
prioritizing projects on selected 5 to 10 trans-national axes to develop a methodology for
evaluating projects and investigate the applicability of the established assessment meth-
odologies.
As indicated above results from the TRANS-TOOLS model have been used to identify
bottlenecks and missing links. Given the nature of TRANS-TOOLS networks, which con-
sist of a multitude of small segments of infrastructure, the bottlenecks and missing links
appear dispersed throughout Europe. The first stage in defining projects has been to
choose exemplified core networks to limit the analysis to the most relevant corridors.
The next stage is matching bottlenecks and missing links with the exemplified core net-
works, thus identifying the most important problems from a European perspective. Solu-
tions to these problems consist of infrastructure improvements of bottlenecks and missing
links. Hence a project is defined as a group of infrastructure enhancements that share a
common geographical context as part of the same corridor or the same transport system.
The projects are spatially distributed in a way that covers more or less homogeneously
the whole of Europe and the most congested bottlenecks so the most important foresee-
able traffic problems can be tackled. The sample projects are in general located at corri-
dors with considerable amounts of international traffic, thus strengthening their European
interest. The sample projects are used for testing the evaluation methodologies in a multi-
tude of different circumstances. Therefore, the projects represent different types of im-
provements, different territorial aspects and different transport modes.
Improvement cost for the packages of improvement projects have been assessed making
intensive use of available cost estimates and engineering experience.
Cost Benefit Analyses (CBA) in line with the HEATCO recommendations has been car-
ried out for the different sample projects. Traffic forecasts with and without the project
(Baseline 2030) have been produced by TRANS-TOOLS. Environmental impacts have
been evaluated based on the GRACE approach and the marginal external costs as pro-
vided by the IMPACT Handbook.
The proposed methodology provides in general reasonable results, though the robust-
ness of results needs further investigation. A number of model issues related to TRANS-
TOOLS and the evaluation methodology has been identified with the purpose of further
investigation and development in a future research programme. Some of the most impor-
tant issues to consider when discussing results of the CBA are:
 The TRANS-TOOLS is a large-scale European transport model, which cannot be

applied to analyse projects which rely mainly on locally generated consumer sur-
pluses. Local traffic is not assigned to the networks, and cannot by definition gener-
ate any consumer surplus.
 The TRANS-TOOLS requires a more thoroughly calibration particularly concerning

rail transport where only a very limited amount of traffic counts have been available.
25
Final Report
 The traffic assignment procedures applied in the TRANS-TOOLS need to be further

developed in order to reduce stochastic noise. The stochastic noise affects particu-
larly the comparisons between with and without project situations, and may distort the
resulting CBA results.
 The TRANS-TOOLS freight model as applied is based on modal split and logistics
models developed on year 2000 data, while the trade model uses 2005 data. This re-
sults in some cases in illogical consumer surplus for freight.
 The methodology ignores second order effects from GDP growth. Generally, the lar-
ger the project the larger (in absolute terms) these benefits are. In addition the higher
the existing GDP the higher the absolute GDP change will be.
 Uncertainty is quite considerable. This is particularly so for improvement costs, con-

sumer surplus related to particularly freight value of time and benefits related to new
infrastructure’s economic impact on regions.
Although the methodology is able to provide results for the international traffic it should be
recognised that a large amount of the benefit attributable to the projects stems from local
benefits, which in many cases are not described. Therefore, this overall analysis of the
benefits which accrue from the international traffic needs to be supplemented with other
analyses of the local impacts. This may increase the cost benefit ratio, or reduce it, but
only a detailed analysis can reveal that.
3.2.5 Other tasks

TENconnect included two separate work tasks not related to the main project of identify-
ing and assessing projects in the exemplified core networks. One of these work tasks
encompassed an analysis of goods flows between Europe and Asia with particular rele-
vance for overland transport, and also an analysis of cost and time for overland transports
between Europe and Asia compared to the overwhelmingly used maritime transport. The
findings indicated that there is a potential for overland transport particularly from West
China and Iran to Europe. But there are still a number of obstacles which should be re-
moved, ranging from poor infrastructure to more uniform administrative regulations in the
different countries in order to ensure a smooth transfer of goods from one country to the
other.
The other separate work task was a GIS mapping ensuring that TRANS-TOOLS results
can be displayed on the EC GIS. The results of this have been handed over to DG-TREN.
Concluding, the project has provided a new and improved version of the TRANS-TOOLS
model, has provided assessment methodologies which can be applied widely, and has
developed a new methodology for identifying core networks. The project has also pro-
vided a considerable amount of new data, and has carried out analyses which are build-
ing on findings from previous projects but has enhanced the knowledge about the Euro-
pean transport infrastructure. And finally DG-TREN GIS maps have been updated and
improved.
26
Final Report
4 Traffic Forecasts for 2020 and 2030
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Overview
The study has provided a coherent and reliable forecast for the future traffic flows in EU
and the neighbouring countries for 2020 and 2030 with particular focus on flows between
old and new Member States, between new Member States and between EU and the
neighbouring countries using the TRANS-TOOLS model. Two different sets of forecasts
have been made: 1) using the TRANS-TOOLS model version 1 from September 2007
and 2) the TRANS-TOOLS version 2 established in the course of the present project,
respectively. In this final report from the project the most recent results are described.
The analysis has been concentrated on the area that the TRANS-TOOLS model is cover-
ing. Transport between EU and the other Mediterranean (MEDA) countries has been
looked at using the MEDA transport model, and the goods flows between the TRACECA
countries (Georgia, Azerbadjan and Armenia) and the EU has been described based on
the WorldNET data.
The analysis has covered all transport modes, both freight and passenger traffic on links
and through nodes with a focus on the TEN-T network. The TRANS-TOOLS baseline
from 2000 has been updated to 2005. Therefore an in-depth analysis of the development
from 2000 to 2005 has been carried out with the main focus on the network.
Driving forces for trade, traffic and transport development have been assessed. For pas-
senger transport a number of drivers, that is factors affecting the transport development,
has been identified. These drivers are however only in part or indirectly included in the
TRANS-TOOLS model. Therefore the drivers’ analysis does not provide a direct link to
description of the inputs to the TRANS-TOOLS model. Drivers for freight flows have also
been identified. Future trade patterns in EU and between EU and the neighbouring coun-
tries and further on to major trade partners in the rest of the world are assessed using the
trade and traffic models inherent in the TRANS-TOOLS model. Among the drivers are
also identified changes in production patterns due to outsourcing of production to low
income regions, and transport pricing policies within EU27 including congestion charging.
Based on this assessment, two scenarios for the situation in 2020 and 2030 have been
defined following a dialogue with the Commission; a Baseline scenario and a scenario
termed “Sustainable Economic Development”.
The baseline is a “Business as Usual” scenario including already agreed infrastructure

and policy measures and in line with the current trends. The Sustainable Economic De-
velopment scenario describes a faster economic and demographic development, higher
fuel costs and provide for an intensive development of the road and rail networks.
The Baseline and the Sustainable Economic Development scenarios have been illus-
trated by short descriptions of the possible futures and by parameters corresponding to
the input for the TRANS-TOOLS model. On this basis forecasts for all modes for 2020
and 2030 in the Baseline and Sustainable Economic Development scenarios for both
freight and passenger transport have been produced. Subsequently, these forecasts
have then been applied for identifying the most important infrastructure axes for cohesion,
development of the internal market and the relations to neighbouring countries.
27
Final Report
4.1.2 Overview of TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model improvements

The model improvements, which have been carried out in the course of the project, are
the following:
1. Update of the TRANS-TOOLS model to base year 2005. The TRANS-TOOLS version
1 model was updated to 2005 in this project, and the new version of the model uses 2005
as its base year.
2. Spatial refined zonal system. The number of zones has been extended from 1269 to
1441. The coverage of the model, however, is not widened, but the one zone countries
are now subdivided in many more zones as indicated in the figure below.
Figure 4.1. Adjustment of zonal system for the Trans-TOOLS model version 2.
3. The new version of TRANS-TOOLS operates with more modes and trip purposes for
passenger trips. 5 Main transport modes are considered,
 Car driver
 Car passenger (new)
 Train
 Air
 Bus (new)
Inclusion of bus is related to the need to be able to transfer passengers already in public
transport to improved rail services. In order to accomplish that, a bus mode is required.
Bus passengers will not be allocated to networks.
28
Final Report
The division of car users in drivers and passengers facilitates the transformation of pas-
senger trips to car trips, because the number of car trips equals the number of car driver
trips. In this way the cumbersome estimation of car occupancy is made redundant.
The trip purposes applied for passenger trips include the following:
 Home-Business (HB)
 Home-Private (HP)
 Home-Vacation (HH)
 Home-Work (HW) (new)
The Home-Work purpose is new, and is taken out of the Home-Business segment. The
reason is that Home-Work has other characteristics, particularly another value of time,
than Home-Business, and this makes it uncertain to forecast the two segments in one
common step.
It is noted, that it is assumed that all trips are home based. This means that it is possible
to determine the characteristics applicable to a person performing the trip because the
home end of the trip is known and the characteristics is related to the home end. The
TRANS-TOOLS version 1 model was based on OD relations, which did not make it pos-
sible to identify the home-end of the trip, thus making it impossible to identify the charac-
teristics of the person performing the trip.
4. Re-estimated base year passenger trip matrices (intra-zonal trips included). This is
further described in Annex 1.
5. State-of-practice passenger model estimated on available data with facilitated user

input. This is described in Annex 1, as are improved drivers of passenger transport.
6. Improvements to passenger car assignment to reflect national differences. This is fur-

ther elaborated in Annex 1.
7. Multi mode access/egress modelling in air network, which is also part of the improved
assignment procedure mentioned in Annex 1.
8. New trade model for forecasting trade between main trading countries and areas. This
is further described in Annex 1, where the improved economic model (CGEurope) is also
described.
An expanded summary of the model development is provided in Annex 1.
4.2 Baseline 2005
4.2.1 Data collection

An important aspect of updating the TRANS-TOOLS baseline from 2000 to 2005 has
been data improvement. Data are required at many levels covering a number of geo-
graphical locations, networks, economic data and flow data which all together provide a
detailed map of the European transport reality and its development from 2000 to 2005.
29
Final Report
Data are available from many sources. The socio-economic data on zones are described
based on statistics available from the EUROSTAT databases, which contain almost all
data items of importance for the modelling framework concerning EU, EEA, EFTA and
candidate countries. For the remaining countries UN databases have been applied. Geo-
graphical databases are maintained on different NUTS levels and this provides the basis
for obtaining zonal data about population and employment for the zones used in the
TRANS-TOOLS passenger model at NUTS 3 level (1441 zones). GDP is available for the
different countries. For the trade and freight transport model the NUTS 2 level is applied,
thus reducing the number of zones to 264.
The zonal system in Germany and Benelux is more detailed than in other parts of the
Union and in the neighbouring countries.
The zonal data items needed for the TRANS-TOOLS model are:
 Population segmented by age (0-18, 19-64 and 64+)

 Employment
 GDP and distribution by economic sector
 Car ownership
Further Level of Service (LOS) matrices comprising transport time and costs are required.
Transport time and costs are evaluated for each mode of transport.
Figure 4.3 on page 31 indicates the development in population per age group in the EU
and EEA countries in the model.
It is clear that particularly in East and Central Europe the number of children is decreas-
ing fast in the period from 2000 – 2005, while the population above 64 is increasing in
almost all the countries.
Figure 4.2 shows the development in GDP for the countries in the TRANS-TOOLS model.
The GDP is measured in constant 2000 prices.
Figure 4.2. Development in GDP in constant 2000 prices from 2000 to 2005
30
Final Report
Particularly the East and Central European countries have experienced considerable
growth rates for GDP over the considered period. The Baltic countries, Belarus, Moldova
and Ukraine have seen growth rates above 40 % in the five year period 2000 to 2005.
Figure 4.3. Population changes from 2000 to 2005 by age group
31
Final Report
The following Figure 4.4 indicates the change in number of passenger cars per 1000
inhabitants in the period 2000 – 2005.
Figure 4.4. Changes in car ownership (pass. cars per 1000 inhabitants) from
2000 to 2005
Particularly in East and Central Europe is the increase in car ownership considerable,
taking into account that it is only a period of 5 years.
Based on EUROSTAT the change from 2000 to 2005 in transport costs in constant 2000
prices for road and rail is established. The following figure indicates the changes.
Figure 4.5. Changes in transport costs in constant 2000 prices for road and rail
from 2000 to 2005
In some countries there have been major changes in the passenger transport costs, while
in other the changes have been negligible. In 50 % of the countries road transport costs
have gone up more than rail transport costs. Compared to this air transport costs have on
average decreased with 3 % from 2000 to 2005.
Road freight transport costs in constant 2000 prices have increased with 4 % from 2000
to 2005 according to DG TREN, and similarly rail freight costs increased by 1 %. For
32
Final Report
maritime transport and inland waterway transport it is assumed that the costs are un-
changed. Also loading times and costs, inventory costs and shipment sizes are assumed
to remain constant from 2000 to 2005.
Data collection has been co-ordinated by the Technical University of Denmark, and virtu-
ally all partners and subcontractors have participated in providing network development
descriptions for the period 2000 to 2005.
The TRANS-TOOLS model includes separate networks for road transport (passenger and
freight transport use the same network), rail passenger and rail freight transport (the ma-
jority of links is the same in the two rail networks, but there are specific passenger-only
and freight–only links), inland waterways transport, and passenger transport by air. Since
the base year of the original TRANS-TOOLS model is 2000, the networks are updated to
2005.
The air network has changed radically between 2000 and 2005 due to introduction of new
low budget airlines and September 11, 2001. Therefore this network has been thoroughly
revised and new attributes added. Practically all links in the 2000-air network have been
revised or deleted and new added.
The update procedure for road and rail networks comprised both extensions of the net-
works into e.g. Turkey and Russia and validation and updates from 2000 to 2005 in EU,
EEA and EFTA. Also the inland waterway network was updated.
Table 4.1 summarizes number of edits conducted during the process of updating from
2000 to 2005.
Table 4.1. Number of network edits in updating from 2000 to 2005

Network New added links Deleted links Edited links
Road network 1374 12 3458
Rail passenger network 168 39 1660
Rail freight network 171 18 729
Inland waterways 6 10 4
Since the 2000 road network included almost 36,000 links, about 4% new links have
been added and almost 10% changed. The changes mainly include revisions to speed,
number of lanes, and toll charges.
The rail passenger and freight networks include about 5,500 links. Thus, about 3% new
links have been added and 30% changed. The changes concern primarily speed revi-
sions.
The inland waterways network includes about 800 links, and few have been added or
changed. The new links added are in East Europe and Balkans.
The networks are loaded with traffic based on assignment procedures included in the
TRANS-TOOLS model. For the road network the assignment procedure operates with
capacity constrains, and since the TRANS-TOOLS model deals with traffic between
zones, it is necessary to preload the road network links with intra-zonal traffic in order to
obtain reasonable results with the capacity constrained assignment.
33
Final Report
The updated 2005 model is calibrated against traffic counts on the road network and the
rail network. There are traffic counts available on about 10,000 links in the road network.
An overview of the links with counts is provided in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6. Links in TRANS-TOOLS road network with traffic counts, 2005
Data on flows on the railway network expressed in passengers and tonnes are hard to get
at, but records exist for some countries concerning the loads in terms of passenger trains
and freight trains. These exist primarily for Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, the
Czech and the Slovak republics and for Hungary. Train loads have been transformed to
passengers and tonnes applying average load values for each country.
4.2.2 2005 update results

Two versions of the TRANS-TOOLS model have been applied in the project for 2005, the
original 2007 version 1 and the version 2 developed within this project. Results men-
tioned in the following sections refer mainly to version 2 results. The technical features of
version 2 are indicated in Annex 1. The passenger trips included in the new version in-
clude all trips carried out by car, train, air plane and bus.
The resulting number of million trips per year calculated by the original and the new
model is mentioned in Table 4.2.
It is seen that the number of passenger trips increases from about 16,000 m. trips in the
old TRANS-TOOLS model to about 422,000 m. trips in the new model. The vast majority
of trips are intra-zonal and will therefore never make a contribution to the networks’ loads.
However, a more detailed knowledge about the total amounts of trips can improve also
the preloading of the road network.
It is seen that the total amount of passengers in air transport are quite similar, but the trip
purposes distribute quite differently from before. About 18 % of the rail passenger trips
34
Final Report
seem to be trips between zones, and about 4 % of the passenger trips in cars are be-
tween zones.
Table 4.2. Number of passenger trips included in the original (version 1) and new
(version 2) TRANS-TOOLS model
Old model
Mode\Purpose Work Private Holiday Total
Car 2,197 11,100 1,019 14,316
Train 140 959 77 1,176
Air 198 153 123 474
Total 2,535 12,212 1,219 15,966
New model
Mode\Purpose Business Private Holiday Commute Total
Car driver 11,170 82,137 57,631 89,448 240,385
Car passenger 3,095 58,781 50,787 24,897 137,560
Train 376 3,167 596 2,224 6,362
Bus 529 12,112 5,932 18,536 37,109
Air 65 20 398 0 483
Total 15,234 156,217 115,344 135,105 421,900
The passenger and freight tonnes km for EU25 related to the version 2 model is indicated
in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Comparison between observed and calculated transport figures for
EU25 in 2005 (version 2 model)
Mode EC Pocketbook Model Divergence (%)

Passenger
Passenger car, 1000 m.

4439 4461 0%
pkm
364 365 0%
Bus, 1000 m. pkm 500 495 -1%

Freight
Truck, 1000 m. tonne km 1722 1643 -5%
Railway, 1000 m. tonne

392 423 +8%
km
IWW, 1000 m. tonne km 129 120 -7%
The update and model development has resulted in a model which is able to reproduce
within reasonable accuracy the total transport work for passengers and freight on the
networks in Europe. It has to be taken into account that different parts of Europe have
quite different characteristics concerning transport habits, and therefore variations be-
tween observed and calculated transport by country have to be expected.
35
Final Report
The following Figure 4.7 shows the divergence between observed and calculated pas-
senger km with cars. While the version 1 model underestimated the total amount of pas-
senger km with about 40 % the version 2 model is reproducing the pocket book figures for
2005 with considerable accuracy. The passenger car matrices in the version 2 model
includes all passenger car movements in Europe, thus producing passenger km compa-
rable to the statistical figures in the pocket book. There are considerable differences only
for a few countries (Austria with +20% and Ireland with +10%). A possible reason for the
difference in Austria could be a considerable amount of foreign cars in transit in Austria,
because there is reasonable compliance between observed and calculated traffic counts
in Austria. The Austrian figure in the pocket book relates only to passenger km carried out
by Austrian cars.
Figure 4.7. Observed and calculated passenger km by car in the TRANS-TOOLS

version 2 model
Divergense in pkm 2005 (%)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
Latvia
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Belgium
United Kingdom
Italy
Austria
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Malta
Denmark
Germany
Hungary
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Portugal
Air transport trips
Passenger km by air transport is not assessed in the TRANS-TOOLS model, but a valida-
tion has been made with air passenger flows. The validation has revealed inaccuracies in
the base year 2000 air trip matrix in the original TRANS-TOOLS model. Therefore, new
air trip matrices have been set up for 2005.
The TRANS-TOOLS model does only estimate air trips between European destinations.
Therefore, trips to locations outside Europe have been removed from the observed pas-
senger data for airports before comparisons between calculated and observed air trans-
port flows.
Figure 4.8 indicates the divergences between observed and calculated traffic is between
+ and – 10 % for the biggest airports. This is far less than in the TRANS-TOOLS version
1 model.
36
Final Report
Figure 4.8. Divergence between observed and calculated trips by airport, 2005,
TRANS-TOOLS version 2
Divergence 2005 (%)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
TENERIFE
EDINBURGH
BIRMINGHAM
COPENHAGE
MANCHESTER
DUESSELDOR
COLOGNE/BO
HEATHROW
MUNICH
FRANKFURT
STUTTGART
AMSTERDAM
DE GAULLE
NICE
PRAGUE
MADRID
STANSTED
DUBLIN
LUTON
HAMBURG
TEGEL
HELSINKI
BUDAPEST
GATWICK
LINATE
ALICANTE
BARCELONA
BRUSSELS
ATHENS
GLASGOW
LISBON
ROME-DA-
MALPENSA
VIENNA
ORLY
LYON
PALMA
ARLANDA
WARSAW
MALAGA
LAS PALMAS
Passenger trips by rail
For rail the version 1 TRANS-TOOLS rail passenger matrix is not applied, but completely
new matrices are established. The matrices are constructed using available statistics
from EUROSTAT, national databases and World Bank data at country level. The matrices
at national level are subdivided to the zonal system applying a synthetic gravity proce-
dure.
It is not possible to carry out the Matrix estimation based on traffic counts because the
count data are few and unreliable. Often it is not passenger data which are available but
train data, and it is very difficult to translate the train data into passenger data because
there are no information concerning the length of train, number of seats per train and
other important types of information which are necessary in order to carry out such a
transformation.
Freight transport
The TRANS-TOOLS version 1 and 2 models are similar for freight transport. The major
difference is that the underlying freight matrices have been updated from 2000 to 2005 in
the worldNET project. In principle all lifted tonnes (national and international) are included
in the model.
The difference between observed and calculated truck tonnes for 2005 is negligible as
indicated in Table 4.3. This is an improvement in relation to the TRANS-TOOLS version 1
model results.
Freight volume by rail is overestimated in base year 2000 by the TRANS-TOOLS version
1 model, but the overestimation is reduced for 2005, most likely because of better matri-
ces and improved Level of Service assessments. The change in zonal structure i.e. sub-
division of a number of countries in smaller zones has also helped reducing the overesti-
mation.
37
Final Report
The TRANS-TOOLS model largely overestimates tonne km by inland waterways in 2000

and this discrepancy has been solved applying a general factor reducing the level of
freight transport by Inland Waterways. This factor has been maintained for 2005.
4.3 Drivers for passenger and goods transport
4.3.1 Introduction
Drivers are understood as trends in the transport sector and other sectors, and policies
influencing the future transport demand. Some drivers are easy to recognise, since they
already are or always have been highly influential, while others are less obvious since still
their influence is low; however, giving the non-linear, exponential growth of transport de-
mand, small changes now in aspects apparently of limited relevance may become ex-
tremely important in coming years.
Drivers or main trends influence and are also influenced by other drivers, and there are
also drivers that may remain invariant. Generally speaking, there are two types of drivers
respectively increasing or decreasing transport demand. Examples of the first type could
be economic growth or population growth. An example of the second type could be in-
creasing energy prices.
4.3.2 Drivers and trends for passenger transport

Mateu Turró, in 1994, suggested that the main transport trends driving transport in the
future, to be considered in Europe are the following ones indicated in the text box below.
 Globalisation and EU economic integration will encourage long-distance mobility that

will be increasing above GDP.
 Urban sprawl in metropolitan areas will be contained and urban centres renovated.
Constraints on car usage and improved public transport will lead to modest growth of
urban transport. Selected medium size cities will have the strongest development.
 Social developments (tele-working, demographic changes, increase in relative number
of leisure trips, etc.) will push towards a reduction of peaks in transport demand and
better capacity utilisation, but will reduce the capacity “buffer” of current infrastructure.
 Environmental concerns will favour more realistic transport pricing and increase the
difficulties of constructing new transport facilities.
 Technological developments, market pressures and new logistic strategies will allow a
more efficient use of existing infrastructure assets.
 Public transport operation will be required to be a lot more efficient. Railways, in par-
ticular, will undergo a radical transformation with a strong reduction in scope. As public
aid is being reduced, their use will be progressively restricted to niches where quality
(speed, reliability, comfort, safety, etc.) and operating costs make them competitive.
 Less polluting cars and lorries, and telematic applications will improve the overall per-
formance (externalities, capacity usage) of road transport and will compete in areas
presently reserved to electric railways (long tunnels).
 Multimodal integration will provide new competitive options through improved transfer
facilities for passengers and freight.
 Energy will affect transport developments through its environmental implications.
Needless to say, scientific methods of forecast are based on formalising mathematically

the complex interdependency of all trends and translating them into computerised mod-
els. Therefore, reliable and policy-relevant forecast models explicitly integrate key drivers
38
Final Report
and trends, spontaneous and modified by public policies, consistently organised as sce-
narios.
There is a well-known feedback between transport infrastructure improvements and the

mobility generated from social relations and economic activities: infrastructure create
cities as well as cities create infrastructure. Transport demand can be considered driven
by social relations and economic activities, as well as by technology, but transport also
drives activities and technologies.
The driving force that creates peoples’ mobility is seeking more opportunities for a better
living. Under certain natural and cultural restrains (10-15% of personal income and ap-
proximately 1 hour per day devoted to transport) people across history have travelled as
faraway as transport technology allowed them. Since transport is becoming less expen-
sive relative to most peoples’ revenue, and faster, transport demand is growing in terms
of number of trips and total length even though the natural and cultural thresholds may
remain basically stable (for instance, the time people commute in the US has been
around 30 minutes each way, with no significant increases during the last decades, while
the total length of trips made by all travellers together kept growing).
A number of multi-sectoral scenarios have been developed at European scale during the
past years, such as ASSESS and TEN-STAC, built on the experience of earlier research
studies. To some extent, these modelling exercises managed to integrate directly or indi-
rectly the drivers and trends mentioned above. Also a model has been developed for the
spatial planning study ESPON 3.2, which takes a number of the drivers in consideration.
TEN-STAC used a zonal trip generation approach (the VACLAV model, a classical 4
steps model1 with a top-down approach) estimating passenger traffic based on population
by sex and age, employment by sector, motorisation, Gross Value Added, supply of lei-
sure accommodation for tourism, GDP/capita and transport costs for each mode level and
covering EU29 (EU25 + Romania + Bulgaria + Norway + Switzerland). The VACLAV
model has also been the basis for the TRANS-TOOLS model.
ASSESS was to provide technical support to the European Commission for the mid-term
assessment of the White Paper on European Transport Policy. The ASSESS project as-
sembled comprehensive information at the European level to carry out an assessment of
both the achievements to date, the possible policy implementation scenarios to the year
2010, and the longer term prospects to the year 2020.
ASSESS used the model SCENES to obtain traffic forecasts for both passenger and
freight in four different scenarios that simulated various implementation stages of the
White Paper measures and policies. The most likely transport growth based on the AS-
SESS study was:
1
1. number of trips produced, 2. choice of destination, 3. choice of mode and 4. choice of route
39
Final Report
This compares with following observed growth figures for EU15 for the period 1995 –
2005: GDP growth of 28 %, passenger km overall (excluding air) of 15 % and freight ton-
nes overall of 31 %.
For the ESPON 3.2 Strategic Study on development prospects in the EU a simulation
model, KTEN, was developed. The fundamental variables included in the KTEN model
were as follows:
 GDP and Population elasticity to transport demand (that aggregate economic drivers
without any sectoral discrimination)
 Ratios for trip generation by workers, students and tourists (that aggregate social
drivers)
 User’s cost perception (to explore the impact of pricing policies)
 Market integration within/outside Europe (to explore the impact of removing political
barriers between countries)
 Carriers’ cost perception (to analyse possible management improvements)
 Cost allocation to roads/rail (to define transport investment priorities as a whole).
An example of the drivers is provided in the following Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.9. Example of KTEN drivers

SCENARIO 2015 BASELINE 2015 COHESIVE2015 COMPETITIVE 2030 BASELINE 2030 COHESIVE 2030 COMPETITIVE
Sustainability Cohesion Competitiveness Sustainability Cohesion Competitiveness
Main indicator CO2 - GDP Endowment ACC Efficiency CBA CO2- GDP Endowment ACC Efficiency CBA
Main aim Balancing modes Balancing regions Balancing sectors Balancing modes Balancing regions Balancing sectors
PASSENGER
GDP elasticity 1,00% 1,50% 1,00% 1,00% 1,00% 0,50%
POP elasticity 0,50% 1,00% 0,50% 0,50% 0,50% 0,50%
Work trips/worker per day 2,2 2,5 2 2,2 2,1 2
Study trips/student per day 2 2 2 2 2 2
Maximum trips/person per year 1000 1100 1050 1000 1100 1050
Minimum trips/person per year 100 125 110 100 125 110
Maximum leisure/personal trip ratio 60% 55% 65% 60% 55% 65%
Minimum leisure/personal trip ratio 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Users' costs perception 70,00% 55,00% 80,00% 80,00% 75,00% 100,00%
FREIGHT
GDP elasticity 1,50% 2,00% 1,50% 1,50% 1,50% 1,00%
POP elasticity 1,00% 1,50% 1,00% 1,00% 1,00% 0,80%
Market integration level of EU-15 1 1 1 1 1 1
Market integration level of EFTA countries 2 2 3 1 1 2
Market integration level of Future Candidate
countries 2 1 4 2 2 3
Market integration level of Rest of the World 2 1 4 2 2 3
Carriers' costs perception 75,00% 60,00% 90,00% 80,00% 75,00% 100,00%
Cost allocation to roads 40,00% 60,00% 60,00% 40,00% 60,00% 60,00%
Cost allocation to rails 40,00% 40,00% 20,00% 40,00% 40,00% 20,00%
40
Final Report
According to many analysts (e.g. the Foresight Vehicle Technology Roadmap, UK road
transport sector), drivers and trends can be grouped, for a better understanding, as fol-
lows:
 Social trends and drivers relate to the social systems we live in, including demo-
graphics, life style aspirations and choices, mobility requirements and behaviour,
working patterns and desires for health, safety and security.
 Economic trends and drivers that affect our lives, including global, national, corporate
and personal economic considerations.
 Environmental trends and drivers relate to the physical environment in which we live,
including energy production and consumption, waste, emissions and pollution, and
the associated health impacts.
 Technological trends and drivers relate to how technology affects the way we live,
including development of new fuel and power systems, electronics and control tech-
nologies, structures and materials, together with manufacturing and business proc-
esses.
 Political trends and drivers relate to the systems that govern us, including policy,
regulation and legislation, together with the political processes that lead to them.
 Infrastructural trends and drivers relate to the systems that support transport, includ-
ing the physical infrastructure, together with provision of associated services and in-
formation, and the interfaces between modes of transport.
These six main drivers are not independent, and there are many complex interdependen-
cies between them. For example, the related issues of vehicle fuel efficiency and CO2
emissions have significant implications for society, economics, the environment, technol-
ogy, politics and infrastructure.
The six main drivers and their division in sub-drivers can be linked to input variables in
the TRANS-TOOLS model and to endogenous variables build into the model. However,
the latter are not possible to change. The following table provides an overview of the driv-
ers and the TRANS-TOOLS variables.
Table 4.4. Drivers and their linkage to TRANS-TOOLS variables

Drivers TRANSTOOLS
Description
Main Sub Variable
Migration from external countries will continue, lead- Total population
External
ing to an increase in long-distance trips to neighbour- Population distribution
migration
ing countries Unemployment rates
Social
Internal migrations due to labour tends to stabilize,

Internal
but more retired people will migrate from North to Retired population
migration
south.
The number of households is increasing provided Occupation ratios
Households
that families have less members Trip generation ratios
41
Final Report
Drivers TRANSTOOLS
Description
Main Sub Variable
Ageing
More retired people leads to more long-distance trips Retired population
population
Decentrali- Geographically distributed companies imply more
Trip generation ratios
sation and longer trips
A good regulation and cost internalisation leads to
Market Travel and transport
more efficient transport networks thus lowering social
regulation costs
costs but increasing travel costs
Economy
Regional specialisation in some economic sectors is

Specialisa-
increasing and so the dependency on transport Trip generation ratios
tion
grows
Saturation of transport networks is a general con- Travel and transport
Shortage
straint for economic activity costs
Catching Access to infrastructure endowment and urbanisable Travel and transport
up land lead to faster economic development costs
Clean
The impact of transportation on the environment will Consump-
technolo-
decrease due to new technologies tion/Emission ratios
Environment
gies
Environ-
Regulations will likely restrain the growth of transport Trip generation ratios
mental
while making it difficult to allow capacity increases Occupation ratios
regulations
Energy Oil peaking will increase transportation costs and Travel and transport
scarcity enforce the search for new energy sources costs
ICT con-
Exponential number of social and economic relations Trip generation ratios
vergence
Personal-
More competitive door-to-door individual mobility
ised vehi- Trip generation ratios
based on many different vehicles and conditions
cles
Rail mod- More competitive rail services in specific market
Modal split ratios
ernisation segments
Technology
Improved
More competitive and environmentally friendly mari- Travel and transport
planes and
time and air services costs
vessels
Intelligent
Travel and transport
traffic man- Better use of scarce infrastructure capacity
costs
agement
Consumer
Use of the time travelling for other activities Travel costs
value
No inter- Easier agreements between passengers and carri-
mediation ers.
Borders are tending to disappear inside the EU, and
Political
free movement of goods and people is becoming Dummy variable
borders
Political
easier
Cross- Borders between neighbouring countries (political,
Penalty points at bor-
border administrative, cultural or even infrastructural) will be
ders
integration progressively eliminated
42
Final Report
Drivers TRANSTOOLS
Description
Main Sub Variable
Transport
market The liberalisation of transport market will lead to a Travel and transport
liberalisa- much more efficient system costs
tion
The public investments will remain at the same levels
Investment as in the past years, but the implication of private Travel and transport
in transport funding will be more important through different pri- costs
vate-public partnership strategies
Several economic conditions linked to spatial loca-
Dispersion/ tion (salaries, space availability...) determine the
Land use location of people and firms. Dispersion leads to
higher transport demand
Reduction of economic gaps lead to homogenous
Spatial
Gaps Trip generation ratios

transportation patterns
Regional specialisation will lead to different transpor-
Geography Trip generation ratios
tation patterns
Present and future congestion in infrastructure (road,
Travel and transport
Bottlenecks rail and airports) creates bottlenecks for the eco-
costs
nomic development
4.3.3 Drivers and trends for freight transport

In this subsection, we will describe the global trends that we consider important for the
purpose of long-term prediction of freight flows. We will concentrate our attention on the
phenomena that can be parameterized and estimated using available data. We con-
sciously omit here such drivers as infrastructure improvements and pricing policies in
transport (including the development of fuel price), because these important elements are
discussed in section 4.4 in the presentation of future scenarios developed for this study.
The following text box lists identified drivers, which are then discussed in below:
 Economic growth
 Economic integration, reduction of barriers to trade
 Changing commodity composition of trade and freight transport
 Changing value-to-weight relationship for individual commodity groups
 Technological improvements, decreasing the transport costs
One of the most important economic indicators is the growth of GDP. Growing industries
require increasing amounts of inputs and produce more output, which suggests that the
supporting transport flows should also increase. The drivers behind economic growth are
many, most important of them being population change, technological progress, institu-
tional reform and opening up of national economies to the world market, economic con-
vergence due to increased capital mobility (Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), outsourc-
ing) and innovation diffusion, decreasing costs of spatial interaction, integration of mar-
43
Final Report
kets for goods, services, capital and knowledge. The vast literature on economic growth
aims at quantifying the contribution of these drivers to the development of national
economies and the world economy. It is, however, not the purpose of this study to provide
another set of predictions for GDP growth rates. Rather, we will rely on the current official
EU forecasts and test the implications of alternative scenarios. The values of GDP growth
rates used in this study are provided in section 4.4.
Economic integration is an ongoing process that has an immense effect on the interna-
tional trade and freight transport. In fact, the reduction of international trade barriers
(through the signing of free trade agreements and carrying out the necessary institutional
improvements), is the reason explaining the rapid growth of trade volumes in the last
decade. This process concerns in the first place the former centrally planned economies,
including China. An increasing integration into the world market is also observed for India
and some countries in other parts of the world (e.g. Latin America). In this study, we take
account of the effect of economic integration on international freight traffic by estimating
the values of time varying trade multipliers for every country pair in the study area.
It is not likely that the commodity structure of trade between all countries will stay un-
changed over the time horizon of this study (2005-2030). In fact, the commodity structure
of world trade did significantly change in the last decades, with major shift taking place in
the structure of trade of developed countries with developing countries, where e.g. the
share of raw materials in the EU imports decreased in favour of finished manufactured
products. An a-priori judgement about the future trends in the commodity structure of
freight flows is complicated by the fact that the commonly used classification of trans-
ported goods (NST/R) is very hard to link with the usual trade classifications such as
SITC or HS. For the purpose of estimating the historical trends in the structure of freight
flows, we made use of very detailed trade classification (CN). In this way we could take
advantage of existing time series data on international trade and estimate the commodity
specific elasticities that quantify the effect of economic growth of exporter and importer on
the composition of trade between them.
Another important driver influencing the freight volumes is the changing ratio between the
value of the load and its weight. Technological advance, for example in the electronics
industry, often leads to replacement of popular items by smaller and lighter ones (think of
computer components, or LCD screens), with a common tendency that the new value-to-
weight ratio increases. The corresponding trend for the NST/R commodity groups can be
quantified using the time series of trade in value and quantity terms from Eurostat.
At last, a driver having similar impact as economic integration is the reduction of resource
costs in freight transport through the use of advanced technologies. While container
freight and logistic technologies made freight cost decrease, the rise of energy prices
goes in the opposite direction. Regarding transportation cost margins, air freight cost
reductions have contributed considerably to international freight cost reductions (Hum-
mels, 2008). The somewhat surprising observation that there is no clear tendency of de-
cline of overseas freight cost over the last five decades is likely due to the fact, that freight
price indices do not sufficiently correct for quality improvements (Hummels, 2008).
These listed drivers and trends are in this study used to make the freight flows predictions
for the future years. The detailed methodology is described in the technical deliverables.
4.3.4 Conclusions
A number of drivers are identified as having an impact on passenger travel and freight
transport. It can be concluded that there are many more drivers and trends than there are
variables in the TRANS-TOOLS model. This is also clear, because in order to integrate
different drivers in a formal model evidence as to the effect of the driver in question is
required, and such evidence requires availability of data and time series isolating the
effect of the driver. Such evidence is often not available.
44
Final Report
All models are developed for specific purposes. Thus the variables integrated in the mod-
els will depict these purposes. Therefore a model developed for the analysis of the effect
of telecommunication on the daily work-home journey will require other variables than a
model for long-distance tourist trips in Europe. A number of trends and drivers will there-
fore be included in models in indirect ways, as also indicated in Table 4.4 presented
above for passenger trips.
The analysis of the drivers provides an input for the improvement of the TRANS-TOOLS
model, but also the possibility to identify the level of change which could be anticipated by
the model runs to be carried out in the future.
4.4 Scenarios for 2020 and 2030
The European transport scene is characterised by a very dense network of road, rail and
inland waterway links in the centre of the Union, gradually being less dense as the pe-
riphery is approached and population densities become less. The accessibility to regions
is thus quite uneven, and developing the accessibility would be a goal to include in the
scenario description. This goal is also in line with the development of European Axes for
a sustainable economic and social development.
Mobility is an important factor for development of welfare for the citizens of Europe. How-
ever, the freedom to move has to be facilitated at the least cost for the environment and
decoupling should take place with respect to the negative effects of transport. Thus, the
scenarios should include policies on internalisation of the external costs, and this should
be viewed in the light of increasing awareness of the climate changes and a possible
major change in oil supply, addressing the issue of vehicle operating costs.
There are imbalances of transport modes in Europe. The dominance of road transport,
particularly in passenger transport, reflects the encompassing mobility supported by the
passenger car. But the ownership and use of cars creates congestion and bottlenecks,
threatens the economic life and welfare of the citizens and increases the pressure on
environment. Missing interoperability for some transport modes adds to the congestion.
Scenarios addressing this topic particularly in Central Europe and in urbanised areas
should be envisaged in terms of congestion charging. In this respect, however, it should
be stressed that the TRANS-TOOLS model is addressing the issue of interregional trans-
port, and that local transport is not included in the model except as a preload on the net-
work links in the road network. Local rail transport in terms of Metro, Underground and
City-rail is also not included in the TRANS-TOOLS model.
The growing importance of the East-West transport flows has been recognised for some
time, and therefore the scenarios need to facilitate this flow in terms of improved connec-
tions to the East of Europe. But also an increasing trade with the Mediterranean countries
point to a growing need for connections towards Turkey and towards Morocco. But the
ports have also an important role to play in serving the east-west transports.
The focus in the scenario analysis is not only on heavily loaded infrastructure, but also on
infrastructure which - if improved - could boost the Single Market, Cohesion and connec-
tions to Neighbouring countries. The change in views towards the borders of the EU could
result in a shift in relevant TEN-T priority projects moving towards the border of the EU. In
the following are the assumptions necessary to carry out a TRANS-TOOLS forecast for
2020/2030 addressed.
45
Final Report
4.4.1 Overview of scenarios

