U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Full Report (.pdf, 1.34 kb)
Sponsored by
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
In cooperation with
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
May 2011
Technical Report Documentation Page
| 1. Report No. FHWA-PL-12-023 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3. Recipient's Catalog No. | |
| 4. Title and Subtitle Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union |
5. Report Date August 2012 |
||
| 6. Performing Organization Code | |||
| 7. Author(s) Anthony T. Furst, Eric G. Madden, Eduardo Asperó, Monica M. Blaney, David F. Long, Bernardo J. Ortiz, Robert L. Penne, Ernest B. Perry, George E. Schoener, Renee Sigel, Spencer L. Stevens, Kenneth L. Sweeney, Juan C. Villa |
8. Performing Organization Report No. | ||
| 9. Performing Organization Name and Address American Trade Initiatives P.O. Box 8228 Alexandria, VA 22306-8228 |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) | ||
| 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-10-C-00027 |
|||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of International Programs Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation American Association of State |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered | ||
| 14. Sponsoring Agency Code | |||
| 15. Supplementary Notes FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs |
|||
16. Abstract The scan team learned that European Union transportation policies focus on corridors and on connecting transport |
|||
| 17. Key Words European Union, freight corridor program, freight policy, Trans-European Transport Network, transportation infrastructure |
18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public from the: Office of International Programs, FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590 international@fhwa.dot.gov, http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/ |
||
| 19. Security Classify. (of this report) Unclassified |
20. Security Classify. (of this page) Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 56 |
22. Price Free |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team
Anthony T.
Furst (FHWA Cochair)
FHWA
Eric G.
Madden (AASHTO Cochair)
Pennsylvania DOT
Eduardo
Asperó
Mexico
Intermodal Transportation Association
Monica M.
Blaney
Transport
Canada
David F.
Long
International
Trade Administration
Bernardo
J. Ortiz
Mexico
Ministry of Communications and Transport
Robert L.
Penne
AASHTO
Ernie B.
Perry
Missouri DOT
George E.
Schoener
I-95 Corridor
Coalition
Renee
Sigel
FHWA
Spencer L.
Stevens
FHWA
Kenneth L.
Sweeney
Maine DOT
Juan C.
Villa (Report Facilitator)
Texas
Transportation Institute
for
Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
National
Cooperative Highway Research Program
The International Technology Scanning Program, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign technologies and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. highway transportation systems. This approach allows for advanced technology to be adapted and put into practice much more efficiently without spending scarce research funds to re-create advances already developed by other countries.
FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts to study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are formed and sent to countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and financing. Scan teams usually include representatives from FHWA, State departments of transportation, local governments, transportation trade and research groups, the private sector, and academia.
After a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings and develop comprehensive reports, including recommendations for further research and pilot projects to verify the value of adapting innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, as well as the results of pilot programs and research, are circulated throughout the country to State and local transportation officials and the private sector. Since 1990, more than 85 international scans have been organized on topics such as pavements, bridge construction and maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management, winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and policy.
The International Technology Scanning Program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road program technologies and practices throughout the United States. In some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint research and technology-sharing projects with international counterparts, further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art. Scan studies have also exposed transportation professionals to remarkable advancements and inspired implementation of hundreds of innovations. The result: large savings of research dollars and time, as well as significant improvements in the Nation's transportation system.
Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of charge by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports are also available electronically and can be accessed on the FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
International Technology Scan Reports
International Technology Scanning Program:
Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways
Safety
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)
Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in Australia and Japan (2008)
Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in Europe and Japan (2006)
Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)
Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)
Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe (2005)
Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia (2004)
Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003)
Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety in Europe (2003)
European Road Lighting Technologies (2001)
Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in Europe (2000)
Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones (2000)
Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe (1999)
Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997)
Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe and Australia 1996)
Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand (1995)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, and the Netherlands (1994)
Planning and Environment
Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road Pricing In Europe and Singapore (2010)
Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability (2010)
Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility Processes With Planning, Environmental, and Design Processes in Australia and Canada (2009)
Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion Management (2007)
Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)
Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand (2005)
Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (2004)
European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002)
Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002)
Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways (2002)
Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001)
Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999)
European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and Technology (1999)
National Travel Surveys (1994)
Policy and Information
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union (2011)
Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and Japan European (2011)
Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and Asia (2009)
Practices in Transportation Workforce Development (2003)
Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in Japan (2003)
Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services (1999)
National Travel Surveys (1994)
Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad (1994)
International Guide to Highway Transportation Information (1994)
International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality Enhancement (1994)
European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and Technology (1994)
Operations
Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)
Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in Europe (2007)
Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion Management (2007)
Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to U.S. Practice (2006)
Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)
Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)
Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications in Europe (2004)
Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003)
Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance Through Better Operations (2003)
Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003)
Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002)
European Road Lighting Technologies (2001)
Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European Work Zones (2000)
Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe (1999)
European Winter Service Technology (1998)
Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997)
European Traffic Monitoring (1997)
Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996)
Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—Learning from Abroad (1995)
Advanced Transportation Technology (1994)
Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual (1990)
Infrastructure—General
Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in Europe (2011)
Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: Capitalizing on International Experience (2009)
Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively Funded Projects in Europe (2006)
Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe (2005)
European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development (2003)
Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe (2002)
European Road Lighting Technologies (2001)
Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001)
Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe (1999)
Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993)
Infrastructure—Pavements
Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)
Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)
Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)
Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, and Australia (2003)
Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999)
South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies and Practices (1997)
Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996)
European Concrete Highways (1992)
European Asphalt Technology (1990)
Infrastructure—Bridges
Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)
Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)
Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and Europe (2005)
Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South Africa (2005)
Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in Europe (2001)
Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan (2001)
European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures (1999)
Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997)
Asian Bridge Structures (1997)
Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997)
Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996)
European Bridge Structures (1995)
All publications are available on the Internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
To provide efficient goods movement on the U.S. transportation network, the United States will need to undertake new approaches. An approach advanced by industry groups as a potential path forward for the continued economic prosperity and competitiveness of the United States is a focus on corridor-level thinking. A corridor approach can help focus the Nation's assets and resources on key transportation infrastructure that supports national economic activity.
The European Union (EU) adopted the corridor approach in the mid-1990s and has continually evolved its freight corridor program with the admission of new member states, increased freight volumes, and the changing demands, including environmental sustainability, placed on the transportation network. The EU views this corridor approach as strategically important to its global economic competitiveness. Given EU's experience with this concept, the scanning study was designed to engage the European Commission and key member states in the policy, funding, and programmatic implications of integrating corridors into their transportation planning.
The purpose of the scanning study was to learn from the EU and various member states how they developed, evolved, and implemented freight transportation corridor programs on a national and cross-jurisdictional level. The scan indentified opportunities for North American freight corridors and developed contacts in other countries that the United States may partner with in the future. The information gathered during the scan will help stakeholders make informed decisions, allow for stronger strategies and approaches, and create better programs.
The project had the following specific goals:
Before the scan team went to Europe, it analyzed information on development of the freight corridor program in Europe to determine which countries to visit. The team decided to visit the European Commission (EC) in Brussels, Belgium, five member countries, and the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EC was chosen because it is the organization that defines transportation policies and works with member countries to develop implementation plans. The team visited the EC at the beginning of the study to gather general information on policies and plans pertaining to freight corridor development and implementation. The team returned to the EC after visiting the member countries to get feedback and more detailed information on specific points that arose in meetings with member country officials. The team visited the EIB to learn about its role in financing transportation infrastructure projects.
The team visited Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Poland because they have cities that are key nodes on priority multimodal transportation corridors and they represent a mix of EU founding members and members that joined the EU later. The latest expansion of the EU is generating freight flows to and from the eastern part of the continent, where freight transportation infrastructure is less developed than in the western part. These five countries provide a good mix of countries in different transportation system development stages and geographic locations.[1]
The scan team identified five topics of interest to guide the scan:
Policies
An integrated transport system requires harmonization of rules and interoperability of networks. Toward this goal, the EC, the EU's executive body, has launched a series of policy initiatives to improve the efficiency of freight transport in Europe. Together, they make freight transport in the EU more efficient and sustainable.
The scanning study had the following findings on policy:
Core routes or trunk lines need to be integrated with their connections to a larger distribution network. The new TEN-T will be a two-tier corridor network: core and comprehensive.
Planning Process
TEN-T EA assures the technical and financial implementation and management of the TEN-T program. It also manages key transport infrastructure projects in close collaboration with the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE). DG MOVE is responsible for the overall policy, programming, and evaluation of the TEN-T program.
The scanning study had the following findings on the planning process:
The project application process for EU funds is transparent and well defined.
Planning processes and the level of TEN-T integration into national planning processes in member states vary.
Alignment of member state and EU priorities is a challenge.
Sustainability
The transport sector poses one of the greatest policy challenges for sustainable development in the EU. Transportation activity is a major user of nonrenewable energy resources. Road transport, the dominant mode of transport, contributes the most to greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce the environmental impact caused by the prevailing trend to use road and air transport and to address increasing congestion problems, the EU wants to promote alternative modes of transport. The EU is also looking at other tools to promote a more sustainable transport policy:
Promote comodality by reinforcing the position of railways, boosting maritime transport, and reviving the inland waterways transport system.
Develop charges on infrastructure to improve the management of freight transport and reduce transport's environmental impact while generating funds for new infrastructure.
Promote the use of cleaner cars and fuels.
The scanning study found a strong linkage of transportation policy to environmental, social, and sustainability aspects. However, aligning theory and practice is challenging.
Funding
The largest proportion of funding for transportation infrastructure projects in the EU comes from each country's general revenues. Member states collect direct charges for roadway use, including a mix of taxation instruments (fuel and vehicle taxes) and user charges, to recover infrastructure costs. The most common time-based fee is the Eurovignette.[2] Other instruments are distance-based tolls levied on individual road sections or the full primary network. Some countries, such as Germany, also collect tolls on heavy vehicles. The EU is working to harmonize tolling systems as well as rates.
The scanning study had the following findings on funding:
Multiple funding sources are available to meet project needs.
Multiyear funding is necessary to bring a project to completion.
Different funding opportunities affect TEN-T implementation; TEN-T funds are available to all members, but Cohesion Funds are available only to eligible member states.
