TEM and TER Master Plan - UNECE

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Final Report Volume I: Main text

Trans-European Motorway (TEM)Trans-European Railway (TER)

Projects

2011

Printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva — GE.12.20689 — February 2012 — ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2 (Vol. I)

TEM and TER revised

Master Plan

ECE

TEM a

nd TER

revised M

aster Pla

n - Final R

eport - V

olu

me I: M

ain

text

United

Nations

E C O N O M I C C O M M I S S I O N F O R E U R O P E

1

Trans-European Motorway (TEM) project

Trans-European Railway (TER) project

TEM and TERrevised

Master Plan

Final report

Volume I : Main text

UNITED NATIONSNew York and Geneva, 2011

U N E C E T E M A N D T E R P R O J E C T S ’ M A S T E R P L A N – 2 0 1 1

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The revised Master Plan of the Trans-European Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TEM) projects was completed thanks to the work and contributions of National Coordinators and country experts from participating TEM and TER member countries, without whose commitment and input this revision would not have been possible; the TEM and TER Project Manager — Mr. Helmut Meelich; the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe as the executing agency of the projects; the consultants Mr. Petr Pospisil, Mr. Romeo Galbenu and Mr. Darek Przybyla, as well as experts from observer and other participating countries, whose valuable input enlarged the scope of the revised Master Plan.

ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2(Vol. I)


3

TAbLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .............................................................................................................. 7Executive summary .............................................................................................. 9Introduction ........................................................................................................ 15

1. REVISION OF THE TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN ........................................... 17

2. REVISED TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN bACKbONE NETWORKS ................. 212.1 Revised TEM Master Plan backbone network ................................................. 222.2 Revised TER Master Plan backbone network .................................................. 26

3. COMPARISON OF THE MASTER PLAN bACKbONE NETWORKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS ............................. 333.1 TEM backbone network .............................................................................. 343.2 TER backbone network ............................................................................... 433.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 52

4. MISSING LINKS IN THE bACKbONE NETWORKS ......................................... 534.1 Motorway and road missing links incorporated in the revised TEM backbone

network .................................................................................................... 534.2 Railway missing links incorporated in the revised TER backbone network .......... 554.3 Other motorway and road missing links ....................................................... 574.4 Other railway missing links ......................................................................... 57

5. UPDATING OF THE TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR THE bACKbONE NETWORKS ..................................................................................................... 595.1 Past development ....................................................................................... 595.2 Traffic forecast for the TEM and TER Master Plan ........................................... 605.3 Other recent forecasts ................................................................................ 635.4 Comparison of existing forecast results ......................................................... 685.5 Questionnaires for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan ...................... 685.6 The influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic developments

in 2008 and 2009 .................................................................................... 695.7 Groups of countries .................................................................................... 755.8 Basic development scenario ........................................................................ 755.9 Post-crisis development scenarios ................................................................. 775.10. Maps of road and rail traffic flows in 2020 .................................................. 79

6. REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS ................................................................ 816.1 Overview ................................................................................................. 816.2 Motorway/road projects in the revised Master Plan ....................................... 836.3 Railway projects in the revised Master Plan ................................................... 996.4 Analysis of projects and their classification ................................................... 111

7. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS........ 113


4

8. STATUS OF bACKbONE NETWORKS IN 2010, 2015 AND 2020 ................ 1158.1 Status maps of the TEM and TER backbone network ....................................... 1158.2 Lessons learnt ............................................................................................ 1158.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 116

9. bOTTLENECKS ON bACKbONE NETWORKS ................................................. 1199.1 Definition and identification ........................................................................ 1199.2 Roads ...................................................................................................... 1229.3 Railways ................................................................................................... 124

10. bORDER CROSSING ISSUES ........................................................................... 17710.1 Road border crossings on the TEM backbone network .................................... 17710.2 Railway border crossings of importance for international combined transport

according to the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations) ....................................... 180

10.3 Other railway border crossings on the TER backbone network ......................... 18210.4 Border crossing traffic ................................................................................ 18310.5 Border crossing barriers and problems ......................................................... 18410.6 Solutions and remedial measures ................................................................. 186

11. INTERRELATIONSHIPS bETWEEN THE REVISED TER AND TEM bACK-bONE NETWORKS AND RELEVANT TRANSHIPMENT POINTS ...................... 18911.1 Common sections of revised TEM and TER backbone networks ........................ 18911.2 Terminals of importance for international combined transport .......................... 19211.3 Other terminals of importance for international combined transport linked to the

revised TEM and TER backbone networks ..................................................... 19711.4 Ferry links/ports forming part of the international combined transport network .. 20011.5 Other ferry links of high importance linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone

networks ................................................................................................... 20111.6 Other sea ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone

networks ................................................................................................... 20111.7 Terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combined

transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks ...................... 20211.8 Other river/lake ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER

backbone networks .................................................................................... 204

12. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ................................................................ 20712.1 ITS in the road sector ................................................................................. 20712.2 ITS in the rail sector ................................................................................... 20812.3 Motorway/road ITS systems and services in the participating countries ............ 20812.4 Rail ITS systems and services in the participating countries .............................. 210

13. ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES ......................................... 21313.1 Environmental impacts ................................................................................ 21313.2 Road safety ............................................................................................... 21713.3 Transport security ....................................................................................... 220

14. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 225


5

LIST OF MAPS 1. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision participating countries .............................. 1292. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network ................................................ 1313. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network ................................................. 1334. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links ............................. 1355. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links............................... 1376. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario —

traffic flows in 2020 .................................................................................. 1397. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario —

passenger flows in 2020 ............................................................................ 1418. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario —

freight flows in 2020 ................................................................................. 1439. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — TEM revised Master Plan

projects .................................................................................................... 14510. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — TER revised Master Plan

projects .................................................................................................... 14711. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010 .............................. 14912. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015 .............................. 15113. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020 .............................. 15314. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010 ............................... 15515. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2015 ............................... 15716. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2020 ............................... 15917. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks ............................... 16118. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks ................................ 16319. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks interrelationships ......... 16520. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks — common sections ..... 16721a. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between

the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance) ............................................................................ 169

21b. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries) ..... 171

22a TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance) .............................................................................................. 173

22b TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries) ....... 175


6


7

PREFACE

“Ensuring the adequate provision of infrastructure is a key Government responsibility because the transport sector has important implications throughout society and the economy …”

Ján Kubiš’ opening speech at the “Conference on Financing development of road and rail transport infrastructures” (Vienna, 17 November 2010)

The Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TER) projects are unique Pan-European transport infrastructure projects bringing together countries of the European Union (EU), EU candidate countries as well as other United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Member States in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. UNECE is the executing agency for both projects.

The original TEM and TER Master Plan was published in 2006. This revision of the original Master Plan was made possible through the commitment, skill, dedication and cooperation of National Coordinators from participating countries, the UNECE TEM and TER Project Manager, external consultants and the UNECE secretariat.

Two expert groups, one for road and one for rail, worked together over the last two years to consolidate and process substantive information on transport plans and priority needs for the participating countries, liaising with the relevant national authorities and the UNECE secretariat. This work resulted in a revised list of priority infrastructure projects of the TEM and TER backbone networks as well as recommendations on possibilities for funding. The expected status of the backbone networks in 2015 and 2020 is also projected based on their situation in the 2008 to 2009 period. The present final report contains information for 25 participating countries.

In the current challenging economic and financial environment, reflected by major budgetary cuts and capital market restrictions, special attention was paid to possibilities for financing road and rail infrastructure projects identified as priorities in the revised Master Plan. Four specific reports have been produced on issues related to financing: see Volume II of this publication.

The implementation of the projects contained in the revised Master Plan is a long-term process that will require, first and foremost, political will and commitment from the Governments of the participating countries. It will also require intensive follow-up work and progress monitoring through close cooperation between participating countries, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and the UNECE, as well as with the European Commission and other international organizations, financial institutions and bodies whose assistance will be essential in completing this ambitious task.

I hope that this revised TEM and TER Master Plan will be widely used throughout the ECE region not only as a reference source for transport infrastructure planning in the international context but also as a very good example of effective collaboration among participating countries.

Ján Kubiš Executive Secretary United Nations Economic Commission for Europe


8


9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of the Master Plan revision were (a) to analyse the results of the road and rail infrastructure development in 25 participating countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and the Caucasus in the period 2005 to 2010, (b) to describe the existing status of road and rail networks, and (c) to set out the road and rail networks development programme until the year 2020.

Five years ago, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) published the original Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and Trans-European Railway (TER) projects Master Plan, presenting a reliable and pragmatic short-, medium- and long-term investment strategy for developing road, rail and combined transport backbone networks in the participating countries. The original Master Plan proved to be an important step towards improving the transport sector performance in the study region. Many targeted investments — for example, about 45 % of the 491 road and rail projects contained in the original Master Plan — have been completed.

Since the creation of the original Master Plan, important political, economic and technological changes have taken place and new challenges have emerged. Four additional countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — have joined the revision process.

The slower than expected economic growth in some participating countries unfortunately has resulted in a minimal growth of their passenger and freight transport sectors. Budgetary constraints in many of the countries have limited transport infrastructure development. However, the original Master Plan had already acknowledged that the range of possible investments would greatly exceed the immediate and foreseeable capacities of national and international bodies to fund all the identified projects. The original Master Plan did not foresee the global crisis of 2008 and 2009, the consequences of which further deepened the imbalances between the investment needs and the funding sources.

The revised Master Plan endeavours to take the recent and expected future developments into account. First of all, it addresses the modifications of the TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks identified in 2005. Furthermore, it reflects changes in traffic flows, political changes in the region, the needs of new participating countries, the desire to harmonize TEM and TER networks with other international transport networks, changes in priorities, as well as the need to connect these networks in the best way with important international combined transport routes and with transhipment points and nodes. During this work, the road and rail missing links identified in the original report were also considered and the great majority of them have been included in the revised networks.

Three scenarios for road and rail traffic growth on backbone networks up to 2020 have been developed. These scenarios are based on the results of the 2005 UNECE Censuses of Motor Traffic on Main International Traffic Arteries and of E Rail Traffic in Europe, results of recent national traffic censuses, the TEM and TER databases, national forecasts of traffic development in 2015 and 2020, and recent international studies. The basic scenario reflects, as far as possible, uncertainties inevitably linked with such projections. The other two scenarios take into account the consequences of the global economic crisis, with its impacts on the development of road and rail traffic in the participating countries in 2008 and 2009. These impacts were identified


10

by a special enquiry carried out in the framework of the Master Plan revision work. As far as it is known, this is a first attempt to reflect the impact of the global crisis on the road and rail traffic developments in the forthcoming years. The forecast traffic flows on particular sections of the TEM (motorway/road) and TER (rail) backbone networks are also illustrated on the respective maps.

The changes in the backbone network, traffic forecast results as well as the above additional requirements have been reflected in the new Master Plan list of road and rail projects, comprising 294 motorway/road construction and/or rehabilitation and 191 rail projects with a total cost of approximately EUR 188 × 109. The average cost of a project (approximately EUR 388 × 106) increased almost twofold in comparison with the average project cost in the original Master Plan. This increase was partly due to inflation, but extensively due to the larger and more demanding construction projects (e.g. high-speed rail lines in some countries) which frequently focus on densely populated agglomerations. More stringent environmental protection measures also contributed to the increase.

Special attention was paid to project funding considerations in light of the present budgetary funding limitations in almost all participating countries. Annexes III to VI of Volume II focus on the financing of road and rail Master Plan projects and recommendations for their implementation.

The expected status of the backbone road and rail networks in the region in the years 2015 and 2020 is shown on the respective maps. This status was based on the assumption that identified infrastructure projects would be completed in accordance with the timetables indicated in this final report and also on other available sources as follows: the national master plans of participating countries and their data provided through the revision questionnaires; the TEM and TER projects databases; data from other relevant studies, and documentation and information from other sources. It should be noted, nevertheless, that the 2020 status maps in particular include a rather considerable degree of uncertainty and represent the most probable option based on the latest information available. The status data were also of importance for other topics dealt with in this final report, e.g. border crossing issues and intermodal relationships.

Different types of road and rail bottleneck were subsequently analysed, distinguishing between the condition bottlenecks, i.e. links in poor condition, and the capacity bottlenecks, i.e. congested road and rail links in the backbone networks. Both types of bottleneck are listed in the final report and are indicated on the corresponding maps.

The final report also includes detailed considerations on indicated barriers and on border crossing problems in the region, broken down according to their origin (i.e. infrastructure, procedures and staff ), which are particularly frequent on borders between Schengen and non-Schengen countries.

In comparison with the original TEM and TER Master Plan of 2005, this final report further considers the links between the road and rail backbone networks, and between them and the other transhipment points such as terminals, ferry links and sea, river and lake ports of importance for international combined transport.

The original Master Plan did not deal with Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). ITS applications would improve overall service levels by improving transport management and the use of infrastructure. This final report underlines that the wider application of ITS could be increased by their integration. ITS integration is also a necessary precondition for interoperability of ITS at the European level.

Finally, the revised Master Plan focuses on the most important transport impacts on the environment, i.e. carbon dioxide emissions and noise pollution, as well as on road safety and


11

transport security issues. These issues, at present, are basic elements of the definition of transport service quality — provided that there is a balance between operational needs and security requirements.

This final report, including the maps, was prepared in close cooperation with the TEM and TER National Coordinators and focal points/contact persons in participating countries. The report recommends that the next revision of the Master Plan be prepared in the years 2015 to 2016.

Successful implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan will be a long-term process, requiring political will and commitment from the participating countries as well as close cooperation between participating countries, UNECE and the TEM and TER projects Central Offices. The necessary follow-up work will require the actions identified in the conclusions of the final report and in its annexes, the most important of which are summarized below.

- Each participating country needs a clear transport policy and strategy, indicating objectives and measures/instruments for investment funding. Such a strategy should include an implementation schedule and a manageable financial plan, and should only include infrastructure projects which clearly demonstrate a significant cost–benefit ratio.

- National transport master plans, comprising infrastructure and transport policy for all modes, with clear objectives for a sustainable transport policy, should be established and regularly updated.

- A long-term “strategic” development plan for transport networks should be established based on the results of feasibility studies. The development plan should determine an implementation schedule and a tentative investment plan.

- The investment plan of the revised Master Plan should be updated regularly, and a monitoring system for implementing identified road and rail projects must be established.

- The updating of both national and international transport infrastructure development plans should be carefully and simultaneously considered with the aim of moving towards plans that acknowledge shared international needs and goals, recognizing at the same time the importance of specific national needs.

- National laws on tender and construction need appropriate harmonization with the emerging European good practices so as not to restrict interest in undertaking infrastructure works which, in turn, could likely lead to undermining cost-effectiveness and technical innovation in construction.

- A new planning culture is needed to prevent erroneous decisions and to ensure efficient allocation of the limited financial resources. The planning process and preparatory decisions need to be executed more carefully and the results should be made more visible by public decision-makers.

- The political, legal, institutional, financial and economic framework conditions which influence the transport sector should be carefully considered and the organizational structure revised if necessary.

- Efforts aimed at simplifying the bureaucratic and lengthy procedures for project approval should be intensified and appropriate legislative and administrative measures established, thus preventing substantial interference with or modification of the already approved medium-term financing plans during the annual budget allocation procedures.

- An appropriate project management system should be established to avoid systematically biased underestimation of project costs and overestimation of travel and transport demand, and to ensure appropriate risk assessment, quality of management as well as approbation of economically efficient projects.


12

- The preparation of appropriate feasibility studies for each project in the pipeline should be organized as soon as possible, even if their implementation is not expected in a near future.

- New assessment instruments (such as Sustainable Development Analysis) should be introduced to ensure sustainable transport development.

- European standardization procedures on national construction and operation guidelines should be enabled and supported as quickly as possible since it is proven that their application significantly reduces the costs of infrastructure construction, maintenance and operation.

- Efficient completion of priority transport infrastructure networks needs to be pursued. The currently established practice in many countries is to extend the completion time of several infrastructure projects running in parallel because of underfunding; such a practice minimizes the economic benefits and should be avoided.

- Data on road and rail traffic flows will need to be regularly provided in the forthcoming years for verifying and updating road and rail traffic forecasts for the years 2015 and 2020.

- The provision of information on the location of new or extended transhipment points, sea and major river ports, freight villages and logistics centres would make it possible to adjust connections to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.

- The deeper involvement of both the TEM and the TER project in the activities aimed at possible technical interoperability of the ITS at the European level should be considered.

- A special follow-up programme should be established to monitor regularly the progress achieved in implementing the revised Master Plan and to bring the TEM and TER backbone networks up to the standards set by the relevant UNECE International Agreements as well as by the “Standards and Recommended Practices for Projects”.

The possibilities for funding identified projects for which financing has not been fully secured at present should be seriously considered by respective countries, exploiting the ways and means identified and recommended in Annexes III to VI of Volume II as summarized below.

- Efforts should be intensified to develop and/or rearrange the system of institutions dealing with the transport sector when opting for the renewal and reorganization of financial practices.

- There is a strong need to have a dedicated unit within the competent Ministry of a country, which will integrate the critical links between the involved Ministries, EU bodies (if applicable), international financial institutions and other relevant public and private stakeholders. This unit may have a specific role to follow transport infrastructure projects.

- Governments should consider establishing transport funds. This will make additional funding available for investments in transport projects.

- All the advantages and disadvantages of public–private partnership (PPP) models for financing transport infrastructure should be discussed and made transparent before making decisions; experience indicates that some advantages of PPP models can be achieved also by changing organizational models and/or tendering procedures.

- Different organizational models for planning and financing activities should be considered; whether a public or a private corporation is the more successful model will depend on which entity has the lower interest rate and better credit rating, etc. More effective planning and construction management can be achieved also with the new method of “functionally oriented bidding”.

- The legal, financial, banking and economic environment should be ready when preparing PPP projects and appropriate rules should be set to streamline administrative procedures which could pose time limits on approval processes and the establishment of “special project vehicles” (SPVs).


13

- A special PPP unit or a programme in the government may address the capacity problem of the public sector effectively and promote private participation in a planned and coordinated manner taking into account the overall sector needs. Such an administrative arrangement can also help to enhance the social acceptability and transparency of private projects by institutionalizing the project identification and approval processes.

- Further efforts should be aimed at establishing fair cost sharing between taxpayers and transport users, since the current distribution of external costs may contribute to the future unsustainability of a transport system as a whole.

- For roads, opportunities for cost sharing of road infrastructure and road transport services in a fair and equitable manner should be considered, introducing and/or gradually developing appropriate toll collection systems.

- For railways, the long-term goal should be that contributions of railway users cover, at least, all operation costs and, as much as possible, the infrastructure costs with the exception of the share of the costs which are summarized under the terms non-profit and social costs.


14


15

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is the executing agency of the two international cooperation frameworks — the Trans-European North-South Motorway (TEM) and the Trans-European Railway (TER) projects — established respectively in 1977 and 1990, by the Governments of the Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries and the Caucasus.1 These projects, aimed at developing coherent transport infrastructure networks in the region and at facilitating international traffic, have to date been instrumental in the construction and upgrade of the transport networks in the participating countries, and thus have contributed to the interoperability of the European transport systems. At the same time, both projects, through their regular activities, have created and continuously updated databases, have published a large number of technical documents, studies, guidelines and recommendations, and have continued to work for the harmonization of the management, maintenance and operational procedures on roads, motorways and railways in the region and for their integration in the Pan-European context. The long-lasting, flexible, effective and self-sustaining structures of the TEM and TER projects, in combination with the great dedication and commitment of the participating countries, provide a useful framework for the development and monitoring of the progress of this unique sub-regional cooperation in the field of transport.

The original TEM and TER Master Plan, which was published in January 2006, represented the most important outcome of the new short-term strategies for the further integration of both projects in the new European transport context. The Master Plan was intended to assist the TEM and TER member countries in the development of their road, rail and combined transport infrastructures and in making decisions on relevant investments. It also addressed important questions such as alternative scenarios of growth, methodological aspects of project evaluation, infrastructure bottlenecks, missing links, border crossing issues, as well as problems of funding of transport infrastructure. More specifically, the work addressed the goals of promoting the integration of the European transport infrastructure, extending the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), supporting the implementation of the Pan-European transport corridors and promoting intermodal transport operations.

The work on the original Master Plan, completed in 2005, resulted in the elaboration of a realistic investment strategy for the development of the road, rail and combined transport infrastructure in the 21 Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries involved. Within this framework, the road and rail backbone networks were defined taking into account the international importance of the relevant sections as well as the national priorities and proposals of the countries participating in this work. A special top-down methodology was developed for the evaluation and prioritization of the identified infrastructure projects. On the basis of the input from the participating countries, and following the agreed methodology, 491 projects of a total value of more than EUR 102 × 109 were evaluated and prioritized. Special emphasis was placed on seeking a balance between the national priorities of the participating countries for

1 The member countries of the TEM project were Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. The member countries of the TER project were Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey.


16

the development of transport infrastructure within their own borders, and the recognition that many of the most important national links and projects were also critical to the establishment of effective international networks.

In general, the original TEM and TER Master Plan achieved its intended goals. Through the Master Plan, both projects offered a substantial contribution to the extension of the TEN-T, practical implementation of Pan-European transport corridors, promotion of intermodal operations, complementarity of transport modes and enhanced effective use of the transport infrastructure. The Master Plan also contributed to the integration and harmonization of transport beyond Europe, notably as input to the Euro-Asian Transport Links project. Meanwhile, it was clear that the implementation of the Master Plan would last many years, would require the continuing political will and commitment of all the countries involved, and would necessitate permanent monitoring of the progress in the realization of the projects identified as well as the intensive follow-up work.

The activities in the original Master Plan focused primarily on the review of the investment strategy for transport infrastructure reflecting, inter alia, the future political and economic developments, changing priorities and new transport needs in the region. At the same time, the objective was to raise awareness about the Master Plan implementation, to disseminate its results and outcomes, and to provide the missing information about the current status and planned progress in some parts of the backbone network. In this connection, the final report provided, inter alia, the specification of the complete shape of the TEM and TER backbone networks in the different time horizons of 2010, 2015 and 2020, and updated the investment plan and Geographical Information System database. Taking these facts into account, noting the importance of the progressive implementation of the TEM and TER Master Plan for the development of a coherent transport infrastructure in Europe, and following the conclusions and recommendations of the final report, the TEM and TER Steering Committees decided that the Master Plan should be revised every 5 years.

The UNECE Inland Transport Committee reiterated its support for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan and invited the Steering Committees of both projects, in close cooperation with the participating countries, to undertake this work and to complete the revised final report by the end of 2010.


17

1. REVISION OF THE TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN

This first Master Plan revision, carried out in 2009 and 2010, reflects the increased awareness of the importance for the implementation of the Master Plan projects. In comparison with the original Master Plan, its geographical coverage has been extended to 25 countries, i.e. Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine (Map No. 1). During the revision, efforts were focused in particular on Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro which did not participate in the original Master Plan. Based on actual and available data on gross domestic product (GDP) as well as on motorway/road infrastructure status and traffic flows, the aim was to establish realistic growth scenarios, to define their road and rail backbone networks, to develop respective traffic forecasts and to identify missing links, connections, bottlenecks and priority projects.

Since the elaboration of the original Master Plan, a number of new developments have taken place. These may be summarized as follows:

• completionof theworkof theEuropeanUnion (EU)HighLevelGroup (HLG) and theextension of the Trans-European Transportation Network (TEN-T) to neighbouring countries and regions2;

• theaccessionofArmeniaandSloveniatotheTEMandTERprojects;• theseparationofSerbiaandMontenegrointotwoindependentstates;• theaccessionofBulgariaandRomaniatotheEU;• the need to include all South-Eastern Europe andCaucasus countries in theMaster Plan

exercise (i.e. addition of Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro and Serbia);• newproposalsonpriorities,projectsandlinkswhichemergedintheTEMandTERmember

countries in the course of the 2007 to 2009 follow-up work;• completionofthefirstphaseoftheUNECE–UNESCAPJointProjectonDevelopingEuro-

Asian Transport Linkages (EATL) and adoption of the priority routes and projects identified by it;

• newdata received fromtheparticipatingcountries, especiallywith regard to the identifiedtransport infrastructure projects;

• increased interest of the participating countries in intermodal aspects (including logisticscentres, combined transport terminals, seaports and maritime hinterland connections);

• theconsequencesoftheglobaleconomiccrisis.

2 The priority axes defined by the HLG chaired by Loyola de Palacio do not have the same binding character as the Pan-European corridors that were agreed by the Ministers of Transport.Turkey, as a negotiating candidate country for accession to the EU, supports the revision of the existing TEN-T in a more comprehensive framework and finds that the recommendations of the HLG report fall short of addressing satisfactorily its needs, priorities and considerations, and in particular those concerning transport axes, corridors and links within Turkey and towards its neighbouring countries. Therefore, Turkey does not concur with the HLG report in its entirety. Hence, Turkey reads all references to the HLG report with the understanding that Turkey’s needs, priorities and considerations are addressed, on a mutually-acceptable basis, in the Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) study and in the framework of the accession negotiations.Turkey’s border with Armenia is currently not operational and there is no freight and passenger traffic.


18

In order to reflect these developments, on the basis of the inputs from the participating countries, the TEM and TER project Central Offices, in close collaboration with the UNECE and external consultants, prepared the terms of reference for the revision of the Master Plan. These terms of reference were approved by the Steering Committees of the TEM and TER projects in 2008 and contained the following work packages:

1. Project management

2. Updating of data including those for countries newly involved

3. Updating of traffic forecasts

4. Consideration and evaluation of new emerging developments

5. New and/or revised Master Plan infrastructure projects

6. Review of facilitation aspects along the TEM Master Plan backbone network

7. Assessment and modification of the Master Plan backbone network

8. Backbone network status in 2015 and 2020

9. Funding considerations and securing of funds for the Master Plan projects

10. Intermodal transport considerations

11. Operational aspects

12. Lessons learnt and recommendations

The work on the revision was coordinated and supervised by the Coordination Group, consisting of the UNECE secretariat representatives, the TEM and TER Project Manager and external consultants. The Coordination Group was assisted by groups of experts composed of the TEM and TER Project Manager, National Coordinators and experts from participating countries, the UNECE Transport Division Regional Adviser, and consultants. During the revision of the Master Plan, the Coordination Group met six times and the expert groups met five times.

One of the first and most important tasks of the Master Plan revision process was the modification and updating of the original backbone networks, consisting of the most important motorway/road and railway links in the participating countries. This task was necessary because of the need to reflect the latest relevant developments described above, the increased interest of the participating countries in intermodal aspects (including seaports and maritime hinterland connections), new road and rail projects initiated in the meantime as well as new data received from the participating countries. Moreover, during their revision, the TEM and TER backbone networks have been extended to include Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro, which did not participate in the original Master Plan. It was also necessary to take into consideration the identified missing links, broadly following the relevant recommendations of the UNECE Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5). In addition, some participating countries proposed additional links, with special consideration being given to the interconnections and the continuity of these additional links with the respective parts of both road and rail backbone networks. In the course of this work, modifications related to the backbone network´s intermodal relationships (motorways of the sea, combined transport terminals, freight villages and logistics centres) have been duly taken into account. The final scope of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks, reflecting all these changes and proposals, is documented on the respective maps in this final report.

Particular attention was paid to the development and updating of the road and rail traffic forecast for the years 2015 and 2020. This work was based on verification of the forecast data in the original Master Plan (these data were based on the results of the 2005 censuses), other


19

recent forecasts presented by international organizations and the data and national forecasts of the participating countries. Two development scenarios were created which also took into account the present and expected impacts of the global recession on road and rail traffic. At the same time, the Master Plan traffic forecast was extended to include Armenia (as a new TEM and TER member country) and also to cover Albania, Azerbaijan and Montenegro. The results of updating the traffic forecast were also taken into account in the identification of bottlenecks on the backbone networks and served as input for the elaboration of the maps showing road and rail traffic flows in 2020.

The revised Master Plan puts forward a total of 485 new or revised projects (294 motorway/road projects and 191 rail projects) proposed by the participating countries. Most of the proposed road infrastructure projects were evaluated and prioritized in order to assign them a corresponding score and class. The results of this exercise are presented in detail in Annex III of Volume II of this final report. Out of the total number of projects, 268 projects (55 %) were taken over from the original Master Plan, mostly with revised or changed parameters. Thus, in the period 2006 to 2010, a total of 223 projects contained in the original Master Plan (45 %) were completed, most of them on the railway network.

During the revision, the work carried out by the relevant international organizations and institutions was reviewed with a special emphasis on bottlenecks in the TEM and TER backbone networks and on border crossing problems. The work in this segment focused on the identification of bottlenecks and missing links as well as on proposals and measures aimed at the removal of bottlenecks and the resolution of other priority transport needs in the backbone network. For this purpose, use was also made of the UNECE document “Methodological Basis for the Definition of Common Criteria regarding the Identification of Bottlenecks, Missing Links and Quality of Service in Infrastructure Networks”. With respect to border crossings, concrete actions were proposed in order to remove obstacles and to resolve the problems identified in relation to infrastructure, procedures and staff.

The status maps of rail and road backbone networks in 2010, 2015 and 2020 were produced on the basis of the national master plans of the participating countries, national data, TEM and TER projects databases, the TEMSTAT monitoring system, and available documentation and information gained from other sources. In some participating countries, approved investment plans up to the year 2020 did not exist, or such plans were undergoing revision and change as a result of the economic recession. For such cases, the infrastructure status shown on the maps represents the most probable option based on the latest information available, as communicated by the participating countries.

At the time of the revision of the Master Plan, a considerable proportion of the total implementation costs for the realization of projects has not been secured. The main sources of funding of the investment plans have been identified in Annexes III to VI of Volume II of the final report. This information will assist participating countries in advancing further and in continuing the process of funds acquisition in close cooperation with the international financial institutions.

The work also aimed at the identification of the relationship of backbone networks with the intermodal infrastructure and its facilities and nodal points. The mutual relationships between the TEM and TER backbone networks as well as the combined transport routes were examined. The locations of the shipping points (motorways of the sea, sea ports and major river ports), freight villages and logistics centres were identified, including their connections to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.