In the outset four scenarios were drafted, but this was reduced to 2 scenarios in discus-
sions with the EC, namely a Baseline (business as Usual) scenario and a Sustainable
Economic Development scenario. The two scenarios are briefly outlined below.
Baseline A Sustainable Economic Development
Official population forecasts from EURO- Official population forecasts from EURO-
STAT, baseline STAT, high population
Available EC economic forecasts from DG Higher economic development, particularly

ECFIN in New Member States
Car ownership and car occupancy based Car ownership and car occupancy based
on existing trends on higher economic development
Oil price is assumed to follow EIA long Oil price is assumed to remain constant at
term prediction 85 US$ in fixed 2006 prices
Agreed policy measures Policy measures addresses charging issue
Only infrastructure development already Infrastructure development comprising

on-going or designed included available plans.
The Scenarios address also the issues of single market and social and economic cohe-
sion.
The Single Market issue is related to development of export and import of key commodi-
ties, and related logistics chains being of different nature for different commodities. An
important Single Market issue is the possibility for establishing warehousing and inventory
facilities at the economically most favourable location for the commodity under considera-
tion. These locations will differ according to the scenario under consideration. However,
the locations are picked endogenously by the TRANS-TOOLS model.
Addressing the issue of social and economic cohesion accessibility and remoteness are
two important aspects. Cohesion should improve accessibility to the major trans-national
axes from remote and island regions. Cohesion should also ensure a more equal devel-
opment in all parts of EU, and ensure that no regions loses opportunities because of sub-
optimal access to the main trading and tourism corridors and areas. The scenario “A Sus-
tainable Economic Development” is focussing on this issue.
Finally, the issue of neighbouring countries is addressed. The forecasts have been made
on a common set of data for the neighbouring countries for the baseline and Sustainable
Economic Development. The population forecasts have been based on the UN 2006
World population prospects, and the economic forecasts on the UNECE study of a Trans
European Motorway Network. For those countries not covered by the TEM-study the
CEPII Long term growth prospects of the World Economy: Horizon 2050 (Poncet, 2006)
has been used. Data for the neighbouring countries are included in the report on forecast
results: TENconnect: Forecasts 2020 and 2030.
46
Final Report
Since TRANS-TOOLS is limited to Europe including Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus

and Russia it is not possible to carry out forecasts for trade and passenger travel with the
Mediterranean countries (MEDA) and countries in Caucasus (TRACECA) using the
TRANS-TOOLS model. In order to include these countries the MEDA databases on traffic
forecasts for both freight and passenger traffic have been analysed. The TRANS-TOOLS
trade prediction model is able to provide forecasts for the trade between the TRACECA
countries and EU. However, this traffic is not distributed by mode and assigned to the
relevant networks. But it is possible to get an indication of the level of trade.
An indication of the future transport outlook for the MEDA and TRACECA countries has
been provided in section 4.5.4. The analysis is focussed on the freight transport and more
particular the flows running through Turkey and Morocco to Europe.
An overview of the assumptions made for the two scenarios is provided below in table
Table 4.5
Table 4.5. Development assumptions for 2020 and 2030 applied in the TRANS-
TOOLS model runs
Scenario Baseline Baseline Sustainable
Year 2020 2030 2030

Basis2020 Basis2030 SU2030
Zonal data relative to 2005:
- Population (EU27) 1.2% 0.8% 8.5%
- Population (Rest of Europe) -1.3% -3.4% -3.4%
- Employment (EU27) 0.0% -1.1% 6.2%
- GDP, EU27 39% 61% 77%
- GDP, Rest of Europe 75% 159% 159%
- GDP, Overseas 56% 129% 129%
- Carownership EU27 16% 26% 27%
1)
- Hotel capacity 0% 0% 0%
Transport cost relative to 2005:
50% of GDP growth 50% of GDP growth 50% of GDP growth
- Rail and bus fare (max. 30%) (max. 30%) (max. 30%)
- Passenger car fuel cost 7% 7% 0%
- Air fare 0% 0% 20%
- Truck driving cost 4% 4% 0%
- Rail freight cost -10% -10% 0%
- IWW freight cost 0% 0% 0%
- Maritme transport cost 4% 4% 15%
Network:
- Road Baseline 2030 Baseline 2030 High Growth 2030
Passenger-km cost as in 2005 as in 2005 As in 2005
5 % of truck Noise
and air poll. +
congestion + 0.01
Passenger-km internalisation 0 0 EUR
Passenger-km cost recovery vignette

countries 0 0 0
Truck km cost as in 2005 as in 2005 As in 2005
Noise, air poll +
Noise, air poll + Noise, air poll + congestion + 0.04
Truck km internalisation congestion congestion EUR
47
Final Report
Scenario Baseline Baseline Sustainable
Year 2020 2030 2030

Basis2020 Basis2030 SU2030
Truck km cost recovery vignette coun- 0.06 EUR on Mo-

tries 0 0 torways
- Rail passenger Baseline 2030 Baseline 2030 Sustainable 2030
- Rail freight Baseline 2030 Baseline 2030 Sustainable 2030
- Air 2005 2005 Extra low cost lines
- IWW 2005 2005 2005
Note: all cost items are in fixed 2005 prices.
4.4.2 Baseline
A baseline for 2020 and 2030 has been established. The baseline is basically a prolonga-
tion of existing trends.
The assumptions can be subdivided in socio-economic trends, transport cost assump-

tions and network assumptions. The socio economic trends depict the expected devel-
opment in a number of basic parameters like population, employment, income growth,
etc. These are based as far as possible on available sources like EUROSTAT population
projections, economic development data from DG ECFIN, etc. The transport cost as-
sumptions cover both on-going policy initiatives as well as possible development paths for
variables in the TRANS-TOOLS model reflecting the scenario assumptions. The network
assumptions address the infrastructural development.
Socio-economic development
The Baseline assumes a population growth in EU27 as indicated in the official population
TREND-forecast 2004 from EUROSTAT on NUTS2 level. This forecast is unfortunately
rather old, even the basic 2005 figures are changed according to the population censuses
already available. The forecasts are also old compared to the UN 2006 forecasts, which
are applied outside EU. The forecasts however are available at NUTS2 level which im-
plies taking account of a more diversified development within the countries where NUTS2
forecasts are available. Unfortunately population forecasts for UK and France are not
subdivided at NUTS2 level.
In 2005 the total EU population was about 491 m. people (census). In 2020 this is ex-
pected to be almost 496 m. and the population remains almost constant up to 2030 (495
m.). All in all the EU population remains nearly constant. Population in the EU 15 will be
growing slightly, from 387 m. to 399 m., whereas a decrease in population is expected in
EU12 (from 104 m in 2005 to 96 m. in 2030). The highest population growth is foreseen in
Ireland, Luxembourg and Cyprus. Outside the EU the forecasts are based on the World
Population prospects 2006 revision from the UN population division. Here Turkey has the
highest population increase and the population in Russia is decreasing the most.
An overview of the population development per EU country is presented in Figure 4.10.
48
Final Report
Figure 4.10. Population growth 2030 against 2005 in EU27, Baseline
30,0%
25,0%
20,0%
15,0%
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
-5,0%
-10,0%
-15,0%
-20,0%
-25,0%
Ire ry
Sw nia
S l en
te k ia
ch us
en y
ng .
Fr nd
G ce
rla a
r d
om al
C Cy ia
Es ark
Fi ain
nd
Lu hua ly
La rg
ia
un e
m a
m
Be tria
Bu ium
er p.
Po ds
Sp ia
Ki Rep
D an
he lt
Po n
H ec
xe ni
Li Ita
ni va n
R tug
tv
ar
ga
do
G Re
bu
ze pr
et Ma
an
ed
a
a
la
U lo ove
a
to
m
s
m
lg
re
l
lg
nl
Au
d
N
e
Th
The population of Europe grows older and the old age group is making up a greater part
of the total population. This has the effect that a productive population which decreases
has to feed a fast increasing non-productive population. In EU27 the age group above 64
increases with almost 50 % up to 2030, while the age group below 18 decreases with 14
%, and the productive age group decreases with 7 %. There are major differences among
the countries. The development is indicated in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11. Population development by age group 2005 – 2030, Baseline
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
Ire ry
ch s
Be tria
C ia
G ce
rg
ia
he lta
a
.
D any
Li Italy
om l
B u um
Fi n
Fr d
H ce
nd
P o nd
xe nia
Sw nia
S en
ng .
E s rk
m
Po s
R ga
Ki ep
G ep
ze ru
nd
ai
U lov eni
an
ni
ar
tv
ga
a
do
bu
e
et Ma
an
ed
la
la
Sp
a
to
Lu ua
rtu
C yp
s
te k R
R
La
m
lg
re
rla
lg
nl
Au
S lov
un
m
en
er
th
a
d
N
ni
e
Th
<18 18-64 >64
The economic development up to 2030 is based on the DG-ECFIN Note 253 of June
2006. The economic development in GDP per capita is fastest in the eastern part of
49
Final Report
Europe and less in the western part. This is also in line with the development experienced
in the last 10 years. GDP per capita in EU15 in 2005 was about 24,000 EUR in constant
2000 prices, expected to increasing to about 37,000 EUR in 2030. In EU12 the GDP per
capita was about 5,000 EUR in 2005. This is expected to increase to about 13,000 EUR
in 2030. The ratio between GDP per capita in EU15 and in EU12 decreases from 4.7 to
2.9.
Figure 4.12. Development in GDP per capita in constant prices, 2005 – 2030,
Baseline
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
en c
itz ay
Fr d
ia
nd
R rus
he lta
Sl blic
Ki den
Bu ium
Fi ia
H e ce
Ire ry
nd
La y
Lu ithu ia
m ia
Po ds
Po nd
R nia
ni S ain
Be tria
N m
ze C ria
Es rk
er e
G ny
ov o gal
D bli
l
an
ur
G nc
Ita
en
L tv
xe an
n
ga
a
do
Sw orw
e t Ma
n
a
la
la
la
a
ak ma
to
rtu
Sp
ch yp
s
bo
u
u
lg
rla
m
re
nl
te we
lg
er
ov
Au
un
ng
ep
ep
R
d
N
C
Sl
The car ownership increases continuously, however with a slightly decreasing growth
rate. In EU15 the level grows from 483 in 2005 to 553 in 2020 and 594 in 2030. In EU12
the number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants increase from 337 in 2005 to 402 in
2020 and 447 in 2030. Car ownership in terms of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants is
estimated based on a car ownership model developed from statistical analysis of GDP
growth in different countries and car ownership development in the same countries. The
model provides a uniform basis for estimating the car ownership in future years.
50
Final Report
Figure 4.13. Development in passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants, 2005 – 2030,
Baseline
1000
900
800
Vehicles per 1000 inhabitants
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
ep s
Ire ry
itz way
Be tria
er e
Lu ithu ia
nd
L ly
F r nd
ze C aria
H ece
he lta
Sp a
n i S ain
ng n
Es ark
G ny
Sl blic
en c
Bu ium
Fi n i a
ak ma l
nd
m ia
R nia
P o ds
P o nd
N om
ov Ro ga
R ru
D ubli
i
G nc
ur
Ki e
Ita
L atv
xe a n
en
ga
a
et Ma
la
a
la
la
d ed
to
rtu
ch yp
s
d
bo
u
m
a
lg
re
rla
lg
nl
S w or
er
Au
ov
un
ep
te w
N
C
Sl
U
2005 2020 2030
It is expected that the world oil price will follow the development indicated by the US En-
ergy Information Administration in their forecast from spring 2008. The price per barrel of
oil is expressed in 2006 US$ per barrel. The development is indicated below.
Figure 4.14. Oil price development 2005 - 2030
Oil price in 2006 US$, Reference forecast 2008
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Note: Low sulphur Light crude oil according to EIA forecast 2008
Compared to 2005, the low sulphur light crude oil price in 2020 is 2 % and in 2030 is 20
% above the 2005 level. The development trend seems contradicting the actual develop-
ment, where the price of oil passed 147 US$ per barrel (July 2008). However, in Decem-
51
Final Report
ber 2008 the price per barrel had dropped to 43 US$ in current 2008 prices. Therefore,
the assumption of an increase of 20 % of the oil price in 2030 measured in real prices is
maintained.
Transport costs
All transport costs are in 2005 prices.
For road transport following cost items are estimated:
 Vehicle operating costs which is approximated with fuel costs

 Distance based costs related to the use of infrastructure
 Distance based costs related to internalisation of external costs.
Further travel time is estimated as part of the Level of Service calculation.
For passenger transport the value of transport time is endogenously forecasted with the
level of GDP increase in each country.
For goods transport value of time is included in the distance costs referred below.
As indicated it is assumed that the oil price in 2030 is about 20 % higher than in 2005
measured in real prices. A modest improvement of the efficiency is assumed of about 0.5
% per year. These two aspects leads to an expected increase in vehicle operating costs
for passenger cars of 7 % measured in 2005 prices.
It is assumed that emission free vehicles will constitute only small proportions of the vehi-
cle fleets, mostly in the major urban areas in EU15. It is also assumed that the fuel costs
for the emission free vehicles will follow the cost development for the emitting vehicles.
The use of ITS will be widespread, and the applications will help ensuring an increase in
safety and a better utilisation of the congested road systems.
Vehicle operating costs for heavy goods vehicles are combined of many different cost
items like fuel and lubricants costs, maintenance, driver’s salary, insurance and adminis-
trative costs. Time related costs make up about 2/3 of the costs and the rest is distance
related. The time related costs are linked to the time level of service data. Fuel costs
make up about 1/3 to ½ of the distance based costs. Technological development, im-
proved efficiency both in terms of better utilisation of the trucks and more efficient load
planning, and finally competition are all reasons for the assumption that distance costs for
trucks increase with 4 % up to 2030 measured in fixed prices.
On top of the time and distance costs different charges and fees are applicable to truck
transport, including internalisation fees and motorway charges. The digital tachograph
and more efficient enforcement of driving and resting time regulations have lead to more
equal competition between transport modes.
It is stressed that the TRANS-TOOLS model applies only two types of road vehicles, pas-
senger cars and trucks. Therefore, cost items related particularly to trucks need to be
evaluated taking into account that it is quite different composition of truck fleets which
exists in the different European countries. Charges e.g. the German Maut, also depends
52
Final Report
on the type of truck. EURO V trucks have a lower km charge than the EURO I trucks.
There are also different weight limits applicable. In Germany trucks above 12 tonnes are
subject to the Maut, but in Austria the weight limit is 3.5 tonnes. The TRANS-TOOLS
model is a European model and the results should not be applied on country, regional
and local level.
In the baseline forecast infrastructure charging in terms of a cost per kilometre in the road
network is limited to the motorway system plus additional major pieces of infrastructure
(bridges and tunnels). For passenger cars the 2005 charging regime is assumed to be
valid also in 2030, that is, the use of the motorway system is generally not charged in
Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Benelux, UK and the Baltic States, whereas
charges are applied for using the motorway system in the remaining countries either in
terms of vignettes or by direct payment. For road freight, it is assumed that internalisation
of external costs is applied throughout Europe in 2030, and motorway charges are ap-
plied as a distance cost in most countries. In the Vignette countries charges for using the
motorway system is paid in terms of a Vignette. The Vignette countries are the countries
mentioned above excluding Germany, which uses a km-charge.
The internalised costs are applied to all links in the road network. In the baseline the in-
ternalised costs are only applicable to trucks. It is assumed that the external costs of
heavy goods transport is being internalised taking into account noise, air pollution and
congestion. The applied costs were originally developed in the IMPACT project, and
made operational by Joint Research Center (JRC) in the Vignette impact study carried
out in 2008. The costs applied by JRC has been updated to 2005, and applied in the
baseline scenario.
Consumer prices for rail transport in EU25 have been increasing with 9 % in real prices
between 1999 and 2006, and consumer prices for bus transport have been increasing
with 17 % in the same period. GDP in constant prices rose with 17 % in the same period.
Since the TRANS-TOOLS is dealing with rail transport as the public transport mode it is
assumed that rail prices in real terms will increase with 50 % of the growth in GDP. The
fares however, are not assumed to grow with more than 50 % in total. In border crossing
traffic the average growth of the two neighbouring countries is taken as the basis for the
fare assessment.
Transport costs for rail freight depends heavily on the capacity costs, i.e. cost of admini-
stration, cost of networks, costs of interoperability. For competitive reasons the develop-
ment in rail transport costs has followed the development in truck transport costs. In the
baseline scenario it is anticipated that in the time to come improvement in interoperability
of safety systems, internationalisation of drivers’ education, improvement of terminal op-
erations and improved utilisation of tracks altogether will lead to a decrease in freight
transport costs by rail of 10 %.
Air transport has been the mode with the most modest price increases in the last 7 years.
In the baseline, where oil prices are expected to increase only slightly it is expected that
efficiency improvements, consolidation of the air transport business, and introduction of
less fuel consuming aircrafts also as a result of the introduction of the Emission Trading
Scheme for air transport by 2012 will result in the same air fares in 2030 as in 2005
measured in real prices.
Inland Waterway operating costs are assumed to remain constant in fixed prices as are
the charges related to use of locks and channels, and also the costs of using rail termi-
nals is assumed to remain constant in fixed prices.
53
Final Report
For maritime transport the transport costs depends on the development in eg. ship acqui-
sition, maintenance, operation, fuel and lubricants. These different cost items have con-
siderable different weight depending on the dimensions and types of the ships. Since the
TRANS-TOOLS operate with only maritime as one mode irrespective of kind of ship, it
has been assumed that cost development in the baseline scenario will follow the devel-
opment of truck costs, that is an increase of 4 % compared to 2005 in real prices.
Networks
In order for the TRANS-TOOLS model to function properly improvement of links of both
national and international importance needs to be integrated in the TRANS-TOOLS net-
work. The links include extensions and changes to the existing 2005 road and rail net-
work.
The transport networks include the links and nodes to which the traffic of the different
transport modes is assigned. The networks are also used for calculating the
travel/transport time and transport distances between all zones in the TRANS-TOOLS
transport model for the different transport modes. An improvement of a link in one of the
networks will therefore lead to an improvement in time and/or distance for the transport
mode under consideration.
In the baseline scenario links which have been constructed between 2005 and 2008 and
links, which are currently under construction or already planned for construction are
added. A number of member states have provided input to the maps. In case no direct
communication with member states has existed, the national plans have been used as
the basis for appointing the projects. It has however been quite difficult to assess if a
project had reached a status of no return. Therefore, the baseline is a conservative esti-
mate of what could be accomplished. The many projects considered in the priority pro-
jects, pan European Corridors etc, but not yet finalised have been included in the Sus-
tainable Economic Development Scenario.
The roads indicated on the map in Figure 4.15 are road projects improving the main road
network. Two different types of road works are foreseen, new construction and changes
of existing infrastructure. All improvements assumed are depicted. Most of the improve-
ments are related to roads changing class or speed. A class change changes the attrib-
utes on a road link, e.g. moving from ordinary two-lane road to expressway or motorway
standard, or moving from a 4 lane motorway to a motorway with 6 or more lanes. Al-
though it is obvious that a motorway is not constructed in exactly the same alignment as
an existing two lane road, it is assumed that the change in length is negligible. If roads
are constructed in completely new alignments this is termed “New roads”.
The same terminology applies to the rail links in Figure 4.16. Either it is a change of at-
tributes to existing links, e.g. speed improvement, or it is new construction.
The road and rail networks assumed in the baseline scenario are indicated in the follow-
ing maps.
54
Final Report
Figure 4.15. Road infrastructure development in Baseline, 2030
Figure 4.16. Rail infrastructure development in Baseline, 2030
55
Final Report
4.4.3 Sustainable Economic Development Scenario

Socio-economic development
The Sustainable Economic Development Scenario is based on elements giving priority to

cohesion (higher economic growth, and improvement of infrastructure particularly in
EU12) and elements based on competition (each mode of transport paying its own costs).
The scenario, thus, is a combination of local and global interests which work together with
environmental and social interests to create a Sustainable Economic Development.
The European policy is directed towards being a main player on the global scene and at
the same time ensuring development to all parts of Europe. The economic growth is sup-
ported by a growth in fertility in the EU. The development of the global scene does at the
same time put more pressure on the intercontinental ports of northern Europe and the
feeder lines into the hinterland.
It is assumed that the population development will follow the 2004 EUROSTAT forecast
on NUTS2 level with high population growth. This means that the population of Europe
will grow with approximately 5 % above the baseline up to 2030 (523 m. In EU27).
Figure 4.17. Population 2030; Sustainable Economic Development compared to

baseline
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Ire ry
ch s
Be ria
C ia
G e
D any
rg
ia
he lta
.
Li aly
S en
U lov enia
B u um
Fi in
Fr d
un e
nd
xe nia
om l
E s rk
P o nd
Sw nia
ng .
Po s
m
R ga
G ep
Ki ep
ze ru
nd
an
ec
ni
ar
tv
a
ga
a
do
bu
an
et Ma
st
ed
la
la
t
Sp
to
Lu ua
rtu
a
C yp
i
te k R
La
I
m
lg
re
rla
lg
nl
S lov
Au
m
en
er
th
a
H
d
N
ni
e
Th
The distribution by age group is quite different from the baseline. Particularly the segment
“below 18” is increasing compared to the baseline 2030.
56
Final Report
Figure 4.18. Population by age group 2030: Sustainable Economic Development

compared to Baseline
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ch s
Ire ry
ia
Li Italy
Be ria
C ia
D any
Fi n
Fr d
G e
H ce
rg
Bu um
he lta
S en
a ia
a
ng .
E s rk
nd
xe nia
om l
P o nd
Sw nia
m
Po s
R ga
G ep
p
ze ru
nd
c
ai
an
ni
ar
tv
n
ga
a
e
do
bu
an
et Ma
st
la
ed
la
Sl love
Sp
to
L u ua
rtu
a
C yp
i
te k R
La
lg
re
rla
lg
nl
Au
un
m
en
er
th
Ki
U ov
d
N
ni
e
Th
< 18 18 - 64 > 64
The economic development will be supported both by cohesive measures which will en-
sure a faster economic development in the cohesion countries, as well as the global de-
velopment which will provide for an increased economic growth in the centrally located
member states. Therefore the economic development measured in GDP per capita will
grow to about 33,000 EUR and about 38,000 EUR in EU15 in 2020 and 2030 respec-
tively. In EU12 the development will result in a GDP per capita of 10,000 EUR and 14,000
EUR in 2020 and 2030 respectively.
Climate considerations are important in this scenario, increasing the costs of transport
use. Therefore, specific means for supporting the peripheral regions and cohesion coun-
tries are necessary.
Due to the increase in population and the increase in GDP the car ownership is expected
to grow from 483 passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants in EU15 to 556 in 2020 and 601 in
2030. In EU12 the growth is faster going from 337 in 2005 to 405 in 2020 and 458 in
2030. The car ownership per country is indicated in Figure 4.19 compared to the baseline
2030.
57
Final Report
Figure 4.19. Car ownership (passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants) 2030; Baseline
and Sustainable Economic Development
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
er y
La s
C aly
ry
ng n
nd
rla a
ep a
ze B ium
Es ny
Lu thu ia
H ur g
Po ria
Po land
ov Sl ania
ep a
Ire ia
G nd
ce
om l
Fi lic
en ic
er rk
te w d
N om
Sp e
Fr in
m ia
Au ds
R tuga
itz wa
ru
Ki e
R ari
he lt
R eni
ni S an
ec
D ubl
L i tv
n
xe a n
a
ga
G ma
ub
et Ma
a
an
la
d ed
la
st
It
to
yp
d
bo
m
lg
re
ch ulg
nl
Sw o r
ak ov
un
r
Be
Sl
C
U
Baseline Sustainable Europe
The oil price is expected to remain at the high level observed in 2008. This would indicate
an increase of almost 45 % from 2005 to 2020, and no increase from 2020 to 2030. At
the same time, however, the charging regime related to the environmental and social
dimension in the EU is expected to be implemented, and this is extended with a climate
change related charge on CO2 emissions.
Transport costs
In the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario fuel efficiency for passenger cars is
actively being improved through a research and development strategy, which increases
fuel efficiency with about 40 %. In the high growth alternative the oil price is expected to
be higher than in the baseline because higher economic growth puts more strains on the
resources. It is assumed that the overall effect is a fuel cost for passenger cars which
remains at the level of 2005.
The technological development makes also the trucks more efficient. And in the present
scenario thus has a considerable impact on the fuel consumption. However, the cost of
freight transport depends on other cost items too, but increasing driver costs and running
costs are counteracted through efficiency gains mainly due to intelligent transport sys-
tems and application of systems which increase the utilisation of the vehicles. In some
countries the 60 tonnes modular haulage truck is introduced which also produces effi-
ciency gains. For trucks the VOC is assumed to be at the same level as in 2005, meas-
ured in constant prices.
In the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario it is assumed that the tolls and
charges applicable to road traffic in 2005 are still applicable in 2030. Infrastructure charg-
ing based on cost recovery is assumed to having been introduced in the Vignette coun-
tries for heavy trucks. The level of charges is 50 % of the German Maut corresponding to
58
Final Report
0.06 Euro per km on motorways. The Vignette countries are UK, the Netherlands, Bel-
gium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Internalisation of external costs is also assumed in the Sustainable Economic Develop-

ment Scenario. Internalisation is assumed for both trucks and passenger cars. The inter-
nalisation for passenger cars is introduced because the high economic growth produces
more mobility and thus also more adverse effects on climate, urban environment, safety,
etc, and therefore the passenger cars will have to contribute to the costing of this.
Internalisation is based on internalising noise, air pollution, congestion and CO2. A uni-
form rate of 0.04 Euro per km is applied for heavy goods vehicles for the CO2 internalisa-
tion. For passenger cars internalisation is assumed to be 5 % of the noise and air pollu-
tion heavy goods vehicles external costs, and on top of that the external costs for pas-
senger cars related to congestion are internalised. For CO2 a contribution of 0.01 Euro
per km is applied. The 5 % passenger car internalisation for noise and air pollution is
about the same that can be found in the IMPACT study Handbook.
Also it is assumed that more than 10 % of the European car fleet is emission-free or use
bio-fuels in 2030.
For rail passenger fares the assumptions made in the baseline scenario are also valid for
the present scenario.
For rail freight transport the costs will be influenced by a higher cost recovery charge.
This is assumed to make the rail freight transport cost equal to the cost in 2005 measured
in fixed 2005 prices.
In the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario, fuel prices are higher than in the
baseline, and economic activity is also higher. The air transport industry is fuelled by a
considerable growth in tourism both from EU and abroad, but particularly from the coun-
tries of emerging economies into Europe. In spite of a high level of research and devel-
opment the economic conditions and demand for air transport favour a higher price, and
this is reflected in a 20 % increase of the air fares in real prices compared to 2005.
For maritime transport it is assumed that transport costs will increase with 15 %.
For Inland Waterways no changes in transport costs are foreseen.
Networks
In the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario a more comprehensive infrastructure

development than foreseen in the baseline is assumed. The 30 priority projects are as-
sumed finished as are a number of other projects of importance for the coherence of
Europe.
The road and rail networks assumed in the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario
are shown in the following Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21.
59
Final Report
Figure 4.20. Road infrastructure development in the Sustainable Economic De-

velopment Scenario compared to baseline, 2030
Figure 4.21. Rail infrastructure development in the Sustainable Economic De-

velopment Scenario compared with Baseline, 2030
60
Final Report
4.5 Forecasts for 2020 and 2030 with the new TRANS-TOOLS
model
This section presents the results of the forecasts for 2020 and 2030 carried out with the
TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model. The transport effects related to the two scenarios pre-
sented in Section 4.4 (the Baseline and the Sustainable Economic Development scenar-
ios) are described. Further, this section includes a number of sensitivity tests related to
economic development and transport costs.
The 2005 networks have formed the basis for 2020 and 2030 networks. Further, the de-
tailed progress reports on implementing the TEN-T Priority Projects have been used to
establish details on some of these projects.
4.5.1 Baseline
Overall
Table 4.6 shows the number of passenger trips by mode for 2005 and forecasted to 2020
and 2030. In total, the number of trips is expected to increase by 17% from 2005 to 2020
and by almost 29% from 2005 to 2030 contributed primarily by increases in car ownership
and income.
The trend for Baseline 2020 continues more or less into the period 2020 to 2030. The bus
mode experiences a decrease in ridership due to fare increases. Train passengers ex-
perience the same fare increases, however, for long distance trips it is in many regions
compensated by improved services. We observe a larger relative increase in car passen-
gers than car drivers which means an increase in the car occupancy rate. While the oc-
cupancy rate decreases for each of the trip purposes, an increased share of vacation trips
contributes to an overall increase in occupancy.
Table 4.6 Forecasted m. passenger trips in Baseline 2020 and 2030

Mode M. Trips Relative change
2005 2020 2030 2005-20 2005-30
Car driver 240,385 283,866 314,882 18.1% 31.0%
Car passenger 137,560 166,056 184,363 20.7% 34.0%
Bus 37,110 35,933 36,838 -3.2% -0.7%
Train 6,362 6,391 6,667 0.5% 4.8%
Airplane 0,483 0,582 0,640 20.5% 32.5%
Total 421,900 492,829 543,390 16.8% 28.8%
Table 4.7 summarizes tonne matrices by mode. The number of lifted tonnes increases
within Europe by 24% from 2005 to 2030 compared to an estimated growth of 17% in the
period 2005 to 2020. A reduced growth rate in the freight volume is explained by slower
growth in GDP in the period 2020 to 2030.
While tonnes by rail, sea, and inland waterways are expected to increase at the same
level from 2005 to 2030, the increase by road is less. A reduced increase in freight trans-
port by truck is mainly a consequence of road user charges, internationalization of goods
flows, and road congestion. For instance, the TRANS-TOOLS model forecasts a reduc-
tion of domestic trade. Since domestic trade in many countries is almost exclusively done
by truck, internationalization of goods flows will tend to increase the share of other modes
than truck.
61
Final Report
While road capacity restrictions are considered thus increasing transport times in 2020
and 2030 compared with 2005, the model does not consider capacity restrictions in other
modes.
Table 4.7 Forecasted lifted tonne (m. tonnes) in Baseline 2020 and 2030
Mode M. tonnes Relative change
2005 2020 2030 2005-20 2005-30
Truck 20,555 23,350 23,944 13.6% 16.5%
Rail 1,743 2,219 2,471 27.3% 41.8%
Inland waterways 421 513 564 21.9% 34.1%
Sea 5,425 6,961 7,917 28.3% 45.9%
Total 28,144 33,043 34,896 17.4% 24.0%
The overall results of the forecast runs for 2020 and 2030 are set out in Table 4.8. Pas-
senger km by car and rail in EU27 increases with 22% up to 2020, and with 37% between
2005 and 2030, and freight tonne km by road, rail and inland waterways increases with
32 % between 2005 and 2020 and with 49 % in the period 2005 to 2030.
Table 4.8 Aggregate model results for Baseline 2020 and 2030 for EU 27 excl.
Cyprus and Malta
Model Model
Model 2020 2030
Diff. (%) Diff. (%)
Mode 2005
baseline Baseline
Passenger car, 1000 mio

4507 5432 20% 6076 35%
pkm
Passenger
Railway, 1000 m. Pkm

375 519 44% 659 76%
Truck, 1000 m. tonne km 1712 2191 28% 2442 43%

Freight
Railway, 1000 m. Tonne km 447 663 48% 797 78%
IWW, 1000 m. tonne km 130 165 27% 181 39%
Passenger transport
In most of the EU countries, the increase in passenger km by car is about 20 – 30 % up

to 2020 and 35 – 45 % from 2005 to 2030. The main driver for the development is growth
in GDP, population increase and growth in car ownership. Growth is particularly high in
Bulgaria, Romania, Luxembourg, Ireland and Cyprus. The results are illustrated in Figure
4.22.
62
Final Report
Figure 4.22. Growth in passenger km by car 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
R aria
Ire ry
La y
ia
R iu m
G nce
Li tvia
ze Be ria
o v Po n d
ia
K i en
en c
Es rk
G ny
Sl b l ic
ep l
F i ia
Fr d
H ece
nd
m ia
he urg
n i Sw i n
Po s
Bu om
R ga
l
D b li
nd
an
Ita
n
xe an
en
an
ga
a
la
d ed
st
to
ak rtu
Sp
m
d
N bo
u
u
m
ch lg
re
rla
lg
nl
ov
Lu thu
om
Au
un
ng
ep
er
et
te
C
Sl
U
Growth 2005 - 2020 Growth 2005 - 2030
The growth in passenger km by car (35 %) is slightly higher than the growth in vehicle km
(33 %). One of the reasons is that the trip purposes mainly growing are those with more
passengers in the cars (holiday and private). But vehicle km also include the trucks and
vans, and tonne km increases faster than the vehicle km indicating that utilisation and/or
empty driving is being reduced in the future. The growth in vehicle km per EU country is
indicated in Figure 4.23.
Figure 4.23. Growth in vehicle km 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
o m ia
Ire y
ly
ia
ng n
ia
m
er e
ia
ov Por d
ria
ic
en ic
Es k
G y
ep l
n i S w in
F i ia
Fr d
H ce
nd
m a
he rg
Po s
Bu m
a
r
an
nd
ar
d ede
an
n
c
xe ni
Ita
l
l
ar
v
an
g
en
n
a
ga
ch giu
do
u
ub
ub
an
la
la
st
Sp
to
Lu hua
ak tu
m
N bo
La
m
re
rla
lg
nl
ov
Au
un
ep
el
Sl
B
Ki
R
R
R
Li
G
D
et
te
ze
C
Sl
Growth 2005 - 2020 Growth 2005 - 2030
The vehicle traffic for 2030 has been loaded to the Baseline network. The resulting 2030
traffic flows in Europe are shown in Figure 4.24. Details are provided in Annex 2.
63
Final Report
Figure 4.24. Traffic loads on the Baseline 2030 network
Since the number of trips by rail increases only one percent, increases in passenger km
must be due to longer trip lengths. Constructions of high speed rail lines reduce travel
times and inspire people to travel to more distant destinations. A change in mode choice
from air to rail, in particular, for vacation trips is apparent. The growth in passenger km by
rail is illustrated in Figure 4.25.
Figure 4.25. Growth in passenger km by rail 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
1000%
900%
800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0%
Ire y
ly
ng n
o m ia
G y
ep l
ia
ni Sw in
ia
z e Be a
m
Fi ia
Fr d
G nce
H ce
nd
Li tvia
m a
g
ov Por d
ov c
D blic
Es r k
Bu m
Po s
a
an
i
nd
d ede
et our
xe ni
ri
an
n
Ita
ar
en
an
g
a
n
ga
do
ch lgiu
ub
e
la
la
st
Sp
ak tu
to
Lu hua
m
u
La
m
rla
a
re
lg
nl
Au
un
b
ep
en
er
he
Sl
t
Ki
R
R
R
N
te
Sl
C
Growth 2005 - 2020 Growth 2005 - 2030
64
Final Report
Figure 4.26 shows the growth in number of intra-European arrivals and departures by air
by country. In 2005 there were about 900 m. intra European arrivals and departures, and
this is expected to increase to almost 1.2 b. arriving and departing passengers in 2030.
The competition between air transport and rail transport is accentuated by upgrading of
major parts of the rail network, while price competition is almost non-existent with rail
fares increasing with 50 % of the growth in GDP in each country and air fares increasing
with 15 %. In most of the EU countries growth rates for departing and arriving passengers
are between 20 and 40 % up to 2030.
Figure 4.26. Growth in intra European arrivals and departures by air 2005 –
2020/2030 - Baseline
Air passengers - Growth in intra european arrivals and departures per country
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
uk fr de nl es it dk ie se be at gr pt fi cz hu pl cr ro bu tu lt cy ch ee mc sk ma no lu si lv
2005 - 2020 2005 - 2030
It is stressed that the intercontinental passengers are not included. These are forecasted
using growth rates about the double of the growth in EU. The main reason is a deregula-
tion of the Atlantic market, a considerable increase in wealth in China, India, Brazil and
Russia, and this will make Europe more interesting as a destination for both business and
tourism. Based on this the number of intercontinental travellers can be estimated to grow
from about 175 m. in 2005 to about 325 m. in 2020 and nearly 500 m in 2030.
75 % of all intra-European air passengers originate in UK, Spain, Germany, France and
Italy. This does not change markedly in the future. Almost 60 % of all intercontinental
passengers use the 4 main airports, Heathrow (UK), Frankfurt (DE), Charles de Gaulle
(FR) and Schiphol (NL). This is expected to continue in the future, however with a dimin-
ishing share for the 4 intercontinental main airports.
Freight transport
Lifted tonnes by mode
The freight prediction model includes three sub-models: trade model, mode choice model
and logistics model. The trade model predicts by commodity group future trade flows
65
Final Report
within Europe and between Europe and rest of the world. This is input to mode choice
and logistics models which only consider transport legs within Europe. Figure 4.27 shows
lifted tonnes for domestic transport flows while Figure 4.28 shows lifted tonnes for flows
between countries within Europe (coverage area for TRANS-TOOLS model).
Domestic transports account for about 85% of all domestic and international tonnes. The
model predicts moderate increases in domestic flows where truck dominates with a share
of almost 90% of lifted tonnes. Short sea shipping is predicted to have the highest relative
growth while rail and truck have about the same relative growth.
A comparison between Figure 4.27 and Figure 4.28 shows that international transport
flows are expected to grow much faster than domestics transport flows. Rail freight trans-
port is, except for Metal products, predicted to have the relative largest increase in lifted
tonnes of all modes in international transport.
Figure 4.27 Growth 2005 to 2030 in domestic tonnes by mode and commodity in
coverage area for the TRANS-TOOLS model
Relative growth in tonnes 2005-30

