TERM AC Capacity of transport infrastructure networks

Transcription

1 Indicator fact sheet TERM AC Capacity of transport infrastructure networks? Extension of existing infrastructure mainly takes place for roads (motorways), the total length of which increased by about km between 1990 and Road density is still much lower than in the EU. Railway, inland waterway and oil pipeline networks gradually decreased in length over the same period. Network length is, however, only an indication of its capacity. Figure 1: Evolution of transport infrastructure length in AC-13, Motorways 190 Index (1990 = 100) Roads - excluding motorways (AC-10) 90 Rail Oil pipelines Inland waterways NB: Roads, excluding motorways, is based on AC-10 (excluding Czech Republic, Estonia and Turkey) and oil pipelines is based on Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania only (Cyprus, Estonia and Malta have no oil pipelines). Source: UNECE, Results and assessment Policy relevance Transport infrastructure forms the arteries of Europe and contributes to social cohesion in terms of accessibility, though infrastructure may also equally produce and reinforce social differentiation and fragmentation (see TERM EU Regional accessibility of markets and cohesion, Box The two-way road argument ). It does, however, pressurise the environment by taking land. Additionally, the environment close to infrastructure suffers from, amongst others, higher noise levels, air pollution and fragmentation. The following policy objectives can be identified: to create an infrastructure network that is interoperable within modes of transport and encourages intermodality between the different modes of transport, covers the whole territory of the Community and is capable of being connected with neighbouring countries (TEN-T objective); to revitalise rail and inland waterway transport (CTP)

2 Policy context In the joint declaration of the Council of Ministers of Transport of the European Communities, the European Conference of the Ministers of Transport (ECMT), the European Civil Aviation Conference and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), also referred to as the first pan-european Transport Conference (Prague declaration, 1991), it was agreed that it was necessary to set up an adequate European transport infrastructure network plan as well as a timetable for the achievement of the necessary projects. At the second pan-european transport conference held in Crete, in March 1994 (Crete declaration, 1994), the basic principles for a common transport policy were further elaborated and refined. As concerns infrastructure, it was decided to collaborate on, develop and implement trans-european networks, with due consideration being given to their interconnections and interoperability (the nine Crete-corridors were hereby considered as a starting point). On 23 July 1996, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Community guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network (TEN-T) ( 1 ). These guidelines establish orientations up to the year 2010 for the development of a multimodal transport network on the Union s territory, which is capable of being connected to the networks of the countries of central and eastern Europe and Mediterranean countries. One year later, at the third pan-european transport conference in Helsinki, in June 1997 (Helsinki declaration, 1997), the Commission proposed a structure for 10 pan-european transport corridors, on the territory of the ACs, which form an extension of the TEN-T to the accession countries. This structure was endorsed by the Helsinki declaration, thereby adding one corridor to the nine Crete corridors. The 10 multimodal transport corridors form the socalled backbone network. In 1995, the Commission started a process, following the first structured dialogue between the Transport Council and the Ministers of Transport of the associated countries, with a view to defining the future trans-european transport infrastructure network in the enlarged European Union (the TINA process). During the TINA process, the backbone network as defined at the Helsinki Conference was taken under consideration and elaborated with additional components proposed by three TINA regional groups. In June 1998, the TINA group (comprising top officials from the 26 countries involved in the project the 15 EU Member States plus 11 accession countries, excluding Malta and Turkey) agreed an outline network and approved this in its final report a year later in June 1999 (TINA Senior Officials Group, 1999). This network (the backbone network and additional components) consists of: km of roads (see Map 1) km of railways (see Map 2) km of inland waterways 40 airports 20 seaports 58 river ports and 86 (multimodal) terminals The TINA network forms the framework for priority setting in infrastructure construction, repair and maintenance. Support from the EU to the ACs will therefore focus on developing and upgrading (parts of the) TINA network, in particular the backbone network, to European standards. The main instrument for EU support will be provided through the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA), for supporting infrastructure projects in the field of transport and environment (see indicator fact sheet TERM AC Transport infrastructure investment). The European Commission recently came forward with a proposal for the (first phase) revision of the TEN guidelines. One important aspect of this revision s first phase is the intention to allocate more Community resources to projects at the frontiers of the ( 1 ) Decision No 1692/96/EC, OJ L 228,

