Does Europe need more roads?

1. Does Europe need more roads? Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2). Work Package 5a: Transport Wednesday, 7 October 2009 Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London, SE1 9PD +44 (0)20 7919 8500 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Presentation at the DG REGIO Open Days

2. Presentation agenda • ERDF objectives for transport for the 2000-2006 period • Physical outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF • Evaluation of transport needs • Emerging findings and recommendations from the Draft final report • Conclusions

3. ERDF objectives for transport for the 2000-2006 period

4. ERDF objectives for transport in programming period • Improving the effectiveness of transport systems by modernising and repairing infrastructure, fostering better management and encouraging measures to enhance interoperability; • Seeking a balance between the different modes of transport by investing more in modes other than road transport, developing coherent intermodal and combined transport systems and creating transfer hubs; • improving access to the regions by connecting the main networks to local small-scale transport systems; • reducing the harmful effects of transport by complying with environmental protection rules. (Source: Guidelines for the 2000-2006 programme)

5. Financial outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF

6. Allocation and expenditure (1) Objective 1 • €33.8 billion allocated • €29.1 billion spent by end of 2007 • 96% in Objective 1 regions. • 81.5% was allocated to 5 Member States. Objective 2

7. ERDF contribution (Based on case studies) • Expenditure followed OP strategy, but not always key challenges • for example the little attention placed on intermodality, improving the quality of rail or improving urban transport. • Where challenges addressed there were positive results • relieving bottlenecks -> reduced of journey times; • increasing airport capacity -> increased passenger numbers. • Exogenous macroeconomic factors limited some achievements • for example investments in public transport being cancelled out by increases in car ownership

8. Expenditure split

9. Physical outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF

10. Projects over the programming period • Over 13,000 transport projects (61% road based) • 96% in Objective 1 and 95% in the EU15.

11. Transport investment statistics -1 Nearly 100,000km of roads & motorways • 13,000km new build • 62,000km reconstructed • The rest unclassified Almost 4,000km of railway • 600km new build • 2,300km reconstructed • The rest unclassified

12. Transport investment statistics -2 Airports • 31 airports modernised & substantial terminal surface area added. Many targets were not met. Ports • 130 ports have been modernised (in a selection of countries) and target achievement varied from 50% to 650%.

13. Transport investment statistics -3 • Over 1500 multimodal centres were completed. • Almost 7000 parking spaces. • 2,476km of cycle paths were completed.

14. Evaluation of transport needs

15. Did Europe need more roads at the start of the programming period? Arguments for • Quality of the road network poor in many EU10 Member States (especailly in Baltic States) • Missing links, particularly connections to ports, needed to be completed (France, Germany) • Journey times needed to be reduced (Greece, Czech Republic) • Key connections needed to be built (Spain, Greece) • Road safety needed to improved (Portugal, Poland)

16. Did Europe need more roads at the start of the programming period? Arguments against • Some Member States already had an extensive road network. • Some investment driven by the fact that it was easier. • Strategy and EU policy said that investment should be focused on other modes. • Building more roads creates more congestion

17. Emerging findings and recommendationsFrom Draft Final Report

18. Emerging findings (1) • ERDF contributed significantly to the development of transport in terms of the addition of additional transport infrastructure and reducing journey times. • A number of key projects completed (see major projects in Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.) • Increased connections to the TEN-T (Portugal, Poland, etc.) • Increased capacity (Motorways in Spain and Greece; railways in Italy, etc.) • Focus on road was within the strategies. (11/12 case studies focused on different aspects of road improvements in their strategy) • EU10 MS have seen a substantial improvement in the quality of roads across their network. (Journey times and road standards in Baltic States) • Some States have seen a substantial improvement in road safety. (Portugal)

19. Emerging findings (2) • Little emphasis on modal shift (9/12 regions included it in their strategy, only Lisboa invested significantly.) • The “spend” culture directed funds to the easiest projects which may not have been the most optimal. • Direct impacts of transport investments can be measured (journey time reductions, accessibility increased capacity, etc.). • Indirect impacts are harder to measure: difficult to draw link to regional development. They need effective measurement & monitoring which needs to be done over a much longer timeframe than the limited time in the programming period. • Clear objectives need to be defined • Generally little value for money appraisal in the development of projects. (Although good practice examples have been seen in the UK).

20. Examples of good practice • Athens Metro – Modal shift • Eco Bus line in Funchal – Zero Emissions • Removal of level crossings in Cadiz – urban road safety • Egnatia Motorway – Journey times • AVE Spain – High speed rail

21. Emerging recommendations (1) Road • EC to provide guidance on: • Setting clear objectives and areas that should be targeted • The type of expenditure (current vs capital) • How transport investment is managed nationally (national vs local roads)

22. Emerging recommendations (2) • Projects need to be accompanied by a sound cost benefit analysis • The defining of indicators, the setting of targets and the monitoring of outcomes needs to be improved: • Journey times at scheme or corridor level • Changes in capacity • Changes in safety • Changes in modal split • Freight impacts • Increased knowledge exchange between regions to identify good/best practice • Linking OP strategies more explicitly to EU, national and regional challenges and strategies.

23. Conclusion: Does Europe need more roads going forward? • It depends on: • What type of roads? (motorways/national/local) • What type of road interventions? (new/upgraded/maintenance) • Where? (Which part of the EU?) • Why roads have been chosen? (Is there a need or is it easier compared to rail?) • Road investment still necessary but targeted at micro interventions aimed at filling missing links or removing bottlenecks. • ERDF investment needs to switch away from roads and more towards ensuring sustainable transport which is not limited only to rail.

24. Thank you