March 2016

Authors:

Transport

FINAL REPORT

WORK PACKAGE 5

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes

2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and the

Cohesion Fund (CF)

May 2016

Authors: John Finnegan, Richard

Redfern, Jacopo Signorile

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate B - Policy Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester

Contact: Jan-Marek ZIOLKOWSKI

E-mail: REGIO-B2-HEAD-OF-UNIT@ec.europa.eu

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy

2016 EN

Transport

FINAL REPORT

WORK PACKAGE 5

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes

2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and the

Cohesion Fund (CF)

CCI: 2014CE16BAT042

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

ISBN 978-92-79-58527-2 doi: 10.2776/693539

European Union, 2016

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

1

Table of Contents

Executive summary 3

Rsum oprationnel 8

Zusammenfassung 14

Section A: Introduction 20

A1 Introduction 20

A2 Evaluation objectives 20

A3 Approach 21

A4 Report structure 23

Section B: Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU 25

B1 Introduction 25

B2 Cohesion policy funding overview 26

B3 Contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks 31

B4 Contribution of cohesion policy to Member State transport networks 38

B5 Conclusions on the contribution of cohesion policy to transport 51

Section C: Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport 52

C1 Introduction 52

C2 Strengths of cohesion policy 52

C3 Weaknesses of cohesion policy 54

C3 Conclusions 58

Section D: Quality of financial analysis of projects 59

D1 Introduction 59

D2 Demographic data 60

D3 Interaction with competing modes and routes 61

D4 Consumer behaviour 62

D5 Tariffing and affordability 63

D6 Investment costs 64

D7 Construction schedule 66

D8 Financial sustainability 69

D9 Financial modelling and approach 70

D10 Summary of conclusions 73

Section E: Catalogue of challenges 74

E1 Introduction 74

E2 Demand analysis 75

2

E3 Financial and economic analysis 88

Section F: Conclusions 97

F1 Introduction 97

F2 Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU 97

F3 Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport 98

F4 Quality and completeness of financial analysis 99

F5 Catalogue of challenges 100

F6 Overall Conclusions 101

3

Executive summary

The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not

guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor

any person acting on the Commissions behalf may be held responsible for the use which

may be made of the information contained therein.

Introduction

This evaluation study forms part of the ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013

programming period of EU cohesion policy. The main objectives and requirements of this

evaluation were to:

Identify the main achievements of cohesion policy in all areas of transport

related infrastructure;

Analyse to what extent the EU support contributed to the creation of

comprehensive transport networks; and

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy intervention in

transport and explore directions this policy should take in the future.

The work carried out for this study and the detailed results obtained are set out in two

Interim Reports. Based on that work, this Final Report:

Summarises the contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU;

Sets out the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of

transport;

Presents the results of the examination of the financial analysis of transport

projects carried out by Member States;

Presents the catalogue of challenges that has been prepared based on the

results of this study; and,

Sets out the overall conclusions of the evaluation.

Contribution of cohesion policy to transport

Cohesion policy can contribute to transport in the European Union (EU) both at a trans-

European level and at the level of individual Member States. The most effective way for

cohesion policy to contribute to the completion of EU wide transport networks is for it to

support the completion of the Trans European Network Transport (TEN-T). The TEN-T

is the outcome of a joint planning process by the Commission and Member States to

define EU-wide priorities for transport.

Cohesion policy has made a significant contribution to the completion of the TEN-T.

Member States placed a high priority on TEN-T road and railroad projects in their funding

decisions. The total cohesion policy allocation to transport was 82.3 bn. Of this, 40.8

bn or 49% was related to TEN-T. Of the 3,875 km of new roads constructed with

4

cohesion policy support by the end of 2013, 1,817 km or 47% were new TEN-T roads.

Similarly of the 3,405 km of railroad, which have been either newly built or reconstructed

by the end of 2013 with cohesion policy support, 1,661 km or 49% were TEN-T railroads.

Furthermore, over 23,000 km of roads were reconstructed across the 28 Member States

by the end of 2013 with the cohesion policy support.

Cohesion policy funding has made a significant contribution to the transport networks of

individual Member States. In the course of this evaluation the provision of transport

infrastructure in 15 Member States with highest related cohesion policy allocations has

been examined against the background of all transport development. The total public

investment in transport infrastructure in these Member States for the period 2007-2013

was 494 bn. Cohesion policy expenditure on transport in these Member States

amounted to 52 bn in the same period. This support was concentrated in Member

States that joined the EU in or after 2004. Cohesion policy expenditure on transport

corresponded to the majority of total investment in Lithuania (54%), Hungary (49%) and

Slovakia (45%) over the 2007-2013 programming period. At the other extreme, cohesion

policy expenditure only corresponded to 1% of transport investment by the state in

France over the same period.

In physical terms, 3,851 km of new roads were built until the end of 2013 in these 15

Member States with cohesion policy support. This was equivalent to 1% of the stock of

motorways and state roads in these Member States. A further 21,653 km of roads had

been renewed or refurbished with cohesion policy support. In all, the length of road

network either newly built or reconstructed with the cohesion policy support is equal to

9% of the stock of motorways and state roads by the end of 2013. In the railroad sector,

cohesion policy contributed to the provision of 3,135 km of new or reconstructed railroad,

equivalent to 2% of the network in the 15 Member States.

Based on the work during this study it appears that cohesion policy allocations were well

aligned with current trends in the sector and with transport policy priorities. In particular

cohesion policy funding made a significant contribution to connectivity at the level of the

EU and of individual Member States. This contribution was concentrated in those Member

States and regions which were the intended recipients of the highest relative levels of

cohesion policy support.

Cohesion policy allocation for Member States ranged from 57 bn in Poland to 25 m in

Luxembourg. The resources set aside for transport within the cohesion policy envelopes

ranged from 45% in Poland to 0% in Denmark and Luxembourg. The level of absorption

of cohesion policy funding allocated to transport ranged from 55% in Romania to 105%

in Spain, for those Member States who allocated more than 5 bn to transport.

This co-funding helped to build new and reconstruct existing roads and railways, both

within TEN-T and outside of this network. However, for roads both TEN-T and outside

of this network - the outputs reported by the end of 2013 were concentrated in the

Member States, which joined EU in or after 2004, while the Member States, which joined

EU before that date, account for bigger share of railroad outputs.

The use of cohesion policy funding in the rail sector was focused on the renewal or

upgrading of existing railroad, to increase line speeds and capacity. Significantly, some

stakeholders from Member States highlighted the important role of cohesion policy

funding in supporting large, complex projects that were particularly evident in the rail

sector. In their opinion, such projects may not have been undertaken in the absence of

5

cohesion policy funding. By encouraging investment in rail and in urban transport,

cohesion policy has contributed to environmentally friendly transport.

There was a lower level of financial contribution through the cohesion policy 2007-2013

programming period for non-road or railroad investment. However, enhancements were

made to urban transport, airports, ports and cycle paths during the period.

Strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of transport

The strengths of cohesion policy investments in the transport sector included the ability

to support the diverse range of policy objectives across Member States, with allocations

reflecting the needs of individual Member States. This supported ongoing investment in

the TEN-T, contributed towards addressing investment needs for Member States and

assisted in meeting regional/local transport requirements.

Cohesion policy allocations were an important source of funding for transport

infrastructure during the economic recession. It was a key source of funding to promote

investment in large complex infrastructure projects. Many stakeholders noted that, in the

absence of cohesion policy funding, Member States would have focused on lower cost

infrastructure to the possible detriment of addressing identified needs.

The 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming period also played a role in developing the

organisational capacity of Member States. The procedures for securing cohesion policy

funding require Member States to engage in strategic planning of their transport needs.

Member States have also enhanced their capacity to develop and appraise complex

transport investment projects.

A number of weaknesses were also observed regarding the cohesion policy 2007-2013

programming period for transport. These included some difficulties in combining cohesion

policy funding and private finance in PPP structures and a lack of clarity among some

Member States on the application of State Aid rules to investments in transport.

The aforementioned focus of allocations to the TEN-T was noted by some stakeholders as

reducing allocations for addressing regional transport needs, thereby perpetuating

regional disparities. However, on balance the focus on long term transport planning in

Member States as a basis for investments will have ameliorated this risk in practice.

Quality and completeness of financial analysis of transport projects

This study examined the quality and completeness of the financial analysis carried out by

Member States when they develop transport investment projects. This work on financial

analysis considered the quality of the financial analysis undertaken during the ex-ante

stage by Member States, and included both demand and financial aspects of projects. In

all cases by the time a funding decision was made the financial analysis of the project

was complete and accurate, and provided a full basis for decision making on the project.

A number of areas which commonly presented difficulty were identified, as was best

practice amongst Member States in dealing with these difficulties.

The quality of demand analysis varied between projects, particularly in the use of

demographic data such as employment and car ownership. Such data was observed in

many instances to be too spatially aggregate, including the use of national level GDP

forecasts to inform demand analysis. This, and the insufficient consideration of project

interactions with other modes and routes, is considered by the evaluators to have

undermined the accuracy and quality of demand analysis for some projects. However, all

6

projects demonstrated an approach consistent with best practice with respect to the

analysis of with project and without project scenarios.