Tolling policy varies by country.
Project Implementation and OperationsProject implementation. Coordination on cross-border sections is often the most complex aspect of TEN-T projects. It demands active cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders, sometimes using memoranda of understanding or letters of intent. Cross-border projects can also be hampered by the lack of joint traffic forecasts and general project development approaches. This leads to differing investment plans and contradictory timelines, capacity planning, alignment, technical and interoperability characteristics, and environmental assessments.
To facilitate the implementation of the projects necessary to advance the 30 priority axes, the EU established and appointed European coordinators to meet with heads of states to resolve significant project advancement issues, such as funding and environmental compliance. The goal of the European coordinators is to accelerate project implementation, especially in cross-border projects.
Operations. The EU has an extensive railway system. There is a strong focus on passenger traffic, but freight transport faces low customer satisfaction and a decrease in rail volumes and market share. The poor interoperability of the freight railway system in Europe is a key problem. The system includes multiple railway operators with different power and signaling systems and even track gauge. It requires technical compatibility of infrastructure, rolling stock, signaling, and other rail systems.
The scanning study had the following findings on operations:
Greater harmonization of technology and operations is necessary to ensure the success of a European vision.
Corridor coalitions and project coordinators play an important role in project development.
The scan team analyzed the information gathered during the scan, developed a series of conclusions, and identified the relevance of each conclusion to freight transportation corridor development in the United States. The general conclusions are as follows:
Corridor-level thinking and action based on connectivity, access, thorough analysis, and market needs enable multiple parties to transcend differences and connect similarities. This concept was integral to establishing the U.S. Interstate Highway System and is being replicated in nearly all developing and growing economies. This scan studied many of the issues the United States will face if it chooses to integrate corridor-level thinking into improving the performance of the U.S. multimodal transportation network.
The scan team developed implementation actions that could improve freight transportation in North America. Specific actions include the following:
From farm to market to today's global supply chains, goods movement underpins the economies of industrialized and developing nations. Transportation networks enable national economies and businesses to link with suppliers, markets, and consumers throughout a nation and the world. It enables them to capitalize on economic and comparative advantages. Maximizing that opportunity and leveraging the U.S transportation network, American business has fully integrated fluid transportation into its operations. This makes the efficiency of the transportation network essential to American businesses, households, and communities. Safe, swift, and reliable transportation across diverse domestic and international supply chains plays a significant role in maintaining and expanding U.S. economic activity.
The transportation network, an integral component of the U.S. economy, is stressed carrying current volumes. Consensus projections are that as the economy rebounds, freight volumes will begin growing again. Regardless of whether high growth rates return or are replaced by modest growth, the reality is that efficiency of freight movement in America today is challenged by current volumes and global and domestic demands that outpace the capacity of the surface transportation system. The result is decreased performance and reliability, steady erosion of economic competitiveness, and unwanted contributions to safety and environmental problems.
To provide efficient goods movement on the U.S. transportation network, the United States will need new approaches. Corridor-level thinking is an approach advanced by industry groups, including State transportation authorities,[3] and legislation proposed in Congress[4] as a potential path forward for economic prosperity and competitiveness in the United States. A corridor approach can focus the nation's assets and resources on key transportation infrastructure that supports national economic activity.
The European Union (EU) adopted the corridor approach in the mid-1990s and has continually evolved its freight corridor program with the admission of new member states, increased freight volumes, and changing demands, including environmental sustainability, on the transportation network. The EU views this corridor approach as strategically important to its global economic competitiveness. Given the EU's experience with this concept, this scanning study was designed to engage the European Commission (EC) and key member states in the policy, funding, and programmatic implications of integrating corridors into transportation planning.
The purpose of the scanning study was to learn from the EU and various member states how they developed, evolved, and implemented freight transportation corridor programs on national and cross-jurisdictional levels. The scan allowed the North American representatives to gain a better understanding of the inner workings of the policies, mechanisms, and programs that national, State, and local governments will need to address if the United States develops a national freight corridor program. The scan indentified opportunities for North American freight corridors and developed contacts in other countries that the United States may partner with in the future. The information gathered during the scan will contribute to informed decisions, stronger strategies and approaches, and better programs.
Compared to other scans that are more technical in nature, this one was focused on freight policy at the corridor level. The following were the specific objectives of the scan:
The scan team identified five topics of interest that were used to guide the scan:
To gain a better understanding of how other nations address transportation challenges, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and National Cooperative Highway Research Program conduct the International Technology Scanning Program. This program seeks out and evaluates innovative technologies and practices that could improve the performance of the U.S. highway system. The scanning approach enables the U.S. transportation community to adopt advanced technology much more efficiently without spending scarce research funds to re-create improvements already developed by other countries.
This is the fourth freight-related scan conducted under the International Technology Scanning Program. The main objective of these scans has been to understand how other nations address increased freight flows on their transportation systems. The first scan focused on the EU and investigated the issues, constraints, opportunities, and challenges it faced in developing a policy of open boundaries and the strategies it uses to implement that policy. The report on that scan is Freight Transportation: The European Market (FHWA-PL-02-009). The second scan in 2002 investigated the characteristics of trade flows between the United States and Latin American countries. The team studied how the scan countries handle trade-related transportation infrastructure, border crossings, and freight security, and issued a report titled Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (FHWA-PL-03-013). The third scan in 2007 investigated how China provides intermodal access to its new ports and employs investment strategies to foster freight mobility and intermodal connectivity. The report is Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (FHWA-PL-08-020).
The scan team included representatives of FHWA, AASHTO, the federal transportation agencies of Canada and Mexico, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and the private sector. Representatives from Canada and Mexico were invited to participate in the scan because these neighboring countries are engaged in corridor development and are interested in developing freight transportation corridors at the North American level. The U.S. Department of Commerce is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Transportation to support the need for improved transportation infrastructure to support the supply chains integral to U.S. economic activity. The members of the scan team were the following:
Appendix A contains contact and biographical information for the scan team members.
Figure 1. EU international freight corridor program scan team members: (front row, left to right) Spencer Stevens, Renee Sigel, Leo Penne, Monica Blaney, Bernardo Ortiz, (back row, left to right) Ken Sweeney, Ernie Perry, Eduardo Asperó, Juan Villa, Tony Furst, George Schoener, Eric Madden, and David Long.
Before the scan team went to Europe, it analyzed information on the development of the freight corridor program in Europe to determine which countries to visit. The team decided to visit the EC in Brussels, Belgium, five member countries, and the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EC was chosen because it is the organization that defines transportation policies and works with member countries to develop implementation plans. The team visited the EC at the beginning of the study to gather general information on policies and plans pertaining to freight corridor development and implementation. The team returned to the EC after visiting the member countries to get feedback and more detailed information on specific points that arose in meetings with member country officials. The team visited the EIB to learn about its role in financing transportation infrastructure projects.
The team visited Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Poland because they have cities that are key nodes on priority EU multimodal transportation corridors and they represent a mix of EU founding members and members that joined the EU later. The latest expansion of the EU is generating freight flows to and from the eastern part of the continent, where freight transportation infrastructure is less developed than in the western part. These five countries provide a good mix of countries in different transportation system development stages and geographic locations.[5]
Appendix B provides a travel itinerary and meeting schedule.
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the EU experience in planning, programming, developing, and implementing its freight corridor program, as well as to recommend specific implementation actions that could create better freight transportation programs in the United States and North America.
Chapter 2 presents the structure and evolution of the EU freight transportation system and provides a context for understanding the details in later chapters.
Chapters 3 through 8 were organized around the topics of interest the scan team identified:
In 1957, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed the Treaties of Rome, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC established a customs union, expanding the earlier cooperation in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). In 1967, the Merger Treaty among the six created a single set of community-wide institutions, collectively referred to as the European Communities.[6]
The first enlargement of the EEC came in 1973 with the admission of Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The next enlargement, from nine to 12 members, came with Greece's entry in 1981, followed by Portugal and Spain in 1986. In 1990, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) became part of the community as part of a newly reunified Germany.
The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in November 1993, and in 1995 Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the newly established EU. The Norwegian government lost a second national referendum on membership.
In May 2004, eight Central and Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia) and the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta joined the EU, increasing membership to 25. This was the largest single enlargement in terms of people, landmass, and number of countries. Bulgaria and Romania became the EU's newest members in 2007, to yield today's total of 27 member states.
Figure 2. EU's enlargements in the 2000s.
EU is not a federation like the United States, nor is it simply an organization for cooperation between governments, like the United Nations. The countries that make up the EU (its member states) remain independent sovereign nations, but they pool their sovereignty to gain a strength and world influence they could not have on their own.
In practice, pooling sovereignty means that member states delegate some of their decisionmaking powers to shared institutions they have created so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at the European level.[7] The EU's decisionmaking process in general and the codecision procedure in particular involve three main institutions:
The EC is the EU's executive body. It drafts proposals for new European laws and manages the day-to-day business of implementing EU policies and spending EU funds. The commission monitors member states' compliance with European treaties and laws.
Since the EU was formed, it was recognized that for the common European market to function smoothly an integrated transport system that allows the free movement of goods within EU territory was needed. This was acknowledged as a key element for the economic growth and territorial cohesion of the EU. However, the diversity of transport infrastructure, equipment, and regulation across member states was a barrier to the seamless transport of goods across Europe.
The concept of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), included in the Maastricht Treaty, made it possible to develop a plan for transport infrastructure at the European level with the help of EU funding. The Maastricht Treaty provided the legal basis for TEN-T, giving the EU the authority to establish guidelines covering priorities, identify projects of common interest, implement measures for interoperability and standardization, and provide support to projects with different financial tools.
During the Corfu European Council of June 1994, the EC agreed on a first list of 11 transportation priority projects. This list not only emphasized the concept of removing cross-border bottlenecks to facilitate traffic flows, but also the tendency of member states to prioritize projects of national importance. During the Essen European Council later that year, the project list was endorsed and extended to 14 projects known as the Essen Projects.