20

Finally, the Master Plan revision summarizes the experience gained by the participating countries in the implementation of individual components of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), including the electronic toll collection (ETC) systems and plans and recommendations for their wider implementation in the future. Other items analysed in the revision include the possibilities for balancing transport facilitation and security measures to contribute to full interoperability of road transport, as well as considerations of environmental, safety and security issues especially with regard to international road and rail freight traffic.


21

2. REVISED TEM AND TER MASTER PLAN bACKbONE NETWORKS

The TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks, consisting of the most important motorway/road and railway links in the participating countries, were defined during the preparation of the original Master Plan in 2005 on the basis of proposals made by National Coordinators from participating countries, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and their consultants in close cooperation with the UNECE. The selection of lines and sections included in these networks was done on the basis of well-defined and commonly agreed criteria, which took into consideration the international importance of the traffic on these lines and sections. Most of these lines are part of the Pan-European transport corridors, the EU TEN-T and the Euro-Asian Transport Links as well as national priority lines of the participating countries.

After the original Master Plan was produced, the document “Networks for Peace and Development — Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries and regions” developed by the HLG was published in November 2005. In this document, the group identified five major trans-national axes to connect the EU with its neighbours (the Northern, Central, South Eastern and South Western axes and motorways of the sea); the first three generally cover the region of the TEM and TER Master Plan.

Furthermore, the Euro-Asian road and rail transport routes were identified in the framework of the UNECE–UNESCAP Joint Project on Developing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages (EATL). In the meantime, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, Serbia and Montenegro separated into two independent states and four new countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — expressed interest in taking part in the Master Plan follow-up activities.

In order to take into account the developments described above, to reflect the increased interest of countries in intermodal aspects (including logistics centres, combined transport terminals, seaports and maritime hinterland connections), and to include new road and rail projects which were brought up in the meantime, as well as new data received from the participating countries, it was necessary to revise the original Master Plan and its original road and rail backbone networks.

In the course of the revision, additional links were proposed for inclusion in the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks. Special consideration was given to the interconnections and the continuity of the additional links with the respective parts of both road and rail backbone networks. Also new links, proposed by some participating countries, were added to these revised backbone networks.

Following the above-mentioned approach, the components of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone networks specified in chapters 2.1 and 2.2 were identified (see also Maps No. 2 and No. 3).


22

2.1 Revised TEM Master Plan backbone network

Note: The ISO alpha-3 country code is indicated where useful.

Albania (ALB)Hani i Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Fushe Kruja – TiranaMorina – Kukes – crossing of 2 roads Lezhe/Fushe KrujaTirana – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Perrenjas – Qafe Thana (MKD)Kapshtica (GRC) – Pogradec – PerrenjasKakavija (GRC) – Gjirokaster – Fier – RrogozhineFier – Vlore

Armenia (ARM)Bavra (GEO) – Gyumri – YerevanBagratashen (GEO) – Vanadzor – YerevanYerevan – Ararat – Vayk – Goris – Meghri (IRN)

Austria (AUT)Nickelsdorf (HUN) – Parndorf – WienKittsee (SVK) – ParndorfWien – Graz – Villach – Arnoldstein (ITA)Wien – Drasenhofen (CZE)Salzburg (DEU) – Sattledt – Linz – WienSattledt – St. Michael – Graz – Spielfeld (SVN)Linz – Wullowitz (CZE)Villach – Karawanken Tunnel (SVN)

Azerbaijan (AZE)Baku – Sumgayit – Samur (RUS)Alat – Astara (IRN)Baku – Ganja – Gazakh – Boyuk – Red bridge (GEO)Baku – Alat – Horadiz – Agband (ARM)Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM)

Belarus (BLR)Novaja Zjamlja (RUS) – Minsk – Brest (POL)Kamenny Loh (LTU) – Minsk – HomyelEzerische (RUS) – Vitebsk – Homyel – Novaja Guta (UKR)

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH)Samac/Bosanski Samac (HRV) – Zenica – Lasva – Sarajevo – Bijaca (HRV)Sarajevo – Visegrad – Vardiste (SRB)Jajce – Banja Luka – Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (HRV)Izacic (HRV) – Bihac – Jajce – Travnik – LasvaSarajevo – Foca – Hum (MNE)

Bulgaria (BGR)Kalotina (SRB) – Sofia – Orizovo – Svilengrad – Kapitan Andreevo (TUR)Ruse (ROU) – Bjala – HaskovoSvilengrad – Novo Selo (GRC)Orizovo – Stara Zagora – Sliven – Burgas – VarnaBotevgrad – Bjala – Sumen –Varna


23

Vidin (ROU) – Botevgrad – SofiaDaskalovo – Gjusevo (MKD)Sofia – Daskalovo – Kulata (GRC)Varna – Durankulak (ROU)

Croatia (HRV)Bregana (SVN) – Zagreb – Lipovac (SRB)Gorican (HUN) – Zagreb – Karlovac – Bosiljevo – Rijeka –Matulji – Rupa (SVN)Knezevo (HUN) – Osijek – Slavonski Samac (BIH)Metkovic (BIH) – PloceMacelj (SVN) – ZagrebKarlovac – Bosiljevo/Slunj – Zadar/Knin – Split – PloceMatulji – Pazin – Kanfanar – PulaKanfanar – Plovanija (SVN)Licko Petrovo Selo (BIH) – KarlovacOkucani – Donji Varos (BIH)

The Czech Republic (CZE)Cinovec (DEU) – Praha – Brno – Lanzhot (SVK)Rozvadov (DEU) – PrahaMikulov (AUT) – Brno – Ostrava – Cesky Tesin/Vernovice (POL)Praha – Dolni Dvoriste (AUT)Praha – Hradec Kralove – Kralovec (POL)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)Tabanovce (SRB) – Kumanovo – Miladinovci – Veles – Gevgelija (GRC)Miladinovci – Skopje – Debar (ALB)Veles – Bitola – Medzitlija (GRC)Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka (BGR)Bitola – Ohrid – Podmolje – Struga – Mali Vlaj (ALB)

Georgia (GEO)Leselidze (RUS) – Senaki – Khashuri – Tbilisi – Tsiteli Khidi (AZE)Sarpi (TUR) – Poti – SenakiLarsi (RUS) – Tbilisi – Sadakhlo (ARM)Arali (TUR) – Akhaltsikhe – Khashuri

Greece (GRC)Promachonas (BGR) – ThessalonikiEvzoni (MKD) – Chalastra – Klidi – Athinai – Korinthos – Tripolis – KalamataTripolis – GitheionKorinthos – Rio – PatraIgoumenitsa – Ioannina – Paleokastro – Kozani – KlidiChalastra – Thessaloniki – Alexandroupoli – Peplos – Ormenio (BGR)Ktismata (ALB) – Ioannina – Agrinio – RioKristalopigi (ALB) – Kastora – PaleokastroNiki (MKD) – KozaniPeplos – Kipi (TUR)


24

Hungary (HUN)Hegyeshalom (AUT) – Level – Gyor – Budapest – Szeged – Roszke (SRB)Rajka (SVK) – LevelSzeged – Nagylak (ROU)Letenye (HRV) – Budapest – Istvanmajor – Zahony (UKR)Budapest – Udvar (HRV)Tornyosnemeti (SVK) – Miskolc – IstvanmajorHont (SVK) – Vac – BudapestTornyiszentmiklos (SVN) – Letenye

Italy (ITA)Ventimiglia (FRA) – Genova – Alessandria – Brescia – Padova – Palmanova – Trieste /Fernetti (SVN)Coccau (AUT) – PalmanovaPadova – Bologna – Bari – BrindisiBrescia – Milano – Biandrate Alessandria – Biandrate – Domodossola – Iselle (CHE)Alessandria – Torino – Bardonecchia (FRA)

Lithuania (LTU)Klaipeda – Sitkunai – Kaunas – Vilnius – Medininkai (BLR) Kaunas – Marijampole – Sangruda (POL)Salociai (LVA) – SitkunaiMarijampole – Kybartai (RUS)Vilnius – Panevezys – Siauliai – Palanga – Klaipeda

The Republic of Moldova (MDA)Leuseny (ROU) – Chisinau – Dubasari – Dobau (UKR)Chisinau – Pervomaise (UKR)

Montenegro (MNE)Donje Krusevo (BIH) – Podgorica – Bozaj (ALB)Metanjac (SRB) – Bijelo Polje – Podgorica – Bar

Poland (POL)Swiecko (DEU) – Poznan – Warszawa – Terespol (BLR)Gdansk – Lodz – Piotrkow Trybunalski – Katowice/Sosnica – Gorzyczki (CZE)Jedrzychowice (DEU) – Krzyzowa – Wroclaw – Katowice – Krakow – Rzeszow – Korczowa (UKR)Olszyna (DEU) – KrzyzowaBialystok – Warszawa – Piotrkow TrybunalskiWarszawa – Lublin – Plaski – Hrebenne (UKR)Pyrzowice – Kosztowy – Bielsko Biala – Cieszyn (CZE)Bielsko Biala – Zywiec – Zwardon (SVK)Piaski – Dorohusk (UKR)Gdansk – Elblag – Warszawa – Kielce – Krakow – Chyzne (SVK)Budzisko (LTU) – Suwalki – Elk – Lomza – Ostrow MazowieckaWroclaw – Poznan – Bydgoszcz – Grudziadz (A1)Barwinek (SVK) – Rzeszow – Lublin – Miedzyrzec Podlaski – Bialystok – Kuznica Bialostocka (BLR)Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Gorzow Wielkopolski – Zielona Gora – Legnica – Lubawka (CZE)


25

Wroclaw – LodzGrzechotki (RUS) – Elblag

Romania (ROU)Nadlac (HUN) – Timisoara – Lugoj – Sebes – Bucuresti – ConstantaLugoj – Craiova – Rosiori de Vede – BucurestiCraiova – Calafat (BGR)Timisoara – Moravita (SRB)Albita (MDA) – Marasesti – Bucuresti – Giurgiu (BGR)Siret (UKR) – Suceava – Bacau – MarasestiHalmeu (UKR) – Baia Mare – ZalauConstanta – Vama Veche (BGR) Zalau – Cluj Napoca – Brasov – Ploiesti – Bucuresti

The Russian Federation (RUS)Moskva – Nizhny NovgorodMoskva – St. PetersburgMoskva – Smolensk – Krasnoye (BLR)Moskva – Jaroslavl – VologdaMoskva – Brjansk – Kalinovka (UKR)St. Petersburg – Pskov – Lobok (BLR)Moskva – Tambov – Borisoglebsk – VolgogradKozino (UKR) – Kursk – Voronezh – Borisoglebsk – SaratovDonetsk (UKR) – Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy – Morozovsk – Volgograd – AstrakhanNovoshakhtinsk (UKR) – Mayskiy – Rostov na Donu – Pavlovskaya – Novorossiysk – Adler (GEO)Pavlovskaya – Pyatigorsk – Vladikavkaz – Groznyy – MakhachkalaVladikavkaz – Verkhniy Lars (GEO)Karaozek (KAZ) – Astrakhan – Makhachkala – Novogaptsakh (AZE)Kaliningrad – Nesterov – Chernyshevskoye (LTU)Kaliningrad – Mamonovo (POL)

Serbia (SRB)Horgos (HUN) – Novi Sad – Beograd – Batocina – Nis – Dimitrovgrad (BGR)Beograd – Batrovci (HRV)Nis – Leskovac – Presevo (MKD)Beograd – Vrsac (ROU)Mokra Gora (BIH) – Uzice – Kraljevo – NisBeograd – Pozega – Uzice – Boljare (MNE)Kraljevo – Kragujevac – Batocina

Slovakia (SVK)Kuty (CZE) – Bratislava – Rusovce (HUN)Bratislava Petrzalka (AUT) – Trnava – Zilina – Kosice – Vysne Nemecke (UKR)Skalite (POL) – ZilinaRuzomberok – Zvolen – Sahy (HUN)Vysny Komarnik (POL) – Presov – Kosice – Milhost (HUN)Trstena (POL) – Dolny Kubin – Ruzomberok


26

Slovenia (SVN)Koper – Divaca – Ljubljana – Novo Mesto – Obrezje (HRV)Sezana (ITA) – DivacaPostojna/Divaca – Jelsane (HRV)Sentilj (AUT) – Maribor – Gruskovje (HRV)Ljubljana – Maribor – Pince (HUN)Ljubljana – Jesenice (AUT)Koper – Smarje – Dragonja (HRV)

Turkey (TUR)Kapikule (BGR) – Istanbul – Gerede – Ankara – Refahiye – Askale – Horasan – Gurbulak (IRN)Gerede – Suluova – Samsun – Trabzon – Sarp (GEO)Trabzon – AskaleIzmir – Afyon – AnkaraSuluova – Amasya – RefahiyeAnkara – Tarsus – Adana – Toprakkale – Gaziantep – Sanliurfa – Habur (IRQ)Toprakkale – Iskenderun – Yayladagi (SYR)Tarsus – MersinIzmir – Balikesir – Bursa – Yalova – GebzeSanliurfa – Diyarbakir – Bitlis – DogubayazitIzmir – CesmeIzmir – Aydin – Denizli – AntalyaAfyon – Konya – Eregli – E 90 road junctionHorasan – Kars – Turkgozu (GEO)Kinali 1 junction – Tekirdag – Ipsala (GRC)

Ukraine (UKR)Chop (HUN) – Užhorod (SVK) – Mukaceve – Stryj – Lviv – Kyjiv – Kharkïv – Debaltseve – Dovzhanskiy (RUS)Stryj – Ternopil – Uman – Dnipropetrovsk – Doneck – Debaltseve – Krasnodon (RUS)Ternopil – Porubne (ROU)Novi Yarylovychi (BLR) – Kipti – Kyjiv – Uman – Demydivka – OdesaDemydivka – Poplavka (MDA)Odesa – Kuchurhan (MDA)Kipti – Konotop – Hluchov – Zarutske/Bachivsk (RUS)Starovoitove (POL) – Kovel – Korosten – KyjivRava-Ruska (POL) – LvivKrakovets (POL) – LvivNevetlenfolu (ROU) – Berehove – Mukaceve

2.2 Revised TER Master Plan backbone network

Albania (ALB)Hani-i-Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Vore – TiranaVore – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Lin (MKD)Rrogozhine – Vlore


27

Armenia (ARM)Ayrum – Gyumri – Masis – YerevanMasis – YeraskhMeghri – Niuvedi

Austria (AUT)Salzburg – Bischofshofen – Schwarzach – Spittal am der Dran – Villach – Rosenbach (SVN)Wernstein am Inn (DEU) – Neumarkt – Wels – Linz – St. Valentin – St. Polten – WienLinz – Salzburg – Innsbruck – BregenzWien – Parndorf – Nickelsdorf (HUN)/Kittsee (SVK)Wien – Bruck an der Mur – Klagenfurt – Villach – Arnoldstein (ITA)Wien – Hohenau – Bernhardsthal (CZE)Summerau (CZE) – Linz – Selzthal – St. Michael – Leoben – Bruck an der Mur – Graz – Spielfeld (SVN)Innsbruck – Brenner (ITA)Baumgarten im Burgenland (HUN) – Ebenfurth – WienKlagenfurt – Koralm – Graz – Jennersdorf (HUN)

Azerbaijan (AZE)Baku – Yalama (RUS)Baku – Osmanly – AstaraBaku – Ganca – Boyuk-Kesik (GEO)Osmanly – Horadiz – Agband (ARM)Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM)

Belarus (BLR)Orsha (RUS) – Minsk – Brest (POL)Gudagai (LTU) – Homyel (UKR)Ezjaryszcza (RUS) – Vitebsk – Asipoviczy

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH)Samac/Bosanski Samac (HRV) – Doboj – Zenica – Sarajevo – Konjic – Mostar – Capljina (HRV) – Dobrljin (HRV) – Bosanski Novi – Banja Luka – Doboj – Bosanska Poljana – Zvornik (SRB) – Capljina – Trebinje – MNE

Bulgaria (BGR)Vidin (ROU) – Mezdra – Sofia – Pernik – Radomir – Dupniza – Kulata (GRC)Russe (ROU) – Gorna Oriahovitza – Dubovo – Stara Zagora – Dimitrovgrad – Svilengrad (GRC, TUR)Dragoman (SRB) – Sofia – Mezdra – Pleven – G. Oriahovitza – Kaspichan – Sindel – VarnaSofia – Plovdiv – DimitrovgradStara Zagora – Karnobat – BurgasRadomir – Gjusevo (MKD)

Croatia (HRV)(HUN) Koprivnica – Zagreb – Ostarije – RijekaRijeka – Sapjane (SVN)Ostarije – Gospic – Knin – Perkovic – SplitKnin – Zadar


28

Perkovic – Sibenik(HUN) Beli Manastir – Osijek – Slavonski Samac (BIH) – (BIH) Metkovic – Ploce(SVN) Savski Marof – Zagreb – Novska – Vinkovci – Tovarnik (SRB)Zagreb – Sisak – Sunja – NovskaSunja – Volinja (BIH)(SVN) Cakovec – Kotoriba (HUN)

The Czech Republic (CZE)Decin (DEU) – Ustí nad Labem – Lovosice – Kralupy – Praha – Kolin – Pardubice – Ceska Trebova – Brno – Breclav (AUT, SVK)Petrovice u Karvine (POL) – Bohumin (POL) – Ostrava – Prerov – Breclav (AUT, SVK)Cheb (DEU) – Plzen – Beroun – Praha – Kolin – Pardubice – Olomouc – Prerov – Ostrava – Mosty u Jablunkova (SVK)Lichkov (POL) – Usti nad Orlici – Pardubice – Kolin – Praha – Benesov – Tabor – Veseli nad Luznici – Ceské Budejovice – Horni Dvoriste (AUT)Prerov – BrnoHranice na Morave – Horní Lidec (SVK)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)Tabanovce (SRB) – Kumarovo – Skopje – Titov VelesTitov Veles – Kremenica (GRC)Titov Veles – Gevgelija (GRC)Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka (BGR)Skopje – Kicevo – Struga (ALB)

Georgia (GEO)Gantiadi (RUS) – Achadara – Gali – Abasha – BatumiAbasha – PotiAbasha – Agara – Gori – Kaspi – Tbilisi – Sadakhlo (ARM)Tbilisi – Gardabani (AZE)Tbilisi – Akhalkalaki – Kartsakhi (TUR)

Greece (GRC)Dikea (BGR) – Alexandroupoli – ThessalonikiPromachonas (BGR) – Thessaloniki – AthinaThessaloniki – Idomeni (MKD)Neos Kafkasos (MKD) – Plati

Hungary (HUN)Sopron (AUT) – Gyor – BudapestBudapest – Hatvan – Miskolc – Nyiregyhaza – Zahony (UKR)Felsozsolca – Hidasnemeti (SVK)Oriszentpeter (SVN) – Zalalovo – Zalaegerszeg – Ukk – Boba – Szekesfehervar – BudapestBudapest – Szolnok – Szajol – Puspokladany – Biharkeresztes (ROU)Szajol – Bekescsaba – Lokoshaza (ROU)Szob (SVK) – BudapestBudapest – Pusztaszabolcs – Dombovar – Pecs – Magyarboly (HRV)Budapest – Kelebia (SRB)Dombovar – Gyekenyes (HRV)Gyor – Hegyeshalom (AUT)


29

Hegyeshalom – Rajka (SVK)Szentgotthard (AUT) – Szombathely – BobaMurakeresztur (HRV) – Nagykanizsa – SzekesfehervarPuspokladany Debrecen – Nyiregyhaza

Italy (ITA)Villa Opicina (SVN) – Trieste – Venezia – Bologna – Ancona – RomaVerona – VeneziaBrennero (AUT) – Verona – BolognaTarvisio (AUT) – Udine

Lithuania (LTU)Kena (BLR) – Kaisiadorys – KlaipedaKaisiadorys – Kybartai (RUS)Radviliskis – Pagegiai (RUS)Mockava (POL) – Kazlu Ruda – Palemonas – Gaiziunai – Siauliai – Joniskis (LVA)

The Republic of Moldova (MDA)Ungheni (ROU) – Chisinau – Tighina – Bender (UKR)Reni (UKR) – Besarabeasca – Cainari – Chisinau

Montenegro (MNE)Bijelo Polje (SRB) – Podgorica – Tuzi (ALB)BIH – Niksic – PodgoricaPodgorica – Bar

Poland (POL)Gdynia – Gdansk – Tczew – Malbork/Bydgoszcz – Warszawa – Myslowice – Zebrzydowice (CZE)Trakiszki (LTU) – Suwalki – Sokolka/Elk – Bialystok – WarszawaRzepin (DEU) – Poznan – Warszawa/Mszczonow – Lukow – Terespol (BLR)Warszawa – Dorohusk (UKR)Wroclaw – Miedzylesie (CZE)Zgorzelec/Wegliniec (DEU) – Wroclaw – Opole – Kedzierzyn Kozle – Katowice – Krakow– Medyka (UKR)Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Kostrzyn/Poznan – Wroclaw – Opole – Chalupki (CZE)Malbork – Braniewo (RUS)Zwardon (SVK) – Czechowice-DziedziceMuszyna (SVK) – TarnowPoznan – Inowroclaw

Romania (ROU)Episcopia Bihor (HUN) – Oradea– Poieni – Cluj – Apahida – Alba Iulia – Copsa M. – Brasov – PloiestiVicsani (UKR) – Suceava – Pascani – Adjud – Marasesti – Buzau – PloiestiPloiesti – Bucuresti – Giurgiu (BGR)Bucuresti – Fetesti – Medgidia – ConstantaBucuresti – Videle – Craiova – Drobeta Turnu Severin – Timisoara – Arad – Curtici (HUN)Craiova – Calafat (BGR)


30

Stamora (SRB) – TimisoaraArad – Alba IuliaArad – Oradea – Halmeu (UKR)Pascani – Iasi – Cristesti Jijia (MDA)Buzau – Faurei – Braila – Galati – Giurgiulesti (UKR)Vintu de Jos – Sibiu – Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti – BucurestiBucuresti – Armasesti – Urziceni – FaureiSatu Mare – Beclean – Deda – AdjudRazboeni – Targu Mures – DedaBeclean – SuceavaSimeria – FiliasiTulcea – MedgidiaConstanta – Mangalia

The Russian Federation (RUS)Moskva – N. Novgorod – KotelnichMoskva – St. Petersburg – Buslovskaya (FIN)Moskva – Krasnoye (BLR)Moskva – Suzemka (UKR)Moskva – EkaterinburgSt. Petersburg/Ust-Luga – Vologda – Kotelnich – Perm – Ekaterinburg – KurganVologda – Yaroslavl – MoskvaSt. Petersburg – Pskov – Dubishche (BLR)Moskva – Voronezh – Rostov na Donu – Krasnodar – Veseloe (GEO)Kavkaz/Novorossiysk – Krasnodar – Volgograd – Saratov – Syzran – Samara – Chelyabinsk – KurganSamara – Orenburg – Akbulak (KAZ)Shelayevo (UKR) – Liski – Penza – Syzran – SamaraRyazan – Ruzayevka – SyzranKochetovka – Rtishchevo – SaratovMatveev Kurgan (UKR) – Rostov na DonuGukovo (UKR) – Likhaya – Volgograd – Astrakhan (KAZ)/Olya – Makhachkala – Samur (AZE)Mamonovo (POL) – Kaliningrad – Nesterov (LTU)Kaliningrad – Sovetsk (LTU)

Serbia (SRB)Stara Pazova – Novi Sad – Subotica (HUN)Beograd – Stara Pazova – Ruma – Sid (HRV)Ruma – Zvornik (BIH)Beograd – Valjevo – Uzice – Vrbnica (MNE)Beograd – Vrsac (ROU)Beograd – NisNis – Leskovac – Presevo (MKD)Nis – Pirot – Dimitrovgrad (BGR)Stalac – Kraljevo – PozegaLapovo – Kraljevo


31

Slovakia (SVK)Kuty (CZE) – Malacky – Devinska Nova Ves – Bratislava Petrzalka (AUT) – Rusovce (HUN)Zilina – Puchov – Nove Mesto nad Vahom – Leopoldov – Bratislava/GalantaBratislava – Galanta – Nove Zamky – Sturovo (HUN)Cadca (CZE) – Zilina – Vrutky – Ruzomberok – Kralova Lehota – Poprad – Spisska Nova Ves – Margecany – Kysak – Kosice – Cierna nad Tisou (UKR)Plavec (POL) – Presov – Kysak – Kosice – Cana (HUN)Cadca – Skalite (POL)Luky pod Makytou (CZE) – Puchov

Slovenia (SVN)Koper – Divaca – Pivka – Ljubljana – Zidani Most – Pragersko – Ormoz – Murska – Sobota – Puconci – Hodos (HUN)Divaca – Sezana (ITA)Pivka – Ilirska Bistrica (HRV)Ljubljana – Jesenice (AUT)Pragersko – Maribor – Sentilj (AUT)Ormoz – Sredisce (HRV)Ljubljana – Zidani Most – Dobova (HRV)

Turkey (TUR)Kapikoy (IRN) – Van – Tatvan – Yolcati – Malatya – CetinkayaCetinkaya – Divrigi – Erzurum – Kars – Dogukapi (ARM) (border closed)Kars – Aktas (GEO)Cetinkaya – Sivas – Kalin – Bogazkopru – Kirikkale – Irmak – Ankara – Istanbul – Halkali – Mandra – Pehlivankoy – Kapikule (BGR)Kalin – Yildizeli – Amasya – SamsunMalatya – Narli – Fevzipasa – Toprakkale – IskenderunToprakkale – Adana – Yenice – MersinEskisehir – Alayunt – Balikesir – Manisa – IzmirIrmak – ZonguldakBalikesir – BandirmaAlayunt – Afyon – Konya – UlukislaBogazkopru – Ulukisla – YeniceAfyon – ManisaAfyon – Karakuyu – Aydin – IzmirFevzipasa – Meydanekbez (SYR)Narli – Gaziantep – Karkamis – Nusaybin (SYR)Karkamis – Cobanbey (SYR)Tekirdag – MuratliPehlivankoy – Uzunkopru (GRC)Polatli – Konya


32

kraine (UKR)Dobrjanka (BLR) – Chernihiv – Kyjiv– Vinnytsya – Khmelnytskyy – Ternopil – Lviv – Mostiska (POL)Zernovo (RUS) – Kyjiv Izov (POL) – Kovel – Kyjiv– Kharkov – Topoli (RUS)Fastiv – Donetsk – Krasnaia Mogila (RUS)Donetsk – Kvashino (RUS)Kovel – Lvov – Chop (HUN, SVK)Djakove (ROU) – Berehove – VuzloveVadu Siret (ROU) – Cernivci – TernopilZmerinka – Rozdilna (MDA) – Odessa


33

3. COMPARISON OF THE MASTER PLAN bACKbONE NETWORKS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORKS

The tables in chapters 3.1 and 3.2 include the results of link-by-link and country-by-country detailed comparisons of the revised TEM and TER backbone networks together with the following:• thelinesfromthefinalreportoftheEUHLGontheextensionofthemajorTrans-European

multimodal transport axes and trans-national axes to the neighbouring countries and regions [out of the five axes defined by the Group, three of them (i.e. the Northern, Central and South-Eastern axes) were subjected to this comparison since the two remaining ones (the motorways of the sea and the South-Western axis) were of no relevance to this final report];

• thelinesincludedintheEUTEN-TaccordingtotheCorrigendumtoDecision884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (Official Journal of the EU Volume 47 - 7 June 2004) as well as the lines from the Accession Treaties of the TEM and TER Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007;

• theroadandrailroutesdefinedintheframeworkofthe1stphaseoftheEuro-AsianTransportLinkages (EATL) project, developed jointly by the UNECE and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP);

• the links of E road and E rail networks according to the EuropeanAgreements onMainInternational Traffic Arteries (AGR) and Main International Railway Lines (AGC).

Note: In the tables in 3.1 and 3.2, “X” indicates “compatible” backbone road and rail links in the revised Master Plan which overlap with other international networks over a substantial part of their length but not over their full length.