The analysis of consumer behaviour and willingness to pay also varied across the

projects evaluated, with little evidence of variable or induced demand analysis. There

was also an over reliance on national level toll and fare policies, without consideration of

affordability among the target markets. Such factors could have undermined the

accuracy of demand analyses. There was also insufficient evidence of how charges would

vary over the appraisal period of most projects, which introduced more potential

uncertainty regarding the accuracy of forecasting.

The accuracy of forecast construction costs also varied between the projects evaluated.

The economic recession was a central factor in reducing contractor costs for many of the

projects evaluated. The level of project preparation also influenced the outturn costs and

implementation schedules. Examples were noted of good preparatory work, including the

early acquisition of land, leading to cost and time savings, whilst the lack of ground

investigation was an example of poor preparatory work which lead to examples of cost

and schedule overruns.

The financial sustainability of some projects was uncertain due to a lack of evidence on

how maintenance costs would be met. A lack of revenue ring-fencing for operation and

maintenance requirements was identified in many road projects. Tolls were also not

implemented to programme on some projects, introducing further uncertainty about

downstream revenues. The separation of the Infrastructure Manager and Railway

Undertaking responsibilities was also observed to have introduced inaccuracies and

uncertainties within some financial analyses. Overall, cash flow and risk analyses were

considered accurate, although further analysis of risk and the residual value of projects is

recommended.

Catalogue of challenges

This study identified the key challenges faced by Member States as they develop and

appraise transport investment projects, and the effects of these challenges in practice.

Best practices in dealing with these challenges were identified and discussed with

Member State stakeholders. A catalogue of these key challenges has been developed

which sets for each of these challenges:

A summary description;

A detailed technical overview of the challenge;

Warning signs that the challenge in question may arise

The implications of the challenge for the financial analysis of a project;

The implications of the challenge for the financial sustainability of the project;

and

Potential solutions to assist in overcoming each challenge.

These challenges identified were:

Forecasting demand accurately to reflect project location, population trends

and contextual factors;

7

The accuracy of demand forecasting relating to the short to medium term

impacts of construction, particularly in the rail sector;

Insufficient assessment of project interaction with competing modes or

routes;

Developing and operating a multi-modal transport model that reflects the

project scope and potential results;

Establishing correct representations of the willingness to pay within transport

cost benefit analysis;

Defining tariffing levels within a national regulatory context;

The accurate calculation of maintenance and operating costs, and the net

present value of projects; and

Estimating construction costs accurately as part of the economic analysis.

The full catalogue is set out in Section E of this report.

Conclusions

A number of overall conclusions can be drawn from this evaluation. Cohesion policy has

made a significant contribution to transport in the EU as a whole and in individual

Member States. A number of important strengths have been observed in how cohesion

policy operates in the field of transport. In particular, the decision making structures in

place and the strategic planning of transport investments required of Member States

ensure that the operation of cohesion policy is tailored to the needs and context in

individual Member States. Investments funded by cohesion policy contribute to the

transport strategy of Member States and of the EU as a whole, and encourage the

development of environmentally friendly transport. Cohesion policy investment in

transport has developed the capacity of Member States to plan and complete transport

investments, has ensured that investment continued in a time of economic crisis and

increased the emphasis places on relatively complex investments such as rail by Member

States.

8

Rsum oprationnel

Les informations et les points de vue exposs au sein du prsent rapport sont ceux des

auteurs et ne refltent pas ncessairement la position officielle de la Commission. La

Commission ne garantit pas lexactitude des donnes contenues dans cette tude. Ni la

Commission ni aucune personne agissant en son nom et pour son compte ne saurait tre

tenue responsable de lutilisation faite des informations contenues au sein des prsentes.

Introduction

Cette tude fait partie de lvaluation ex post de la priode de programmation 2007-2013

de la politique de cohsion de lUE. Les objectifs et exigences principaux de la prsente

valuation sont les suivants :

identifier les principaux succs de la politique de cohsion dans tous les

domaines affrents aux infrastructures de transports ;

analyser la mesure dans laquelle laide apporte par lUE a contribu la

cration de rseaux de transports exhaustifs ; et

identifier les points forts et les faiblesses de lintervention de la politique de

cohsion dans le secteur des transports et explorer des directions que cette

politique devrait emprunter lavenir.

Le travail ralis dans le cadre de la prsente tude et les rsultats dtaills obtenus sont

prsents au sein de deux rapports intermdiaires. Sur la base de ce travail accompli, le

prsent rapport final :

rsume la contribution de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des

transports, au sein de lUE ;

nonce les points forts et les faiblesses de la politique de cohsion dans le

secteur des transports ;

prsente les rsultats de ltude de lanalyse financire des projets de

transports mens bien par les tats membres ;

prsente le catalogue de difficults surmonter qui a t dress sur la base

des rsultats de ltude, et

nonce les conclusions densemble de lvaluation.

Contribution de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des transports

La politique de cohsion peut contribuer au secteur des transports dans lUnion

europenne (UE), et cela tant sur le plan transeuropen quau niveau des tats membres

individuels. Le moyen le plus efficace pour que la politique de cohsion contribue la

complte ralisation de rseaux de transports lchelle de lUE est laide apporte la

ralisation du Rseau transeuropen de transport (RTE-T). Le RTE-T est le rsultat dun

processus de planification conjointe entre la Commission et les tats membres, dans le

but de dfinir des priorits chelle de lUE dans le domaine des transports.

La politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille la ralisation du RTE-T. Les

tats membres ont attribu une haute priorit aux projets routiers et ferroviaires dans

9

leurs dcisions de financement. Le montant total de fonds assigns par la politique de

cohsion aux transports slevait 82 300 millions deuros. Sur ce montant, 40 800

millions deuros (ou 49 %) concernait le RTE-T. Sur les 3 875 km de nouvelles routes

construites jusqu fin 2013 grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion, 1 817

km (ou 47 %) taient de nouvelles routes RTE-T. Dune manire similaire, sur les 3 405

km de chemins de fer, soit nouvellement construits, soit reconstruits jusqu la fin de

2013, grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion, 1 661 km (ou 49 %) taient

des chemins de fer RET-T. En outre, plus de 23 000 km de routes ont t reconstruites

dans les 28 tats membres jusqu la fin 2013, grce au soutien de la politique de

cohsion.

Le financement fourni par la politique de cohsion a constitu une contribution de taille

aux rseaux de transports des tats membres individuels. Dans le cadre de cette

valuation, loffre en matire dinfrastructures de transports dans 15 tats membres

ayant bnfici des allocations de fonds les plus leves de la part de la politique de

cohsion a t tudie, et compare au dveloppement des transports en gnral. Le

montant total de linvestissement public dans les infrastructures de transports dans ces

tats membres, pour la priode 2007-2013, slevait 494 milliards deuros. Les

dpenses de la politique de cohsion pour les transports dans ces tats membres

slevaient 52 milliards deuros pendant la mme priode. Ce soutien sest concentr

sur les tats membres ayant rejoint lUE en 2004, ou par la suite. Les dpenses de la

politique de cohsion pour les transports ont reprsent la majorit des investissements

totaux en Lituanie (54 %), en Hongrie (49 %) et en Slovaquie (45 %), pendant la

priode de programmation 2007-2013. lautre extrme, les dpenses de la politique de

cohsion nont reprsent que 1 % des investissements dans les transports par ltat en

France, pendant la mme priode.

En termes physiques, 3 851 km de nouvelles routes ont t construits jusqu la fin 2013

dans ces 15 tats membres, grce au soutien apport par la politique de cohsion. Il

sagit l de lquivalent de 1 % des autoroutes et des routes nationales dans ces tats

membres. En outre, 21 653 km de routes ont t rnoves ou remises en tat grce au

soutien de la politique de cohsion. En tout, la longueur du rseau routier soit

nouvellement construit, soit rnov, grce au soutien de la politique de cohsion,

reprsentait 9 % des autoroutes et des routes nationales fin 2013. Dans le secteur

ferroviaire, la politique de cohsion a contribu la mise disposition de 3 135 km de

voies ferres nouvelles ou rnoves, soit lquivalent de 2 % du rseau ferroviaire de ces

15 tats membres.

Sur la base du travail men pour la prsente tude, il apparat que les allocations de

fonds fournies par la politique de cohsion se sont bien alignes sur les tendances

actuelles du secteur et les priorits de la politique de transports. En particulier, le

financement fourni par la politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille la

connectivit lchelle de lUE, ainsi que dans les tats membres individuels. Cette

contribution sest concentre sur les tats membres et les rgions qui taient les

destinataires viss par les niveaux relatifs les plus levs daide dans le cadre de la

politique de cohsion.

Les allocations de fonds fournies par la politique de cohsion dans les tats membres ont

reprsent de 57 milliards deuros en Pologne 25 millions deuros au Luxembourg. Les

ressources alloues aux transports dans le cadre des enveloppes de la politique de

cohsion ont reprsent de 45 % en Pologne 0 % au Danemark et au Luxembourg. Le

degr dabsorption des financements fournis par la politique de cohsion allous aux

10

transports a reprsent de 55 % en Roumanie 105 % en Espagne, dans les tats

membres qui ont attribu plus de 5 milliards deuros aux transports.