In 1996, the EC initiated the Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) project with the aim of stimulating development of a multimodal transport network in EU accession candidate countries and defining the future Trans-European transport infrastructure network in the expanded EU. At the end of 1999, the TINA project was completed, and the final document estimated the necessary investments from 1998 to 2006 at about €87 billion.
With the imminent enlargement of the EU in 2003, the TEN-T policy was reviewed to cover the new member states. The result of the new policy was a set of 30 priority axes and projects, covering high-speed and conventional railways, road motorways, the "Motorways of the Sea," multimodal corridors, airports, inland waterways, and the Galileo navigation system.[8] Figure 3 presents the 30 priority projects. These 30 projects are not construction projects, but road, railway, inland waterway, air, and multimodal corridors or axes.
Figure 3. Trans-European Transport Network 30 priority axes and projects
The rationale behind creating an effective TEN-T is that it benefits all European citizens by allowing more efficient and environmentally friendly transport, while reinforcing economic and social cohesion across the continent. The European Council created the Directorate General for Energy and Transport (DG TREN), which is responsible for overseeing the TEN-T program. In 2006, the EC and DG TREN established the TEN-T Executive Agency (EA) to manage all projects that are part of the TEN-T program. In 2010 the DG TREN was split between energy and transport, with the transport function taking on the acronym DG MOVE (Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport). Figure 4 presents the relationship and functions of DG MOVE and TEN-T EA.
European Commission (DG MOVE): |
TEN-T EA: |
|---|---|
|
|
Figure 4. DG MOVE and TEN-T EA functions.
While DG MOVE ultimately decides which infrastructure projects are included in TEN-T and provides some funding for each project, it is ultimately up to individual national governments to fund a majority of the work done in their countries.
The relationship and coordination between member states and the TEN-T EA vary by country. For instance, in Hungary the Transport Ministry Managing Authority delegated its operational tasks to the Coordination Center for Transport Development, which manages the operational tasks related to TEN-T. Activities include the following:
For the common European market to function smoothly, there is a need for an integrated transport system that allows the free movement of goods within EU territory. This is vital for economic growth and for territorial cohesion. An integrated transport system clearly calls for harmonization of rules and interoperability of networks. |
The transport of freight, from raw materials to finished goods, is essential to economic activity and to the quality of life in the EU. It makes division of labor possible, allows economies of scale, and mobilizes comparative advantages. Effective transportation policy is fundamental to freight transport and key to European competitiveness.
Well-organized freight transport contributes to sustainable, energy-efficient operations and will strengthen cohesion by enabling businesses across the EU, including the peripheral regions, to have better access and draw more benefits from the internal market.[9]
Developing the EU's freight policies offers numerous challenges and opportunities:
Challenges
Opportunities
To address these challenges and capitalize on these opportunities, the European Commission is simultaneously launching a series of policy initiatives: the Freight Logistics Action Plan, the Communication on a Freight-Oriented Rail Network, and the Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. These policy initiatives reinforce each other and constitute a policy agenda to improve the efficiency of freight transport in Europe. Together, they will make freight transport in the EU more efficient and sustainable. A common approach is being implemented with these characteristics:
The TEN-T Guidelines are the EU's instrument for policy definition and network planning. Projects in the guidelines are of common interest and can be defined through their location on outline plans and/or through their characteristics. The guidelines, adopted in 1996 and amended in 2004, include two planning layers:
In 2009, the EC began a review of the TEN-T policy by publishing a green paper (CEC 2009d). A main objective of the review is to define how to shape the future multimodal network and ensure timely completion, with network planning as a key issue.
Some member countries argue that the priority project approach fails to capture additional network benefits. Therefore, one proposal is to evolve toward a priority network approach that would allow more systematic incorporation of the nodes, ports, and airports as the network's entry points and the main intermodal connection points that underpin strong network integration. Other recent developments in the TEN-T area focus on plans for linking TEN-T to neighboring countries outside the EU.
During the public consultation process on the green paper, more than 300 stakeholders expressed their views, most of them advocating the idea of an integral policy review. Stakeholders supported the commission's main directions for future policy development:
Key messages from stakeholders on the general policy framework included low carbon transport, territorial cohesion, and the need for a planning tool and not just a funding instrument. On TEN-T management and implementation, the consultation stressed the idea of maintaining continuity while ensuring greater commitment and effectiveness from all involved.
The planning structure and integration of transport and TEN-T policy area captured from the stakeholders call for defining a clear methodology and making connecting neighboring and third countries an important element. Of the planning options presented, stakeholders preferred the one with a dual transportation layer that includes a comprehensive network and core network.
The Trans-European Network concept serves as a unifying vision for the EU.
The discussions the scan team had with member state representatives clearly indicated that they understood and believed in the vision the EU adopted for the Trans-European Networks concept. This concept includes pan-European coordination of transportation, telecommunications, and energy. The scan team discussed the TEN-T with the member states and the EC. The TEN-T is undergoing a comprehensive review to place it on a firm market-based, analytic foundation. This is being done to improve the network and is a major undertaking for the EC and member states, a testament to the validity and member state buy-in of the overarching vision.
The long-term vision of the TEN-T is constant.
Although the EC and member states routinely experience leadership changes and successive EC presidents advance individual initiatives, the core policies of the TEN-T vision are steady. That the constancy of the long-term multimodal network vision has not caved to political pressures is a key attribute that helps attract private funding for transportation projects.
Transportation infrastructure is a key national asset.
Each member state the scan team met with valued high-quality infrastructure as a key national asset and the TEN-T concept as a mechanism to increase EU competitiveness in a global market.
The strategic vision integrates transportation policy.
As reflected in the TEN-T approach, EU transportation policy brings a comprehensive vision to transportation development. The transportation policy is founded on three overarching objectives:
Policy coordination affects outcomes.
Linking policies can bring greater efficiencies, but the lack of coherence can complicate implementation. Coherence, or the lack thereof, ultimately affects the outcomes and business practices of member states and their private sector partners.
For example, when Germany wanted to implement a cost recovery tolling system for its freeways, it integrated the truck's emission signature into the tolling scheme, coordinating sustainability and financing policy. As a result, the system now in place, Germany Toll Collect, generates annual revenues of €4.4 billion that are dedicated to transportation infrastructure (as opposed to fuel taxes, which go into the general fund). Because of its linkage of toll amounts to emissions—a 500-kilometer (km) trip costs €70 with newer, cleaner engines and €140 with older, dirtier engines—it has been instrumental in driving the fleet overhaul to cleaner engines. In just 5 years, the cleanest emission trucks rose from just 0.2 percent of trucks paying tolls to 56.7 percent.
In contrast, the EU has an expressed desire to move cargo from trucks to rail or water transport as a way of reducing energy consumption, emissions, and congestion. However, advancing this desire in the current policy framework that prioritizes passenger traffic on the EU rail system presents a range of challenges. As a result, freight rail works in the margins of the rail system and the volume of road transport stays stable.
A focused corridor-level system is needed.
The EU clearly recognized the need for a transcontinental freight network that is multimodal (water, rail, and highway). Member states support EU efforts to identify the network because they understand the economic necessity of efficiently moving goods throughout the EU and globally.
While all member states endorsed and embraced the TEN-T concept, the original application of the TEN-T lacked the analytic and market-driven underpinning now desired. The original TEN-T implementation leaned toward a more individual project-based application and lost some of its corridor-based origins. Implementing connected projects in multiple states would be better served with a fresh look at the market, particularly with the 2004 expansion of the EU. Consequently the EU is revising the TEN-T based on an approach grounded in market fundamentals and analytics.
The new TEN-T will be a two-tier corridor network: core and comprehensive.
A comprehensive network would connect all member states' transportation networks to the core network. It would be a bottom-up approach performed primarily by the member states and used to serve them and regional interests.
Using the concept of a comprehensive network enables every member state to see itself in a larger system. There is a need to identify the criteria that can be used across all member states to determine inclusion in the comprehensive network.
The comprehensive network will include road, rail, inland waterways, ports, and airports and will include upgrading the existing network through the following:
Proposals for the comprehensive network will come mainly from member states, taking into account that the core network will be a subset of the comprehensive network. The comprehensive network may form the foundation for other important EU policy considerations, such as cohesion policy, and regional funds. Figure 5 presents the roadway Trans-European Transport Network Outline Plan to the year 2020.
Figure 5. Trans-European road comprehensive network.
The core network will be anchored on key nodes—population centers and freight generators (e.g., maritime ports, border crossings) and the links that connect them. This concept could be advanced without defining physical corridors (e.g., a particular roadway or rail line), but by identifying that a linkage between two nodes is a key conduit for people and/or goods without defining specific modal infrastructure. This will allow flexibility at the member state level, but will most assuredly require coordination across multiple nodes and modes. This approach enables clustering ports that are in proximity as a single node on the core network and corridors that could encompass more than one mode (highway and rail).
The core network (a subset of the comprehensive network) will be determined using a top-down approach anchored by the following principles:
Ground the corridor identification in market fundamentals, solid analytics, and hard facts.
The market-based approach will rely on a benefit-cost analysis that will be modified into a multicriteria analysis process to enable inclusion of societal goals. How each criterion will be weighed has not been defined. Resolution of the criteria and the weighting is key to obtaining buy-in.
A key issue raised in discussions on this approach was how to balance the established trunk lines that have volume concentrations, economies of scale, and channelization of flows and move current economic volumes on existing infrastructure with the need for flexibility, redundancy, and new growth patterns to new and emerging markets.
EU funding will focus on the core network, and many member states see identifying and resolving critical bottlenecks as an important output of the process used to establish a core network. Planning the core network will be based on main nodes that will serve as vertices or cornerstones that will define the network polygon, with intra- and intermodal interfaces. The nodes will be the following:
Figure 6 shows member state capitals, candidate countries, and port clusters—RoRo logistics centers and Motorways of the Sea ports.
Figure 6. Core network possible city nodes and port clusters.