34

3.1 TEM backbone network

TEM backbone network links

Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Albania

Hani Hotit(MNE) Tirana

Morina Fushe Kruja

Tirana Qafe Thana(MKD) X

Kapshtica(GRC) Perrenjas

Kakavija(GRC) Rrogozhine

Fier Vlore

Armenia

Bavra(GEO) Yerevan X

Bagratashen(GEO) Yerevan X X X

Yerevan Meghri(IRN) X X

Austria

Salzburg(DEU) Wien X X

Wien Arnoldstein(ITA) X X

Wien Parndorf X X

Parndorf Nickelsdorf(HUN) X X

Parndorf Kittsee(SVK) X X

Sattledt Spielfeld(SVN) X X

Linz Wullowitz(CZE) X X

Drasenhofen(CZE) Wien X X

Villach Karawanken tunnel(SVN) X X X

Azerbaijan

Baku Samur(RUS) X X

Alat Astara(IRN) X X

Baku Red bridge(GEO) X X X

Baku Agband(ARM) X X

Kerchivan(ARM)

Sadarak(ARM) X X X


35


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Belarus

Jezjarysca(RUS)

Novaja Guta(UKR) X X

Brest(POL) Novaja Zjamlja (RUS) X X X

Kamenny Loh (LTU) Homyel X X X

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sarajevo Vardiste(SRB) X

Samac/Bosanski Samac(HRV)

Bijaca(HRV) X X

Jajce Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (HRV) X

Izacic(HRV) Lasva X

Sarajevo Hum(MNE) X

Bulgaria

Ruse(ROU) Haskovo X X

Bjala Varna X X

Vidin(ROU) Sofia X X X

Sofia Kulata (GRC) X X

Novo Selo(GRC) Svilengrad X X

Kalotina(SRB)

Kapitan Andreevo(TUR) X X X X

Gjusevo(MKD) Daskalovo X X X X

Orizovo Burgas X X X X

Sofia Bjala X X X

Burgas Durankulak (ROU) X X

Croatia

Gorican(HUN) Zagreb X

Macelj(SVN) Zagreb X

Zagreb Bosiljevo X

Bosiljevo Ploce X

Bosiljevo Rupa(SVN) X

Matulji Pula X


36


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Croatia

Kanfanar Plovanija(SVN) X

Bregana(SVN)

Lipovac(SRB) X X

Knezevo(HUN)

Slavonski Samac(BIH) X X

Metkovic(BIH) Ploce X X

Licko Petrovo Selo(BIH) Karlovac X

Okucani Donji Varos(BIH) X

The Czech Republic

Cinovec (DEU) Praha X X

Praha Lanzhot (SVK) X X

Rozvadov(DEU) Praha X X

Praha Dolni Dvoriste(AUT) X X

Cesky Tesin/Vernovice(POL)

Mikulov(AUT) X X

Praha Kralovec(POL) X X

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Tabanovce(SRB)

Gevgelija(GRC) X X

Miladinovci Debar(ALB) X X

Veles Medzitlija(GRC)

Kumanovo Kriva Palanka(BGR) X X

Bitola Mali Vlaj(ALB) X

Georgia

Leselidze(RUS)

Tsiteli Khidi(AZE) X X X

Senaki Sarpi(TUR) X X X

Larsi(RUS)

Sadakhlo(ARM) X X

Arali(TUR) Khashuri


37


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Greece

Korinthos Kalamata X X

Tripolis Githeion X

Ioannina Ktismata(ALB) X X

Paleokastro Kristalopigi(ALB)

X

Kozani Niki(MKD) X X

Evzoni(MKD) Athinai X X X

Korinthos Patra X X

Rio Ioannina X X

Igoumenitsa Klidi X X X

Chalastra Ormenio(BGR) X X X

Thessaloniki Promachonas (BGR) X X

Peplos Kipi(TUR) X X X

Hungary

Hegyeshalom(AUT) Budapest X X

Letenye(HRV) Budapest X X

Rajka(SVK) Level X X

Szeged Nagylak(ROU) X X

Budapest Zahony(UKR) X X

Budapest Szeged X X X

Szeged Roszke(SRB) X X X

Budapest Udvar(HRV) X X X

Tornyosnemeti(SVK) Istvanmajor X X

Hont(SVK) Budapest X X

Tornyiszentmiklos(SVN) Letenye X X


38


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Italy

Coccau(AUT) Palmanova X X

Palmanova Trieste/Fernetti(SVN) X X

Padova Brindisi X X

Iselle(CHE) Alessandria X X

Ventimiglia(FRA) Alessandria X X

Alessandria Palmanova X X

Bardonecchia(FRA) Alessandria X X

Lithuania

Sangruda(POL) Kaunas X X X X

Sitkunai Salociai(LVA) X X

Klaipeda Medininkai(BLR) X X X X

Marijampole Kybartai(RUS) X X X X

Vilnius Klaipeda(via Siauliai) X X X

The Republic of Moldova

Leuseny(ROU)

Dobau(UKR) X X

Chisinau Pervomaise(UKR) X X

Montenegro

Donje Krusevo(BIH)

Bozaj(ALB) X

Metanjac(SRB) Bar X

Poland

Olszyna(DEU) Krzyzowa X X

Piotrkow Trybunalski Bialystok X X

Bielsko Biala Zwardon(SVK)

X

Warszawa Hrebenne(UKR) X X

Piaski Dorohusk(UKR) X X

Gdansk Sosnica X X

Sosnica Gorzyczki(CZE)

X


39


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Poland

Swiecko(DEU)

Terespol(BLR) X X X

Jedrzychowice(DEU)

Korczowa(UKR) X X X

Pyrzowice Cieszyn(CZE) X X

Gdansk Chyzne(SVK) X X

Budzisko(LTU) Ostrow Mazowiecka

Wroclaw Grudziadz (A1) X X

Barwinek(SVK)

Kuznica Bialostocka(BLR)

Swinoujscie Lubawka(CZE) X X

Wroclaw Lodz X X

Grzechotki(RUS) Elblag X

Romania

Timisoara Moravita (SRB) X X

Lugoj Bucuresti(via Craiova) X X X

Craiova Calafat (BGR) X X X

Marasesti Giurgiu (BGR) X X X

Marasesti Siret (UKR) X X

Marasesti Albita (MDA) X X X

Nadlac (HUN) Bucuresti X X X

Bucuresti Constanta X X X

Halmeu (UKR) Zalau X X

Constanta Vama Veche(BGR) X X

Zalau Bucuresti X X

The Russian Federation

Moskva Nizhny Novgorod X X X

Moskva Vologda X X X

Moskva Kalinovka(UKR) X X X

Moskva Volgograd X X


40


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)


Kozino(UKR) Saratov X X

Donetsk(UKR) Astrakhan X X

Novogaptsakh(AZE)

Karaozek(KAZ) X X

St. Petersburg Lobok(BLR) X X

Krasnoye(BLR) Moskva X X X

St. Petersburg Moskva X X X

Kaliningrad Chernyshevskoye(LTU) X X X

Novoshakhtinsk(UKR)

Adler(GEO) X X

Vladikavkaz Verkhniy Lars(GEO) X

Pavlovskaya Makhachkala X X

Kaliningrad Mamonovo(POL)

Serbia

Vrsac(ROU) Beograd X

Mokra Gora(BIH) Nis X

Batrovci(HRV) Beograd X X

Horgos(HUN)

Dimitrovgrad(BGR) X X

Nis Presevo(MKD) X X

Beograd Boljare(MNE) X

Kraljevo Batocina

Slovakia

Petrzalka/Bratislava (AUT)

Vysne Nemecke(UKR) X X

Kuty(CZE)

Rusovce(HUN) X X

Skalite(POL) Zilina X X

Ruzomberok Sahy(HUN) X X

Vysny Komarnik(POL)

Milhost(HUN) X X

Trstena(POL) Ruzomberok X


41


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Slovenia

Sezana(ITA) Divaca X X

Jelsane(HRV) Postojna/Divaca X X

Koper Obrezje(HRV) X X X

Sentilj(AUT)

Gruskovje(HRV) X X

Ljubljana Pince(HUN) X X

Ljubljana Jesenice(AUT) X X X

Koper Dragonja(HRV) X X

Turkey

Gerede Sarp(GEO) X X X

Trabzon Askale X

Kapikule(BGR) Ankara X X X

Ankara Gurbulak(IRN) X X X

Toprakkale Yayladagi(SYR) X

Ankara Habur(IRQ) X X

Suluova Refahiye X X X

Sanliurfa Dogubayazit X

Tarsus Mersin X X

Izmir Gebze X

Izmir Ankara X

Izmir Cesme X

Izmir Antalya X

Afyon E 90 road junction X

Horasan Turkgozu(GEO) X X X

Kinali 1 junction Ipsala(GRC) X X


42


Part

of H

LG

tran

snat

iona

l ax

is

Part

of E

roa

d ne

twor

k

Part

of E

ATL

Part

of T

EN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Ukraine

Starovoitove(POL) Kyjiv X X

Rava-Ruska(POL) Lviv X

Stryj Uman X X

Uman Krasnodon(RUS) X X

Ternopil Porubne(ROU) X

Poplavka(MDA) Demydivka X

Kuchurhan(MDA) Odesa X X

Krakovets(POL) Lviv X X X

Chop(HUN) Kyjiv X X

Novi Yarylovychi(BLR) Odesa X X

Kipti Zarutske/Bachivsk(RUS) X X

Kyjiv Dovzhanskiy(RUS) X X

Nevetlenfolu(ROU) Mukaceve


43

3.2 TER backbone network

TER backbone network links Part of HLG

trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Albania

Hani i Hotit(MNE) Tirana

Vore Lin(MKD)

X

Rrogozhine Vlore

Armenia

Ayrum(GEO) Yerevan X X X

Masis Yeraskh(AZE) X

Meghri(AZE)

Niuvedi(AZE) X

Austria

Wernstein am Inn(DEU) Wien X X

Salzburg Rosenbach(SVN) X X X

Linz Bregenz X X

Wien Nickelsdorf(HUN) X X

Parndorf Kittsee(SVK) X X

Summerau(CZE)

Spielfeld(SVN) X X

Wien Arnoldstein(ITA) X X

Wien Bernhardsthal(CZE) X X

Innsbruck Brenner(ITA) X X

Baumgarten im Burgenland

(HUN)Wien X

Klagenfurt Jennersdorf(HUN) X

Azerbaijan

Baku Yalama(RUS) X

Baku Astara X

Baku Boyuk-Kesik(GEO) X X X

Osmanly Agband(ARM) X

Kerchivan(ARM)

Sadarak(ARM) X


44


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Belarus

Ezjaryszcza(RUS) Asipoviczy X

Brest(POL)

Orsha(RUS) X X X

Gudagai(LTU)

Homyel(UKR) X X X


Dobrljin(HRV)

Zvornik(SRB)

Samac/Bosanski Samac(HRV)

Capljina(HRV) X X

Capljina MNE

Bulgaria

Russe(ROU)

Svilengrad(TUR and GRC) X X X

Dragoman(SRB) Sofia X X X X

Sofia Varna X X X

Vidin(ROU)

Kulata(GRC) X X

Sofia Dimitrovgrad X X X X

Stara Zagora Burgas X X X X

Gjusevo(MKD) Radomir X X X

Croatia

Koprivnica(HUN) Rijeka X

Rijeka Sapjane(SVN) X

Ostarije Split X

Knin Zadar X

Perkovic Sibenik X

Beli Manastir(HUN) Ploce X X

Savski Marof(SVN)

Tovarnik (SRB) X X

Zagreb Novska(via Sisak) X

Volinja(BIH) Sunja X

Cakovec(SVN)

Kotoriba(HUN) X


45


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

The Czech Republic

Decin(DEU)

Breclav(AUT and SVK) X X

Petrovice u Karvine(POL)

Breclav(AUT and SVK) X X

Cheb(DEU)

Mosty u Jablunkova(SVK) X X

Lichkov(POL)

Horni Dvoriste(AUT) X X

Prerov Brno X

Hranice na Morave Horni Lidec(SVK) X X


Tabanovce(SRB) Titov Veles X X

Titov Veles Kremenica(GRC)

Titov Veles Gevgelija(GRC) X X

Kumanovo Kriva Palanka(BGR) X

Skopje Struga(ALB) X

Georgia

Gantiadi(RUS) Batumi X X X

Tbilisi Kartsakhi(TUR) X

Abasha Sadakhlo(ARM) X X X

Tbilisi Gardabani(AZE) X X X

Abasha Poti X X X

Greece

Dikea(BGR) Thessaloniki X X

Promachonas(BGR) Athina X X

Thessaloniki Idomeni(MKD) X X X

Neos Kafkasos(MKD) Plati X


46


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Hungary

Sopron(AUT) Budapest X

Budapest Zahony(UKR) X X

Felsozsolca Hidasnemeti(SVK) X X

Oriszentpeter(SVN)

Szekesfehervar X

Budapest Biharkeresztes(ROU) X X

Szajol Lokoshaza(ROU) X X

Budapest Magyarboly(HRV) X X X

Budapest Kelebia(SRB) X X X

Szob(SVK) Budapest X X

Dombovar Gyekenyes(HRV) X X X

Gyor Hegyeshalom(AUT) X X

Hegyeshalom Rajka(SVK) X

Szentgotthard(AUT) Boba X

Murakeresztur(HRV) Budapest X X

Puspokladany Nyiregyhaza X X

Italy

Tarvisio(AUT) Udine X X

Villa Opicina(SVN) Roma X X

Verona Venezia X X

Brennero(AUT) Bologna X X

Lithuania

Mockava(POL)

Joniskis(LVA) X X

Kena(BLR) Klaipeda X X X

Kaisiadorys Kybartai(RUS) X X X

Radviliskis Pagegiai(RUS) X


47


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)


Ungheni(ROU)

Bender(UKR) X X

Chisinau Reni(UKR) X X

Montenegro

Bijelo Polje(SRB)

Tuzi(ALB) X

(BIH) Podgorica

Podgorica Bar X

Poland

Gdynia Warszawa X X

Trakiszki(LTU) Warszawa X X

Warszawa Katowice X X

Warszawa Terespol(BLR) X X X

Warszawa Dorohusk(UKR) X X

Rzepin(DEU) Warszawa X X X

Wroclaw Miedzylesie(CZE) X X

Wegliniec (DEU) Krakow X X X

Swinoujscie Chalupki(CZE) X X

Malbork Braniewo(RUS) X

Krakow Medyka(UKR) X X X

Tczew Gliwice X

Katowice Zebrzydowice(CZE) X X

Zwardon(SVK)

Czechowice-Dziedzice X X

Poznan Inowroclaw X

Muszyna(SVK) Tarnow X X


48


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Romania

Episcopia Bihor(HUN) Ploiesti X X X

Vicsani(UKR) Ploiesti X X X

Ploiesti Giurgiu(BGR) X X X

Bucuresti Constanta X X X

Bucuresti Curtici(HUN) X X X

Craiova Calafat(BGR) X X

Stamora(SRB) Timisoara X

Arad Alba Iulia X X X

Arad Halmeu(UKR) X X

Pascani Cristesti Jijia (MDA) X X X

Buzau Giurgiulesti(UKR) X X

Vintu de Jos Bucuresti X

Bucuresti Faurei

Satu Mare Adjud X

Razboeni Deda

Beclean Suceava X

Simeria Filiasi

Tulcea Medgidia

Constanta Mangalia


Moskva Kotelnich X X X

Moskva Buslovskaya(FIN) X X X

Moskva Suzemka(UKR) X X X

Moskva Krasnoye(BLR) X X X

Moskva Ekaterinburg X

St. Petersburg Kurgan X X X

Vologda Moskva X

St. Petersburg Dubishche(BLR)


49


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)


Moskva Veseloe(GEO) X

Kavkaz/Novorossiysk Kurgan

Samara Akbulak(KAZ) X

Shelayevo(UKR) Samara X X X

Ryazan Syzran X

Kochetovka Saratov X

Matveev Kurgan(UKR) Rostov na Donu X X X

Gukovo(UKR) Astrakhan/Olya X X

Astrakhan Samur(AZE)

Mamonovo(POL)

Nesterov(LTU) X

Kaliningrad Sovetsk(LTU)

Serbia

Stara Pazova Subotica(HUN) X X

Beograd Sid(HRV) X X

Ruma Zvornik(BIH)

Beograd Vrbnica(MNE) X

Beograd Vrsac(ROU) X

Beograd Nis X X

Nis Presevo(MKD) X X

Nis Dimitrovgrad(BGR) X X

Stalac Pozega

Lapovo Kraljevo X


50


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Slovakia

Kuty(CZE)

Bratislava Petrzalka/Rusovce

(AUT and HUN)X X

Zilina Bratislava/Galanta X X

Bratislava Sturovo(HUN) X X

Cadca(CZE)

Cierna nad Tisou(UKR) X X

Plavec(POL)

Cana(HUN) X X

Cadca Skalite(POL) X X

Luky pod Makytou(CZE) Puchov X X

Slovenia

Sezana(ITA) Divaca X X

Koper Hodos(HUN) X X

Pivka Ilirska Bistrica(HRV) X X

Ljubljana Jesenice(AUT) X X X

Pragersko Sentilj(AUT) X X

Ormoz Sredisce(HRV) X X

Ljubljana Dobova(HRV) X X X

Turkey

Cetinkaya Kapikoy(IRN) X X X

CetinkayaDogukapi

(ARM)(border closed)

X X X

Kars Aktas(GEO) X X

Kapikule(BGR) Cetinkaya X X X

Samsun Kalin X X X

Malatya Iskenderun X X X

Toprakkale Mersin X X X

Eskisehir Izmir X X

Irmak Zonguldak


51


trans-national

axis

Part of E rail

network

Part of EATL

Part of TEN-T

CountryFrom

(country border)To

(country border)

Turkey

Balikesir Bandirma X

Alayunt Ulukisla X X

Bogazkopru Yenice X X

Afyon Manisa X X

Afyon Izmir

Fevzipasa Meydanekbez(SYR) X X X

Narli Nusaybin(SYR) X X

Karkamis Cobanbey(SYR) X

Tekirdag Muratli

Pehlivankoy Uzunkopru(GRC) X

Polatli Konya

Ukraine

Mostiska(POL)

Dobrjanka(BLR) X X X

Zernovo(RUS) Kiev X X X

Izov(POL)

Piski(RUS) X X X

Fastiv Sverdlovsk(RUS) X X

Donetsk Amvrosyivka(RUS) X X X

Kovel Chop(HUN and SVK) X X X

Djakove(ROU) Vuzlove X

Vadu Siret(ROU) Ternopil X

Zmerinka Odessa X X X


52

3.3 Summary

The main conclusion drawn from these comparisons is that almost all sections of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone network in the participating countries are compatible with the E road and E rail networks. The same conclusion applies to the EU member countries and the TEN-T network of the EU. The compatibility is also high with respect to the EU HLG trans-national axes as well as with the EATL, taking into account that these links are in general less dense than those in the Master Plan revised backbone network and that these networks (HLG and EATL) cover the territory of only some countries which participated in the Master Plan revision.


53

4. MISSING LINKS IN THE bACKbONE NETWORKS

As is for the case for bottlenecks (Cf. Chapters 9.2 and 9.3), there is no widely available and internationally agreed definition of what constitutes a missing link. The existing definitions are even more vague than those of a bottleneck, and allow for a very wide interpretation. For example, the UNECE report TRANS/WP.5/R.60 describes a missing link as “a situation in which the quality of service has extreme low values due to the fact that no direct link exists between two points”. Two other documents deal with the identification of missing links; one of them (mentioned in chapter 1), the UNECE document “Methodological Basis for the Definition of Common Criteria regarding the Identification of Bottlenecks, Missing Links and Quality of Service in Infrastructure Networks”, deals with the identification in a theoretical and general way only. The maps of the TENCONNECT study shown in chapter 9.1 define missing links (green colour) in the road sector as those below motorway standard (2 × 2 lanes, neglecting the fact that in some cases with low traffic flow levels, a 2-lane road may be sufficient even in 2030) and in the rail sector as those below infrastructural standard (single track and/or non-electrified) and having importance for EU cohesion. These simplified criteria seem very questionable since the identified links are in place (i.e. they are not missing) although they have a lower — but sometimes quite satisfactory — standard. Therefore, the same approach as in the case of bottlenecks has been taken, i.e. on a country-by-country basis, use has been made of the data and information provided by the participating countries, distinguishing between two categories of link: (i) links having a networking character (i.e. links which are mostly longer and with a higher share of international traffic) and (ii) short or local missing links. The first category of links (listed in chapters 4.1 and 4.2) has been incorporated in the revised backbone networks of the TEM and TER Master Plan. Some of the local or short missing links are also located on these networks.

4.1 Motorway and road missing links incorporated in the revised TEM backbone network

Albania (ALB)Hani Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Fushe Kruja – TiranaMorina – Kukes – crossing road Lezhe/Fushe KrujaTirana – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Perrenjas – Qafe Thana (MKD)Kapshtica (GRC) – Pogradec – PerrenjasKakavija (GRC) – Gjirokaster – Fier – RrogozhineFier – Vlore

Armenia (ARM)Bavra (GEO) – Gyumri – YerevanBagratashen (GEO) – Vanadzor – YerevanYerevan – Ararat – Vayk – Goris – Meghri (IRN)

Austria (AUT)Villach – Karawanken Tunnel (SVN)


54

Azerbaijan (AZE)Baku – Sumgayit – Samur (RUS)Alat – Astara (IRN)Baku – Ganja – Gazakh – Boyuk – Red bridge (GEO)Baku – Alat – Horadiz – Agband (ARM)Kerchivan (ARM) – Sadarak (ARM)

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH)Jajce – Banja Luka – Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (HRV)Izacic (HRV) – Bihac – Jajce – Travnik – LasvaSarajevo – Foca – Hum (MNE)

Bulgaria (BGR)Varna – Durankulak (ROU)Botevgrad – Bjala

Croatia (HRV)Licko Petrovo Selo (BIH) – KarlovacOkucani – Donji Varos (BIH)

The Czech Republic (CZE)Praha – Hradec Kralove – Kralovec (POL)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)Bitola – Ohrid – Podmolje – Struga – Mali Vlaj (ALB)

Georgia (GEO)Arali (TUR) – Akhaltsikhe – Khashuri

Greece (GRC)Peplos – Kipi (TUR)

Hungary (HUN)Tornyosnemeti (SVK) – Miskolc – IstvanmajorHont (SVK) – Vac – BudapestTornyiszentmiklos (SVN) – Letenye

Lithuania (LTU)Vilnius – Panevezys – Siauliai – Palanga – Klaipeda

Montenegro (MNE)Donje Krusevo (BIH) – Podgorica – Bozaj (ALB)Metanjac (SRB) – Bijelo Polje – Podgorica – Bar

Poland (POL)Gdansk – Elblag – Warszawa – Kielce – Krakow – Chyzne (SVK)Budzisko (LTU) – Suwalki – Elk – Lomza – Ostrow MazowieckaWroclaw – Poznan – Bydgoszcz – Grudziadz (A1)Barwinek (SVK) – Rzeszow – Lublin – Miedzyrzec Podlaski – Bialystok – Kuznica Bialostocka (BLR)Swinoujscie – Szczecin – Gorzow Wielkopolski – Zielona Gora – Legnica – Lubawka (CZE)Wroclaw – LodzGrzechotki (RUS) – Elblag


55

Romania (ROU)Halmeu (UKR) – Baia Mare – ZalauConstanta – Vama Veche (BGR)Zalau – Cluj Napoca – Brasov – Ploiesti – Bucuresti

The Russian Federation (RUS)Kaliningrad – Mamonovo (POL)

Serbia (SRB)Beograd – Pozega – Uzice – Boljare (MNE)Kraljevo – Kragujevac – Batocina

Slovakia (SVK)Ruzomberok – Zvolen – Sahy (HUN)Vysny Komarnik (POL) – Presov – Kosice – Milhost (HUN)Trstena (POL) – Dolny Kubin – Ruzomberok

Slovenia (SVN)Ljubljana – Maribor – Pince (HUN)Ljubljana – Jesenice – Karavanke (AUT)Koper – Smarje – Dragonja (HRV)Sentilj – Maribor – Gruskovje (HRV)Koper – Divaca

Ukraine (UKR)Nevetlenfolu (ROU) – Berehove – Mukaceve

4.2 Railway missing links incorporated in the revised TER backbone network

Albania (ALB)Hani-i-Hotit (MNE) – Shkoder – Vore – TiranaVore – Durres – Rrogozhine – Elbasan – Lin (MKD)Rrogozhine – Vlore

Armenia (ARM)Ayrum – Gyumri – Masis – YerevanMasis – YeraskhMeghri – Niuvedi

Austria (AUT)Baumgarten im Burgenland (HUN) – Ebenfurth – WienKlagenfurt – Koralm – Graz – Jennersdorf (HUN)

Azerbaijan (AZE)Baku – Yalama (RUS)Baku – Osmanly – AstaraBaku – Ganca – Boyuk-Kesik (GEO)Osmanly – Horadiz – Agband (ARM)Kerchivan – Sadarak (ARM)


56

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH)Dobrljin (HRV) – Bosanski Novi – Banja Luka – Doboj – Bosanska Poljana – Zvornik (SRB)Capljina – Trebinje – MNE

Croatia (HRV)Zagreb – Sisak – Sunja – NovskaSunja – Volinja (BIH)(SVN) Cakovec – Kotoriba (HUN)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)Skopje – Kicevo – Struga (ALB)

Greece (GRC)Neos Kafkasos (MKD) – Plati

Hungary (HUN)Gyor – Hegyeshalom (AUT)Hegyeshalom – Rajka (SVK)Szentgotthard (AUT) – Szombathely – BobaMurakeresztur (HRV) – Nagykanizsa – SzekesfehervarPuspokladany – Debrecen – Nyiregyhaza

Italy (ITA)Tarvisio (AUT) – Udine

The Republic of Moldova (MDA)Reni (UKR) – Besarabeasca – Cainari – Chisinau

Montenegro (MNE)Bijelo Polje (SRB) – Podgorica – Tuzi (ALB)BIH – Niksic – Podgorica

Poland (POL)Katowice – Zebrzydowice (CZE)Zwardon (SVK) – Czechowice-DziedziceMuszyna (SVK) – Tarnow ¨Suwalki – Elk – BialystokLowicz – Mszczonow – LukowPoznan – InowroclawPoznan – Szczecin – SwinoujscieSzczecin – RzepinOpole – Chalupki

Romania (ROU)Buzau – Faurei – Braila – Galati – Giurgiulesti (UKR)Vintu de Jos – Sibiu – Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti – BucurestiBucuresti – Armasesti – Urziceni – FaureiSatu Mare – Beclean – Deda – AdjudRazboeni – Targu Mures – DedaBeclean – SuceavaSimeria – FiliasiTulcea – MedgidiaConstanta – Mangalia


57

The Russian Federation (RUS)Kaliningrad – Sovetsk (LTU)

Serbia (SRB)Ruma – Zvornik (BIH)Beograd – Valjevo – Uzice – Vrbnica (MNE)Stalac – Kraljevo – PozegaLapovo – Kraljevo

4.3 Other motorway and road missing links

Road section Remark

Albania (ALB)

Fier – Levan – Tepelene under construction, to be opened in 2011

Thumane – Vore – Rrogozhine planned

Tirana – Bulqize under construction

Central-South Corridor Fushe Kruja – Tepelene planned

Azerbaijan (AZE)

Bridge over river Astarachay (IRN) planned

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MKD)

Podmolje – Bitola planned

Serbia (SRB)

Beograd bypass, section Ibarska – E 75 planned

Map No. 4 shows the locations of these missing links.

4.4 Other railway missing links

Road section Remark

Azerbaijan (AZE)

Astara – IRN programmed

Croatia (HRV)

Matulji – Ucka tunnel – Borut

Map No. 5 shows the locations of these missing links.


58


59

5. UPDATING OF THE TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR THE bACKbONE NETWORKS

5.1 Past development

Road transport

According to European Road Statistics (European Union Road Federation, Brussels 2009), road transport in 25 countries of the EU developed in the period 1995 to 2007 as shown in the following table in which the year 1995 = 100.

Year Passenger transport(passenger-km)

Freight transport(tonne-km)

1996 101 102

1997 105 105

1998 109 108

1999 112 111

2000 117 115

2001 119 117

2002 121 118

2003 122 120

2004 128 123

2005 132 125

2006 135 130

2007 137 133

The total road transport growth in the period 1995 to 2007 amounted to 33 % (freight) and to 37 % (passenger), corresponding to an average freight annual growth rate of about 2.4 % and an average passenger annual growth rate of about 2.7 %.

Rail transport

According to European rail transport core statistics (the UIC report “Rail Transport and Environment: Facts and Figures”, November 2008), the rail freight transport output in 25 countries of the EU increased in the period 1995 to 2005 by 9.2 %, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 0.9 %. The rail passenger transport increase in the same period amounted to 8.6 %, corresponding also to an average annual growth rate of about 0.9 %.


60

The respective differences in average annual growth rate in countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan, and listed in the UIC report, in the period between 1995 and 2006 were as shown in the following table.

Country Rail passengers (%) Rail freight (%)

Albania -59 -32

Austria -10 +44

Bulgaria -48 -39

Croatia +44 +67

The Czech Republic -14 -28

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia +62 +263

Greece +15 +126

Hungary MÁV +10GYSEV +74

MÁV +16GYSEV +165

Italy -7 -6

Lithuania -62 +79

Poland -19 -37

Romania -57 -52

Slovakia -48 -29

Slovenia +33 +17

Turkey +1 +7

5.2 Traffic forecast for the TEM and TER Master Plan

The road and rail traffic forecast for 2020 based on the year 2000 values was carried out separately for three groups of countries:

Group 1: EU member countries before 1 May 2004 — Austria, Greece, Italy

Group 2: EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey

Group 3: Other TEM and TER Master Plan countries — Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine

and for two development scenarios, i.e. the moderate and the optimistic.

Transport demand forecasting was performed (a) by analysing the current trends in the transport industry in order to identify existing interrelations between transport demand and the transport-relevant socio-economic parameters (population, GDP and foreign trade) and (b) by using the forecasts of such parameters (population, GDP or any other relevant economic data, such as foreign trade) from the base year 2000 to the target year 2020. The official forecasts for road and rail transport growth were treated as reference/comparison points. The following results were obtained for the three groups.


61

• For the EU member countries before 1 May 2004, the two basic factors underlying theforecast of passenger transport were the growing incomes and the growing car ownership, both of which strongly correlated with the expected growth in GDP. For the freight transport forecast, the main underlying factors stimulating the expected growth were the globalization of the economy and the liberalization of the internal market, the evolution of complex trading networks, specialization of production processes and preferences of customers as well as low load factors. The following summary regional trends were expected in the period 2000 to 2020:

- annual growth in passenger transport by car: 1.32 % to 1.81 %;

- annual growth in passenger transport by bus: 0.03 % to 0.19 %;

- annual growth in passenger transport by rail: 1.31 % to 2.55 %;

- annual growth in freight transport by road: 3.2 % to 3.38 %;

- annual growth in freight transport by rail: 3.43 % to 3.67 %.

• FortheEUmemberandaccedingcountriesafter1 May2004,anegativetrendwasexpectedin public passenger transport that was explained by the higher competitiveness of private cars and decreasing accessibility, a consequence of both urban sprawl and somewhat degrading public transportation systems. Concerning freight transport, the shares of road and rail transport were expected to remain about the same owing to the increase in rail transport prices, liberalization and deregulation in road transport as well as capacity expansion of the road infrastructure. The following summary regional trends were expected in the period 2000 to 2020:

- annual growth in passenger transport by car: 2.07 % to 3.10 %;

- annual growth in passenger transport by bus: -0.01 % to -0.28 %;


- annual growth in freight transport by road: 2.49 % to 2.77 %;


• Innon-EU,non-acceding,countriesthefollowingsummaryregionaltrendswereexpectedinthe period 2000 to 2020:

- accumulated road traffic growth: between 187.2 % and 255.6 %;

- accumulated rail traffic growth: between 61.2 % and 81.6 %.


62

The forecast for the TEM part of the Master Plan forecast contained the following growth rates for the individual countries concerned.

Country Mode

Moderate scenario growth rate (%) Optimistic scenario growth rate (%)

19952005

20052015

20002020

19952005

20052015

20002020

Bosnia and HerzegovinaPassenger 159 190.80

Freight 172 206.40

Bulgaria 47 38 37.31 47 38 44.77

CroatiaPassenger 93 111.60

Freight 159 190.80

The Czech Republic 21 18 15.58 21 18 18.70


Passenger 156 187.20

Freight 164 196.80

Hungary 38 20 23.91 38 20 28.69

Lithuania 53 38 40.21 53 38 48.25

Poland 59 38 43.10 59 38 51.72

Romania 117 83 107.94 117 83 129.53

Serbia and MontenegroPassenger 171 205.20

Freight 213 255.60

Slovakia 129 47 85.85 129 47 103.02

Slovenia 27 17 18.11 27 17 21.73


63

The forecast for the TER part of the Master Plan contained the following growth rates for the individual countries concerned.