3 candidate countries, in order to reduce bottlenecks currently experienced in those regions. The second phase of the revision will be aimed at redefining the guidelines, in order to take account of enlargement and subsequent changes in traffic flows. In its White Paper on a common transport policy, the Commission proposes measures to achieve fair competition between modes, of which the most important concerning infrastructure capacity are: the creation of traffic management plans at a European level in order to make better use of available infrastructure, in particular in frontier regions; all main trans-european links should have such plans by 2006, to establish a complete rail network reserved for freight, by encouraging investments enabling the gradual development of trans- European corridors for priority or even exclusive use by freight trains; the creation of a European single sky; to develop the concept of motorways of the sea ; to give priority to the building of infrastructure that encourages intermodality and offers a more environment friendly alternative. Map 1: TINA road network Map 2: TINA rail network Source: TINA Secretariat, Source: TINA Secretariat, Some countries have set objectives for their national infrastructure, not related to the TINA network, like, for example, the Czech Republic. In order to improve safety on roads, the Czech Government wishes to construct bypasses around communities and adjust highways by separating carriageways (Czech Ministry of Transport, 2000). Environmental context Transport infrastructure networks have an impact on the environment by land taken and facilitating traffic flows and simultaneously noise, air pollutants, etc. near, through or closely around nature and urban areas. Assessment The total length of the motorway network in AC-13 almost doubled between 1990 and 1998, while in EU-14 (excluding Greece due to data limitations) the motorway network increased by 19 % in length between 1990 and

4 The length of the total road network (including all roads) increased by 3 % between 1994 and 1998 in total length in the 13 accession countries. In the EU, excluding Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal (data limitations), an increase in road length of 1 % can be observed in the same period. A broader time scope of statistics on the length of roads is available for several countries. In the period , Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus show the highest increases in length of roads, with 51 %, 35 % and 28 % respectively. Poland and Romania follow, with 2.4 % and 0.9 % respectively in the same period. In Latvia, Slovakia and Slovenia a decrease in the length of roads can be observed (by 2.7 %, 1.1 % and 3.3 % respectively) between 1990 and However, these countries show increases in road length since 1995 (Latvia), 1997 (Slovakia) and 1998 (Slovenia). The same trend can be seen in Bulgaria, where the road length decreased between 1993 and 1996, but increased again from 1997 onwards. These trends are probably related to changes in statistical approach over the analysed period. Motorway length has increased much more than the length of all roads (including motorways). This can be explained by the fact that most motorways are a result of upgrading smaller (local and provincial) roads. The total length of roads will therefore increase much less than the length of motorways. The length of the railway network in use decreased in AC-12 (excluding Poland) on average by 0.1 % per year between 1990 and 1999, resulting in a 0.7 % decrease in railway length (379 km). In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia, railway length remained relatively stable between 1990 and 1999 (increasing or decreasing by less than 20 km). In Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Romania, railway length decreased by 58 km, 120 km, 102 km and 367 km respectively, which represents a decrease of between 0.2 % and 0.6 %. Turkish railway length increased markedly, by 253 km between 1990 and 1999, representing a 3 % increase. In Poland, km of operational railway lines were closed between 1990 and 1999, due to economic conditions. The least profitable railway lines (mostly of local importance) had to be closed. Bus lines have taken over these railway connections, but these lines also face economic difficulties (EEA, 2001a). The share of electrified railway lines in total length of railway lines increased from 33 % in 1990 to 38 % in In the EU, this share increased from 43 % in 1991 to 49 % in The electrification of railway lines is important as concerns local (alongside railway lines) pollutant emissions. Poland and Bulgaria show the highest rates of electrification (63 % and 52 % respectively in 1999, which is higher than the EU average). The length of inland waterways did not change significantly in the period between 1990 and There are no inland waterways in Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia and Turkey. Latvia, from 1995 onwards, declared to have no navigable inland waterways as well. The Czech Republic is the only country where significant changes in length of inland waterways can be observed: between 1994 and 1995 an additional 169 km of inland waterways became available, of which 13 km were withdrawn between 1997 and There are no oil pipelines in Cyprus, Estonia and Malta and less than 10 km of the Adriatic (Croatia Hungary) pipeline passes through Slovenian territory (EEA, 2001b). On Slovak territory, there are 515 km of oil pipeline (part of the Družba and Adria oil pipeline systems) (EEA, 2001c). The oil pipeline network remained equal in length in Bulgaria and Latvia but decreased between 1992 and 1993 in Hungary by around 500 km (20 %). In Romania, the highest growth can be observed: between 1996 and 1997 the length increased by more than km