TEN-T EA assures the technical and financial implementation and management of the TEN-T program.[11] In 2008, the mandate establishing this independent agency was extended until December 31, 2015.[12]
TEN-T EA manages key transport infrastructure projects from the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 financial perspectives in collaboration with its parent, DG MOVE, which remains responsible for the overall policy, programming, and evaluation of the TEN-T program. TEN-T EA operates as an intermediary between the EC and EU member states. TEN-T EA goals include the following:
Planning the TEN-T network created a European multimodal planning process for infrastructure development, which had not existed in all member states. In practice, however, planning the network has essentially meant combining significant parts of national networks for different modes and connecting them at national borders. While certainly appropriate in the early days of TEN-T policy, this approach became progressively weaker with each enlargement.
Member states' sovereign responsibility in infrastructure planning and implementation on their territories, including the question of how national planning can be combined with European-level planning that takes account of objectives outside each member state's perspective, becomes more relevant as the EU expands and networks become increasingly complex.[13] The scan team observed different perspectives from countries that joined the EU at its inception and countries that joined recently.
The project application process is transparent and well defined.
TEN-T EA is responsible for coordinating and managing the project application and review process for TEN-T projects to assure transparency and accountability.
TEN-T EA evaluates and selects projects that request EU funding, and it reviews the projects against a clearly defined and well-vetted set of criteria. The selection process is supported by independent external experts, whose role is to ensure that only the highest quality proposals that best meet the award criteria described in the relevant work program and call for proposal are selected for funding.
Proposals that meet the eligibility criteria specified for a call are evaluated on the basis of the criteria defined in the work program and call for proposals. Essentially, these relate to the following:
The selection process also includes an independent observer, who provides advice and recommendations to the agency on the following:
The independent observer may not express views on the proposals under assessment or the experts' opinions on the proposals. The agency invites successful applicants to enter into negotiations. If agreement is reached, individual commission decisions are established to support individual projects.
Planning processes at member states vary.
Many of the states visited had detailed project prioritization and selection criteria that relied on data to assist in the selection of the most effective transportation projects. These processes take the TEN-T into consideration at varying levels, mostly as a function of the level of funding available from the EU in either TEN-T funds or Cohesion Funds.
For example, Hungary, which joined the EU in 2004, has a favorable geographic location in relation to missing sections of the European transportation network. Objectives of road sector development in Hungary, based on the Unified Transport Development Strategy, include the following:
The EU transportation policy guidelines serve as input to the Hungarian transportation policy and development plan. Figure 7 shows the Hungarian process for developing the expressway network.
Figure 7. Development process for Hungarian expressway network.
Germany provided the most detailed explanation of its focus on scenario planning and evaluation based on accessibility, safety, environment, and investment cost. The process of developing a plan may take 5 years. Germany is developing the new Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan that will be finalized in 2015, and a new project evaluation methodology and new forecasts. Its priorities are to maintain existing infrastructure first, upgrade congested links ("debottlenecking") second, and add new physical capacity last. Figure 8 shows the main components of the evaluation process.
Figure 8. Components of the evaluation process of the German Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan.
In December 2010, the German Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Development published the Freight Transport and Logistics Action Plan—Logistics Initiative for Germany. The plan realigns the German government's Freight Transport and Logistics Master Plan, which was prepared in the last parliamentary term, to address current challenges. This plan sets the stage for a sustainable and efficient logistics and freight transport system in Germany.
Aligning member state priorities and EU priorities is a challenge.
EU founding member states need to balance constructing new infrastructure for economic development and maintaining existing infrastructure. As is the case in the United States and Germany, the priority is to maintain existing infrastructure, and that continues to consume large amounts of available funding. Member states that joined in 2004 or 2007 are focused on network expansion, particularly their road networks. They are concerned that once the network is constructed all maintenance funding will be the responsibility of member states with no EU support (mirroring the concern of many States in the United States), and their ability to price their networks are subject to EU constraints on tolling amounts that are in place to maintain some degree of uniformity across the EU.
The EU has an established policy position to shift freight from road to rail or water. The new member states have extensive rail networks, but they are not in good repair. Representatives of two new member states said their priority is to expand their road networks because that is what their populations demand as they begin to enjoy the benefits of a rising economy. This comes at the cost of not putting available transportation dollars into their rail systems and highlights the challenges of harmonizing EU and national priorities and realizing the EU policy goal of shifting freight transport from road to rail or water.
EU financial support targeted key sections of the priority axes that include cross-border sections or major bottlenecks with cross-border implications. Cross-border sections are eligible for an up to 30 percent match from TEN-T funds, while projects in member states can receive, at most, a 20 percent match. Founding member states acknowledge the importance of resolving cross-border bottlenecks, but point out that bottlenecks within member states can be just as restrictive to network or corridor flow as those at the border. Several member states suggested that more funding, or comparable match rates, be used to incentivize repair of bottlenecks anywhere along the axes, including within states, not just at border crossings or projects with cross-border implications. This would bring EU and national priorities into better alignment.
The scan team discussed the following transportation issues with the EC and member states:
Figure 9. Corridor 1: Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-Napoli-Messina-Palermo.
Hungary has a radial road network with Budapest as the hub. The Hungarian government wants to integrate that radial network with ring roads between the spokes to improve national connectivity (figure 10). The EU priority is to improve the capacity of the spokes to the borders to improve EU connectivity, and this is where the EU Cohesion Funds can be used. From the perspective of the Hungarian population, both the spokes and the radial ring roads are equally important in the long term.
Figure 10. Hungarian long-term development plan of the expressway network (2034).
Figure 11. Polish east and south corridor connections.
In 2001, the EC presented a 10-year strategy on sustainability in the transport sector. The strategy focused predominantly on balancing different modes of transport, harmonizing legislation in specific sectors, and enhancing transport safety. But an enlarged EU, under pressure from accelerating globalization, high oil prices, and transport-targeted terrorist attacks, is looking at adapting its initial strategy.
Because of its potentially detrimental impact on the environment and public health, the transport sector poses one of the greatest policy challenges for sustainable development in the EU. Transportation activity is a major user of nonrenewable energy resources. In the EU, the transport sector is responsible for 31 percent of energy consumption.
Road transport is the dominant mode of transport in the EU and contributes the most to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 84 percent of CO2 emissions from transportation.
To reduce the environmental impact caused by the prevailing trend to use road and air transport and to address increasing congestion problems, the EU wants to promote alternative modes of transport. The 2001 White Paper on Transport[15] set 2010 as the deadline for restoring the balance between road and other transport modes to the 1998 level, but with the continued rise in road transport, the EC is looking at other tools to promote a more sustainable transport policy.
Some proposed measures on freight transportation include the following:
Even though inland waterway transport is energy efficient and quiet and takes up little space, the capacity of the inland waterways in the EU is considerably underused in terms of infrastructure and vessels. The inland waterway system could handle much greater volumes of traffic, but is unable to do so, according to the EC, because national infrastructure investment policies give priority to other transport modes without maintaining the inland waterways and eliminating network bottlenecks.[16]
In addition to investment issues, the use of the water for transportation purposes must compete with other uses, such as human consumption and agricultural demand. To address these issues, the EU developed Navigation and Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe (NAIADES). The NAIADES program focuses on five strategic interdependent areas for a comprehensive inland waterway transport policy: market, fleet, jobs and skills, image, and infrastructure. It includes recommendations for actions between 2006 and 2013 by the EC, member states, and other parties.
In the market area, the plan calls for expanding services to offer reliable door-to-door inland navigation services integrating inland navigation in the transport logistics chains. The plan is also trying to attract new markets by encouraging cooperation with freight forwarders, the shipping industry, and ports.
In the image area, the plan recognizes that the inland navigation sector has not kept pace with logistics and technological performance, so inland navigation as a successful business partner needs to be promoted. This is a joint responsibility of the industry, politicians, and administrations at national and European levels.
Even though the larger part of the 36,000 km (22,500 miles) of the waterway network has ample free capacities, several bottlenecks caused by limited draught, bridge clearance, and lock dimensions hinder its full use and reduce the competitiveness of the inland waterway system. The infrastructure area of the plan calls for improving and maintaining waterway infrastructures and transshipment facilities and implementing the River Information Services to support the planning and management of traffic and transport operations.[17]
Figure 12. Danube inland waterway system.
Transportation policy has a strong linkage to environmental, social, and sustainability aspects.
The EU and the member states have a strong environmental ethic. Collectively, they appear to support not only meeting environmental regulations, but exceeding them. In their view, global warming is a serious threat to their economic well-being and they are taking concrete steps, such as enacting tolling and taxes that take into account environmental performance. "Decarbonization" was a term member state representatives repeated often.
The freight system vision of the EU fully supports this view and has environmental sustainability as one of its underlying tenets. In all the countries the scan team visited, this theme was evident.
Aligning theory and practice is always a challenge.
Good alignment:
Challenging alignment:
The European Commission has a policy position to move cargo from trucks to rail or water transport as a way to reduce energy consumption, emissions, and congestion. However, this is an endeavor with considerable challenges:
The largest proportion of funding for transportation infrastructure projects in the EU comes from each country's general revenues. Some countries, such as Germany, have additional revenues from tolls on heavy vehicles. In Germany, tolling on heavy vehicles generated €3.6 billion in 2009.[18]
Funding of TEN-T projects draws mostly from the national budgets of member states (€196 billion in 2007-2013), while the EU contribution is provided through the TEN-T program (€8 billion) and the Cohesion and Structural Funds (€47 billion). (See "Cohesion Fund for Transportation Projects.")
The dedicated budget for TEN-T projects has been growing, but it is still a small portion of the overall cost. The cost of the 30 priority axes is about €250 billion, while the TEN-T budget has grown as follows:
Different rules apply to different instruments. Funding under the Cohesion and Structural Funds can go up to 85 percent in eligible member states (cohesion countries). It is capped at 30 percent for TEN-T program infrastructure works involving cross-border sections and 50 percent for studies.
The TEN-T program is under direct management, which means the EC selects projects to support in line with TEN-T policy priorities. The Cohesion and Structural Funds are under shared management, which means member states choose the transport projects to finance after the commission agrees to the overall budget of a given program.