Country Mode

Moderate scenario growth rate (%) Optimistic scenario growth rate (%)

19952005

20052015

20002020

19952005

20052015

20002020

Bosnia and HerzegovinaPassenger 58 69.60

Freight 51 61.20

Bulgaria 13 14 37.89 13 14 45.47

CroatiaPassenger 57 68.40

Freight 48 57.60

The Czech Republic -8 7 15.68 -8 7 18.82


Passenger 65 78.00

Freight 57 68.40

Hungary 35 11 65.32 35 11 78.38

LithuaniaPassenger -57 35 18 -51 41 62.00

Freight 67 23 91 73 32 109.00

Poland 48 62.71 48 75.25

Serbia and MontenegroPassenger 68 81.60

Freight 60 72.00

Slovakia 8 7 20.90 8 7 25.08

Turkey 37.89 45.47

5.3 Other recent forecasts

ASSESS forecast

The ASSESS study (Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term implementation of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010) published in October 2005 provided passenger and freight transport demand forecasts for the years 2010 and 2020 in 25 countries of the EU based on macro-economic and trade assumptions derived from the GDP forecasts. It was based on four scenarios related to the expected degree of implementation of White Paper measures: (i) null scenario; (ii) partial implementation scenario; (iii) full implementation scenario; (iv) extended scenario with some additional measures added [e.g. the introduction of road pricing for passenger cars or of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) technology for rail].

According to the ASSESS study, the forecast market demand for passenger rail transport might increase in the period 2000 to 2020 between 15 % and 29 % (the respective figures being 15 % null scenario, 19 % partial scenario, 20 % full scenario and 29 % extended scenario).

The passenger car road transport might in the same period increase between 26 % and 37 % (the respective figures being 36 % null and partial scenarios, 37 % full scenario and 26 % extended


64

scenario). The corresponding bus/coach road transport figures were 0 % to 8 % (0 % null and partial scenarios, 3 % full scenario and 8 % extended scenario).

The forecast development of freight rail transport in the period 2000 to 2020 was expected to vary between a decrease of 6 % (i.e. -6 %) and an increase of 30 % (the respective figures being -6 % null scenario, 11 % to 13 % partial scenario, 19 % full scenario and 30 % extended scenario).

The freight road transport might in the period 2000 to 2020 increase between 32 % and 55 % (the respective figures being 52 % null scenario, 43 % to 55 % partial scenario, 38 % full scenario and 32 % extended scenario).

ERIM

The ERIM (European Rail Infrastructure Masterplan) of the UIC published in February 2007 was based on all available national and European demand studies (including those mentioned above) as well as on an exchange of views with its member railways in order to establish how the market conditions and the rail offers may translate into future rail traffic growth.

The study estimated the rail traffic growth figures for the ERIM network (corresponding mostly to the TER backbone network) between the years 2004 and 2020 in each of the International Road Transport Union (IRU) 32 member countries. The respective figures for countries participating in the revision of the TER Master Plan are listed in the following table.

Country

Passenger growth (%) Freight growth (%)

Total Domestic International Total Domestic International

Austria 34 33 39 45 43 46

Bosnia and Herzegovina 400 400 400 800 800 800

Bulgaria 45 45 45 29 29 29

Croatia 35 35 35 176 176 176

The Czech Republic 16 16 16 16 16 16

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 108 108 108 140 140 140

Greece 25 25 25 35 35 35

Hungary 65 65 74 80 80 80

Italy 26 25 32 59 58 61

Lithuania 30 30 30 30 30 30

Poland 40 40 44 28 23 38

Romania 18 18 18 18 18 18

Serbia and Montenegro 156 156 156 213 213 213

Slovakia 46 46 46 2 2 2

Slovenia 15 15 15 40 40 40

Turkey 25 25 25 35 35 35


65

According to the ERIM (on the basis of the 2005 data), the forecast market demand for passenger rail transport might in the period 2005 to 2020 amount to 35 % (domestic traffic) and 50 % (international traffic), which correspond to an annual growth of 2.0 % and 2.7 % respectively.

The forecast market demand for freight rail transport in the period 2005 to 2020 amount to 61 % (domestic traffic) and 68 % (international traffic), which correspond to an annual growth of 3.2 % and 3.5 % respectively.

The overall ERIM forecast for passenger rail transport was very similar to the TER Master Plan forecast results and was a little more optimistic than the ASSESS and TEN-STAC results, due inter alia to higher ERIM forecasts in the Balkan countries. The ERIM freight forecast was very close to the results obtained in TEN-STAC and TER Master Plan, while the ASSESS study is more pessimistic in this respect.

TRANSvisions “Report on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Horizon”

This study, coordinated by Tetraplan A/S (Denmark) and published in March 2009, was aimed at the provision of technical support to a debate on transport scenarios with a 20- and 40-year horizon by • collectingandanalysinginteraliainformationontransportlong-termscenarioforecasting,• developinglong-termtransportscenariosincludingmodellingworkandcasestudies,and• suggestinglong-termobjectivesfortheEuropeantransportpolicies.

Three scenarios were set up: “Baseline” (business as usual), “High growth” and “Low growth”. Descriptions of the scenarios were based as far as possible on assumptions taken from official forecasts, using other assumptions (based on previous developments or assessments) where necessary. The Baseline scenario was basically a prolongation of existing trends until 2020 and 2030. The High growth scenario was based on elements giving priority to EU cohesion (higher economic growth and improvement of infrastructure particularly in EU12) and elements based on competition (each mode of transport paying its own costs). The Low growth scenario reflected, in particular, increasing costs of energy (particularly oil), which resulted in mobility reduction because of higher operating costs.

Regarding the socio-economic development, the study assumed that the total EU population would grow from about 491 × 106 in 2005 to almost 496 × 106 in 2020 and then it would remain almost constant up to 2030 (495 × 106). Population in the EU15 would grow slightly from 387 × 106 to 399 × 106, whereas a fall in population was expected in EU12 (from 104 × 106 in 2005 to 96 × 106 in 2030). The economic development up to 2030 was based on the European Commission´s DG-ECFIN Note 253 of June 2006. The economic development in GDP per capita was expected to be fastest in the eastern part of the EU and slower in the western part, in line with the development experienced in the last 10 years. GDP per capita in EU15 in 2005 was about EUR 24,000 in constant 2000 prices, expected to increase to about EUR 37,000 in 2030. In EU12 the GDP per capita was about EUR 5,000 in 2005, expected to increase to about EUR 13,000 in 2030. The ratio between GDP per capita in EU15 and in EU12 would then decrease from 4.7 to 2.9.


66

The resulting figures for passenger (passenger-km) and freight (tonne-km) traffic are given in the following table.

IndicatorBaseline scenario

2020

Baseline scenario

2030

High growth scenario

2030

Low growth scenario

2030

Annual GDP increase with respect to 2005 2.2 1.9 2.3 0.7

Annual increase in tonne-km (%) 1.9 1.6 1.95 0.6

Annual increase in passenger-km (%) 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.35

It may be noted that the overall growth in both freight and passenger road and rail transport was predicted to be lower than the projected GDP growth rate in all scenarios.

As regards rail and road modal share, the rail passenger mode share grew from 10 % in 2005 to between 20 % and 35 % in 2050 (depending on the scenario), whereas the growth of the freight modal share was lower in all scenarios [from 27 % (in 2005) to a maximum of 33 % in 2050], although freight might have some further growth potential after 2050. In general, passenger rail shares grew more than freight rail shares up to 2030, whilst after 2030 the opposite seemed to happen. In the short-term, passenger rail increased in relative terms, due to investments in high-speed lines and an increase in long-distance trips (in passenger-km). In the long-term, rail freight might grow because of the high growth of goods imported from and exported to overseas.

The overall conclusion could be drawn that road traffic was expected to remain the dominant transport mode in passenger transport, although it would lose some market share to the benefit of railways. In relation to freight, road transport might also lose some market share, but only marginally.

TENCONNECT

The TENCONNECT study published in December 2009, coordinated also by Tetraplan A/S (Denmark), provided a coherent forecast for the future traffic flows in the EU and neighbouring countries for 2020 and 2030 with particular focus on flows between old and new Member States, between new Member States, and between the EU and neighbouring countries. The analysis covered all transport modes, including both freight and passenger traffic on links and through nodes with a focus on the TEN-T network. On the basis of this assessment, two scenarios for the situation in 2020 and 2030 were defined: a “Baseline” scenario and a scenario called “Sustainable Economic Development”.

The Baseline scenario was a “business as usual” scenario, including infrastructure and policy measures already agreed, and in line with the current trends. The Sustainable Economic Development scenario described a faster economic and demographic development, higher fuel costs and provided for an intensive development of the road and rail networks. Forecasts for all modes for 2020 and 2030 in the Baseline and Sustainable Economic Development scenarios for both freight and passenger transport were produced. Subsequently, these forecasts were then applied for identifying the most important infrastructure axes for cohesion, development of the internal EU market and the relations with neighbouring countries.

With regard to the neighbouring countries, the population forecasts were based on the UN 2006 “World Population Prospects”, and the economic forecasts of the UNECE TEM and TER Master Plan. For those countries not covered by the TEM and TER study, the CEPII “The Long Term Growth Prospects of the World Economy: Horizon 2050” (Poncet, 2006) was used.

The resulting growth data are given in the following table.


67

Indicator Baseline scenario2005/2020

Baseline scenario2005/2030

Difference betweenSustainable Economic

Development and Baseline scenario in

2030

Road — increase in passenger-km (%) 20 35 6

Rail — increase in passenger-km (%) 44 76 37

Road — increase in tonne-km (%) 27 40 6

Rail — increase in tonne-km (%) 44 70 12

The growth in passenger-km by car (35 %) in the Baseline scenario was slightly higher than the growth in vehicle-km (33 %according to the findings of the study). One of the reasons for this was that the types of trip that were growing the most were those where there were more passengers in the cars (i.e. holiday and private trips). But vehicle-km also included trucks and vans, and tonne-km increased in the study faster than did vehicle-km indicating that utilization and/or empty driving would be reduced in the future. Since the study expected that the number of trips by rail would increase by only 1 %, increases in passenger-km had to be due to longer trip lengths. Constructions of high-speed rail lines would reduce travel times and inspire people to travel to more distant destinations. A change in mode choice from air to rail, in particular, for vacation trips was apparent.

Tonne-km by truck in the Baseline scenario was estimated to increase 27 % from 2005 to 2020 and 40 % from 2005 to 2030. Outside EU25 the growth in truck transport was expected to be higher: 44 % from 2005 to 2020 and 80 % from 2005 to 2030. Tonne-km by rail was on average forecast to increase by 44 % from 2005 to 2020 and 70 % from 2005 to 2030 within EU25. Outside EU25, the figures were 75 % and 136 % respectively.

According to the Baseline scenario, the forecast traffic growth between 2005 and 2020 in TEM and TER countries participating in the revision of the Master Plan was as shown in the following table.

CountryPassenger growth (%) Freight growth (%)

Road Rail Road Rail

Austria 21 35 40 35

Bulgaria 50 210 46 127

The Czech Republic 21 20 52 110

Greece 10 45 63 63

Hungary 22 25 46 97

Italy 14 10 19 24

Lithuania 20 1,000 57 72

Poland 22 125 72 96

Romania 47 30 64 132

Slovakia 24 20 55 120

Slovenia 29 240 37 67


68

5.4 Comparison of existing forecast results

A comparison of the total and annual growth rates forecast by the studies described in chapter 5.3 is shown in the following table (note that the ERIM and TENCONNECT data are related to the 2005 to 2020 period, whereas the other studies covered the 2000 to 2020 period). This comparison of different forecasts is useful to reveal differences and to analyse relative magnitudes, but the consistency of the forecasts is strongly influenced by the fact that the different studies were based on different assumptions and modelling tools.

Study Period Mode Total growth rate (%) Annual growth rate (%)

UN TER (rail) 2000 to 2020Passenger 18 to 82 depending on country 0.8 to 2.6

Freight 48 to109 depending on country 2.6 to 3.7

UN TEM (road) 2000 to 2020Passengera) 93 to 205 depending on country 1.3 to 3.7

Freight 159 to 256 depending on country 2.5 to 3.4

ASSESS rail 2000 to 2020Passenger 22 1.0

Freight 12 0.6

ASSESS road 2000 to 2020 Passenger 32 1.3

Freight 55 2.2

ERIM rail 2005 to 2020Passenger 35 (national) and 50 (international) 2.0 and 2.7

Freight 61 (national) and 68 (international) 3.2 and 3.5

TRANSvisions rail

2000 to 2020 Passenger 158 Baseline scenario 3.7

Freight 79 Baseline scenario 2.9

TRANSvisions road

2000 to 2020 Passenger 43 Baseline scenario 1.8


TENCONNECT rail 2005 to 2020

Passenger 44 Baseline scenario 1.8


TENCONNECT road 2005 to 2020

Passenger 20 Baseline scenario 0.9


a) Excluding bus/coach transport.

To summarize, most of the forecast values are in line with those of other studies (each one of which is based on its own scenarios and geographic coverage), but the growth rates in the TEM and TER Master Plan are generally rather high and the modal split for rail is higher than in the ERIM and TRANSvisions studies. Meanwhile, none of these studies took into account (and could not have taken into account) the occurrence of the recent global economic and financial crisis and its impacts.

5.5 Questionnaires for the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan

To collect the actual national forecast data for the years 2015 and 2020, the TEM and TER projects Central Offices distributed in the fourth quarter of 2008 detailed revision questionnaires dealing, inter alia, with this topic. The revision questionnaires provided the Project Central


69

Offices with valuable data, based on the results of the 2005 traffic counts (see Volume II, Annexes I and II), used for elaboration of the revised forecasts. However, the analysis of the data provided revealed some inconsistencies and sometimes even differences in the approaches taken. In some cases, data on the number of passengers and tonnes transported were given, while in most cases data comprised the number of trains (either separately for passenger and freight, or in total), and it was very difficult to transform passenger data to train data because there was no information about the length of trains, the number of seats per train and their occupancy rate. In other cases, the data provided comprised ranges within which the values fell or growth rates (coefficients).

In some cases, recent rail traffic data were not supplied (and were not requested in the revision questionnaires), because these data were taken from the UNECE Censuses of Motor Traffic on Main International Traffic Arteries and of E Rail Traffic in Europe in 2005. Since these censuses covered only Austria, Bulgaria (road only), Croatia (road only), the Czech Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (road only), Greece (rail only), Hungary, Italy (rail only), Lithuania, Poland, Romania (road only), Serbia (road only), Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey, the data from the remaining countries were taken from the TEMSTAT templates, the revision questionnaires and other sources.

Since practically all national forecasts mentioned above were formulated before the advent of the global crisis, in general they anticipated the constant growth of both passenger and freight road and rail traffic (particularly in the optimistic scenarios). The revised forecast for the Master Plan also had to take into account the consequences of the crisis, which were extremely difficult to determine at the time of elaboration of the revision. It was necessary, therefore, to request the participating countries to convey data on the development of road and rail traffic between 2008 and 2009 in order to adjust the final forecast results accordingly.

5.6 The influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic develop-ments in 2008 and 2009

To evaluate the influence of the global economic crisis on road and rail traffic developments in 2008 and 2009, in the spring of 2010 the TEM and TER Project Central Offices requested the participating countries to provide the following data.

For road traffic• Total decrease/increase ofAADT (AnnualAverageDailyTraffic) on the roadnetwork in

2009 compared to 2008 (in %)• Totaldecrease/increaseoftrucksandbusestrafficontheroadnetworkin2009comparedto

2008 (in %) • Totaldecrease/increaseofpassengercars trafficontheroadnetwork in2009comparedto

2008 (in %) • Totaldecrease/increaseofAADTonthemain(national)roadnetworkin2009comparedto

2008 (in %)• Totaldecrease/increaseof trucksandbuses trafficon themain(national) roadnetwork in

2009 compared to 2008 (in %)• Totaldecrease/increaseofpassengercarstrafficonthemain(national)roadnetworkin2009

compared to 2008 (in %)


70

The responses obtained are summarized in Chart 1.

For rail traffic• Totaldecrease/increaseofnumberofpassengerkilometresontherailwaynetwork in2009

compared to 2008 (in %) • Totaldecrease/increaseofaveragenumberofpassengertrains/dayin2009comparedto2008

(in %)• Totaldecrease/increaseofannualfreightoutput(tonne-kilometres)ontherailwaynetworkin

2009 compared to 2008 (in %)• Totaldecrease/increaseofaveragenumberof freighttrains/day in2009comparedto2008

(in %)

The responses obtained are summarized in Chart 2.


71

Chart 1

2009/2008 road traffic development

Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traf c on the whole network

+3%

-3.1%

2009

-8%

-11%

-16.6%

-46%

2008

+2.3%

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

AZETURROMPOLCZELTUALB

Total decrease/increase of passenger cars traf�c on the whole road network

+ 8.4%

+ 2%

2009

+0.2%

--6.5%

+ 3%

2008

+4.2%

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

AZETURROMPOLCZELTUALB


72

Total decrease/increase of trucks and buses traf c on the main ( national ) road network

+3%+3.2%

-14%

2009

-20.2%

2008

-12.8%

+2.5%

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

ROMALBTURAUTPOLLTU

Total decrease/increase of passenger cars traf�c on the main ( national ) road network

+3.5%

2009

+2%

2008

-8%

0%

+4.3%

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

TURROMPOLAUTLTU


73

Chart 2

2009/2008 rail traffic development

Total decrease/increase of number of passenger kilometres on the railway network

+ 5.4%

+ 4.5%

+ 0.7%

-1%

-11.5%

-1.4%

-4.4% -3.2%

-12.7%

2009

-22 %

2008-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

TURMKDSVNHRVAZESVKHUNCZEROMRUSALB

Total decrease/increase of average number of passenger trains/day

+ 3.1%

+ 0.8% 0%-0.4%

-0.5%

-10.3%

2009

-20.7%

2008

+3.5%

+1.1%

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

CZESVKTURHUNALBHRVSVNROMMKD


74

Total decrease/increase of annual freight output ( tonne - kilometres ) on the railway network

-4.7%

-11.9%

-3.0%

-20%

-21.7% -22.9%

-26%

-30%

2009

-31.8%

2008

-32.6%-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

TURALBRUSHRVCZEHUNSVNAZESVKROMMKD

Total decrease/increase of average number of freight trains/day

-9.4 %

-21.1%

- 6.3%

-25%

-29.6% -29.7%

2009

-30%

2008

-17%

-19.6%

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

TURMKDHRVCZESVNSVKROMHUNALB

As can be seen in the charts, passenger traffic on the main national road network (which roughly corresponds to the TEM backbone links) was not influenced too much by the crisis (annual in-crease 2008 to 2009 between 0 % and 4.3 %, lower in Central European countries, higher in East-ern European ones, the only exception being Lithuania, registering a decrease of 6 % to 8 %). The impact on the road freight traffic in Central Europe was much more pronounced, while in Eastern Europe the crisis seemed to be reflected only by a slower increase.


75

As far as the rail transport was concerned and taking into account only the number of passenger trains/day (which is the indicator used in the UNECE rail census and the one defining the capacity of the line), the results of the enquiry showed that in most of the countries in the region, the number of passenger trains grew slightly (between 0 % and 4 % in general). The only exceptions were Romania and, in particular, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but these decreases may have been caused by other factors, e.g. by a shift to road transport, limited budgetary resources, closures of local railway lines, etc. As for the road freight transport, the global crisis brought about a decline in the number of freight trains, this time much more pronounced, in all reporting countries. This decline ranged between 5 % and 30 % and again, in general, affected more the Central European countries and less the Eastern European ones.

This recent development would certainly have an influence on the former traffic forecasts, particularly in the short run, and the findings discussed in chapter 5.6 have been reflected in the revised forecast for the Master Plan.

5.7 Groups of countries

As stated in chapter 5.2, for traffic forecasting purposes, the original TEM and TER Master Plan distinguished between three groups of countries according to their respective potentials, historic background, the time period when they entered into the transition process and their political as well as economic developments:

Group 1: EU member countries before 1 May 2004 — Austria, Greece, Italy

Group 2: EU member countries and acceding countries after 1 May 2004 — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey

Group 3: Other TEM and TER Master Plan countries — Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine

To reflect the political and economic development which occurred in the period 2005 to 2010 as well as the fact that four more countries — Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro — decided to join the revision of the Master Plan, it has been necessary to modify the participation in the groups accordingly. For the revised traffic forecast, Croatia (as an EU candidate country) has been transferred to Group 2, while Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Montenegro have been added to Group 3.

5.8 basic development scenario

For the purpose of establishment of the basic road and rail traffic development scenario, all relevant recent forecast results were taken into account, namely the forecast for the Master Plan from 2005, the ERIM rail forecast (February 2007), data received from the participating countries (2008) and in particular (with respect to the EU member countries) the most recent (December 2009) and well-documented TENCONNECT study described in chapter 5.3.

The results are summarized in the following table which gives the traffic growth increase between 2005 and 2020.


76

Group of countries Mode

Master Plan

annual growth

(%)

Master Plan revision

questionnaire(%)

ERIM(%)

TENCONNECT Baseline

(%)

Master Plan revision questionnaire

(%)

Group 1

Road passenger 1.3 to 1.8 25 to 32 10 to 21

Road freight 3.2 to 3.4 60 to 66 19 to 63

Rail passenger 1.3 to 2.6 25 to 47 25 to 34 10 to 45

Rail freight 3.4 to 3.7 66 to 72 35 to 59 24 to 63

Group 2


46 to 109

Road freight 2.5 to 2.8 45 to 51 37 to 72

Rail passenger 0.7 to 1.2 12 to 22 15 to 65 20 to 24021 to 123

Rail freight 2.6 47 2 to 176 67 to 132

Group 3


Road freight

Rail passenger

2.1 to 3.0 37 to 56

108 to 400

35 to 161

Rail freight 140 to 800

It can be concluded from this table that in many cases the ranges of data are excessively large, notably those for the ERIM freight forecast for most of the countries in Groups 2 and 3, the TENCONNECT Baseline rail passenger forecast for Group 2 and the rail forecast in the revision questionnaires of some Group 3 countries. Moreover, the maximum growth values for some countries in Group 3 in the ERIM forecast (2005/2020 increases of up to 800 %) do not seem reliable from the current perspective. The TENCONNECT Baseline and Master Plan revision questionnaires seem to be the most authoritative, being also the most recent ones. Therefore, they have been taken as the reference points for the revised forecast for the Master Plan basic development scenario. At the same time, it was also taken into account that in most cases (especially with the rail passenger forecast) the TENCONNECT data ranges are larger than those in the Master Plan revision questionnaire.

On this basis, the revised basic development scenario trends for the TEM and TER Master Plan expected in the period 2005 to 2020 are as follows.

• FortheEUmembercountriesbefore1 May2004(Group 1countries):

- annual growth in road transport (AADT): 1.2 % to 2.3 %;


- annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.0 % to 2.7 %.• FortheEUmembercountriesandaccedingcountriesafter1 May2004(Group 2countries):





77

Within Group 2, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey the following higher development potential is envisaged:



- annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.8 % to 5.5 %;

with the growth rates of Turkey expected to lie in the upper parts of these ranges.

• Innon-EU,non-acceding,countries(Group 3countries):




5.9 Post-crisis development scenarios

Neither the forecast results discussed above in chapters 5.2 to 5.4 nor the revised basic development scenario for the Master Plan took into account the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis whose partial impacts on the road and rail traffic development in 2008 and 2009 in the participating countries were introduced in chapter 5.6.

To reflect these impacts and knowing that — as the International Transport Forum´s “Transport Outlook 2010” puts it — economic recovery is uncertain and uneven, two more post-crisis development scenarios, modifying the basic scenario, have been formulated as follows.

Post-crisis development scenario “1”

This scenario proceeded from the assumption that the consequences of the crisis would not be long-term, i.e. that owing to the faster economic development in the forthcoming period, its impacts would not be traceable by 2020. In other words, the traffic flow levels reached in 2020 would be the same as those in the basic scenario. The annual growth figures for the whole period 2005 to 2020 (specified in chapter 5.8) would also remain the same (despite the slower average development in the period 2005 to 2010 and a higher average development in the period 2010 to 2020) and thus would be valid also for this post-crisis development scenario.

Post-crisis development scenario “2”

In this scenario, the assumption was that the decrease in traffic resulting from the road crisis in 2009 will influence the future road and rail traffic development up to the year 2020, i.e. the annual growth rates in the period 2010 to 2020 will be the same as those of the basic development scenario, but starting from the 2009 actual (i.e. lower) level. With a great degree of generalization, the 2008 to 2009 traffic development according to the results of the inquiry presented in Charts 1 and 2 can be summarized as follows.

Road passenger traffic:

Group 1 — no increase

Group 2 — no influence (Lithuania decrease about 7 %)

Group 3 — no influence


78

Road freight traffic:

Group 1 — decrease about 10 %

Group 2 — decrease about 10 % (Lithuania about -15 %, Romania and Bulgaria only about -2 %, Turkey no influence)

Group 3 — no influence (Balkan countries decrease about 20 %)

Rail passenger traffic:

Group 1 — no increase

Group 2 — no increase (Romania and Bulgaria -10 %, Turkey no influence)

Group 3 — decrease about 10 % (Balkan countries about -20 %)

Rail freight traffic:

Group 1 — decrease about 20 %

Group 2 — decrease about 20 % (Romania and Bulgaria -30 %, Turkey -5 %)

Group 3 — decrease about 20 % (the Russian Federation -10 %).

These figures are approximate, are based on the limited amount of data available and may also vary country by country within the respective group.

Taking these figures into account, the trends expected in the period 2005 to 2020 according to the revised post-crisis development scenario “2” are as follows:

• FortheEUmembercountriesbefore1 May2004(Group 1countries):




• FortheEUmembercountriesandaccedingcountriesafter1 May2004(Group 2countries):




Within Group 2, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey the following higher development potential is envisaged:



- annual growth in freight transport by rail: 2.4 % to 5.3 %

with the growth rates of Turkey expected to lie in the upper parts of these ranges.

• Innon-EU,non-acceding,countries(Group 3countries):





79

5.10 Maps of road and rail traffic flows in 2020

Maps No. 6 to 8, showing the forecast traffic volumes in 2020 according to the basic development scenarios, were compiled taking into account the results of the 2005 traffic counts and the forecast trends, making allowance also for the national forecasts and maps published in the framework of the recent TENCONNECT study. To allow comparison, the same legend indicators (for roads AADT; for rail passengers/day and rail freight tonne/day) were used, but slightly modified to reflect the specific situation in the region (especially the lower road traffic flows than in Central Western Europe).


80


81

6. REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS

6.1 Overview

On the basis of the replies from participating countries in the course of 2009, and of subsequent consultations and updated data received up to the end of 2010, altogether 485 new or revised projects (294 motorway/road and 191 rail) have been identified and proposed by the participating countries, i.e. about the same number (491) as in the original Master Plan of 2005 (see also Maps No. 9 and 10). Some of the projects which emerged in the reporting period are new; these are indicated using bold print in the tables in chapters 6.2 and 6.3. The projects indicated using regular print were already contained in the original Master Plan, but have not been completed yet and so they are listed with revised/updated parameters.

The total cost of all Master Plan revision projects amounts to EUR 188,401 × 109. The implementation of motorway/road projects will require EUR 115,123 × 109 and rail projects EUR 73,278 × 109. The total cost of all projects is much higher than in the original Master Plan (EUR 102,114 × 109). Taking into account that the total number of projects is almost identical, this fact indicates that the average price of a project has increased almost two times from EUR 208 × 106 to about EUR 388 × 106; this is partly due to inflation but mostly because bigger and more-demanding construction projects (e.g. high-speed rail lines) are in the list of some countries. The total number of projects and their cost in individual countries is shown in the following table (only known and reported costs are included).


82

CountryTEM projects TER projects

No. EUR ×106 No. EUR ×106

Albania 6 564 2 29

Austria 17 13,639

Azerbaijan 3 389 2 319

Bosnia and Herzegovina 9 4,583 7 70

Bulgaria 13 1,479 8 7,665

Croatia 13 3,365 16 4,839

The Czech Republic 2 2,437 4 4,053

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2 1,024 4 555

Georgia 7 1,523

Greece 3 575

Hungary 8

Lithuania 12 920 31 685

Montenegro 3 104 1 33

Poland 78 41,452 20 5,652

Romania 49a 33,939 5 4,747

The Russian Federation 12 20 3,790

Serbia 12 3,902 11 4,021

Slovakia 19 6,555 13 7,559

Slovenia 3 640 9 3,401

Turkey 36 10,629 21 12,221

Ukraine 4 1,043

a) Including projects put into operation recently.


83

6.2

M

oto

rway/r

oad p

roje

cts

in t

he

revi

sed M

ast

er P

lan

Not

e 1:

New

pro

ject

s in

the

revi

sed

Mas

ter

Plan

are

indi

cate

d us

ing

bold

prin

t.