80.0%
Road
70.0%
Rail
60.0%
IWW
50.0%
Sea
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
-10.0%
-20.0%
-30.0%
-40.0%
Foodstuffs
Maufactured
Total
Solid fuels
Agriculture
Crude oil
Ores/metal
Petroleum
Metal products
metarials
Fertilizers
Chemicals
Building
products
articles
waste
66
Final Report
Figure 4.28 Growth 2005 to 2030 in international tonnes by mode and commod-
ity in coverage area for the TRANS-TOOLS model
200.0%
Road
180.0%
Rail
160.0%
IWW
140.0%
Sea
120.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
-40.0%
Foodstuffs
Maufactured
Total
Solid fuels
Agriculture
Crude oil
Ores/metal
Petroleum
Metal products
metarials
Chemicals
Fertilizers
Building
products
articles
waste
Tonne km by modes
Figure 4.29 shows tonne km by truck segmented by country in Baseline 2020 and 2030
compared with 2005 model results. Within EU 25 (excl. Malta and Cyprus) truck tonne km
are estimated to increase 27% from 2005 to 2020 and 40% from 2005 to 2030. Truck
freight transport is not considered within Malta and Cyprus because the ETIS 2000 and
ETIS 2005 database do not include domestic transport for the two countries.
Outside EU 25 the growth in truck transport is expected to be higher; 44% from 2005 to
2020 and 80% from 2005 to 2030.
Truck transports in the Netherlands is estimated to grow very modestly from 2005 to
2030, but also e.g. Denmark and Germany have considerable low growths in tonne km by
truck. Particularly for smaller countries like Denmark and Netherlands the large decrease
in domestic trade tend to reduce freight transport by road. Additionally, the GDP growth
rates in Germany and Netherlands are among the lowest expected in Europe.
The development in tonne km is strongly related to the growth in GDP, and the Baltic
countries, Poland, Ireland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Slovak Republic are foreseen to
have higher GDP growth rates than the other Member States. The introduction of external
costs per link in the road network and efficiency gains in the rail transport makes the rail
transport more competitive.
67
Final Report
Figure 4.29. Growth in tonne km by trucks 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ire y
ly
ng n
o m ia
G y
ep l
ia
ia
g
ni Sw n
ia
m a
o d
Sl lic
m
Fi ia
Fr d
G nce
un e
nd
z e Be a
Bu m
D blic
Es r k
Po s
a
an
nd
d ede
et our
ai
xe ni
ri
n
an
ec
Ita
ar
en
an
g
v
n
ga
do
ch lgiu
ub
la
la
st
Sp
Lu hua
ak rtu
to
m
u
La
m
rla
a
re
lg
nl
ov
Au
b
ep
en
er
he
t
H
Ki
R
R
Li
R
N
te
ov
Sl
C
U
Growth 2005 - 2020 Growth 2005 - 2030
Figure 4.30 shows rail tonne km segmented by country in Baseline 2030 compared with
model results for 2005. Tonne km by rail is on average forecasted to increase by 44%
from 2005 to 2020 and 70% from 2005 to 2030 within EU 25. Outside EU 25 the figures
are 75% and 136%.
Figure 4.30. Growth in tonne km by rail 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
240%
220%
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Ire y
ly
ng n
o m ia
G y
ep l
ia
ia
g
ni Sw n
m
Fi ia
Fr d
G nce
un e
nd
ia
m a
o d
Sl lic
z e Be a
D blic
Es r k
Bu m
Po s
a
an
nd
d ede
et our
ai
xe ni
ri
n
an
ec
Ita
ar
en
an
g
v
n
ga
do
ch lgiu
ub
la
la
st
Sp
Lu hua
ak rtu
to
m
u
La
m
rla
a
re
lg
nl
ov
Au
b
ep
en
er
he
t
H
Ki
R
R
Li
R
N
te
ov
Sl
C
Growth 2005 - 2020 Growth 2005 - 2030
68
Final Report
Figure 4.31. Traffic loads in tonnes on the Baseline 2030 rail network
In 2030 the freight transport by rail to and from Russia has increased by 135 % above the
level in 2005. This means that the rail transport to and from the Baltic countries are influ-
enced by this massive increase resulting in similar increases in the rail network. But also
central European countries are affected by this increase, among them Poland and Slova-
kia.
Bulgaria and Romania are estimated to have increases of more than 200% from 2005 to
2030. A closer look at results reveals that trade flows for some bulk commodity groups
like metal products, building materials, and chemicals are estimated to grow at a large
rate for those two countries. Since the rail transport share must be expected to be over
average for bulk products, it will together with longer travel distances and more interna-
tional trade contribute to a large increase in tonne km by rail.
Figure 4.32 shows tonne km by inland waterways estimated by TRANS-TOOLS for Base-
line 2020 and 2030 and compared with 2005 model results. Most important to notice is
the growths in Belgium, France, Germany and Netherlands contributed primarily by a
general growth in freight transport volumes.
Tonne km by inland waterways increases by 30% from 2005 to 2020 and 44% from 2005
to 2030.
69
Final Report
Figure 4.32. Freight transport in tonne km by IWW 2005 – 2020/2030 - Baseline
80
70
60
50
b. tonne km
40
30
20
10
0
ry
ia
y
a
ce
ia
nd
lic
om
s
an
nd
ri
ar
an
ga
iu
ub
an
st
la
d
lg
rla
lg
Au
Po
om
un
ng
ep
Fr
Be
Bu
er
he
H
Ki
R
R
G
et
ak
d
N
te
ov
ni
Sl
U
b. tonne km 2005 b. tonne km 2020 b. tonne km 2030
4.5.2 Sustainable Economic Development scenario

The Sustainable Economic Development Scenario is characterised by a higher population
growth and a higher economic growth than the baseline. The effect is that more traffic is
generated. However, there are higher costs involved in carrying out the traffic, and there-
fore there is a shift towards the transport modes with the least increasing costs.
The number of trips in Europe increases in this scenario with about 9 % in 2030 com-
pared to the Baseline. The air trips increase with about 2 % while trips by car increase
with about 8 %. Rail trips increase about 12 % against the Baseline.
Table 4.9 Aggregate model results for 2020 and 2030 Baseline and Sustainable
Economic Development scenario for EU 27 excl. Cyprus and Malta
Model Model Model
Diff. (%)
Mode 2020 2030 2030
2030
baseline Baseline Sust Eur
Passenger
Passenger car, 1000 m. pkm 5432 6076 6441 6%

519 659 905 37%
Freight
Truck, 1000 m. tonne km 2191 2442 2596 6%
Railway, 1000 m. tonne km 663 797 894 12%
IWW, 1000 m. tonne km 165 181 207 15%
70
Final Report
Table 4.9 shows that the increase in passenger km is slightly higher (10 %) than the in-
crease in trips (9 %) which implies that the trip length is increasing. The increase for rail is
not as big as found going from 2005 to 2030 baseline (76 %), but it is still a considerable
growth.
Also freight transport is increasing, least for roads and most for rail transport and inland
waterways. An average growth in tonne km of 8 % compared to baseline 2030 is pre-
dicted.
Passenger transport
The passenger km carried out by car in the Sustainable Economic Development 2030
alternative is compared with the Baseline 2030 in Figure 4.33.
Figure 4.33. Growth in passenger km by car 2030 Sustainable Economic Devel-

opment against Baseline
Pass. km by car in Sustainable compared to Baseline 2030
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
Ire y
ria
G nce
ia
Li tvia
om ia
ly
m
Fr d
ni Sw n
ng n
ia
o d
Es k
G y
H ce
e n ic
ep l
ic
Fi a
nd
m a
Po s
Bu m
a
r
an
ar
nd
an
ai
et our
d ede
ni
xe ni
Ita
l
ar
en
g
an
ga
ch lgiu
do
ub
ub
e
st
la
la
Sp
to
ak rtu
Lu hua
m
La
a
re
rla
lg
nl
Au
ov
un
b
ep
e
er
he
Sl
B
Ki
R
R
R
D
te
ov
ze
Sl
C
The most evident changes are found in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary where there is
about 20 % extra passenger km carried out in the Sustainable Economic Development
Alternative. But it is observed that even if infrastructure charges on passenger cars have
been introduced there is still an increase in passenger km by car due to the general in-
crease in population and economy.
The same applies to the increase in rail passenger transport as indicated in Figure 4.34.
71
Final Report
Figure 4.34. Growth in passenger km by rail in Sustainable Economic Develop-

ment against Baseline 2030
220%
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Ire y
ze Be a
G nce
ly
ia
ia
om ia
m
Fr d
e n ic
Es r k
G y
un e
o d
ni Sw in
ng n
ia
ic
Fi ia
ep l
nd
m a
Po s
Bu m
a
r
an
nd
an
ri
ec
et our
d ede
xe ni
Ita
l
l
v
ar
en
a
n
an
g
ga
iu
do
ub
ub
st
la
la
t
Sp
to
Lu hua
ak rtu
m
La
a
m
g
re
rla
nl
lg
Au
ov
b
ep
l
er
he
Sl
t
H
Ki
R
R
Li
R
D
ch
te
ov
Sl
C
U
The growth in Estonia is extreme with 220 %. This is related to the new rail link being built
between Tallinn and St. Petersburg. Many of the infrastructure projects do influence the
transport by rail. This is particularly so in Greece, Hungary and Slovenia.
For air transport the number of arrivals and departures is expected to increase about 5 %
for most of the EU countries. Only for Poland, Romania and Bulgaria does the Sustain-
able Economic Development Scenario provide a considerable increase in arrivals and
departures (about 30%) compared to Baseline 2030.
Freight transport
Tonne km in inland transport in the EU is increasing with 8 % compared to the Baseline

2030.
Tonne km carried out by truck is increasing slightly less. This is partly because an in-
crease in the transport costs, but also because of the improvement of the alternative
transport means, rail and inland waterways.
72
Final Report
Figure 4.35. Growth in tonne km by road in Sustainable Economic Development

against Baseline 2030
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
Ire y
ze Be a
G nce
ia
om ia
ly
ia
m
ov Por d
ni Sw in
Ki e n
ia
e n ic
Fr d
un e
Es r k
G y
ep l
ic
Fi ia
nd
m a
Po s
Bu m
a
r
an
nd
an
ec
ri
et our
n
xe ni
Ita
l
ar
v
en
a
n
ug
an
ga
iu
do
ub
ub
st
la
la
d
t
Sp
to
Lu hua
m
La
g
re
rla
lg
nl
e
Au
ov
t
ng
b
ep
l
er
he
Sl
t
H
R
R
Li
R
D
ch
ak
d
N
te
Sl
C
U
The expected increase is also related to the difference in GDP growth rates.
Figure 4.36. Growth in rail freight transport in the EU27 countries in Sustainable
Economic Development compared to Baseline 2030
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Ire y
G nce
ly
ia
ia
om ia
ria
ov Por d
ni Sw n
ng n
m
Fr d
H ce
ia
Es k
G y
ep l
ic
e n ic
Fi ia
nd
m a
Po s
Bu m
a
r
an
ar
nd
an
ai
d ede
et our
n
xe ni
Ita
l
l
ar
en
n
an
ga
ch lgiu
do
ub
ub
e
st
la
la
t
Sp
to
Lu hua
ak tu
m
La
re
a
rla
lg
nl
Au
ov
un
b
ep
e
er
he
Sl
B
Ki
R
R
Li
R
D
te
ze
Sl
C
It is seen that tonne km by rail increases sharply in areas where major infrastructure pro-
jects are being made, e.g. Denmark, Hungary, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Roma-
nia.
73
Final Report
Finally Inland waterway is expected to increase its tonne km by 15 %. The major increase
is taking place in Germany in terms of tonne km.
Figure 4.37. Tonne km by Inland waterway in Sustainable Economic Develop-

ment and Baseline 2030
100
90
80
70
60
b. tonne km
50
40
30
20
10
0
ry
ria
ce
ia
m
nd
ia
y
li c
s
m
an
nd
ar
an
ga
iu
do
ub
an
st
la
lg
rla
lg
Au
om
Po
un
ng
ep
Fr
Be
Bu
er
he
H
Ki
R
R
G
et
ak
d
N
te
ov
ni
Sl
b. tonne km Baseline 2030 b. tonne km Sustainable 2030
4.5.3 Sensitivity tests

It is not possible to isolate the effect of one driver by comparing the Baseline scenario
and the Sustainable Economic Development Scenario because many drivers change at
the same time, e.g. Population, GDP growth, transport costs, etc.
Therefore, the effect of important drivers has been identified using sensitivity tests. Table
4.10 shows the effect on trips per transport mode of a change of 10 % of the drivers men-
tioned.
Table 4.10. Change in trips related to a 10 % change in the analysed drivers

Attribute change Change in trips by mode
Car Rail Bus Air
GDP +10% 3.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.0%
Car ownership +10% 4.4% -1.9% -1.6% -1.9%
Rail and bus fare +10% 0.3% -5.3% -3.7% 1.7%
Rail in-vehicle time -10% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% -0.4%
Car fuel cost +10% -0.9% 1.3% 1.2% 0.6%
Car driving time +10% -1.5% 2.2% 2.0% 0.5%
Air fare +10% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.2%
Air access/egress time -10% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%
The effect of a 10 % change in GDP corresponds to an increase of 3.5 % for car trips and
2.4 % for rail trips. An increase of air fares of 10 % will lead to a reduction of 5.2 % in
number of air trips.
Figure 4.38 indicates the change in long-distance passenger trips resulting from a +10%
change in GDP.
74
Final Report
Figure 4.38: Long-distance trips and change in GDP
Long-distance passenger transport: Result of a +10 % change in GDP
4,5%
4,0%
3,5%
3,0%
Change in trips
2,5%
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%
Business Private Holiday Business Private Holiday Business Private Holiday
Car driver Car driver Car driver Rail Rail Rail Air Air Air
Sensitivity for GDP is most pronounced for business trips (elasticity between 0.3 and 0.4),
and holiday trips is showing about 50 % of the business sensitivity towards GDP. A recent
Danish study concluded that the long-term elasticity for vehicle mileage towards GDP
was about 0.4. The above graph indicates that the elasticity for long-distance trips to-
wards GDP is about 0.18 for all modes and trip purposes.
Figure 4.39 shows the effect on long-distance trips of a 10% decrease of fuel costs.
Figure 4.39: Long-distance trips and change in Fuel costs
Long-distance passenger transport: Effect of a 10 % decrease of fuel costs
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%
Change in trips
-0,5%
-1,0%
-1,5%
-2,0%
-2,5%
-3,0%
Business Private Holiday Business Private Holiday Business Private Holiday
Car driver Car driver Car driver Rail Rail Rail Air Air Air
The decrease in fuel costs of 10 percent increases car driver trips with holiday purpose 1
%, but does at the same time decrease private rail trips and private air trips with 2.5 %.
75
Final Report
Finally, Figure 4.40 shows the effect on trade volumes related to a 10% growth in GDP.
Figure 4.40. Effect on growth in trade volumes based on a 10 % growth in GDP

Realtive growth in tonnes
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Foodstuffs
Maufactured
Total
Solid fuels
Agriculture
Crude oil
Ores/metal
Petroleum
Fertilizers
Chemicals
Metal products
metarials
Building
products
articles
waste
Manufactured products and building materials show growth rates almost comparable to
the GDP (the elasticity is about 0.8), whereas most other commodity groups show elastic-
ities between 0.3 and 0.5. Only fertilizer has a very low elasticity towards GDP.
4.5.4 MEDA and TRACECA traffic

It is part of the Terms of Reference to provide a picture of the transport flows between the
Mediterranean countries and Europe and between the TRACECA countries and Europe.
In this subsection the results from the analysis of the MEDA and TRACECA data are
described. First an overview of the freight transport in Europe and the Mediterranean
countries are provided and the transport flows between the south Caucasus countries
and EU 27 plus Norway are detailed. Further, freight and passenger transport between
Morocco and the European countries are analysed more in detail.
The MEDA data consists of several databases that describe person and freight transport
between the MEDA countries and the rest of the world.2 The databases describing the
freight transport in 2000 and predictions for freight transport in three different future sce-
narios for the year 2025 have been analysed. The three scenarios are Global Economic
Slowdown (GES), Medium Economic Growth (MEG) and Full Economic Integration (FEI).
In the TRACECA data the amount of traffic is indicated for the year 2005, 2020 and 2030
by commodity groups.
2
The databases are described in more details in “Technical note 4 – MTIN Database Structure”
from June 2007 which can be found on http://www.euromedtransport.org/62.0.html (October 30,
2008)
76
Final Report
Freight transport above 100.000 tonnes in 2000 and in the three scenarios in 2025 for
general cargo, unitised freight and solid bulk are summarised on the maps in Figure 4.41,
Figure 4.42, Figure 4.43 and Figure 4.44.
Figure 4.41: Freight transport (general cargo, unitised freight and solid bulk to-
gether) for 2000
gether) for the GES scenario (2025)
77
Final Report
gether) for the MEG scenario (2025)
gether) for the FEI scenario (2025)
78
Final Report
As it is shown on the figures the major volumes of freight transport in the future will con-
tinue to be East-West flows through the Mediterranean Sea and along the European
West coast. It is however notable that the transport through the Sea of Marmara is ex-
pected to increase considerable in the future scenarios and particularly in the Full Eco-
nomic Integration scenario (FEI). Besides this the freight transport to and from Russia will
also increase in the future according to the available MEDA databases.
Land based freight transport flows of more than 100.000 tonnes are expected to increase
considerable, particularly in the East Mediterranean partner countries.
Seen in more detail the freight flows between the TRACECA countries (Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan) and EU 27 plus Norway are set out in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Freight flow in ´000 tonnes for the year 2005 and 2030 (TRACECA
data)
Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
2005 [K 2030 [K Increase in
tonne] tonne] %
Bulgaria 279 1,298 365
France 1,368 2,165 60
Romania 329 1,013 210
United Kingdom and Ireland 240 733 205
North Europe (Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
40 141 250
Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden)
Central Europe East (Austria, Czech Republic,
112 368 230
Hungary, Slovakia, Poland)
Central Europe West (Belgium, Germany, Lux-
268 560 110
embourg, Netherlands)
South Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slove-
357 906 155
nia, Spain)
Total 2,993 7,184 140
Source: TRANS-TOOLS trade prediction model
The freight flow between the TRACECA countries and EU + Norway will more than dou-
ble from 2005 to 2030 according the TRANS-TOOLS trade prediction model. The biggest
freight flow is between TRACECA and France making up 45 % of all trade in 2005. The
major part is import of petroleum products.
Freight and person transport between Morocco and Europe
The freight and passenger flow between Morocco and Europe for the baseline 2000 and
the three scenarios Global Economic Slowdown (GES), Medium Economic Growth
(MEG) and Full Economic Integration (FEI) are shown in this subsection.
First an overview of the freight transport bigger than 1 m. tonnes across the Mediterra-
nean Sea for 2000 and the three scenarios can be seen in Figure 4.45.
79
Final Report
Figure 4.45: Freight transport across the Mediterranean Sea (MEDA data)
The big volumes of freight transport in the Mediterranean Sea are more east-west than
north-south as can be seen on Figure 4.45. It is also the east-west freight transport that
will increase the most in the future scenarios. In Table 4.12 the freight transport between
Morocco and Europe are looked at more specifically.
Table 4.12: Freight transport between Morocco and Europe (MEDA data)
Freight transport in m tonnes
From Morocco To Morocco Total
2000 10.5 7.4 17.9
2025 GES 15.1 11.3 26.4
2025 MEG 18.3 15.0 33.3
2025 FEI 22.3 20.0 42.3
The amount of freight transport in tonnes between Morocco and Europe will double in the
Medium Economic Growth (MEG) scenario and more than double in the Full Economic
Integration (FEI) scenarios compared to year 2000. Even in the Global Economic Slow-
down scenario the amount of freight transport will increase with around 50 % according to
the MEDA data. The table also shows that the export from Morocco is larger than the
import to Morocco. Divided into handling types the freight transport between Morocco and
Europe are distributed as shown in Table 4.13.
80
Final Report
Table 4.13: Freight transport between Morocco and Europe divided into handling
types (MEDA data)
Freight transport in m tonnes
GC CU SB LB Total
2000 2.1 2.3 12.0 1.6 17.9
2025 GES 3.4 3.9 17.1 2.0 26.4
2025 MEG 4.6 5.4 20.9 2.3 33.3
2025 FEI 6.3 7.5 25.7 2.8 42.3
Note: GC: General Cargo, CU: Container/Unitised, SB: Solid Bulk, LB: Liquid Bulk
The main handling type between Morocco and Europe is solid bulk as it is shown by
Table 4.13. Further it is indicated that the general cargo and container/unitised freight will
increase the most in the future scenarios compared to 2000.
The passenger flow between Morocco and Europe are shown in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Passenger flows between Morocco and Europe (MEDA data)
m person trips
Air Land Sea Total
2000 4.3 3.4 2.6 10.2
2025 GES 7.8 5.0 5.3 18.1
2025 MEG 11.2 6.0 7.7 24.8
2025 FEI 16.0 7.1 10.9 34.0
Most people travel by air between Morocco and Europe. All the future scenarios predict
that travel by sea will increase the most from 2000 to 2025 compared to the other two
travelling modes and all in all the amount of travelling is expected to increase consider-
able in the future.
81
Final Report
82
Final Report
5 Identification of major transnational axes
5.1 Introduction
Task 2 is the second step in the study process: it is based on Task 1 modelling results
and provides input to Task 3: Identification of bottlenecks.
The objective of Task 1 was to provide a coherent and reliable forecast for the future
traffic flows in EU and the neighbouring countries for 2020 and 2030 with particular focus
on flows between old and new Member States, between new Member States and be-
tween EU and the neighbouring countries. The analysis has covered all transport modes,
both freight and passenger traffic on links and through nodes with a focus on the TEN-T
network. The TRANS-TOOLS version 1 model has been used, but updated to base year
2005. Therefore an in-depth analysis of the development from 2000 to 2005 was carried
out
Based on Task 1 results, the objectives of Task 2 have been to define “Major trans-
national axes” of transport infrastructure for the territory of the European Union, as an
evolution of the existing TEN-T, and to carry out their evaluation using strategic indicators
to measure the achievement of the following overall goals: economic efficiency, territorial
cohesion and environmental sustainability.
Task 2 has developed a strategic assessment process for the establishment of major
trans-national axes of "EU importance". In line with the Terms of Reference, three criteria
have been taken into account in this assessment: (1) Single Market; (2) Cohesion; and
(3) Neighbouring Countries (and beyond). These criteria are described further below, and
specific indicators to measure them are proposed, computed and used to define a pro-
posal for Major trans-national axes. Furthermore, a fourth criterion is considered: Envi-
ronmental sustainability. Essentially, this criterion is used to justify the proposal of rail
networks, for passenger and freight being more extensive than they would be applying
similar standards to those used for roads, due to their potential impact in terms of green-
ing transport in EU.
Task 3 will involve the identification of bottlenecks, but as a conclusion of Task2 a first
approach to bottlenecks and missing links is also introduced. This identification uses as-
sessment criteria appropriate to the type of bottleneck considered.
5.2 Policy-requirements
According to the Terms of Reference of the study, Task 2 should identify a limited number
of major trans-national transport axes that meet the aims set out for the TEN-T in the
Guidelines.
The axes should be “highly relevant” for:
 single market;
 cohesion
 trade with the neighbouring countries and other main trading partners
83
Final Report
A comparison with the 30 TEN-T priority axes should be made and any deviation carefully
justified and substantiated with evidence. Grouping of some of these 30 priority projects
or parts thereof into longer axes could also be proposed.
The axes are expected to be multimodal. It is also possible that such axes may not al-
ways be the same for freight and passenger transport.
Specific types of indicators have been applied to measure the policy-aims:
Concerning Single market, the indicators should be based on:
Absolute and relative traffic between two adjacent countries, to/from other EU countries,
including also transit traffic. Both the situation in the base year and in the forecast years
should be taken into account.
Concerning Social and economic cohesion:
Accessibility to the axes identified under the single market objective, access to market
from peripheral and islands regions, major tourism flows.
Concerning Neighbouring countries and other main trade partners:
The focus should be on how to extend axes, if necessary, beyond the neighbouring coun-
tries, e.g. to China, India, North America etc.
On the other hand, the TRANS-TOOLS model was also required as a database and
model to be used to carry out the calculation of indicators.
The TRANS-TOOLS network databases contain some 35.000 road links and 5.000 rail
links, that were checked and improved in Task 1. TRANS-TOOLS also provides consis-
tent forecasts at European level, but only for some of the neighbouring countries. When
observed at link by link, at local and regional scale, results are of course less reliable than
aggregated at national or European scale, for large corridors.
The detail of TRANS-TOOLS networks would require to identifying first “links” and then
somehow grouping them into “axes”. The subsequent Figure 5.1 containing links with
more than 50 % of non local traffic -Traffic between NUTS3 zones - relative to total traffic
in 2005, illustrates the difficulty of such exercise.
84
Final Report
Figure 5.1. Relative road interregional traffic over total traffic 2005 (Trans-Tools):
links with more than 50% inter NUTS3 traffic
5.3 Methodology proposed: A 5-step process
Based on the policy and methodological requirements just mentioned, a 5-step system-
atic methodology was defined to carry out the identification of major trans-national axes.
A geographic identification of traditional axes and barriers was carried out before the five
step procedure is carried out. The goal of this identification is to provide a geographical
reference background to visualise the integration between transport axes and traditional
spatial development areas, as well as getting a first understanding on what could be the
total length and layout or potential axes. Traditional European transport axes are the
main rivers and sea basins like the Baltic sea and the Mediterranean, and barriers are
mountain ranges and swamplands.
85
Final Report
The proposed procedure consists of following five steps.
1. As a first step, axes with the highest intensity of traffic relevant for the single market
social and economic relations are identified The goal of the exercise is to end up with
a limited number of highly relevant axes in relation to traffic. Different indicators
measuring traffic are explored (international, cross-border, long-distance defined by
certain distances and/or travel times, or costs).
2. As a second step, Axes with importance to access main ports and/or airports are
added. The goal of the exercise is to complement axes selected by traffic relevance
with those needed to get access to important economic gateways, i.e. ports (in the
case of road and freight railways) and airports (in the case of railways with passenger
services).
3. As a third step, axes relevant to connect the largest cities (MEGA cities) in Member
States and neighbouring countries are added. The goal of the exercise is to comple-
ment already selected axes with others relevant in relation to the territorial and eco-
nomic structures of countries.
4. As a fourth step, axes are actually defined integrating the specific “links” selected
based on the previous criteria for a more balanced territorial density. The criteria is
improving the overall network consistency (e.g. giving continuity to axes) while reduc-
ing gaps in terms of regional endowment (density of axes) at all administrative levels.
5. As a fifth step axes selected are evaluated in relation to their impact on existing land-
uses. The goal of the exercise is identifying those segments of the axes more sensi-
tive to have relevant impacts in terms of inducing land-use changes.
In order to carry out each step, specific indicators to be calculated with the TRANS-
TOOLS model’s databases and forecasts were defined. Selected indicators had to be
both as simple as possible (to be easily understandable and therefore policy-relevant)
and scientifically consistent (not to be misleading or produce contradictory outputs).
5.4 Indicators proposed for each step
5.4.1 Long-distance users (road and rail traffics)

In order to define the more meaningful indicators, more than one hundred indicators
were investigated by either Road or Rail, according to the following taxonomy:
By use By time By trip length By trip pur- By absolute or relative

horizons pose (for ratios
passen-
gers):
Passenger 2005 Total Business Absolute/Relative in-
Freight 2020 National Private creases
2030 Regional Holidays Regional/National/EU
Cross-border averages
International
Long distance
(at 3/3.5/5
hours)
86
Final Report
Based on the analysis carried out, long distance traffic relative to average NUTS0
(National) traffic was the most relevant indicator in order to identify in each country
those links with highest trans-European interest (in relation to their use for international
and long-distance traffic).
The next pie (Figure 5.2) shows that international traffic represents less than 10% in pas-
senger km, and that cross-border traffic (between regions located on both sides of the
same national border) represents less than 0.1 %. This means that almost all interna-
tional traffic in the TRANS-TOOLS databases in 2005 is long-distance (assuming long-
distance trips being longer than 3.5 hours). In the future scenarios there is no significant
difference in these magnitudes.
Figure 5.2. Relative volume of passenger trip-km according to nationality of trip
Pax-km 2005
crossborder
0,09%
national international
90,31%
9,60%
Figure 5.3. Relative volume of passenger road trips according to the length of the
trip measured in time
Millions of road passenger trips 2005

according to travel time
1h
26%
2h
6h or more 44%
1%
5h
4%
4h
7%
3h
18%
87
Final Report
Figure 5.4. Relative volume of passenger rail trips according to the length of the
trip measured in time
Millions of rail passenger trips 2005

according to travel time
1h
23%
2h
38%
6h or more
2%
5h
4%
4h
8%
3h
25%
Therefore, using long-distance traffic all international traffic is captured and also the long-
distance traffic within each country that may give continuity to trans-national axes.
Next map (Figure 5.5) illustrates the links selected because long-distance traffic on these
is between 2 to 5 times higher than the average long-distance traffic by link in the respec-
tive countries.
5.4.2 Multimodal accessibility to ports and airports

In order to complement the links identified in step 1 with a multimodal accessibility dimen-
sion a number of reference ports and airports has to be first identified.
Based on the already existing Trans-European Networks (for Ports and Airports), the
following criteria were adopted for identifying ports and airports for the purpose of this
exercise:
 Main commercial airports considered ( with more than 10 m. passengers per year +
national capital airports + island airports + capitals of bordering countries)
 Main ports considered (largest container ports + important national bulk ports + main
ferry ports + island ports + main ports in bordering countries)
88
Final Report
Following lists (Table 5.1 and Table 5.1. Airports considered in the definition of
the Core Network
AIRPORTS
London-Heathrow Palma De Mallorca Ljubljana Gran Canaria
Paris-CDG Manchester Malaga Warsaw
Frankfurt Copenhagen Lisbon Edinburgh
Tenerife south-
Madrid Zurich Berlin-Schönefeld Reina Sofia
Amsterdam Oslo Helsinki Budapest
Munich Vienna Hamburg Saint Petersburg
Rome-Fiumicino Moscow Prague Catania
Barcelona Stockholm-Arlanda Geneva Kiev
Istanbul Dusseldorf Cologne-Bonn Larnaka
Milan-Malpensa Brussels Nice Ponta Delgada
Dublin Athens Stuttgart Bucharest
Machico Malta Zagreb Minsk
Riga Sofia Tallinn
Krakow Belgrade Vilnius
Table 5.2) shows the chosen ports and airports.
89
Final Report
Figure 5.5. Relative road long-distance traffic over national average traffic 2005
(TRANS-TOOLS) by link. Links with loads between 2 and 5 times higher than
national average.
90
Final Report
Table 5.1. Airports considered in the definition of the Core Network
AIRPORTS
London-Heathrow Palma De Mallorca Ljubljana Gran Canaria
Paris-CDG Manchester Malaga Warsaw
Frankfurt Copenhagen Lisbon Edinburgh
Tenerife south-
Madrid Zurich Berlin-Schönefeld Reina Sofia
Amsterdam Oslo Helsinki Budapest
Munich Vienna Hamburg Saint Petersburg
Rome-Fiumicino Moscow Prague Catania
Barcelona Stockholm-Arlanda Geneva Kiev
Istanbul Dusseldorf Cologne-Bonn Larnaka
Milan-Malpensa Brussels Nice Ponta Delgada
Dublin Athens Stuttgart Bucharest
Machico Malta Zagreb Minsk
Riga Sofia Tallinn
Krakow Belgrade Vilnius
Table 5.2. Ports considered in the definition of the Core Network

PORTS
Santa Cruz De
Hamburg Pirea Gothenburg Tenerife Leith /Forth
Rotterdam Taranto Napoli Lisbon Grimsby
Antwerp Genoa Thessaloniki Ancona Belfast
Felixstowe Marseille Gran Canaria Tees Tallinn
Bremerhaven Gioia Tauro Cagliari Valletta Riga
Southampton Zeebrugge Vigo Dublin Klaipeda
Le Havre Medway Dunkerque Rostock Bergen
Algeciras London Liverpool Helsinki Narvik
Valencia Bilbao Constanta Patras Gdynia
Barcelona Trieste Bordeaux Sines St. Petersburg
Istanbul Iraklion Ponta Delgada Odessa
Limassol Funchal Varna Bar
Once ports and airports were identified, approximately fifty indicators were investigated
(by either Road or Rail axes) in order to identify links providing access to these ports and
airports from main cities. Main cities, on the other hand, were selected based on the
MEGA classification provided by ESPON (DGREGIO).
By use By time horizons By type of By proximity

ports/airports
Passengers by rail 2005 According to cate- According to hin-
to airports 2020 gories based on terlands
Freight by rail and 2030 traffic
road to ports
91
Final Report
The indicator selected was just road/rail links giving shortest path access to/from each
port/airport to its closest three MEGA cities
Next map (Figure 5.6) illustrates the result of selecting those road links connecting ports
to the closest three MEGA cities.
Figure 5.6. Road links connecting ports to their closest MEGA cities
5.4.3 Connectivity to cities

The third step consists of adding road and rail links needed to connect large cities be-
tween themselves, in the case they are missing after the first two steps.
Fifty indicators were investigated (by either Road or Rail axes) to connect major Euro-
pean cities and other economic centres including those in the neighbouring countries.
92
Final Report
By use By time horizons By type or capi- By proximity

tals
Passengers 2005 According to ad- By proximity (be-
Freight 2020 ministrative tween closest cit-
2030 (NUTS) level ies)
According to
MEGA classifica-
tion
According to popu-
lation
The indicator selected was road/rail links giving shortest time path access between the
closest three MEGA cities. The MEGA cities as defined by ESPON are shown in Figure
5.7.
Figure 5.7. MEGA cities as defined by ESPON
93
Final Report
For the purpose of the definition of the core network only cities considered as MEGAs at
European level are taken into account, given that a city might be also classified as MEGA
in a local, regional or national scope. The European MEGAs are summarised in the fol-
lowing table:
Table 5.3. EU MEGA cities as defined by ESPON

EU MEGAS
Amsterdam Cologne Lisbon Nice Tampere
Antwerp Copenhagen Ljubljana Paris Turin
Athens Dublin London Porto Toulouse
Barcelona Dusseldorf Luxembourg Prague Valencia
Berlin Edinburgh Lyon Riga Valetta
Birmingham Frankfurt Madrid Roma Vilnius
Bologna Genoa Malmö Rotterdam Warsaw
Bordeaux Gothenburg Marseille Sevilla Vienna
Bratislava Hamburg Milan Stockholm Wroclaw
Brussels Helsinki Munich Stuttgart
Budapest Krakow Naples Tallinn
In addition the capitals of the European and bordering countries are considered as well
as major cities in Bulgaria and Romania (given that the TransTools version 1 considers
these countries as a single zone, and further spatial refinement is needed in order to de-
fine a coherent network):
Table 5.4. Additional cities considered

OTHER CITIES
Belgrade Minsk Timisoara
Bucharest Moscow Tirana
Burgos Nicosia Vaduz
Chisinau Plovdiv Varna
Cluj-Napoca Reykjavik Zagreb
Iasi Sarajevo Zurich
Istanbul Skopje Bern
Kyiv Sofia Geneve
Bergen Oslo
Next map (Figure 5.8) illustrates the result of application of the indicator. The map also
shows the need for a fourth step focused on removing links which do not constitute alter-
native axes but rather links belonging to the same trans-national corridor. This process is
carried out in a systematic way in the fourth step.
94
Final Report
Figure 5.8. Road links connecting closest three MEGA cities
5.4.4 Regional endowment (relative density of axes)

In order to move from “links” identified based on TRANS-TOOLS graphs to “axes”, the
following criteria are applied:
 “Links” closer than 50 km between both end-points are integrated into the same
“axis”.
 Missing “segments” are added to ensure continuity in the axis.
 Approximately, distance between axes should not be more than 250 km (except in
areas with highest traffic and population density)
 Priority projects and TENs are considered.
Systematically the density of axes at all administrative levels (from NUTS3 to NUTS0) is
checked (in relation to surface, GDP, traffic generated...) to ensure that after this process
gaps between zones are reduced.
95
Final Report
Table 5.5. Key indicators for network density measurements
Proposed Proposed LD Intern. Core Core

Long dis-
International km of core km of passkm passkm Population network network
tance
Country Population passkm network core per km per km per km core density density
passkm
2030 (before network core core network initial adjusted
2030
adjustment) (adjusted) network network km/ha km/ha
Albania 3.497.719 328.204 325.160 675 495 663 657 7.070 2,3 1,7
Austria 8.622.222 24.802.885 19.049.736 1.868 1.219 20.346 15.627 7.073 2,1 1,4
Belgium 11.040.516 15.063.034 9.529.483 1.264 720 20.929 13.240 15.340 4,0 2,3
Bosnia &
Herzegovina 3.585.530 590.927 590.927 682 347 1.703 1.703 10.333 1,3 0,7
Bulgaria 7.006.899 4.332.026 4.303.303 2.458 1.144 3.787 3.762 6.126 2,0 1,0
Croatia 4.069.357 4.190.216 3.998.368 437 460 9.102 8.685 8.839 0,7 0,8
Czech
Republic 9.730.457 11.507.570 9.542.241 1.034 1.190 9.669 8.017 8.176 1,3 1,5
Denmark 5.585.553 5.792.811 5.430.095 1.134 516 11.228 10.525 10.826 2,9 1,3
Estonia 1.200.394 902.436 704.489 555 350 2.580 2.014 3.432 1,6 1,0
Finland 5.407.418 11.829.531 1.143.341 2.236 1.230 9.618 930 4.397 0,7 0,4
France 67.564.652 157.636.318 68.137.430 8.699 7.077 22.274 9.628 9.547 1,6 1,3
Germany 80.998.908 147.870.861 90.138.207 8.965 5.283 27.990 17.062 15.332 2,4 1,4
Greece 11.337.298 8.698.039 1.827.177 3.157 1.541 5.643 1.185 7.355 1,9 0,9
Hungary 9.477.947 8.634.447 6.844.434 910 973 8.877 7.037 9.745 0,9 1,0
Ireland 5.167.568 2.233.889 1.129.877 636 462 4.840 2.448 11.197 0,8 0,6
Italy 57.472.116 86.504.316 34.815.313 6.364 4.295 20.139 8.105 13.380 2,0 1,3
Latvia 2.017.265 508.569 481.521 639 481 1.058 1.002 4.198 1,0 0,7
Lithuania 3.082.160 1.094.551 947.756 1.112 650 1.684 1.458 4.742 1,6 1,0
Luxemburg 569.866 1.099.541 431.514 75 31 35.128 13.786 18.206 2,9 1,2
Macedonia 1.967.225 951.180 920.371 487 301 3.164 3.062 6.544 1,9 1,2
Netherlands 17.577.197 9.021.746 4.990.789 1.184 448 20.144 11.144 39.247 3,7 1,4
Norway 5.347.723 16.257.022 641.217 3.057 290 55.994 2.209 18.419 1,0 0,1
Poland 36.552.060 28.056.893 10.251.810 4.894 3.603 7.788 2.846 10.146 1,5 1,1
Portugal 10.732.068 6.551.102 2.480.146 1.708 1.070 6.123 2.318 10.031 1,9 1,2
Romania 20.440.990 2.032.278 2.032.278 3.092 2.199 924 924 9.295 1,2 0,9
Serbia 9.547.536 8.022.812 7.978.597 1.130 928 8.647 8.599 10.290 1,0 0,8
Slovak
Republic 5.196.638 2.714.328 2.238.931 628 558 4.863 4.011 9.310 1,2 1,1
Slovenia 2.008.409 5.304.944 3.934.034 558 279 18.985 14.079 7.187 2,7 1,4
Spain 45.880.260 58.080.128 12.411.162 6.142 5.508 10.545 2.253 8.330 1,2 1,1
Sweden 9.682.340 31.113.330 4.386.119 3.120 2.725 11.420 1.610 3.554 0,5 0,5
Switzerland 8.118.519 10.939.092 9.670.781 1.115 653 16.759 14.816 12.438 2,6 1,5
United
Kingdom 64.388.673 51.777.186 17.865.339 5.201 2.699 19.183 6.619 23.855 2,3 1,2
The process of defining continuous axes based on the selected links is done link by link,
based on ensuring EU continuity. Checks are needed to validate results considering
transport endowment across regions and natural and protected land-uses. The process of
adjusting the networks at local and regional level (not done in the study) will likely consist
in many cases in reconsidering the choices made to define continuous axes based on
selected links.
96
Final Report
Figure 5.9: Road network density by NUTS2
It is stressed that the purpose of the methodological development within this project is not
to propose a specific network for discussions with the member states. However, the
methodology has been discussed with national representatives on two occasions, be-
cause it is the aim of the exercise getting an agreement on the method used to define a
Core Network from a European point of view. It is however evident that the thinning pro-
cedure (step 4) involves a considerable local knowledge and should be carried out in co-
operation with the member states.
5.4.5 Land-use impacts (proximity to sensitive areas)