Ce cofinancement a contribu la construction et la rnovation des routes et des voies

ferres existantes, et cela tant dans le cadre du RTE-T quen dehors de ce rseau.

Nanmoins, pour ce qui est des routes (dans le cadre du RTE-T ou en dehors de ce

rseau), les rsultats communiqus fin 2013 se trouvaient concentrs dans les tats

membres ayant rejoint lUE en 2004 ou par la suite, alors que les tats membres ayant

rejoint lUnion avant cette date prsentent des rsultats plus importants dans le secteur

ferroviaire.

Lutilisation des fonds allous par la politique de cohsion dans le secteur ferroviaire sest

focalise sur la rnovation ou la mise jour des vois ferres existantes, afin daccrotre la

vitesse des lignes et leur capacit. Dune manire significative, certaines parties

prenantes des tats membres ont soulign le rle important jou par les fonds allous

par la politique de cohsion pour soutenir des projets complexes et de grande envergure,

notamment dans le secteur ferroviaire. De leur point de vue, lesdits projets auraient pu

ne pas tre mis en uvre en labsence de financement de la part de la politique de

cohsion. En encourageant les investissements dans les transports ferroviaires et

urbains, la politique de cohsion a contribu la mise en place de transports respectueux

de lenvironnement.

La contribution financire dans le cadre de la politique de cohsion, pendant la priode de

programmation 2007-2013, a t plus faible concernant les investissements non routiers

ou ferroviaires. Nanmoins, des amliorations ont t apportes aux transports urbains,

aux aroports, aux ports et aux voies cyclables pendant cette priode.

Points forts et faiblesses de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des

transports

Parmi les points forts des investissements de la politique de cohsion dans le secteur des

transports, on peut citer la possibilit de soutenir un large ventail dobjectifs politiques

lchelle des tats membres, avec des allocations de fonds qui refltent les besoins

individuels de ces derniers. Ceci a permis de maintenir un investissement constant sur le

RTE-T et a contribu rpondre aux besoins en investissements des tats membres,

ainsi qu satisfaire les exigences rgionales/locales en matire de transports.

Les fonds allous par la politique de cohsion ont constitu une source importante de

financement pour les infrastructures de transport pendant la rcession conomique. Il

sest agi dune source essentielle pour la promotion des investissements dans des projets

dinfrastructures complexes et de grande envergure. De nombreuses parties prenantes

ont signal quen labsence du financement apport par la politique de cohsion, les tats

membres auraient ax leurs efforts sur des infrastructures moins coteuses,

possiblement au dtriment des besoins identifis.

La priode de programmation 2007-2013 de la politique de cohsion a galement jou un

rle dans le renforcement des capacits organisationnelles des tats membres. Les

procdures permettant dobtenir des financements dans le cadre de la politique de

cohsion exigent que les tats membres adoptent une planification stratgique pour ce

qui est de leurs besoins en matire de transports. Les tats membres ont galement

renforc leurs capacits dans le domaine du dveloppement et de lapprciation des

projets complexes dinvestissement sur les transports.

11

Certaines faiblesses ont galement t notes concernant la priode de programmation

2007-2013 de la politique de cohsion, pour ce qui est des transports. Parmi ces

faiblesses, on peut citer les difficults pour associer les fonds fournis par la politique de

cohsion et les financements privs dans les structures de financement public-priv, ainsi

que le manque de clart, dans certains tats membres, dans lapplication des rgles sur

les aides dtats aux investissements dans les transports.

Certaines parties prenantes ont voqu que la concentration mentionne prcdemment

des allocations des fonds sur le RTE-T a rduit les fonds allous la satisfaction des

besoins des transports rgionaux, perptuant ainsi les disparits rgionales. Nanmoins,

dans lensemble, il apparat que laccent mis sur la planification des transports sur le long

terme dans les tats membres en tant que base des investissements aura rduit ce

risque, en pratique.

Qualit et exhaustivit de lanalyse financire des projets de transports

Cette tude sest penche sur la qualit et lexhaustivit de lanalyse financire mene

par les tats membres lors du dveloppement de leurs projets dinvestissement dans les

transports. Ce travail a valu la qualit de lanalyse financire entreprise au stade ex

ante par les tats membres, comprenant la fois la demande et les aspects financiers

des projets. Dans tous les cas, au moment de ladoption de la dcision de financement,

lanalyse financire de chacun des projets sest avre complte et prcise, fournissant

une base exhaustive pour la prise de dcision dans le cadre de ces derniers. Certains

domaines posant habituellement difficult ont t identifis, ainsi que les meilleures

pratiques au sein des tats membres pour y remdier.

La qualit de lanalyse de la demande sest avre variable en fonction des projets,

notamment dans lutilisation de donnes dmographiques telles que celles concernant

lemploi et la possession dune voiture. Il a t constat que, souvent, de telles donnes

avaient t rassembles dune manire trop spatialement agrge, y compris par le biais

du recours des prvisions du PIB au niveau national pour informer lanalyse de la

demande. Ceci, ainsi que la prise en charge insuffisante des interactions des projets avec

dautres modes de transport et itinraires, est considr par les valuateurs comme

ayant nui lexactitude et la qualit de lanalyse de la demande pour certains projets.

Nanmoins, tous les projets ont retenu une approche cohrente par rapport aux

meilleures pratiques pour ce qui est de lanalyse des scnarios avec projet et sans

projet .

Lanalyse du comportement des consommateurs et de leur volont de payer a, elle aussi,

vari en fonction des projets valus, avec peu dindications sur lanalyse des variables

ou de la demande induite. De mme, une trop forte dpendance par rapport aux

politiques nationales de page et tarifaires a t constate, sans tenir compte de leur

accessibilit financire dans les marchs cibles. Ces facteurs pourraient avoir nui

lexactitude des analyses de la demande. Par ailleurs, peu dlments ont t rassembls

quant la manire dont les charges pourraient varier pendant la priode value dans la

plupart des projets, ce qui a donn lieu une incertitude potentielle plus grande

concernant lexactitude des prvisions.

Lexactitude de la prvision des cots de construction a vari, elle aussi, en fonction des

projets valus. La rcession conomique a constitu un facteur essentiel pour la

rduction des cots de sous-traitance dans le cadre de nombreux projets valus. Le

degr de prparation du projet a, lui aussi, exerc une influence sur les cots finaux et

12

les calendriers de mise en uvre. Des exemples de bon travail prparatoire ont t

identifis, dont lacquisition prcoce de terres, ce qui a permis dconomiser aussi bien du

temps que de largent, alors que le manque d'enqutes de terrain a constitu un exemple

de mauvais travail prparatoire menant des dpassements des cots et des dlais

prvus.

La viabilit financire de certains projets sest avre incertaine, en raison du manque

dlments factuels concernant la prise en charge des cots dentretien. Labsence

daffectation des recettes concernant les ncessits en termes dexploitation et

dentretien a t identifie dans de nombreux projets routiers. De mme, les pages

ntaient pas mis en uvre des fins de programmation dans le cadre de certains

projets, ce qui a introduit une incertitude supplmentaire quant aux recettes en aval. Il a

galement t constat que la sparation des responsabilits des gestionnaires des

infrastructures et des entreprises ferroviaires avait, elle aussi, introduit des imprcisions

et incertitudes au sein de certaines analyses financires. Dans lensemble, les analyses

des flux de trsorerie et des risques ont t estimes correctement, bien quune analyse

plus approfondie des risques et de la valeur rsiduelle des projets soit prconise.

Catalogue des difficults

La prsente tude a identifi les difficults cls auxquelles les tats membres se voient

confronts lorsquils dveloppent et valuent leurs projets dinvestissement dans les

transports, ainsi que les effets de ces difficults sur le plan pratique. Des meilleures

pratiques pour faire face ces difficults ont t identifies et voques avec les parties

prenantes des tats membres. Un catalogue de ces difficults cls a t dress. Il

contient, pour chacune des difficults identifies, les lments suivants :

une brve description ;

un aperu technique dtaill de la difficult ;

des signes annonciateurs de la possible apparition de la difficult en

question ;

les implications de la difficult pour lanalyse financire dun projet ;

les implications de la difficult pour la viabilit financire du projet, et

les solutions potentielles pour contribuer relever la difficult.

Les difficults identifies sont les suivantes :

prvoir la demande avec prcision, afin de reflter lemplacement du projet,

les tendances de la population et les facteurs contextuels ;

la prcision de la prvision de la demande par rapport aux impacts court et

moyen terme de la construction, notamment dans le secteur ferroviaire ;

lvaluation insuffisante de linteraction du projet avec les moyens de

transport ou les itinraires concurrents ;

le dveloppement et la mise en uvre de modles de transport multimodaux

refltant la porte du projet et ses rsultats potentiels ;

13

la dfinition de reprsentations correctes de la volont de payer dans le cadre

de lanalyse de rentabilit des transports ;

la dfinition des niveaux tarifaires dans le cadre du contexte rglementaire

national ;

la prcision du calcul des frais dentretien et dexploitation, ainsi que la valeur

nette actuelle des projets, et

lestimation prcise des frais de construction dans le cadre de lanalyse

conomique.

