Does Europe need more roads? 1 Wednesday, 7 October 2009 Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London, SE1 9PD +44 (0)20 7919 8500 www.steerdaviesgleave.com.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Why does ERA Need to Flourish
Advertisements

York Viva Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Concept image along Davis Drive.
BORN BY COMBINATION. BORN BY COMBINATION. Key resources and tools for setting up local public goods in mountain areas of Emilia Romagna Antonella Bonaduce,
Using public procurement to foster research and innovation More Research and Innovation COM(2005) 488 of 12 October 2005 Commission communication to the.
Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Unit D1 Innovation Policy development European Commission Non-technological innovation and EU innovation policies.
Smarter Travel Programmes– Financial impacts for Transport for London COLIN BUCHANAN
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Environment and transport Lessons from the Italian ERDF Operational Programme for transport 1.The EU transport.
History and evolution of EU Regional and Cohesion Policy
Title INNOVATION PERFORMANCE. The Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs and EU regional policy DG REGIO.
URBAN Community Initiative URBAN - Mission economic and social regeneration of cities and neighbourhoods in crisis « réhabilitation économique.
GREEN PAPER "TOWARDS A NEW CULTURE FOR URBAN MOBILITY" EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
Development Priorities in Regional Operational Programmes prepared by the Polish Regions for the Programming Periode – 11 October 2007,
DG REGIO – Unit "Thematic Development" EUROPEAN COMMISSION EN 1 Transport and Regional Policy Transport and Regional Policy Patrick.
Planning and use of funding instruments
Transport Study to support an impact assessment of the Urban Mobility Package on SUMPs CoR Meeting June 13 DG MOVE.
EU-Regional Policy Structural actions 1 GROWING EVALUATION CAPACITY THE MID TERM EVALUATION IN OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS 8 OCTOBER 2004.
EESC HEARING Sustainable development of the EU Transport policy and TEN-T The practical example: PP17 Brussels 26 April 2011.
1 7 th Progress Report: The regional and urban dimension of Europe 2020 Lewis Dijkstra Deputy Head of the Analysis Unit DG for Regional Policy European.
Transport RAIL Isabelle Vandoorne Brussels, 29 November 2012 TEN-T 2012 calls info day.
How to improve the technical and financial management of the TEN-T projects? Ioannis Giogkarakis-Argyropoulos, Head of Unit T2 – Road and Rail Transport,
TEN-T Info Day for AP and MAP Calls 2012 Multi-Modality Chris North TEN-T EA Head of Unit T3 – Air and Waterborne Transport, Logistics, Innovation and.
Regional Policy Common Indicators: Infrastructure Definitions and Discussion Brussels, 22 nd November
No 2007.CE.16.0.AT.041 The Potential for regional Policy Instruments, , to contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives for growth, jobs.
1 The role of macro- regional strategies after 2013 The Commissions view (or rather the view of one official) David Sweet, DG Regional Policy, European.
An accessible and attractive region: to improve internal and external transport links Aleksandrs Antonovs EU Funds Managing Authority in Latvia.
EN Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Community Strategic Guidelines for cohesion
1 EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Evaluation: Setting Outcome Indicators and Targets Seminar: 15 March 2011, La Hulpe Veronica Gaffey Acting Director.
1 State of play Evaluations undertaken for DG REGIO.
1 DG Regio Evaluation Network Meeting Albert Borschette, Brussels, 14 October 2010 Ex post evaluation of Interreg III - Presentation of Final Results Pasi.
Brussels, Theme D Workshops Wednesday 7 October 2009 Ex-post Evaluation : Is building environment infrastructure supporting growth in Europe?
Regional Policy EUROPEAN COMMISSION Open Days EU Instruments for RTD and Innovation: the Structural Funds Christine Mason REGIO.C1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION.
Towards sustainable transport: Focus on freight Nina Renshaw Transport and Environment Open Days, Brussels, 7 October 2008.
1 Cohesion Policy Evaluation Network Meeting: Brussels, October 2010 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy interventions financed.