Finally, sensitive areas close to axes are highlighted using CDDA (Common Database of
Designation Areas) and CORINE land-use databases. In case an axis steps over such
sensitive areas, it is taken into account in the thinning process and a parallel infrastruc-
ture is selected.
97
Final Report
Figure 5.10: Road core network in relation to CDDA in the Southern Alps zone
5.5 Bottlenecks and missing links evaluation
In order to estimate the total investment needed to upgrade trans-national axes to stan-
dard capacity, a bottleneck analysis was carried out in a first approach.
Bottlenecks for roads were identified as links where the 2030 traffic in the two morning
peak hours was expected to exceed the actual and planned capacity of the links. Missing
links were identified as links below motorway standard (2+2 segregated lanes). Obviously
in some regions the provision of a good two lane road is quite sufficient to ensure acces-
sibility between points. This analysis is handled in the bottleneck analysis, where condi-
tion of the network is also included.
98
Final Report
Figure 5.11. Road bottlenecks (in red) and missing links (in green)
For the rail network bottlenecks are identified on links where the average daily traffic is
above 25.000 passengers per day.
The “missing links” have been identified as links below infrastructural standards (single
track and/or non electrified) and having importance for cohesion.
99
Final Report
Figure 5.12. Rail bottlenecks (in red) and missing links (in green)
Using rough unit costs estimates like Table 5.6, a very rough total figure of future invest-
ments can be obtained.
Table 5.6. Rough cost estimates related to missing links and bottlenecks
PRICE M€/KM Missing links Bottlenecks
Road 3 6
Rail passenger 6 12
Rail freight 5 10
100
Final Report
Based on these very rough estimates 10,000 M€/year in about 25 years would be
needed to complete with high-level standards 50,000 km road axes (if 25% missing links
and 10% bottlenecks) and some 50,000 km freight and passenger rail axes (if 20% miss-
ing links and 10% bottlenecks).
5.6 Conclusions: Exemplified trans-national axes identified
Many consistent alternative proposals (with different length and density) can be defined
based on the methodology.
In Task 2, two alternative proposals have been produced.
The right adjustment of the thresholds for each indicator largely depends on these two
questions:
What would be the likely investment available to achieve high-level standards?
What other common policies to achieve an integrated management would be expected

(road-pricing, rail interoperability…)?
Examples of core networks are indicated in the following Figure 5.13, Figure 5.14, Figure
5.15, Figure 5.16, Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18. These examples demonstrate the con-
cept, but a selection of a set of future core networks for EU is a process involving both the
Commission as well as the Member States.
101
Final Report
Figure 5.13: Exemplified Road Trans-European core network proposal A
Major trans-national roads Alterna-

tive A (60,800km)
102
Final Report
Figure 5.14: Exemplified Road Trans-European core network proposal B
Major trans-national roads Alterna-

tive B (44,300km)
103
Final Report
Figure 5.15: Exemplified Rail passenger Trans-European core network proposal

A
Major trans-national rail passenger

Alternative A (49,100km)
104
Final Report
Figure 5.16: Exemplified Rail passenger Trans-European core network proposal

B
Major trans-national rail passenger

Alternative B (32,900km)
105
Final Report
Figure 5.17: Exemplified Rail freight Trans-European core network proposal A
Major trans-national rail freight Alter-

native A (55,000km)
106
Final Report
Figure 5.18: Exemplified Rail freight Trans-European core network proposal B
Major trans-national rail freight Alter-

native B (37,700km)
107
Final Report
108
Final Report
6 Bottlenecks
6.1 Introduction
The previous two tasks have resulted in the development of a methodology for identifica-
tion of major trans-national axes and forecast for the future traffic flows in EU and the
neighbouring countries for 2020 and 2030 with particular focus on flows between old and
new Member States, between new Member States and between EU and the neighbour-
ing countries. The analysis has covered all transport modes, both freight and passenger
traffic on links and through nodes with a focus on the TEN-T network. The consortium has
applied the updated 2005 TRANS-TOOLS version 1 model.
The forecasts have been used for identifying the most important axes for cohesion, de-
velopment of the internal market and the relations to neighbouring countries. These axes
are further analysed in the present chapter on bottlenecks in order to identify links in the
road, rail and air networks which needs improvement in terms of condition or congestion,
as well as airports and ports which needs improvements.
The aim of the present task is to provide information on various types of bottlenecks that
may affect the efficiency of traffic movements or that may be caused by the infrastructure
or its use on e.g. the surrounding environment, in the base year and/or in the future
years. Both condition bottlenecks and capacity bottlenecks are analysed on the overall
networks in the EU territory.
The analysis provides information on the physical condition as well as the quality of the
infrastructure in terms of:
 type of infrastructure, e.g. motorway, electrified track,

 capacity: number of lanes, tracks, number of passengers per year / flights per hour,
etc.
 axle loads and possible axle load restrictions,
 allowed speed, average real speed, speed restrictions,
 environmental concerns.
For the analysis of environmental bottlenecks, the study identifies areas subjected to
emissions and noise stemming from traffic, and does also address the issue of protected
sites and infrastructural development.
6.2 Definition of bottlenecks
Bottlenecks are typically defined along a time-distance curve. In areas where the time
consumption increases per unit of length compared to the general time consumption a
potential bottleneck may be observed. Based on this definition a bottleneck could be a
piece of poor infrastructure where the speed has to be lowered in order to pass the infra-
structure safely, or it could be a piece of infrastructure with heavy traffic load which delays
the flow. But the definition also implies that locations in the networks where the time
passes without any distance being made, e.g. border crossings, veterinary controls etc
could be considered bottlenecks.
109
Final Report
Figure 6.1. A distance – time diagram indicating two types of bottlenecks
100
90
80 Bottleneck 2
70 Poor road condition
60
Minutes
50
40
30 Bottleneck 1
20 Border
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Km
Another important aspect is the harmonisation of rules and regulations for border crossing
transports. In each of the European countries a number of local rules and regulations
exists for different aspects of transport. It should be recognised that the UNECE since the
mid-fifties has worked on common regulations concerning definitions of vehicles in road
transport, common signs, common maximum axle loads, and the important Transport
Internationaux Routiers (TIR) Convention which in principle ensures unhindered driving
through transit countries.
Road transport on the main road system within EU is in general carried out on good con-
dition roads. In the eastern part of EU there are regions where the network is in need of
improvement, and in many places is the mix of vehicle types on two lane roads bound to
result in safety hazards. However, bottlenecks in the European road transport are mainly
related to insufficient capacity at certain times and on certain road links. And borders to
the neighbouring countries, except Norway and Switzerland, constitute major time con-
sumers for both passenger traffic and particularly freight transport.
Rail transport is experiencing tight conditions particularly in Germany, in UK and around

major urban areas. And condition of the network in some of the New Member States
needs urgent attention. But some of the problems related to the rail network are related to
missing interoperability across the borders. Some of these non interoperability aspects
are easy to see, e.g. the change of gauge, different current systems and different signal-
ling and safety systems. Others relate more to different ways of border inspection, and
such mismatches in the administrative procedures may cause serious delays, e.g. if a
wagon needs to be taken out of a row of wagons because of worn down brakes. But also
aspects like change of drivers at borders and staff depots may result in delays as could
inadequate opening hours for border handling.
Air transport is seeing a considerable growth in future, which could lead to an increase in
delays at airports in Europe. Particularly the major four, Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle,
Schiphol and Frankfurt are operating near to the capacity limit. But analysis of airport
capacity indicates that quite a few airports will be vulnerable to capacity shortages. In the
110
Final Report
analysis of air transport bottlenecks the EUROcontrol/STATFOR forecasts have been

used alongside with TRANS-TOOLS forecasts.
Also the port system in Europe has been investigated, and this has resulted in an overall
recognition of ports having prepared for the future. Both the bulk ports and the container
ports seem to have sufficient capacity to cope with future growth rates. One problem
identified is however the hinterland connections. Particularly the north range port (ports in
German Bight and the Rhine – Schelde Delta) turnovers may result in congested roads
and rail systems in the hinterland.
The environmental aspects have been considered in this very overall analysis. There
exists approximately 1200 very important natura2000 sites, and it is a question of making
certain that these sites are properly dealt with in the assessment of the future bottleneck
alleviating projects.
6.3 Road transport
6.3.1 Bottlenecks in Road Transport
Road bottlenecks are looked at in terms of road condition and road capacity, i.e. conges-
tion.
Road condition bottlenecks appear extremely seldom, if at all, in the western parts of EU.
They may be caused by poor geometry, narrow cross section and lack of safety facilities,
but most commonly due to the road environment like towns and villages with narrow
streets, parking, mixed traffic, etc. In some cases, also the poor pavement may signifi-
cantly limit speeds, and thus form a bottleneck factor.
Roads at the border crossing stations between EU and the eastern border are a most
common delay factor – the crossing may take days, at least hours, and a problem is that
it is not well predictable. Subsequently, there may be queues of 5 – 50 km of trucks with
trailers, in front of the major crossing stations.
In the eastern parts of EU, especially in the New Member States, the road condition bot-
tlenecks are currently more common than congestion bottlenecks. However, traffic fore-
casts indicate that in the future capacity bottlenecks will increase also in this area.
Capacity problems are the major bottleneck factor in the western parts of EU. Predictions
show that it is also extending in the future. Major delays are typical on the major interre-
gional road network in some specific periods, like those connected with holidays or spe-
cial festival days and start/end of school. There are also seasonal variations, which have
impact on the appearance of congestion.
In the western parts of EU there are experienced road authorities, who have tools and
funds to deal with the capacity problems. Mostly, the network is well planned and func-
tional, and it needs only fine tuning. The main highways form a separate network, which
is dedicated to long distance national and international mobility, while local roads serve
local needs and provide access to the main highways. Subsequently, the activities con-
nected with congestion have changed from major investments towards traffic manage-
ment, which is developed to be more effective and sophisticated.
111
Final Report
6.3.2 Definition of Capacity Bottlenecks
The basics in capacity related bottlenecks are defined according to the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 4). The capacity needs to be defined in different ways for multilane high-
ways (motorways) and two lane highways.
Capacity is defined by physical factors, traffic composition and the network characteris-
tics. Most commonly, the capacity problems appear close to populated areas, where the
network is quite dense with many junctions and interchanges. Capacity on a free link is
always higher than on a link where traffic is merging or diverging, due to the speed differ-
ences of the latter type. In certain cases, we can even identify a network capacity, which
may be exceeded.
On multilane highways, the basic capacity at the outer lane is about 2100 cars per hour.
For each extra lane added the capacity increases with 2500, so the average capacity of a
lane on a four lane highway is 2300 cars per hour. Actually, instead of cars, the manual
provides figures in terms of person car units or person car equivalents (PCU = PCE).
Heavy vehicles should be changed to cars by multiplying them with a factor, which de-
pends on the terrain. In earlier studies, coefficients for buses have been 2, 3 and 4 (flat,
hilly and mountainous terrain) and for trucks 2, 5 and 9. In this study, the purpose has not
been to design the road but to carefully recognise most problematic areas, so the heavy
goods vehicles have been converted to PCUs applying a general factor of 2. On a 4-lane
motorway, the applied capacity has been 4600 PCUs per hour. This value refers to level
of service E, where the operating conditions are close to the capacity level, and speeds
are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value.
Figure 6.2: Traffic Variations at Highway 14 (Location Point 606) in Finland
Traffic variations affect the utilisation of the available capacity. There is a directional dis-
tribution, and further, there are seasonal variations, weekday variations and the peak flow
may vary between the days (Friday, Sunday or Monday) differently in summer and winter.
Traffic behaviour is also different in rural highways and in the vicinity of cities. Therefore
congestion occurs at different times on different roads.
Two-lane highways have a different definition of capacity due to the fact that the two op-
posite traffic flows affect on each other. The wish to maintain different travel speeds for
different vehicles may lead to formation of queues and an increasing demand for overtak-
ing. The traffic in the opposite direction, together with the road circumstances (geometry,
road side vegetation, accesses and junction, etc.) reduce overtaking opportunities. So,
the speed is defined as that of the slowest vehicle. In some cases, there will be delays
112
Final Report
caused by diverging vehicles going to cross the opposite traffic flow not being able to do
so without blocking the traffic in their own direction.
In principle, a lane capacity on two-lane roads is up to 1800 PCU per hour. However,
capacity studies have shown that the practical capacity is about 1400 PCU per hour. The
total capacity depends also on the traffic distribution by directions. The highest practical
capacity is obtained with a traffic split in the two directions of 45/55% and the capacity
decreases with a 30/70% split. In the analysis a split of 40/60% has been assumed and
the related capacity has been assessed to correspond to the practical capacity of 1600
PCUs per hour per direction. In urban areas the practical capacity of a two-lane road is
reduced to about 950 PCUs per hour and direction.
6.3.3 Definition of Condition Bottlenecks
An inventory was carried out in Estonia, Latvia and Romania. Inventory data existed al-
ready for East Poland and Bulgaria. These analyses were carried out in order to identify
condition bottlenecks.
For the purpose of the work, the condition bottlenecks were defined based on the follow-
ing quality shortages:
 Horizontal curves in rural roads (poor < 320 m by 80 km/h)

 Gradient: over 6% (with horizontally curvy areas 3%)
 Road cross section < 7m with max. 0.25 m shoulders
 Densely populated area (very poor: bigger town, speed 20-40 km/h, poor:
30...<50 km/h)
 Road (pavement) quality: deformations (ruts and cracks) in the struc-
ture/pavement, longitudinal waves, bearing structure most probably mixed with
the base soil
 Environmental questions were handled separately in the study
Another feature to be marked is a speed limit below 80 km/h. This normally is caused by
existing problems.
113
Final Report
Figure 6.3: Only a few by-pass roads exist in Romania. The main highways split
towns and villages in parts
6.3.4 The Road Network
The road network to be studied i.e. the major trans-national axes was not defined before
the bottleneck inventory was carried out. However, two different networks have been
under discussion, as the target network for the necessary actions.
Figure 6.4: Networks used in the study as the basis for analysis of road bottle-
necks
114
Final Report
6.3.5 Capacity Related Problems
As indicated above capacity of roads refers to the maximum hourly rate of vehicles that
can reasonably be expected to traverse a uniform section of a lane or road during an
hour under prevailing conditions. The TRANS-TOOLS model provide hourly load on the
road network in 3 different time periods of the day, thus it is possible to compare traffic
loads in the peak hour with hourly capacity in the network. Forecasts have been made for
2030 and the following maps indicate the base line forecast for 2030.
Such a comparison is made for the East European countries in Figure 6.5.
In the eastern parts of EU, the roads are mostly 2-lane expressways / highways. The road
network in the vicinity of the major cities is congested in 2030, according to the TRANS-
TOOLS results. In the Baltic Countries’ area the bottlenecks include Riga in Latvia, and
Vilnius – Kaunas in Lithuania. Tallinn forms a bottleneck for the harbour traffic, mainly.
In Poland, the most congested zone is that in and between Warsaw and Katowice-
/Krakow, also the roads leading to Ukraine and Slovakia seem to be suffering of conges-
tion. Also the route from Gdansk to the south is likely to grow congested. Congestion is
here considered as a result of an identified capacity bottleneck.
Prague in Czech Republic, as well as the surroundings of Budapest in Hungary, forms a

zone of congestion. Similar situation seems to be around Ljubljana and Zagreb.
Figure 6.5: Congested road links in Eastern Europe in the morning peak hour,
2030
115
Final Report
The model applied is the TRANS-TOOLS version 1 model where Bulgaria, Romania,
Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are only one zone each. This affects the identifica-
tion of bottlenecks in these countries where traffic flows are moving from the zone centres
to the borders without much interference. In version 2 these countries are subdivided at
the NUTS3 level, and this will increase the accuracy in the assignment of flows on the
network.
However, based on available studies and field visits, we can recognise both the surround-
ings of Sofia and Bucharest as serious problems. It is not only the city traffic but also
transit flows, which suffer of the bottlenecks in the area. The major transport routes from
south - east to central Europe cross this region. Also the environment of Athens, in
Greece, is congested in the forecast.
Applying the morning peak hour in relation to the hourly capacity as a congestion criterion
in West Europe 2030 brings out an almost all red picture. Therefore other ways of identi-
fying heavily loaded roads in relation to capacity have been analysed.
An analysis was carried out where loads on the networks were identified both with and
without capacity constraints. If the load without capacity constraints was bigger than the
load with capacity constraints a bottleneck was identified, the argument being that if traffic
moves where it is most advantageous it will move as it does in the unconstrained case.
The methodology will of course result in many minor roads being bottlenecks, since they
offer the direct route between two points. However, looking at 2030 about 1/3 of the links
in the road network (11,000) were identified as bottlenecks. The methodology may be
reasonable if only trans-national axes are analysed, but it is evidently not providing opera-
tional results when the whole network is looked at.
The traffic in this project is dealing with mainly interregional, interurban transport. That
means the capacity standards as applied for urban transport may not be a good indicator.
th
Usually the 100 biggest hour is used for interurban capacity considerations. This meas-
ure, however, is not operational and therefore the daily capacity compared to average
annual daily traffic (AADT) has been applied as a measure for possible congestion. If the
traffic load is bigger than 16 times the hourly capacity, there is a capacity shortage. 850
links are prone for a capacity shortage in 2030. It has been analysed how many links
would be a capacity constrain if the traffic load is bigger than 18 times the hourly capacity.
500 links are congested. If traffic loads exceed 24 times hourly capacity there is a serious
congestion. 160 links are seriously congested. Seventeen of these links are motorway
links.
The map (Figure 6.6) overleaf is based on traffic loads exceeding 16 times hourly
capacity and thus identifies capacity shortages in 2030.
Capacity shortages occur mainly in West Europe, where there is a scatter of congested
points particularly in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Italy. The road
network in UK is congested on almost every part of the network connecting London and
the Midlands. In East Europe there are hardly any shortages identified when this method-
ology of daily capacity utilisation is applied.
116
Final Report
Figure 6.6: Identified capacity shortages in the road network 2030 (traffic is
higher than 16 x one hour calculated capacity)..
6.3.6 Limitations in identification of capacity bottlenecks
As indicated the current analysis has limitations in the output, particularly concerning
Romania and Bulgaria in EU27. Therefore, the calculated results as indicated above for
Romania and Bulgaria have been supplemented with local inventories of congestion as
indicated in the following maps (Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8).
117
Final Report
Figure 6.7: Bottlenecks in Bulgaria related to both congestion and road condition
As seen from Figure 6.7 above, there are capacity bottlenecks regularly around Sofia, in
Bulgaria. There are also two corridors from Sofia south to Plagoevgrad and from east of
Sofia, from Plovdiv towards Burgas, with capacity problems. In these routes, capacity is
exceeded partly sometimes, and partly regularly. It is very probable that in the coming
years, the driving circumstances will get worse.
In Romania, the car ownership is at a relatively low level, and the growth potential is high.
The country also has its own car industry, which likely will lead to an increase in car pur-
chase, when the economic opportunity is there.
Currently, the main capacity problems appear in the vicinity of Bucharest. Most transpor-
tation flows from south of Romania pass through the capital city via the ring road. The
Ring road has a parallel ring railroad, which causes multiple problems – the two align-
ments are too close, many junctions and most crossings are level crossings, and the
surrounding land use is accessing the Ring road without control. In addition, there are
also pedestrians – at least between the bus stops and the industrial facilities. The capac-
ity problems are most serious in those places where the main national highways cross the
Ring road at level.
Other problem areas appear at the major cities, Arad, Oradea, Brasov, Sibiu, etc., and
also in the narrow river valley, where the main road goes from Sibiu to Pitesti. These
capacity problems have been identified in the present situation, and unless infrastructure
is being added they will undoubtedly get very serious in 2030.
118
Final Report
Figure 6.8: Road Bottlenecks in Romania.
6.3.7 Results of Road condition inventory
Road condition data have been collected through field surveys in Estonia, Latvia and
Romania. Other condition data were available for Poland and Bulgaria.
The geometry of the roads is worst in the mountainous areas, but often also close to the
(eastern) border areas. These sections are not important for the internal traffic of the
countries, but now the transit transports are changing strongly the demand for capacity
leading towards the eastern borders of the Union. Also the long waiting times at some
borders create a trap for moving traffic: The road side may be occupied by over-long
queues of heavy trucks and trailers. The situation, combined with weak facilities and lack
of financing, has lead to poor condition of roads and pavements on many sections.
There seems to be a need to improve both capacity and road safety. As a matter of fact,
safety is a priority area, because the traffic volume is still under 10 000 vehicles/day in
most of the roads. Concerning the safety, some countries with the relatively worst acci-
dent records belong to the group, like Poland, Romania and Latvia. Sections through
towns and villages with premises having direct access to the main roads form the most
serious problems. They are also the most serious bottlenecks, not only because the
speed gets low but also due to unexpected congestion and other disturbances in the ur-
ban traffic.
Important observations on road conditions:
Though no data has been in use of the road conditions of Western Europe, it is known
that road condition bottlenecks are not common.
119
Final Report
The data on Eastern Europe isn’t complete. Road condition data is comprehensive only
for Estonia, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria
In some areas the bottlenecks are a combination of physical constraints and high de-
mand. Typical cases are the roads surrounding Riga having shortages, but the city itself
is also getting congested – and the total could be called a capacity bottleneck, as well.
The same concerns also Bucharest, especially the 2-lane ring road: it may be called ei-
ther a road shortage or a capacity bottleneck.
The eastern road network of Poland has been under-developed during decades, es-
pecially in the north-eastern areas. The political situation of Belarus has also delayed the
activities. Evidently, the need for improvement is growing.
There are some weaknesses in the network outside Europe, of which the vicinity of St.
Petersburg may be worth mentioning: The city of 5 million people is rapidly extending
along the main roads, which causes growing congestion along those roads (e.g. about
30,000 vehicles on a two lane road)
A summary is shown in Figure 6.9 on the next page. The marks do not describe points of
bottlenecks but refer to bottlenecks in larger areas. Due to the slight change of the study
content the detailed inventory and bottleneck analysis of 5 to 10 axes were replaced with
a more overall evaluation of bottlenecks. The bottleneck analysis in the road network has
included the road condition survey in a few countries and an appointment of congested
links in the area where the TRANS-TOOLS ver. 1 model provides valid results. The de-
tails of the congested links have been handed over to the GIS unit of DG TREN. The
figure overleaf is just providing a summary of this comprehensive material.
Capacity bottlenecks are marked with red circles and road condition bottlenecks with
violet squares.
120
Final Report
Figure 6.9: Modelled road capacity bottlenecks 2030 and condition bottlenecks
based on inventory 2008.
121
Final Report
6.4 Rail
6.4.1 Definition of capacity

Capacity on a railway infrastructure can be defined in several ways. The overall definition
of capacity focuses on practical available capacity, which is a complex aggregate of
individual measures of capacity. Capacity can then be expressed as a “measure of the
ability to move a specific amount of traffic over a defined rail line with a given set of re-
sources under a specific service plan”. This directly leads to the fact that each track sec-
tion between two nodes has its unique capacity. Within a microscopic approach this defi-
nition helps to define measures on how to overcome specific bottlenecks.
Practical capacity within a bandwidth of desirable reliability will therefore be lower than
theoretical capacity as indicated in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10: Horizon of expectation for train operations
Source: M. Avril, Technical University of Valencia (2007)
6.4.2 Subcategories of rail system bottlenecks

A number of assumptions have been made in the definition of rail system bottlenecks.
Whenever an assumption refers to the term “capacity”, the capacity is defined as avail-
able capacity. A bottleneck is characterised by the situation that
1. an additional train running causes high planning resources from the infrastructure
manager’s side in order to keep up the planned annual timetable, or
2. an additional train running would have significantly increased travel times com-
pared to regularly planned trains or
3. no additional train paths can be allocated for trains not present in the annual
timetable.
122
Final Report
Figure 6.11: Typical train density graph
Source: M. Avril, Technical University of Valencia (2007)
Where infrastructure managers publish track sections with high occupancy or run specific
traffic management or traffic allocation measures due to capacity constraints, the respec-
tive track section is considered as limited in capacity.
For axle loads and loading gauges, the official publications of the infrastructure managers
have been evaluated. Currently all observed track sections fulfil the minimum require-
ments for the free circulation of freight traffic and can handle axle loads of minimum 20
tonnes. Also the permitted loading gauges can be considered as non-critical, especially
for combined freight transport.
In general, bottlenecks can be divided into three main subcategories: areal limitations,
sectoral limitations, and network limitations.
Areal limitations. Where infrastructure constraints are occurring on physically separated

sections of the network (links and nodes) and can be resolved by specific measures at
these locations, the bottlenecks have a direct effect on the partial capacity of the major
axes. This type of constraint is referred to as areal limitations.
Sectoral limitations. Under certain circumstances, the areal limitations cannot be allo-
cated to a specific link or node, e.g. if a voltage change on the network is located be-
tween two nodes. In this case, the type of limitation is referred to as sectoral.
Network limitations. Other bottlenecks are not only covering physically separated sec-
tions but have effects on whole parts or the entire network of a country. The limitations
occurring due to these constraints do not have direct effect on the partial capacity of the
major axes but are affecting the accessibility of the network. This type of limitation is re-
ferred to as a network limitation.
123
Final Report
6.4.3 Types of bottlenecks covered in this study

The following categories of limitations are visualised in the maps that resulted from the
analysis:
Number of tracks
If a section has less than two parallel tracks (a single track railway), such a section is
always considered a bottleneck since the actual and potential throughput of trains is
comparatively low due to the nature of the resulting operational scheme.
All single track sections are marked on the map in black colour.
Electrification
If a section between two electrified sections is either not electrified at all or has a different
electrical current, the section is considered a bottleneck since almost all operations are
only possible with either multiple voltage locomotives or with one or two locomotive
changes. The operational processes of locomotive changes are very time consuming,
especially when the affected section is relatively short in relation to the entire route of a
train.
All corridor sections affected by electrification issues are marked on the map in yellow
colour.
Slot restrictions
If a section is densely occupied by rail traffic, the respective section is considered a bot-
tleneck. The limiting factor is either a section occupancy of more than 230 trains per day
(as indicated in Figure 6.11) for a double track section or mixed usage of tracks by high-
frequent suburban trains, long-distance passenger trains and freight trains or a combina-
tion of both factors.
The TRANS-TOOLS model is able to deliver forecasts for rail passengers and rail freight
in tonnes by link in the rail network.
The future passenger and freight flows in Europe according to the TRANS-TOOLS ver-
sion 1 model are transformed to number of trains applying following conversion factors:
1. Each freight train transports an average of 700 net tonnes of freight;

2. Each passenger train transports an average of 350 passengers;
3. The average share of passenger trains compared to freight trains is 50%.
On track sections where the referred study does not provide data, officially published
timetables for passenger transport have been analysed. The number of freight trains was
calculated through the share of passenger trains compared to freight trains in various
countries published by the World Bank.3
High density sections and congested nodes are marked on the map in red colour. Conur-
bations where urban and local traffic creates slot scarcities are marked with a red dot.
3
See graph “Percent of Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail Traffic” published by World Bank
124
Final Report
Border crossings & gauge changes

If a border station causes a train to stop for technical or organisational reasons for more
than 15 minutes, the respective border station is considered a bottleneck. Normally, these
bottlenecks are not limited to a single major axis, but they result because of different ad-
ministrative procedures and different operability procedures on the two sides of the bor-
der. Possible occurring gauge changes at border stations are also included as a capacity
limiting factor in this point.
Bottlenecks related to border crossings are marked with a spot showing a border traffic
sign.
If a section has a track gauge different from the European normal gauge of 1,435mm, the
respective section is considered as limited in capacity. Gauge changes are either very
time consuming since they cause lots of manoeuvring, staff and assets for the axle
changing process or they require specially equipped rolling stock and infrastructure capa-
ble to operate a gauge change process by automated gauge interchanging systems
Border crossings and other nodes where gauge changes can be carried out are marked
with a spot in purple colour.
Other
Certain other factors are limiting the capacity of the railway infrastructure. These factors
usually cannot be associated with concrete critical nodes or sections on the network but
are affecting the general accessibility of the railway network in a negative way. Countries
where the accessibility of the railway network is limited in a certain way are indicated in
cyan colour.
Countries with limitations in capacity due to delayed liberalisation processes are Luxem-
burg, France, Greece and Ireland.
125
Final Report
Figure 6.12: Liberalisation Index, 2007; Sources: IBM Business Consulting,

Deutsche Bahn AG
In general, the access to the railway infrastructure for freight traffic is possible by now in
every country in the European Union but the preconditions that need to be fulfilled to gain
access may be very restrictive. Gaining access rights in the four countries mentioned
above is considered as most complicated. From a Community point of view, this issue
limits the capacity on the corridor because the free circulation of traffic on rail is handi-
capped.
Track quality
The condition of base layer and track superstructure is essential for undisturbed rail op-
erations. Both main parts of the railway infrastructure need to be maintained regularly
with intrinsic effort in order to allow operations with high speed and heavy haul rolling
stock. If a track section is in bad conditions, the maximum speed allowed needs to be
restricted to ensure safe operations. Countries where the track quality is poorer than av-
erage and speed restrictions influence rail operations significantly in a negative way are
Poland, the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Turkey.
Since bad track quality is a problem related more to the network and organisation than to
a special corridor, countries facing this issue are also marked in cyan.
6.4.4 Delimitation of rail corridors

The delimitation of rail corridors to be investigated has been based on the rail corridor
maps, average scenario, from Task 2 of the TEN Connect project. This means that the
depiction of rail corridors does not necessarily coincide with actual tracks; several rail
lines may be grouped into one rail corridor in the overall capacity assessment.
126
Final Report
6.4.5 Identification of bottlenecks

Overview
TRANS-TOOLS version 1 results indicate that inter-zonal rail passenger traffic 2030 in
passenger km will increase about 76 % from 2005, and that the long distance rail pas-
senger transport in EU12 will remain constant. For Freight transport it is estimated that
freight transport will increase with 78 %.
The Baseline 2030 network has been used as the reference in the forecast year. This
network includes the priority projects expected to be started up to 2010. Where a defined
priority project will be finished until 2030, it is assumed that capacity constraints are
solved with the completion of works. Where applicable and available, additional infra-
structure improvement projects as indicated in the Baseline network have also been
taken into account.
Capacity constraints in 2030 will mostly affect the countries located in south-eastern
Europe (besides the permanent bottlenecks in Germany and UK) since the traffic will be
significantly higher than at present. Considering the volumes of the “Iron curtain” era, the
increasing volumes will not exceed the capacity of the rail infrastructure built in Soviet
times. Except in the conurbations the lines have sufficient capacity. The additional traffic
flow will therefore primarily affect the capitals in Hungary and Romania due to their loca-
tion along one of the most important Trans-European transport routes; combined with
expected increasing commuter traffic.
Interpretation of the maps

The following maps show bottlenecks now (2008) and for 2030. The map for 2030 shows
further improvements regarding bottlenecks. The country sections below identify key bot-
tlenecks which suggest priorities for future rail infrastructure improvements.
127
Final Report
Figure 6.13: Rail freight bottlenecks 2008
Source: BMT based on data provided by Railistics GmbH
128
Final Report
Figure 6.14: Rail freight bottlenecks 2030
129
Final Report
Figure 6.15: Passenger rail bottlenecks 2008
130
Final Report
Figure 6.16: Passenger rail bottlenecks 2030
131
Final Report
6.5 Ports
6.5.1 Bottlenecks for container traffic

While Global and European freight volumes are expected to grow further at high rates,
the entire transport infrastructure required is subject to concerns on its capacity.
Regarding the capacities for the maritime nodes and terminals, the analysis comes to the
following results:
 Capacity extensions in the container terminals follow closely the predicted growth
rates of container transport demand. E.g. all capacity extension plans for UK ports
together equal the expected rise in container transport demand until 2015, even
though such investments are not harmonized and they are partly reasoned by the
competition between the port terminal operators.
 The situation on the Continent is almost the same, while the growth of additional con-
tainer handling capacity in some areas actually exceeds the expected rise in con-
tainer demand.
 Regionally, there are however large differences where, when and to what extent ca-
pacities will be increased. In the North range (Rhine-Scheldt Delta and German
Bight), Hamburg has already put large extensions in place but it will have to wait until
2016 for the next big new container terminal to be operational. Meanwhile Rotterdam
and Antwerp will have already put their extensions in place.
 There is an uncertainty in the market if and to what extent deep-sea carriers will tend
to use more southern hubs in the Mediterranean or even North Africa to shorten the
sea leg from Asia to Europe. That depends on available capacity and logistics service
quality in these regions. In the past decades, Mediterranean ports failed to compete
effectively against North range ports regarding their common hinterland (e.g. South-
ern Germany), mainly due to the inferior quality of hinterland intermodal services.
 There is a significant element of uncertainty whether Russia will continue to try to
route its transport flows via their own ports. Since even after capacity extensions at
the Russian Baltic Sea Coast the transport demand from/to Russia is much higher
than these new ports would be able to handle, a shift towards Russian Black Sea
ports is likely. The impact on ports in Finland and the Baltic States should be ana-
lyzed in a separate study.
 Port terminal operators are partly private companies, PPP or publicly owned compa-
nies. To have sufficient capacity is their core business interest and usually there is
enough capital available to invest adequately. Permissions to extend capacities in ex-
isting ports are often quite easy to get.
 The hinterland links however are always financed out of public budgets. These hinter-
land links often pass through housing areas or areas subject to environmental protec-
tion, which implies complex lengthy planning procedures, meaning that the upgrading
of hinterland links often lags behind port extensions.
 Hinterland links will be the most severe bottlenecks affecting the maritime transport
flows, while the port terminals themselves are only rarely subject to a real bottleneck
problem.
 It must be kept in mind that infrastructure extension projects in ports are only avail-
able within a future time span of maximum 10 to 15 years. These plans are subject to
revisions and changes. This means that all information on infrastructure and capacity
extensions beyond committed developments is speculative and could prove wrong.
6.5.2 Bottlenecks for bulk traffic

