european transport

Even though the development process of inter-European transport networks is relatively slow, the evidence suggests that a European Transport policy does exist to a certain degree. The issue of transport within the European Union is of major importance, as it is essential for virtually any form of trade. Transport is significant both as an instrument which enhances the economic co-operation and integration but also as a stand-alone industry. It would be useful to briefly mention the reasons put forward for the existence of a European Transport policy, before we analyse its structure. This way we will achieve a greater understanding of its importance.
First of all, the Transport industry accounts for a significantly great proportion of European Union Gross Domestic Product (GDP). According to Barnes (1995) its share of EU GDP is 4 per cent for the public transport alone, which becomes 7 or 8 per cent if private transport is included and in 1991 approximately 5.6 million people were employed in this sector. Another aspect of the industry is the equipment sector, with the construction of automobiles being one of the most vibrant industries in the EU. Furthermore, a European Transport policy should cater for safety concerns, reduce disparity between the regions and assist the development of relations with third countries.
While the increasing level of inter-European trade was a major driving force for the development of transport across Europe (see Table 1), the division across the West and the East was a major drawback. In addition, recent political instability and conflict in the East (specifically in the Balkans) has hampered European transport. Such an example poses the case of Greece, which was partly isolated from its Western partners during the armed conflicts in Yugoslavia, and had to divert transport through Hungary and Italy (by ferry). The development of a sophisticated transport infrastructure can also prove catalytic in providing solutions to such problems.

Table 1 – Traffic trends in western and eastern Europe (1991 as % of 1970)
Freight (tonne km) Rail Road Inland Waterways Total
West Europe 91,2 223.6 101.8 161.6
CEFTA* 70.3 224.0 96.9 97.5
*Central European Free Trade Agreement: Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary.

Source: ECTM data in Voigt (1995), cited in D. Pinder (1998), page 227

The Treaty of Rome recognised the above needs and in articles 74 to 84 provided the initial basis for the establishment of a Common Transport Policy (CTP). Briefly, the Treaty of Rome set out the guidelines, which would shape European Transport. It called for:

(i) “A common set of rules governing transport with equality of treatment.
(ii) State aids to be permitted in order to promote a public service.
(iii) A progressive reduction in costs.
(iv) Provisions to apply to road, rail, and inland waterways with the addition of sea and air transport at later date.” (Barnes I. and Barnes P.M., 1995:79)

This is a preview of the whole essay

The idea behind the Common Transport Policy is still largely the same, with additions concerning safety and other aspects dealt with by later treaties. More specifically, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) made additions regarding transport safety and the development of “Trans-European Networks”. Also, the issue of isolation of the periphery and of distant islands was attempted to be dealt with, with the Commission acting as the co-ordinator of the efforts towards improvement1.
At this point it would be appropriate to identify what we mean by the term “Trans-European Networks”. Widespread inefficiencies in the transport sector of European Union are said to cost something in the range of ECU 3.75 billion to ECU 6 billion on a yearly basis. Not only that, but this figure is projected to rise to ECU 13.6 billion by the year 2010 (Barnes 1995, page 97). This is a result of fragmentation that occurs within the EU due to individualistic nature of transport policies that each member state follows and is evident in every aspect of transport. A characteristic example mentioned by Barnes is that of air-control. In the USA the air-traffic control system deals with a much greater number of flights only with 22 air traffic control centres whereas the EU has 42.
Trans-European Networks were established by the European Union to promote co-ordination and integration of the member states in the fields of energy, transport and telecommunications. The volume of transport will increase and its effects are aimed to be spreading even across present EU boundaries. According to the Commission´s White Paper entitled “Growth, Competitiveness, Employment – the challenges and the Ways Forward into the 21st Century” emphasised on the importance of Trans-European Networks on six main points which are as follows4:

“ (i). Better, safer travel at lower cost.
(ii). Effective planning in Europe in order to avoid a concentration of population.
(iii). Bridge building towards Eastern Europe in order to step up investment and promote trade.
(iv). Removing regulatory and financial obstacles.
(v). Getting private investors involved in projects of European interest.
(vi). Identifying projects on the basis of master plans.” (Ref. 4)

Initially, Trans-European Networks (or TENS) were conceptualised as separate networks, but the benefits of a strategy that would promote the integration of different modes of transport, were soon obvious to EU policy makers. This design was expected to cost ECU 400 billion (that was when EU had only 12 members) and should be made reality by 2010. TENS aims to build;

1. Roads measuring approximately 58,000 kilometres in length.
2. Railways´ tracks of a total length of 70,000 kilometres, of which 23,000 will be dedicated to high-speed trains travelling at 200 kilometres per hour.
3. 12,000 kilometres of inland railways.
4. Platforms that will help the interaction between the different modes of transport such as from rail to air travel and from road to rail.
5. Air traffic management and control systems concentrating on European Union´s 250 most significant airports.
6. Enhanced sea port infrastructure. (Ref. 1)