1 Ex post evaluation of the Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) Work Package B: cost - benefit analysis of selected transport projects Jurate Vaznelyte,
Information - CommunicationDirectorate general for Energy and Transport European Commission ECCP II Stakeholders` Meeting 24 October 2005 Luc Werring Principal.
Directorate general for Energy and Transport European Commission 10 October 2006 Trans-European transport network (TEN) policy Catharina Sikow-Magny.
1. 2 Why are Result & Impact Indicators Needed? To better understand the positive/negative results of EC aid. The main questions are: 1.What change is.
POLISH PRESIDENCY IN THE EU: COHESION POLICY AND EVALUATION-RELATED ACTIVITIES Presentation of Objectives and Programme Stanisław Bienias, Ministry of.
A Fresh Look at the Intervention Logic of Structural Funds
1 Cohesion Policy support for Sustainable Energy Intelligent Energy Europe boosting regional competitiveness through sustainable energy Open Days Workshop.
Green Mobility in Copenhagen Annette Kayser City of Copenhagen.
Transport Policy And The Environment Professor David Gray The Centre for Transport Policy The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.
Sustainable Spatial Policy Mike Raco Department of Geography Kings College London.
1 Presentation to the Overseas Development Institute Friday, 30 January 2004 London Development Cooperation Report 2003 Presentation by Richard Manning,
Veronica Gaffey DG REGIO Evaluation Unit
March 2012 Ports and Cities Conference Newcastle Dorte Ekelund, Executive Director Major Cities Unit Department of Infrastructure and Transport
The European Coach Market 1 Results of 2008/9 European Commission study Challenges and opportunities for the future Prepared for: IRU 1 March 2012 Prepared.
| | 1 Intermodality Air/Rail Intermodality air/rail at Munich Airport – reality and vision Flughafen München GmbH Dr. Wilhelm Wolters.
SCATTER workshop, Milan, 24 October 2003 Testing selected solutions to control urban sprawl The Brussels case city.
Structural and cohesion funds and the European Semester process –experiences from the past, lessons for the future for the European Structural and Investment.
SCATTER final seminar, Brussels, 9 November 2004 SCATTER Testing and evaluating potential solutions to control urban sprawl, through simulation.
TEN-T R EVIEW AND “C ONNECTING E UROPE F ACILITY ” CPMR PROPOSALS LISBON 6 March 2012.
1 Workshop on inventories of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation and navigation May 2004, Copenhagen EU greenhouse gas emission trends and projections.
Improving the added value of EU Cohesion policy Professor John Bachtler European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ON TRANSPORT Nelly Yordanova Head of Managing Authority Structural Funds in Bulgaria: Possibilities in Environment, Infrastructure,
Action Plan on Urban Mobility
Trans-European Transport Network and the Connecting Europe Facility
Transport Sustainable Mobility and Integrated Planning in Urban Areas: Trade Union Dialogue with Local Authorities Day 2: 5th February 2013, SESSION 1:
VERONICA GAFFEY Acting Director – Policy Development DG FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Przyszłość polityki spójności V Raport Kohezyjny a wnioski z ewaluacji.
Regional Policy EU Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020 Proposals from the European Commission.
Transport Enhancing TEN-T funding Pawel Stelmaszczyk Special Envoy for European Mobility Network DG MOVE Warsaw, 18 December 2013.
Transport ERTMS on the EU core network by 2015, 2020, 2030 strategic (pragmatic) approach UIC conference 2014 I. Vandoorne.
EU Infrastructure charging and investment policy Christophe Deblanc DG TREN.
1 EUROPEAN FUNDS IN HALF-TIME NEW CHALLENGES Jack Engwegen Head of the Czech Unit European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy Prague,
The National Strategy of Slovak Republic
Transport Integration of cross-border transport infrastructure TEN-T strategy on large cross- border cooperation projects Gudrun Schulze, Team leader,
Key factors in the transport policy to encourage better integration Sixty-Third Session of UNECE, Geneva, 30th March 2009 "Economic Integration in the.
European Structural and Investment Funds for railways in Poland November 2015 Wolfgang Munch, Deputy Head of Unit DG Regional and Urban Policy.
Investing in infrastructure The Connecting Europe Facility
Evaluation Network Meeting Brussels, February 2010
Presentation transcript:

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

Does Europe need more roads? 2 Presentation agenda Ι ERDF objectives for transport for the period Ι Physical outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF Ι Evaluation of transport needs Ι Emerging findings and recommendations from the Draft final report Ι Conclusions

Does Europe need more roads? 3 ERDF objectives for transport for the period

Does Europe need more roads? 4 ERDF objectives for transport in programming period Ι Improving the effectiveness of transport systems by modernising and repairing infrastructure, fostering better management and encouraging measures to enhance interoperability; Ι 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; Ι improving access to the regions by connecting the main networks to local small-scale transport systems; Ι reducing the harmful effects of transport by complying with environmental protection rules. (Source: Guidelines for the programme)

Does Europe need more roads? 5 Financial outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF

Does Europe need more roads? 6 Allocation and expenditure (1) Objective 2 Objective 1 Ι 33.8 billion allocated Ι 29.1 billion spent by end of 2007 Ι 96% in Objective 1 regions. Ι 81.5% was allocated to 5 Member States.

Does Europe need more roads? 7 ERDF contribution (Based on case studies) Ι 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. Ι Where challenges addressed there were positive results relieving bottlenecks -> reduced of journey times; increasing airport capacity -> increased passenger numbers. Ι Exogenous macroeconomic factors limited some achievements for example investments in public transport being cancelled out by increases in car ownership

Does Europe need more roads? 8 Expenditure split

Does Europe need more roads? 9 Physical outcomes from investment co-financed by the ERDF

Does Europe need more roads? 10 Projects over the programming period Ι Over 13,000 transport projects (61% road based) Ι 96% in Objective 1 and 95% in the EU15.

Does Europe need more roads? 11 Transport investment statistics -1 Nearly 100,000km of roads & motorways Ι 13,000km new build Ι 62,000km reconstructed Ι The rest unclassified Almost 4,000km of railway Ι 600km new build Ι 2,300km reconstructed Ι The rest unclassified

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

Does Europe need more roads? 13 Transport investment statistics -3 Ι Over 1500 multimodal centres were completed. Ι Almost 7000 parking spaces. Ι 2,476km of cycle paths were completed.

Does Europe need more roads? 14 Evaluation of transport needs

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

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

Does Europe need more roads? 17 Emerging findings and recommendations From Draft Final Report

Does Europe need more roads? 18 Emerging findings (1) Ι 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.) Ι Focus on road was within the strategies. (11/12 case studies focused on different aspects of road improvements in their strategy) Ι EU10 MS have seen a substantial improvement in the quality of roads across their network. (Journey times and road standards in Baltic States) Ι Some States have seen a substantial improvement in road safety. (Portugal)

Does Europe need more roads? 19 Emerging findings (2) Ι Little emphasis on modal shift (9/12 regions included it in their strategy, only Lisboa invested significantly.) Ι The spend culture directed funds to the easiest projects which may not have been the most optimal. Ι Direct impacts of transport investments can be measured (journey time reductions, accessibility increased capacity, etc.). Ι 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. Ι Clear objectives need to be defined Ι Generally little value for money appraisal in the development of projects. (Although good practice examples have been seen in the UK).

Does Europe need more roads? 20 Examples of good practice Ι Athens Metro – Modal shift Ι Eco Bus line in Funchal – Zero Emissions Ι Removal of level crossings in Cadiz – urban road safety Ι Egnatia Motorway – Journey times Ι AVE Spain – High speed rail

Does Europe need more roads? 21 Emerging recommendations (1) Ι 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) Road

Does Europe need more roads? 22 Emerging recommendations (2) Ι Projects need to be accompanied by a sound cost benefit analysis Ι 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 Ι Increased knowledge exchange between regions to identify good/best practice Ι Linking OP strategies more explicitly to EU, national and regional challenges and strategies.

Does Europe need more roads? 23 Conclusion: Does Europe need more roads going forward? Ι 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?) Ι Road investment still necessary but targeted at micro interventions aimed at filling missing links or removing bottlenecks. Ι ERDF investment needs to switch away from roads and more towards ensuring sustainable transport which is not limited only to rail.

Does Europe need more roads? 24 Thank you