EU funding support includes mainly grants (TEN-T program, Cohesion and Structural Funds) or loans and guarantees from the EIB and is expected to amount to about 36 percent of total TEN-T costs for 2007-2013 (figure 13). The proportion of national funding for TEN-T projects and the relatively low rate of community cofinancing available outside cohesion countries has often resulted in stronger national priority-setting than EU priority-setting.
The EIB has increased its lending activity to TEN-T projects from €7.9 billion in 2007 to €10.7 billion in 2010. In addition to EIB loans for TEN-T projects, the EIB participates in several joint initiatives with the EC, contributing not only funding, but also knowledge and best-practice sharing, marketing, and administrative support.
Figure 13. TEN-T funding and financing framework (2007-2013).
Public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements have increased recently for key transport infrastructure in the EU. The constraints on public budgets in the aftermath of the financial crisis have emphasized the reality that public authorities are not in a position to provide for constantly growing infrastructure needs. Consequently, many governments pursue the use of alternative models, characterized by increasing private sector participation, to leverage the comparative advantage of the private sector to implement infrastructure projects that otherwise would be unaffordable.
However, PPP arrangements are complex and more difficult to set up than traditionally procured projects. Key to successful PPPs are appropriate design output specifications and risk allocation to give private partners the opportunity to generate profit in line with their allocated risks.
Lack of a balanced funding strategy at the EU level, encompassing both member state and community contribution and integrating fully private sources, is a major impediment to the completion of the TEN-T network. This situation must be compared with investment needs, which remain considerable. It was estimated that completing 50,000 km of road axes and 50,000 km of freight and passenger rail axes will cost about €10 billion a year for 25 years.[19]
Private sector financing is quite developed in Europe and has long been used for infrastructure projects on the TEN-T. PPPs have been tested in many forms and shapes since the late 1980s, and the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) was formed as a joint initiative of the EIB, European Commission, EU member states, and candidate countries. EPEC's mission is to strengthen the ability of the public sector to engage in PPP transactions by helping members share experience, expertise, analysis, and good practices.[20]
In 2008, the EU developed a proposal to establish a model for assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and congestion, to serve as the basis for calculating infrastructure user charges.[21] The goal of the proposal is to set transport prices correctly so they better reflect the costs of the actual use of vehicles, trains, planes, or ships in terms of pollution, congestion, and climate change.
Given the road sector contribution on traffic and emission, the proposal calls for charging tolls that vary according to the distance traveled, the location, and the time of use in proportion to the external costs caused by vehicles. The proposal's objective is to encourage member states to implement differentiated charging to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of road freight transport. It seeks to amend the 1999 directive to establish a framework that enables member states to calculate and vary tolls based on the costs of traffic-based pollution and congestion in a way that is compatible with the internal market.
EU member states use several approaches to levy road freight transport, including a mix of taxation instruments (fuel and vehicle taxes) and user charges to recover infrastructure costs. The most common time-based fee is the Eurovignette.[22] Other instruments are typical tolls based on distance levied on individual road sections or the full primary network.
EU has a cap on toll fees for all member states, unless a state can directly substantiate a higher toll based on the cost of facility maintenance and operation. EU is also working to harmonize tolling systems as well as the rates—Global Positioning System, sticker (vignette), radio frequency identification, etc. The European Electronic Toll Service is being developed with the anticipation that it will eventually enable road users to easily pay tolls through one system throughout the EU.
Germany introduced a distance-based toll for all trucks of 12 tons gross vehicle weight and above to redistribute these costs to all users—from inside and outside Germany. Toll Collect is the company that, acting on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany, developed and operates the toll system capable of calculating and collecting road use charges based on the distance traveled. The system uses a global navigation satellite system.[23]
Multiple funding sources are available to meet project needs.
Many projects have financial plans that are made up of multiple sources and partnerships among government, private, and quasigovernmental entities (government-owned companies) and that represent a mix of grants, bonds, loans, user fees (tolls), and taxes.
Capitalization via the states was used to start the EIB, but it has since significantly expanded to the point that EU member states no longer contribute to its capitalization or administration; it is a self-sustaining entity. It now provides a flexible and useful approach to funding corridor development. As a policy bank, it incorporates societal goals into its project-selection criteria (e.g., all highway projects EIB funds must have a road safety audit) while maintaining a hard-nosed analytical rigor in its project review. EIB retains its own staff of professionals to perform project reviews.
EIB is the foremost funder of PPPs in the EU. It is limited to funding no more than 50 percent of a public or private sector project. When EIB is engaged in a private sector project, the private sector must be willing to assume the risk in two of three risk areas: revenue, construction, and maintenance.
Multiyear funding is necessary to bring a project to completion.
Multiyear funding provides continuity and expectations of project completion while minimizing delays in planning and implementation because of funding insecurity. However, many states have annual budgets and do not have a dedicated funding source for transportation projects; together these can hamper long-term investments. European fuel taxes are high, but unlike the U.S. model of directing fuel taxes to the Highway Trust Fund, the taxes go into the general fund where transport must compete with other societal demands.
Different funding opportunities reflect TEN-T implementation.
Two funds are available to EU members to implement TEN-T:
Regardless of EU efforts to harmonize tolling technologies or tolling amounts noted in this report, EU countries have different perspectives on tolling:
Project implementation at the national level has relatively few issues, but coordination on cross-border sections is often the most complex aspect of TEN-T projects. It demands active cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders. Memoranda of understanding or letters of intent have been used for the Munich-Salzburg and Vienna-Bratislava cross-border sections and between the Baltic States and Poland, as well as for the six freight corridors with priority for deploying European rail traffic management system (ERTMS).
The other key issue with cross-border projects is the lack of joint traffic forecasts and general project development approaches. This leads to differing investment plans and contradictory timelines, capacity planning, alignment, technical and interoperability characteristics, and environmental assessments.
To facilitate the implementation of the projects necessary to advance the 30 priority axes, the EU established and appointed European coordinators in 2005 to cover priority projects 1, 3, 6, 17, 21, 18, and 30, as well as ERTMS. Typically, these coordinators are political appointees who are well-known former politicians who can work with heads of states to resolve significant project advancement issues, such as funding and environmental compliance. The goal of the European coordinators is to accelerate project implementation, especially in cross-border projects. The coordinators have developed a comprehensive project approach for the priority projects they routinely monitor, indicating which conditions should logically be met for EU cofunding.
Several issues in the European railway system have led to low customer satisfaction for freight moves and a decrease in rail volumes and market share, which creates a risk of freight traffic losing critical mass. There is a strong focus on passenger traffic, both in management and infrastructure investments.
The interoperability of the railway system in Europe is difficult because of the multiple railway operators with different power and signaling systems and even track gauge. The system requires technical compatibility of infrastructure, rolling stock, signaling, and other rail systems, as well as less complex procedures for approving rolling stock for use across the European rail network. Figure 14 illustrates these issues in the Trans-European rail line between Antwerp and Valencia.
Figure 14. Antwerp-Valencia rail line characteristics.
The ERTMS project was set up to create a unique signaling and communication standard throughout Europe, and in 2009 the EC adopted a European Deployment Plan for ERTMS that provides for the progressive deployment of ERTMS along the main European rail routes. Technical specifications for interoperability were developed by the European Association for Railway Interoperability, representing infrastructure managers, railway companies, and industry.
Greater harmonization of technology and operations is necessary to ensure success of a national vision.
Corridor coalitions and project coordinators play an important role in project development.
Establishment of the EU corridors and corridor coordinators, along with the success of early efforts among France, Portugal, and Spain in coordinating corridor and project activities, suggests that there is value in developing corridor coalitions and leadership to ensure a common vision and organizational momentum over the long term. There is also a need for corridor leadership that can bridge local needs and EU policy. Austria, Germany, and Italy have recognized the value of informal working relationships in coordinating projects that have mutual benefits. Member states have also found value in the EU coordinators, a role they see as one of diplomacy and facilitation. EC representatives indicated that coordinators have been responsible for moving stalled projects, but that not all projects need or require a coordinator.
The scan team analyzed the information gathered during the scan, developed a series of conclusions, and identified the relevance of each conclusion to freight transportation corridor development in the United States.
Importance of a unifying vision linking transportation and the economy
From the beginning, EU member states have considered transportation infrastructure both an important element of advancing European unity and a critical factor in allowing a unified Europe to compete in the international marketplace.
EU expansion has brought additional challenges because the development of transportation infrastructure varies widely among member states. Nevertheless, the strategic vision of a unified EU with strong transportation infrastructure that promotes sustainable, environmentally sound economic growth, increased trade, and global competitiveness continues to be an essential motivation and component of EU policy.
The United States is familiar with the concept of a unifying vision, clear focus, and pursuit of a national interest to advance transportation projects that support the U.S. economy. It was pursuit of a common vision and a national interest that advanced transportation projects such as the canals, locks and dams, and transcontinental railroads of the 19th century and the Panama Canal, Interstate Highway System, and St. Lawrence Seaway of the 20th century. Those successful transportation investments were transformative. They unleashed the competitive capacity of the Nation by creating new economic opportunities that led to new industries and settlement patterns. They provided the solid underpinning for the rise of the American industrial economy, American prosperity, and America as a global power.
Today's challenge to develop transportation systems capable of sustaining sophisticated supply chains that serve international and domestic markets is no less challenging and would be well served by a similarly clear focus.
Challenges of multijurisdictional transportation planning and implementation
The EU experience offers rich lessons on the challenges of coordinating transportation planning across the most complex jurisdictional boundaries. Each EU member state has its own sovereign priorities and transportation planning processes, making the coordination of multistate transportation infrastructure development and operations a challenge. Aligning priorities and funding for transportation infrastructure that spans several countries requires innovative approaches and the proper balance of funding commensurate with those interests. The EU is implementing processes that require high-level project coordinators to streamline the implementation of transportation infrastructure projects that cross borders. The approach focuses on multimodal connectivity rather than individual transportation sectors.
A lesson for the United States is that freight projects that serve multijurisdictional purposes will likely require new management, funding, and coordination strategies to ensure effective corridor development.
Operationally, the differences in specifications in the rail system in the EU make seamless freight rail transportation challenging. Track gauge, power, and signaling systems are not completely standardized throughout the system, which hinders efficient operation. EU standardization efforts are being implemented through the ERTMS.