The network has a medium to long-term priority for the European Union, however the European Commission has drafted plans for key sectors, thus helping its materialisation. An aspect of TENS that poses some difficulty in implementing is obviously that of financing. This is more intense on states that use transport corridors in order to access other markets and also in Eastern European states that simply lack the resources. However, funding is not impossible to find as a variety of European agencies may provide it, such as the Cohesion Fund and the European Investment Bank as well as contributions from the EU budget.
        Furthermore, the transport sector of the European Union is characterised by two different and distinct aspects; networks and traffic. On one hand, networks are established for transport mediums that circulate on land, such as rail networks, but also for transport mediums which use the sea or the air2. On the other hand traffic may well be passengers, goods or information.
        In 1995 the European Union´s transport and infrastructure policy was concentrated on a series of aims. First, the interconnection of existing networks (for instance connecting the networks of the former East Germany with the West), to complete ‘missing links´ (such as the Channel Tunnel), to resolve problems of traffic congestion in the existing networks and to end the isolation of the peripheries2. Back in 1994 the European Union was prepared to spend ECU 20 billion a year for the period 1994-99.
         It would be interesting to have a look though on what how the official European Union´s agencies present the current transport policy. On December 1, 1998 the Commission introduced the action programme "Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future". According to the European Union´s Website (ref. 3) it will take a series of initiatives in order to ensure "sustainable mobility" within the European Union. By the term “sustainable mobility” is meant the acceleration of the development of efficient and environmentally friendly transport systems that are safe and socially acceptable3. In present European Union´s publications we can distinguish a stronger emphasis on a Common Transport Policy than in previous years. An assessment of the work that has already been done is made, and it is admitted that certain aspects of it still lack behind. It is argued that there hasn´t been much progress on the creation of fair and efficient charging for infrastructure and external costs. Problems are also noticeable in the social field as well as in external relations. An example that is mentioned is that of the Council of Ministers refusing to provide the Commission with a mandate regarding an aviation agreement with the U.S.
        Again according to the European Union´s Website, the initiatives that are to be taken under the framework of “sustainable mobility”; are summarised in the action programme "Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future". There, the major priorities for common transport policy up to 2004 are defined. The European Union will emphasise on improving market access and functioning, on environmental issues, on TENS, on fair and efficient pricing in transport, and on economic and social cohesion3. Added to that, one of the priorities of the Commission will be to make sure that the rules are applied, to take effective action on safety concerns and to protect the customers and improve the quality of transport services.
        An issue rarely discussed in European Transport policy literature, which is however a major contributor to productivity and public welfare is that of local public transport. Already a variety of projects are being financed by the European Union which aim at improving local transport efficiency and solve permanent problems that seriously diminish productivity. For instance, the Athens underground (Attiko Metro) system, which is currently on its final stages of completion, is being partly financed by the European Union. According to the “Attiko Metro S.A.” the company responsible for its development “A total of 21 stations will be built, serving approximately 450,000 daily passengers. This is in addition to the 330,000 passengers currently being served by the existing Metro line connecting Pireas with Omonia Square and Kifissia.5” By its completion next year it is expected to provide an effective solution to the traffic congestion and high levels of pollution which are common in Athens. The significance of such projects is undoubtedly great, and this is increasingly recognised by European Union´s officials.
It is important to mention at this point that the European Union is also financing a variety of research projects that would provide solutions on how to improve transport efficiency. Infrastructure projects that are partly or wholly financed by the European Union are present in every single member state, and in the second half of the 1990s the Common Transport Policy, is said to materialise to a greater extent than ever before. Appendix 1 illustrates that most the aims set by the Commission, to improve integration among the core and the peripheries and increase the level of quality of infrastructure are actually being implemented. The development of the Lisbon-Valladolid motorway, along with the motorways currently being built in Greece and the fixed rail to road link in Sweden and Denmark indicate the commitment of the European Union in the equal development of the peripheries.
        It is since 1995 that apparently the issue of a European Transport policy is being taken more seriously. As mentioned by R. Vickerman in D. Pinder´s “New Europe” (1998), in 1995 two specifically transport-related documents were issued by the European Commission, reflecting this growing concern for transport issues. First, the Green Paper The Citizens Network takes the issue further than the TENs to the local level. It is argued that TENs exhibit the problem of being an open invitation for local interests to claim the development of infrastructure to perceived transport problems, instead of reviewing both use and hence pricing in equal terms with the construction of new infrastructure.
The latest activities of the European Union on transport issues are summarised in the following quote, taken from the European Union´s Website:

“In 1999, significant progress was also made on maritime safety, operation of the air transport market and the integration and interoperability of the national railway systems. Finally, the European Union decided to develop an integrated European satellite navigation system (Galileo) which will be independent but open to other international partners and offer world-wide coverage.”6

All these achievements so far sound encouraging, though admittedly, European Transport policy still suffers from certain inefficiencies. The main argument addressed by R. Vickerman is that at all levels transport policy has been directed to routes other than those of improving the efficiency of the transport sector itself. Added to this the cohesion argument may lack validity, because relative accessibility is not improved. Instead, in some cases there has been polarisation of the activities into big cities, as a consequence of the twin-effects or airports and high-speed rail, with the surrounding areas suffering the environmental costs. It is important for policy makers to realise that transport has to be related to the spatial structure of the economy. Finally, conflicts may emerge by the various impacts of transport policy and these may be between private or public agents or both. The future of transport policy will be determined to a great extent by these conflicts. The task of the European Union is becoming increasingly complicated with the introduction of the single currency, which will mean greater market integration.