The growth rates of dry bulk in Europe have been quite modest over the past 8 years,
with larger terminals such as Rotterdam growing faster than small ones. Other ports such
as Marseille have seen virtually no overall growth; some have seen a decline (Rostock).
132
Final Report
Figure 6.17 and Figure 6.18 show developments in bulk volumes handled by selected
European ports from 2000 to 2007.
Figure 6.17: Liquid bulk volumes of selected EU ports
Figure 6.18: Dry bulk volumes of selected EU ports
The UK’s official forecast predicts a decrease of dry bulk traffic of 3% between 2005 and
2030. The growth figure for liquid bulk until 2015 is 10%, with no change between 2015
and 2030. Without doubt, the situation will vary strongly between different parts of
Europe.
The development of terminal handling capacity in the dry bulk sector is difficult to predict.
The slow growth overall means that most of the capacity increase needed may be man-
aged through better handling efficiency. Some of the largest European dry bulk importers,
such as Rotterdam have reached capacity limits and are building up more terminal capac-
ity. For bulk commodities relevant to construction (sand, gravel, ores, minerals and con-
centrates) clients have been denied transhipment capacity
133
Final Report
Dry bulk
Dry fuels (coal). The demand is dependent on the continued use of coal as energy fuel.
A number of large power plant developments are currently in the planning or construction
stage. Demand is therefore not evenly distributed since many plants are and will be near
dedicated sea terminals. High oil prices favor coal as cheaper fuel; on the other hand,
European CO2 emission targets penalize coal and will include public pressure to move
towards renewable fuels. National energy policies will have a big impact on future de-
mand for dry fuels and therefore long term predictions must be taken with great caution.
Construction bulk. In Europe demand from the construction, chemical and metal indus-
tries for sand, gravel, cement, and minerals and concentrates varies across regions. In
general, demand correlates with GDP growth.
Iron ore, steel. In line with the gradual movement of steel production volumes to emerg-
ing and low-cost markets, forecasts for the market leader Rotterdam show iron ore vol-
umes decline over the next 15 years. Instead, the import of overseas manufactures or
semi-manufactured steel products will increase. Some areas however will see a growth of
heavy bulk. The high price of metals and minerals has sparked several new mining activi-
ties in North Scandinavia and Finland which should account for import volume increases
in Southern Baltic gateway ports.
Forestry products. The trends in the forestry sector point to a gradual slow decline of
Scandinavian pulp and paper exports and increases of overseas exports as the industry
continues investing in production facilities in high-growth, low cost markets such as the
Far East, South America and Russia. This would mean a reduction for Ro-Ro based Bal-
tic traffic and an increase in overseas imports via the Rhine–Scheldt delta, Black Sea
West and Southern European gateways.
Agribulk. Agribulk (grains, seeds, animal feed) is a volatile market with ups and downs
due to commodity price movements, as could be seen in the slump of palm oil imports for
bio-fuels production due to its rising price. Uncertainty persists regarding the import po-
tential of genetically modified rice and maize products.
Liquid bulk
Oil and oil products. In a mature market, Western Europe will see a gradual decrease in
the demand for oil and refinery products as cars and heating systems get more fuel effi-
cient. New biofuels production sites are being created. Rotterdam alone reports produc-
ers of a total 21 million tons of biofuels. The demand in Eastern Europe will grow more
strongly, roughly in line with the GDP growth. Much depends on the oil price develop-
ment. If predictions of a crude barrel price of $270 turn true, this will add urgency to
higher energy savings and the development of renewable fuels and nuclear energy at the
expense of oil consumption. A high oil price may in some cases support the construction
of new coal fired power plants (as planned, for example, in Italy and Germany) while
other countries favor the development of nuclear energy (Finland, UK), a trend that will
lead to decreases of energy fuel imports.
Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). LNG demand is rising rapidly because countries want to di-
versify their fuel sources. The market is responding. Rotterdam builds a new LNG termi-
nal capable of handling 12.16 m tons LNG (Vopak). The energy utility EON plans to build
an LNG terminal at Wilhelmshaven (7.6 million tons p.a.), EDF builds one in Dunkerque
(4.5 million tons p.a.). Projects at other ports are being evaluated.
134
Final Report
6.5.3 Summary of identified port bottlenecks
Current capacity bottlenecks
Russian ports. St. Petersburg is a bottleneck due to administrative customs procedures

more than due to its infrastructure. The port experienced a strong growth contributing to
high volumes and congestion. Kaliningrad has an access bottleneck - a channel 44 km
long, where the access is one way with times allocated for entry and exit of the port.
South East Finnish ports. Rail hinterland transport is constrained by a lack of wagons
and border crossing bottlenecks at the Russian border, exhibiting long waiting times and
administrative hurdles. In Kotka, quay space limits further growth. In Hamina, the access
fairway can be considered a bottleneck (deepening and shortening to be done by 2010).
Gdansk Bay. Gdynia and Gdansk suffer from congested road hinterland links.
German Bight ports. The roads within the Hamburg port area are frequently congested.
Congestion and delays are frequent, complete breakdowns of traffic occur from time to
time. Bremerhaven extension options are limited.
UK ports. In UK South Eastern ports, there are no significant bottlenecks at the moment
(congestion in the past lead to shift of volumes to other ports, e.g. Rhine-Scheldt Delta
ports and Le Havre). The ports are equally affected by congested road and rail networks
in the hinterland (except for Southampton). In Liverpool, the port rail connection to the
hinterland is considered a bottleneck. In the future, it will be connected to the West Coast
Main Line.
Ligurian range. In general, steep terrain constrains port growth. Hinterland rail connec-
tions are congested and rail service quality is inferior compared to services coming from
Northern European ports. In Genova, the main bottlenecks are related to rail and road
connections towards the hinterland. Only Voltri Terminal Europa (VTE) can forward goods
towards Northern Italy, bypassing the Genova congested railway node. The same situa-
tion applies to road connections, where delays occur because of narrow infrastructure
and a mix of passenger and freight traffic. There are also problems related to marshalling
operations within the port area. The limited extension of terminals located in the historical
port does not allow maximum efficiency in the operations. The basin of La Spezia is shal-
low and needs continuous dredging. There is a lack of space within the port area: port
activity is congested and very close to saturation, with narrow container yards; still, due to
a good railway connection with the dry port of S.S.Magra, it can handle a large number of
containers despite the narrow spaces. Livorno has limited space for expansion.
Spanish Mediterranean. The ports are disadvantaged by the rail gauge change at the
French border; this bottleneck in the rail network is addressed by TEN-T priority projects.
Barcelona’s road hinterland connection is congested in peak hours.
Adriatic ports. In Trieste, the connection of the port to the main rail line involves a long
and steep route. In Koper, the inland railway connection capacity is the single most im-
portant bottleneck leading to delays of trains; traffic congestion at the port gates leads to
reduced traffic flow of trucks.
East Mediterranean. The ports of Heraklion and Patras are located inside the urban
centre of the city, causing problems for increasing passenger and freight traffic. The port
of Piraeus is a heavily congested port, as it accommodates high volumes of domestic,
short sea and deep-sea traffic. Its congestion is related both to lack of terminal capacity
135
Final Report
and sea-entrance channel capacity. Also, there is no direct rail connection of the port
areas with the national rail network or direct access to a highway. Regarding regulatory
and institutional obstacles, there are several delays due to the administrative complexity
caused by overlapping customs responsibilities.
Atlantic Arc. The port of Vigo reports saturation through strongly raising container traffic.
Black Sea West. In Constanta the fast growth has lead to the container terminals having
reached their capacity limit; an increase in the container handling capacity (new piers) is
planned. In Bulgaria, there are technical bottlenecks in the rail hinterland links from the
ports of Varna and Bourgas (on the axes Varna – Ruse, Bourgas – Alexandroupolis,
partly one rail line). Improvement works are planned for the Ruse-Varna rail section.
Current social bottlenecks
Pressures on the use of land in many European ports have contributed to a general rise
in terminal productivity, together with ways to avoid land availability constraints and de-
velop capacity in different ways such as land reclamation from sea. Limited land availabil-
ity and constraints to port growth can be found in ports belonging to following port ranges:
UK South East, Portuguese, Atlantic Arc, Spanish Mediterranean, German Bight, Rhine
Scheldt Delta, East Mediterranean (Greece), Ligurian, North Adriatic (Venetia), Russian,
Norwegian and Gdansk Bay. Istanbul also faces some constraints.
Some of the ports have chosen to develop their areas by land reclamation, while others
plan to move the port further from the urban areas (Patras, Heraklion). Another option is
to build additional capacity / terminals in the neighboring areas (St. Petersburg, London
Gateway). The most severe problems are seen in Southampton, London, Piraeus and
Genova.
Future capacity bottlenecks (2020)
In 2020, moderate bottlenecks are expected at the ports in the Atlantic Arc, Western Bal-
tic States, Northern Adriatic port range, Finnish ports, Baltic States and Russian ports.
The Western Baltic and Northern Adriatic ports seem to be having problems in general
cargo handling capacities. Other ports such as those in the Baltic States, Russia and
Finland would have problems in the dry bulk handling, if no further capacity developments
are undertaken. The Russian ports would suffer from not enough liquid bulk handling
capacity by 2020; however pipelines, Black Sea ports or additional developed capacity
could be a solution. Other ports would have moderate capacity shortcomings in dry bulk,
but as this is not the dominant cargo group handled they are not highlighted as in the
“total volumes” with capacity problems e.g. UK South East, Portuguese range, Spanish
Mediterranean, Seine Scheldt, German Bight, Rhine Delta, East Mediterranean, Mediter-
ranean and Black Sea West ports. This indicates that the assumed capacity development
for these port ranges would not be sufficient. In liquid bulk handling, less development
plans are announced. The assumed capacity growth seems not enough, except for ports
in UK South East and other UK ports, Baltic States, Black Sea West, Norwegian and
Gdansk Bay ports. Most development plans announced for Russian Ports involve con-
tainer, Ro-Ro and dry bulk handling.
Future capacity bottlenecks (2030)
In 2030, the moderate problems remain for the ports already experiencing this in 2020.
The Rhine-Scheldt Delta ports are also facing a moderate total capacity problem in 2030.
136
Final Report
The Rhine Scheldt Delta is facing a severe bottleneck problem in dry bulk handling by
2020. Bottleneck severity inthe Baltic States and Russian ports accentuates; Baltic
States’ would face severe bottlenecks in dry and liquid bulk handling, while Russian ports
have severe problems in dry and liquid bulk handling and moderate problems in general
cargo handling. Except for Russian ports, only Northern Adriatic, Western Baltic and
Black Sea West ports would face capacity problems in general cargo, but at a moderate
intensity level. The liquid bulk handling picture remains as in 2020, with bottleneck inten-
sity worsened from moderate to severe only for Russian and Baltic ports.
Summary table for bottlenecks (2020 / 2030) by port range and cargo type
The following table summarizes the identified port bottlenecks by port range, time horizon
and main cargo type (general cargo as unitized cargo in Ro-Ro / Lo-Lo / other, dry bulk
and liquid bulk). The port social bottlenecks understood as obstacles to port development
due to urban / residential areas proximity and land availability are also mentioned.
Table 6.1: Port bottlenecks (capacity, social) by port range and main cargo type
2020/2030
Total Total General General Dry Dry Liquid Liquid
Port capacity bottle-
2020 2030 cargo cargo bulk bulk bulk bulk
necks
2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030
UK South East (Medway,
Southampton, Felixstowe,
London, London Gateway ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Bathside Bay, Harwich)
Other UK and Irish ports
(Dublin, Liverpool, Tees, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Forth, Grimsby)
Portuguese range (Lisboa,
Sines) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Atlantic Arc (Bilbao, Vigo,
Bordeaux) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Spanish Mediterranean
(Barcelona, Valencia, Mar- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
seille, Dunkerque)
Seine Estuary (Le Havre,
Rouen) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Western Baltic Ports
(Goteborg, Trelleborg, Malmo
/ Copenhagen, Rostock, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Lübeck / Travemunde)
German Bight (Wilhelm-
haven, Hamburg, Bremen / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Bremerhaven)
Rhine-Scheldt Delta
(Zeebruge, Antwerp, Amster- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
dam, Rotterdam)
Eastern Mediterranean
(Heraklion, Thessaloniki,
Piraeus, Patras, Valletta, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Limassol)
Ligurian range (La Spezia,
Livorno, Genova, Savona) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
North Adriatic range
(Trieste, Ravenna, Venice, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Koper)
Mediterranean Tran-
shipment ports (Taranto,
Gioia Tauro, Cagliari, Al-
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
geciras)
Black Sea West (Con-
stanta, Varna) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
137
Final Report
Total Total General General Dry Dry Liquid Liquid

Port capacity bottle-
2020 2030 cargo cargo bulk bulk bulk bulk
necks
2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030
South-Eastern Finnish
range (Helsinki / Vuosaari, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Hamina, Kotka)
South-Western Finnish
range (Turku, Pori, Rauma, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Naantali)
Baltic States ports range
(Tallinn, Riga, Ventspils, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Klaipeda)
Russian ports range (St.
Petersburg, Kaliningrad,
Primorsk, Ust-Luga, Mur- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
mansk)
Norwegian ports (Bergen,
Oslo, Narvik) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Gdansk Bay (Gdansk,
Gdynia) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Port social bottlenecks
▲ Southampton, London, Pireus, Genova

Medway, Lisboa, Sines, Bilbao, Barcelona, Wilhelmshaven, Hamburg, Bremer-
▲ haven, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Thessaloniki, La Spezia, Livorno,
Savona, Venice, Istanbul, St. Petersburg, Murmansk, Oslo, Gdynia
Source: BMT; Legend: Red = severe bottleneck, Yellow = moderate bottleneck,

Green = no bottleneck
6.5.4 Inland navigation bottlenecks
Rhine. The Rhine is due to its strategically favourable position between a major deep sea
port and the industrial areas of Europe the most used natural waterway of the world. The
Rhine does not pose bottlenecks through infrastructure constraints4.
Kiel Canal. The canal has a depth of 9.5 m. On a 15 km segment before Kiel the Canal
base is only 44 m wide instead of 90 m on the rest of the canal. At this point, two large
feeder ships cannot pass each other. The extension works needed to allow passage of
ships with up to 280 m length, 32.5 m width and 9.5 m draft are underway.
River Elbe. The further dredging of the river Elbe is underway to allow access for the
biggest container vessels with a draught of 14.50 m. The dredging goes along with a new
concept to avoid sedimentation of sand within the port area.
Mittellandkanal. The Mittellandkanal is with 325.7 km length the longest artificial water-
way in Germany. With its recent dimensions it cannot be considered a bottleneck.
Seine-Scheldt canal (TEN 30). The Seine-Scheldt will connect the ports in the Rhine-
Scheldt delta with the Parisian basin and the French Atlantic ports Rouen and Le Havre.
It also removes the bottleneck between Compiègne and the Dunkerque-Scheldt-Canal.
The Kortrijk – Menen segment is under construction. The removal of the bottleneck Pont
des Trous (Wallonia) and improvement in navigation will allow usage of 3,000 tons
barges.
4
Low waters at dry seasons4 (e.g. downstream from Duisburg (2.50 m) and from St. Goar to Mainz
- 1.90 m) are not taken into account in this judgement
138
Final Report
Danube (TEN 18). Significant Danube bottlenecks are reported for Straubing–Vilshofen5,
Wachau, Vienna downstream to border of Slovak Republic (construction begins 2008),
Gabcikovo-Budapest (shallow waters and unstable main flow of the river in Hungary),
mouth of River Main – Aschaffenburg (completed 2009).
6.5.5 Conclusion
The maps in Figure 6.19 and Figure 6.20 show the main European gateway ports and
other smaller ports covered (grouped in clusters) and the results for foreseen bottlenecks
by 2020 and 2030 in total volumes.
Figure 6.19: Maritime and inland navigation in selected ports (clusters) in 2020
5
70 km stretch impeding navigation through shallow waters; some planning to allow 2.5 m draft is
initiated
139
Final Report
Figure 6.20: Maritime and inland navigation in selected ports (clusters) in 2030
140
Final Report
Source: BMT
6.6 Air transport
There are two principal aspects to be considered concerning the bottleneck analysis in an
air transport system: the imbalance between demand and capacity can arise in the air
(airspace) and/or at airports.
6.6.1 Airspace bottlenecks

In purely spatial criteria, en-route airspace capacity can be defined as the maximum
number of aircraft through any given geometrical airspace for a given time period, based
upon the spatial constraints which govern the internationally specified separation be-
tween any two aircrafts given their performance characteristics. However, airspace ca-
141
Final Report
pacity in high traffic density areas, such as Europe, is not determined solely by spatial-
geometric constraints dependent on aircraft performance criteria. Rather, it is the control-
ler workload that is the key driver. The controller workload is not only impacted by the
amount of traffic they handle, but also by the complexity of traffic, the structure and ge-
ometry of the airspace they control, as well as by the interactions between the latter two.
The capacity of an Air Traffic Control (ATC) sector is defined as the maximum number
of aircraft which can enter the sector per hour over a period of time (3 hours), without caus-
ing excessive workload for the sector control team. Obviously, capacity thus defined is not
a fixed value, as it depends on traffic patterns, technical environment and individual con-
troller performance. To alleviate possible ambiguities, the declared sector capacity term
has been introduced, defined as the maximum sector entry rate (number of flights per
hour), assessed by the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP), and declared to the
EUROCONTROL/CFMU, so that the sector can be protected from overload.
The "Flow Do Nothing Assessment" study carried out by EUROCONTROL Experimental

Centre (EEC) in 2007 has presented the estimates, based on the fast-time simulation
performed, regarding the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC)-wide flight delays
in 2020, if no new operational concept is introduced, taking into account airport capacity
constraints as well. The simulated airports were those identified by the EUROCON-
TROL study "Challenges to Growth 2004", which in 2003 or 2002 had more than
20,000 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) movements and the main airports of those countries
which had no airports exceeding 20.000 movements. The results of the FDNA study show
that the delay is expected to be generated mainly at the airport level compared to en-
route contribution, indicating that airports seem to be the predominant constraining factor
in the European air transport system (under the study assumptions).
Although the sector and Area Control Centres (ACC) capacity projections up to 2020 exist
and were used in the FDNA study, they are classified as confidential and were thus not
available to the TEN CONNECT project team. Other than FDNA capacity projections,
there are no longer-than-five-years ACC capacity plans, to the best of the project team’s
knowledge. Consequently, it was not possible to conduct an independent airspace bottle-
neck analysis for 2020/2030.
6.6.2 Airport bottlenecks – definitions and methodology

The assessment of possible airport bottlenecks in this study was conducted based on
declared capacities of airports considered. Declared airport capacity is, by definition,
the number of aircraft movements per hour that an airport can accommodate at a reason-
able level of service (LOS), with delay typically being used as the principal indicator of
LOS. It should be noted that there is no commonly accepted definition of declared capac-
ity and no standard methodology for setting it. Despite the fact that different airports can
declare hourly capacity based on different "acceptable delay" levels, meaning that LOS
would not necessarily be uniform (identical) for airports with the same declared capacity
and the same demand/capacity ratio, opting for declared capacity nevertheless seems to
be the only option possible, having in mind the data availability issue and the findings of
the previous similar studies.
In principle, a bottleneck may arise at any of the subsystems of the airport system. Airport
capacity may, for instance, be determined by the capacity of terminal building, apron,
number of gates, parking positions, surface access system, environmental constraints
(e.g. noise level, level of nitrous-oxides emissions, night curfews), etc. However, it is the
capacity of the airfield and especially of runway systems that typically determine the ulti-
mate capacity of an airport.
142
Final Report
It is essential to realize that, from a long-term perspective, runway capacity is a probabil-

istic quantity, a random variable, which can take on different values at different times,
depending on the circumstances involved (e.g. aircraft mix, weather conditions, etc.).
Therefore, the numbers that are cited for the runway system capacity of an airport, typi-
cally refer to the “average number” of movements that can be performed per unit of time.
Airport facilities are typically designed to accommodate loads during a design peak hour
(DPH), also referred to as the typical peak hour, or sometimes simply as the design hour,
or the peak hour. Many alternative definitions of the DPH have been proposed and are
used in practice, each of them specifying a level of traffic that is exceeded during certain
number of hours, e.g. 20, 30, 40, or 176 in the target year.
Having a number of possible options concerning the DPH definition, we opted for the
Standard Busy Rate (SBR), i.e. for the design peak hour defined as the 30th highest hour
of traffic flow (in terms of number of aircraft operations – movements at the airport). This
level of hourly traffic is exceeded by only 29 hours of operation at higher flows throughout
the year (approximately one hour in two weeks on average). This measure (or a variation
of it) was typically a design standard used in the UK and elsewhere in Europe (e.g. Ger-
many), most notably by the British Airports Authority.
Cross-analysis of forecast unconstrained airport demand and airport capacity figures

provided an indication on which of the airports analysed might be the likely bottlenecks in
2020. DPH traffic was deduced from the average daily traffic figures, and compared to the
declared hourly capacity of the airport. Where forecast DPH traffic volume exceeds de-
clared hourly capacity, an airport bottleneck might be expected to arise in the target year.
Due to the fact that the TRANS-TOOLS model forecasts exclusively "intra-European"
passenger demand, a very specific situation arose in the airport bottleneck analysis proc-
ess. Namely, since total (i.e. both intra-European and "overseas") airport traffic is of inter-
est when one is to assess which of the European airports are likely to become bottle-
necks in 2020/2030, the project team had no other sensible choice but to combine (add
together) the TRANS-TOOLS "intra-European" forecast of air passengers per airport with
the EUROCONTROL/STATFOR forecast (2006-2025)6 of "overseas" aircraft traffic (i.e.
measured in flights per airport).
As detailed in chapter 4.4, there are two scenarios detailed in the study, namely the
"Baseline" scenario, and a "Sustainable Economic Development" scenario. On the other
hand, there are four scenarios in the EUROCONTROL/STATFOR long-term forecast
(denoted as "A", "B", "C" and "D"). STATFOR scenarios are used to "capture the likely
range of growth of flight movements". They are designed to "describe four qualitatively
different futures of air transport industry". Two of them are considered "mid-growth" sce-
narios ("B" and "C"), having different economic circumstances. A "high-growth" scenario
("A") assumes strong economic growth in an increasingly globalised world, whereas the
"low-growth" scenario ("D") explores a "less stable World". [6]
One of the first challenges was to match the principally "unmatchable" scenarios from the
two sources, so that "intra-European" and "overseas" demand forecasts are added to-
gether in a coherent way. Unsurprisingly, since one of the forecasts concerns all transport
modes, and the other one relates exclusively to air transport, the scenario descriptions
are qualitatively rather disparate. However, some common "features" have been identified
across the scenarios, and STATFOR scenarios "B" ("Business as usual") and "D" ("Re-
gionalisation") were chosen.
6
The EUROCONTROL/STATFOR Long-Term Forecast 2006-2025 is also denoted in the remain-
der of the text as LTF06. The new EUROCONTROL/STATFOR long-term forecast is scheduled to
be released in Autumn 2008.
143
Final Report
EUROCONTROL/STATFOR Scenario B is based upon assumptions of moderate eco-

nomic growth and little change from the status quo, i.e. trends are assumed to continue
as currently observed (i.e. as of 2006, when the LTF06 was developed).
EUROCONTROL/STATFOR Scenario D assumes a World with increasing tensions be-

tween regions, with knock-on effects on weaker economies, reduced trade and less long-
haul travel. In terms of LTF06 outputs, Scenario B yields higher growth (more flights) as
compared to Scenario D in the target year (2025). [6]
One of the most important aspects of the STATFOR forecast concerns the changes in
average "aircraft size" (i.e. average number of seats per aircraft) over the forecasting
horizon. This is particularly important in the context of the TENconnect study, due to the
fact that airport passenger demand (TRANS-TOOLS model output) needs to be con-
verted into the corresponding aircraft traffic (number of flights), so that demand-to-
capacity analysis can be performed, i.e. potential bottlenecks identified. This conversion
was done using the average number of passengers per flight for each of the airports con-
sidered. Clearly, different assumptions regarding the passengers-per-flight ratio reflect
directly on the airport aircraft throughput, given the airport passenger throughput.
The STATFOR LTF06 assumes shifts in aircraft size by 2025, predicting more small jets
and more large ones. On average, aircrafts are assumed to continue the long-term trend
to have more seats (historically at the rate of approximately 1% per year), with the aver-
age number of seats per aircraft forecasted to increase at between 0.6% and 1.3% per
year. This means that number of flights is forecasted to grow slower than the number of
passengers (assuming unchanged average load factor).
The two selected STATFOR scenarios originally assume the slower rate of change in
average aircraft size, i.e. 0.9% annual growth in Scenario B, and 0.6% annual growth in
Scenario D (as compared to the highest one - 1.3% average annual growth in Scenario
A). However, it was adopted, in the procedure of converting passenger demand into air-
craft throughput, that certain modifications of the STATFOR original assumptions being
applied.
The Scenario D average aircraft size growth rate was reduced to zero in our analysis, i.e.
average aircraft size (and thus average number of passengers per flight, since the load
factor is assumed to remain constant) is unchanged compared to the base year (2005).
The original STATFOR Scenario B aircraft size growth rate remained unchanged, i.e. at
0.9% per year on average. The rationale behind this modification is that the two original
growth rates were rather similar (0.6% vs. 0.9% per year), and it was considered more
realistic (more likely to capture the range of possible "intra-European" fleet developments
by 2020/2030) to have greater difference among them, having in mind the importance of
the average number of passengers per flight for the final estimate of airport aircraft
throughput in the target years. It should also be stressed that the STATFOR assumptions
regarding the changes in average aircraft size relate to the total traffic (i.e. both intra-
European and intercontinental). On the other hand, the methodological approach we
used required as an input the forecast of average "aircraft size" per airport solely for the
"intra-European" portion of traffic. Clearly, as larger aircraft typically fly longer-haul flights
(many of which fall under the "overseas" category), it seemed plausible to presume that,
in "intra-European" traffic, average number of passengers per flight may remain un-
changed between 2005 and 2020/2030, due to the forecasted growing proportion of busi-
ness jets and regional aircrafts (with relatively smaller number of seats per aircraft).
The capacity projections for the airports considered were obtained from the “Airport Do
Nothing Assessment” (ADNA07) study, undertaken by Aena in 2007. Those capacity
forecasts originate however from the EUROCONTROL study “Challenges to Growth”
144
Final Report
(CTG04), undertaken in 2004. The capacity projections up to 2025 in the CTG04 study
are based on the replies to a EUROCONTROL-ACI (Airport Council International) ques-
tionnaire which was sent to the 133 largest European airports, complemented by data
obtained from non-responding airports on earlier occasions. In the light of such a meth-
odological approach and timing of obtaining capacity projections, it might be that those
future capacity estimates are in some cases on the conservative side (i.e. predicting
lower future capacity than achievable). Namely, some technological improvements that
could be brought about by SESAR and other ongoing and future development pro-
grammes, might result in e.g. reduced separations or improvements of existing opera-
tional procedures, which would consequently lead to higher capacity even for unchanged
runway layouts (i.e. without infrastructure investments).
Having compared the airports covered by the TRANS-TOOLS forecast and those ana-
lysed in CTG04 study (i.e. airports for which the capacity projections for 2020 were avail-
able), 126 airports remained for the bottleneck analysis to be conducted. Out of original
131 airports from the CTG04 study, five were not included in the TRANS-TOOLS model
(Bergamo, Liege, Mahon/Menorca, Irakleion and Paris Le Bourget) and as such were left
out of the bottleneck analysis.
6.6.3 Results
As already mentioned in the section 6.6.1, due to unavailable data on ATC sector capaci-
ties, no independent analysis of airspace bottlenecks as such has been performed. Con-
sequently, the results presented in this section relate to airport bottlenecks exclusively.
The two scenarios: “Baseline” (“BASE”) and “Sustainable Economic Development”

(“SUST”) on aggregate yield quite similar results, concerning the total number of com-
mercial flights in 2020. The growths of the total number of commercial flights between
2005 and 2020 amount to 51.1% in BASE and 48.8% in the SUST scenario. Those
growths correspond to average annual growth rates of 2.79% in the BASE and 2.69% in
the SUST scenario.
“Baseline” Scenario 2020
Based on the bottleneck assessment methodology applied, 17 airports appear where the
estimated design peak hour traffic in 2020 is forecasted to exceed the declared hourly
capacity, Table 6.2. The most severe expected bottleneck in 2020 is Istanbul/Ataturk
airport, where design peak hour traffic exceeds the declared capacity 2.6 times, and 59
movements in the DPH could not be accommodated, if everything happens as fore-
casted.
Istanbul airport is followed by Faro airport, where even higher DPH traffic than shown in
Table 6.2 can be expected, due to the high traffic seasonality this airport is experiencing.
Concerning the other “hedgehog” airports (airports exhibiting strong seasonality of traffic),
considerable congestion may be expected, first of all during summer months, at Antalya
(100% capacity utilisation in the DPH even before accounting for the seasonality factor),
Malta (95.6%), Palma de Mallorca (88.7%), Rhodos/Diagoras (87.8%) as well as Ibiza
(83.2%).
Sofia, Porto and Bilbao appeared among the potential bottlenecks due to very limited
declared capacity (only 16-20 movements per hour).
Bucharest/Otopeni traffic, on the other hand, is forecasted to increase nearly fivefold be-
tween 2005 and 2020, which is mainly why this airport appears among the likely bottle-
145
Final Report
necks. However, the Bucharest airport case should be taken with caution. Namely, if the
traffic volume is to increase as rapidly as forecast, i.e. at an average rate of 11% per year
over 15 years, then it is fairly likely that the average number of passengers per movement
will increase considerably as well, rather than remaining unchanged, which is the general
assumption in the BASE scenario. The increase in average number of passengers per
movement would alleviate the strong growth in passenger demand, i.e. the corresponding
growth in aircraft throughput would be lower. So, if one assumes that average number of
passengers per movement at this airport is to increase by, say 40% between 2005 and
2020, i.e. from 33.3 to 46.6 passengers per movement on intra-European flights, the total
number of commercial flight at this airport would be approx. 320,000, and the design peak
hour traffic consequently down to 68 movements per hour, which is below its forecast
declared capacity in 2020 (70 movements per hour).
As regards the airports with substantial volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020, except for
Istanbul, there are also Lyon, Munich, London/Heathrow, Geneva, Paris CDG, Paris/Orly,
Frankfurt, and London/Gatwick among the airports with forecasted DPH traffic greater
than declared capacity in 2020.
Airports with forecasted capacity utilisation greater than 90% in the DPH should also be
given consideration. Among those are Prague, Athens, Madrid, Düsseldorf and Amster-
dam, each of them with relatively high volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020.
In summary, five out of the ten busiest European airports in 2005 (Paris CDG, Frankfurt,
London/Heathrow, Munich and London/Gatwick) appear among likely bottlenecks in 2020
(having DPH traffic greater than capacity, i.e. being unable to accommodate the demand
in more than 30 hours per year), with two more out of the top 10 (Amsterdam and Madrid)
having greater than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak hour in 2020.
As regards the airports with the greatest volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020, six out of
top 10 airports have DPH traffic greater than capacity, with two more having capacity
utilisation greater than 90%.
146
Final Report
Table 6.2. Airports with more than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak hour in 2020, BASE Scenario
Traffic
Growth
"Intra- Total RANK (flights)
European" "Overseas" commercial (commercial 2020 v. DPH_Traffic Capacity DPH_Traffic/CAPACITY
Airport Flights Flights flights flights 2020) ‘05 (%) (mov/h) (mov/h) (%)
ISTANBUL-ATATURK 420,829 73,724 494,553 7 142 95 36 263
FARO 170,592 460 171,052 39 375 42 25 169
SOFIA 103,201 2,657 105,858 52 280 30 20 152
PORTO 64,863 1,291 66,154 74 44 22 16 134
LYON 166,215 18,122 184,337 37 49 44 33 134
BUCHAREST-OTOPENI 433,227 8,679 441,906 8 390 87 70 125
BILBAO 77,703 666 78,369 63 43 24 20 119
MUNICH 530,859 36,866 567,725 6 47 106 90 118
LONDON-HEATHROW 430,197 246,236 676,433 3 43 122 110 111
GENEVA 171,273 13,343 184,616 36 58 44 40 110
PARIS-DE_GAULLE 577,544 209,246 786,790 1 53 136 125 109
STUTTGART 191,786 5,506 197,292 32 41 48 45 106
PARIS-ORLY 313,846 63,704 377,550 14 69 78 75 104
FRANKFURT 520,520 181,076 701,596 2 47 124 120 104
ZAGREB 83,445 917 84,362 58 169 24 23 104
LONDON-GATWICK 272,096 68,362 340,458 17 35 72 70 102
ANTALYA 96,650 9,580 106,230 51 6 30 30 101
PRAGUE 335,784 20,732 356,516 16 137 75 75 100
ATHENS 242,658 18,241 260,899 24 53 58 60 97
GUERNSEY/CHANNEL_IS 62,241 163 62,404 80 81 19 20 96
MALTA 52,391 5,991 58,382 87 96 19 20 96
MADRID 542,663 78,345 621,008 5 51 113 120 94
DUESSELDORF 254,207 13,777 267,984 23 42 60 64 94
AMSTERDAM 495,103 134,952 630,055 4 52 115 125 92
HAMBURG 234,380 2,861 237,241 26 76 55 60 92
147
Final Report
“Sustainable Economic Development” Scenario 2020
No major changes have been observed in the SUST scenario, when contrasted against
the BASE scenario. There are 18 airports where demand is assessed to be exceeding
declared capacity in the design peak hour (compared to 17 airports in the BASE sce-
nario), Table 6.3. Apart from 17 congested airports from the BASE scenario, there is also
Guernsey airport which joined this group.
The extent of congestion (i.e. non-accommodated flight demand) is broadly similar to that
from the BASE scenario. It can be noticed, however, that the very largest airports are
more congested in the SUST scenario (Paris CDG, Frankfurt, London/Heathrow, Istanbul,
Paris/Orly, Madrid – these six airports have in aggregate 22 movements more in the DPH
than in the DPH in the BASE scenario). At the same time, the situation is quite opposite
when “smaller” airports from the same group are considered: Faro, Sofia, Porto, and Bu-
charest together have 13 movements less in the DPH in the SUST than in the BASE sce-
nario. This is mainly due to the fact that the “overseas” traffic is considerably higher in the
SUST scenario than in the BASE scenario. As a result, the airports with the highest vol-
umes of intercontinental traffic have higher total traffic figures in this scenario, whereas
those with relatively lower volumes of intercontinental traffic end up with overall lower
total traffic than in the BASE scenario (the consequence of different passengers-per-flight
ratios assumed in the intra-European traffic).
Other than the above general remarks, most of the comments regarding likely airport
bottlenecks in the BASE scenario hold for the SUST scenario too. Istanbul airport is again
forecasted to be the most heavily congested in 2020, this time with even higher volume of
non-accommodated demand (62 movements in the DPH).
Regarding the “hedgehog” airports, Faro airport again tops the list of most congested
ones (with demand about 60% greater than capacity in the DPH). Considerable levels of
congestion may be expected, first of all during summer months, at Antalya (approx. 100%
capacity utilisation in the DPH even before accounting for the seasonality factor), Malta
(95.6%), Rhodos/Diagoras (87.8%), Ibiza (83.2%), as well as Palma de Mallorca (82.8%).
Concerning the airports with substantial volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020, except for
Istanbul, there are also Lyon, Munich, London/Heathrow, Geneva, Paris CDG, Paris/Orly,
Frankfurt, and London/Gatwick among the airports with forecasted DPH traffic greater
than declared capacity in 2020.
Among the airports with forecasted capacity utilisation greater than 90% in the DPH,
there are some with relatively high volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020: Antalya, Prague,
Athens, Madrid, Düsseldorf and Amsterdam. It should be noted, though, that, in this sce-
nario, Madrid got quite close to its declared hourly capacity (120 movements per hour),
with 119 movements in the DPH.
As in the BASE scenario, five out of the ten busiest European airports in 2005 (Paris
CDG, Frankfurt, London/Heathrow, Munich and London/Gatwick) appear among likely
bottlenecks in 2020 (having DPH traffic greater than capacity, i.e. being unable to ac-
commodate the demand for more than 30 hours per year), with two more of the top 10
(Amsterdam and Madrid) having greater than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak
hour in 2020.
Concerning the airports with the greatest volumes of “overseas” traffic in 2020, six out of
the top 10 airports have DPH traffic greater than capacity, with two more having capacity
utilisation greater than 90%, the identical situation as in the BASE scenario. This is illus-
trated in Figure 6.21.
149
Final Report
Table 6.3. Airports with more than 90% capacity utilisation in the design peak hour in 2020, SUST scenario
Total
Traffic
Growth
"Intra- Total RANK (flights)
European" "Overseas" commercial (commercial 2020 v. DPH Traffic Capacity DPH_Traffic/CAPACITY
Airport Flights Flights flights flights 2020) ‘05 (%) (movements/h) (mov/h) (%)
ISTANBUL-ATATURK 399,111 108,891 508,002 7 149 98 36 271
FARO 164,454 533 164,987 39 358 40 25 162
SOFIA 96,603 3,234 99,837 53 259 28 20 141
LYON 163,016 21,356 184,372 36 49 44 33 134
PORTO 62,391 1,533 63,924 76 40 19 16 120
BILBAO 80,582 775 81,357 59 49 24 20 119
MUNICH 520,282 45,314 565,596 6 47 106 90 118
BUCHAREST-OTOPENI 389,668 10,662 400,330 9 344 81 70 116
LONDON-HEATHROW 410,627 306,251 716,878 2 52 127 110 116
GENEVA 172,721 15,683 188,404 35 62 46 40 115
PARIS-DE_GAULLE 552,717 259,609 812,326 1 58 139 125 111
PARIS-ORLY 321,027 74,598 395,625 10 78 81 75 108
GUERNSEY/CHANNEL_IS 64,895 180 65,075 72 88 22 20 108
STUTTGART 193,951 6,523 200,474 31 43 48 45 106
FRANKFURT 488,929 222,696 711,625 3 49 126 120 105
ZAGREB 76,570 1,041 77,611 61 147 24 23 104
LONDON-GATWICK 259,754 83,447 343,201 17 36 72 70 102
ANTALYA 99,073 13,755 112,828 49 12 30 30 101
MADRID 567,588 96,169 663,757 4 61 119 120 99
PRAGUE 320,751 25,657 346,408 16 131 73 75 98
MALTA 48,178 7,043 55,221 87 85 19 20 96
DUESSELDORF 249,864 16,454 266,318 22 41 60 64 94
AMSTERDAM 484,507 166,665 651,172 5 58 118 125 94
ATHENS 222,395 22,119 244,514 25 44 55 60 92
151
Final Report
Figure 6.21. European airports: demand vs. capacity situation in the Design Peak
Hour, 2020, Baseline Scenario
6.7 Social Bottlenecks
A ‘bottleneck’ in the transport system is an effective constraint on its performance, which

can be internal or external.
We define social bottlenecks as phenomena belonging to one of the following two

classes:
1) Cases where the development in the transport sector contradicts social (political)
goals and is thus viewed as undesirable.
2) Cases where (currently or potentially) inefficient social institutions impede the devel-
opment of transport sector.
153
Final Report
As suggested by practice, the most important examples of the first class of constraints
are related to regional welfare and income. Important concerns here are whether the
given policy measure is in line with the key EU objectives like cohesion and higher em-
ployment.
The phenomena belonging to the second class are usually legal, organizational or behav-
ioural.
6.7.1 Political objectives
Cohesion objective
A policy is normally classified as pro-cohesive if it helps economically lagging regions
grow faster than economically more advanced regions. The implications of European
transport policy for the regional cohesion were analysed in a series of research projects
funded by the EC, for example, ESPON 2.1.17, IASON8, and ASSESS9. The general ap-
proach in these studies was that for each scenario of interest several indicators charac-
terizing cohesion were computed: coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, mean and cor-
relation indicators for absolute and relative effects. The overall message of the analysis
performed with the help of the CGEurope model in these studies was that the infrastruc-
ture scenarios (e.g. TEN and TINA programme) seemed to be neutral or slightly pro-
cohesive, while social marginal cost pricing (SMCP) scenarios had an anti-cohesive effect
unless a balancing revenue redistribution scheme were applied.
An important lesson to be learned from those exercises is that the choice of cohesion
indicator is critical in assessing the socio-economic impacts of transport policies and that
classifications relying on only one indicator should be avoided. The cited tendencies were
inferred from the direction of change of the majority of cohesion indicators. The analysis
also showed that the spatial level, at which cohesion is measured, matters. It is therefore
of great importance to clearly state which type of cohesion indicator at which spatial level
is used.
Employment objective
It is a well-known fact that inside the expanding European Union some people live in ar-
eas of high unemployment, while others are surrounded by little joblessness. One of the
biggest political concerns about complex effects generated by implementing certain
measures in transport is whether these measures can improve welfare and stimulate
employment. In fact, as unemployment rates vary strongly across regions in Europe, the
regional (un)employment impacts can be considerable and in some cases undesirable.
During the GRACE10 project the CGEurope model was extended to allow regional labour
market responding to transport policy measures. The scenarios on SMCP for road trans-
port were then tested among other indicators also according to their impact on regional
unemployment. The finding of the analysis was that the effects on regional unemploy-
ment are moderate and in most cases do not exceed 0.2 percentage points of benchmark
unemployment rate, despite the fact that the pricing scenarios seemed to bring negative
7
"ESPON 2.1.1" - Territorial Impacts of EU Transport and TEN Policies
8
"IASON" - Integrated Appraisal of Spatial Economic and Network Effects of Transport Investments
and Policies
9
"ASSESS" - Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the
midterm implementation of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010
10
"GRACE" - Generalisation of Research on Accounts and Cost Estimation
154
Final Report
welfare effects for the majority of regions. An important issue was again the redistribution
scheme for the revenue collected from road pricing and its potential use to finance infra-
structure projects in the losing regions.
The conclusion for this part is that the cohesion and employment objectives are not the
most important bottlenecks for the transport sector. At least, the effects on regional cohe-
sion and employment are quite moderate for wide-scale policy measures. However, it is
important to keep these objectives in mind during the impact assessment in order to en-
sure compliance.
6.7.2 Social institutions
The second class of the hampering factors includes the types of phenomena that are in
the focus of several exercises on bottlenecks identification launched in the last years by
the EC11 in the areas of short sea shipping and freight logistics. We have reviewed the
available information and summarize below the points relevant for our discussion of so-
cial bottlenecks.
Border barriers
Compliance with Customs requirements (dealing with tax, duty, fraud, trafficking), port
health requirements (preventing disease and pests from being introduced into Europe in
freight and even in the packing material and pallets), anti-terrorist security requirements,
statistical reporting, safety requirements, access charging requirements: all these and
more, in some way impose restrictions that reduce the efficiency of transport and optimal
logistics and supply chain solutions.
As already indicated borders divide countries, and in many cases infrastructure is also of
different quality on the two sides of a border. This is particularly true for the outer borders
of EU. The change in infrastructure including the interoperability issue is discussed for the
different modes of transport.
Borders however, do also pose problems in terms of regulations, and this aspect has a
profound effect on the time it takes to pass different borders. Within EU passage of bor-
ders is facilitated by common rules and regulations, but moving outside the Union there
are a number of regulations which needs to be fulfilled, e.g. Visa, travel documents, etc.
Also for the freight transport more regulations apply, even in the case of transit (TIR). The
TRANS-TOOLS model is not able to handle border crossing difficulties apart from apply-
ing a dummy variable indicating whether it is a difficult border to cross or not. Therefore it
is not possible to apply average waiting times for road and rail freight which varies con-
siderable, depending on the border station.
Non-homogeneous legislation across EU member states
Despite common EU regulations, local customs officers still quite often have their own
procedures and/or own individual interpretation of EU legislation. To solve this problem a
better communication throughout the customs services is needed, as well as a stricter
imposition of EU regulations.
11
see e.g. communications DGTREN/G/FK D(2006) 227499 and
DGTREN/G/FK/IK/OBM/cvs/bottl/relaunch D(2005) 107824
155
Final Report
It is also often the case that long-distance transport operators encounter linguistic difficul-
ties with administrative documents inside the EU. In case of ports, often the use of na-
tional language for pilotage is imposed. A possible solution would be to require use of
English as official language for all administrative documents and pilotage.
Costs of changing practice and behaviour
Changing practices and behaviour is not necessarily an easy task. Moving from a tradi-
tional 9am to 5pm work culture in ports to a 24/7 one in order to utilise off-peak (less con-
gested) periods, for example, could present the shipper and the transport service provid-
ers with a number of difficulties:
- implementation of new shift patterns