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

ALB

AN

IA

AL-H

-5Le

van

– Te

pele

ne (c

onst

ruct

ion)

7070

2010

2011

100

AL-H

-6D

urre

s (P

lepa

) – R

rogo

zhin

e (r

ehab

ilita

tion)

(fro

m 1

1 li

ne to

2 ×

2 li

ne)

2834

2009

2011

100

AL-H

-7Li

braz

hd (Q

ukes

) – P

ogra

dec

(con

stru

ctio

n)50

6920

1020

1310

0

AL-H

-8Ti

rana

– E

lbas

an (K

rrab

e) (c

onst

ruct

ion)

3233

020

1020

1310

0

AL-H

-9Fu

she

Kruj

e –

Milo

t Thu

man

e (r

ehab

ilita

tion)

(fro

m 1

× 1

line

to 2

× 2

line

)25

3420

0920

1110

0

AL-H

-10

Shko

der

– H

ani i

Hot

it (r

ehab

ilita

tion)

3927

2010

2011

100

AZE

RBA

IJA

N

AZ-

H-5

Baku

– R

US

bord

er (1

34 k

m to

198

km

)64

150

2010

2011

100

AZ-

H-8

Gaz

akh

– Re

d br

idge

3854

AZ-

H-1

0M

asal

li –

Ast

ara

(con

stru

ctio

n)57

185

2009

2011

BO

SNIA

AN

D H

ERZE

GO

VIN

A

BH-M

-2C

onstr

uctio

n of

Tuz

la –

Ora

sje

expr

essw

ay61

400

2013

2017

BH-M

-3Co

nstr

uctio

n of

Ban

ja L

uka

– D

oboj

mot

orw

ay72

500

2010

2012

BH-H

-4Im

prov

emen

t of F

oca

– H

um ro

ad18

8020

1220

14

BH-H

-5C

onstr

uctio

n of

Mos

tar b

ypas

s14

20

BH-H

-6Im

prov

emen

t of L

asva

– T

ravn

ik ro

ad54

200

2012

2015

BH-H

-7Im

prov

emen

t of S

tola

c –

Neu

m ro

ad32

BH-H

-8C

onstr

uctio

n of

Cor

ridor

Vc

mot

orw

ay29

03,

200

2001

2018

16


84

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

BH-H

-9Re

cons

truc

tion

of T

uzla

– S

araj

evo

road

sec

tion

120

135

BH-H

-10

Cons

truc

tion

of R

enov

ica

– M

esic

i roa

d20

48

BULG

ARI

A

BG-M

-1Ro

ad E

85 (r

econ

struc

tion)

113

2015

BG-M

-2M

aritz

a m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

131

104

2011

2013

2080

BG-M

-3M

aritz

a m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

235

105

2011

2013

2080

BG-M

-4M

aritz

a m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

343

120

2008

2013

919

BG-M

-5Ka

lotin

a –

Sofia

mot

orw

ay, s

ectio

n: D

rago

man

– S

livni

tza

– So

fia37

123

2015

BG-M

-6Ka

lotin

a –

Sofia

mot

orw

ay, s

ectio

n: K

alot

ina

– D

rago

man

1226

2015

BG-M

-7Ka

lotin

a –

Sofia

mot

orw

ay, s

ectio

n: H

emus

Con

nect

or9

3220

1020

1220

80

BG-M

-8Ka

lotin

a –

Sofia

mot

orw

ay, s

ectio

n: S

ofia

Ring

Roa

d –

Nor

th A

rc22

137

2015

BG-M

-9H

emus

mot

orw

ay, s

ectio

n 1

5917

820

15

BG-M

-10

Hem

us m

otor

way

, sec

tion

185

191

2015

BG-M

-11

Trak

ia m

otor

way

, sec

tion

232

9620

1020

1220

80

BG-M

-12

Trak

ia m

otor

way

, sec

tion

336

108

2010

2012

2080

BG-M

-13

Trak

ia m

otor

way

, sec

tion

448

146

2010

2012

2080

CRO

ATIA

CR-

M-6

A7-

02 K

rizis

ce –

Sen

j41

467

2015

2020

2080

Kriz

isce

– N

ovi V

inod

olsk

i25

275

2015

2020

2080

Nov

i Vin

odol

ski –

Sen

j16

192

2015

2020

2080

CR-

M-7

A7-

03 S

enj –

Zut

a Lo

kva

1521

220

1420

1620

80


85

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

CR-

M-1

2

A1-

05 Z

agvo

zd (M

akar

ska)

– P

loce

4864

120

0620

1340

60

Zagv

ozd

– Ra

vca

(in o

pera

tion)

2724

120

0620

0840

60

Ravc

a –

Ploc

e21

400

2008

2013

4060

CR-

M-1

3

A1-

06 P

loce

– N

eum

3046

520

1120

18

Ploc

e –

Met

kovi

c6

7020

1120

1310

0

Met

kovi

c –

Opu

zen

1119

520

1520

2020

80

Opu

zen

– C

vor P

elje

sac

696

2015

2020

2080

Cvo

r Pel

jesa

c –B

IH b

orde

r7

104

2015

2020

2080

CR-

M-1

4

A1-

07 N

eum

– D

ubro

vnik

4796

520

1520

2010

0

BIH

bor

der –

Dol

i15

188

2015

2020

100

Dol

i – D

ubro

vnik

2872

720

1520

2010

0

Dub

rovn

ik –

BIH

bor

der

450

2015

2020

100

CR-

M-1

8A

1-09

Dug

opol

je –

Klis

3020

1120

13

CR-

M-1

9A

1-10

Klis

– S

plit

4520

1120

13

CR-

M-2

0A

5-01

Kne

zevo

– C

emin

ac15

112

2012

2015

CR-

M-2

1A

5-02

Cem

inac

– O

sije

k15

205

2011

2013

CR-

M-2

3

A5-

04 S

reda

nci –

Svi

laj

349

2011

2013

100

HU

N (B

ranj

in V

rh) –

Bel

i Man

astir

555

2013

2015

100

Beli

Man

astir

– O

sije

k25

298

2011

2015

100

CR-

M-2

4A

10-0

1 M

etko

vic

– Pl

oce

451

2011

2013

Met

kovi

c –

BIH

bor

der

211

2011

2013

100


86

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

CR-

M-2

5A

5-05

Cem

inac

– B

atin

a90

2018

2019

CR-

M-2

6A

9-01

Vod

njan

– P

ula

1333

2005

2011

THE

CZEC

H R

EPU

BLIC

CZ-

M-2

Mot

orw

ay D

8 Lo

vosi

ce –

Reh

lovi

ce16

567

2004

2011

5644

CZ-

M-5

Mot

orw

ay D

47 L

ipni

k –

POL

bord

er80

1,87

020

0220

1110

0

THE

FORM

ER Y

UG

OSL

AV R

EPU

BLIC

OF

MA

CED

ON

IA

MA

-M-1

Con

struc

tion

of D

emir

Kapi

ja –

Sm

okvi

ca ro

ad s

ectio

n, P

hase

I28

174

2011

2014

MA

-M-3

Con

struc

tion

of C

orrid

or V

III, S

kopj

e by

pass

304

850

2179

GEO

RGIA

GE-

M-5

Gor

i – R

ikot

i (re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g)63

317

2009

2013

GE-

H-6

Riko

ti –

Zest

afon

i (re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g)44

366

2011

2015

GE-

H-7

Zest

afon

i – S

amtr

edia

(reh

abili

tatio

n an

d up

grad

ing)

7826

820

1020

13

GE-

H-8

Sam

tred

ia –

Pot

i (re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g)67

178

2014

2017

GE-

H-9

Poti

– Ch

oloq

i (re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g)31

6720

1320

16

GE-

H-1

0Ch

oloq

i – S

arpi

(reh

abili

tatio

n an

d up

grad

ing)

5222

520

0920

14

GE-

H-1

3Tb

ilisi

– M

arne

uli (

reha

bilit

atio

n an

d up

grad

ing)

2910

220

1020

16

GRE

ECE

GR-

M-1

Egna

tia m

otor

way

, sec

tion

Stry

mon

as –

Nea

Per

amos

4224

020

1120

15

GR-

M-2

Profi

tis –

Mac

edon

ia a

irpor

t, du

al c

arria

gew

ay40

235

2016

2021

GR-

M-4

Siat

ista

– K

rista

lore

lopi

gi m

otor

way

, sec

tion

Siat

ista

– A

rgos

Ore

stiko

3010

020

1120

15

HU

NG

ARY


87

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

HU

-M-4

M2:

Vac

– H

UN

/SVK

bor

der

3820

1650

50

HU

-M-6

M3:

Nyi

regy

haza

– H

UN

/UKR

bor

der

64

HU

-M-9

M6:

Dun

aujv

aros

– B

oly

114

2008

2015

100

HU

-M-1

0M

6: B

oly

– H

UN

/HRV

bor

der

2510

0

HU

-M-1

4M

43: M

ako

– H

UN

/RU

S bo

rder

2620

1020

1250

50

HU

-M-1

5Sz

omba

thel

y –

Nag

ykan

izsa

105

2016

2020

5050

HU

-M-1

6M

30: S

VK/H

UN

bor

der –

Mis

kolc

6020

1720

2050

50

HU

-M-2

047

/42:

Deb

rece

n-H

UN

/RU

S bo

rder

5020

1220

15

LITH

UA

NIA

LT-M

-4Br

idge

on

road

A1

acro

ss N

eris

rive

r in

Kaun

as (w

iden

ing)

129

2011

2013

5050

LT-M

-5Ro

ad A

1 (w

iden

ing)

(6 tr

affic

lane

s)9

1720

1320

1550

50

LT-M

-6Ro

ad A

1 (w

iden

ing)

(6 tr

affic

lane

s)78

9020

25

LT-M

-7Ro

ad A

5 Ka

unas

-Mar

ijam

pole

– S

uval

kai (

cons

truct

ion

of s

econ

d dr

ivin

g di

rect

ion)

3579

2010

2013

3763

LT-M

-8Ro

ad A

5 Ka

unas

-Mar

ijam

pole

– S

uval

kai (

cons

truct

ion

of s

econ

d dr

ivin

g di

rect

ion)

3680

2018

2020

LT-M

-9Ro

ad A

8 Pa

neve

zys

– A

rista

va –

Sitk

unai

(con

struc

tion

of s

econ

d dr

ivin

g di

rect

ion)

3480

2020

2022

LT-M

-10

Road

A8

Pane

vezy

s –

Aris

tava

– S

itkun

ai (c

onstr

uctio

n of

sec

ond

driv

ing

dire

ctio

n)47

120

2025

2027

LT-M

-11

Jaka

i int

erse

ctio

n on

roa

d A

1 in

Kla

iped

a ap

proa

ches

(con

struc

tion)

464

2009

2013

6733

LT-M

-12

Viln

ius

sout

hern

byp

ass

(I. s

tage

)40

2009

2011

1585

LT-M

-13

Klai

peda

city

sou

ther

n ac

cess

to th

e se

a po

rt6

4020

1120

1315

85

LT-M

-14

Viln

ius

city

wes

tern

byp

ass

1024

020

0820

1558

42

LT-M

-15

Ram

ygal

a by

pass

, sec

tion

Salo

ciai

– S

itkun

ai7

4120

1420

2543

57


88

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

MO

NTE

NEG

RO

ME-

H-2

4Ve

rige

brid

ge a

t Kot

or57

2011

2012

ME-

H-2

5By

pass

Bije

lo P

olje

1520

1120

12

ME-

H-2

6Po

dgor

ica

– N

iksi

c Bo

snia

n bo

rder

3220

1120

12

POLA

ND

PL-H

-1S1

-I ex

pres

sway

exi

sting

: Pyr

zow

ice

– Po

dwar

pie

(III s

tage

)12

104

2014

2016

30

70

PL-H

-2S1

-II e

xpre

ssw

ay: K

oszt

owy

– Bi

elsk

o Bi

ala

4089

020

1420

2040

60

PL-H

-7S2

-I ex

pres

sway

: Kon

otop

a –

Pula

wsk

a w

ith M

aryn

arsk

a 20

684

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-9S3

-II e

xpre

ssw

ay: b

ypas

s Tr

oszy

na, P

arlo

wko

i O

strom

ice

with

S-3

Wol

in –

Tro

szyn

1317

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-10

S3-II

I exp

ress

way

: byp

ass

Mie

kow

o5

2620

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-14

S3-V

II ex

pres

sway

: Gor

zow

Wie

lkop

olsk

i – S

kwie

rzyn

a27

115

2011

2013

41

59

PL-H

-15

S3-V

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: S

kwie

rzyn

a –

Jord

anow

o (A

2)32

139

2011

2013

41

59

PL-H

-16

S3-IX

exp

ress

way

: Jor

dano

wo

– Su

lech

ow33

145

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-18

S3-X

I exp

ress

way

: Now

a So

l – L

egni

ca80

724

2013

2015

41

59

PL-H

-19

S3-X

II ex

pres

sway

: S-3

Leg

nica

(A4)

– L

ubaw

ka56

1,01

320

1620

2041

59

PL-H

-20

S5-I

expr

essw

ay: N

owe

Mar

zy –

Byd

gosz

cz76

400

2014

2020

41

59

PL-H

-22

S5-II

I exp

ress

way

: Byd

gosz

cz –

Zni

n36

273

2014

2020

41

59

PL-H

-23

S5-IV

exp

ress

way

: Zni

n –

Gni

ezno

4228

320

1420

2041

59

PL-H

-24

S5-V

exp

ress

way

: Gni

ezno

– P

ozna

n (K

lesz

czew

o)41

441

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-25

S5-V

I exp

ress

way

: Glu

chow

o –

Wro

claw

(Wro

nczy

n)16

193

2010

2012

30

70


89

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

PL-H

-26

S5-V

II ex

pres

sway

: Poz

nan

(A-2

junc

tion

“Głu

chow

o”) –

Wro

claw

(A-8

junc

tion

“Wid

awa”

)15

51,

105

2013

2016

50

59

PL-H

-27

S6- I

exp

ress

way

: Slu

psk

– Le

bork

40

572

2013

2016

50

50

PL-H

-28

S6-II

exp

ress

way

: Leb

ork

– Bo

ze P

ole

3644

820

1220

1450

50

PL-H

-29

S6-II

I exp

ress

way

: Boz

e Po

le –

Gda

nsk

(Tra

sa K

aszu

bska

)11

8920

1220

1450

50

PL-H

-30

S7-I

expr

essw

ay: G

dans

k (A

-1) –

Elb

lag

(S-2

2)60

1,43

420

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-31

S7-II

exp

ress

way

: Elb

lag

(S-2

2) –

Ols

ztyn

ek (S

-51)

107

1,02

620

0820

1241

59

PL-H

-32

S7-II

I exp

ress

way

: Ols

ztyn

ek (S

-51)

– P

lons

k (S

-10)

128

1,07

020

1020

1541

59

PL-H

-33

S7-IV

exp

ress

way

: Plo

nsk

(S-1

0) –

War

szaw

a (S

-8)

5092

320

1420

1641

59

PL-H

-34

S7-V

exp

ress

way

: War

szaw

a –

Gro

jec

2147

020

1320

1541

59

PL-H

-38

S7-IX

exp

ress

way

: Rad

om (J

edlin

sk) –

Jed

rzej

ow75

910

2013

2016

41

59

PL-H

-39

S7-X

exp

ress

way

: Jed

rzej

ow –

voi

vode

ship

bor

der

2019

620

1320

1641

59

PL-H

-41

S7-X

I exp

ress

way

: Jed

rzej

ow –

voi

vode

ship

bor

der

1819

720

1020

1250

50

PL-H

-42

S7-X

II ex

pres

sway

: voi

vode

ship

bor

der –

Kra

kow

6039

520

1020

1350

50

PL-H

-43

S7-X

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: K

rako

w –

Mys

leni

ce (r

econ

struc

tion)

3069

2010

2013

50

50

PL-H

-45

S7-X

VI e

xpre

ssw

ay: L

ubie

n –

Rabk

a w

ith tu

nnel

1859

020

1320

1541

59

PL-H

-46

S8-I

expr

essw

ay: W

rocl

aw –

Ole

snic

a 48

7520

0920

1230

70

PL-H

-48

S8-II

I exp

ress

way

: Ole

snic

a –

Syco

w19

8320

0920

1230

70

PL-H

-49

S8-IV

exp

ress

way

: Syc

ow –

Wal

ichn

owy

4643

720

1120

1530

70

PL-H

-50

S8-V

exp

ress

way

: Wal

ichn

owy

– Lo

dz10

41,

591

2011

2015

30

70

PL-H

-51

S8-V

I exp

ress

way

: Pio

trkow

Try

buna

lski –

Wol

ica

116

296

2009

2012

41

59


90

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

PL-H

-52

S8-V

II ex

pres

sway

: Wol

ica

– Sa

lom

ea16

159

2009

2012

100

PL-H

-54

S8-IX

exp

ress

way

: Pow

azko

wsk

a –

Mar

ki (P

ilsud

skie

go)

727

020

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-55

S8-X

exp

ress

way

: Mar

ki –

Rad

zym

in15

130

2013

2015

100

PL-H

-58

S8-X

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: W

yszk

ow –

Ostr

ow M

az27

580

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-59

S8-X

IV e

xpre

ssw

ay: O

strow

Maz

owie

cka

– Za

mbr

ow22

480

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-60

S8-X

V ex

pres

sway

: byp

ass

Zam

brow

1634

920

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-61

S8-X

VI e

xpre

ssw

ay: Z

ambr

ow –

Jeze

wo

2962

120

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-62

S8-X

VII e

xpre

ssw

ay: J

ezew

o –

Bial

ysto

k23

501

2009

2012

41

59

PL-H

-63

S8-X

VIII

expr

essw

ay: b

ypas

s Bi

alys

tok

858

020

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-64

S17-

I exp

ress

way

: War

szaw

a (ju

nctio

n “Z

akre

t”) –

Gar

wol

in42

383

2013

2016

41

59

PL-H

-66

S17-

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: G

arw

olin

– K

urow

5952

920

1320

1541

59

PL-H

-67

S17-

IV e

xpre

ssw

ay: K

urow

– L

ublin

– P

iask

i 69

859

2012

2015

41

59

PL-H

-68

S19-

I exp

ress

way

: Kuz

nica

Bia

lost

ocka

– B

ialy

stok

(Cho

rosz

cz)

122

1,12

320

1320

1641

59

PL-H

-69

S17-

VI e

xpre

ssw

ay: P

iask

i – H

rebe

nne

123

657

2013

2016

50

50

PL-H

-70

S19-

I exp

ress

way

: Bia

lyst

ok –

Mie

dzyr

zec

Podl

aski

157

1,45

220

1320

1641

59

PL-H

-71

S19-

II ex

pres

sway

: Mie

dzyr

zec

Podl

aski

– L

ubar

tow

6929

220

1220

1541

59

PL-H

-72

S19-

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: L

ubar

tow

– K

rasn

ik68

336

2014

2016

41

59

PL-H

-73

S19-

IV e

xpre

ssw

ay: K

rasn

ik –

Sto

bier

na49

568

2013

2015

41

59

PL-H

-74

S19-

V e

xpre

ssw

ay: S

tobi

erna

– L

utor

yz33

206

2012

2015

41

59

PL-H

-75

S19-

VI e

xpre

ssw

ay: L

utor

yz –

Bar

win

ek89

261

2012

2015

41

59

PL-H

-77

S61-

XXI e

xpre

ssw

ay: O

stro

w M

azow

ieck

a –

Lom

za –

Suw

alki

– B

udzi

sko

(via

Bal

tica)

220

1,32

020

1520

2050

50


91

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

PL-H

-78

S69-

I exp

ress

way

: Bie

lsko-

Bial

a –

junc

tion

Krak

owsk

a4

3820

0920

1241

59

PL-H

-79

S69-

II ex

pres

sway

: jun

ctio

n Kr

akow

ska

– ju

nctio

n Zy

wie

cka

485

2009

2013

41

59

PL-H

-80

S69-

III e

xpre

ssw

ay: j

unct

ion

Zyw

ieck

a –

junc

tion

Wilk

owic

e6

5820

0920

1330

70

PL-H

-81

S69-

IV e

xpre

ssw

ay: j

unct

ion

Wilk

owic

e –

Zyw

iec

1532

2009

2012

30

70

PL-H

-84

S69-

VII e

xpre

ssw

ay: j

unct

ion

Przy

bedz

ie –

Milo

wka

(rec

onstr

uctio

n)9

1020

0820

1050

50

PL-M

-1A

18-I

mot

orw

ay: j

unct

ion

Olsz

yna

– ju

nctio

n G

olni

ce (r

econ

struc

tion

of th

e ro

ad

sout

h)71

283

2012

2014

41

59

PL-M

-3A

1-II

mot

orw

ay: N

owe

Mar

zy –

Tor

un (L

ubic

z)51

1,15

920

0820

1110

0

PL-M

-4A

1-III

mot

orw

ay: L

ubic

z –

Cze

rnie

wic

e11

125

2008

2013

10

0

PL-M

-5A

1-IV

mot

orw

ay: T

orun

(Cze

rnie

wic

e) –

Stry

kow

144

1,36

720

1020

1230

70

PL-M

-6A

I-V m

otor

way

: Stry

kow

– T

uszy

n40

372

2011

2013

75

25

PL-M

-7A

1-VI

mot

orw

ay: T

uszy

n –

Cze

stoch

owa

(Rza

saw

a)84

470

2014

2016

75

25

PL-M

-8A

1-VI

I mot

orw

ay: C

zesto

chow

a (R

zasa

wa)

– P

yrzo

wic

e54

300

2014

2016

75

25

PL-M

-9A

1-VI

II m

otor

way

: Pyr

zow

ice

– So

snic

a44

1,25

120

0820

1241

59

PL-M

-11

A1-

X m

otor

way

: Sw

ierk

lany

– G

orzy

czki

2533

020

0720

1317

83

PL-M

-12

A2-

I mot

orw

ay: S

wie

cko

– N

owy

Tom

ysl

105

1,56

020

0920

1210

0

PL-M

-19

A2-

VIII

mot

orw

ay: S

tryko

w –

War

szaw

a92

938

2009

2012

100

PL-M

-20

A2-

IX m

otor

way

: Lub

elsk

a (W

arsz

awa)

– S

iedl

ce –

byp

ass

Min

sk M

azow

ieck

i15

179

2009

2012

41

59

PL-M

-27

A4-

VII m

otor

way

: (Kr

akow

) Sza

row

– T

arno

w (K

rzyz

)57

604

2010

2012

41

59

PL-M

-28

A4-

VIII

mot

orw

ay: T

arno

w (K

rzyz

) – R

zesz

ow W

scho

d w

ith S

19 R

zesz

ow-S

wilc

za83

605

2010

2012

41

59

PL-M

-29

A4-

IX m

otor

way

: Rze

szow

– K

orcz

owa

881,

162

2009

2012

41

59

PL-M

-31

A2-

X m

otor

way

: Sie

dlce

– T

eres

pol

9550

020

1520

20


92

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

PL-M

-32

A8-

IX m

otor

way

: Byp

ass

Wro

claw

3694

520

0520

1110

0

ROM

AN

IA

RO-M

-1N

adla

c –

Tim

isoa

ra84

588

2009

2012

3027

43

RO-M

-2Ti

mis

oara

– L

ugoj

3635

920

1120

1315

85

RO-M

-3Lu

goj –

Dev

a10

01,

172

2011

2013

1585

RO-M

-4D

eva

– O

rasti

e33

253

2010

2013

1585

RO-M

-5O

rasti

e –

Sibi

u (in

clud

ing

Sebe

s by

pass

)82

792

2011

2013

1585

RO-M

-6Si

biu

– Pi

testi

117

3,24

620

1120

1310

0

RO-M

-7Bu

cure

sti S

outh

byp

ass

4890

220

1220

1510

0

RO-M

-8Bu

cure

sti N

orth

byp

ass

5396

820

1220

1510

0

RO-M

-12

Cer

navo

da –

Con

stant

a51

396

2009

2011

4555

RO-M

-13

Bucu

resti

– G

iurg

iu60

259

2015

2020

RO-M

-14

Lugo

j – D

robe

ta T

urnu

Sev

erin

180

990

2023

2028

RO-M

-15

Dro

beta

Tur

nu S

ever

in –

Cra

iova

9956

120

3020

35

RO-M

-16

Cra

iova

– B

ucur

esti

220

948

2020

2024

100

RO-M

-17

Tim

isoa

ra –

Sta

mor

a M

orav

ita30

402

2015

2020

RO-M

-18

Ora

dea

– Za

lau

140

806

2004

2012

RO-M

-19

Hal

meu

– S

atu

Mar

e19

215

2015

2020

RO-M

-20

Satu

Mar

e –

Zala

u92

528

2025

2032

RO-M

-21

Zala

u –

Clu

j Nap

oca

2414

920

1120

13

RO-M

-23

Turd

a –

Sebe

s74

920

2015

2020


93

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

RO-M

-24

(Cam

pia

Turz

ii) T

urda

– O

gra

(Tar

gu M

ures

)36

143

2010

2012

100

RO-M

-25

(Tar

gu M

ures

) Ogr

a –

Sigh

isoa

ra56

344

2011

2013

100

RO-M

-26

Sigh

isoa

ra –

Bra

sov

105

500

2011

2013

100

RO-M

-27

Bras

ov –

Pre

deal

2232

220

1120

1310

0

RO-M

-28

Pred

eal –

Com

arni

c37

522

2011

2013

100

RO-M

-29

Com

arni

c –

Ploi

esti

4837

920

1120

1310

0

RO-M

-30

Ploi

esti

– Bu

cure

sti62

415

2007

2011

100

RO-M

-31

Alb

ita –

Cra

sna

47

2,84

9

2012

2014

RO-M

-32

Cra

sna

– Te

cuci

8620

1220

14

RO-M

-33

Tecu

ci –

Mar

ases

ti19

2012

2014

RO-M

-34

Mar

ases

ti –

Ram

nicu

Sar

at –

Buz

au89

2012

2014

RO-M

-35

Buza

u –

Bucu

resti

N/E

(Plo

iesti

– B

ucur

esti

sect

ion

is in

clud

ed in

RO

-M-3

0)94

2012

2014

RO-M

-36

Sire

t – S

ucea

va42

220

2015

2019

RO-M

-37

Suce

ava

– Sa

baoa

ni95

589

2022

2027

100

RO-M

-38

Saba

oani

– B

acau

5223

120

2720

3310

0

RO-M

-39

Baca

u –

Mar

ases

ti87

484

2033

2038

100

RO-M

-40

(Ung

heni

) Scu

leni

– Ia

si25

138

2011

2014

100

RO-M

-41

Iasi

– T

argu

Fru

mos

4825

320

1120

1410

0

RO-M

-42

Targ

u Fr

umos

– S

abao

ani

2716

520

1520

19

RO-M

-43

Sibi

u –

Faga

ras

7361

420

1520

20

RO-M

-44

Targ

u M

ures

– P

iatr

a N

eam

t – R

oman

281

6,35

220

1120

1410

0


94

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

RO-M

-45

Ara

d –

Ora

dea

135

1,35

620

1520

20

RO-M

-46

Pete

a –

Satu

Mar

e –

Baia

Mar

e82

2,20

720

1520

20

RO-M

-47

Crai

ova

– Pi

test

i12

11,

066

2015

2020

RO-M

-49

Cons

tant

a –

Vam

a Ve

che

5533

620

2520

3010

0

THE

RUSS

IAN

FED

ERAT

ION

RU-H

-1BL

R bo

rder

– M

oskv

a –

Niz

hni N

ovgo

rod

(dev

elop

men

t)

RU-H

-2U

KR –

Kur

sk –

Sar

atov

(dev

elop

men

t)

RU-H

-3Sy

zran

– S

arat

ov –

Vol

gogr

ad (d

evel

opm

ent)

RU-H

-4FI

N –

St.