The United States should work with both Canada and Mexico to ensure that the railroads that serve the North American continent do not encounter these infrastructure- or operation-related impediments.
Evolution from exclusively national and local to international understanding
Transportation planning processes in each member state are being modified to include a broader international perspective beyond that inherent in the EU alone. Project assessment techniques are being modified at both the EU and country levels to take into consideration the linkages to neighboring countries outside the EU. Direct and transit relationships with Russia, the Far East, and North Africa now figure prominently in EU transportation planning processes.
A lesson for the United States is to continue to promote the awareness of the extent and impact of domestic and international supply chains on U.S. transportation networks, and to continue to provide data and information on national goods movement that informs State and Federal decisionmaking.
Creation of a foundation for fact-based policy decisions
EU experience with corridor planning processes over the past 5 to 10 years has led European planners to seek improvements in the quality and application of market and traffic data used in their work. Transportation infrastructure planning processes are being modified in consultation with member states to expand the use of market information and other hard data to identify and define transportation networks (core and comprehensive) in ways that are less theoretical and closer to actual or projected established demand. TEN-T implementation was leaning toward a more project-based, idealized approach and was losing some of its corridor-based origins linked to current and historical traffic patterns and investments. Implementing connected projects in multiple states would be better served with a fresh look at the market, particularly with EU expansion. As a result, the EU is revising the TEN-T program based on an approach grounded in market fundamentals and analytics.
Of relevance to the United States is that any movement toward corridor-level thinking must be grounded in objective, transparent facts and market analysis.
Alignment of benefits and costs
The European Union is investing considerable effort in evaluating projects, taxation rates, and transport fees to balance the benefits of efficient freight movement with its costs to society. This balancing includes using sophisticated benefit-cost analyses, implementing pollution-influenced truck tolls, and developing multivariable project-selection criteria. These efforts are intended to align freight projects and freight investments with the cost that freight movement creates for society.
The United States should evaluate these practices to improve project selection and policy evaluation methods.
Alignment of policies
The alignment of policies across the EU has understandably not been an easy task. The EU has as a goal, for example, the diversion of cargo from trucks to rail or water transport as a way to reduce energy consumption, emissions, and congestion. However, for policy reasons related in part to environmental considerations, passenger traffic is prioritized on the EU rail system, which to some extent impedes reliable freight movement. Another area of policy alignment that draws attention is the expansion of the transportation network as a whole and the choice of investments. Based on the demands of their populations, many new member states wish to expand their road network. In some cases, this comes at the expense of an extensive rail network in a state of disrepair.
A lesson for the United States is that freight policy needs to be developed in conjunction with related policies, such as economic, trade, environmental, or land use. Freight operations are heavily influenced by these other factors and must be considered in estimating the effectiveness of freight policies.
Reinforcing the value of stable multiyear funding
Multiyear funding provides continuity and expectations of project completion while minimizing delays in planning and implementation because of funding insecurity. Newly admitted member states that receive a larger proportion of funding from the EU for transportation infrastructure projects benefit from multiyear funding. However, many founding member states have annual budgets that can hamper long-term investments.
The United States already knows this lesson and in 1991 shifted its transportation funding to a multiyear (6-year) cycle. It should not have to learn this lesson again.
The scanning study reinforced in team members' minds that the concept of corridor-level thinking and action based on connectivity, access, thorough analysis, and market needs transcends differences and emphasizes similarities. This concept was integral to the establishment of the U.S. Interstate Highway System, and it is being replicated in nearly all developing and growing economies. This study highlighted the value of and many of the issues involved in evolving and refocusing the U.S. multimodal transportation network toward this concept.
The scan team used the key findings described in this report to develop implementation actions that could improve freight transportation in North America.
The team is formulating a comprehensive implementation plan as the United States moves ahead in developing a national freight policy and a network of freight corridors. The specific actions the scan team identified include the following:
Anthony T. Furst (FHWA Cochair)
Director
Office of Freight Management
& Operations
HOFM-1, Room E86-322
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20590-9898
Telephone: 202-366-2201 or 202-366-4405
Fax: 202-366-3225
E-mail: tony.furst@dot.gov
Eric
G. Madden (AASHTO Cochair)
Deputy
Secretary
Aviation
& Rail Freight
Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation
400
North St., 8th Floor
Harrisburg,
PA 17120-0095
Telephone:
717-783-2026
Fax:
717-787-5491
E-mail: emadden@state.pa.us
Juan C.
Villa (Report Facilitator)
Program Manager
Texas Transportation Institute
Texas A&M University System
3135 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-3135
Telephone: 979-862-3382
Fax: 979-845-6008
E-mail: j-villa@tamu.edu
Eduardo Asperó
General Director
Stacktrain Mexico S. de F.L. de C.V.
Blvd.
Manuel Avila Camacho No. 40-1402
Col.
Lomas de Chapultepec
Mexico,
D.F.CP 11000
Telephone: 011+52 55 52 02 73 88
Fax: 011+52 55 52 02 44 88
E-mail: eduardo.aspero@pacer.com
Representing: Mexico Intermodal Transportation Association
Monica M.
Blaney
Senior Policy Advisor
Continental Gateway and Systems
Analysis
Strategic Policy Directorate
Transport Canada
Tower C, Place de Ville, 27th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5,
Canada
Telephone: 613-949-4156
E-mail: monica.blaney@tc.gc.ca
David F. Long
Director
Office of Service
Industries
International Trade Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC
20230
Telephone: 202-482-0344
Fax: 202-482-2669
E-mail: david.long@trade.gov
Bernardo J. Ortiz
Strategic Projects Coordinator
Infrastructure Undersecretary
Ministry of Communications and Transport
Mexico
City, Mexico
Telephone:
011+52 55 57 239 483
Fax:
011+52-55-55 389 929
E-mail: bomantil@sct.gob.mx
Robert L. Penne
Program Director
Intermodal and Industry Activities
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
444 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 249
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: 202-624-5813
Fax: 202-624-5806
E-mail: lpenne@aashto.org
Ernest B. Perry, Ph.D.
Freight Development Administrator
Missouri Department of Transportation
Multimodal Operations
105 West Capital Ave.
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: 573-526-5578
Fax: 573-526-4709
E-mail: ernest.perry@modot.mo.gov
George E. Schoener
Executive Director
I-95 Corridor Coalition
1390 Piccard Dr., Suite 200
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: 321-939-0793
Fax: 703-997-5531
E-mail: geschoener@comcast.net
Renee Sigel
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania
Division
Federal Building
228 Walnut St., Room 508
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720
Telephone: 717-221-3461
Fax: 717-221-3494
E-mail: renee.sigel@dot.gov
Spencer L.
Stevens
Transportation Planner
Office of Planning Oversight &
Stewardship
HEPP-10, Room E72-111
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: 202-366-0149
Fax: 202-493-2198
E-mail: spencer.stevens@dot.gov
Kenneth L. Sweeney
Chief Engineer
Maine Department of Transportation
16 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0016
Telephone: 207-624-3011
Fax: 207-624-3001
E-mail: ken.sweeney@maine.gov
Anthony T. Furst (FHWA cochair) is the director of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management and Operations. He directs a multilevel staff that develops FHWA freight policy, provides data analysis and decision-support tools for transportation professionals, evaluates freight projects, develops and promulgates professional capacity-building programs and training for freight professionals, provides truck size and weight program guidance and interpretation, and evaluates and promotes freight technology development for national and international deployment. Before joining FHWA in 2003, Furst held a range of positions in the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Maritime Administration and U.S. Secretary of Transportation's Office of Intermodalism. He was the branch chief of the Transportation Security Administration's Maritime Infrastructure Security Branch. Furst retired from the U.S. Coast Guard in 2000. He is a graduate of Florida State University and has a master's in business administration from the University of Washington.
Eric G. Madden (AASHTO cochair) is deputy secretary for aviation and rail freight for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in Harrisburg, PA. Madden oversees and administers Federal and State financial and technical programs for 133 public-use airports and heliports and more than 65 railroad companies and businesses. In addition to administering more than $75 million annually in grants, his offices provide licensing, inspection, planning, and environmental assistance. He has a bachelor's degree in Russian language and literature from the University of Maryland. Madden is cochair of the Delaware Valley Goods Movement Task Force and the South Central Pennsylvania Goods Movement Forum and is a member of the Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Strategic Highway Research Program Expert Task Group for Integrating Freight Considerations into Collaborative Decision Making for Additions to Highway Capacity.
Juan C. Villa (report facilitator) is manager of the Economics, Trade, and Logistics Program at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), part of the Texas A&M University System. His research emphasis includes international trade and transportation, development of performance measures at land ports of entry, and freight corridor planning and development. Before joining TTI in 2001, he was the managing director of an international transportation and logistics consulting firm in Mexico City. Villa is a graduate of the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Monterrey, Mexico, and has a bachelor's degree in electronic engineering and a master's degree in transport studies from Cranfield University in England. He serves on the TRB International Trade and Transportation, Freight Transportation Planning and Logistics, and Freight Transportation Data committees.
Eduardo Asperó has been chief executive officer of Stacktrain Mexico, an agent of Pacer Stacktrain USA, since 2000. He is also president of Mexico Intermodal Transportation Association (AMTI). In this position, Asperó has presented several proposals to Mexico's government to simplify and facilitate intermodal operation in Mexico's customs, ports, and railroad operations. He participated in activities related to international affairs for merchant marine and port administration for the Ministry of Communications and Transport from 1979 to 1989. Asperó was also CEO of the Company Port Services of Quintana Roo, S.A. de C.V. from 1989 to 1993, and national coordinator of Integral Port Administrations (Port Authorities) from 1995 to 1999, where he coordinated the privatization process of port services and terminals. Asperó has a degree in international relations from the National University of Mexico and diplomas from the French Agency for Industrial and Technical Cooperation in maritime law, port planning, multimodal transportation, and port administration. He is vice president of the Mexican Association of Importers and Exporters.