- new contractual terms and conditions, higher wages for working at anti-social hours,
- increased levels of absenteeism among employees,
- operating restrictions due to local night-time curfews on transport and business activ-
ity,
- increased costs to introduce and implement noise abatement schemes.
Additionally, extra pressure would be placed on the supporting services to operate the
same hours; such services might include customs, for example, ensuring freight can be
cleared and move out of the port and not be delayed waiting for customs officers to re-
sume their work in normal office hours.
Lack of awareness
Some companies may not have senior management that are familiar with the logistics
and supply chain management and, therefore, never challenge or change existing prac-
tice.
Outsourcing transport and logistics, and supply chain management may have removed
the knowledge, experience and skills from the management within some companies,
thereby removing an ability to constructively work with service providers in a meaningful
way to seek new solutions, better practices and optimise operations across the supply
chain.
Without doubt, the phenomena listed above decrease the efficiency of the transport sys-
tem and in many cases lead to congestion and higher costs for operators and, in the end,
for the buyers of the transported goods. The problem with the assessment of the second
type of the phenomena is that apart from border barriers, they are very hard to quantify.
Thus, we will not be able to treat these bottlenecks in our analysis of transport scenarios.
6.8 Border issues
6.8.1 Bottlenecks at borders – Road transport

The trade with CIS countries, and especially Russia, has shown steep growth rates the
last few years. EU27 import from Russia grew about 100% 2003-2007. EU27 import from
all CIS member states increased by more than 110%, and the EU27 export to CIS mem-
ber states increased by almost 140%.
Professional truck drivers play an indispensable role in the development of foreign trade
in the globalising world. There are however many obstacles at the different borders, that
156
Final Report
lead to difficulties in the road transport services especially with the rapidly increasing
trade with CIS and beyond. The national road transport associations, grouped together in
the International Road Union (IRU), are working on bilateral agreements to facilitate and
hopefully eliminate these obstacles in the future. According to IRU the waiting time at
borders is depending on the trends of general economic development of the regions and
the related trade growth and thus the resulting development of road transports – the de-
mand side. On the other side stands the progress achieved to improve border crossing
throughput capacity in both procedures and infrastructure – the supply side.
The main issues leading to waiting times at the borders between EU and Eastern Europe
are:
 Visa issues (restricted and limited validity, lengthy procedures, heavy documen-
tary requirements).
 Documentation and Customs procedures (TIR – Transports Internationaux
Routiers – is said to be the best multilateral facilitation instrument for international
road transport and trade and it includes Secure vehicles, International Chain of
Guarantee, TIR Carnet, Mutual Recognition of Customs Controls, Controlled Ac-
cess, SafeTIR)
 Safety and Security (The World Customs Organisation (WCO) has worked out
model guidelines for increasing security in the supply chain and IRU took part in
working out the guidelines. Thereafter IRU has reviewed the guidelines and cus-
tomised them to reflect the specificities of the road transport sector. IRU member
associations have also adopted a general Road Transport Security including rec-
ommendations for the different parties).
 Congestion (The large trade has led to rapidly increasing number of trucks and
despite bilateral agreements the borders cannot handle the large numbers as
smoothly as wished for).
IRU Border Waiting Times Observatory - BWTO

The IRU has monitored the waiting times at borders for many years and the present sys-
tem is an updated version, available on the IRU website basically with daily input. Data is
said to be compiled every day from Monday to Friday, from information mainly supplied
by IRU national associations. The quality and reliability of the system is very much de-
pending on the input and should data not be submitted on a daily basis, this affects the
statistics, without actually being seen. Therefore the available waiting time statistics
should be looked at with certain care. IRU believes that the statistics reflect major long-
term trends with an acceptable level of consistency.
In an internal report of the IRU made in 2006, which was made available to the project,
the major annual average waiting time in minutes in both traffic directions at selected
border stations between two countries in the period 1998-2005 was measured. Minimum,
maximum and average values complete the picture. The figures are based on the situa-
tion before the last enlargement of the EU and it is obvious that the new member states
are those very active in the road transports crossing EU external borders.
Actual border waiting times for a period November – December 2008

In a non-scientific check of the BWTO for the period 28 November and until 8 December,
a number of borders were checked at 15:30 each weekday. The result of the check was
that there are a number of cases where no data was available for the specific border at
the specific time. If this is due to overall lack of data at the particular border or for the
specific period is not clear. It is also significant that some borders, for example Narva-
Ivangorod between Estonia and Russia show large differences in the waiting times as
much as up to 54 hours were registered during the period.
157
Final Report
Facilitation of trade and road transport through efficient border crossing operations is an
area where it is vital for business and governments to work together in effective public-
private partnership to reduce barriers to economic and social development. Time is Mo-
ney!
6.8.2 Bottlenecks at border – Rail transport

Rail freight transports have historically had a very large share of the freight transports in
the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries and accounts for over 90%
of the transport market in Russia. The Trans-Siberian railway corridor has seen a revival
during recent years and Trans-Container has reported the total traffic for January – Sep-
tember 2008 to almost 1 million TEU, up 20% compared to the same period of 2007, and
the international traffic accounted for half the volume, up 27%.
Russia has several agreements with the EU regarding transports between mainland Rus-
sia and the exclave Kaliningrad to ensure the rail “pipeline” between the 2 Russian parts.
The exclave is promoted as gateway to Russia and it is expected that Kaliningrad Oblast
will play an increasingly important role as the entry to Russia in the future.
The main continental European border for rail freight transport between Russia and be-
yond is at Malaszewicze in Poland connecting to Brest in Belarus on the main railway line
between Berlin and Moscow. For Central Europe the main rail border-crossing with East-
ern Europe is via Hungary and Ukraine at Zahony/Chop or via the Slovak Republic and
Ukraine at Cierna nad Tisou/Chop, both being borders from normal gauge to wide gauge.
The main bottlenecks at EU-borders with Eastern countries, for traffic with CIS member
states and beyond:
 Gauge difference and therefore re-loading at EU-borders either of containers or

conventional cargo from wagon to wagon except between the Baltic Countries on
the EU side and Belarus and Russia on the other side.
 Availability of suitable wagons on each side and positioning of wagons (Upgraded
rolling stock and different wagon types should be available at the correct mo-
ment, railway-owned or private wagons have different cost characteristics).
 Correct documentation and consignment notes (CIM/SMGS consignment notes,
different rules and different languages and codes all have to be fully correct).
 Customs issues and controls, for example phyto-sanitary control of pallets.
 Empty positioning of containers (main flow Asia-Europe westbound – “only” emp-
ties return).
 Operational constrains (Different train lengths on either side of the borders, al-
ways full trains – or mixed with other cargo on Eastern side).
 Monitoring and IT systems (Inter-action between IT systems of the different ac-
tors).
6.9 Environmental bottlenecks
6.9.1 Introduction
The environmental bottlenecks relate to the conflict between infrastructure and environ-
ment. These can be seen in different perspectives.
158
Final Report
Important environmental bottlenecks can be identified in areas where the threshold val-
ues for different social or environmental disturbances are exceeded. Such disturbances
could be accidents, emissions, noise or impact on nature.
In order to establish therefore the environmental bottlenecks, it is necessary to know if

there are limiting factors related to the environmental impact from traffic. Limiting factors
or regulations related to environment are either related to impact on vulnerable nature, or
to impact on human beings.
Regulations are widely applied and it is also part of the EU policy to regulate potential
conflicts between infrastructure and its users on one side and the environment on the
other side. This is partly done through the internalisation of external costs, but this wider
approach to taking into consideration environment and social conditions for human be-
ings cannot be identified as a bottleneck. In some places charging is applied in order to
establish a sustainable balance between transport and environmental impact.
The most widely applied regulation is speed restrictions. Speed limits in the road sector
are imposed in order to reduce accidents, in order to reduce emissions and in order to
reduce noise. Speed limits are generally applicable in most European countries, with
relatively lower speeds in urban areas than outside urban areas.
In many residential areas accessibility for heavy vehicles is limited. The reason is partly
road maintenance, but also the need for reduction of noise and accidents. And in some of
the European countries freight transport by road is restricted in weekends and at other
times of the year.
It is evident that areas and regions exposed to heavy traffic is also exposed to the impact
of the traffic, and this impact may supersede applicable limits for noise and emissions.
The latter is one of the reasons that idling for more than one minute is prohibited in many
urban areas in some European countries.
Environmental problems are not related only to road traffic, but because road traffic con-
stitute such a large part of the total traffic picture, many environmental problems can be
attributed to road traffic. Rail, however, is causing noise problems, and in countries where
traction is still carried out with diesel the emissions from locomotives are considerable.
The noise problems are dealt with sometimes by lowering the speed, but usually the
noise related to marshalling cannot be reduced. Therefore, there is a considerable need
for planning concerning the location of rail terminals including intermodal terminals, in
order to avoid the conflicts between residential areas and transport infrastructure.
Also for air transport there are obvious noise problems around airports, particularly the
airports serving many travellers. Also airports need to be located close to the major cen-
tres but sufficiently far away not to inflict noise on the residential areas. But it is also obvi-
ous from experience that airports serve as attraction centres, and therefore only strong
enforcement of planning regulations may defer people from developing the areas close to
the airports for business and residential purposes.
Air transport is also providing a rather high emission per person km performed. The tech-
nological development is however aimed at reducing the fuel consumption for airplanes,
and in that way reducing the emissions.
Although there are no or only a few infrastructure bottlenecks for maritime transport there
are more environmental bottlenecks. The marine environment is vulnerable, and in many
places there are bird sanctuaries. Emissions, fast boats causing waves, illegal disposal of
waste, spills and accidents are all reasons for environmental damage. In rivers and ca-
nals the speed is limited because of erosion.
159
Final Report
In TENconnect three types of analyses has been performed:
 An analysis of the effect of capacity bottlenecks on emissions and lost hours

 Analysis of areas where EU limits on air pollution and noise are violated
 An analysis of the conflict between NATURA2000 sites and infrastructure develop-
ment
6.9.2 The effect of congestion

Based on the TRANS-TOOLS model it is possible to identify the locations where conges-
tion occurs in the morning peak hours. It is also possible to extract results as to how
many vkm are being performed in the congested hours, and thus it is possible using con-
temporary research results from e.g. TREMOVE to obtain an expression for the total
emission being performed at the congested locations during the morning peak hour.
The congested locations are depicted in Figure 6.22. The resulting air pollution is indi-
cated in Table 6.4. A number of assumptions have been made mainly related to the tech-
nological standard of the vehicles and type of fuel.
Figure 6.22. The European road network and congested links in the morning
peak hours 7 – 9, baseline 2030
160
Final Report
Table 6.4. Environmental impacts: PM and NOx emissions by transport mode

and area (tonne of emissions) for congested links in the peak hours 7-9 - refer-
ence year 2030
PM (total tonnes) NOx (total tonnes)
transport type transport type
Area passenger Freight passenger freight
Non-urban 13.2 5.7 153.9 246.3
Sub-urban 2.8 0.1 33.0 6.9
Total 16.0 5.8 186.9 253.2
Also the effect on green house gases from the congested links is assessed, and the re-
sult is shown in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5 Environmental impacts: CO2 emitted by transport mode (tonne) for
congested links in the peak hours 7-9 – reference year 2030
CO2 emissions
transport mode (tonne)
Passenger 166,931
Freight 58,423
Total 225,354
The impact of congestion on the hours spent in queues can be assessed by comparing
the time necessary under free flow conditions and the time actually spent going over the
congested links. The evaluation is presented in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6. Social impacts: time delay by area type and zone (hours) for con-
gested links in the peak hours 7-9 – reference year 2030
m hours by Road type
Zone Suburban Non-urban Total
EU15+NO+CH 2.7 10.8 13.5
Other 0.2 1.9 2.2
Total 3.0 12.7 15.7
81% of the total delays are concentrated on non urban links.
A similar assessment has been made for rail transport. Congested links are established
per day and therefore the number of hours delayed refer to the delay assessed on con-
gested links per day. For passenger trains the figure comes to 40,100 passenger hours
per day, mainly in France, Germany and UK. For freight transport by rail the delay
amounts to 2.2 m tonne hours. Most of the delay occurs in Russia, Latvia and Lithuania.
6.9.3 Violation of air pollution and noise limits

An important aspect of assessing the future environmental bottlenecks is locations where
EU limits on air pollution and noise are violated.
161
Final Report
Concerning air pollution, the new Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe has determined the target
values for pollutants, the respect of which represent an important goal in order to protect
human health and the environment.
The Directive was adopted in May 2008 and most of existing legislation has been merged
into this single directive. New objectives and limit values for particles were included. The
standards and objectives in the directive apply over differing periods of time for each of
the included pollutants because the observed health impacts associated with the various
pollutants occur over different exposure times.
Links particularly prone for air pollution in 2030 are links in urban areas, where the traffic
flow exceeds 1.25 of the average European flow. Major urban areas in West Europe are
pinpointed as the potential bottlenecks.
Concerning noise, there are no common European threshold values, but the Commission
requires the Member States to establish national target values not to be exceeded. The
Directive 2002/49/EC establish a way to identify areas where noise calculations needs to
be carried out. Such an area is identified by the main roads in the area carrying more
than 6 m. vehicles per year. Taking this as the basis following map indicates where the
most likely road noise problems will occur in 2030.
162
Final Report
Figure 6.23. Traffic flows of more than 6 m. vehicles per year on main road in
urban agglomerations - 2030
The indicated areas are quite similar to the areas with air pollution problems.
Rail noise is also being treated in the mentioned Directive 2002/49/EC. Areas with more
than 250,000 inhabitants being crossed by railroads carrying more than 60,000 trains per
year are prone for a noise analysis. However, using the TRANS-TOOLS model underes-
timates the number of trains because local trains, Metros and trams are not included in
the TRANS-TOOLS model.
The following map (Figure 6.24) shows the airports designated as ‘major airports’ due to
the forecasted traffic flow at 2030. By “major airport” is meant “a civil airport, designated
by the Member State, which has more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement
being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light air-
craft” (Art. 3 of the Directive 2002/49/EC)
163
Final Report
As for the potential assessment of the noise emissions for air, the following caveat has to
be considered: The model at 2030 provides the total number of passengers, so it is nec-
essary to transform passengers to aircrafts. Furthermore, the intercontinental traffic to
and from EU is not taken into account in the TRANS-TOOLS model, so the number of
movements are underestimated on the major intercontinental airports.
The map shows that Amsterdam Schiphol, London Heathrow, Manchester International,
Paris Charles De Gaulle will be the airports with major traffic. The proximity with urban
areas will determine their potential noise impacts.
Figure 6.24. Number of airports with ATM higher than 50,000 per year, 2030
6.9.4 Conflicts between NATURA 2000 sites and infrastructure development

The environmental bottlenecks related to the conflict between NATURA2000 sites and
infrastructural development need to be addressed via environmental analyses. EU has
already established levels of governance encompassing Environmental Impact Analysis
(EIA), but it should be considered to implement also Strategic Environmental Analysis
(SEA) Directive in relation to the network of European importance, the core network.
164
Final Report
The purpose of the SEA Directive is to ensure that environmental consequences of cer-
tain plans and programmes are identified and assessed during the preparation stage and
before they are adopted.
According to the Directive, where SEA is required, an Environmental Report must be

prepared in which the likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or
programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geo-
graphical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated.
The information to be included in the Environmental Report is listed in Annex I to the Di-
rective and includes, among other things:
 the environmental protection objectives relevant to the plan or programme;

 the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (i.e. without implementa-
tion of the plan or programme);
 the likely significant effects on the environment, including issues such as biodiversity,
population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material as-
sets, cultural heritage, landscape, and the interrelationship between these factors;
 the mitigation measures envisaged; an outline of the reasons for selecting the alter-
natives dealt with; monitoring measures envisaged
Another important EC Communication on environmental policy is the Communication

Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 — And Beyond Sustaining ecosystem services
for human well–being12, in which the EU approach towards biodiversity is addressed.
In particular, in this context the Commissions has set out the Biodiversity Action Plan to
2010 and beyond, identifying four key policy areas for action and, related to these, ten
priority objectives. Additionally, the Commission has identified four key supporting meas-
ures. These objectives and supporting measures have been strongly supported by the
results through public consultation
The four policy areas and related priority objectives are the following:
POLICY AREA 1: Biodiversity in the EU
 To safeguard the EU's most important habitats and species.

 To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU coun-
tryside.
 To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU marine
environment.
 To reinforce compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in
the EU.
 To substantially reduce the impact on EU biodiversity of invasive alien species and
alien genotypes.
POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity
 To substantially strengthen effectiveness of international governance for biodiversity

and ecosystem services.
12
Brussels, 22.5.2006, COM (2006) 216 final
165
Final Report
 To substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU

external assistance.
 To substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change
 To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change.
POLICY AREA 4: The knowledge base
 To substantially strengthen the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity, in the EU and globally
It is important to stress that in the context of the policy area 1. Biodiversity in the EU, the
Objective 4: “To reinforce compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodi-
versity in the EU” directly address the need to ensure the full application of the SEA Di-
rective in the set up of infrastructure projects, with particular reference to the TEN-T pro-
jects.
In particular, the following action addresses directly the development of the Trans-
European Network.
ACTION A.4.6.3 : Ensure all new Trans-European Networks provide for environmental
assessment and take full account of biodiversity impacts in the design and authorisation
process in the framework of the existing EU legislation.
The marine environment represents an important aspect of the European environmental

policy13. The Biodiversity Action Plan by 2010 devotes efforts and actions addressing the
marine environment. The objective 3 of the Action Plan: “To conserve and restore biodi-
versity and ecosystem services in the wider EU marine environment”, includes among
other aspects that Substantial progress should be achieved by 2010 and again by 2013
towards 'good environmental status' of the marine environment. It is also mentioned that
Principal pollutant pressures on marine biodiversity should be substantially reduced by
2010, and again by 2013.
The importance of devoting resources and efforts toward the safeguarding of marine en-
vironment is also justified by the forecast traffic growth at 2030. The following bottlenecks
have been identified14:
 Baltic Sea. The North-Sea – Baltic Sea Canal are limited to a draught of 9.5 m and a
maximum speed of 8 nm. The Öresund (Channel of Drogden) allows a maximum
draught of 7.5 m with a speed limit of 6nm. Drogden can be deepened to 9.5 m. This
would save a considerable detour for quite a number of ships which are not using the
Kiel Canal. Further natural bottlenecks include the low draft at St. Petersburg, and
13
See also the Maritime Policy Green Paper, COM/2006/0275 final, Towards a future Maritime
Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas
14
From the Marittime bottlenecks analysis in this report
166
Final Report
the need for ice-breaking vessels in cold winters north of a line drawn from the Riga
Bay to Stockholm
 Dardanelles. The predicted strong growth of the Black Sea Region and Constanta as
import hub to Eastern and Central Europe will create high traffic volumes here with
consequent environmental impacts.
 Bosporus. Busy traffic in the Bosporus necessitates a traffic management system to

enforce safe passage and adequate clearance between ships (many oil tankers).
This imposes some delays on passages. The situation will worsen with higher traffic
volumes.
167
Final Report
168
Final Report
7 Evaluation of projects
7.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the work undertaken within Task 4B: Assessments of projects.
The focus of this chapter is methodological. The intention with this chapter is to provide a
picture of the procedures which have been developed, within the wider TENconnect pro-
ject, to identify infrastructure investment project packages for assessment and to evaluate
the reliability of the assessments carried out.
The final sections of the chapter explain the CBA methodology in more details and the
chapter finally sets out a number of recommendations concerning the future use of the
methodology comprising both the CBA and the TRANS-TOOLS model.
7.2 Development of projects
7.2.1 Definition of projects

Results from Trans-Tools have been used to identify bottlenecks and missing links as
described in chapter 5. Given the nature of Trans-Tools networks, which consist of small
segments of infrastructure, the bottlenecks and missing links appear dispersed through-
out Europe.
The first stage in defining the projects is choosing a core network to limit the analysis to
the most relevant corridors. Examples of core networks are described in chapter 4, where
several criteria are applied to identify links of trans-European interest.
The next stage is matching bottlenecks and missing links with the core network, thus
identifying the most important problems from a European perspective. Solutions to these
problems consist of infrastructure improvements of bottlenecks and missing links which
can be grouped together. Hence a project is a group of infrastructure enhancements that
share a common geographical context as part of the same corridor or of a transport sys-
tem.
The projects are spatially distributed in a way that covers more or less homogeneously
the whole of Europe and the most congested bottlenecks so the most important foresee-
able traffic problems can be tackled. The selected projects support the corridors with
considerable amounts of international traffic, thus strengthening their European interest.
7.2.2 Specification of projects

The majority of test projects include both rail and road improvements. In order to use
each transport mode in the best way it is necessary to ensure that both road and rail sys-
tems are adequate and can serve different types of transport. For example an improve-
ment of the road in a corridor will influence the amount of railway passengers and rail-
freight transport in the same corridor and the other way around. That is why rail and road
projects in one corridor cannot be analysed separately.
It is important to note that the test projects make up a sample of projects, and the primary
goal is to ensure that the described methodologies provide sound answers in a multitude
of different circumstances. Therefore the number of projects represents different types of
improvements, different territorial aspects and different transport modes.
169
Final Report
Analysis of each single project demands a model calculation using the TRANS-TOOLS
transport model. The necessary assumptions concerning input data and resulting output
data for each project is set out in a scenario.
7.3 Improvement cost estimates
7.3.1 Background
In order to produce reliable CBA estimates for the very heterogeneous scenarios both
uniform benefit assessments and cost estimates are needed. Benefits and transport im-
pacts are assessed using TRANS-TOOLS results, but cost estimates do not have one
single source of input information. Therefore a simple method was developed to ensure
that all projects are treated similarly. By the term ‘project’ we mean here any section,
being part of a large project, or sub-project that is included in some of the scenarios.
One has to bear in mind that projects included in different scenarios vary a lot. There are
road, rail, waterway and aviation projects. Some of them include large bridges and tun-
nels. Rural and urban sections are covered, and many projects are across mountainous
areas or are subject to difficult weather conditions. Price levels differ a lot, for example
between old and new Member States. These differences not only affect investment costs,
but also maintenance.
The projects can be categorised into two groups.
 those where engineering cost estimates are already available
 those where cost estimates is produced by the present project.
The first group has a more or less uniform set of approved cost estimates and the sec-
tions to be assessed are described in detail. The second group includes new sections
without detailed plans and lacking any reliable cost data.
7.3.2 Methodology
For the sections that are included in the Priority Projects, and for those other projects
which have recent reliable cost estimates, available data should be used. For all other
projects, and in some cases for specific parts of Priority Projects, where sections are not
separated in the documents, average unit costs should be used. These average cost
estimates are based on cost data received from several sources.
The groups (project types) used are cross-tabulations of mode, geographical area, design
level, and land use group. A similar grouping is also developed for maintenance costs. In
relation to maintenance, it is assumed that for international routes the maintenance level
will be high, but some variation in unit costs will arise from local price differences, need
for winter maintenance, etc. The unit costs are shown in tables in the following section.
Each individual project should be referred to a certain implementation cost group and to a
certain maintenance cost group, and its implementation cost and yearly maintenance cost
should be calculated accordingly. The total cost for a scenario is calculated as the sum of
the costs of projects included in it.
7.3.3 Average costs

The following tables were used to define a project specific investment costs per km for
each section or sub-project lacking suitable cost information. Each section or project had
its description, which was used in the classification.
170
Final Report
Table 7.1. Estimation of investment costs for European transport infrastructure

Unit cost M€/km average urban mountain new Member
areas States
Road motorway 7.0 9.0 10.0 5.0
highway 4.0 6.0 7.0 3.0
renewal 2.5 3.0 4.5 2.0
Rail new 6.0 10.0 18.0 3.0
high speed 10.0 12.0 20.0 7.0
renewal 3.0 4.0 10.0 2.0
An average maintenance cost/year was provided for a number of project types, and ap-
plied to the respective sections/projects/scenarios. These unit costs are shown in the
following table.
Table 7.2. Estimation of maintenance costs for European transport infrastructure

Unit cost 1000 €/km/year Average incl. winter new Member incl. winter
maintenance States maintenance
Road motorway 10 16 5 8
highway 3 7 2 4
Rail conventional 20 25 10 15
high speed 35 40 22 30
The maintenance costs related to specific types of infrastructure e.g. tunnels or bridges
cannot be assessed using the above maintenance costs. In such cases a specific main-
tenance cost needs to be assessed based on the local conditions.
7.4 Traffic forecasts
In the TENconnect study, the TRANS-TOOLS version 1 model has been improved and
updated to year 2005. It includes implementation of new passenger demand and trade
models estimated on 2005 data, and improved assignment procedures which consider
country specific values of time (VOT) and access/egress transport to airports. This has
been thoroughly described in Annex 1.
The new version 2 model results for 2005, 2020 and 2030 have been described at some
length in section 4.5. The results have a quality which makes the model a good first
choice for assessment of projects at a European level.
Sample projects should be assessed with the TRANS-TOOLS model for 2030 making it
possible to compare the results with and without project in 2030. These results form the
basis for the evaluations of a number of variables which are part of the economic evalua-
tion.
In principle two different evaluation methodologies could be applied. In the first methodol-
ogy Baseline with project is evaluated against Baseline without project. Another way of
carrying out the evaluation could be comparing Baseline with all projects against Baseline
with all projects excluding the project under consideration.
Analysis of the detailed results of the TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model indicates that
more data are required in order to improve the model’s responses to different changes of
variables. This is further elaborated in Section 7.9.
171
Final Report
7.5 Consumer Surplus
The consumer surplus (CS) measures all direct user benefits related to travel time sav-
ings as well as cost savings. It is the largest impact included in the CBA assessments
and is calculated at the most disaggregate level. Most importantly it conforms to the rule-
of-the-half approximation.
The CS is calculated for 2030 and measured in 2005 prices. All prices are in Euros. The
value-of-time has been forecasted by a 1.4% increase per year. This conforms approxi-
mately to 70% of the GDP growth in fixed prices as recommended by HEATCO.
Limitation and simplifications
The CS calculation is a function of level-of-service variables, which is a function of net-

work assignment models. The TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model apply stochastic assignment
algorithms, which have obvious advantages compared to static assignment in the prefer-
ence mapping of consumers. However, the draw-back is that the stochastic elements
tend to be inherent in the CS. This may lead to counter-intuitive results in specific situa-
tions. To dampen the stochastic distortion, we have applied the following principles;
1. Intra-zone CS = 0: The model is a European wide model and cannot handle lo-
cal surplus effects well. To reduce potential uncertainty we have removed intra-
zone surpluses.
2. CS resulting from small changes in Generalised travel cost (GCT) is re-

moved: To dampen possible distortion from the assignment, only surplus effects
greater than 1 Euro and smaller than – 1 Euro has been included. This means
only the most certain benefits are included and less certain benefits are excluded.
3. Removal of illogical CS measures: For some of the passenger transport pro-

jects, freight CS effects have been left out. This is discussed in more details for
the specific projects.
The consequence of these simplifications is that local impacts are not accounted for,
which may lead to underestimations of benefits depending on the nature of the project.
An additional limitation, freight has been assessed according to mode specific value-of-
time and transport costs. This simplification will introduced some bias into the freight con-
sumer surplus so that some projects are likely to carry large proportions of bulk-
commodities in comparison to others. This is a problem because bulk is valuated accord-
ing to the same principles as high-value goods.
7.6 Assessment of environmental and transport impacts
7.6.1 The framework for the assessment

The assessment of the environmental and transport impacts on specific links and nodes
can benefit from a long research stream of EC RTD studies and projects carried out over
the past years.
The main interest has been devoted to assessment of the external costs of transport.
Based on the previous and on-going research marginal costs estimates for the use of
transport infrastructure have been produced for a wide range of situations, and using a
variety of different approaches. It is important to stress that the studies have in general
shown that there is no standard methodology for marginal costs estimation, and that the
methodological approaches available are strongly influenced by data availability issues
and by the type of transport mode under examination.
172
Final Report
In order to cope partially with the need to envisage methods ensuring the transferability of
marginal costs estimates, i.e. analysing the conditions whereby values can be adapted to
different contexts, in particular for the determination of charges in regions and situations
where all the detailed information required does not exist, a recent European project,
GRACE, Generalisation of Research on Accounts and Cost Estimation, funded in the
context of the 6 FP has developed a software tool that allows to derive estimates of the
values of marginal external costs (MEC) based on the MEC values calculated within a
wide range of bottom-up case studies.
The GRACE methodology incorporates methods ensuring the transferability of marginal

costs estimates and their generalization, i.e. identifying the variables (cost drivers) and
parameters whereby existing marginal costs can be adapted to different contexts and/or
new estimations can be carried out.
The GRACE approach and the corresponding estimation of environmental impacts from
transport activities have been harmonised with the IMPACT Handbook, developed by the
DG TREN with the objective to provide an overall methodological framework for the as-
sessment of transport external costs. Both have supported the impact assessment of the
EC Directive 2006/38 amending the Eurovignette.
The environmental assessment of transport activities is focused on the following cost

categories:
 Air pollution and climate change
 Noise
 Accident
All transport modes and main nodes (airports, ports) should be considered.
7.6.2 Air pollution and climate change

The method for the assessment of air pollution and climate change external costs should
consider not only the operation of vehicles and vessels, but also up- and downstream
processes associated with the transport activity. In fact each of the following processes
involves activities causing air pollution:
 Vehicle manufacture.
 Vehicle maintenance and support.
 Vehicle disposal.
 Fuel/electricity production.
 Infrastructure construction, maintenance and disposal.
Ideally, the approach should take account of all up- and downstream processes. How-
ever, this is not always necessary because the effect may be negligible. Therefore only
emissions from the vehicle operation itself (e.g. from internal combustion engines) – re-
ferred to as “direct emissions” – and the provision of fuel or electricity for vehicle traction
– in the following called “indirect emissions” – are considered.
173
Final Report
Direct emissions
The main parameters determining the costs due to direct vehicle emissions (representing
“line emission sources”) are:
 Emission factors, which differ by fuel (e.g. petrol – diesel), vehicle type (e.g.
heavy diesel vehicles – diesel cars, type of ship, airplane), emission standard
(e.g. EURO2 – EURO4), and driving pattern (speed, acceleration processes).
 The local environment close to the road (receptor density, meteorology, e.g. no-
tably average wind speed).
 The geographical location (determining the number of receptors affected by long-

range pollutant dispersion and formation of secondary pollutants).
Emission factors for specific vehicle technologies (e.g. passenger car complying with
EURO2 standard) can be transferred to other countries/locations. A correction for the
actual emission of vehicles in different countries would be desirable, as the typical age or
maintenance behaviour may vary between countries. In practise it is difficult to obtain
empirical data on such differences.
On the other hand, emission factors for vehicle fleets (e.g. of a country, on a certain road)
are not generally transferable, because the fleet composition usually varies.
Damages can be split into local scale effects (i.e. up to about 25 kilometres from the
emission source in road transport) and regional scale effects (covering long-range pollut-
ant transport all over geographical Europe). Costs on both scales add up to the total
costs caused by a unit of pollutant emitted in the respective area. In urban areas local
scale effects dominate the costs due to the high receptor density.
Whereas for urban areas the share of local scale costs is high and therefore the geo-
graphical location is of minor importance, the regional scale damages are very important
for locations outside urban areas.
Indirect emissions
Costs due to air pollution from electricity production depend on the pollutant emissions
from the power plants in which the electricity is produced. Based on the emissions for
producing a unit of electrical energy (e.g. 1 kWh), damage costs per kWh can be calcu-
lated. If electricity is generated from different fuels, the resulting costs per kWh can be
combined according to the share of the different fuels in the electricity production. The
resulting costs per kWh of electricity produced may vary considerably, mainly depending
on the share of fossil fuels.
One issue is the determination of the “marginal” unit of electricity produced – is it the “av-
erage” mix of power production or a specific power plant type (e.g. from a pumped-
storage plant).
Costs due to indirect emissions from petrol and diesel production (i.e. mainly emissions
from refineries and transport processes) gain in importance for vehicles complying with
stricter emission standards. For petrol cars complying with EURO 2 standard or higher
the costs from fuel production may reach the same order of magnitude as the costs from
exhaust emissions.
174
Final Report
It would be beyond the scope of the exercise to take into account where the fuel burnt or
the electricity used specifically was produced. Therefore we suggest providing average
costs for the emissions due to fuel and electricity production within countries. These val-
ues only vary with the fuel/electricity consumption of a vehicle and therefore can be gen-
eralised – based on the fuel consumption – for the country for which they were calcu-
lated.
The outcome of the assessment is the air pollution €/cent per vkm on a given link.
7.6.3 Noise
Noise is the most difficult environmental cost category to estimate through cost functions.
The reasons are manifold:
 it is a very local burden, and
 non-linearities are involved in the aggregation of noise and in noise perception by

human beings.
Marginal costs due to noise exposure are mainly determined by:
 the emission (depending on the vehicle type)
 the distribution and distance of exposed persons from the emission source,
 the existing (“background”) noise level, which in most cases is dominated by the
traffic (number of vehicles or trains per hour, mix of vehicle or train types, speed),
 the time of day (traffic volume, variation in disturbance effect of noise).
The pragmatic approach assumed in the method of assessment is based on some simpli-
fying assumptions (based on available data) on background noise levels and number of
exposed persons in urban/non-urban environments.
The outcome of the assessment is the noise €/cent per vkm on a given link.
7.6.4 Accidents
The starting point of the approach is to estimate the average accident cost (AC) where a
vehicle has been involved and then deduct the cost that falls on the examined vehicle
category (accident costs internalized by the users). In the last step an elasticity is multi-
plied to the external average cost to generate the external marginal cost.
Average accident costs depend on the value of life, lost production and medical costs
related to the average accident risk per vehicle km. A part of the cost falls on the user of
the vehicle type. Therefore the external cost is estimated as the fraction of the Average
accident costs that does not fall on the vehicle type. The marginal external accident cost
is finally established as the external accident costs multiplied with the risk elasticity E.
The risk elasticity expresses the changes in risk, ie. accidents per traffic volume as the
traffic volume changes.
The outcome of the assessment is the accident €/cent per vkm on a given link.
7.6.5 The relationship with TRANS-TOOLS traffic assessments for projects

The TRANS-TOOLS model provides passengers and tonnes flows by type of road vehi-
cles (average cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGV)) travelling in the corridor. The GIS
175
Final Report
allows identification of the national segments of the corridor and the urban or non urban
context of the trip, i.e. traffic crossing areas with high or low population density. Data are
provided with a time horizon of 2005, 2020 and 2030.
Considering the projects, the following assumptions are needed in order to provide the
assessment:
 Concerning the future cost factor per pollutant emitted, the forecast GDP growth rates
in real terms can be assumed as the key variable for providing forecasts.
 Concerning the emission and energy consumption factors, the TREMOVE model can
provide evaluation of future consumption and emissions factors.
 Forecasting future accident risk rates is a challenging task. The accident risk originat-
ing from a road transport journey depends in fact on a multitude of factors, e.g. traffic
composition, the type of vehicles used, the road characteristics (including weather
conditions) and above all the behaviour of the drivers.
 The present approach is focused on following main components for the assessment
of accident external costs: the unitary cost per casualty (€ per fatality, slight and se-
vere injury), the accident risk rate and the mileage (in vehicle kilometre).
 Concerning the unitary cost per casualty, the forecast GDP growth rates in real terms
can be assumed as the key variable for adjusting the unitary costs. The average GDP
growth rate for EU 25 + Switzerland at 2005-2020-2030 can be used for this purpose
 Concerning the future accident risk rates (road), the prediction of the number of road
fatalities in 2010 and 2020 has been provided in the context of the ASSESS study . It
is suggested to take into account the “most likely implementation scenario” as defined
in the ASSESS study. As for rail, due to the lack of information and studies, the trend
shown by road accident risks in the “most likely implementation scenario” can be as-
sumed as a proxy variable of the future rail accident risks
 Concerning congestion, the TRANS-TOOLS models provides the expected conges-

tion level and delays. The application of the unitary VoT per hour saved provides the
monetary evaluation of congestion costs. The forecast GDP growth rates in real
terms can be assumed as the key variable for adjusting the unitary costs at 2020-
2030. Application of an elasticity coefficient to GDP growth of 0.7 is recommended by
HEATCO for estimating future VoT.
7.7 Assessment of economic impacts
7.7.1 The TEN-Connect trade impact model (TIM)

With an important modification, the trade impact model is essentially the CGEurope
model (Bröcker, 1998/2000, 2002) frequently previously applied to transport policy
evaluation. In the model version used so far, interregional trade has been estimated as a
by-product of the model calibration.
CGEurope is a static general equilibrium model for a closed system of regions covering
the whole world. The regions are the 1441 regions on the NUTS3 level of the TRANS-
TOOLS model and 19 external zones covering the rest of the world. In each region reside
identical immobile households owning the regional stock of production factors that are
immobile as well. Their incomes stem from regional factor returns as well as from an in-
terregional income transfer that can have a positive or negative sign. Income transfers
176
Final Report
are exogenous (in real terms) and add up to zero for the entire world. A further income
source is introduced if we simulate charges to be paid by users of infrastructure. Reve-
nues from these charges are redistributed to households. The redistribution shares of
regions are imported from the transport model.
Households spend their income for buying goods and services partly produced in their
own regions and partly produced in other regions. Households’ demand represents total
final demand, which means, private as well as public consumption, and investment.
There is no separate public sector in the model; that is households have to be regarded
as an aggregate of private and public households, their budget constraint is the consoli-
dated budget constraint of private and public households in the region.
Households are price takers on all markets. They maximize a Cobb-Douglas utility de-
pending on the quantity of local goods and the quantity of an index of diversified tradable
goods. Hence, they spend fixed shares  and 1   of their income for local and trad-
able goods, respectively. Utility changes of households, measured in monetary terms by
Hicks’ equivalent variation concept, are our measure of regional welfare effects of any
change in the level of services brought about by transport policy.
The production sector is represented by identical immobile firms. There are two types of
firms: 1) firms producing local goods and 2) firms producing tradable product varieties.
There is no further sectoral differentiation. Local goods are produced under constant re-
turns to scale and, as the name says, can only be used within the region itself. Tradable
goods, however, are produced by a “Dixit-Stiglitz-Industry”, which is now standard in em-
pirical trade modelling. This assumption implies economies of scales in production of
tradable goods.
Analogous to household consumption, firms use tradable goods as a composite index

that is composed of all variants produced anywhere in the world. The same index is used
for final demand as for intermediate inputs: as usual, varieties are composed by a CES
index with an elasticity of substitution controlling how sensitive demand responds to
changes of relative prices for goods from different origins.
The decisive assumption for transport policy evaluation is that there are transaction costs
for goods delivered from one region to another. Transport policy is evaluated by compar-
ing two equilibria for the same simulation year (2020 or 2030, say), one representing a
benchmark without the policy instruments under study in place, another representing an
alternative with the policy implemented. All costs of spatial interaction in the reference
situation are incorporated in the Armington preference parameters, while the cost
changes characterizing the transition from the reference to the alternative are explicitly
taken into account in the simulation.
7.8 Cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis
The TEN-Connect assessment of projects has two elements. Firstly, it offers a standard
cost-benefit analysis, configured in line with accepted best practice as reflected in the
EUNET/SASI, IASON and HEATCO stream of European projects. Secondly, following
the line of argument presented in EUNET/SASI, it makes available a complementary
multi-criteria analysis, which allows policy makers, should they wish, an additional way of
understanding the impacts of projects.
7.8.1 Cost-benefit analysis