Pete

rsbu

rg –

Vol

ogda

– K

irov

– Pe

rm –

Eka

terin

burg

(dev

elop

men

t)

RU-H

-5Ek

ater

inbu

rg –

Tyu

men

(dev

elop

men

t)

RU-H

-6C

hita

– K

haba

rovs

k (p

art o

f the

nat

iona

l hig

hway

): Kr

asno

e –

Mos

cow

– V

ladi

vosto

k)

(con

struc

tion)

RU-M

-1Se

ctio

ns o

n th

e ro

ad U

KR –

Kur

sk –

Vor

onez

h –

Sara

tov

(reco

nstru

ctio

n)

RU-M

-2M

otor

way

“D

on”,

sec

tion

Mos

kva

– Vo

rone

zh (c

onstr

uctio

n an

d re

cons

truct

ion)

RU-M

-3M

otor

way

“D

on”,

sec

tion

Voro

nezh

– R

osto

v na

Don

u –

Nov

oros

siis

k/So

chi

302

RU-M

-4M

otor

way

“Ka

spiy

” M

oskv

a –

Tam

bov

– Vo

lgog

rad

– A

strak

han

and

road

Astr

akha

n –

Mak

hach

kala

515

RU-M

-5M

otor

way

“C

auca

sus”

, sec

tion

Pavl

ovsk

aya

– M

iner

alny

e Vo

dy –

Koc

hube

y /

Mak

hach

kala

359

RU-M

-6A

uxili

ary

and

serv

ice

infra

struc

ture

SERB

IA

SR-M

-1M

otor

way

Nov

i Sad

– H

orgo

s (c

ompl

etio

n)11

515

020

0820

1210

0

SR-H

-12

Beog

rad

bypa

ss (c

ompl

etio

n)47

336

1990

2012

3034


95

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

SR-M

-3Co

rrid

or X

, Les

kova

c –

Pres

evo

(MKD

bor

der)

9662

020

0820

1184

16

SR-M

-4Co

rrid

or X

b, N

is –

Dim

itrov

grad

(BG

R)83

620

2008

2011

100

SR-M

-5M

otor

way

Beo

grad

– S

outh

Adr

iatic

, sec

tion

Beog

rad

– Po

zega

148

600

2009

2015

5050

SR-M

-6M

otor

way

E 7

61 P

ojat

e –

Prel

jina

110

413

2012

SR-M

-7M

otor

way

E 7

63 (E

761

) Pre

ljina

– P

ozeg

a41

2012

SR-M

-8M

otor

way

E 7

61 P

ozeg

a –

Uzi

ce –

BIH

6048

020

12

SR-M

-10

Mot

orw

ay P

ance

vo –

Vrs

ac95

200

2009

2012

100

SR-H

-27

Sem

imot

orw

ay K

ikin

da –

Ada

– N

ovi S

ad –

Sre

msk

a M

itrov

ica

– Sa

bac

– Lo

znic

a28

020

0920

1210

0

SR-H

-28

Sem

imot

orw

ay P

ozar

evac

– K

ucev

o –

Maj

danp

ek –

Neg

otin

170

2009

2012

100

SR-H

-29

Beog

rad,

Gaz

ela

brid

ge (r

ehab

ilita

tion

proj

ect)

433

2008

2011

100

SLO

VAKI

A

SK-M

-1M

otor

way

D1

Bido

vce

– D

argo

v13

143

2014

2017

100

SK-M

-2M

otor

way

D1

Dar

gov

– Po

zdis

ovce

1996

2014

2017

100

SK-M

-3M

otor

way

D1

Pozd

isov

ce –

Sta

te b

orde

r SRB

/UKR

4349

820

1420

1710

0

SK-M

-5M

otor

way

D3

Cad

ca, B

ukov

– S

vrci

nove

c5

8520

1220

1510

0

SK-M

-6M

otor

way

D3

Svrc

inov

ec –

Ska

lite

1219

020

1120

1410

0

SK-H

-1Ex

pres

sway

R3

Hor

na S

tubn

a, b

ypas

s15

2008

2011

100

SK-H

-2Ex

pres

sway

R4

Kosi

ce –

Milh

ost

1499

2010

2013

100

SK-M

-8M

otor

way

D1

Hric

ovsk

e Po

dhra

die

– D

ubna

Ska

la38

1,34

820

1020

1435

65

SK-M

-9M

otor

way

D1

Dub

na S

kala

– T

uran

y17

194

2009

2013

3565

SK-M

-10

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Tu

rany

– H

ubov

a13

508

2010

2014

3565


96

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

SK-M

-11

Mot

orw

ay D

1 H

ubov

a –

Ivac

hnov

a35

520

0920

1335

65

SK-M

-12

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Ja

novc

e –

Jabl

onov

1937

220

0820

1335

65

SK-M

-13

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Ja

blon

ov –

Beh

arov

ce63

2009

2011

3565

SK-M

-14

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Fr

icov

ce –

Svi

nia

1120

120

1020

1310

0

SK-M

-15

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Pr

esov

Wes

t – P

reso

v So

uth

724

320

1220

1610

0

SK-M

-16

Mot

orw

ay D

1 Bu

dim

ir –

Bido

vce

1412

520

1120

1310

0

SK-M

-17

Mot

orw

ay D

4 Br

atis

lava

, Jar

ovce

– Iv

anka

pri

Dun

aji,

nort

h23

900

2014

2017

100

SK-M

-18

Mot

orw

ay D

4 Iv

anka

pri

Dun

aji,

nort

h –

Zaho

rska

Bys

tric

a17

1,00

020

1420

1810

0

SK-M

-20

Mot

orw

ay D

4 D

evin

ska

Nov

a Ve

s –

stat

e bo

rder

SV

K/A

UT

412

020

1620

1810

0

SLO

VEN

IA

SL-M

-3Vr

ba –

Per

acic

a, s

ectio

n Pe

raci

ca –

Pod

tabo

r11

420

0820

1113

7512

SL-M

-5Ko

per –

Dra

gonj

a32

920

12

SL-M

-7D

raže

nci –

Gru

škov

je19

720

1120

13

TURK

EY

TU-M

-1A

nkar

a –

Poza

nti m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

1: A

nkar

a –

Aci

kuyu

112

509

2011

2015

1585

TU-M

-2A

nkar

a –

Poza

nti m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

2: A

ciku

yu –

Orta

koy

7843

520

1120

1515

85

TU-M

-3A

nkar

a –

Poza

nti m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

3: O

rtako

y –

Gol

cuk

9348

720

1120

1515

85

TU-M

-4A

nkar

a –

Poza

nti m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

4: G

olcu

k –

Poza

nti

941,

031

2000

2015

1585

TU-M

-5Bu

rsa

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 1:

Orh

anga

zi –

Bur

sa34

215

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-6Bu

rsa

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 2:

(Bur

sa –

Kar

acab

ey) j

unct

ion

– Su

surlu

k63

292

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-7Bu

rsa

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 3:

Sus

urlu

k –

(Bal

ikes

ir –

Edre

mit)

junc

tion

6231

420

1020

1410

0


97

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

TU-M

-8Bu

rsa

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 4:

(Bal

ikes

ir –

Edre

mit)

junc

tion

– Ki

rkag

ac65

310

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-9Bu

rsa

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 5:

Kirk

agac

– M

anis

a52

244

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-10

Burs

a –

Izm

ir m

otor

way

, Sec

tion

5: M

anis

a –

Izm

ir56

309

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-11

Teki

rdag

– I. ps

ala

bord

er ro

ad, S

ectio

n 1:

Kin

ali j

unct

ion

– Te

kird

ag56

32

1998

2013

100

TU-M

-12

Teki

rdag

– I. ps

ala

bord

er ro

ad, S

ectio

n 2:

Tek

irdag

byp

ass

15 2

320

0520

1310

0

TU-M

-13

Teki

rdag

– I. ps

ala

bord

er ro

ad, S

ectio

n 3:

Tek

irdag

– M

alka

ra ju

nctio

n55

52

2005

2013

100

TU-M

-14

Teki

rdag

– I. ps

ala

bord

er ro

ad, S

ectio

n 4:

Mal

kara

junc

tion

– I. ps

ala

bord

er52

49

2003

2013

100

TU-M

-15

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

1: S

anliu

rfa –

Vira

nseh

ir91

120

2005

2012

100

TU-M

-16

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

2: V

irans

ehir

– Ki

zilte

pe72

99

2005

2012

100

TU-M

-17

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

3: K

izilt

epe

– N

usay

bin

junc

tion

56 7

820

0520

1210

0

TU-M

-18

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

4: N

usay

bin

junc

tion

– O

yali

45 6

320

0520

1210

0

TU-M

-19

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

5: O

yali

– C

izre

55 8

020

0520

1210

0

TU-M

-20

Sanl

iurfa

– H

abur

bor

der,

Sect

ion

6: C

izre

– S

ilopi

3240

2005

2012

100

TU-M

-21

Ista

nbul

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 1:

Geb

ze –

(Yal

ova

– Ka

ram

urse

l) ju

nctio

n (n

ew

brid

ge)

131,

420

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-22

Ista

nbul

– Iz

mir

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 2:

(Yal

ova

– Ka

ram

urse

l) ju

nctio

n –

Orh

anga

zi30

307

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-23

Ger

ede

– M

erzi

fon,

Sec

tion

1: G

ered

e –

15. D

ivis

ion

bord

er75

6820

0520

1210

0

TU-M

-24

Ger

ede

– M

erzi

fon,

Sec

tion

2: 4

. Div

isio

n bo

rder

– Il

gaz

junc

tion

– (K

asta

mon

u-

Korg

un) j

unct

ion

5838

2008

2013

100

TU-M

-25

Ger

ede

– M

erzi

fon,

Sec

tion

3: (K

asta

mon

u –

Korg

un) j

unct

ion

– To

sya

– 7/

15 D

ivis

ion

bord

er66

4420

0820

1310

0

TU-M

-26

Ger

ede

– M

erzi

fon,

Sec

tion

4: 7

/15

Div

isio

n bo

rder

– O

sman

cik

5738

2008

2013

100

TU-M

-27

Ger

ede

– M

erzi

fon,

Sec

tion

5: O

sman

cik

– M

erzi

fon

4928

2008

2013

100


98

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th (k

m)

Cost

(E

UR

×106 )

Star

t ye

arEn

d ye

ar

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

TU-M

-28

Am

asya

– R

efah

iye

junc

tion

284

401

2010

2014

100

TU-M

-29

Afy

on –

Kon

ya –

Ere

gli –

(Ank

ara-

Poza

ntı)

mot

orw

ay ju

nctio

n39

155

220

1020

1410

0

TU-M

-30

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 1:

Kın

alı –

Izze

ttin

4724

220

1120

1510

0

TU-M

-31

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay ,

Sect

ion

2: Iz

zetti

n –

Oda

yeri

2815

820

1120

1510

0

TU-M

-32

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay (i

nclu

ding

3rd

sus

pens

ion

brid

ge o

n Is

tanb

ul S

trai

t),

Sect

ion

3: O

daye

ri/Pa

sako

y95

1,20

020

1120

1510

0

TU-M

-33

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 4:

Pas

akoy

– G

ebze

4417

920

1120

1510

0

TU-M

-34

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 5:

Geb

ze –

Izm

it71

489

2011

2015

100

TU-M

-35

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 6:

Izm

it –

Aky

azi

7236

220

1120

1510

0

TU-M

-36

Nor

th M

arm

ara

mot

orw

ay, S

ectio

n 7:

Izze

ttin

– H

asda

l58

321

2011

2015

100

UKR

AIN

E

UKR

-M-1

Mot

orw

ay W

este

rn B

orde

r of U

krai

ne (K

osyn

y) –

Kyi

v, s

ectio

n Vi

nnyt

za –

Kyi

v (b

uild

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

)46

620

1120

1825

2525

25

UKR

-M-2

Mot

orw

ay L

viv

– Kr

akov

ets

(bui

ldin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce)

244

2009

2012

2525

2525

UKR

-M-3

Mot

orw

ay L

viv

– Br

ody

(bui

ldin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce)

178

2010

2012

2525

2525

UKR

-M-4

Mot

orw

ay fr

om R

US

bord

er (S

cher

baki

vka)

to th

e m

otor

way

Kyi

v –

Khar

kiv

– D

ovzh

ansk

y (b

uild

ing

and

mai

nten

ance

)15

520

1120

1825

2525

25


99

6.3

Railw

ay p

roje

cts

in t

he

revi

sed M

ast

er P

lan

Not

e 1:

New

pro

ject

s in

the

revi

sed

Mas

ter

Plan

are

indi

cate

d us

ing

bold

prin

t.

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

ALB

AN

IA

AL-R

-1Po

rto

Rom

ano

Port

(LPG

and

oil

term

inal

) to

Sukt

h st

atio

n13

24

AL-R

-4

Link

rai

lway

Lin

es –

bor

der

with

MKD

35

AU

STRI

A (N

ote

to fu

ndin

g: in

maj

ority

of c

ases

, 70

% o

f ban

k lo

ans

to b

e re

imbu

rsed

by

Sta

te)

AT-R

-2G

logg

nitz

– M

urzz

usch

lag,

new

tunn

el, r

ehab

ilita

tion,

saf

ety

conc

ept

421,

123

2002

2011

100

AT-R

-3G

oder

sdor

f – R

osen

bach

, Kar

awan

ken

tunn

el, u

pgra

ding

and

tunn

el s

afet

y23

109

100

AT-R

-4W

ien

– Se

mm

erin

g, u

pgra

ding

and

reh

abili

tatio

n of

acc

ess

to S

emm

erin

g ba

se tu

nnel

7568

5 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-5Br

uck/

Mur

– G

raz,

upg

radi

ng a

nd r

ehab

ilita

tion

5410

5 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-6G

raz

– Sp

ielfe

ld, c

onst

ruct

ion

of 2

nd tr

ack,

reh

abili

tatio

n an

d up

grad

ing

4965

4 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-7Pa

ssau

– W

els,

reh

abili

tatio

n an

d up

grad

ing

8118

9 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-8W

ien

– Br

atis

lava

, con

stru

ctio

n of

new

line

and

reh

abili

tatio

n of

exi

stin

g on

e45

348

2002

2011

100

AT-R

-9Tr

aun

– Se

lzth

al, r

ehab

ilita

tion

and

upgr

adin

g10

411

3 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-10

Sum

mer

au –

Lin

z, c

onst

ruct

ion

of 2

nd tr

ack

5513

8 20

0720

1110

0

AT-R

-11

Kora

lm p

roje

ct, n

ew li

ne G

raz

– Kl

agen

furt

125

2,98

8 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-13

Frei

lass

ing

– Sa

lzbu

rg, c

onst

ruct

ion

of 3

rd tr

ack

411

6 20

0720

1110

0

AT-R

-14

Kufs

tein

– W

orgl

– K

undl

, con

stru

ctio

n of

add

ition

al 2

trac

ks, u

pgra

ding

of e

xist

ing

line

651,

339

2012

2021

100


100

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

AT-R

-15

Linz

– W

ien,

con

stru

ctio

n of

61

km n

ew 4

-trac

k lin

e, a

dditi

onal

2 tr

acks

on

the

rem

aini

ng 1

27 k

m

188

4,78

4 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-16

Linz

– S

alzb

urg,

con

stru

ctio

n of

add

ition

al 2

trac

ks, u

pgra

ding

and

reh

abili

tatio

n12

427

6 20

0720

1110

0

AT-R

-17

Buch

s –

Inns

bruc

k, c

onst

ruct

ion

of 2

nd tr

ack,

reh

abili

tatio

n an

d up

grad

ing,

tunn

el

safe

ty13

738

1 20

0220

1110

0

AT-R

-20

Wie

n –

Bern

hard

stha

l, re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g78

95

2002

2011

100

AT-R

-21

Klag

enfu

rt –

Vill

ach,

new

line

con

stru

ctio

n38

196

2002

2011

100

AZE

RBA

IJA

N

AZ-

R-1

Reco

nstr

uctio

n an

d re

habi

litat

ion

of th

e Ba

ku –

Boy

uk –

Kes

ik (G

EO) l

ine

503

319

AZ-

R-2

Cons

truc

tion

of n

ew r

ailw

ay li

ne A

star

a –

IRN

8

BOSN

IA A

ND

HER

ZEG

OV

INA

BH-R

-1Re

habi

litat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g of

Sam

ac/B

osan

ski S

amac

– D

oboj

line

6240

20

150

00

0

BH-R

-2b

Reha

bilit

atio

n of

Sar

ajev

o –

Ploc

e lin

e, s

ectio

n Sa

raje

vo –

Bra

dina

4030

20

1120

120

00

0

BH-R

-3Sa

mac

/Bos

ansk

i Sam

ac –

Cel

ebic

i, m

oder

niza

tion

of s

igna

lling

sys

tem

BH-R

-4Sa

mac

/Bos

ansk

i Sam

ac –

Cel

ebic

i, m

oder

niza

tion

of te

leco

mm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

2011

2014

BH-R

-5D

oboj

– D

obrlj

in, t

rack

ove

rhau

l and

reco

nstru

ctio

n of

sec

tion

Dob

oj –

Josa

vka

to T

ER

stand

ards

7820

1020

11

BH-R

-6D

obrlj

in –

B. L

uka

–Dob

oj –

Tuz

la –

Zvo

rnik

, mod

erni

zatio

n of

sig

nalli

ng s

yste

m20

1120

14

BH-R

-7D

obrlj

in –

B. L

uka

–Dob

oj –

Tuz

la –

Zvo

rnik

, mod

erni

zatio

n of

tele

com

mun

icat

ion

syste

m20

1120

14


101

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

BULG

ARI

A

BG-R

-1El

ectri

ficat

ion

and

upgr

adin

g of

Plo

vdiv

– S

vile

ngra

d lin

e15

134

0 20

0020

1111

4445

0

BG-R

-3El

ectr

ifica

tion

and

reco

nstr

uctio

n of

Svi

leng

rad

– TU

R lin

e16

40

2007

2011

200

800

BG-R

-4M

oder

niza

tion

of V

idin

– S

ofia

– Ku

lata

line

480

4,80

0 20

0720

2020

080

0

BG-R

-5M

oder

niza

tion

of S

ofia

– Pl

ovdi

v –

Burg

as/V

arna

line

607

1,60

0 20

0720

1520

080

0

BG-R

-6M

oder

niza

tion

and

elec

trific

atio

n of

Rad

omir

– G

uesh

evo

line

8830

0 20

0920

1720

080

0

BG-R

-7Re

habi

litat

ion

of S

ofia

– Ka

rlovo

– Z

imni

tza

line

320

200

2007

2013

100

00

0

BG-R

-8M

oder

niza

tion

of S

ofia

– D

rago

man

line

4385

20

0820

1520

080

0

BG-R

-9Re

habi

litat

ion

of M

ezdr

a –

Gor

na O

ryah

ovitz

a lin

e20

630

0 20

0720

1320

080

0

CRO

ATIA

CR-

R-1

Reco

nstru

ctio

n of

sec

tion

Osi

jek

– St

riziv

ojna

(Vrp

olje

)48

44

2008

2013

CR-

R-2

Elec

trific

atio

n of

nor

th s

ectio

n Be

li M

anas

tir –

Stri

zivo

jna

(Vrp

olje

)79

25

2014

2015

CR-

R-3

Con

struc

tion

of 2

nd tr

ack

and

reco

nstru

ctio

n of

exi

sting

one

Dug

o Se

lo –

Kop

rivni

ca

– Bo

tovo

7951

0 20

0920

1510

0

CR-

R-4

Cons

truc

tion

of 2

nd tr

ack

Zagr

eb G

lavn

i Kol

odvo

r –

Hor

vati

1350

20

1720

18

CR-

R-5

Cons

truc

tion

of n

ew li

ne H

orva

ti –

Kras

ica

152

2,23

3 20

1120

21

CR-

R-6

Cons

truc

tion

of n

ew li

ne M

atuj

i – T

unel

Uck

a –

Boru

t44

421

2013

2021

CR-

R-7

Mod

ifica

tion

of e

lect

rical

trac

tion

syste

m M

orav

ice

– Ri

jeka

– S

apja

ne (S

krlje

vo –

Ba

kar)

129

65

2008

2011

100

CR-

R-8

Rem

ote

cont

rol s

yste

m, l

ine

Boto

vo –

Zag

reb

– Ri

jeka

329

2011

2021

CR-

R-9

Reco

nstru

ctio

n of

sig

nalli

ng a

nd s

afet

y de

vice

s of

Zag

reb

Mai

n St

atio

n18

20

1020

1217

83

CR-

R-10

Con

struc

tion

of 2

nd tr

ack

Zagr

eb –

Vel

ika

Gor

ica

1590

20

1420

23


102

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

CR-

R-11

Den

ivel

atio

n of

Zag

reb

mai

n st

atio

n an

d lin

e se

ctio

n th

ru Z

agre

b6

301

2018

2023

CR-

R-12

Cons

truc

tion

of n

ew d

oubl

e tr

ack

line

Zapr

esic

– H

orva

ti –

Dug

o Se

lo (b

ypas

s of

Za

greb

)64

436

2013

2016

CR-

R-13

Con

struc

tion

of 2

nd tr

ack

Dug

o Se

lo –

Nov

ska

8551

0 20

1620

20

CR-

R-14

Elec

trifi

catio

n w

ith A

C 25

kV/5

0Hz

of V

inko

vci –

Vuk

ovar

line

196

2014

2014

CR-

R-15

Stat

ion

reco

nstru

ctio

n an

d up

rade

of s

igna

lling

and

saf

ety

syste

m, O

starij

e –

Knin

–

Split

line

326

90

2008

2011

100

CR-

R-16

Reco

nstr

uctio

n of

Rije

ka ju

nctio

n4

40

2011

2021

THE

CZEC

H R

EPU

BLIC

CZ-

R-1

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Ben

esov

– C

eske

Bud

ejov

ice

120

1,40

0 20

0720

1638

2141

0

CZ-

R-3

Upg

radi

ng o

f lin

e St

ate

bord

er –

Che

b –

Plze

n11

766

9 20

0620

1442

2335

0

CZ-

R-4

Det

mar

ovic

e –

Mos

ty u

Jabl

unko

va54

505

2007

2014

4235

230

CZ-

R-7

Plze

n –

Prah

a10

91,

479

2008

2016

4223

350

THE

FORM

ER Y

UG

OSL

AV R

EPU

BLIC

OF

MA

CED

ON

IA

MA

-R-1

aC

onstr

uctio

n of

railw

ay K

icev

o –

Lini (

ALB

)80

200

2010

MA

-R-1

bC

onstr

uctio

n of

railw

ay K

uman

ovo

– D

eve

Bair

(BG

R)66

200

2010

MA

-R-3

Spee

d in

crea

se o

n se

ctio

ns V

eles

– Z

grop

olci

– D

emir

Kapi

ja21

615

0 20

0820

12

MA

-R-4

Mul

timod

al te

rmin

al a

t Stru

ga5

LITH

UA

NIA

LT-R

-1M

oder

niza

tion

of s

igna

lling

and

pow

er s

uppl

y on

Cor

ridor

IXD

, sec

tions

Pal

emon

as –

Ro

kai a

nd K

auna

s –

Kyba

rtai

41

2009

2014

8515

LT-R

-2Tr

ack

mod

erni

zatio

n on

Cor

ridor

IXD

, sec

tions

Pal

emon

as –

Rok

ai a

nd K

auna

s –

Kyba

rtai

8 20

0820

1285

15


103

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

LT-R

-3Tr

ack

mod

erni

zatio

n fo

r sp

eed

up to

160

km

/h o

n Ka

unas

– K

aisi

ador

ys li

ne89

20

1120

1385

15

LT-R

-4Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sec

ond

trac

k on

Pus

ynas

– P

aner

iai l

ine

(Viln

ius

stat

ion

bypa

ss)

9 20

1020

1285

15

LT-R

-5Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sec

ond

trac

k on

Kyv

iske

s –

Valc

iuna

i lin

e (V

ilniu

s st

atio

n by

pass

)39

20

1020

1285

15

LT-R

-6El

imin

atio

n of

cro

ssin

gs (b

uild

ing

of ro

ad o

verp

asse

s) o

n C

orrid

or IX

D20

1520

30

LT-R

-7El

imin

atio

n of

cro

ssin

gs (b

uild

ing

of ro

ad o

verp

asse

s) o

n C

orrid

or IX

B20

1520

30

LT-R

-8Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sec

ond

trac

k on

Tel

siai

– L

iepl

auke

line

19

2011

2014

8515

LT-R

-9Tr

ack

mod

erni

zatio

n fo

r spe

ed u

p to

160

km

/h o

n Ka

isia

dory

s –

Viln

ius

line

161

2015

2020

8515

LT-R

-10

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on K

ulup

enai

– K

retin

ga li

ne30

20

1120

1385

15

LT-R

-11

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

sig

nalli

ng o

n C

orrid

or IX

B, s

ectio

n Ra

dvili

skis

– S

iaul

iai

26

2010

2013

8515

LT-R

-13

Dev

elop

men

t of K

laip

eda

railw

ay n

ode

(mod

erni

zatio

n of

Dra

ugys

tes

stat

ion

trac

ks)

3 20

0920

1185

15

LT-R

-14

Dev

elop

men

t of K

laip

eda

railw

ay n

ode

(mod

erni

zatio

n of

Rim

ku s

tatio

n tr

acks

)7

2011

2013

8515

LT-R

-15

Dev

elop

men

t of K

laip

eda

railw

ay n

ode

(mod

erni

zatio

n of

Pau

ostis

sta

tion

trac

ks)

21

2011

2013

8515

LT-R

-16

Dev

elop

men

t of K

laip

eda

railw

ay n

ode

(mod

erni

zatio

n of

Kla

iped

a st

atio

n tr

acks

)29

20

1020

1485

15

LT-R

-17

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on P

aven

ciai

– R

uden

ai li

ne13

20

1220

1485

15

LT-R

-18

Elec

trific

atio

n of

Ken

a –

Kyba

rtai l

ine

2020

LT-R

-19

Elec

trific

atio

n of

Kai

siad

orys

– R

advi

liski

s lin

e20

24

LT-R

-20

Elec

trific

atio

n of

Rad

vilis

kis

– Kl

aipe

da li

ne20

24

LT-R

-21

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on P

lung

e –

Sate

ikia

i lin

e20

20

1220

1485

15

LT-R

-22

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on T

elsi

ai –

Dus

eiki

ai li

ne7

2012

2015

8515

LT-R

-23

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

sig

nalli

ng o

n Co

rrid

or IX

B, s

ectio

n Ka

unas

– K

aisi

ador

ys li

ne15

20

1220

1485

15

LT-R

-24

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

ctrifi

catio

n of

Pal

emon

as –

Kai

siad

orys

line

25

2010

2014

8515


104

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

LT-R

-25

Cons

truc

tion

of tr

affic

con

trol

cen

tre

22

2010

2013

8515

LT-R

-26

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on Z

eim

ia –

Luk

siai

and

Gim

boga

la –

Lin

kaic

iai l

ines

27

2011

2014

8515

LT-R

-27

Cons

truc

tion

of s

econ

d tr

ack

on S

ilain

iai –

Ked

aini

ai, G

aizi

unai

– J

onav

a lin

es a

nd

mod

erni

zatio

n of

sig

nalli

ng s

yste

m in

Jon

ava

and

Gai

ziun

ai s

tatio

ns47

20

1220

1585

15

LT-R

-28

Cons

truc

tion

of n

ew s

tand

ard

gaug

e (R

ail B

altic

a) o

n bo

rder

cro

ssin

g se

ctio

ns27

20

1020

1573

27

LT-R

-29

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

ETC

S-1

on th

e ra

il Co

rrid

or IX

D K

ena

– Ka

unas

2019

2022

LT-R

-30

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

ETC

S-1

on th

e ra

il Co

rrid

or IX

B Ka

isia

dory

s –

Klai

peda

2022

2025

LT-R

-31

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

ETC

S-1

on th

e ra

il Co

rrid

or IX

B Ra

dvili

skis

– J

onis

kis

2022

2025

LT-R

-32

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

ele

ctrifi

catio

n of

Viln

ius

– Ka

unas

line

2018

MO

NTE

NEG

RO

ME-

R-2

Reha

bilit

atio

n of

brid

ges

and

tunn

els,

mec

hani

zatio

n an

d tr

actio

n po

wer

sup

ply

33

2010

2012

POLA

ND

PL-R

-1M

oder

niza

tion

of E

-20

line

(Sed

lce

– Te

resp

ol s

ectio

n)12

026

8 20

0420

1025

75

189

2009

2015

3070

PL-R

-2M

oder

niza

tion

of E

-20

line

(Soc

hacz

ew –

Sw

arze

dz

sect

ion)

234

504

2012

2015

PL-R

-3M

oder

niza

tion

of C

-28

line

(War

szaw

a W

scho

dnia

– D

oroh

usk

sect

ion)

, vi

aduc

ts c

onst

ruct

ion

proj

ects

05

2010

2012

PL-R

-4M

oder

niza

tion

of E

30 li

ne (W

eglin

iec

– Zg

orze

lec,

Weg

linie

c –

Biel

awa

Dol

na

sect

ions

)39

103

2002

2010

2575

PL-R

-5M

oder

niza

tion

of E

30 li

ne (L

egni

ca –

Weg

linie

c se

ctio

n)71

194

2001

2010

2575

PL-R

-6M

oder

niza

tion

of E

30 li

ne (B

iela

wa

Dol

na –

Hor

ka s

ectio

n) a

nd c

onst

ruct

ion

of b

ridge

on

Nys

a Łu

zyck

a an

d el

ectr

ifica

tion

140

20

0920

14

PL-R

-7M

oder

niza

tion

of E

30 li

ne (Z

abrz

e –

Krak

ów s

ectio

n)58

354

2011

2015


105

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

PL-R

-8M

oder

niza

tion

of E

30/C

E30

line

(Kra

ków

– R

zesz

ów s

ectio

n)13

984

8 20

1020

1530

70

PL-R

-9M

oder

niza

tion

of C

30/1

line

(Tar

nów

– S

tróz

e se

ctio

n)13

13

2009

2011

PL-R

-10

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E59

line

(Dol

nosla

skie

Voi

vode

ship

bor

der

– Po

znan sec

tion)

104

640

2011

2015

4258

PL-R

-11

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E59

line

(Wro

cław

– D

olno

slask

ie V

oivo

desh

ip b

orde

r se

ctio

n)58

390

2006

2015

PL-R

-12

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

CE5

9 lin

e (M

iedz

yles

ie –

Szc

zeci

n se

ctio

n) 3

563

2004

2010

2575

PL-R

-13

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E65

/CE6

5 lin

e (S

wie

rcze

– M

ław

a se

ctio

n)60

453

2003

2012

3466

PL-R

-14

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E65

/CE6

5 lin

e (M

albo

rk –

Iław

a se

ctio

n)10

357

8 20

0320

13

PL-R

-15

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E65

/CE6

5 lin

e (G

dans

k –

Gdy

nia

sect

ion)

3924

8 20

0320

14

PL-R

-16

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

CE6

5 lin

e (Tc

zew

– P

szcz

yna

sect

ion)

58

05

2008

2010

PL-R

-17

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E65

line

(Opo

czno

– K

napó

wka

sec

tion)

161

191

2010

2013

PL-R

-18

Proj

ect a

nd d

evel

opm

ent o

f ETC

S 1

on E

65 li

ne (G

rodz

isk

Maz

owie

cki –

Zaw

ierc

ie

sect

ion)

224

17

2009

2013

5050

PL-R

-19

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

E75

line

Rai

l Bal

tica

(War

szaw

a Re

mbe

rtów

– S

adow

ne s

ectio

n)66

504

2011

2015

3565

PL-R

-20

Impr

ovem

ent o

f acc

essi

bilit

y to

Por

t of G

dańs

k (b

ridge

con

stru

ctio

n an

d do

uble

-trac

k ra

ilway

line

mod

erni

zatio

n )

12

105

2007

2014

ROM

AN

IA

RO-R

-1Re

habi

litat

ion

and

mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Cra

iova

– C

alaf

at10

742

2 20

1420

160

00

0

RO-R

-2Re

habi

litat

ion

of li

ne B

ucur

esti

– Vi

dele

– G

iurg

iu11

773

3 20

1420

160

00

0

RO-R

-4Re

habi

litat

ion

and

mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Bra

sov

– Si

ghis

oara

– C

urtic

i48

03,

143

2009

2015

00

RO-R

-5Re

habi

litat

ion

of li

ne B

raso

v –

Pred

eal

2625

0 15

085

0

RO-R

-6Re

habi

litat

ion

of li

ne P

rede

al –

Cam

pina

4819

9 20

0920

1225

075

0


106

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

THE

RUSS

IAN

FED

ERAT

ION

RU-R

-1Re

cons

truc

tion

of S

t. Pe

ters

burg

rai

lway

junc

tion

400

a20

1020

15

RU-R

-2Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sid

e tr

ack

in th

e pa

ssag

e Vy

borg

-Pas

sazh

irska

ya –

Bus

lovs

kaya

18

1,17

6 a

2015

RU-R

-3Co

nstr

uctio

n of

a n

ew li

ne P

etya

yarv

i – K

amen

nogo

rsk

6420

15

RU-R

-4Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sid

e tr

ack

in th

e pa

ssag

e Vy

borg

-Tov

arna

ya –

Kam

enno

gors

k40

2015

RU-R

-5El

ectr

ifica

tion

of S

osno

vo –

Kam

enno

gors

k –

Vybo

rg p

assa

ge (P

rimor

sk, V

ysot

sk)