Le catalogue complet est prsent dans la section E du prsent rapport.

Conclusions

Certaines conclusions gnrales peuvent tre tires de la prsente valuation. La

politique de cohsion a apport une contribution de taille au secteur des transports

lchelle de lUE et de ses tats membres. Certains points forts importants ont t

constats dans le fonctionnement de la politique de cohsion dans le domaine des

transports. En particulier, les structures de prise de dcision en place et la planification

stratgique des investissements dans les transports ont exig des tats membres quils

sassurent que le fonctionnement de la politique de cohsion soit taill sur mesure par

rapport aux besoins et au contexte dans les tats membres individuels. Les

investissements financs par la politique de cohsion contribuent la stratgie en

matire de transports des tats membres, ainsi qu celle de lUE dans son ensemble. De

mme, ils encouragent le dveloppement de transports respectueux de lenvironnement.

Les investissements fournis par la politique de cohsion ont renforc les capacits des

tats membres en matire de planification et dachvement des investissements dans le

secteur des transports. Ils ont galement assur la disponibilit continue de fonds par

temps de crise conomique et encourag les tats membres mettre un accent accru sur

les investissements complexes tels que ceux dans le secteur ferroviaire.

14

Zusammenfassung

Die Informationen und Ansichten, die in diesem Bericht wiedergegeben werden, sind die

der Autoren. Sie entsprechen nicht zwangslufig der offiziellen Meinung der Kommission.

Die Kommission bernimmt keine Gewhr fr die Richtigkeit der in dieser Studie

verwendeten Daten. Weder die Kommission noch Personen, die im Namen der

Kommission handeln, sind fr die Verwendung der nachstehenden Informationen

verantwortlich.

Einleitung

Die Evaluationsstudie ist Teil der Ex-Post-Evaluierung der EU-Kohsionspolitik in der

Programmperiode von 2007-2013. Die Hauptziele und Anforderungen dieser Evaluation

lauteten wie folgt:

Die wichtigsten Erfolge der Kohsionspolitik in smtlichen Bereichen der

transportbezogenen Infrastruktur bestimmen,

analysieren, bis zu welchem Grad die EU-Frderung zu der Entstehung von

flchendeckenden Verkehrsnetzen beigetragen hat und

die Strken und Schwchen bei Interventionen der Kohsionspolitik im

Bereich Verkehr ausmachen und untersuchen, welche Richtung diese Politik

knftig einschlagen soll.

Die fr diese Studie durchgefhrten Arbeiten sowie deren detaillierte Ergebnisse sind in

zwei Zwischenberichten dargelegt. Basierend auf dieser Arbeit leistet dieser

Abschlussbericht Folgendes:

Er fasst zusammen, welchen Beitrag die Kohsionspolitik zu Verkehrswegen in

der EU geleistet hat,

erlutert die Strken und Schwchen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr,

prsentiert die Untersuchungsergebnisse der Finanzanalyse von

Verkehrsprojekten, die von Mitgliedstaaten durchgefhrt wurden,

stellt den Katalog an Herausforderungen vor, der von den Ergebnissen dieser

Studie abgeleitet wurde und

fhrt die umfassenden Schlussfolgerungen der Evaluierung auf.

Der Beitrag der Kohsionspolitik fr den Bereich Verkehr

Die Kohsionspolitik der Europischen Union (EU) kann sowohl auf transeuropischer

Ebene als auch auf Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten ihren Beitrag zum Verkehr leisten. Am

wirksamsten kann die Kohsionspolitik zur Vervollstndigung der EU-weiten

Verkehrswege beisteuern, indem sie die Fertigstellung des transeuropischen

Verkehrsnetzes (TEN-V) untersttzt. Das TEN-V ist das Ergebnis eines gemeinsamen

Planungsprozesses der Kommission und der Mitgliedstaaten, bei dem EU-weite Prioritten

fr die Verkehrsplanung festgelegt werden.

Die Kohsionspolitik hat einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Vollendung des TEN-V geleistet.

Bei den Finanzierungsbeschlssen haben die Mitgliedslnder den Straen- und Schienen-

15

Projekten des TEN-V einen hohen Stellenwert beigemessen. Insgesamt wurden dem

Bereich Verkehr im Rahmen der Kohsionspolitik Mittel von 82,3 Milliarden zugewiesen.

40,8 Milliarden bzw. 49 % davon wurden im Rahmen des TEN-V vergeben. Von den

3.875 km neuer Straen, die bis Ende 2013 mit Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik gebaut

wurden, waren 1.817 km bzw. 47 % neue TEN-V-Straen. Entsprechend waren von

3.405 Schienenkilometern, die bis Ende 2013 entweder neu verlegt oder mit Mitteln der

Kohsionspolitik umgebaut wurden, 1.661 km bzw. 49 % TEN-V Schienen. Darber

hinaus wurden in den 28 Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende 2013 ber 23.000 Straenkilometer

aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik saniert.

In den jeweiligen Mitgliedslndern hat die Frderung durch die Kohsionspolitik einen

entscheidenden Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Transportnetzes geleistet. Im Lauf dieser

Evaluierung wurde der Aufbau von Verkehrsinfrastruktur in 15 Mitgliedslndern mit den

hchsten Zuweisungen aus dem Bereich der Kohsionspolitik mit der gesamten

Verkehrsentwicklung verglichen. Die ffentlichen Gesamtinvestitionen in

Verkehrsinfrastruktur in diesen Mitgliedstaaten lag im Zeitraum von 2007-2013 bei 494

Milliarden. Im gleichen Zeitraum lagen die Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik fr den Bereich

Verkehr in diesen Mitgliedslndern im gleichen Zeitraum bei 52 Milliarden. Diese

Frderung konzentrierte sich auf Mitgliedstaaten, die der EU 2004 oder nach 2004

beigetreten waren. Die Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik fr Verkehr entsprachen in der

Programmperiode von 2007-2013 dem Groteil der Gesamtinvestitionen von Litauen

(54 %), Ungarn (49 %) und der Slowakei (45 %). Auf der anderen Seite haben die

Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik in Frankreich im gleichen Zeitraum lediglich 1 % der

Verkehrsinvestitionen ausgemacht.

In absoluten Zahlen wurden in diesen 15 Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende 2013 3.851 km neue

Straen mit Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik gebaut. Das entspricht 1 % der bereits

bestehenden Autobahnen und anderer staatlicher Straen in diesen Mitgliedstaaten.

Weitere 21.653 km Autostraen wurden aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik erneuert oder

instand gesetzt. Alles in allem entspricht der Umfang der aus Mitteln der Kohsionspolitik

neu gebauten oder sanierten Verkehrswege Ende 2013 9 % der bereits bestehenden

Autobahnen und anderer staatlicher Straen. Im Eisenbahnsektor hat die

Kohsionspolitik dazu beigetragen, 3.135 Schienenkilometer neu zu verlegen oder

instand zu setzen. Das entspricht 2 % des Schienennetzwerks der 15 Mitgliedstaaten.

Die Untersuchungen im Rahmen dieser Studie scheinen zu belegen, dass die Mittel der

Kohsionspolitik gut auf die aktuellen Trends im Sektor und auf die Prioritten der

jeweiligen Verkehrspolitik abgestimmt sind. Die Mittelvergabe der Kohsionspolitik hat

vor allem fr den Vernetzungsgrad auf EU-Ebene sowie der einzelner Mitgliedstaaten

einen mageblichen Beitrag geleistet. Dieser Beitrag war in denjenigen Mitgliedslndern

und Regionen konzentriert, die auch die beabsichtigten Empfnger der relativ gesehen

hchsten Zuwendungen der Kohsionspolitik waren.

Die Zuwendungen der Kohsionspolitik fr Mitgliedstaaten lag zwischen 57 Milliarden in

Polen und 25 Millionen in Luxemburg. Die Mittel, die im Finanzrahmen der

Kohsionspolitik fr Verkehrswege bereit gestellt wurden, reichen von 45 % in Polen bis

0 % in Dnemark und Luxemburg. Der Grad der Ausschpfung der Kohsionspolitik-

Frderung fr Verkehrswege reichte von 55 % in Rumnien bis 105 % in Spanien (bei

Mitgliedstaaten, die mehr als 5 Milliarden fr Verkehr bereitgestellt hatten).

Diese Kofinanzierung untersttzte den Bau neuer und die Instandsetzung bereits

existierender Straen und Schienenwege, sowohl im Rahmen des TEN-V als auch

16

auerhalb dieses Netzwerks. Die Ausgaben fr Straen innerhalb des TEN-V, aber auch

darber hinaus waren bis Ende 2013 vor allem in Mitgliedslndern konzentriert, die der

EU 2004 oder danach beigetreten waren. Mitgliedstaaten, deren Beitritt zur EU vor 2004

stattfand, hatten demgegenber grere Ausgaben im Bereich Schienenwege zu

verbuchen.