The rationale behind cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is well understood and well practised in
various areas of investment and policy including transport. In a nutshell it ‘weighs up the
costs and benefits’ of a particular policy for a specified group of individuals that may differ
177
Final Report
in terms of magnitude, i.e. at town level, at county level, at regional level or at national
level etc. CBA’s are often favoured by policy makers because they present the afore-
mentioned costs and benefits in monetary terms that allow not only a judgment to be
formed with regard to the feasibility of the specific project in question but also a compara-
ble judgment to be made with alternative projects which, more often than not, are com-
peting for scarce funding.
In the light of the work carried out initially by EU research projects EUNET/SASI, IASON
and more lately by HEATCO a decision was made at the beginning of TEN-Connect to
wherever possible take on board the HEATCO recommendations when carrying out CBA
of the sample project projects starting with what impacts to include in the CBA which are
outlined below:
 Project Construction Costs

 Project Maintenance/operational Costs
 Changes in Travel Times
 Changes in Vehicle Operating Costs
 Changes in Accident Costs
 Changes in Noise Costs
 Changes in Environmental Costs
7.9 Assessment of the methodological framework
7.9.1 Introduction
In order to test the methodology a number of CBA assessments have been carried out.
The CBA assessments have relied upon the TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model to produce
estimated changes in traffic flows for road, rail, air and IWW modes as a result of the
implementation of each infrastructure project.
The TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model is a very comprehensive transport model, which in-
volves a large number of specific sub models, which interact in a complex manner. The
cost-benefit assessment is the final stage of this model framework. Generally, results are
satisfactory, with the amendment that the robustness of results at the present stage
needs further investigation. More specifically, we have outlined a number of model is-
sues, which was discovered during the final stages of the preparation. In a long term it
might be sensible to fund research into these.
The most important lesson is that the TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model is a large-scale Euro-
pean transport model, which cannot be applied to analyse projects which rely mainly on
locally generated surpluses.
The CBA assessments ignore second order effects from GDP growth. Generally, the
larger the project the larger (in absolute terms) these benefits are. In addition the higher
the existing GDP the higher the absolute GDP change will be.
In the following sections the result of the assessment of the methodological framework
developed for the CBA analysis is further detailed.
7.9.2 TRANS-TOOLS model limitations and possible improvements

Model limitations
It should be acknowledged that the TRANS-TOOLS model has been developed for ana-
lysing the EU27 land transport with particular reference to infrastructural development.
178
Final Report
TRANS-TOOLS is a traditional sequential state-of-practice transport model, hence, it has

all the usual limitations of transport modelling. For instance, uncertainty increases as
future scenarios significantly change compared to base year. A long term forecast to e.g.
2030 will be more uncertain than a forecast to 2010. It cannot model major shifts in travel
behaviour and trade relations because the model is estimated on basis of actual travel
behaviour and trade in base year 2005.
TRANS-TOOLS has a very large geographical coverage area, likely it is the largest
transport model in the world with respect to population and square km. It limits the level of
detail which can be answered by the model due to complexity and computing time. Only
major links in the networks are included in the model and zones are large. The model
focuses on long distance travel, and local travel is only included to complete the picture.
For instance, the model cannot be used to analyse urban transport plans. Bus passen-
gers are assigned to roads assuming buses operate on every road link in the model, be-
cause timetables and line descriptions are not included. Pedestrians and cyclists, which
plays an important part in urban travel, are not included in the model.
While road congestion is considered, the model treats rail and air modes without capacity
limitations with a tendency to over predict future demand. It is common practice in large
scale transport models due to the complexity of capacity modelling. Maritime transport is
included, but shipments are not assigned to a network. In 2004, in the first phase of de-
velopment of TRANS-TOOLS model it was decided to include maritime transport at ma-
trix level and not on network level, since a maritime network was not available. As a con-
sequence it is not possible to illustrate and forecast freight volumes at specific ports, if
there is more than one port in a traffic zone.
Proposal for TRANS-TOOLS improvements
Current EC studies have contributed to the development of the TRANS-TOOLS model,

but the present study has also revealed shortcomings and issues of improvement. It is
suggested that future developments of the model is divided into two phases. The first
phase should elaborate on the existing model framework to improve accuracy and con-
sistency. The second phase should then consider model extensions.
A first phase of model improvements could include:
 Improvement and update of freight model to base year 2005

 Improvement of base year matrices for rail and road
 Reduction of stochastic noise in assignment
In current EC studies, trade and economic models have been updated and improved. It is
now possible to calculate GDP-effects of infrastructure projects to feed-back to the
model. However, the mode choice and logistics models have not been updated to 2005
which creates an inconsistency in the model system. The mode choice model and logis-
tics model should be spatial resolved to NUTS3 level to match the new trade model and
the new passenger model. Further, there seems to be a need to improve the modal
choice model because use has revealed very low sensitivities with respect to cost and
time changes. The logistic model is very complex with many user options. Usage shows
that an explicit user location of distribution centres would be beneficial.
It has only been possible to collect few data on rail passengers. Therefore it has not been
possible to adjust matrices to fit count data, and travel pattern has been build up on ma-
trices from the older version of the model. Forecasts have revealed substantial differ-
ences between rail passenger base year matrices and synthetically base year matrices
which cause a few odd results. This gap should be reduced by combining the two
sources. In UK, the road network has been improved and detailed. However, the density
of the road network is still too coarse compared to the zonal structure and travel volumes
179
Final Report
resulting in an overestimation of congestion. This can be reduced by adding more roads

to the network in and around London.
The CBA analyses have been complicated by the stochastic nature of the assignment
models. Several procedures have been implemented to reduce the randomness in calcu-
lation of consumer surplus. Few more fundamental changes could be implemented to
further reduce the stochastic noise.
The shortcoming and lack of data, has been the major problem in development of the
TRANS-TOOLS model. Basically, the performance and accuracy of the model will not
improve significantly before quantity and quality of fundamental data have improved. It
concerns:
 Networks
 Behavioural data
 Counts
Though networks have been updated in recent studies, a fundamental upgrade of the
networks is required because the existing networks build on networks which mainly origi-
nate from the 1990s.
The only data sources which were available for estimation of the most recent TRANS-
TOOLS passenger model were DATELINE and the Danish Travel Survey. Since almost
every country conduct travel surveys, national representatives have been contacted with-
out any success due to data confidentiality. With open access to those national data
sources, the foundation of model estimation could be improved significantly.
The lack of reliable rail passenger counts has been stressed as a problem several times
and has prevented a proper calibration of the model.
Future improvements of the model could consider extensions of the coverage area, im-
plementation of maritime networks, and capacity modelling. However, it is emphasized
that modelling accuracy will never be better than data allows.
7.9.3 Freight surplus

In many respects, TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 represents a major step forward in freight mod-
elling with one example being the ability to actually calculate bottom-up consumer-surplus
measures, which has not been done before at this scale of modelling.
One problem, which has been experienced, is that a uniform mode specific value-of-time
is not sufficient for the evaluation of many projects, given the variety of projects with
some focus on bulk-corridors, others on container freight and others on high-value com-
modities.
A second problem is that the freight mode choice and logistics model builds on ETIS
2000 data which creates inconsistency with the new trade model. ETIS 2000 also misses
intra trade flow within some East European countries which creates a problem for evalu-
ating projects within those countries.
Solution
The solution to the first problem is applying different values for the different 11 NSTR
groups represented in the model. The effect of this would be to dampen the freight bene-
fits for a number of bulk-corridor projects.
180
Final Report
For this report time was not available to collect value-of-time estimates by NSTR groups.
To deal with the problem, we have instead looked careful at all 36 projects and picked out
specific ones that are most likely to focus mainly on bulk traffic. In these projects, we
have down-scaled the freight surplus accordingly. For more detailed information please
Appendix Two.
The latter problem is best solved by updating all freight model components to base year
2005 and this is seen as a work for the future.
7.9.4 Project costs and CBA assumptions

The TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model has been used to calculate surplus effects for very
different scenarios. As noted, there will be uncertainty in the consumer surplus due to
uncertainty in the traffic model, which in turn, may impact upon B/C rates.
However, project cost estimates will also be a source of uncertainty. The applied project
costs used in the CBA calculations are preliminary depending on the type and the state of
the project in question, and might vary substantially from the actual costs. In general,
accurate cost estimates can only be produced based on a thorough investigation of the
project costs related to each project as project costs will depend on alignment, geo-
technical investigations, expropriation, etc.
Another over-simplification is related to the fact that all projects are measured using the
same CBA assumptions, e.g. discount rate and project depreciation to mention but two.
Clearly, larger projects such as the Brenner tunnel project will most likely have a longer
depreciation period compared to smaller road projects. Moreover, larger projects could
benefit from more efficient financing schemes, which could lower the discounting rate.
Solution
It is important to realise that very different infrastructure projects may not conform to the
same CBA assumptions. For each specific project, a detailed cost analysis should be
carried out, which takes into account specific issues.
7.9.5 User revenues and transport feedback

In the present analysis, all projects have been assigned a user-charge, which to some
extent is based on the previous charge. An example of this is where a ferry route is re-
placed by a bridge. In these cases, the new crossing-charge will be based on the old
value applicable to the ferry.
This will most likely underestimate the benefits, because the charging scheme is not op-
timised according to the new induced traffic. For example, if we assume that costs are
mostly fixed costs; then, as the demand goes up, the revenue will exceed the without
project revenue. This should eventually cause the user price to go down, which in turn,
would increase the user-benefits.
Another point to consider is that new infrastructure in many cases will disrupt the mo-
nopolistic position of a ferry operator. Due to the monopolistic market position, the ferry
operator will have previously set user charges at a high level. This means that, not only
will the new bridge reduce user charges due to increased revenue but also due to disrup-
tion of a monopolistic market position.
Solution
The TRANS-TOOLS ver. 2 model has separated variable costs into fuel costs and toll-
costs in order to be able to consider recycling policies.
181
Final Report
For each project, there should be a business-case analysing optimal user-revenues and
the related transport impacts. This might lead to considerable increase in the user-
benefits.
7.9.6 Land-use effects and GDP

Some projects may have significant benefits that are not considered by the TRANS-
TOOLS version 2 model. One important effect could be land-use effects or wider eco-
nomic benefits related to the labour market or commodity market. These effects may be
reflected in GDP changes resulting from the underlying CGEurope model.
As a result, the model is likely to underestimate long-term benefits by some proportion.

Based on literature these indirect benefits could account for as much as 30-70% of the
direct benefits.
Solution
It is proposed applying multi criteria analysis (MCA) to deal with these additional benefits
and have provided software to do this. Clearly, since the MCA is more uncertain than the
CBA part, one should not let MCA effects be the crucial determinant but use MCA as a
tool to benchmark projects.
In the model GDP growth effects are calculated directly from CGEurope. These extra
benefits should enter the MCA analysis by some proportion.
7.9.7 Conclusions
The most important conclusion to be reached from this discussion is that the TRANS-
TOOLS version 2 model should be seen as the first stage of a two stage CBA process.
First the TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model is applied in a project screening process, where
a number of different projects are evaluated in order to get approximate B/C rates.
Secondly, the result of this screening should be used to select a sub-set of projects for
further analysis. This would involve an in-depth cost-benefit analysis for each project
where it would be possible to include all project specific issues in order to get a more
reliable B/C rate. The second step could also be based on the TRANS-TOOLS model,
although more detailed project inputs would be needed.
Among the model issues outlined above, the most important ones have simple solutions.
1. The value-of-time for freight can easily be replaced by NST/R differentiated val-
ues.
2. The stochastic distortion resulting from the assignment could be dealt with by
simply running more iterations or to re-use random seeds between scenarios.
3. Land-use effects could be approximated by MCA analysis.
4. More accurate project costs, which consider project specific issues, would lead to
less uncertain B/C rates.
5. More focus on user charges and revenue for each project could improve the effi-
ciency of the projects. This would require model runs in order to optimise user-
charging as a function of demand.
182
Final Report
6. In the long term a further development of the modelling capabilities of TRANS-

TOOLS should be developed, applying national statistics, travel surveys, etc and
in this way obtain a more comprehensive model.
183
Final Report
184
Final Report
8 Analysis of transport costs along competing trade

routes
8.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the analysis concerning the future goods transport between
Europe and Asia and the competitiveness of land-based transport from Asia (Far East,
India, near East) to Europe versus the dominant transport routes built around maritime
shipping. The aim is to analyze the current transport service patterns, with a view of iden-
tifying efficient and sustainable transport solutions coping with the expected trade growth.
With the expected growth strongest in the Eastern Europe, the Asian overland connec-
tions deserve particular attention.
The land-based transport options include rail / road links via China and Russia for Far-
East, and in the absence of international rail lines across Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran,
road transport only for Iran and India. While physical rail lines via Turkey exist to link
Europe and the Middle East countries, there are no quotable transport options. However,
the cross-border rail services may develop should the political situation improve.
8.2 Identification of future intercontinental transport demand
The future intercontinental transport demand has been identified. This has been done
basically through the assessment of relevant trade volumes in tonnes per year based on
available statistical figures from 2001 to 2006. In order to include as well the steadily in-
creasing level of containerisation, only commodities which are and potentially could be
transported in containerised form have been considered. Combined with the economic
growth of the respective regions, a most rational basis for predicting the future direction
and scale of import / export container handling demand has been generated. Additional to
this, certain factors which might have an impact on the trade development have been
pointed out and considered in the projections until 2030.
Besides the trade volume projections, the modal split and the current European port ca-
pacity situation have been assessed and potential future scenarios have been drafted
considering current as well as future port expansion plans.
Following main results can be extracted from the analysis:
 There is an unbroken trend to a huge growth of trade volumes between Asian coun-
tries and the EU.
 Recent modal split data confirms sea transport as the dominating transport mode with
shares of some 90%.
 Massive container terminal extension plans will add additional capacity of 43 million
TEU in the North Range, 31 million TEU in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and
another 9 million TEU in the UK until 2020.
 Despite the growing containerised trade demand the capacity of the major European
container port terminals is expected to be sufficient.
185
Final Report
 Seaport terminal capacity will not be a trigger for a higher share of land transports
between Asia and the EU. It can only be disclosed using the TRANS-TOOLS trans-
port model if hinterland links will develop into bottlenecks.
 If it is assumed that modal split remains more or less stable in the future, road vol-
umes are forecast to grow by a factor 5 between 2005 and 2030 from 4.6 mill tonnes
to almost 27 mill tonnes in imports, and from 1.8 mill tonnes to 6 mill tonnes in export
because of increasing overall volumes.
 Based on the same assumption concerning modal split import by rail from Asia to
Europe is expected to grow to 5.3 mill tonnes and export from the EU to Asia to 1.2
mill tonnes in 2030.
 This direct additional road and rail volume from / to the East will have only a minor
effect on the TEN-T networks.
 The route and modal split for US bound cargo from Asia will also be influenced by the
same overall developments of growing trade volumes and port extensions. Further,
the available infrastructure for deep sea transport (enlarged Panama Canal) and the
US infrastructure will determine if any land bridge option through Europe is competi-
tive. However, if only limited volumes from/ to Europe will choose the Europe – Asia
land bridge, it is rather unlikely that US bound cargo would make such a choice.
As a summary and according to the methodology used, the following tables15 present the
calculated EU 27 import and export volumes transported by individual modes of transport
assuming an unchanged modal split.
Table 8.1. Forecast EU 27 imports from China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea
2005 – 2030 in 1.000 tonnes by mode of transport
2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Sea 43.244 72.725 129.423 236.124 330.460 388.241 424.819
Rail 541 910 1.619 2.954 4.134 4.857 5.315
Road 2.746 4.619 8.219 14.996 20.987 24.656 26.979
Air 794 1.335 2.376 4.335 6.067 7.127 7.799
Inland Wat 600 1.010 1.797 3.278 4.588 5.390 5.898
subtotal 47.925 80.598 143.434 261.687 366.236 430.272 470.810
Table 8.2. Forecast EU 27 exports to China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea
2005 – 2030 in 1.000 tonnes by mode of transport
2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Sea 25.816 29.189 57.166 71.063 86.349 92.186 95.146
Rail 323 365 715 889 1.080 1.153 1.190
Road 1.640 1.854 3.631 4.513 5.484 5.855 6.043
Air 474 536 1.049 1.305 1.585 1.692 1.747
Inland Wat 358 405 794 987 1.199 1.280 1.321
subtotal 28.611 32.349 63.355 78.756 95.698 102.166 105.447
These results are supported by an analysis of Drewry which has estimated the trade be-
tween Asia and Europe. According to the Drewry report, the Asia – Europe trade is esti-
mated to reach 35 m. TEU in 2016 (comparable to about 350 m. tonnes), with highest
15
Source: BMT calculations based on EUROSTAT
186
Final Report
growth for Asia – Eastern Europe; though, this growth may be lower considering reces-
sionary developments in the US and Europe.
Table 8.3: Asia-Europe Demand in million TEUs – Head haul only16

2006 2016 Growth Growth %
Total Europe 15.8 34.9 19.1 121%
Northern Europe 10.6 19.1 8.5 80%
Southern Europe 3.7 6.7 3.0 81%
Eastern Europe 1.5 9.1 7.6 507%
8.3 Transport options
Both in Europe and Asia the traffic is concentrated on a few major maritime hubs, partly
because of the increase in vessel sizes. This results in increased congestion and satura-
tion at the ports. There are also associated problems pertaining to environmental safety
(risk of pollution following accidents) and security (vulnerability to attack). On the other
hand, the growth of traffic between continental countries, particularly in Central Asia,
most moving along the Europe – Asia overland routes strengthened the need to improve
corridors and acted as a driving force for development.
The maritime transport on a door-to-door basis between ports in Asia and Europe via the
Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal takes in general 30-35 days. The door-to-door lead
time can be reduced to about 4-5 days when using air transport; as the air transport costs
are higher, this option is chosen only for commodities with high time dependent costs
(e.g. in case of a turn key plant, machinery can be delivered by air to avoid losing produc-
tion days; high value / light commodities).
Overland transport by road or rail offers an interesting alternative with intermediate travel
time and cost between air and sea options. Studies made for the existing overland infra-
structure facilities between Asia and Europe argue that the land alternative is viable in
certain conditions and could offer sufficient capacity at competitive prices. The Trans
Asian Rail (TAR) link offers a delivery time for freight between Asia and Western Europe
of only 14 days, as opposed to more than 30 days for combined sea – land transport.
There are plans to further develop the TAR with 81.000 km rail length and connect 32
Asian countries with Europe. The TAR project aims to connect India with China in the
East and Europe in the West. Furthermore, the Asian Highway development project con-
necting Asian countries with Europe is being implemented.
8.4 Methodology and data evaluation
8.4.1 Methodology
In order to analyse realistic scenarios focus is on intermodal transport (inland waterway,

rail, road, sea) from China, India, Japan / Korea and Middle East to Europe. The com-
parison of cost, time and quality is based on a container transport matrix linking selected
origin-destination pairs. The transport of dry and liquid bulk cargo, e.g. between CIS and
16
Source: Drewry
187
Final Report
Baltic countries follows quite different demand patterns and market mechanisms and has
not therefore been covered.
The infrastructure network / corridors are the physical framework for the transport ser-
vices assessed. The state of the network has been taken into consideration as it influ-
ences the cost, time and quality of transport services; not on the level of a detailed infra-
structure assessment, but through a brief assessment of the general conditions and de-
velopment projects and indirectly through the received quotations.
The study assesses the current rates and service structure within the transport industry
with a special focus on overland transport solutions. It describes the general characteris-
tics of the relevant transport corridors, separated into maritime and overland transport
modes. For India, a more detailed analysis of the infrastructure and regional overland
transport market is provided. In addition, a potential land bridge solution via Narvik (Nor-
way) for Asian cargo with destinations in the Eastern parts of North America is com-
mented upon. The current maritime transport corridors have been assessed and com-
pared to the land bridge concept in terms of time, reliability and costs17.
The comparison between time, service reliability and costs has used as reference cases
typical shipments in 20’ and 40’ standard containers. Realistic door-to-door shipment
scenarios have been set in order to produce comparable results by analysing market
rates provided by transport operators.
Four reference destinations in Europe and two destinations in North America have been
defined, linking to nine reference places of origin in Asia, India and Middle East.
The European destinations were chosen to reflect a fair spread across Europe, and, for
three of the four destinations, to need overland on-carriage links. The selected American
destinations are both on the East Coast, since transports from East Asia to America over
an Asian continental land bridge followed by a deep sea shipment via Narvik is expected
to be feasible and competitive only for Eastern US/Canadian destinations.
The reference places of origin are chosen to reflect typical manufacturing or transhipment
centres for the types of cargo transported on the East-West corridors. The following pic-
ture illustrates the transport matrix, with places of origin on the left side the destinations
on the right side
17
Note: A deeper historical view as well as projected cost scenario are not part of this task study
188
Final Report
Figure 8.1: Illustration of trade and transport matrix18
To allow a comparison between modes of transport, data presented includes pre-carriage

and on-carriage from the assumed point of loading to the assumed point of receipt. Nev-
ertheless, the rates for pre- and on-carriage provide approximate prices, as the sample
shipments are not set up based on a real address, but on a specific city point. In the over-
land quotations, the pre-carriage rates are included in the overall rate as it was not possi-
ble to accurately separate them.
There are only few overland rail transport providers as this mode is still in a developing
phase and only a few competitors act on the market. Given the principle that the higher
the number of competitors on a market the lower the price, the rates for rail overland
transport may decrease in the next years. Presently there is only one provider of trans-
port from China to Germany. On the other hand, the competition has already started test
runs and is prepared to enter the market within the next few years.
The market quote request included i.e. total price for shipment, terminal handling charge
at the Port of Discharge (POD), terminal handling charge at port of Destination and On-
and Pre-Carriage costs.
The study showed that it is rather difficult to receive real door-to-door offers. Local rates
for the on- and pre-carriage in Europe and overseas have been considered based on
operator’s quotations, separate freight requests and expert interviews.
The door-to-door lead time is the summary of the separate transactions and based on
operators’ scheduling, expert opinions and average transport times. Nevertheless the
lead time can be considered as the optimum time on this route, i.e., it excludes delay
factors.
Based on the operator’s chosen route, known bottlenecks, expert interviews and market
knowledge, delays and interruptions have been estimated. The result is an expression of
the delay impact in days, to be treated as indicative only and not further considered in the
analysis.
The transport costs have been considered as reflected by two main components.
18
Source: BMT
189
Final Report
The actual transport cost was derived by subtracting a generalized profit margin of 3%19
from the average quotations received by route. The disadvantage of not having transport
cost differentiated into cost categories had to be accepted. This method is thought to
reflect most accurately the transport internal cost, given the complexity of the routes ana-
lysed, the various modes and the local cost levels needed as input to build an alternative
detailed cost model (fuel, personnel, type of vehicles, maintenance, material costs, etc).
The alternative of trying to derive actual cost from operations through cost modelling
across a range of countries and transport modes with different cost levels was considered
prohibitive and most probably less accurate. In a scenario with a functioning competitive
market, the assumption was made that price quotations minus an assumed profit margin
would come as close as possible to actual costs. These derived costs are referred to as
internal transport costs20.
The assumed profit margin for the transport sector is 3%, based on primary research for
each transport mode. This has included published net profit margins of 13 global sea
transport operators, providing both sea transport and terminal services, weighted average
net profit margins of 34 rail service providers and Road haulage average net profit mar-
gins of around 2%, as suggested by IRU (International Road Transport Union) in Febru-
ary 200821.
No quotations for overland transport via Narvik from Asia to US/Canada have been re-
ceived. Cost estimations have been derived using average costs from other ori-
gin/destination pairs and observed distance in km. The derived internal costs for trans-
port on the Narvik route have been compared with costs via West US ports (Japan, China
and Korea) and via Suez (Iran).
The transport external cost22 has been calculated based on the kilometer distance of the
respective routes and the transport mode used. Marco Polo Program recommended val-
ues for external transport cost per ton-kilometer have been applied to arrive at an ap-
proximate measure of the external costs per route option on the respective relations.
The values used are:
 0,035 € /ton-km for road transport23

 0,015 € /ton-km for rail transport24
 0,009 € /ton-km for sea transport25.
The external impact of the sea, rail and road transport is considered to be the same as
European averages on all the route length. This can be justified by the following reasons:
 The impact of sea transport affects all seawaters in the same manner, whether
seas surround Europe or Asia.
 The rail transport26 most important external costs come from noise, congestion
and downstream processes. The difference between urban and interurban is in
the noise effects, as they are higher in the urban environment.
19
Assumed to be the operator’s surplus
20
Internal transport costs as monetary costs incurred by the transport operators to provide a trans-
port service
21
Analysis of the influence of fuel price development on bankruptcy; Item VIII.3 of the provisional
agenda CAE/G8324 of the meeting of the IRU Commission on Economic Affairs to be held in Vi-
enna on 7 March 2008
22
External transport costs reflecting the non-monetised transport impact on the influence areas;
some extent of the external costs may be already internalised due to specific measures by mode
23
Air pollution 0.0089 €/tkm, global warming 0.0026 €/tkm, noise 0.0028 €/tkm, accident costs
0.0043 €/tkm, congestion 0.0113 €/tkm, infrastructure 0.0043 €/tkm
24
Air pollution 0.0046 €/tkm, global warming 0.0046 €/tkm, noise 0.0009 €/tkm, accident costs
0.0014 €/tkm, infrastructure 0.0037 €/tkm
25
Air pollution 0.0056 €/tkm (global warming included), infrastructure 0.0034 €/tkm (Ex-Ante
Evaluation Marco Polo II, Ecorys; UNITE, REALISE, RECORDIT)
190
Final Report
 There are many differences even among EU Member States regarding the rail
noise levels, depending on magnitude of exposure, noise importance, policies,
legislation, type of vehicles, rail network and population density27.
 The Trans-Siberian line may be seen more as an interurban line given its consid-
erable length (Russian territory, Gobi Desert in Mongolia and China). Still, the
population living in Siberia as well as the economic activities are highly concen-
trated along the railway line in a belt about 100 km wide on each side, sometimes
narrowed to only 10-20 km 28.
 As the population living in the railway vicinity is quite numerous and the number
of persons exposed may be similar to EU levels, no noise downward adjustments
have been made to the average external cost per rail ton-km.
 The road transport most important cost categories are congestion, accidents, air
pollution and noise. The differences in urban/interurban levels are more evident
in congestion, accidents and noise cost categories. For the road part of the
routes (relatively small distances in Asia, Europe for some sea routes and all the
overland transport from Iran/Iraq) values at the European level have been used
as they are expected not to be significantly different in the different regions.
Considering that EU average values are used for the external costs and the internal costs
may incorporate more the local cost levels, the proportion between internal and external
costs is to some extent biased favouring the latter. Still, the comparison of transport ex-
ternal costs by routes using different transport modes may be taken as an indication.
8.4.2 Description and evaluation of data sources
Over 40 companies from the maritime and overland transport industry have been con-
tacted for quotations. The rather low number of responses was complemented with inter-
views with industry experts and analysis of regional cost structures have been used to fill
up gaps where quotations were missing or incomplete.
The data analysed covers very different transport options. Maritime transport to and from
China is characterized by very high volumes and economies of scale.
The main leg in land transport (both road and rail) is characterized by small volumes and
in many cases as still developing. Within the pre- and on-carriage, overland transport is
used intensively and to the maximum economies of scale for European multimodal solu-
tions linked to maritime transport. Leading transport solutions for containerised cargo in
mature economies can clearly be compared, but even a simple model comparing time
and cost parameters for a mature market is not without challenges. However, it is chal-
lenging to compare two transport solutions where the first - maritime transport from Asia
to Europe - is well established on a large scale in a mature market while the other -
Trans-Eurasian rail services - has still to mature.
Although the experience referring to the effects of economies of scale from other mature
markets may be transferred, it will not automatically apply to these new transport options.
26
The Trans-Siberian line fully electrified
27
WG Railway Noise of the European Commission, Position Paper on the European strategies and
priorities for railway noise abatement
28
About 90 cities are located along the railway in Russia, out of which 5 have more than 1 million
inhabitants each (Moscow, Perm, Yekaterinburg, Omsk, Novosibirsk) and 9 have between 300.000
and 1 million inhabitants (Yaroslavl, Kirov, Tyumen, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Chita, Kha-
barovsk, Vladivostok). The rest of the Russian cities have less than 300.000 inhabitants each. The
Mongolia route crosses Mongolia for 1,815 km, the capital Ulan Bator having cca. 930.0 inhabitants
and 2 more cities with 20.000 inhabitants each. In China, the main cities are Datong (cca. 1 million
inhabitants) and Beijing.
191
Final Report
A key concern regarding the market introduction is how to build confidence among ship-
pers that new rail solutions can be available on a frequent, cost-effective, and reliable
basis. The uncertainty associated with early-stage land transport solutions is also re-
flected in the freight rates analysed in the different sections of this report.
Compared to maritime transport, the quotes obtained for Eurasian land transport have a
much higher uncertainty and a much more pronounced deviation between the lowest and
highest freight rates and transit times quoted. In mature markets the trend is normally the
opposite; there is considerable fluctuation in the prices of sea transport while rates for
land transport show much less variation.
This has implications for the long-haul land transport solutions linking Asia and Europe
(both road and rail). On the one hand it is likely – or even inevitable following experience
from many mature markets - that once a higher volume and a steady flow of full contain-
ers is reached, competition will reduce the variability of individual freight rate quotes and
economies of scale will drive rates downwards, while new technological solutions become
feasible and spur further cost effectiveness and reliability. On the other hand it is quite
complex, at micro level, to establish if the current freight rates and statements on transit
time have a solid foundation that builds on sustainable business models for the compa-
nies involved.
At a more general macro-economic level and within the scope of this study it is question-
able whether the known infrastructure can provide the framework required for a growth of
volumes, and from a regulatory perspective it is possible that the conditions for key factor
inputs to the sector will be affected. This could apply to issues such as the salary and
labour conditions for drivers, technological and environmental standards for trucks and
the possible discontinuation of state subsidies for fuel.
Transport is a cyclical business and freight rates fluctuate, in essence, according to the
balance of supply and demand. While this analysis does not claim to provide an authori-
tative price list for individual business decisions, it does deliver clear guidance for assess-
ing the main transport options available to shippers. Much larger samples and specific
models and market insight are required to get the full picture. It will always be up to indi-
vidual shippers to negotiate freight rates with their preferred transport operators. Larger
customers may be able to obtain conditions which are more favourable than those ana-
lysed in this report.
8.5 Results
Based on the above mentioned methodology and assumptions the analysis has resulted
in following main findings.
8.5.1 Transport cost and lead time by main mode and OD pairs
Maritime transport solutions will remain the dominant transport mode between the coun-
tries assessed. The overland transport from Asia to Europe is faster than maritime trans-
port but generally much more expensive. With maritime rates expected to get lower and
existing challenges in the overland transport, the chances of a significant increase of the
rail /modal share are considered low.
The already planned maritime capacity increases and the implementation of broader
overland rail services will occur nearly in the same time horizon. A “low rates crisis” al-
ready started to affect the shipping lines operating on the Asia to Europe routes, resulting
in a limited demand for future new buildings and overcapacities. These developments in
both modes will lead to a more competitive environment and consequently to a higher
cost pressure on transport operators in general.
192
Final Report
The overland rail solutions are in their infancy, but might offer competitive alternatives for
high value products and specific customer groups. They are especially attractive for re-
gions located far away from ports (e.g. West and Central China). Important success fac-
tors are establishing a right marketing mix, quality, reliability, frequency and a one-stop-
service approach offered to potential customers. Insufficient demand leads to inefficien-
cies for some potential users: even to destinations in Eastern Europe, rail transport is
more expensive as block trains run up to major distribution centres e.g. Hamburg and
then wagons are distributed back to Central Europe.
The overland transport corridors meant to facilitate trade, i.e. the Trans Asian Railway
(TAR) and the Asian Highway (AH) supported by United Nations are still under implemen-
tation.
The interviews with industry experts revealed that the requirement for a regular, fixed-
schedule service (regardless maritime or overland) poses similar challenges. The fixed
costs incurred irrespective of the utilisation level need to be covered. Other aspects, such
as a significant delay of a vessel or a scheduled train, may affect the whole service per-
formance in terms of reliability, routing set-up or cost structure. In overland road transport,
these problems are less pertinent as transports are often organised on a flexible service-
by-call philosophy through smaller and mid-sized trucking companies.
The difference in external costs does not favour the maritime transport due to the longer
distance of the sea routes compared to the overland routes. The same conclusion holds
for air pollution and global warming effects when separated from the other external cost
categories. The fact that the sea transport is less harmful to the environment than rail and
road transport does not fully compensate the detour factor.
The average results for all the investigated origin-destination pairs allowing both maritime
and overland transport indicate that the overland door-to-door transports cost about 50%
more and are about 35% faster than comparable maritime transports. However, the over-
land route is about 5% cheaper than the maritime route regarding the transport external
costs; still, this advantage is not very significant and does not compensate for the disad-
vantage in terms of internal costs29, since external costs are not fully internalised. The
results are different regarding individual country-to-country relations.
East China-Europe
For Eastern China shipments to Europe, the average transport cost is about 38% higher
by the overland route. The difference drops to 28-33% for destinations in Central Europe
(e.g. Germany and Hungary). The overland route is faster about 28%, the lead time dif-
ference being less for destination countries close to European ports of discharge. Overall,
the cost difference is medium - with smaller but similar gains in time (except for Nether-
lands with low time savings). The difference in total external costs is moderate, favouring
the overland option both in terms of total external costs and air pollution/global warming
effects.
Overland rail services will gain market share especially for cargo with Chinese inland
origin and CIS countries. Also, the overland route may be preferred by stand alone re-
ceivers with low bargaining power, as it is quite complicated for a European importer to
organise door-to-door “ex-works”30 shipments. In this respect, the overland service seems
a less complex alternative and the solution is closer to one-stop services than the sea
service.
29
Transport internal and external costs per TEU, using 40’ containers
30
“Ex-works” delivery term; the cost and risk from the supplier’s factory onwards covered by the
buyer
193
Final Report
West China-Europe
For shipments from Western China, the rail overland route via Kazakhstan would be pref-
erable in terms of transport internal costs, lead times and external costs. Air pollution and
global warming effects31 are less by using the route via Kazakhstan rather than the sea
route, as the distance is much shorter. The internal costs would be about 28% less, the
lead times and the external costs about 50-60% less for the overland rail option.
Efforts to improve the transport quality, transhipment / border procedures and reliability
would stimulate the usage of overland transport for cargo originated in a developing West
China.
The route via Mongolia is not bringing advantages in terms of lead times and internal
transport costs compared to the maritime route.
Japan / South Korea – Europe
Compared to the current set-up of transports from Japan / Korea to EU, overland solu-
tions with an initial maritime leg crossing the Sea of Japan or the Yellow Sea towards
China are nearly equal in terms of time and much more expensive than maritime trans-
ports. Hence, the overland route is unlikely to be feasible.
For Japan the cost of overland transport is 60% higher than the cost by sea. Prohibitive
cost differences are obvious for Hungary and Netherlands. The savings in time and
transport external costs compared to the sea route are insignificant; for destinations in
Netherlands the lead time would be even higher than the current lead time by sea.
South Korea follows the same pattern as Japan, with a higher difference between the
cost of overland and maritime transport (+70%). For Hungary and Netherlands, the over-
land cost is almost double (+74% and +94% respectively). The time gains and the sav-
ings in external transport costs are insignificant.
India-Europe
Maritime transport will continue to be used for India-Europe shipments. The sea services
are on a developing trend, while overland transport to Europe currently does not exist.
Positive developments with major impact on the overland corridor are less probable due
to technical bottlenecks, procedural difficulties along the transport chain and not at last
strong hindering political and security factors.
Iran – Europe
For Iran the perspectives of overland transport are better than for the others, even if it is
performed only by road. For destinations in Hungary, the overland transport is cheaper; at
more or less the same cost the lead time to Germany is shorter. Therefore the overland
route is considered as a good option for Central and Eastern Europe. For destinations
close to West European ports of discharge, the sea transport from Iran remains desirable
in terms of costs; however the overland transport is faster. External costs advantages are
overall limited and observed only for German and Hungarian destinations.
Asia –North America
The sea transport seems preferable also in case of Asian shipments to US/Canada via
Europe. The potential overland corridor through Narvik faces higher costs than the sea
31
Included in the transport external costs
194
Final Report
routes, e.g. differences in the range of 40-50% from Chinese / Iranian shipments and
101-123% in case of Japan /South Korea shipments. The overland route does not offer
advantages in terms of external costs, except a slight advantage for Iranian shipments via
Narvik.
In this respect also the Northern shipping route has been mentioned as a potential com-
petitor. Based on the framework of the present work task, it was not possible to make a
detailed assessment of the described land bridge. Nevertheless, considering growing
volumes and the improving overall infrastructure in the Eastern part of this world, one
might expect that with a good marketing strategy and service portfolio, such a land bridge
solution could find its acceptance within the industry. As there is currently no real provid-
ers offering such service, no cost and time evaluation / comparison could be carried out.
Conclusion
Overland transport is more suitable to destinations in Central and Eastern Europe and not
recommended to destinations close to European ports of discharge. Overland transport
from Iran would bring some advantages to Central European countries.
Chinese overland shipments can be a good option in certain conditions (West China),
while overland shipments from Japan / South Korea to Europe are not feasible at all. The
findings are better illustrated below.
Table 8.4: Difference (%) in transport costs and lead times by country-to-country ODs
Asia – Europe transport internal costs: % overland vs. maritime route per TEU
Origin / Destination Germany Hungary Netherlands Spain Average
East China +28% +33% +42% +48% +38%
West China (via Mongolia) +24% +47% +36% +41% +37%
West China (via Kazakhstan) -39% -23% -31% - 20% - 28%
Japan +40% +62% +84% N/A +62%
South Korea +52% +70% +94% N/A +72%
Iran +10% -8% +69% +52% +31%
Asia – Europe lead times: % overland vs. maritime route per TEU
East China -36% -26% -20% -31% -28%
West China (via Mongolia) -29% -22% -15% -31% -24%
West China (via Kazakhstan) -63% -56% -51% -62% -58%
Japan -10% - 2% +8% N/A - 1%
South Korea -13% - 4% - 3% N/A - 7%
Iran -66% -72% -66% -56% -65%
Asia – Europe transport total external costs: % overland vs. maritime route per TEU
East China -29% -25% -23% 0% -19%
West China (via Mongolia) -20% -19% -17% +2% -14%
Japan -10% -4% -1% N/A -5%
South Korea -8% 0% +4% N/A -1%
Iran -19% -7% +14% +5% -2%
195
Final Report
Asia – Europe transport air pollution & global warming costs (included in total external costs): %
overland vs. maritime route per TEU
East China -26% -23% -22% +1% -18%
West China (via Mongolia) -21% -20% -17% +1% -14%
Japan -8% -5% -1% N/A -5%
South Korea -5% -2% +4% N/A -1%
Iran -50% -43% -27% +3% -29%
Legend: Red=more than 60%; Orange=between 40-60%; Yellow=between 20-40%;