2015

RU-R

-6Co

mpl

ex r

econ

stru

ctio

n of

Mga

– G

atch

ina

–Vey

mar

n –

Ivan

goro

d pa

ssag

e an

d ra

ilway

app

roac

hes

to th

e po

rts

loca

ted

in th

e so

uthe

rn c

oast

of F

inni

sh B

ay36

4 a

2015

RU-R

-7Co

nstr

uctio

n of

by-

road

aro

und

Sara

tov

junc

tion

80 a

2010

2015

RU-R

-8Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sid

e tr

ack

in th

e pa

ssag

e Vo

lgog

rad

– Ti

khor

etsk

aya

428

523

a 20

15

RU-R

-9Co

nstr

uctio

n of

sid

e tr

ack

in th

e pa

ssag

e Ti

khor

etsk

aya

– Ko

reno

vsk

6075

a 20

15

RU-R

-10

Cons

truc

tion

of s

ide

trac

k in

the

pass

age

Enem

– K

riven

kovs

kaya

2436

a 20

1020

15

RU-R

-11

Cons

truc

tion

of s

ide

trac

k in

the

pass

age

Tim

ashe

vska

ya –

Krim

skay

a11

215

0 a

2015

RU-R

-12

Cons

truc

tion

of s

ide

trac

k in

the

pass

age

Enem

(Afip

skay

a) –

Krim

skay

a23

31 a

2015

RU-R

-13

Com

plex

rec

onst

ruct

ion

of 9

km

– Y

urov

skiy

– A

napa

– T

emru

k pa

ssag

e24

1 a

2010

2015

RU-R

-14

Cons

truc

tion

of b

y-ro

ad a

roun

d Kr

asno

dar

junc

tion

168

a 20

15

RU-R

-15

Cons

truc

tion

of a

new

sta

tion

Razy

ezd

9 km

89 a

2015

RU-R

-16

Elec

trific

atio

n of

Rtis

hevo

– K

oche

tovk

a pa

ssag

e24

414

9 a

2015

RU-R

-17

Cons

truc

tion

of s

ide

trac

k in

the

pass

age

Akh

tuba

– T

rubn

aya

8399

a 20

15

RU-R

-18

Elec

trifi

catio

n of

Tru

bnay

a –

Aks

aray

skay

a pa

ssag

e36

518

5 a

2015

RU-R

-19

Cons

truc

tion

of th

ird r

ail-t

rack

s in

the

pass

age

Beka

sovo

– N

ara

822

a 20

15


107

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

RU-R

-20

Rest

orat

ion

of c

ross

ing

poin

ts in

Dno

– N

ovos

okol

niki

pas

sage

2 a

2010

2015

SERB

IA

SR-R

-1M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne B

eogr

ad –

Sid

– H

RV12

231

8 20

1520

216

SR-R

-2M

oder

niza

tion

and

cons

truct

ion

of 2

nd tr

ack

of li

ne B

eogr

ad –

Sub

otic

a –

HU

N18

267

0 20

0820

15

SR-R

-3C

ompl

etio

n of

con

struc

tion

(new

par

t) an

d re

cons

truct

ion

(exi

sting

par

t) of

Bel

grad

e Ra

il N

ode

5527

8 20

1020

25

SR-R

-4M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne B

eogr

ad –

Nis

to a

dou

ble-

track

line

244

850

2010

2024

3

SR-R

-5M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne N

is –

Pre

sevo

– M

KD b

orde

r15

753

0 20

1120

21

SR-R

-6M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne N

is –

Dim

itrov

grad

– B

GR

104

300

2008

2014

3

SR-R

-7M

oder

niza

tion

and

elec

trifi

catio

n of

line

Lap

ovo

– Kr

alje

vo85

85

2010

SR-R

-8M

oder

niza

tion

and

elec

trifi

catio

n of

line

Sta

lac

– Kr

alje

vo –

Poz

ega

139

88

2010

SR-R

-9M

oder

niza

tion

and

elec

trifi

catio

n of

line

Pan

cevo

– V

rsac

– R

OU

102

102

2009

2015

SR-R

-10

Reha

bilit

atio

n of

line

Beo

grad

– V

rbni

ca –

MN

E 28

740

0 20

0920

21

SR-R

-11

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Rum

a –

Zvor

nik

– BI

H28

740

0

SLO

VAKI

A

SK-R

-1M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne Z

ilina

– K

rasn

o na

d Ky

suco

u20

216

2009

2011

441

550

SK-R

-3M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne K

ysak

– K

osic

e16

363

2013

2017

170

504

SK-R

-4St

atio

n Ci

erna

nad

Tis

ou –

UKR

53

2009

2011

940

600

SK-R

-5M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne N

ove

Mes

to n

ad V

ahom

– P

ucho

v59

1,11

8 20

0920

1330

174

0

SK-R

-6M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne P

ucho

v –

Zilin

a39

564

2013

2017

190

810

SK-R

-8M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne Z

ilina

– K

ralo

vany

3940

3 20

1520

201


108

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

SK-R

-9M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne K

uty

– CZ

E7

82

2011

2014

390

820

SK-R

-10

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Kut

y –

Brat

isla

va71

388

2011

2017

180

802

SK-R

-11

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Kos

ice

– Ci

erna

nad

Tis

ou95

567

2009

2012

11

SK-R

-12

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Kra

lova

ny –

Lip

tovs

ky M

ikul

as

5643

2 20

1420

172

3

SK-R

-13

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Kro

mpa

chy

– Ky

sak

2978

8 20

1320

1716

084

0

SK-R

-14

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Lip

tovs

ky M

ikul

as –

Pop

rad

561,

182

2013

2017

12

1

SK-R

-15

Mod

erni

zatio

n of

line

Pop

rad

– Kr

ompa

chy

561,

403

2013

2017

11

SLO

VEN

IA

SL-R

-1M

oder

niza

tion

of li

ne P

rage

rsko

– O

rmoz

– P

roje

ct A

4095

74

26

SL-R

-2Re

cons

truct

ion

and

elec

trific

atio

n of

line

Pra

gers

ko –

Hod

os11

032

5

SL-R

-3C

onstr

uctio

n of

2nd

trac

k on

line

Mar

ibor

– S

entil

j – A

UT

1712

2

SL-R

-4a

Intro

duct

ion

of E

RTM

S/ET

CS

syste

m o

n Sl

oven

ian

rail

netw

ork

565

145

6535

SL-R

-4b

Intro

duct

ion

of G

SM-R

sys

tem

on

Slov

enia

n ra

il ne

twor

k1,

229

80

SL-R

-5M

oder

niza

tion

of e

xisti

ng li

ne K

oper

– D

ivac

a46

141

5941

SL-R

-7C

onstr

uctio

n of

new

line

Div

aca

– Ko

per

281,

200

SL-R

-8Co

nstr

uctio

n of

new

line

Lju

blja

na –

Kra

nj –

Jes

enic

e w

ith c

onne

ctio

n to

Lju

blja

na

airp

ort

SL-R

-9Cr

oss

bord

er li

ne T

riest

e –

Div

aca

481,

293

TURK

EY

TR-R

-1A

nkar

a –

Ista

nbul

Hig

h-Sp

eed

Railw

ay p

roje

ct53

32,

400

2003

2011

2575

00

TR-R

-2A

nkar

a –

Kony

a H

igh-

Spee

d Ra

ilway

pro

ject

212

500

2005

2012

100

00

0


109

Proj

ect I

DPr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Leng

th

(km

)Co

st

(EU

R ×1

06 )St

art y

ear

End

year

% fu

ndin

g se

cure

d fr

om fo

llow

ing

sour

ce

Nat

iona

lBa

nkG

rant

Priv

ate

TR-R

-3A

nkar

a –

Siva

s H

igh-

Spee

d Ra

ilway

pro

ject

450

910

2007

2013

100

00

0

TR-R

-4A

nkar

a –

Izm

ir H

igh-

Spee

d Ra

ilway

pro

ject

606

2,10

0 20

0820

14

TR-R

-5Bu

rsa

– O

sman

eli H

igh-

Spee

d Ra

ilway

pro

ject

278

390

2008

2014

1090

00

TR-R

-6Ye

rkoy

– K

ayse

ri H

igh-

Spee

d Ra

ilway

pro

ject

105

730

TR-R

-7H

alka

li –

Kapi

kule

Hig

h-Sp

eed

Railw

ay p

roje

ct23

11,

700

2010

2014

2575

00

TR-R

-8G

ebze

– H

alka

li (M

arm

aray

) Rai

lway

pro

ject

762,

000

2004

2011

100

900

TR-R

-9Bo

gazk

opru

– Y

enic

e, M

ersi

n –

Topr

akka

le, s

igna

lling

, tel

ecom

mun

icat

ion

and

stat

ion

exte

nsio

n42

514

0 20

0520

1215

850

0

TR-R

-10

Boga

zkop

ru –

Ulu

kisl

a –

Yeni

ce, M

ersi

n –

Ada

na –

Top

rakk

ale

elec

trifi

catio

n pr

ojec

t42

560

20

0920

1215

850

0

TR-R

-11

Irmak

– K

arab

uk –

Zon

guld

ak r

ehab

ilita

tion

and

sign

allin

g pr

ojec

t41

532

0 20

1020

1415

850

0

TR-R

-12

Eski

sehi

r –

Balik

esir

sign

allin

g pr

ojec

t32

810

0 20

1020

130

100

00

TR-R

-13

Eski

sehi

r –

Balik

esir

elec

trifi

catio

n pr

ojec

t32

870

20

1120

13

TR-R

-14

Band

irma

– M

enem

en s

igna

lling

pro

ject

341

100

2011

2013

TR-R

-15

Izm

ir (C

umao

vasi

) – K

arak

uyu

sign

allin

g pr

ojec

t39

013

0 20

1220

140

100

00

TR-R

-16

New

ferr

ies,

wha

rf r

ehab

ilita

tion,

set

ting

up o

f mai

nten

ance

and

rep

air

wor

ksho

p (L

ake

Van)

50

2006

2011

100

00

0

TR-R

-17

Sam

sun

– Ka

lin e

lect

rifica

tion

and

sign

allin

g pr

ojec

t37

855

20

1120

13

TR-R

-18

Kaya

s –

Cetin

kaya

ele

ctrifi

catio

n pr

ojec

t70

290

20

1120

13

TR-R

-19

Pehl

ivan

koy

– U

zunk

opru

ele

ctrifi

catio

n an

d si

gnal

ling

proj

ect

3010

20

1120

130

100

00

TR-R

-20

Kars

– D

ivrig

i sig

nalli

ng p

roje

ct57

820

0 20

1220

14

TR-R

-21

Kars

– A

ktas

new

railw

ay li

ne w

ith s

igna

lling

and

ele

ctrifi

catio

n sy

stem

s 7

616

6 20

0820

1110

00

00

a Con

vers

ion

rate

: 1 E

UR

= 4

5 R

UB

.


110

6.4 Analysis of projects and their classification

For the analysis and classification of revised Master Plan projects, a simplified evaluation method was developed, based on that used in the original Master Plan. The method applies principles of Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), and establishes preferences between options by reference to an explicit set of objectives, identified by the decision-makers. Measurable criteria were chosen to assess the extent to which these objectives had been achieved. These criteria were defined through observation, discussion and trial-and-error processes. In spite of an inherent subjectivity associated with this method, it may bring a degree of structure, analysis and openness to the decision-making process.

Its methodological framework was structured in three phases, i.e. identification, analysis and time period classification, in order to ensure the inclusion of all available projects, and employed a set of criteria reflecting the societal values, priorities and available resources of the participating countries as well as the viability of the projects and their international character.

Phase A — Identification

The identification phase entailed the selection of prospective projects primarily on the basis of their funding possibilities and secondarily on the basis of commonly-shared objectives of the national or international authority responsible as well as of the collection of available information/data regarding these projects.

Phase b — Analysis

The analysis phase had as an objective the derivation of scores (the degree of performance) for unfunded, or partly funded, projects to be used in the prioritization phase, and included the following components: • definitionofcriteria —twohyper-criteria;• measurementofcriteria —scores;• weighting/hierarchyofcriteria —Delphi/pairwisecomparison;• derivationoftotalscoreperproject(totalperformanceofproject).

Definition of criteria

The criteria were grouped in two clusters as follows.

Cluster A — Horizontal dimension: Functionality/coherence criteria • serves internationalconnectivity (reachesabordercrossingpointorprovidesaconnection

with a link that crosses a border);• promotes solutions to the particular transit transport needs of landlocked developing

countries;• connectslowincomeand/orleastdevelopedcountriestomajorEuropeanandAsianmarkets;• theprojectcrossesnaturalbarriers,removesbottlenecks,raisessubstandardsectionstomeet

international standards, or fills missing links in the network.

Cluster B — Vertical dimension: Socio-economic efficiency and sustainability criteria • hasahighdegreeofurgencyduetoimportanceattributedbythenationalauthoritiesand/or

social interest; • passestheeconomicviabilitytest;• hasahighdegreeofmaturity,suchthatitcanbecarriedoutquickly(i.e.projectstage);• financingfeasibility;• hasenvironmentalandsocialimpacts.


111

Measurement of criteria

The criteria were measured firstly using a “physical scale” either by direct classification according to available data/measurable characteristics and/or by quality attributes, provided by preference judgment from the national authority involved. To make the various criteria compatible, it was necessary to transform them into a common measurement unit, or in other words to transform them from a “physical scale” measurement into a common “artificial scale” measurement. This was carried out using a simple linear function, connecting threshold values of an artificial scale with those of a physical scale. The artificial scale chosen was 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest value.

Weighting/hierarchy of criteria

A pairwise comparison matrix in combination with the Delphi method was used for establishing the criteria weights, the sum of which had to be 1. For their establishment, the participating countries were requested through their National Coordinators to provide their own weight with an appropriate justification.

Derivation of total score per project

The total score of each project was calculated by the consultant based on multi-attribute utility theory.

Phase C — Time period classification

The time period classification phase resulted in the selection of projects according to their performance score on the basis of which projects were classified into four time period classes (1, 2, 3 and 4), each related to a specified time horizon:

Class 1 — projects started before 2011;Class 2 — projects which are expected to start before 2015; Class 3 — projects which are expected to start before 2020;Class 4 — projects which are expected to start after 2020, and projects for which sufficient

data are not available.

Evaluation results

The results of evaluation of the motorway/road projects with the respective data are contained in the TEM and TER revised Master Plan final report, Volume II “Financing of road and rail infrastructure for the TEM and TER Master Plan revision”. According to these results, the total number of evaluated projects reached 367, with a total cost of EUR 100,881 × 106. Out of this number, 94 were completed. From the remaining 273 motorway/road projects, 227 belonged to Class 1, 3 to Class 2, 20 to Class 3 and 23 to Class 4. In Annex III of Volume II, these projects were analysed in detail also with respect to their construction costs, and the GDP and national budget of the individual countries. Volume II of the final report also contains considerations regarding funding and recommendations addressed to some of the participating countries.

It has not been possible to apply the methodology described above to all motorway/road Master Plan projects and nor has it been possible to apply it to any of the rail projects. The timing of the realization of any project is not only dependent on societal values, political priorities, financing feasibility and the international importance of the project. It may also depend on the design stage, the results of the environmental impact assessment analysis, decisions related to the territorial location of the project, the possibilities for land acquisition, the availability of a construction permit and funds, etc. The realistic start and end years for the implementation of all (road and rail) revision projects, taking all the relevant aspects into account, are stated in the respective columns of the tables in chapters 6.2 and 6.3, thus indicating de facto the real project time priorities.


112


113

7. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISED MASTER PLAN PROJECTS

Owing to the complexity of the transport infrastructure funding arrangements and of the multitude of their possible technical and institutional aspects, the funding considerations for revised Master Plan projects is dealt with in detail in Volume II “Financing of road and rail infrastructure for the TEM and TER Master Plan revision” of this final report. Volume II includes the identification of possible sources of funding for road and rail projects as well as the eligibility criteria and required procedures to be followed in order to receive the needed funds.

Volume II, Annex III “How to ensure financing for road projects in the Master Plan” presents these funding sources, criteria and procedures and how to obtain them, together with concrete and detailed recommendations specifically tailored to actual motorway/road projects for which funding has not yet been fully secured.

Volume II, Annex IV “Road financing in Europe and recommendations for the financing of road projects in the Master Plan” provides an up-to-date review of the literature and practices concerning road financing in Europe. It presents a summary of the various means and methods available for securing financing of motorway/road projects, taking into consideration the information collected from the participating countries, and formulates some recommendations for the countries which were engaged in the TEM component of the Master Plan revision.

Volume II, Annex V “Financing the railway infrastructure in the revised Master Plan” deals with the present and future ways of funding of railway infrastructure, and the identification of possible sources, criteria and procedures for obtaining the needed funds. It further provides an overview of costs of railway infrastructure and instruments for railway financing, and formulates recommendations with regard to financial sources for railway construction, improvement of planning and preparation of decisions for a greater efficiency of the rail infrastructure. It also proposes an organizational model for the operation and financing of this infrastructure. In addition, it contains selected examples of current European rail funding experience and practices.

Volume II, Annex VI “Funding considerations for railway infrastructure projects in the Master Plan” contains an overview of the railway projects in the revised Master Plan, their funding status and possible sources of funding. It also deals with the evaluation criteria for projects, funding considerations for non-secured or partly secured financing for projects, prerequisites for bankable projects, steps to be followed for ensuring funding and establishment of the technical and institutional actions required to secure missing funds.


114


115

8. STATUS OF bACKbONE NETWORKS IN 2010, 2015 AND 2020

In accordance with the terms of reference for the revision of the Master Plan, the need to document the development and expected status of the TEM and TER backbone networks in the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 was identified as a precondition for the identification of their bottlenecks. These status data were also of importance to, or indirectly connected to, other topics in this final report, e.g. border crossing issues, intermodal relationships and ITS, as well as to environmental aspects, safety and security.

8.1 Status maps of the TEM and TER backbone network

Status maps of the rail and road backbone networks in 2010, 2015 and 2020 were developed on the basis of the national master plans, data and assistance of the participating countries, the revision questionnaires, the TEMSTAT monitoring system, data from other relevant studies (in particular from the UIC ERIM and the TENCONNECT study), internet sources (especially with regard to the status of high-speed railways and their planned development), and available documentation and information gained from other sources (see Maps No. 11 to 13 for the TEM backbone network and No. 14 to 16 for the TER backbone network). In the majority of participating countries, there is a national master plan (strategy) of approved infrastructure development with a horizon extending up to the years 2013 to 2015. Only some of the participating countries have investment plans that extend to the year 2020, and these are (or may soon be) undergoing revision and change as a result of the economic recession. Therefore, for such cases, the infrastructure status shown on the 2020 status maps includes a considerable element of uncertainty and represents the most probable option based on the latest information available, as communicated by the representatives of the participating countries.

The TER status maps (No. 14 to 16) show sections with the design speed limits below 160 km/h and those with design speed limits equal to 160 km/h, 200 km/h to 230 km/h, 250 km/h and 300 km/h. The TEM status maps (No. 11 to 13) show sections with “motorways or dual carriageways in operation” in the given year (i.e. motorways, expressways and also dual-carriageway highways, sometimes even those for which access of slow vehicles is permitted and at-grade intersections). Distinction between these different categories of “dual carriageway” was not possible since in some countries the term “motorway” is not defined and the term “expressway” has a very different meaning from one country to another (sometimes it includes also two-lane roads).

8.2 Lessons learnt

The lessons learnt in the course of the elaboration of the status maps of the TEM and TER backbone networks can be summarized as follows.

Road• Insomecases,planningandevenconstructionofmotorwayconnectionsbetweenparticipating

countries is not properly coordinated, in particular with respect to their timing.• The concepts for the terms describing different categories of “dual carriageway” (and in

particular the term “expressway”) need to be clarified and if possible harmonized. More detailed information about the types of dual-carriageway communications is desirable within the framework of the follow-up to the Master Plan revision.


116

• Moredetailedandregulardataonroadinfrastructuredevelopmentwouldbeverybeneficial,especially those from the non-TEM member countries participating in the revision, since there is a certain lack of consistency between the infrastructure data from the TEM countries (through the TEMSTAT information and monitoring system) and those from the other countries (where no regular information flows have been established yet).

• It shouldbe further clarifiedhow realistic the futuremotorwaydevelopmentplans are; insome countries they seem quite ambitious when compared with the pace of past constructions.

Rail• Thereisnoregionalhigh-speedrailmasterplanfortheregioncoveredbytheTERMaster

Plan; in practice, the vast majority of the participating countries are planning the development and construction of high-speed railways taking account only of their national needs.

• Someoftheparticipatingcountriespossessnationalhigh-speedrailmasterplans,or futureplans for their construction are at different stages of approval.

• Atpresent,someparticipatingcountrieshavenoplansforanationalhigh-speedrailnetworkor its construction.

• Insomeofthedatareceivedfromtheparticipatingcountries,itisnotcleartowhichspeedcategory a particular rail section belongs. This is particularly the case with respect to the speed limit of 160 km/h: the term frequently used is “up to 160 km/h” and in some cases the respective data differ (e.g. for the same section, one source indicates a design speed of 140 km/h and another a design speed of 160 km/h).

• Inmanycases it isnot clearhow realistic (inparticular from thepointof viewof securedfunding) the future development plans are, especially as far as the 2020 status is concerned. For example, plans to construct in hilly terrain (where the current line allows speeds from 60 km/h to 80 km/h) hundreds of kilometres of railway links in 4 years to 5 years and with a design speed of 160 km/h seem to be extremely ambitious.

8.3 Conclusions

According to the TEM status maps (No. 11 to 13) and taking into account the remarks above, it is possible to assume that in 2020 the TEM Master Plan backbone network with motorway or dual carriageway sections would be in full operation in Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Turkey and, with a few exceptions, also in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, Serbia and Slovakia. There also seems to be some hope for its completion in the foreseeable future in Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Romania, while in the remaining participating countries the chance seems to be rather low.

According to the TER status maps (No. 14 to 16), railway sections with a design speed of 160 km/h exist at present in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey, i.e. in 9 out of the 25 countries participating in the revision. In 2015, this number is expected to grow to 14 and in 2020 to a total of 17 countries (Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine). It seems possible that in the region in 2020, a few more or less continuous 160 km/h main lines may exist, interconnecting most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe including Belarus, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. Because of the total absence of a regional high-speed rail master plan in the region (and taking into consideration the introduction of the 160 km/h speed limit on major international lines), the elaboration of such a master plan under the auspices of the UNECE, and possibly also of the European Commission (EC), could be the subject of one of the follow-up activities in the future.


117

Since the backbone network construction plans may be, at least in some countries, negatively influenced by the present economic recession, the results of which are difficult to foresee, it seems probable that the maps for 2015 and 2020 present the maximum possible, and the reality, especially in 2020, might be rather more modest than estimated. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure regular monitoring of the progress of the transport infrastructure construction and updating of the respective mid-term investment plans and long-term strategies.


118


119

9. bOTTLENECKS ON bACKbONE NETWORKS

9.1 Definition and identification

In general, there are different causes of bottlenecks. In road and rail transport, two types are usually distinguished: condition bottlenecks, where the poor infrastructure limits the speed, and capacity bottlenecks, where the heavy traffic flows cause delays. Bottlenecks can also be caused by other reasons, e.g. by border crossings and rail gauge changes, and temporary bottlenecks can be caused because of infrastructure repair works, accidents, landslides, earthquakes, floods etc. Special types of transport-related bottleneck represent the so-called social and environmental bottlenecks, i.e. cases where the transport infrastructure development is at odds with the priorities or goals of social or environmental legislation, institutions and groups. Most of the studies and documents dealing with bottlenecks in the transport sector concentrate on condition and/or capacity bottlenecks and the same approach has been chosen in the course of the revision of the Master Plan.

It is commonly accepted that a fully rigorous and theoretically founded basis for identifying bottlenecks is not available. On the whole, the identification of bottlenecks appears to have been done individually by each country, without reference to any common definition or parameter.

With respect to condition bottlenecks, the main indicators of the quality of an infrastructure are its type (e.g. limited access road, ordinary road, railway gauge, high-speed railway, signalling system, electrification), capacity (expressed in number of lanes or tracks, or number of cars, trains or passengers), axle load, permitted speed and restrictions. For capacity bottlenecks, there are many criteria proposed in various documents and studies. For example, the CEDR SG-TERN in its report “Bottlenecks in Road Networks” suggested that a road section may be considered as a bottleneck if over the period of one year, congestion occurs for more than 200 h or speed falls below the threshold value. The UNECE documents TRANS/WP.5/R.60 and TRANS/WP.5/2006/2 suggested that rail bottlenecks be identified by assessing whether the demand exceeded 60 to 80 trains/day for a single track and 2 × 100 trains/day to 2 × 200 trains/day for a double-track line. A motorway/road bottleneck would be a section where the traffic exceeded 12,000 PCU/day on a 2-lane road and 60,000 PCU/day on a 4-lane motorway for more than 80 days to 120 days a year. The WSP Finland Ltd pilot study “The Northern Transport Axis” made use of the same criteria for rail capacity bottlenecks, and considered a road as congested when the travel speed of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) decreased below 50 km/h. The road capacity limits suggested by the UNECE (above) together with the level of service concept of the US “Highway Capacity Manual” were also used as a basis for the identification of bottlenecks in the TEM component of the original Master Plan. Finally, according to the TENCONNECT report, the applied capacity of a 4-lane motorway was 4,600 PCU/h, corresponding to a level of service E. A practical lane capacity of a 2-lane road was considered to be about 1,400 PCU/h, reduced to about 950 PCU/h in urban areas. In rail transport, double-track sections with more than 230 trains/day or sections with mixed usage of tracks by high-frequent suburban trains, long-distance passenger trains and freight trains (or a combination of these factors) were considered as bottlenecks. In these calculations, the rail passenger and freight flows were transformed to train numbers using the conversion factors of 700 net tonnes/train, 350 passengers/train and 50 % share of passenger and freight trains.


120

Meanwhile, none of these documents and studies resulted in the identification of concrete bottlenecks in the TEM and TER region with the exception of the TENCONNECT study. At first, it presented the road bottlenecks (red colour) and missing links (green colour) in 2030 on the following schematic map of the major trans-national axes of “EU importance” of the south-western part of the region, based simply on the criterion of exceeding the capacity of the link in the two morning peak hours.

Following a more detailed analysis of road capacity bottlenecks, the study registered their existence only in large cities and agglomerations (Athens, Bucharest, Budapest, Florence, Gdansk, Istanbul, Katowice, Kaunas, Kiev, Milan, Moscow, Naples, Prague, Rome, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Vilnius, Warsaw, Vienna and Zagreb), but not on any intercity motorway/road links.

A similar schematic map of the south-western part of the region (see below) identified the rail capacity bottlenecks (red colour) on links where the average daily rail traffic was above 25,000 passengers/day. According to the map, rail capacity bottlenecks existed only in Warsaw, Vienna and in about 5 places in Italy. (In this map, the green colour again identifies the missing links.)


121

As a result of a more-detailed analysis of rail freight and passenger transport capacity bottlenecks, the TENCONNECT study analysed them in general and only on the links of selected main network. It identified bottlenecks in conurbations too, but in 2030 in Vienna and Milan only.

Bearing in mind that there is no generally accepted approach for the identification of bottlenecks, and taking into consideration all the findings and limitations described above, as well as the fact that the methodology used in the original Master Plan cannot be applied to rail bottlenecks, it was decided to identify road and rail bottlenecks in the revised Master Plan on a country-by-country basis from the data delivered by the participating countries. These bottlenecks are identified in chapters 9.2 and 9.3 and Maps No. 17 and 18.


122

9.2 Roads

Note: Under “Type”, CA = capacity bottleneck, CO = condition bottleneck.

No. / Country / Road section Type Remark

Albania

1. Durres (Plepa) – Kavaje – Rrogozhine CA second carriageway under construction

Austria

2. Tauern tunnel, second tube CO under construction

3. Roppen tunnel, second tube CO under construction

4. Pfaender tunnel, second tube CO under construction

5. Traismauer – Jettsdorf, Danube bridge CO under construction

6. Klaus tunnel, second tube CO programmed

7. Bosruck tunnel, second tube CO planned

8. Linz Hummelhof – Linz Urfahr CA planned

9. Schwechat – Sussenbrunn CA planned

10. Judenburg – St. Georgen CA second carriageway planned

11. St. Georgen – Scheifling CA second carriageway planned

12. Scheifling – Klagenfurt North CA second carriageway planned

Azerbaijan

13. Sumgayit – G.Z. Tagiyev CO reconstruction of bypass road

14. Ganja – Gazakh CO 4 road relocations needed

15. Salyan – Kura river bridge CO bridge reconstruction

16. Bilasuvar – Astara CO bridge reconstructions and short road relocations

17. Hadjigabul – Red bridge CA 2 more traffic lanes planned


18. Foca – Hum CO reconstruction planned

19. Stolac – Neum CO construction programmed

20. Border crossing Doljani CO new crossing under design

21. Border crossing Vardiste CO new crossing under design

The Czech Republic

22. Lovosice – Rehlovice CA under construction


23. Tabanovce – Kumanovo CO under construction


123


Georgia

24. Vale – TUR CO planned

Lithuania

25. Kaunas bypass (A5 – A6 road crossings) CA widening to 2 × 3 lanes planned

26. Jakai intersection in Klaipeda CA grade separation planned

27. Kaunas – Medininkai, Vilnius thoroughfare CA Vilnius southern bypass planned

Serbia

28. Beska Danube bridge CO under construction

29. Kelebia –Subotica (E 75 Y-branch) CO designed

Slovakia

30. Sverepec – Vrtizer CA under construction

31. Hricovske Podhradie – Dubna Skala CA under construction

32. Dubna Skala – Ivachnova CA under construction

33. Janovce – Jablonov CA under construction

34. Fricovce – Svinia CA under construction

Slovenia

36. Peracica – Podtabor CA under construction

37. Drazenci – Gruskovje CA under construction

Turkey

38. Izmit Bay crossing CA under construction

39. Istanbul Strait Crossings CA 3rd suspension bridge construction will start in 2011


124

9.3 Railways

Note: Under “Type”, CA = capacity bottleneck, CO = condition bottleneck.