Der Einsatz von Mitteln aus der Kohsionspolitik im Schienensektor war auf die

Erneuerung oder den Ausbau des bereits existierenden Schienennetzes ausgerichtet, um

so Liniengeschwindigkeit und Kapazitten zu erhhen. Bezeichnenderweise hoben einige

Vertreter aus Mitgliedslndern die wichtige Rolle der Kohsionspolitik-Frderung bei der

Untersttzung groer, komplexer Projekte hervor, die insbesondere im Schienensektor

offenkundig wurde. Ihrer Ansicht nach htten solche Projekte mglicherweise nicht ohne

Frdermittel der Kohsionspolitik realisiert werden knnen. Durch die Frderung von

Investitionen in Schienennetz und stdtische Verkehrsnetze hat die Kohsionspolitik zur

Umsetzung umweltfreundlicher Verkehrslsungen beigetragen.

Whrend der Programmperiode von 2007-2013 wurden Investitionen in Schienenverkehr

und andere Verkehrswege weniger stark gefrdert als Investitionen im Straenbau.

Nichtsdestotrotz gab es in diesem Zeitraum Verbesserungen im Bereich stdtischer

Verkehrsnetze, Flughfen, Hfen und Fahrradwege.

Strken und Schwchen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr

Zu den Strken der Kohsionspolitik-Frderung im Bereich Verkehr gehrte die Fhigkeit,

eine Vielzahl von politischen Zielsetzungen der verschiedenen Mitgliedslnder zu

untersttzen, wobei die Zuwendungen sich an den Bedrfnissen der einzelnen

Mitgliedslnder orientieren. Dies frderte fortlaufende Investitionen in das TEN-V, trug

dazu bei, Investitionsbedrfnisse in Mitgliedstaaten aufzuzeigen und half,

regionale/lokale Verkehrsanforderungen zu erfllen.

Die Zuwendungen aus der Kohsionspolitik waren whrend der wirtschaftlichen Rezession

eine wichtige Finanzierungsquelle. Sie war darber hinaus eine bedeutende

Frderungsquelle, um Investitionen in groe Infrastrukturprojekte zu frdern. Viele

Vertreter der Mitgliedslnder haben angemerkt, dass sich EU-Mitgliedstaaten ohne

Kohsionspolitik-Frderung auf kostengnstigere Infrastrukturlsungen eingelassen

htten und so in Kauf genommen htten, bereits ermittelte Bedrfnisse mglicherweise

zu vernachlssigen.

Die Programmperiode der Kohsionspolitik von 2007-2013 hat auch eine Rolle bei der

Entwicklung der organisatorischen Kapazitt von Mitgliedslndern gespielt. Die Verfahren,

mit denen Mittel aus Kohsionspolitik beschafft werden, bringen Mitgliedstaaten dazu,

sich mit der strategischen Planung ihrer Verkehrsbedrfnisse auseinander zu setzen.

Mitgliedslnder haben zudem ihre Kapazitt erhht, um komplexe

Verkehrsinvestitionsprojekte zu entwickeln und zu ermitteln.

Fr die Frderperiode 2007-2013 der Kohsionspolitik wurden im Bereich Verkehr

indessen mehrere Schwachstellen ausgemacht. Dazu zhlen die Schwierigkeiten bei der

Kombination von Kohsionspolitik-Frderung und privaten Finanzierungen in Strukturen

ffentlich-privater Partnerschaften (PP) sowie mangelnde Transparenz bei einigen

Mitgliedstaaten bei der Anwendung der Vorschriften zu staatlicher Beihilfe bei

Investitionen im Bereich Verkehr.

17

Die bereits erwhnte Konzentration auf Zuwendungen fr das TEN-V fhre aus Sicht

mancher Akteure dazu, dass Zuwendungen fr regionale Erfordernisse im Bereich

Verkehr reduziert und dadurch regionale Ungleichheiten begnstigt werden. Alles in allem

wird der Fokus auf eine Langzeitplanung der Mitgliedstaaten im Bereich Verkehr als

Investitionsgrundlage dieses Risiko in der Praxis allerdings mindern.

Qualitt und Vollstndigkeit der Finanzanalysen von Verkehrsprojekten

Diese Studie untersuchte die Qualitt und Vollstndigkeit von Finanzanalysen, die von

Mitgliedstaaten bei der Entwicklung von Verkehrsinvestitionsprojekten durchgefhrt

werden. Diese Arbeit der Finanzanalyse hat auch die Qualitt der Finanzanalyse

bercksichtigt, die von den Mitgliedstaaten in der Vorphase durchgefhrt wurde und die

sowohl die Anforderungen als auch die finanziellen Aspekte von Projekten beinhaltete.

Bei allen Projekten war die Finanzanalyse zum Zeitpunkt, als die Entscheidung zur

Frderung getroffen wurde, vollstndig und fehlerfrei und lieferte so eine umfassende

Grundlage fr die Entscheidungsfindung des jeweiligen Projekts. Es wurden allerdings

auch einige Bereiche ermittelt, in denen es immer wieder zu Problemen kam, z. B.

vorbildliche Verfahren der verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten beim Umgang mit diesen

Problemen.

Die Qualitt der Bedarfsanalyse schwankte bei den Projekten, insbesondere beim Einsatz

demographischer Daten wie Beschftigungsquote und Fahrzeugbestand. Diese Daten

waren in vielen Fllen rumlich zu stark verdichtet, das gilt auch fr die Auswertung von

Prognosen zum Bruttoinlandsprodukt, die Auskunft ber die Bedarfsanalyse geben sollen.

Dies sowie die unzureichende Bercksichtigung von Projektwechselwirkungen mit

anderen Modalitten und Streckenverlufen haben nach Ansicht der Gutachter dazu

beigetragen, bei einigen Projekten die Genauigkeit und Qualitt der Bedarfsanalyse zu

unterminieren. Nichtsdestotrotz entsprach die Herangehensweise bezglich der Analyse

von Szenarien mit Projekt und ohne Projekt bei allen Projekten den Best-Practice-

Vorgaben.

Die Analyse von Konsumentenverhalten und Zahlungsbereitschaft variierte bei den

evaluierten Projekten, dabei gab es kaum Hinweise auf eine vernderliche oder induzierte

Bedarfsanalyse. Auf nationaler Ebene konnte auch eine bermige Abhngigkeit von

Mautverfahren und Tarifpolitik ausgemacht werden, ohne Bercksichtigung der

Bezahlbarkeit bei den Zielmrkten. Diese Faktoren htten die Genauigkeit der

Bedarfsanalyse schwchen knnen. Es gab zudem unzureichende Hinweise darauf,

welchen Schwankungen die Gebhren whrend des Beurteilungszeitraums unterliegen,

was zu grerer potenzieller Ungewissheit bezglich der Genauigkeit der Prognosen

fhrte.

Auch die Genauigkeit der prognostizierten Konstruktionskosten schwankte bei den

verschiedenen untersuchten Projekten. Die wirtschaftliche Rezession war bei vielen

evaluierten Projekten ein zentraler Faktor bei der Kostenverringerung fr

Bauunternehmen. Das Ausma der Projektvorbereitungen beeinflusste auch die

Endkosten und den Umsetzungszeitplan. Es lieen sich Beispiele guter

Vorbereitungsarbeiten ermitteln, z. B. die frhe Erwerbung von Grundstcken, was zu

Kosten- und Zeiteinsparungen gefhrt hat, wohingegen mangelnde

Baugrunduntersuchungen als Beispiel fr mangelhafte Vorbereitungsarbeiten ausgemacht

wurden, die zudem zu Budget- und Zeitplanberschreitungen gefhrt haben.

18

Die finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit einiger Projekte war aufgrund mangelnder Nachweise fr

die Bezahlung von Wartungs- und Instandhaltungskosten schwer kalkulierbar. Bei vielen

Straenprojekten wurde mangelnde Zweckbindung der Einnahmen fr Betriebs- und

Wartungs- bzw. Instandhaltungsvorgaben identifiziert. Bei manchen Projekten wurden

die Mautgebhren nicht in das Programm implementiert, sodass es zu weiteren

Unsicherheiten bezglich der nachgelagerten Einnahmen kam. Auch die getrennten

Verantwortlichkeiten von Infrastruktur-Management und Eisenbahnunternehmen wurde

bei einigen Finanzanalysen als Ursache fr Ungenauigkeiten und Ungewissheiten

ausgemacht. Alles in allem bewertete man die Geldfluss- und Risikoanalysen als

fehlerfrei; dessen ungeachtet empfehlen die Gutachter weitere Risikoanalysen sowie

Analysen ber den Restwert von Projekten.

Katalog der Herausforderungen

Diese Studie ermittelte die wesentlichen Herausforderungen fr Mitgliedstaaten bei der

Entwicklung und Bewertung von Verkehrsprojekten sowie die praktischen Auswirkungen

dieser Herausforderungen. Fr die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Herausforderungen

wurden mit Vertretern der jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten Best-Practice-Vorgaben identifiziert

und errtert. Es wurde auch ein Katalog dieser zentralen Herausforderungen entwickelt,

der fr jede einzelne Herausforderung Folgendes festlegt:

Eine zusammenfassende Beschreibung,

einen detaillierten technischen berblick ber die jeweilige Herausforderung,

Warnsignale, die darauf hindeuten, dass die betreffende Herausforderung

entstehen knnte,

die Implikationen der Herausforderung fr die Finanzanalyse eines Projektes,

die Implikationen der Herausforderung fr die finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit des

Projekts und

potenzielle Lsungen fr die berwindung der jeweiligen Herausforderungen.