5 Sub-indicator: Infrastructure density per country Road density (see Figure 2), expressed as the length of all roads per number of inhabitants, is significantly higher (around 75 %) in EU-15 than in AC-13. When expressed as the length of roads per unit of surface area, the EU road network is about 39 % more dense than that of the accession countries. As with road density, the length of railways can be expressed per unit of surface area and per capita (see Figure 3). AC-13 have a higher density of railways per capita (around 7 % more) than EU-15, but a lower density (18 % less) when expressed per unit of surface area. Figure 2: Length of roads per capita and surface area in AC-13 and EU-15 in 1998, ordered by population density Figure 3: Length of railways per capita and per surface area in AC-11 and EU-15 in 1998, ordered by population density AC-13 EU-15 Finland Sweden Estonia Latvia Ireland Lithuania Bulgaria Spain Greece Turkey Cyprus Romania Austria Slovenia France Portugal Hungary Slovakia Denmark Poland Czech Rep. Luxembourg Italy Germany United Kingdom Belgium Netherlands Malta Higher population density ,000 Per capita Index (AC-13 = 100) Per surface area AC-11 EU-15 Finland Sweden Estonia Latvia Ireland Lithuania Bulgaria Spain Greece Turkey Cyprus Romania Austria Slovenia France Portugal Hungary Slovakia Denmark Poland Czech Rep. Luxembourg Italy Germany United Kingdom Belgium Netherlands Malta Higher population density Per capita Index (AC-11 = 100) Per surface area NB: Length of roads in Estonia and Turkey is based NB: AC-11 calculated, since no railway lines exist in on Length of roads in Greece is based on Cyprus and Malta For Italy, Portugal and the Netherlands, road length is based on Source: UNECE, Source: UNECE, Assessment Infrastructure density (infrastructure length per unit of surface area or per capita) is a proxy indicator, which allows comparison across countries on the availability of infrastructure. It should be noted, however, that this indicator does not reflect the geographical distribution of economic activities and of population density, nor does it reflect the capacity of infrastructure offered in the context of whether roads are suitable for heavy traffic or of maximum speeds on and interoperability of railways. Furthermore, small and densely populated countries generally show high densities of infrastructure and, likewise, large and scarcely populated countries show low densities of infrastructure

6 The Czech Republic has the highest values of length per square kilometre for both roads and railways. Together with Slovenia and Poland, infrastructure density in these three accession countries is comparable with that of EU Member States. The Baltic States have a relatively high density of roads, both in units per surface area and per capita. The lowest densities of length of roads per unit of surface area are observed in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Turkey. Except for Slovakia, these countries belong to the group of relatively large countries within the accession countries. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are also among the poorest accession countries. Road infrastructure density in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia can measure itself with European standards, both in the density per surface area and per capita. Hungary and the Czech Republic have the highest railway density (per surface area and per capita), followed closely by Slovakia, Poland and Slovenia. Bulgaria and Romania are at the lower end of railway density in the accession countries, but still have significant higher densities (in particular when expressed per capita) than most EU Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands and United Kingdom). References Crete declaration, 1994, Crete declaration, second pan-european transport conference, Crete, Greece, 16 March Czech Ministry of Transport, 2000, Sustainable urban travel Policy review: Czech Republic, report to the EMCT on sustainable urban transport in the Czech Republic, Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Czech Republic, December EEA, 2001a, personal communication with Mr Andrzej Sieminski of the Polish Ministry of Transport, Warsaw. EEA, 2001b, personal communication with Mr Aljaž Plevnik, researcher of the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. EEA, 2001c, personal communication with Mr Juraj Bebej, Head of State of the Environment Unit, Environmental Policy and Informatics Centre of the Slovak Environmental Agency (and through the annual report of Transpetrol.) Eurostat, 2001, Transport and environment: statistics for the transport and environment reporting mechanism (TERM) for the European Union, 2001, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Helsinki declaration, 1997, Helsinki declaration towards a European wide transport policy A set of common principles, third pan-european transport conference, Helsinki, Finland, 25 June Prague declaration, 1991, Prague declaration on an all European transport policy, pan- European transport conference organised by the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities in collaboration with the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of Transport, the European Civil Aviation Conference, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 31 October TINA Senior Officials Group, 1999, TINA A common transport infrastructure needs assessment Identification of the network components for a future trans-european transport network in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, drafted by the TINA Secretariat on the basis of the work done by the TINA groups (funded by the Transport DG and the External Relations DG Phare), TINA Secretariat, Vienna, Austria, October UNECE, 2001, Annual bulletin of transport statistics for Europe and North America, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), data received by from UNECE, Paris, France,