Monica M. Blane is a senior policy advisor for the Continental Gateway and Systems Analysis branch of the Strategic Policy Directorate at Transport Canada in Ottawa, Canada. Blaney is responsible for the transportation infrastructure and freight systems analyses of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative and the Western Canadian Freight Transportation System in Canada's National Gateway and Corridor framework. She is also responsible for coordinating transportation data collaboration efforts with FHWA. Blaney has served with Transport Canada for the past 2 years and has more than 23 years of experience in transportation analysis, planning, and operations in the private and public sectors. She has bachelor's degrees in statistics and agriculture from the University of Manitoba. She is working on a master of business administration degree in maritime logistics and business through the Australian Maritime College, an affiliate of the University of Tasmania. She serves on a National Sciences Academy research panel and cochairs the Data Subcommittee for the Canada-United States Transportation Border Working Group.
David F. Long is the director of the Office of Service Industries in the U.S. Department of Commerce. He manages a group that follows a broad portfolio of service sectors in the U.S. economy, with a strong emphasis on supply chain and logistics, and contributes industry and policy expertise to support trade negotiations in services and other efforts to enhance U.S. economic competitiveness. Long leads the department's supply chain infrastructure competitiveness initiative, a logistics-focused program to enhance U.S. competitiveness developed in collaboration with the U.S. DOT. In addition to his more than 15 years of senior-level commercial and policy experience in international telecommunications services, Long was a telecommunications trade negotiator with the U.S. Trade Representative from 1991 to 1994. Long is a graduate of Michigan State University. He has a master's degree in international relations from John Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and a master of business administration degree from Georgetown University.
Bernardo J. Ortiz is the strategic projects coordinator for the infrastructure undersecretary of the Ministry of Communications and Transport in Mexico. He is responsible for the planning, development, and implementation of strategic projects for infrastructure modernization and improvement in Mexico. These projects include developing a national program for infrastructure and transport, a logistical infrastructure plan, and other projects related to the integration of road infrastructure planning, management, and operation nationwide. Ortiz has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the Universidad de las Américas-Puebla and a master's degree in transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the Mexican representative to the B1 Technical Committee on Good Governance of Road Administrations of the World Road Association and vice-treasurer of AMIVTAC (Mexican Road Engineering Association).
Robert L. Penne is program director for intermodal and industry activities for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). He is responsible for issues involving freight transportation by all modes—rail, truck, aviation, ports, and waterways—and for liaison with industries with significant interests in freight movement and transportation infrastructure. Penne also shares responsibility for developing and communicating the case for the economic benefits of transportation and demonstrating the linkage between transportation and economic development. He has developed and carried out programs for advocacy, policy development, and research in areas such as transportation, economic development, urban development, environmental protection, public finance, training, and tourism and has written and edited books, reports, and articles on these subjects. For 8 years, he initiated and chaired the Transportation Working Group of the Governors' Washington Representatives, which supported the advocacy of governors for increased transportation investment, and for the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorizations. Penne is a graduate of Seattle University and the University of Washington with degrees in political science. He served as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Maryland Baltimore County.
Dr. Ernest B. Perry is the administrator of freight development at the Missouri Department of Transportation in Jefferson City, MO. He is responsible for developing a freight program that works across all modes of transportation to support efficient freight movement and increased modal connectivity and seeks opportunities with the private sector to expand freight services and facilities in the State. He is working on projects to reestablish freight traffic on the Missouri River, develop dedicated truck lanes on a major interstate, and increase speed and reliability on a shared-use passenger-freight rail corridor. Perry has served with the Missouri Department of Transportation for 15 years, working in environmental clearance, social science, economics and policy research, and freight development. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia and earned a Ph.D. in 2003. He serves on three cooperative freight research panels and participates in AASHTO technical and policy freight activities.
George E. Schoener is the executive director of the I-95 Corridor Coalition. Schoener is responsible for directing multimodal transportation programs in the most heavily traveled corridor in the United States, with emphasis on providing safe and efficient freight operations throughout the corridor. The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a partnership of State departments of transportation, regional and local transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations, including port, transit, and rail organizations, from Maine to Florida, with affiliate members in Canada. Before becoming executive director, Schoener worked for the U.S. DOT and FHWA for 33 years. He served as the deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy, directing the administration's legislation for authorizing the Federal surface transportation program, and developing a national freight transportation framework. Schoener is a graduate of the University of Minnesota with a degree in civil engineering and has a master's degree in transportation engineering from Pennsylvania State University. He serves on the Strategic Highway Research Program's Oversight Committee and several TRB committees and chairs projects for the National Freight Cooperative Research Program.
B. Renee Sigel is division administrator of the FHWA Pennsylvania Division. She heads an office of 40 professionals that oversees an approximately $1.4 billion Federal-aid highway program in Pennsylvania. Under Sigel's leadership, FHWA has worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation on numerous initiatives to improve transportation system safety and the project delivery process. She serves on the FHWA Freight Council. Sigel began working for FHWA in 1991 as an environmental protection specialist. Since then, Sigel has held several FHWA positions, including planning and environment team leader in Maryland, transportation planner and quality coordinator for Federal Lands Highway in Colorado, transportation liaison for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah, and assistant division administrator in Idaho. She serves on the board of the American Society of Highway Engineers-Harrisburg Section and is a member of the Women's Transportation Seminar.
Spencer L. Stevens is a transportation planner for the FHWA Office of Planning in Washington, DC. Stevens leads the freight planning research effort as part of FHWA's Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program. His research emphasis includes the relationship between land use and goods movement, improved methods for estimating freight trips in the planning process, and the consideration of multimodal freight investment tradeoffs. Stevens has served FHWA for more than 20 years in various offices across the country. Before joining the Office of Planning in 2006, he was the planning team leader in FHWA's Pennsylvania Division. Stevens has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He serves on several FHWA technical committees.
Kenneth L. Sweeney is chief engineer of the Maine Department of Transportation. Sweeney is responsible for establishing department engineering standards to ensure the safe movement of freight and people. Sweeney has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Lowell Technological Institute in Lowell, MA. He has a master's degree in public administration from the University of Maine in Orono, ME. Sweeney is a registered professional engineer and a member of Pi Alpha Alpha, the honor society of public administration. He is a member of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways and the State Board of Licensing for Professional Engineers.
Belgium
Friday, August 27, 2010
Departure from United States
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Arrival in Brussels, Belgium
Sunday, August 29, 2010
a.m.—Team Meeting (Brussels)
Monday, August 30, 2010
a.m.—Belgian Program (Brussels)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Lunch (Brussels)
p.m.—Belgian Program (Brussels)
p.m.—Train to The Hague, Netherlands
The Netherlands
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
a.m.—Dutch Program (Rotterdam)
p.m.—Dutch-Hosted Lunch and Site Visits (Rotterdam)
p.m.—Dutch Program (Rotterdam)
p.m.—Bus to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport
p.m.—Plane to Vienna, Austria
Austria
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
a.m.—Austrian Program (Vienna)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Lunch (Vienna)
p.m.—Austrian Program and Site Visit (Vienna)
Hungary
Thursday, September 2, 2010
a.m.—Train to Budapest, Hungary
p.m.—Working Lunch (Budapest)
p.m.—Hungarian Program (Budapest)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Dinner (Budapest)
Friday, September 3, 2010
a.m.—Hungarian Program (Budapest)
p.m.—Working Lunch (Budapest)
p.m.—Hungarian Program and Site Visits (Budapest)
Saturday, September 4, 2010
a.m.—Team Meeting (Budapest)
Poland
Sunday, September 5, 2010
p.m.—Plane to Warsaw, Poland
Monday, September 6, 2010
a.m.—Polish Program (Warsaw)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Lunch (Warsaw)
p.m.—Polish Program (Warsaw)
p.m.—Plane to Berlin, Germany
Germany
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
a.m.—German Program (Berlin)
p.m.—Working Lunch (Berlin)
p.m.—German Program and Site Visit (Berlin)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Dinner (Berlin)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
a.m.—German Program (Berlin)
p.m.—Working Lunch (Berlin)
p.m.—German Program and Site Visits (Berlin)
p.m.—Plane to Brussels, Belgium
Belgium
Thursday, September 9, 2010
a.m.—Belgian Program (Brussels)
p.m.—U.S.-Hosted Lunch (Brussels)
p.m.—Belgian Program (Brussels)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Final Team Meeting (Brussels)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Departure to United States
Austria
Markus Radl
Department of International Relations
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and Technology
Radetzkystrasse 2
1030 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: 011+43 1 711 62 65 12 09
Fax: 011+43 1 711 621 299
E-mail: markus.radl@bmvit.gv.at
Web: www.bmvit.gv.at
Roland Schuster
Head of Department for Infrustructure Financing
Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and Technology
Radetzkystrassse 2
A-1030 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: 011+43 (0) 1 711 62 65
E-mail: roland.schuster@bmvit.gv.at
Otto Schwetz
President
International Navigation Association Section Austria
Donau-City Strasse 1
A-1220 Wien, Austria
Telephone: 011+43 5 04321
E-mail: scwconsult@aon.at
Belgium
Kertu
Kaera
DG MOVE, Unit A2: International
Relations
European Commission
Office DM24 07/120
Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24, 1040 Brussels
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: 011+32 22 9 69 209
E-mail: kertu.kaera@ec.europa.eu
Jean-Eric
Paquet
Acting Director for
Trans-European Transport Network & Smart Transport
DG MOVE
European Commission
Office DM24 08/153
Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24, 1040 Brussels
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: 011+32 22 9 81 426
E-mail: jean-eric.paquet@ec.europa.eu
Alain Baron
Head of Sector
DG MOVE, Unit A2: International Relations
European Commission
Office DM 24
Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24
1040 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: 011+32 22 9 91 527
E-mail: alain.baron@ec.europa.eu
Dr. Libor
Lochman
Deputy Executive Director
Community of European Railway
and Infrastructure Companies AISBL
Avenue des Arts 53
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: 011+32 2 213 08 82
E-mail: libor.lochman@cer.be
Matthew
Arndt
Head of Division
Rail & Road Project
Directorate
European Investment Bank
98-100, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer
L-2950 Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Telephone: 011+35 2 243 79 88
642
E-mail: m.arndt@eib.org
Germany
Adam Mutwil
Assistant
Head of Division External Economic Relations
Federal
Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Development
Invalidenstr.