Folgende Herausforderungen wurden ermittelt:

Den Bedarf zutreffend prognostizieren, sodass er Projektstandort,

Bevlkerungsentwicklung und kontextabhngige Faktoren spiegelt,

die Genauigkeit von Bedarfsprognosen in Bezug auf kurz- bis mittelfristige

Auswirkungen der Bauarbeiten, insbesondere im Schienensektor,

unzureichende Beurteilung der Wechselwirkung des Projekts mit

konkurrierenden Modalitten oder Streckenverlufen,

Entwicklung und Betrieb eines multimodalen Verkehrsmodells, das den

Projektumfang sowie potenzielle Auswirkungen bercksichtigt,

die Ausarbeitung exakter Darstellungen der Zahlungsbereitschaft im Rahmen

von Kosten-/Nutzen-Analysen der Verkehrskosten,

die Definition des Tarifniveaus im Rahmen des nationalen Aufsichtsrahmens,

19

die exakte Kalkulation der Wartungs-/Instandhaltungs- und Betriebskosten

sowie der Nettogegenwertsberechnung des Projekts und

die exakte Schtzung der Konstruktionskosten als Teil der

Wirtschaftlichkeitsanalyse.

Der gesamte Katalog ist im Abschnitt E dieses Berichts aufgefhrt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Aus der vorliegenden Evaluierung lassen sich einige Gesamtschlussfolgerungen ziehen.

Die Kohsionspolitik hat einen erheblichen Beitrag zum Verkehrssystem geleistet, sowohl

in der EU insgesamt als auch in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Es lieen sich einige

bedeutende Strken feststellen, wie die Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr funktioniert.

So gewhrleisten insbesondere die gegenwrtigen Entscheidungsstrukturen und die von

den Mitgliedstaaten erforderliche strategische Planung der Verkehrsinvestitionen, dass

der Einsatz der Kohsionspolitik den Bedrfnissen der jeweiligen Mitgliedstaaten

entspricht und auf den Kontext vor Ort zugeschnitten ist. Investitionen, die durch die

Kohsionspolitik gefrdert wurden, sttzen die Verkehrsstrategie der Mitgliedstaaten und

der EU als Ganzes, zudem begnstigen sie die Entwicklung umweltfreundlicher

Verkehrssysteme. Die Investitionen der Kohsionspolitik im Bereich Verkehr haben die

Kapazitten der Mitgliedstaaten untersttzt, Verkehrsinvestitionen zu planen und

durchzufhren, sie haben sichergestellt, dass auch in Zeiten der wirtschaftlichen Krise

weitere Investitionen gettigt wurden und die relativ komplexen Investitionen der

Mitgliedstaaten im Schienenverkehr schwerpunktmig erhht.

20

Section A: Introduction

A1 Introduction

The Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission (DG

REGIO) undertook an ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 cohesion policy programming

period. As part of this work DG REGIO commissioned a study referred to as Work

Package 5: Transport from AECOM and KPMG. This report represents the Final Report of

the Work Package 5 evaluation.

A2 Evaluation objectives

The main objectives and requirements of the evaluation were to:

Identify the main achievements of cohesion policy in all areas of transport

related infrastructure;

Analyse to what extent the EU support contributed to the creation of

comprehensive transport networks; and

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy intervention in

transport and explore directions this policy should take in the future.

A particular emphasis was placed on the financial sustainability of cohesion policy

investment, using a selection of major projects to examine the detailed financial data and

forecasting prepared by Member States and submitted to the Commission.

Data on financial progress and physical achievements in all Member States and

programmes was available from the Commissions own monitoring systems and this was

analysed as part of the study. These achievements were placed in context using data

from Eurostat, Member States and the International Transport Forum on overall transport

infrastructure in Member States. This information on overall achievements was

supplemented by a case study approach at the Member State and major project levels.

As with any evaluation, data availability and quality were issues for this study. The timing

of this ex post evaluation meant that much of the co-financed infrastructure in question

was relatively new, or even still in the process of construction. It is therefore too early to

fully investigate the results of these investments. The evaluation therefore concentrated

on the financial inputs and physical outputs of cohesion policy in the area of transport.

Where indications of the results and impacts of the investments have emerged these are

presented. The 2007-2013 programming period was the first one where Member States

provided the Commission with core indicator data on the outputs of cohesion policy.

This was extremely useful and forms the basis for much of the information presented in

this study. However, issues arose in the collation and interpretation of this data, for

example the definitions of the core indicators were interpreted differently by some

Member States. This issue is not expected to reoccur in the 2014-2020 reporting period.

Common indicators have been included in the Regulations for the current programming

period, and their precise definitions have been explained clearly to Member States.

21

A3 Approach

This section presents a summary of the approach adopted for each of the evaluation

Tasks. The evaluation was undertaken following a methodological approach specifically

tailored to answer the evaluation questions relevant to each of the Commissions

objectives. A summary of the approach is shown in Figure A.1, followed by a summary of

the work undertaken in each Task.

Figure A.1 Overview of our approach

Task 1: Analysis of

achievements

Task 2:Review financial

analyses

Task 3:Project case

studies

Task 2a

Task 2b

Task 2c

Task 4:"Catalogue of

Challenges"

Task 5:Case studies of CP

Task 6:Seminar

Task 7:Final Report

15 Member States

20 major projects

10 project case studies

6 Member States

Task 1

Task 1 provided an overview of cohesion policy effects on transport investment in

Member States. An analysis of the achievements of cohesion policy in the field of

transport over the 2007-2013 programming period was undertaken. This task

encompassed a quantitative analysis of data on inputs and outputs of cohesion policy in

the field of transport, supported by qualitative stakeholder interviews designed to elicit

the views of informed commentators in 15 Member States selected during the Inception

phase of this study1. These 15 Member States were selected to maximise the level of

insight gained into the spending of cohesion policy funds on transport infrastructure, i.e.

they were selected on the basis of their allocations of cohesion policy funding to

transport.

Task 2

Task 2 reviewed the financial and demand analysis of 20 major projects2 selected in the

Inception phase of this study; these were selected from the 15 Member States used in

Task 1 and to be illustrative of the transport priority themes supported by cohesion

policy. The major projects selected covered the following Member States and transport

priority themes:

Member States: Bulgaria (2), Czech Republic, Estonia, France (2), Germany,

Greece, Hungary, Italy (2), Poland (4), Romania (2), Slovakia, Slovenia and

Spain; and

1 The Member States were: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 2 Major Projects are defined as those with a total cost of over 50m

22

priority themes: Motorways (TEN-T) (4), Motorways (2), National Roads (2),

Regional/Local Roads, Urban Transport (3), Railway (TEN-T) (6), Railway,

Mobile Rail Assets (TEN-T).

The documentation for each project was examined and a judgment provided on the

quality and accuracy of demand and financial assumptions presented within the ex-ante

financial analysis. The key assumptions and theoretical foundations for demand and

financial analysis within these major projects were identified.

Task 3

Task 3 of the evaluation involved preparing case studies for 10 major projects with the

following objectives as defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR):

To verify the correctness of assumptions underlying demand and financial

analyses; and

To understand the context in which projects were implemented.

The major projects were selected from the 20 used in Task 2 of the evaluation, and

covered eight Member States3. The projects were selected to be illustrative of the Priority

Themes and Member States supported by cohesion policy, and on the basis that projects

were near or post completion. The evaluation included a desk-based review of available

documentation and data, supported by in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders.

Task 4

Task 4 saw the preparation of a catalogue of challenges to present an analysis of the

most commonly occurring issues and problems within the ex-ante financial analysis of

major projects. Evidence from Tasks 2, 3 and 5 was used in preparing the catalogue.

Each of the challenges was prepared to provide the following information:

A summary of the challenge;

A technical and more detailed overview of the challenge;

Potential warning signs for the challenge;

Implications of the challenge in question for the financial analysis of projects;

and

Implications of the challenge in question for the financial sustainability of

projects; and

Potential solutions to assist in overcoming each challenge.

Task 5

Task 5 explored the contribution of cohesion policy to national and EU transport policy in

six Member States, which were selected from the 15 used in Task 14. These case studies

dealt with the following evaluation questions:

3 The Member States were: Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Czech Republic, Germany and Estonia, and included Motorways (TEN-T), Railway (TEN-T), Regional/Local Roads, Urban Transport and National Roads 4 The Member States were: France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain. This set of Member States was selected to be illustrative of the range of Member States in the EU by including: large and small Member States; long standing and relatively new Member States; and both Member States carrying out high and low levels of cohesion policy supported transport investment.

23

Should cohesion policy have supported all the transport sectors which

received assistance?

Are the investments made in the area of transport by cohesion policy the

ones that fulfil its [transport] objectives?