Green= less than 20%
8.5.2 Maritime transport

With post-panamax vessels, the maritime transport will remain a strong competitor for
overland solutions; a significant service consolidation is foreseen.
The shipping lines will be able to operate more efficiently due to economies of scale; it is
expected the savings to further impact the maritime rates. Capacity bottlenecks in the
ports, hinterland infra- and service structure may lead to higher rates for pre- and on-
carriages.
Several shipping lines have started to reduce vessel speed to save bunker costs; if this
trend continues, maritime lead times might increase by 2-3 days. To keep the same sup-
ply, more ships are currently operated. The strong volatility of bunker costs however may
change strategies completely.
The maritime transport will keep the largest share for Europe-Asia trade volumes. It is
expected that the current share of about 90%32 for maritime transport compared to overall
transport volumes to be maintained.
8.5.3 Road transport

Even if the improvement of roads generates a more efficient and predictable transport
network, it will be still dominated by rail for the considered origin-destination pairs.
Road operators may build up their network along the routes to cope with regulatory chal-
lenges and time concerns e.g. necessary documentation and border procedures.
Overland road transport is often quoted on the spot and employs semi-trailers conven-
tional trucks instead of maritime containers.
Road transport is the only overland option for Iran to Europe shipments.
8.5.4 Rail transport

Rail transport is considered a “niche alternative” for high value products, but with increas-
ing importance and good prospects. A way to develop would be by bigger industries inte-
grating direct block trains in their overall supply chain planning.
Train operators from connected countries join up in order to provide their current and
potential customers reliable and broad overland rail services from Asia to Europe as a
one-stop solution. The majority of planned services will be available on the market about
2010.
32
Modal split EU-Asia trade volume (t), for all products except crude oil for main partners (China,
Japan, India, South Korea and Iran); transport mode recorded at the EU borders
196
Final Report
For cargo from inland locations far from ports, overland rail services may offer a viable
option with a similar cost structure but faster transit times.
8.5.5 Potential economies of scale for overland transport
The overland rail to Asia-Europe economies of scale potential based on existing corridors
could be considered rather limited, meaning that the cost advantage of maritime transport
cannot be easily overcome.
Network / infrastructure utilization. The rail traffic is limited by current track capacity, with
the Trans-Siberian capacity for transit containers being insignificant compared to
maritime volumes. An overland rail alternative for Chinese traffic would be TCR (Trans-
China Railway) and further transport through Kazakhstan.
Shorter routes. Cost savings may be driven by route shortening (e.g. rail corridors from
West China through Kazakhstan and Russia or via Kazakhstan and Caspian Sea).
Reduced waiting times. Savings in waiting time at border crossing / gauge changes can
reduce operating costs, but not significantly.
Better train utilization. With respect to volumes / train travel, the container block trains
running between Asia and Europe cannot be further optimized. Another source of cost
savings would be improving efficiency through less empty wagons run and better ratios of
return cargo; still, the loaded / empty container imbalances in the Europe-Asia trade is
highly affecting the maritime routes and in a less extent the overland transport.
Improved conditions. Other operating cost savings would derive from improving the
technical conditions in the rolling stock and tracks; however, this requires investments
and corresponding capital costs.
At the same time, in the maritime transport economies of scale to be reached by using
larger ships on Asia-Europe trade will can put pressure on the rates and transfer part of
the advantage to the transport users.
197
Final Report
198
Final Report
References:
Acemoglu, D. Johnson, S. Robinson, J. A. (2000), “The Colonial Origins of Comparative

Development: An Empirical Investigation”, Working Paper 00-22, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Department of Economics.
Acemoglu, D. Johnson, S. Robinson, J. A. (2001), “The Colonial Origins of Comparative
Development: An Empirical Investigation”. American Economic Review 91 (5), 1369-
1401.
AIRBUS: Flying by nature, Global Market forecast 2007-2026
Albouy, D. (2004), “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: A Reexamination

Based on Improved Settler Mortality Data”, Department of Economics, University of Cali-
fornia, mimeo.
Anderson, J. E. van Wincoop, E. (2003), “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border
Puzzle”, American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.
Anderson, J. E. van Wincoop, E. (2004), “Trade Costs”, Journal of Economic Literature,

42(3), 691–751.
Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the
midterm implementation of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010
FINAL REPORT, DGTREN, 2005
Barro, R. and X. Sala–i–Martin (1995), Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bieger ,Thomas, Andreas Wittmer, Christian Laesser, What is driving the continued
growth in demand for air travel? Customer value of air transport, Institute for Public Ser-
vices and Tourism, Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland, Journal of Air
Transport)
Bleijenberg, Arie N., Managing the Fundamental Drivers of Transport Demand, Director-
ate Corporate Management and Strategy, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management, Netherlands (2002)
Bröcker J. Rohweder, H. (1990), “Barriers to International Trade: Methods of Measure-

ment and Empirical Evidence”, Annals of Regional Science, 4, 289-305.
Bröcker, J. (1984) “How do International Trade Barriers Affect Interregional Trade?”, Re-
gional and Industrial Development Theories: Models and Empirical Evidence, 219-239
Bröcker, J. (1998/2000), “How would an EU-membership of the Visegrád countries affect

Europe’s economic geography?” Annals of Regional Science, 32 (1998), 91-114; Erratum
34 (2000), 469-471.
Bröcker, J. (2002), “Spatial effects of European transport policy: a CGE approach”,

Trade, Networks and Hierarchies, edited by G.J.D. Hewings et al. New York, Springer.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Wohnungswesen: Bundesverkehrswegeplan

2003, Juli 2003
Capros, P. et al. (1999), “European energy and CO2 emissions trends to 2020: PRIMES
model v.2”, Bulletin of science, technology and society, Vol. 19, No. 6, 474-492.
199
Final Report
Carstensen, K. Gundlach, E. (2006), “The Primacy of Institutions Reconsidered: Direct

Income Effects of Malaria Prevalence”, The World Bank Economic Review, 20(3), 309-
339
CE Delft et al: IMPACT: Handbook on estimation of external cost in the transport sector,
December 2007
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia Univer-
sity; and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 2005. Gridded Population of
the World Version 3 (GPWv3). Palisades, NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications
Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. Internet: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw.
CENTRE D’ETUDES PROSPECTIVES ET D’INFORMATIONS INTERNATIONALES:
The Long Term Growth Prospects of the World Economy: Horizon 2050 by Sandra Pon-
cet
(October 2006)
DARS: Motorway system in the Republic of Slovenia, Situation 2006
Easterly, William, Levine (2003), “Tropics, Germs, and Crops: How Endowments Influ-
ence Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 50, 3–39.
ESPON 3.2, Scenarios for Europe, DGREGIO, ULB, Tersyn, MCRIT and other, 2007
ESPON 3.2 – Final report: Thematic prospective scenario “Transport”, October 2006
EU: Russian Federation: Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013

th
EUNET/SASI (2001) “Final Report – Executive Summary”. 4 RTD Framework Pro-
gramme of the European Commission.
EUNET (1999) Measurement and Valuation of the Impacts of Transport Initiatives, Deliv-
erable D9, FP4 contract: ST-96-SC.037.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINAN-

CIAL AFFAIRS: N°253: Long-term labour productivity and GDP projections for the EU25
Member States : a production function framework by Giuseppe Carone, Cécile Denis,
Kieran Mc Morrow, Gilles Mourre and Werner Röger Directorate-General for Economic
and Financial Affairs (June 2006)
European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport: ASSESS, As-
sessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-
term implementation of the white paper on the European Transport policy for 2010, Final
report, October 2005
European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport: ASSESS, As-
sessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-
term implementation of the white paper on the European Transport policy for 2010, Final
report, Annex V Modelling scenarios and assumptions, October 2005
“Energy & Transport in Figures 2006. Part 3: Transport” published by the European
Commission in co-operation with EUROSTAT
European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport:

EUROPEAN ENERGY AND TRANSPORT
Trends to 2030 – update 2005, 2006
European Commission: DG-TREN; Directorate E – Inland Transport, ”Rail Transport and

Interoperability”, Brussels 06.12.2005
200
Final Report

TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK; TEN-T priority axes and projects, 2005

NETWORKS FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT; Extension of the major trans-
European transport axes to the neighbouring countries and regions: Report from the High
Level Group chaired by Loyola de Palacio, November 2005

Northern Axis Database Report, 12.12.2007
EUROSTAT Database. Internet: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu.

EUROSTAT, website data tables on population, employment, GDP and car ownership for
EU27 Member States
Feenstra, R. Advanced International Trade, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004.
Feenstra, R.C. et al. (2005), “World Trade Flows: 1962-2000”, NBER Working Paper
11040.
Foresight Vehicle Technology http://www.foresightvehicle.org.uk/index.asp
Gallup, J. L. Sachs,J. D. Mellinger, A. (1999), “Geography and Economic Development”,

International Regional Science Review 22 (2), 179-232.
Generalverkehrsplan Österreich 2002; Verkehrspolitische Grundsätze und Infrastruktur-

programm: Bericht, Januar 2002
Government of Bulgaria: Sectoral Operational Programme TRANSPORT, 2007 – 2013
Government of Romania: Sectoral Operational Programme TRANSPORT, 2007 – 2013
Hall, R. E. Jones, C. I. (1999), “Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output
per Worker than Others?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 83-116.
Harmonized Consumer Prices Indices for passenger transport by road and rail published
by EUROSTAT.
th
HEATCO (2004) “Deliverable 7 – Final Technical Report”. 6 RTD Framework Pro-
gramme of the European Commission.
Helliwell, J. (1998), “How Much Do National Borders Matter?”, Brookings Institution

Press, Washington, D.C
Helliwell, J. F. Schembri, L. L. (2006), “Borders, Common Currencies, Trade, and Wel-

fare: What Can We Learn from the Evidence?”, Bank of Canada Review, Internet:
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/review/rev_spring2005.html.
Heston, A. Summers R. Aten, B. (2006), Penn World Table Version 6.2, Center for Inter-
national Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsyl-
vania.
Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington, 2004
Hummels,D. “Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of Global-
ization”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, forthcoming.
201
Final Report
IASON (2002) Deliverable 2 – Methodology for the Assessment of Spatial Economic Im-
pacts of Transport Projects and Policies. 5th RTD Framework Programme of the Euro-
pean Commission.
Islam, Nazrul, (1995), “Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach”, The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(4), 1127-1170.
Japan Aircraft Development Co-operation: Worldwide Market Forecast for Commercial Air
Transport 2005-2024, 2005
Johansson, M. Rauhut, D (editors), (2005) “ESPON Project 1.1.4, The Spatial Effects of
Demographic Trends and Migration”, Internet:
http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/259/651/index_EN.html.
Kaufmann, D. Kraay, A. Mastruzzi, M. (2003), “Governance Matters III. Governance Indi-

cators for 1996-2002”, The World Bank.
Keep Europe moving, Mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 transport
White Paper, DGTREN, 2006
Kiszewski, A. Mellinger, A. Malaney, P. Spielman, A. Ehrlich Sachs, S. Sachs, J. D.

(2004), “A Global Index of the Stability of Malaria Transmission Based on the Intrinsic
Properties of Anopheline Mosquito Vectors”, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene 70(5), 486-498.
Japan Aircraft Development Co-operation: Worldwide Market Forecast for Commercial Air
Transport 2005-2024, 2005
Le Ciact: Les nouvelles politique d’investissement dans les transports, France, 2006
Mantzos, L. Capros, P. (2006), “European Energy and Transport. Trends to 2030 – up-
date 2005”, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Masters, W. A. McMillan, M. S. (2001), “Climate and Scale in Economic Growth”, Journal

of Economic Growth 6 (3), 167-186.
McCallum, J. (1995), “National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns.”,
American Economic Review 85, 615–23.
McQuinn, K. Whelan, K. (2007), “Conditional convergence and the dynamics of the capi-
tal-output ratio”, Journal of Economic Growth, 12, 159–184.
MCRIT, Union’s Territorial Strategies Linked to Transeuropean Transport Networks,

DGTREN, 1995
Ministerie van Verkeer en Infrastructuur, Belgium, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau-

und Wohnungswesen, Germany, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Nederland: Ver-
gelijkende grensoverschrijdende studie naar de IJzeren Rijn, Definitief rapport,
mei 2001
Ministrie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Nederland: Mobility Policy Document, June 2006
Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Spain: PEIT; Strategic Infrastructures and Trans-
port Plan 2005 – 2020, 2006
Ministry of Transport and communications, Finland: Transport connections between the

EU and Russia, Current status and outlook for he future, 2005
202
Final Report
Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, Poland, Plan budowy autostrad i dróg ek-
spresowych 2007-2013, 2004
De Mooij, Rud and Paul Tang; Four futures of Europe, CPB Nederland, 2003
Nicita A. Olarreaga, M. (2006), “Trade, Production and Protection 1976-2004”, World

Bank Economic Review 21(1).
OECD: Infrastructure to 2030: Mapping policy for electricity, water and Transport, chapter
5; Key Trends and Implications for Policy Change in Long-Term Rail Freight Traffic and
Infrastructure, June 2007
Parente, S. L. Prescott, E. C. (1994), “Barriers to Technology Adoption and Develop-

ment”, Journal of Political Economy, CII, 298–321.
Parker, P. M. (1997), “National Cultures of the World. A Statistical Reference”, Green-

wood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Pearce, D.W. and Nash, C.A. (1981) The Social Appraisal of Projects. A Text in Cost-
Benefit Analysis. MacMillan, London.
Sachs, J. D. Malaney, P. (2002), “The Economic and Social Burden of Malaria”, Nature
415 (6872), 680-685.
Sachs, J. D. Warner, A. (1995), “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integra-
tion”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–95.
Sachs, J. Warner, A. (1997), “Fundamental Sources of Long-Run Growth”, American

Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, LXXXVII, 184–188.
Sachs, J.D. (2003), “Institutions Don't Rule: Direct Effects of Geography on Per Capita
Income”, NBER Working Paper, 9490.
Shea, J. (1997), “Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Meas-

ure”, Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 348-352.
Silva, J. M. Santo, C. Tenreyro, S. (2006), “The Log of Gravity”, The Review of Econom-
ics and Statistics, 88, 641–658.
Stalling, K.B. and Leleur, S. (2007) “Appraisal of Airport Alternatives in Greenland by the
Use of Risk Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation”. Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simu-
lation Conference.
Trends and drivers of change in the European railway equipment sector, European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2004)
Turró, Mateu, Financing perspectives for trans-European transport networks,
Turró, M., Going Transeuropean, Elsevier, 1999
United Nations Statistics Division Common Database,

Series 29500 (Motor Vehicles in use)
Series 13684 (Population total by sex (UN Population Division's annual estimates and
projections))
UN; data on population, employment and GDP for countries outside EU.
203
Final Report
United Nations, The 2006 Revision, Population Data Base. Internet:

http://esa.un.org/unpp/.
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE; TRANSPORT DIVISION

TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN FOLLOW-UP: INTEGRATED REPORT ON COMPARI-
SON OF THE TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN BACKBONE NETWORKS AND ON IM-
PLEMENTATION OF THE PRIORITY PROJECTS IN 2006, APRIL 2007
UNITED NATIONS, ECONOMIC COMMISION FOR EUROPE:

TEM and TER Master Plan, Final Report
(2006)
Weil,D. N. (2005), Economic Growth, Pearson, Boston.
White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010, Opinion of the Federal Environment
Agency on the mid-term review by the Commission, Ministerium für Landesentwicklung
und Verkehr, Sachsen-Anhalt, 2006
WTO (2007) World Trade organisation, International Trade Statistics 2007. Geneva 2007.
Internet: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm
www.johomaps.com/eu/europehighspeed.html
204
Final Report
Annex 1: TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model
Introduction
The TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model has been developed in the course of the TENcon-
nect project. The version 2 model addresses some of the drivers mentioned above, and
also some of the shortcomings in the version 1 model.
The TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model including improvements is described in details in

the Task 4A report on the TENconnect TRANS-TOOLS improvement. In the following is
presented a short summary of the version 2 model.
Overview of model improvement

The model improvements, which have been carried out, are the following:
1. Update of the TRANS-TOOLS model to base year 2005. The old TRANS-TOOLS
model was updated to 2005, and the new version of the model will use 2005 as its base
year.
2. Spatial refined zonal system. The number of zones is being extended from 1269 to
1441. The coverage of the model, however, is not widened, but the one zone countries
are now subdivided in many more zones as indicated in the figure below.
Figure A1.1. Adjustment of zonal system for the Trans-TOOLS model version 2.
3. The new version of TRANS-TOOLS operates with more modes and trip purposes for
passenger trips. 5 Main transport modes are considered,
 Car driver
 Car passenger (new)
 Train
 Air
205
Final Report
 Bus (new)
Inclusion of bus is related to the need to be able to transfer passengers already in public
transport to improved rail services. In order to accomplish that, a bus mode is required.
Bus passengers will not be allocated to networks.
The division of car users in drivers and passengers will facilitate the transformation of
passenger trips to car trips, because the number of car trips equals the number of car
driver trips. In this way the cumbersome estimation of car occupancy is made redundant.
The trip purposes applied for passenger trips include the following:
 Home-Business (HB)
 Home-Private (HP)
 Home-Vacation (HH)
 Home-Work (HW) (new)
The Home-Work purpose is new, and is taken out of the Home-Business segment. The
reason is that Home-Work has other characteristics, particularly another value of time,
than Home-Business, and this makes it difficult to forecasts the two segments under one
umbrella.
It is noted, that it is assumed that all trips are home based. This means that it is possible
to determine the characteristics applicable to a person performing the trip because the
home end of the trip is known and the characteristics is related to the home end. The old
TT model was based on OD relations, which did not make it possible to identify the
home-end of the trip, thus making it impossible to identify the characteristics of the per-
son performing the trip.
4. Re-estimated base year passenger trip matrices (intra-zonal trips included). This is
further described below.
5. State-of-practice passenger model estimated on available data with facilitated user

input. This is described below, as are improved drivers of passenger transport.
6. Improvements to passenger car assignment to reflect national differences. This is fur-

ther elaborated below.
7. Multi mode access/egress modelling in air network, which is also part of the improved
assignment procedure and therefore mentioned below.
8. New trade model for forecasting trade between main trading countries and areas. This
is further described below, where the improved economic model (CGEurope) is also de-
scribed.
Update of networks
The TRANS-TOOLS model includes separate networks for road transport (passenger
and freight transport use the same network), rail passenger and rail freight transport (the
majority of links is the same in the two rail networks, but there are specific passenger-only
and freight–only links), inland waterways transport, and passenger transport by air. Since
the base year of the original TRANS-TOOLS model is 2000, the networks are updated to
2005.
206
Final Report
The air network has changed radically between 2000 and 2005 due to introduction of new
low budget airlines and September 11, 2001. Therefore this network has been thoroughly
revised and new attributes added. Practically all links in the 2000-air network have been
revised or deleted and new added.
The update procedure for road and rail networks comprised both extensions of the net-
works into e.g. Turkey and Russia and validation and updates from 2000 to 2005 in EU,
EEA and EFTA. Also the inland waterway network was updated.
Table 4.1 summarizes number of edits conducted during the process of updating from
2000 to 2005.
Table A1.1. Number of network edits in updating from 2000 to 2005

Network New added links Deleted links Edited links
Road network 1374 12 3458
Rail passenger network 168 39 1660
Rail freight network 171 18 729
Inland waterways 6 10 4
Since the 2000 road network included almost 36,000 links, about 4% new links have
been added and almost 10% edited. The edits mainly include revisions to speed, number
of lanes, and toll charges.
The rail passenger and freight networks include about 5,500 links. Thus, about 3% new
links have been added and 30% edited. The edits concern primarily speed revisions.
The inland waterways network includes about 800 links, and new few have been added
and edited. The new added links are in East Europe and Balkans.
New passenger trip matrices 2005

New passenger trip matrices are established for passenger cars, rail and air for the base
year 2005. The matrices are based on the results of the previous version of the TRANS-
TOOLS model, but in order to comply with the new zonal system the original matrices
have been subdivided and recalibrated to traffic counts. Calibrations have been per-
formed for each transport mode, and finally aggregated to one big matrix comprising all
passenger trips.
Passenger car trips
The procedure for producing the person trips matrix by car is taking the passenger car
matrix as its outset. The basis is the 2005 passenger car matrix forecasted by the existing
TRANS-TOOLS model (March 2008). In the countries which are detailed to more zones,
that is Romania, Bulgaria, the Enlargement countries and the neighbouring countries
Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, passenger car trips are estimated, and a split to
the new zonal system is carried out based on a synthetic gravity procedure.
The model is calibrated against traffic counts on the road network and the rail network.
There are traffic counts available on about 10,000 links in the road network. An overview
of the links with counts is provided in Figure 4.6.
Figure A1.2 Links in TRANS-TOOLS road network with traffic counts, 2005
207
Final Report
A preliminary assignment is carried out, and observed and calculated traffic is compared
in order to establish a first manual correction. Following this first correction a more
mechanised correction is carried out based on a Multiple Path Matrix Estimation (MPME)
with 16 iterations.
The MPME procedure uses the base matrix and distributes the traffic on the network
based on a multiple path assignment procedure. Calculated and observed traffic are
compared and adjustment factors are calculated to the matrix elements. The adjusted
matrix is then assigned to the network and the procedure is repeated. In this way the
number of major deviations is gradually reduced. This is visualised in the figure below.
Figure A1.3. Improvement in divergences between observed and calculated traf-

fic in the road network, 2005.
The following figure shows the divergence between observed and calculated passenger
km with cars. It is evident that while the version 1 model underestimated the total amount
of passenger km with about 40 % the version 2 model is reproducing the pocket book
figures for 2005 with considerable accuracy. The passenger car matrices in the version 2
model includes all passenger car movements in Europe, thus producing passenger km
comparable to the statistical figures in the pocket book. There are considerable differ-
ences only for a few countries (Austria with +20% and Ireland with +10%). A possible
reason for the difference in Austria could be a considerable amount of foreign cars in
208
Final Report
transit in Austria, because there is reasonable compliance between observed and calcu-
lated traffic counts in Austria. The Austrian figure in the pocket book relates only to pas-
senger km carried out by Austrian cars.
Figure A1.4. Observed and calculated passenger km by car in the TRANS-

TOOLS version 2 model
Divergense in pkm 2005 (%)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
Latvia
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Belgium
United Kingdom
Italy
Austria
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Malta
Denmark
Germany
Hungary
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Cyprus
Air transport trips Portugal
For passenger trips by air transport the 2005 passenger matrix estimated from EURO-
STAT and applied as the pivot point in the March 2008 forecasts is taken as the base.
Traffic counts are being collected as the link flow data available from EUROSTAT. The
March 2008 matrix and the link flow data is initially compared in order to making a first
improvement of the matrix. Then a MPME procedure is carried out, based on 5 iterations
only.
209
Final Report
Figure A1.5. Divergence between observed and calculated trips by airport, 2005,
TRANS-TOOLS version 2
Divergence 2005 (%)
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
TENERIFE
EDINBURGH
BIRMINGHAM
COPENHAGE
MANCHESTER
DUESSELDOR
COLOGNE/BO
HEATHROW
MUNICH
FRANKFURT
STUTTGART
AMSTERDAM
DE GAULLE
NICE
PRAGUE
LUTON
MADRID
STANSTED
DUBLIN
HAMBURG
TEGEL
HELSINKI
BUDAPEST
GATWICK
LINATE
ALICANTE
BARCELONA
BRUSSELS
ATHENS
GLASGOW
LISBON
ROME-DA-
MALPENSA
VIENNA
ORLY
LYON
PALMA
ARLANDA
WARSAW
MALAGA
The divergences between observed and calculated traffic are far less than in the TRANS- LAS PALMAS
TOOLS version 1.
It is underlined that the model only includes intra-European transport, which means that
intercontinental transport to and from European airports is not included in the model, but
must be treated separately.
Passenger trips by rail
For rail the previous TRANS-TOOLS rail passenger matrix is not applied, but completely
new matrices are established. The matrices are constructed using available statistics
from EUROSTAT, national databases and World Bank data at country level. The matrices
at national level are subdivided to the zonal system applying a synthetic gravity proce-
dure.
It is not possible to carry out the MPME procedure because the count data are few and
unreliable. Often it is not passenger data which are available but train data, and it is very
difficult to translate the train data into passenger data because there are no information
concerning the length of train, number of seats per train and other important types of
information which are necessary in order to carry out such a transformation.
210
Final Report
Figure A1.6. Available traffic counts on the rail network in Europe, 2005
Figure A1.6 clearly indicates that it is only in a few countries data are available.
Establishment of passenger trip matrices
The trips established in the previous sections cover inter-zonal passenger car trips, inter-
zonal passenger trips by air transport and inter-zonal trips by rail. These matrices are
supplemented with intra-zonal trips, that is, trips by transport mode taking place within
each zone.
Intra-zonal vehicle trips are generated synthetically in the zones, using the number of
cars and an average number of trips by car related to the zonal characteristics.
Intra-zonal rail passenger trips are based on data sources and a synthetic gravity proce-
dure. Intra-zonal air passenger trips are assumed to be zero.
The total matrices containing both inter- and intra-zonal trips are split into four trip pur-
poses (business, private, holiday, and commute). They are made symmetrical and are
transformed to Generation-Attraction (GA) matrices.
The car driver matrices are identical with the passenger car matrices, but the car passen-
gers need to be estimated. This is done from the passenger car matrix combined with
country and purpose specific occupancy rates.
Bus passengers are mediated from the car and rail passenger matrices.
Finally, the passenger car matrix is split by day type and time of day.
211
Final Report
The final matrices are adjusted taking into account available statistics.
The resulting number of million trips per year is mentioned in the matrices below.
Old model
Mode\Purpose Work Private Holiday Total
Car 2,197 11,100 1,019 14,316
Train 140 959 77 1,176
Air 198 153 123 474
Total 2,535 12,212 1,219 15,966
New model
Mode\Purpose Business Private Holiday Commute Total
Car driver 11,170 82,137 57,631 89,448 240,385
Car passenger 3,095 58,781 50,787 24,897 137,560
Train 376 3,167 596 2,224 6,362
Bus 529 12,112 5,932 18,536 37,109
Air 65 20 398 0 483
Total 15,234 156,217 115,344 135,105 421,900
It is seen that the number of passenger trips increases from about 16,000 m. trips in the
old TRANS-TOOLS model to about 422,000 m. trips in the new model. The vast majority
of trips are intra-zonal and will therefore never make a contribution to the networks’ loads.
However, a more detailed knowledge about the total amounts of trips can improve also
the preloading of the road network.
It is seen that the total amount of passengers in air transport are quite similar, but the trip
purposes distribute quite differently from before. About 18 % of the rail passengers seem
to be inter-zonal, and about 4 % of the passenger trips in cars are inter-zonal.
New TRANS-TOOLS passenger model

Short distance passenger model
The TRANS-TOOLS short-distance passenger trip model calculates annual number of

trips of less than 100 km.
The data source for these short-distance trips have been the Danish Transport Panel
Survey Data/OTM extended to a European level by observed income differences. The
income differences have been off-set by using the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Sev-
eral member states were approached in order to get access to more Transport Surveys,
but none were in a position to provide access to the detailed material behind the publi-
cised material.
The model is specified for 4 trip purposes and 4 travel modes, excluding air traffic. The
model is a nested logit model type with a trip frequency model at the top and a joined
mode/destination choice model below it. There is an accessibility feedback between the
two model levels.
The model is based on linear utility function specifications. The model is deployed for
other European countries by scaling with European wide value-of-time estimates. These
values have been estimated specifically in the present project by use of PPP measures.
212
Final Report
The mode/destination choice model is calibrated both against mode totals and against
zone attractions (simultaneously).
Long distance passenger model
The TRANS-TOOLS long distance passenger model handles trips above 100 km and has
been estimated on the basis of individual observations in the DATELINE survey.
The long distance model is specified for three home based trip purposes (commute is not
included).
The model structure is a two-tier structure, a nested logit model for trip frequency on the
upper level and a destination choice and mode choice model on the lower level. The two
levels are linked with an accessibility feed-back in order to let trip generation being influ-
enced by accessibility changes.
A range of model specifications has been tested. The main issue has been to test a linear
versus a logarithmic form of the in-vehicle-time variable. It is found that the logarithmic
form performs best for business and private trips, whereas for holiday trips, the linear
specification is superior.
Value of time specification is based on PPP-measures.
The model specification indicates that a number of issues can be handled by the model
which is very encouraging. In short the new model specification is a State-of-practice
traffic modelling procedure.
Drivers in the passenger model specification
The present TRANS-TOOLS passenger model is applying indirect drivers meaning that
changes to already existing forecast assumptions need to be input as changes to these
assumptions. This complicates the data specification considerably.
Therefore, the new TRANS-TOOLS model uses the drivers directly as input variables to
the model. Thus it is possible to specify directly the assumed values, and these can be
inserted for the forecast year in question.
The drivers in the new TRANS-TOOLS model need to be specified relative to the 2005
base case. The drivers are:
 Population changes
 Car ownership changes
 Infrastructure and transport policy changes (induced trips)
 Income changes (GDP)
The driver “Income changes” is new. In the old model income changes were taken in
consideration indirectly through the value of time.
Assignment model
This chapter describes the methodological specifications for the assignment model de-
velopment in TENconnect. There are a number of improvements in the assignment mod-
els.
213
Final Report
For the vehicle assignment a new procedure has been developed based on Country spe-
cific Values of Time (forecasted into future by GDP), and a split by fuel type in diesel and
petrol. Also the assignment has been extended with improved links to the impact models
calculating environmental, energy and safety impacts. Finally a major improvement has
been made to preload of local traffic (intra-zonal trips) in future scenarios. Automatic pro-
cedures to generate growth factors to existing preloads have been carried out, and an
automatic procedure to estimate preloads on new roads have also been implemented.
For air transport access and egress have been modelled, combining the air network with
the road and rail networks in order to estimate access and egress level of service (LOS).
This has facilitated the development of access and egress modelling, and leads to as-
signment of air passengers to the road and rail network.
LoS Rail LoS Car LoS Rail LoS Car
Generation (home) Attraction

based access mode (destination based
choice egress mode choice
Average Average
LoS LoS
Access Egress
links links
Air choice model

- Departure airport
- Destination airport
- Legs
In the air route choice modelling number of departures (headway) has been added into
the route choice function to time and fare. And also in the air assignment is used country
specific VoTs.
The main consideration of the methodological specification is establishing a methodology

which enables the assignment to be carried out within a reasonable calculation time,
preferably not more than 24 hours.
The algorithm now applies a matrix thinning approach, which significantly improves per-
formance and computer overhead. Also a parallelisation of the solution algorithm has
been implemented, which means more processors can work on the same problem in
parallel (quad core processing). These two improvements can significantly increase the
number of iterations in the main algorithm.
Various convergence tests are carried out currently in order to cut away superfluous itera-
tions.
214
Final Report
All passenger assignment models have been further modified. Generally, a core issue in
that respect has been the switching from an OD-based passenger demand model to a
GA-based model.
As the project is not changing the freight mode choice and freight logistic model, the out-
put of these models are still OD-based. This means that some of the methodological im-
provements of the models are used in the passenger assignment models, but not in the
freight assignment models.
Trade prediction model and impact model

This section briefly describes the methodological approach in two sub-models of the
TEN-Connect modelling system, the trade prediction module (TPM, also referred to as
“TEN-Connect trade model”) and the trade impact module (TIM, also referred to as
“CGEurope model”).
Freight flow predictions start from the production-consumption (PC) flow matrix, provided
by the ETIS-BASE dataset for the reference year 2005. It shows flows in tons, differenti-
ated according to 11 NST/R commodity groups, for each PC pair of regions within the
study area as well as for each pairing of regions in the study area (Europe, North Africa,
Middle East, Caucasus) with a country or group of countries in the rest of the world.
We apply a top-down procedure, starting from global trends in economic development
(economic growth, decline of national barriers to trade, and changing composition of
trade flows), going on with predicting trade within and between countries, stepping down
further to flows between regions, and then finally updating the detailed ETIS-BASE tables
such that they perfectly fit with the predicted flows within and between countries. The
steps are roughly described in the figure below.
Figure A1.7 Freight flow prediction scheme
Global economic
trends
GDP and output by
country
Trade volume
between and within
countries
Trade volume
between regions
Freight flows
between regions
The trade impact model is essentially the CGEurope model (Bröcker, 1998, 2002), which
has frequently been applied to transport policy evaluation. CGEurope is a static general
215
Final Report
equilibrium model for a closed system of regions covering the whole world. The regions
are the 1460 regions at the NUTS3 level of the TENConnect project.
However, one important modification to CGEurope has been introduced. In the model
version used so far, interregional trade was estimated as a by-product of the model cali-
bration, assuming trade composition functions to be symmetrical and identical for all us-
ers. The strength of the approach was its applicability even without explicit interregional
trade information. In the current project we have to keep consistency with the trade esti-
mates of the trade prediction model as far as possible. We therefore prefer to introduce
so called Armington preferences in trade allowing to calibrate the model such that it ex-
actly reproduces the trade values of the TPM described before. This makes the model
theoretically less elegant, but brings it closer to the data.
216
Final Report
Annex 2: Assignment results for road and rail traffic, 2005,

Details
217
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Europe
50001 - 100000
0 100 200 400
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 01
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 02
50001 - 100000
0 30 60 120
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 03
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 04
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 05
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 06
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 07
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 08
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 09
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 10
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 11
50001 - 100000
0 40 80 160
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 12
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 13
50001 - 100000
0 70 140 280
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 14
50001 - 100000
0 50 100 200
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 15
50001 - 100000
0 45 90 180
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 16
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Europe
10001 - 20000
0 100 200 400
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 01
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 02
10001 - 20000
0 30 60 120
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 03
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 04
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 05
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 06
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 07
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 08
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 09
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 10
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 11
10001 - 20000
0 40 80 160
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 12
10001 - 20000
0 65 130 260
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 13
10001 - 20000
0 70 140 280
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 14
10001 - 20000
0 50 100 200
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 15
10001 - 20000
0 45 90 180
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 16
10001 - 20000
0 65 130 260
Above 20000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Europe
50001 - 100000
0 100 200 400
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 01
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 02
50001 - 100000
0 30 60 120
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 03
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 04
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 05
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 06
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 07
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 08
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 09
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 10
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 11
50001 - 100000
0 40 80 160
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 12
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 13
50001 - 100000
0 70 140 280
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 14
50001 - 100000
0 50 100 200
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 15
50001 - 100000
0 45 90 180
Above 100000 Km
Basis2005_I
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 16
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km
Final Report
Annex 3: Assignment results for road and rail traffic, 2030

Baseline, Details
267
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Europe
50001 - 100000
0 100 200 400
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 01
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 02
50001 - 100000
0 30 60 120
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 03
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 04
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 05
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 06
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 07
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 08
50001 - 100000
0 40 80 160
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 09
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 10
50001 - 100000
0 40 80 160
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 11
50001 - 100000
0 45 90 180
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 12
50001 - 100000
0 75 150 300
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 13
50001 - 100000
0 85 170 340
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 14
50001 - 100000
0 60 120 240
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 15
50001 - 100000
0 55 110 220
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Road Traffic
Roads coded with

European Numbers
are highlighted
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 16
50001 - 100000
0 80 160 320
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Europe
10001 - 20000
0 100 200 400
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 01
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 02
10001 - 20000
0 30 60 120
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 03
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 04
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 05
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 06
10001 - 20000
0 35 70 140
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 07
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 08
10001 - 20000
0 40 80 160
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 09
10001 - 20000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 10
10001 - 20000
0 40 80 160
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 11
10001 - 20000
0 45 90 180
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 12
10001 - 20000
0 75 150 300
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 13
10001 - 20000
0 85 170 340
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 14
10001 - 20000
0 60 120 240
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 15
10001 - 20000
0 55 110 220
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Passenger
Traffic
Traffic
0 - 5000
±
5001 - 10000
Frame 16
10001 - 20000
0 80 160 320
Above 20000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Europe
50001 - 100000
0 100 200 400
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 01
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 02
50001 - 100000
0 30 60 120
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 03
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 04
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 05
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 06
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 07
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 08
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 09
50001 - 100000
0 35 70 140
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 10
50001 - 100000
0 37.5 75 150
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 11
50001 - 100000
0 40 80 160
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 12
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 13
50001 - 100000
0 70 140 280
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 14
50001 - 100000
0 50 100 200
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 15
50001 - 100000
0 45 90 180
Above 100000 Km
Basis2030_J
Rail Freight
Tonnes per day
Traffic
0 - 25000
±
25001 - 50000
Frame 16
50001 - 100000
0 65 130 260
Above 100000 Km

2009 12 Ten Connect Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2009 12 Ten Connect Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast

and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T, Tak-

BMT Transport Solutions

DTU-Transport, Department of Transport, Technical University of Den-

Institute for Regional Research, Christian Albrechts University

Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds

ISIS, Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems

Systema, Systems Planning and Management Consultants s.a.

Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of

Report no: TenC704_001

Authors: Morten S. Petersen, Helena Kyster Hansen (Tetraplan), Christian O.

This document should be referenced as:

Project Acronym: TENconnect

Project Name: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of Traffic on the

Contract Number: TREN B1/159-2007

Duration: 1.01.2008 – 30.11.2009

Commissioned by: European Commission DG TREN

Lead Partner: Tetraplan A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark

Partners: BMT Transport Solutions, Hamburg, Germany

Systema, Systems Planning and Management Consultants s.a., Athens,

1 Introduction by the owner of the study.............................................................. 15

4 Traffic Forecasts for 2020 and 2030 ................................................................... 27

5 Identification of major transnational axes ......................................................... 83

6 Bottlenecks ......................................................................................................... 109

6.2 Definition of bottlenecks.........................................................................................109

7.9 Assessment of the methodological framework ..................................................... 178

8 Analysis of transport costs along competing trade routes ........................... 185

References: ................................................................................................................... 199

Annex 1: TRANS-TOOLS version 2 model ................................................................. 205

Figure 4.38: Long-distance trips and change in GDP...................................................... 75

Abbreviations applied in the report

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

PPP Public Private Partnership

1 Introduction by the owner of the study

Intermediate report 2, May 2008

Intermediate report 3, June 2008

Drivers and scenarios, December 2008

TRANS-TOOLS model version 1: Data and calibration 2005, June 2008

TRANS-TOOLS model version 1: Forecast 2020 and 2030, June 2008

TRANS-TOOLS model version 2: Calibration 2005 and forecasts 2020/2030, December

Task 2: Identification of major trans-national axes, June 2008

Bottlenecks, December 2008

TRANS-TOOLS model version 2, Model and data improvements, October 2008

Assessment of Infrastructure Packages - Final, December 2008

Identification of future intercontinental transport demand, December 2008

Transport costs in intercontinental freight transport flows, December 2008

GIS database, Final report, December 2008

3.1 Overview of the TENconnect study

3.1.1 The work tasks

Figure 3.1: Overall description of the TENconnect study

3.2 Main results and conclusions

3.2.1 Scenarios and forecasts

TRANS-TOOLS is a sequential state-of-practice transport model, hence, it has all the

Passenger car, 1000 m. pkm 4507 6076 35% 6763 11%

Railway, 1000 m. pkm

Truck, 1000 m. tonne km 1712 2442 43% 2596 6%

Railway, 1000 m. tonne km 447 797 78% 894 12%

IWW, 1000 m. tonne km 130 181 39% 207 15%

3.2.2 Trans European Core Networks

Figure 3.2. Exemplified core network for European road traffic

3.2.3 Analysis of Bottlenecks

3.2.4 Evaluation of projects

 The TRANS-TOOLS is a large-scale European transport model, which cannot be

 The TRANS-TOOLS requires a more thoroughly calibration particularly concerning