44
D-10115 Berlin, Germany
Telephone:
011+49 30 18 30 02 423
Fax: 011+49 30 18 30 08 07 24 23
E-mail: adam.mutwil@bmvbs.bund.de
Martin
Rickmann
Toll Collect GmbH
Linkstraße 4
10785
Berlin, Germany
Telephone: 011+49 (0)30
74077-2400
E-mail: martin.rickmann@toll-collect.de
Hungary
Tamas
Revesz
Ministry of Transport,
Telecommunication, and Energy
Akademia u. 3
H-1054 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: 011+36 1 471 84 19
E-mail: tamas.revesz@khem.gov.hu
Lajos Szucs
Head of Department
Ministry of Transport,
Telecommunication, and Energy
Akademia u. 3
H-1054 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: 011+36 1 795
1700
E-mail: lajos.szucs@nfm.gov.hu
Zsolt
Volgyesi
CEO
Coordination Center For
Transport Development
39 Lovohaz St.
H-1024 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: 011+36 1 336 8101
E-mail: volgyesi.zsolt@kkk.gov.hu
The Netherlands
Ruud Staverman
Centre for Watermanagement of Rijkswaterstaat
PO Box 17
8200 AA Lelystad, Netherlands
Telephone: 011+31 (0)6 51271206
E-mail: ruud.staverman@rws.nl
Richard Ossendorp
Head of European Affairs
Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management
Plesmanweg 1-6
2597 JG The Hague, Netherlands
Telephone: 011+31 (0) 70 351 7221
E-mail: richard.ossendorp@minvenw.nl
Richard van der Elburg
Policy Advisor
Centre for Transport and Navigation (Rijkswaterstaat)
PO Box 5044
2600 GA Delft, Netherlands
Telephone: 011+ 31 8 87 98 23
72
E-mail: richard.vander.elburg@rws.nl
Frans van Keulen
Chief External Relations Officer
Port of Rotterdam Authority
PO Box 6622
3002 AP Rotterdam, Netherlands
Telephone: 011+31 (0) 10 252 18 07
E-mail: f.van.keulen@portofrotterdam.com
Poland
Grażyna Sikorska
Department of Transport Policy and Foreign Affairs
Polish Ministry of
Infrastructure
Chałubińskiego 4/6
Warsaw, Poland
Telephone: 011+48 22 630 13 37
E-mail: gsikorska@mi.gov.pl
Corridor—Project Selection
1. How did the European Union (EU) or individual countries coordinate, plan, prioritize, and fund cross-border and multinational freight infrastructure improvement before the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)?
2. How do you define a corridor (geography, multimodal, function, etc.)?
3. What factors go into establishing the TEN-T corridors? What data (type, frequency, cost), analysis, future projections, or performance measures (off and on network) are considered? What role does modal share play? If modal tradeoffs must be made, what factors go into the decision?
4. What role, if any, does the private sector play in corridor or project selection?
5. What other economic and transportation goals or factors influence corridor or project selection?
6. How were the initial TEN-T freight corridors selected?
7. Were the TEN-T freight corridors confined to EU states?
8. What is the role of the EU and the member countries in TEN-T project selection?
Corridor—Project Prioritization
9. What data were used to prioritize the initial TEN-T corridors?
10. Do you have a performance management program that continues to collect these same data after improvements are made? If so, has performance improved?
11. How are investment priorities established?
12. Does funding follow corridor prioritization (i.e., is there different funding for projects along prioritized corridors as opposed to others)?
13. What is the match ratio for the EU and member country?
Corridor—Project Implementation
Funding
14. Who contributes to the costs of corridor improvements and how are costs assigned or shared?
15. What part of the TEN-T is expected to be funded and operated by the European Commission (EC)? National government? By private companies?
16. Does the EC or national government have a dedicated capital budget for TEN-T transportation investments or are investments by the government treated as part of the general budget? Is funding prioritized for TEN-T corridors?
17. Is the planning and funding completely mode neutral, or are modal targets set (e.g., 10 percent waterborne traffic, 40 percent highway, 40 percent rail, 10 percent air, etc.)?
Performance Measures
18. Who collects data on the performance of the TEN-T? What performance measures are used and how are data collected? Is there dedicated funding to collect these data? If so, what are the budget levels for what data at both the EC and national levels?
19. How do the EC and member states develop forecasts of projected freight flows?
20. Are there agreed-on metrics across the EU for the TEN-T?
Institutional Arrangements
21. Describe the institutional arrangements, relationships, and functions between the EC and member states and between member states for the TEN-T, including planning, development, investments and funding, construction, and operation and maintenance. Are the institutional arrangements binding?
22. Please briefly describe the relationships among the central government, provincial government, local government, and private sector as it relates to the TEN-T.
23. To what extent has the private sector participated in public transportation infrastructure investment? Are public-private partnerships and partnering agreements used to fund transportation infrastructure, particularly financial equity arrangements? Is the private sector engaged in strategic or tactical dialogue?
24. How are regulatory functions distributed between the EC and the member states (e.g., commercial motor vehicle dimensions, driver requirements, etc.)?
25. How is the dialogue on TEN-T framed—structured, facilitated, managed, directional, or iterative? Is this a top-down or bottom-up approach?
Environmental
26. How are environmental considerations (air, water, etc.) accounted for in your TEN-T corridors? Do all EU members have the same or similar environmental regulations?
27. Has any analysis been performed on the greenhouse gas-reduction aspects of modal split on the TEN-T corridors?
28. How are you advancing energy and environmental issues related to transportation?
29. How does the EC integrate transportation policy with trade and energy policies? What role does freight play in trade, energy, and transportation policies?
Planning
30. How often are the TEN-T corridors reevaluated based past, current, or projected freight and passenger flows?
31. How far out does each country plan for long-term infrastructure needs (10 years, 20 years, more)? Do all EU members have the same planning horizon? Use the same data projections?
32. How are new corridor segments added? Deleted?
33. Is there a widespread understanding of the importance of freight transportation and support for major freight infrastructure projects at all levels of government?
34. What are the most challenging issues the EU faces on the movement of freight? What do you think will be the most challenging issues in the future (for example, 10 years from now)?
Operational Characteristics
35. Were bottlenecks on the freight network mainly because of infrastructure capacity or border- crossing (paperwork) delays?
36. What type of freight movement is TEN-T attempting to facilitate? Is there a distinction between or bias toward domestic or international?
37. What investments are the EC or member states making in technology advances to address future challenges in freight transportation? Are they focused on the TEN-T corridors?
38. The United States is embarking on a high-speed passenger rail effort. The high-speed bullet trains with their own track aside, what lessons can be learned from Europe's experience of operating passenger and freight trains on the same tracks? What tradeoffs have you made?
[1] Although the countries visited do not provide comprehensive perspectives of the EU, they represent a broad perspective and capture broad themes on the interplay between national and EU objectives.
[2] A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several member states that gives access to the network on each other's territory.
[3] Association Stakeholders Call for National Freight Program and Stronger Federal Role,
www.intermodal.org/stakeholders_files/documents/PR_FSC_Call_for_National_Freight_Program.pdf.
[4] House of Representatives' Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee Blueprint for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/OBERST_044_xml.pdf.
S 3629 and HR 5976, The FREIGHT (Focusing Resources, Economic Investment, and Guidance to Help Transportation) Act of 2010, July 22, 2010, http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=326598.
HR 6291: Freight FOCUS (Freight is the Future Of Commerce in the United States) Act of 2010, Sept. 30, 2010, http://richardson.house.gov/list/press/ca37_richardson/FreightFocusAct.shtml.
[5] Although the countries visited do not provide comprehensive perspectives of the EU, they represent a broad perspective and capture broad themes on the interplay between national and EU objectives.
[6] The ECSC expired in 2002, but the European Atomic Energy Community remains a distinct entity, the only one of the three communities to exist beyond 2009.
[7] Europa, European Union Institutions and Other Bodies, http://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htm.
[8] The Galileo program is Europe's initiative for a state-of-the art global satellite navigation system.
[9] The EU's freight transport agenda: Boosting the efficiency, integration, and sustainability of freight transport in Europe, COM(2007)606.
[10] Commission Staff Working Document, TEN-T Policy Review— background papers, Brussels, Nov. 5, 2010, SEC(2010) 613 final, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tent_policy_review/doc/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v1.pdf.
[11] Europa, Agencies of the European Union, http://europa.eu/agencies/executive_agencies/ten-t/index_en.htm.
[12] Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency, History and Legal Framework,http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/about_us/mission__introduction/history__legal_framework.htm.
[13] Position paper of the European
Transport Coordinators on the Future of TEN-T Policy, Oct. 6, 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/european_coordinators/doc/
2009_10_06_position_paper_coordinators_future_tent_en.pdf.
[14] The Commonwealth of Independent States is a regional organization whose participating countries are former Soviet Republics, formed during the breakup of the Soviet Union.
[15] EuroActiv, White Paper on Transport, www.euractiv.com/en/transport/white-paper-transport/article-129628.
[16] Transport Policy for the European Union (2001), White Paper—European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide.
[17] Communication from the Commission on the Promotion of Inland Waterway Transport "NAIADES" —A n Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport, (SEC(2006) 34).
[18] "Financing of Transport Infrastructure in Germany," presentation by Julia Paul, Division UI21, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs, September 2010.
[19] Traffic Flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast, and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T, Taking Into Consideration the External Dimension of the Union, Final Report, December 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/infrastructure/studies/2009_12_ten_connect_final_report.pdf.
[20] European PPP Expertise Centre, www.eib.org/epec/index.htm.
[21] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (SEC(2008) 2208) (SEC(2008) 2209).
[22] A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several member states that gives access to the network on each other's territory.
[23] Detailed information is at www.toll-collect.de/frontend/HomepageVP.do;jsessionid=43AAD1D5F10F0DA4CC2D64D39FE7F7E2.app02.