What should be supported by the cohesion policy in the area of transport?

What are the challenges for the cohesion policy in the area of transport in the

next 10 years?

Has the Common EU Transport Policy influenced the national transport policy

and in what way?

The evaluation included a desk-based review of available documentation and data,

supported by in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders.

Task 6

Task 6 was a seminar for Member State stakeholders, held on 9 October 2015 in

Brussels. The scope of the seminar included:

The presentation of an overview of the evaluation commission;

A discussion of the main challenges within the financial analysis of projects;

The presentation of major project and Member State case study outputs; and

The presentation of the emerging catalogue of challenges.

The seminar was used to explore the emerging findings and to deepen the analysis of

particular issues and challenges.

Task 7

Task 7 was the preparation of this Final Report, bringing together the findings from all

evaluation activities undertaken. The Final Report represents part of a suite of documents

prepared during this evaluation:

The finalised Inception Report for this study was issued to DG REGIO on 20

March, 2015 and presented the agreed methodology to be adopted;

The First Interim Report was issued to DG REGIO on 21 July 2015, presenting

the findings from Task 1 and Task 2; and

The Second Interim Report was issued to DG REGIO on 29 February 2016,

presenting the findings from Tasks 3, 4 and 5.

A4 Report structure

This Final Report brings together the evidence and findings from across the evaluation

and sets out:

Section B: the contribution of cohesion policy to transport in the EU;

Section C: the strengths and weaknesses of cohesion policy in the area of

transport;

24

Section D: the quality and completeness of financial analysis of transport

projects;

Section E: the catalogue of challenges; and

Section F: conclusions.

25

Section B: Contribution of cohesion policy to transport in

the EU

B1 Introduction

The work done for this study, particularly Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 5, produced extensive data

sets and qualitative insights on the contribution of cohesion policy to development of

transport infrastructure in Member States. The first and second interim reports include

full presentation of the findings in this area, which are summarised here, focusing on the

cohesion policy support to the creation of comprehensive transport networks both at a

trans-European and at a national, Member State, level.

This section starts with an overview of the level of cohesion policy funding agreed for

each Member State and the allocations made to transport (Section B2). Section B3

describes the contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks using data on

financial inputs from cohesion policy and the outputs of cohesion policy as measured by

core indicators for all 28 Member States. The analysis reflects the allocation of cohesion

policy funding to transport by individual Member States, and within this, the allocation of

funding to the TEN-T.

Section B4 examines the contribution of cohesion policy to the transport networks of

Member States. This requires consideration of the extent of transport networks of

Member States, and the total investment in transport from all sources of funding. This

analysis is therefore based on the 15 Member States selected for detailed examination in

Task 1 of the evaluation. Finally, Section B5 presents main conclusions from this

analysis.

Information included in this chapter comes from the qualitative desk research and

interviews with stakeholders in 15 Member States which, amongst other things, explored

the contribution of cohesion policy funding to transport in these Member States. These

interviews included discussions with officials from Managing Authorities, transport

ministries and beneficiaries of cohesion policy funding in these Member States. Six of the

15 Member States were also the subject of a more detailed case study. This work

provided further insights into the contribution of cohesion policy to the creation of

transport networks, both on a trans-European and individual Member State level.

26

B2 Cohesion policy funding overview

A total of 270.3 bn cohesion policy funding was agreed with Member States for the

2007-2013 programming period (Table B.1). The level of cohesion policy funding varied

between Member States, from 57.2 bn in Poland to 25 m in Luxembourg.

Of the 270.3 bn total, 82.3 bn was allocated to carry out interventions in different

areas of transport across the 28 Member States (30.4%). Allocation refers here to the

amount decided in adopted operational programmes for transport related Priority

Themes. The size of allocation to transport within the cohesion policy envelope was also

varied by Member State, from 25.6 bn in Poland (44.9%) to 0 in Luxembourg and

Denmark. The top ten Member States by transport allocation accounted together for

72.8 bn, or 88.1% of the total transport allocation. This group includes 6 Member

States, which joined EU in or after 2004 and included virtually only Convergence regions,

as well as Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany, with significant proportion of Convergence

regions.

Within the transport allocations, Member States distributed different levels of cohesion

policy funding across the areas of transport e.g. road, rail and other (Table B.2). This

was a reflection of the different objectives and policies established in each Member State

for the 2007-2013 programming period.

The data shows that more often than not, the largest proportion of a Member States

allocations was assigned to roads. However, Spain, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia allocated

the greatest proportion of funds to rail. In eight Member States (France, United Kingdom,

Cyprus, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria), predominantly those

with smaller overall amounts, the greatest proportion was assigned to other which

included, for example, multi-modal, urban transport, waterways, port and airport

investment.

27

Table B.1 Cohesion policy allocations m (up to the end of 2014)

Total Cohesion

Policy Allocation

Allocation to

Transport

Themes

Transport as %

of Member State

total

Poland 57,178 25,656 45

Spain 26,596 8,226 31

Czech Republic 22,455 7,822 35

Hungary 21,281 6,679 31

Greece 15,846 6,255 39

Romania 15,374 5,471 36

Italy 20,992 4,184 20

Slovakia 9,999 3,384 34

Germany 16,100 3,150 20

Bulgaria 5,488 2,022 37

Portugal 14,558 1,713 12

Lithuania 5,747 1,570 27

Latvia 3,947 1,141 29

France 8,052 1,072 13

Cross Border5 7,986 1,044 13

Slovenia 3,345 946 28

Estonia 3,012 692 23

United Kingdom 5,387 498 9

Croatia 706 230 33

Malta 728 148 20

Ireland 375 84 22

Cyprus 493 81 16

Sweden 935 77 8

Belgium 987 60 6

Netherlands 830 50 6

Finland 977 40 4

Austria 667 6 1

Denmark 255 0 0

Luxembourg 25 0 0

Total 270,323 82,299 30

Source: Operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014

5 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation

28

Table B.2 Total allocations to transport themes in m (up to the end of 2014)

Roads

% of

total Rail

% of

total Other

% of

total Total

Poland 15,800 62% 5,468 21% 4,388 17% 25,656

Spain 2,287 28% 4,137 50% 1,802 22% 8,226

Czech Republic 3,922 50% 2,720 35% 1,181 15% 7,822

Hungary 3,140 47% 1,720 26% 1,818 27% 6,679

Greece 4,444 71% 684 11% 1,128 18% 6,255

Romania 3,377 62% 1,692 31% 402 7% 5,471

Italy 702 17% 2,248 54% 1,234 29% 4,184

Slovakia 1,934 57% 1,180 35% 270 8% 3,384

Germany 1,978 63% 766 24% 406 13% 3,150

Bulgaria 991 49% 341 17% 690 34% 2,022

Portugal 809 47% 376 22% 529 31% 1,713

Lithuania 681 43% 580 37% 309 20% 1,570

Latvia 483 42% 256 22% 402 35% 1,141

France 165 15% 201 19% 706 66% 1,072

Cross Border6 314 30% 79 8% 651 62% 1,044

Slovenia 408 43% 450 48% 89 9% 946

Estonia 290 42% 185 27% 216 31% 692

United Kingdom 132 26% 87 17% 280 56% 498

Croatia - 0% 222 97% 8 3% 230

Malta 101 68% - 0% 47 32% 148

Ireland 64 76% 17 20% 4 4% 84

Cyprus 33 41% - 0% 48 59% 81

Sweden 9 11% 12 15% 57 73% 77

Belgium 14 24% - 0% 46 76% 60

Netherlands 5 10% 0.4 1% 45 89% 50

Finland 14 36% 10 26% 15 39% 40

Austria - 0% - 0% 6 100% 6

Total 42,097 51% 23,432 28% 16,771 20% 82,299

Source: Operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014

The overall cohesion policy allocation for transport remained relatively constant over the

2007-2013 programming period. It increased by 359 m from 81.9 bn by the end of

2008 to 82.3 bn by the end of 2014. There was a large increase in favour of Motorways

(TEN-T) (+14%) and Regional/Local Roads (+12%) (Table B.3). This was offset to some

extent by declines in Motorways (-13%) and National Roads (-12%), with an overall

impact of an increase of over 2 bn to road based themes.

Increases in allocation for all types of roads combined were typical for the Member

States, which joined EU before 2004, as 10 of them saw such changes, while only 2

recorded decreases: the Netherlands of 8% (0.4mn) and Portugal of 3% (23.7mn) and

3 did not have any allocation for roads in adopted operational programmes (Denmark

and Luxembourg had no transport allocation at all and Austria did not allocation for

roads).

In contrast, although the allocation for all types of roads combined increased somewhat

for 5 Member States, which joined EU after 2004 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania,

Poland and Romania), it also decreased in 6 other Member States from this category

(Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia). The total allocation for roads

6 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation.

29

in adopted operational programmes did not change in Cyprus and Croatia did not have

any amounts associated with roads.

The increases in allocation for all types of roads combined were offset by reductions in

the allocation for a variety other themes. Within the EU15, there were large decreases for

rail (- 323 m), as well as airports (- 354 m), ports (- 310 m) and multimodal

transport (- 265 m). In other Member States, there were significant decreases in the

allocations for rail (- 123 m), inland waterways (- 316 m), the promotion of clean

urban transport (- 228 m) and ITS (- 134 m).