7 Data Table 1: The length of infrastructure, surface area and population density in 1998 Units: length in kilometres, surface area in km 2, population density in persons per 1 km 2 Roads Railways Inland waterways Oil pipelines Surface area Population density Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia : Slovenia : Turkey AC : NB: : means not available, - means nil. Source: UNECE, File: TERM AC Capacity of infrastructure networks.xls Metadata Technical information 1. Data source: Annual bulletin of transport statistics for Europe and North America of the UNECE (UNECE, 2001). Surface area from the UNECE web site ( EU data from UNECE, 2001, which is consistent with Eurostat s statistical compendium (Eurostat, 2001) see also point Description of data: Length of infrastructure (roads, railways, inland waterways, oil pipelines): Infrastructure density is defined as kilometres of infrastructure divided by country surface area or divided by the number of inhabitants. Surface area in km 2 and population density in inhabitants per km 2. File: Capacity of infrastructure networks.xls 3. Geographical coverage: AC-13: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. EU-15: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom

8 4. Temporal coverage: , but for road many missing values for ; motorway length complete for Methodology and frequency of data collection: Annual collection of data from replies to questionnaires supplied by various countries. 6. Methodology of data manipulation, including making early estimates : Road: Malta calculated by fitting a straight line between the known values; Latvia 1994 ( km) and 1995 ( km) are considered unreliable when compared with 1992 ( km) and 1995 ( km): these values are therefore replaced with calculated values (straight line between 1992 and 1994); Czech Republic 1995 ( km) is considered unreliable when compared with 1994 ( km) and 1996 ( km): the value is replaced by fitting a straight line between 1994 and 1996; Turkey 1998 ( km) is considered unreliable when compared with previous years (1997: km) and is therefore deleted; Estonia 1998 ( km) and 1999 ( km) are considered unreliable (probably due to different statistical approach) when compared with previous years ( km in 1997) and are therefore deleted. Rail: Bulgaria 1990 assumed to be equal to 1991; Turkey calculated by fitting a straight line between the known values (the original values are considered not reliable when compared with previous and next years). Calculation of density: length of infrastructure in kilometres divided by surface area, or length of infrastructure in kilometres divided by number of inhabitants. Quality information 7. Strength and weakness (at data level): There are gaps for several countries in several years which make it difficult to compare countries over longer time spans. Differences in statistical approaches in one country from one year to another results in unusable time series. Strange values in data makes manipulations necessary (see Methodology of data manipulation ). 8. Reliability, accuracy, robustness, uncertainty (at data level): Data are used from same source for all countries, which renders comparisons between countries fairly reliable. However, it should be noted that there might be some changes in statistical approaches between countries. Consistency of EU figures used in this fact sheet: Length of motorways (EU-14 excluding Greece), 1990: UNECE Eurostat Length of motorways (EU-14 excluding Greece), 1997: UNECE Eurostat Increase of motorway network length: 19 % UNECE 21 % Eurostat Increase length all roads : 1 % UNECE n/a Eurostat Share of electrified railway lines, 1991: 42.5 % UNECE 42.4 Eurostat Share of electrified railway lines, 1998: 49.3 % UNECE 49.0 Eurostat 9. Overall scoring (give 1 to 3 points: 1 = no major problems, 3 = major reservations): 3 Relevancy: 3 (Length is a proxy indicator for true capacity: vehicle, passenger and freight movements per section of infrastructure provide real capacity information.) Accuracy: 2 (Typology problems and missing/non-trustable values for, in particular, State, provincial and communal roads. Motorways, rail and inland waterways are considered fairly good.) Comparability over time: 1 Comparability over space: 2 (Harmonisation problems with respect to typology, in particular of the different road types.)

9 Further work required There should be better harmonisation of data collection, in particular, definitions of road types need to be harmonised, as many countries have different administrative classifications. Values that seem to fall outside the range of what is logically understandable should be verified with the national statistical offices. The quality of the infrastructure is of great importance as regards the accession countries. Aspects concerning quality of roads are, amongst others, safety standards and the level of services provided for users (like for example the average number of service stations and emergency telephones alongside motorways). Quality aspects related to railway infrastructure are, amongst others, the number of unguarded levels crossings and the maximum speed on railway tracks. Additional data on infrastructure and operation characteristics (e.g. number of tracks, frequency of trains, number of public transport stops and bottlenecks in road infrastructure, etc.) are needed to develop the current length indicator into a capacity indicator. There is currently no data available on the capacity of airports, maritime ports and multimodal terminals (changing stations). These data are needed to provide an overall picture of the capacity of infrastructure