The reallocation of resources to roads may reflect the relative ease of developing road

projects. The case studies carried out in Member States suggest that at least some of

them found it difficult to complete rail projects and reallocated some amounts to road.

Table B.3 Change in total transport allocations by Theme for all Member States

2008 - 2014

2008

m

2014

m

2008 -

2014 %

Change

2014 - 2008

m Change

Motorways (TEN-T) 17,482 19,874 14% 2,392

Regional/local roads 9,776 10,997 12% 1,221

Railways 4,105 4,706 15% 601

Mobile rail assets 559 900 61% 341

Urban transport 1,794 2,102 17% 308

Cycle tracks 634 664 5% 30

Multimodal transport 1,635 1,612 -1% -24

Inland waterways (regional and local) 266 195 -26% -70

Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 447 316 -29% -131

Intelligent transport systems 1,090 956 -12% -134

Promotion of clean urban transport 6,167 5,990 -3% -176

Inland waterways (TEN-T) 596 282 -53% -314

Ports 3,533 3,170 -10% -362

Airports 1,851 1,484 -20% -367

Mobile rail assets (TEN-T) 696 266 -62% -430

Motorways 5,133 4,484 -13% -649

National roads 7,659 6,743 -12% -917

Railways (TEN-T) 18,519 17,560 -5% -959

Total 81,941 82,299 0.4% 359 Source: operational programmes in the versions adopted by the end of 2008 and by the end of 2014

Table B.4 compares the cohesion policy allocation to transport with the amount of

expenditure up to the end of 2014. This shows that absorption ranged from 17% in

Austria to over 100% in Sweden, Finland, Cyprus and Spain.7 Of those Member States

which had transport allocations of over 5 bn, the rate ranged from 55% in Romania to

105% in Spain.

The expenditure in excess of the allocation may be due to the common practice of

overbooking, where the managing authorities select projects, whose value is higher than

7 Expenditure in excess of the allocation to certain priority themes is possible because of the common practice of overbooking, where the managing authorities select projects, whose value is higher than the available resources in the programme in order to make sure that problems in implementation of some operations will not prevent them from absorbing the full allocation. However, it does not mean the managing authority is able to spend more than the overall allocation to the programme.

30

the resources available in the programme under certain themes in order to make sure

that problems in implementation of some operations will not prevent them from

absorbing the full allocation to these themes.

The opposite, where the expenditure is lower than the allocation may be due to the fact

that transport projects tend to be complex and require substantial amount of time for

preparation and implementation. By consequence, the expenditure related to such

projects would be recorded relatively late in the programming period. However, the low

level of expenditure in comparison to the allocation may be as well a signal of problems

in implementation due to various reasons (for example, inadequate project pipeline or

insufficient administrative capacity).

Table B.4 Comparison of cohesion policy transport allocations with expenditure

(up to the end of 2014)

Allocation ( m) Expenditure ( m) Absorption rate

Poland 25,656 20,897 81%

Hungary 6,679 6,225 93%

Spain 8,226 8,642 105%

Greece 6,255 5,451 87%

Czech Republic 7,822 5,881 75%

Romania 5,471 2,995 55%

Italy 4,184 2,856 68%

Slovakia 3,383 2,262 67%

Germany 3,150 2,588 82%

Bulgaria 2,022 1,567 77%

Portugal 1,713 1,610 94%

Lithuania 1,570 1,448 92%

Latvia 1,141 1,009 88%

France 1,072 674 63%

Slovenia 946 631 67%

Cross Border8 1,044 629 60%

Estonia 692 612 88%

United Kingdom 498 350 70%

Sweden 77 134 174%

Malta 148 143 97%

Cyprus 81 103 127%

Croatia 229 68 30%

Ireland 84 81 96%

Belgium 60 43 72%

Finland 40 67 168%

Netherlands 50 38 76%

Austria 6 1 17%

Luxembourg - - -

Denmark - - -

Total 82,299 67,005 81%

Source: Allocation - operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014; Expenditure - Work

Package 13 of the Ex-post Evaluation

8 This covers European territorial cooperation programmes with transport allocation.

31

If the data on transport allocation and expenditure until the end of 2014 are analysed by

priority theme (Table B.5), a marked difference between road and rail in terms of

absorption pace becomes visible. The biggest share of cohesion policy transport

allocation went to TEN-T motorways and TEN-T railways - 19,874 m and 17,560 m.

However, the expenditure by the end of 2014 represented 91% of the allocation under

the former and 69% under the latter. A similar difference is apparent when allocation and

expenditure for all road and rail related priority themes are compared 93% for road

and 68% for rail.

Some stakeholders interviewed for case studies maintained that road investments were

relatively easier to implement than rail projects, also because in many cases the latter

focused on upgrading existing lines. However, it may as well be due to the insufficient

capacity of beneficiaries to implement the projects, which according to the stakeholders

interviewed for this evaluation was the case in Poland and Romania, where the ratio

between expenditure and allocation for rail by the end of 2014 was respectively 44%

and 37%.

Table B.5 Comparison of cohesion policy transport allocation with expenditure

to the end of 2014 by priority theme

Allocation

( m)

Expenditure

( m)

Absorption

rate

Motorways (TEN-T) 19,874 18,108 91%

Railways (TEN-T) 17,560 12,105 69%

Regional/local roads 10,997 10,414 95%

National roads 6,743 6,235 92%

Promotion of clean urban transport 5,990 4,364 73%

Railways 4,706 3,024 64%

Motorways 4,484 4,238 95%

Ports 3,170 2,353 74%

Urban transport 2,102 1,445 69%

Multimodal transport 1,612 1,436 89%

Airports 1,484 1,215 82%

Intelligent transport systems 956 338 35%

Mobile rail assets 900 653 73%

Cycle tracks 664 457 69%

Multimodal transport (TEN-T) 316 59 19%

Inland waterways (TEN-T) 282 216 77%

Mobile rail assets (TEN-T) 266 218 82%

Inland waterways (regional and local) 195 129 66%

Total 82,299 67,005 81%

Source: Allocation - operational programmes in the version adopted by the end of 2014; Expenditure - Work

Package 13 of the Ex-post Evaluation

B3 Contribution of cohesion policy to EU wide transport networks

Within the EU, Member States retained the primary responsibility for the planning and

provision of transport networks. This entails a risk that the transport network of the EU

will be developed as a set of individual national networks rather than as an integrated

system that meets the needs of the whole EU in an optimal way. The EU plays a leading

32

role in ensuring that this does not happen, engaging with Member States to jointly plan a

pan-European transport network for their mutual benefit.

The main instrument to achieve this objective is the Trans-European Networks

Transport (TEN-T) policy, based on article 170 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union. The EU legislation9 defines network of trans-European transport

corridors that has been agreed by the Commission and Member States in order to

support achievement of fully functioning internal market and economic and territorial

cohesion between the various parts of the EU. During the 2007-2013 programming

period, in addition to cohesion policy resources, the TEN-T programme with total budget

of some 8 bn was in place to provide funding for TEN-T investments. For the 2014-2020

programming period Connecting Europe Facility has been established with a total

budget of 26 bn (including 10 bn from the Cohesion Fund).

The TEN-T has been planned on two layers, a comprehensive network and a core

network. The comprehensive network is a relatively high density network which is

designed to provide all the regions of the EU with the accessibility they need. The core

network is a subset of the comprehensive network which is of particularly high priority

due to the volume of transport needs that it meets. Table B.6 summarises the scale of

the TEN-T as defined in 2013. TEN-T infrastructure receiving cohesion policy input during

the 2007-2013 programming period is relevant to the TEN-T as it was defined in 2013.

Table B.6 Scale of TEN-T

Comprehensive

(km)

Core

(km)

Railway Lines 138,072 50,762

Roads 136,706 34,401

Inland Waterways 23,506 12,880

Source: ec.europa.eu

Cohesion policy financial input to the TEN-T

The TEN-T represents the agreed priorities of the Commission and Member States for

completion of EU wide transport networks. Cohesion policy supports this objective by

providing funding for the TEN-T infrastructure.

During 2007-2013 programming period, a significant share of cohesion policy resources

for transport were allocated to the TEN-T. As demonstrated in Figure B.1 below, at the

end of 2014, TEN-T represented 46.5% (38.3 bn) of the total cohesion policy allocation

on transport (82.3 bn).

Member States clearly prioritised TEN-T motorways and TEN-T railways allocating

respectively - 24% ( 19.9 bn) and 21% ( 17.6 bn) of cohesion policy transport

resources to these two themes. As a result, TEN-T infrastructure accounted for a

significant share of the road and railroad infrastructure constructed with financial support

from cohesion policy. On the other hand, the allocation for remaining TEN-T related

themes inland waterways, mobile rail assets and multimodal transport was much

smaller and they all received less than 0.9 bn between them.

9 The most recently adopted legal basis for is Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. OJ L 348/1 of 20.12.2013. The legal basis for the Connecting Europe Fund is