Albania

1. Durres (Plepa) – Kavaje – Rrogozhine CA second carriageway under construction

Austria

1. St. Polten – Wien CA

2. Neunkirchen – Murzzuschlag CA Semmering base tunnel planned

3. Klagenfurt node CA

4. Schwarzach/St. Veit node CA

5. Attnang/Puchheim – Selzthal CA

6. Feldkirch – Bregenz CA

Azerbaijan

7. Osmanly – Astara CA second track under construction


8. Samac/Bosanski Samac border crossing CAagreement on cross-border and cross-country use of locomotives and crews

9. Capljina border crossing CA

10. Doboj Inter-Entity boundary line CA

Croatia

11. Zagreb junction CA

construction of rail bypass, new marshalling yard and other measures aimed at increased junction capacity

12. Dugo Selo – Koprivnica CA reconstruction and second track

13. Dugo Selo – Novska CA second track, new signalling

14. Zagreb – Karlovac CA construction of new line Horvati – Krasica

15. Moravice – Rijeka CA new electrification and signalling systems

16. Rijeka – Sapjane CO new electrification and signalling systems

Hungary

17. Budapest – Nagykanizsa CA

18. Budapest – Kelebia CA

19. Gyor – Boba CA

Romania

20. Predeal – Brasov CA rehabilitation and modernization programmed


125


The Rssian Federation

21. Bogdanovich – Bajenovo – Sverdlovsk CA parallel schedule of trains

22. Kungur – Perm – Cheptsa CO improvement of power supply

23. Mga, Bogdanovich, Vologda and Losta stations CO extension and rehabilitation of station tracks

24. Lyangasovo – Kotelnich CO improvement of technical state

25. Kanalnaya – Salsk CA

26. M. Gorkogo – Kotelnikovo – Korenovsk CA construction of second track

27. Timashevskaya – Krimskaya CA construction of second track

28. Krasnodar junction CA new double-track bypass

29. Krimskaya – Novorossijsk CA reconstruction of tunnel

30. Primyikanie – Saratov CA

31. Krotovka – Obsharovka CO improvement of power supply

32. Chelyabinsk main station CA improvement of railway sidings

33. Zamchalovo – Kiziterinka CA

34. Bekasovo – Nara CA

35. Bakasovo – Sandarovo CO improvement of power supply

36. Shilovo – Ryibnoe CO improvement of power supply

Serbia

37. Beograd – Subotica – HUN CA construction of second track

38. Beograd Rail Node CA construction of new part and reconstruction of existing one

39. Beograd – Nis CA construction of second track

Slovenia

40. Maribor- Sentilj – AUT CA construction of second track

41. Divaca – Koper CA construction of new line

42. Trieste – Divaca cross-border railway CO construction of new line

43. Ljubljana – Jesenice CA construction of new line

Turkey

44. Istanbul, Istanbul Strait crossing CAtunnel and upgrading of existing lines (Marmaray project) under construction

45. Tatvan – Van CA procurement of 2 new ferries ongoing


126


127

LIST OF MAPS

1. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision participating countries

2. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network

3. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network

4. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links

5. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network missing links

6. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — traffic flows in 2020

7. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — passenger flows in 2020

8. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network basic development scenario — freight flows in 2020

9. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — TEM revised Master Plan projects

10. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — TER revised Master Plan projects

11. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010



14. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network status 2010



17. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks

18. TER Master Plan Revision backbone network bottlenecks

19. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks interrelationships

20. TEM and TER Master Plan Revision backbone networks — common sections

21a. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance)

21b. TEM Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TEM backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries)

22a TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (terminals of international importance)

22b TER Master Plan Revision backbone network — interrelationships between the TER backbone network and relevant transhipment points (ports and ferries)


128


129


131


133


135


137


139


141


143


145


147


149


151


153


155


157


159


161


163


165


20


167


21


169


22


171


23


173


24


175


177

10. bORDER CROSSING ISSUES

Border crossings and related procedures may constitute significant transport barriers. The obstacles at borders result in difficulties in both road and rail services, and long waiting times at borders cause disruptions to logistical activities, increase their costs and reduce the efficiency of the global economy. While transport operators can waste time at these crossings, it is the shippers and ultimately the consumers who pay the price for delays. Since the elaboration of the original Master Plan in 2005, considerable improvement has been achieved through the extension of the Schengen area to all the EU member countries, and thus practically no problems have been observed at the internal borders between the 10 participating countries which are in the EU. In the region covered by the TEM and TER Master Plan, long waiting times lead to difficulties in the road transport services especially at border crossing with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, where the waiting time for trade and traffic operations is increasing rapidly. The growing rail transport at these borders is also hampered by the gauge difference.

As was the case for the original Master Plan, the inventory of border crossings and of the respective traffic flows was made as a first step, followed by the identification of border crossing problems and recommendations for alleviation of these problems.

The following border crossings identified in chapters 10.1 to 10.3 are located on the revised TEM and TER Master Plan backbone network.

10.1 Road border crossings on the TEM backbone network

Hani-i-Hotit (ALB) – Bozaj (MNE)

Qafe Thane (ALB) – Kjafasan (MKD)

Kakavija (ALB) – Ktismata (GRC)

Morine (ALB) – Zhur

Kapshtice (ALB) – Kristalopigi (GRC)

Meghri (ARM) – Nurduz (IRN)

Arnoldstein (AUT) – Coccau (ITA)

Salzburg (AUT) – Piding (DEU)

Nickelsdorf (AUT) – Hegyeshalom (HUN)

Kittsee (AUT) – Petrzalka (SVK)

Spielfeld (AUT) – Sentilj (SVN)

Karawanken tunnel (AUT) – Jesenice (SVN)

Samur (AZE) – Novogaptsakh (RUS)

Astara (AZE) – Astara (IRN)

Novaja Guta (BLR) – Novi Yarylovychi (UKR)

Ezjaryszcza (BLR) – Lobok (RUS)

Novaja Zjamlja (BLR) – Krasnoe (RUS)

Visici (BIH) – Metkovic (HRV)


178

Samac/Bosanski Samac (BIH) – Slavonski Samac (HRV)

Donje Vardiste (BIH) – Bratislava Basta (SRB)

Izacic (BIH) – Vaganac (HRV)

Gradiska/Bosanska Gradiska (BIH) – Novi Varos (HRV)

Hum (BIH) – Scepan Polje (MNE)

Kalotina (BGR) – Gradina (SRB)

Kapitan Andreevo (BGR) – Kapikule (TUR)

Kulata (BGR) – Promachon (GRC)

Russe (BGR) – Giurgiu (ROU)

Vidin (BGR) – Calafat (ROU)

Durankulak (BGR) – Vama Veche (ROU)

Gjusevo (BGR) – Kriva Palanka (MKD)

Svilengrad (BGR) – Ormenio (GRC)

Bregana (HRV) – Obrezje (SVN)

Gorican (HRV) – Letenye (HUN)

Knezevo (HRV) – Udvar (HUN)

Lipovac (HRV) – Batrovci (SRB)

Macelj (HRV) – Gruskovje (SVN)

Rupa (HRV) – Jelsane (SVN)

Plovanija (HRV) – Dragonja (SVN)

Rozvadov (CZE) – Waidhaus (DEU)

Krasny Les (CZE) – Breitenau (DEU)

Kralovec (CZE) – Lubawka (POL)

Cesky Tesin (CZE) – Cieszyn (POL)

Vernovice (CZE) – Gorzyczki (POL)

Lanzhot (CZE) – Kuty (SVK)

Dolni Dvoriste (CZE) – Wullowitz (AUT)

Mikulov (CZE) – Drasenhofen (AUT)

Gevgelija (MKD) – Evzoni (GRC)

Medzitlija (MKD) – Niki (GRC)

Sarpi (GEO) – Sarp (TUR)

Naohrebi (GEO) – Turkozu (TUR)

Larsi (GEO) – Verhnij Lars (RUS)

Leselidze (GEO) – Adler (RUS)

Tsiteli Khidi (GEO) – Red Bridge (AZE)

Sadakhlo (GEO) – Ayrum (ARM)

Kipi (GRC) – Ipsala (TUR)

Rajka (HUN) – Rusovce (SVK)


179

Parassapuszta (HUN) – Sahy (SVK)

Tornyosnemeti (HUN) – Milhost (SVK)

Zahony (HUN) – Chop (UKR)

Nagylak (HUN) – Nadlac (ROU)

Roszke (HUN) – Horgos (SRB)

Tornyiszentmiklos (HUN) – Pince (SVN)

Trieste Villa Opicina (ITA) – Fernetici (SVN)

Rabuiese (ITA) – Skofije (SVN)

Iselle (ITA) – Gondo (CHE)

Bardonecchia (ITA) – Foumeaux (FRA)

Ventimiglia (ITA) – Menton (FRA)

Kalvarija (LTU) – Budzisko (POL)

Salociai (LTU) – Grenctale (LVA)

Medininkai (LTU) – Kamenny Loh (BLR)

Kybartai (LTU) – Chernyshevskoye (RUS)

Dobau (MDA) – Platonove (UKR)

Pervomaise (MDA) – Kuchurhan (UKR)

Boljari (MNE) – Brodarevo (SRB)

Swiecko (POL) – Frankfurt (DEU)

Olszyna (POL) – Forst (DEU)

Jedrzychowice (POL) – Ludwigsdorf (DEU)

Barwinek (POL) – Vysny Komarnik (SVK)

Zwardon (POL) – Skalite (SVK)

Terespol (POL) – Kozlovichi (BLR)

Korczowa (POL) – Krakoviec (UKR)

Chyzne (POL) – Trstena (SVK)

Rattles (POL) – Mamonovo (RUS)

Hrebenne (POL) – Rava Russkaya (UKR)

Okopy Nowe (POL) – Izov (UKR)

Moravita (ROU) – Vrsac (SRB)

Siret (ROU) – Porubne (UKR)

Halmeu (ROU) – Djakove (UKR)

Albita (ROU) – Leuseni (MDA)

Kotyayevka (RUS) – Akkol (KAZ)

Donetsk (RUS) – Krasnodon (UKR)

Novoshakhtinsk (RUS) – Dovzhanskiy (UKR)

Kozino (RUS) – Zarutske (UKR)


180

Kalinovka (RUS) – Bachivsk (UKR)

Presevo (SRB) – Tabanovce (MKD)

Vysne Nemecke (SVK) – Uzhgorod (UKR)

Gurbulak (TUR) – Maku (IRN)

Habur (TUR) – Zakhu (Iraq)

Yayladagi (TUR) – Yayladag (SYR)

In order to determine the border crossing traffic flows and the average waiting times for passenger and freight transport, as well as to identify major problems causing the longer delays at these crossings, special enquiries focused on these topics were launched in the framework of the revision of the Master Plan. The resulting data and findings are summarized in Annexes VII and VIII of Volume II of the final report.

10.2 Railway border crossings of importance for international combined trans-port according to the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations)

Passau (DEU/AUT)

Salzburg (DEU/AUT)

Brennero (ITA/AUT)

Tarvisio (ITA) – Arnoldstein (AUT)

Ebenfurth (AUT) – Sopron (HUN)

Nickelsdorf (AUT) – Hegyeshalom (HUN)

Frankfurt/O. (DEU) – Kunowice (POL)

Horka (DEU) – Wegliniec (POL)

Kelebia (HUN) – Subotica (SRB)

Lokoshaza (HUN) – Curtici (ROU)

Presevo (SRB) – Tabanovci (MKD)

Dimitrovgrad (SRB) – Dragoman (BGR)

Episcopia Bihor (ROU) – Biharkeresztes (HUN)

Giurgiu (ROU) – Ruse (BGR)

Svilengrad (BGR) – Kapikule (TUR)

Vidin (BGR) – Calafat (ROU)

Kulata (BGR) – Promachon (GRC)

Kapikoy (TUR) – Razi (IRN)

Kittsee (AUT) – Bratislava (SVK)

Gdynia (POL) – Ystad, Stockholm (SWE) / Helsinki (FIN)

Chalupki (POL) – Bohumin (CZE)

Schirnding (DEU) – Cheb (CZE)

Bad Schandau (DEU) – Decin (CZE)

Bernhardsthal (AUT) – Breclav (CZE)

Summerau (AUT) – Horni Dvoriste (CZE)


181

Vainikkala (FIN) – Buslovskaya (RUS)

Orsha (BLR) – Krasnoye (RUS)

Gudagai (BLR) – Kena (LTU)

Meitene (LVA) – Sarkiai (LTU)

Zernovo (UKR) – Suzemka (RUS)

Zaverezhye (RUS) – Ezerischa (BLR)

Nesterov (RUS) – Kibartai (LTU)

Valuiki (RUS) – Topoli (UKR)

Gukovo (RUS) – Krasnaya Mogila (UKR)

Petukhovo (RUS) – Mamlyutka (KAZ)

Astrakhan (RUS) – Aksaraiskaya II (KAZ)

Orenburg (RUS) – Iletsk I (KAZ)

Trakiszki (POL) – Mockava (LTU)

Dorohusk (POL) – Izov (UKR)

Zwardon (POL) – Skalite (SVK)

Zebrzydowice (POL) – Petrovice u Karvine (CZE)

Medzylesie (POL) – Lichkov (CZE)

Cadca (SVK) – Mosty u Jablunkova (CZE)

Luky pod Makytou (SVK) – Horni Lidec (CZE)

Kuty (SVK) – Lanzhot (CZE)

Cierna nad Tisou (SVK) – Chop (UKR)

Sturovo (SVK) – Szob (HUN)

Rusovce (SVK) – Rajka (HUN)

Cana (SVK) – Hidasnemeti (HUN)

Plavec (SVK) – Muszyna (POL)

Magyarboly (HUN) – Beli Manastir (HRV)

Gevgelia (MKD) – Idomeni (GRC)

Dikea (GRC) – Svilengrad (BGR)

Stamora Moravita (ROU) – Vrsac (SRB)

Halmeu (ROU) – Deakovo (UKR)

Dornesti (ROU) – Vadu Siret (UKR)

Dogukapi (TUR) – Ahuryan (ARM) (closed)

Koprivnica (HRV) – Gyekenyes (HUN)

Savski Marof (HRV) – Dobova (SVN)

Tovarnik (HRV) – Sid (SRB)

Slavonski Samac (HRV) – Samac/Bosanski Samac (BIH)

Metkovic (HRV) – Capljina (BIH)


182

Sapjane (HRV) – Ilirska Bistrica (SVN)

Rosenbach (AUT) – Jesenice (SVN)

Spielfeld Strass (AUT) – Sentilj (SVN)

Sredisce (SVN) – Cakovec (HRV)

Hodos (SVN/ HUN)

Villa Opicina (ITA) – Sezana (SVN)

Terespol (POL) – Brest (BLR)

Medyka (POL) – Mostiska (UKR)

Zahony (HUN) – Chop (UKR)

Ungheni (MDA) – Cristesti Jijia Fr. (ROU)

Novosavytskoe (MDA) – Kuchurgan (UKR)

Kvashino (UKR) – Uspenskaya (RUS)

Veseloe (RUS) – Gantiadi (GEO)

Kars (TUR) – Akhalkalaki (GEO) under construction

Boyuk Kasik (AZE) – Gardabani (GEO)

10.3 Other railway border crossings on the TER backbone network

Apart from the AGTC railway border crossing points of importance for international combined transport listed above, the remaining railway border crossings located on the revised TER backbone network are as follows.

Bregenz (AUT) – Lindau (DEU)

Cobanbey (TUR) – Aleppo (SYR)

Fevzipasa (TUR) – Meydanekbez (SYR)

Galati Larga (ROU) – Reni (UKR)

Jennersdorf (AUT) – Szentgotthard (HUN)

Kotoriba (HRV) – Murakeresztur (HUN)

Kremenica (MKD) – Neos Kafkasos (GRC)

Kriva Palanka (MKD) – Gjusevo (BGR) under construction

Nusaybin (TUR) – Al Qamishli (SYR)

Qafe Thane (ALB) – Struga (MKD) under construction

Sadakhlo (GEO) – Ayrum (ARM)

Teryukha (BLR) – Hornostayivka (UKR)

Tuzi (MNE) – Hani-i-Hotit (ALB)

Volinja (HRV) – Dobrljin (BIH)

Vrbnica (SRB) – Bijelo Polje (MNE)

Yalama (AZE) – Samur (RUS)

Zvornik Novi (BIH) – Donja Borina (SRB)

Uzunkopru (TUR) – Pythion (GRC)


183

10.4 border crossing traffic

According to the results of the enquiry into the border crossings on the road backbone network, the highest annual average border crossing traffic (up to 15,000 cars/day) was registered at the borders between the old (Austria and Germany) and the new (Poland and the Czech Republic) EU member countries. High traffic volumes were also detected at the Czech/Slovak motorway border crossing Breclav/Brodske (about 12,000 cars/day). At the Schengen border crossings, no delays or problems have been reported. At other road border crossings, the average waiting times ranged from 5 min to 40 min for passenger cars and from 10 min to 50 mins for trucks at the borders of non-EU Balkan countries and Turkey. Longer waiting times (up to 90 min) were registered at EU borders with Belarus and Ukraine and in special cases in Turkey (for trucks carrying agricultural products and at the border crossing to Iraq in Habur). These average data of course do not reflect the fact that in individual cases, on particular days and at particular time periods, the real waiting times may be much longer. According to the IRU “Border Waiting Times Observatory (BWTO)” and other IRU documents, the waiting times at the Lithuanian borders with the Russian Federation (Kaliningradskaya Oblast) and Belarus reached up to 36 h in 2008, between Poland and Belarus 20 h to 40 h, and at the most overloaded crossing on the link Warsaw – Minsk – (Moscow) even 100 h in January 2008. A similar situation was registered at road border crossings between Poland and Ukraine, where a record waiting time of almost 150 h was faced at the crossing Korczowa/Krakovec (Krakow – Lviv). Border waiting times were also influenced negatively in Albania, Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina by the inadequate crossing infrastructure. At some crossings between Poland, Germany, Lithuania and the Czech Republic capacity problems were caused by high traffic flows.

The average rail border crossing traffic according to the results of the enquiry ranged between 2 freight trains/day at the Albania/Montenegro crossing Hani i Hotit and more than 100 trains/day at the Breclav crossing between the Czech Republic and Austria/Slovakia. At the Schengen border crossings, no delays or only very short ones (about 5 min for passenger trains and minor technical stops for freight trains) have been reported. At the other rail border crossings, the average passenger train waiting times were approximately 15 min in Croatia, 30 min in Serbia, 30 min to 40 min at the Romanian and Slovak borders with Ukraine, 90 min in Azerbaijan and about 100 min in Turkey. Freight trains waited for about 60 min on average in Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina, 180 min in Bulgaria, up to 90 min in Croatia, 75 min to 300 min in Romania, 220 min to more than 7 h (at the Finnish border) in the Russian Federation, 130 min to 240 min in Serbia, 30 min to 150 min in Slovakia, 55 min to 185 min in Slovenia and 45 min to 200 min in Turkey. At three railway border crossings (Hani i Hotit between Albania and Montenegro, and Halmeu and Galati Larga between Romania and Ukraine), there is no passenger traffic and six border crossings (all between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Turkey) are closed. In some cases, the data reported from the two sides of the border differed considerably, which could not be explained by diverse counting methodologies only; the same is valid for some road crossings border traffic data.

In their response to the revision questionnaire, some countries (e.g. Bulgaria and Turkey) mentioned the following border crossing problems: (i) delays arising from the supply of locomotives; (ii) delays of one train caused by the delay of another train; (iii) lack of personnel at the exchange border stations; (iv) delays faced during customs controls; (v) inefficiency in the exchange of information and certificates between the border stations and lack of technical equipment and personnel. The proposed measures to improve the situation inter alia include the following.


184

• Supplyofthenecessarytechnicalequipmentandpersonnelrequiredtocarryoutcontrolsininternational passenger trains during the train journey.

• Coordination between railway administrations, with exchange of information about trainoperations on their network and supply of locomotives, taking into account the arrival times of trains at the border stations.

• Minimization by railway administrations, through all the necessarymeasures, of delays intrains on their network, thereby avoiding further delays to other trains.

• Acceptancebyrailwayadministrationsonlyofthatluggagedefinedinthetariffs.• Efficiencyintheexchangeofthecertificatesissuedbytheborderstations,andminimization

of the handover formalities at stations.

Furthermore, a specific problem exists in the Russian Federation related to the location of rail customs supervision posts, which according to the respective Government decree of 2003 should be situated not further than 30 km from the border. This condition is not fulfilled in some cases with respect to freight trains, namely on the Moscow (border crossing to Ukraine) and on the North-Caucasus (border crossing to Azerbaijan) railways. It is planned, therefore, to construct new border crossing and customs infrastructure at the border crossing stations Suzemka and Samur respectively.

The main causes of waiting times in general are (i) visa issues (documentary and time requirements, validity), (ii) documentation and customs procedures, (iii) safety and security especially at road border crossings, (iv) congestions in road transport and (v) reloading procedures at rail crossings with different gauges.

10.5 border crossing barriers and problems

The existing border crossing barriers and problems in the region, broken down according to their origin (infrastructure, procedures, staff ), are the following.

TEM road border crossings

INFRASTRUCTURE• Unsuitableandinsufficientcapacityofbordercrossinginstallations• Obsoleteandpoorqualityfacilitiesortheirabsenceatterminals• Inadequateequipment• Absenceofseparatelanesfortransittrafficandemptyvehicles• Absenceofspeciallanesdedicatedtothetransportofdangerousgoods• Undersizedaccessroadstobordercrossings,andthepoorstateoftheseaccessroads• Insufficientparkingspace

PROCEDURES• Eitherinsufficientoroverly-complexcontrolprocedures• Discrepanciesbetweentheopeningtimesofcustomsandsanitary,phytosanitary,veterinary

and other services• Insufficientcomputerizationofcontrolprocedures• Non-applicationofelectronicdatainterchangeanduseofpaper-baseddocuments• Systematic control of all vehicles instead of control based on risk assessmentmanagement

techniques• Complexandoftencontentiousweighingproceduresforcommercialvehicles• Absenceofround-the-clockveterinaryandphytosanitarycontrols• Sometimesexcessiveburdenofnationaldocumentationrequirements• Lack of coordination between customs administrations of neighbouring countries and

authorities responsible for controls, in particular insufficient information exchange


185

• Non-compliancewithTIRprocedures• Breach or non-application of other international agreements and conventions related to

border crossing• Failurestoprovideadvanceinformationtotransportoperatorsandprivatesectortravellers• Changesofprocedurewithoutpriornotice• Proliferationoftaxes,dutiesandfees• Impositionof compulsorypay servicesusing “commercial” structures establishedatborder

crossing points

STAFF• Shortageofcontrolpersonnel• Lowproductivity• Limitedworkinghours• Lackofskillsandinadequatetraining• Inappropriatebehaviourofsomeofficials• Lackofcontinuityinmanagementofcontrolsduetofrequentstaffrotationatallpositions

TER rail border crossings

INFRASTRUCTURE• Unsuitableandinsufficientcapacityofbordercrossinginstallations• Obsoleteandpoorqualityfacilities• Inadequateequipment• Gaugedifferences

PROCEDURES• Lackofadequatetechnologyforhandlingthearrivalanddepartureoftrains• Delayeddispositionoflocomotives• Absenceofsuitablewagonsandtheirpositioningoneachsideoftheborder• Differenttrainlengthsoneachsideoftheborder• Positioningofemptycontainers• Insufficientcoordinationandmanagement• Phytosanitarycontrolproblems,e.g.withpallets• Slowimplementationofmeasuresaimedatmoreadequateinformationabouttrafficflows• Sloworinadequatetransmissionofdatainsideandoutsideofthecountry• Insufficientlegalbasisforestablishingrulesandrelationsbetweenrailwayadministrationsand

other interested institutions with regard to harmonization of border procedures• Differentcostcharacteristicsofrailway-ownedandprivatewagons• Incorrectdocumentationandconsignmentnotes• Differentdocumentationrules,languagesandcodes• Inaccuraciesinthecompletionofdocuments• Inadequatecooperationandlackofinitiativeatalllevels• Insufficientcomputerizationofcontrolandmonitoringprocedures• PoorinteroperabilitybetweenITsystemsofcustomsauthoritiesandrailwaycompanies

STAFF• Latearrivalsofstaff• Shortageofcontrolpersonnel• Lowproductivity• Lackofskillsandtraining


186

10.6 Solutions and remedial measures

Certain solutions and remedial measures for each group of problems are recommended below on the basis of the existing border crossing barriers and problems mentioned in chapter 10.5. Their implementation has to be considered for each border crossing point on the basis of an evaluation of the specificities of that border crossing. At the same time, decision-makers should anticipate the future growth of traffic flows and take relevant measures — especially infrastructure investments — well in advance. In these activities, it is indispensable for governments and all the authorities on both sides of a border to closely coordinate activities and to work together to avoid wasting limited resources and to reduce waiting times and alleviate barriers in the most efficient manner. The participating Governments should focus especially on accession to and implementation of all the related UNECE international agreements and conventions, which provide a common legal and technical platform for both EU and non-EU countries to achieve harmonized and efficient performance of border controls.

TEM road border crossings

INFRASTRUCTURE• Improvementinbordercrossingfacilities• Provisionofasufficientnumberofcontrollanesandwindows• Improvementinaccesstobordercrossingsbyupgradingaccessroads• Implementationofmoderninformationandtrafficmanagementsystems• Separationoftransitaccessandcontrollanesfromthoseforothertypesoftraffic• Creationofasufficientnumberofbordercrossinglanes

PROCEDURES• Introductionofcommoncustomspostsandperformanceofjointcontrols• Transfer of control procedures to sites inside the country or to the places of destination

(especially for transit traffic and for checks of drivers´ rest and driving times)• Introductionofsimplifiedcontrolprocedures• StrictcompliancewiththeprovisionsoftheTIRConvention• ImplementationandefficientuseoftheTIRConvention,e.g.viatheIRUTIREnvironmental

Product Declaration• Applicationofriskassessmentandmanagementtechnologies• Simplificationandharmonizationofvehicleweighingprocedures• Improvementincoordinationbetweencustomsauthoritiesofneighbouringcountries• Limitationoftruckconvoystojustifiedcasesonly• Improvementincooperationbetweenrespectivenationaladministrations• Considerationofreductionoftaxes,feesanddutieschargedatbordercrossings• Facilitationofissuanceofvisastoprofessionaldrivers• Improvementincommunicationwiththeprivatesector• Harmonizationand,ifpossible,reductionoftrafficbans

STAFF• Increaseinthenumberofstaffemployedatborders• Increaseintheavailabilityofcontrolservicesto24/24-hourand7/7-dayschemeswherever

justified

• Harmonizationandcoordinationofborderpostopeningtimes• Trainingofcontrolpersonnel• Motivationofcontrolofficials• Implementationofmeasurestofightagainstcorruption


187

TER rail border crossings

INFRASTRUCTURE• Increaseincapacityofbordercrossinginstallations• Improvementinthequalityofbordercrossingfacilitiesandequipment• Upgradeinrailwayinfrastructureatbordercrossingsandaccesslines

PROCEDURES• Improvementincommunicationamongallauthoritiesandbodiesinvolvedinbordercrossing

operations• Timelydispositionoflocomotives• Guaranteedavailabilityofsuitablewagons• Improvement in coordination between customs authorities of neighbouring countries and

between the respective national administrations• Harmonizationindocumentationrules,languagesandcodes• Computerizationofcontrolandmonitoringprocedures• Adoptionandimplementationofbestpracticesdevelopedinthefieldbyallpartiesinvolved

in border crossing operations• Organizationofbordercrossingoperationsinrunningtrains• Performance of non-railway procedures, e.g. customs formalities, at origin anddestination

stations where possible• Incombinedtransport,performanceofallcustomsandbordercontroloperationsatpointsof

loading and unloading• Improvementinqualityoftechnicalfacilitiesofbordercrossingpoints• Improvement in the interoperability between information technology systems of customs

authorities and railway companies• Introductionofperformanceindicatorstomonitorfutureprogressonbordercrossings

STAFF• Trainingofcontrolpersonnel• Increaseinproductivityofstaff• Implementationofmeasurestofightagainstcorruption• Implementationofmeasurestofightagainstcrime• Increaseinthenumberofcontrolpersonnelwherenecessary


188


189

11. INTERRELATIONSHIPS bETWEEN THE REVISED TER AND TEM bACKbONE NETWORKS AND RELEVANT TRANSHIPMENT POINTS

Two maps showing the interrelationship between the revised TEM and TER backbone networks were developed during the revision of the intermodal transport aspects of the Master Plan. The first map (No. 19) shows the layout of the road backbone network vis-a-vis the rail backbone network. The second map (No. 20) identifies the sections which are common to both networks (only sections longer than 100 km are indicated).

These common sections of the backbone networks may offer the best intermodal conditions for passenger and goods transportation, providing practically equal-distance opportunities for both rail and road transport modes as well as for combined transport, especially since the great majority of them are situated in flat terrain and almost all of them also form part of the AGTC (European Agreement on Important International Combined Transport Lines and Related Installations) transport lines.

11.1 Common sections of revised TEM and TER backbone networks

The common sections of the revised TEM and TER backbone networks are specified in the following table, which also shows the number of respective AGTC sections according to Annex I of the AGTC Agreement.

Country Section description AGTC No. Note

Italy

(Innsbruck – ) Brennero – Verona – Bologna – Ancona – Foggia – Bari – Brindisi C-E 45

(Arnoldstein – ) Tarvisio – Udine – Venezia – Bologna C-E 55

Verona – Trieste – Villa Opicina ( – Sezana) C-E 70

Austria

(Freilassing – ) Salzburg C-E 43

Salzburg – Wels – Linz – Wien – ( – Hegyeshalom) C-E 50

(Horni Dvoriste – ) Summerau – Linz C-E 55

(Bratislava – ) Kittsee – Parndorf – Wien C-E 63

Bruck a.d. Mur – Graz – Spielfeld Strass ( – Sentilj) C-E 67

Linz – Selzthal – St.Michael C-E 551

St. Michael – Bruck an der Dran – Mur C-E 65

Poland

(Frankfurt(O) – ) Kunowice – Poznan – Lowicz – Warszawa – Lukow – Terespol ( – Brest) C-E 20

(Görlitz – ) Zgorzelec – Wroclaw – Katowice – Krakow – Przemysl – Medyka ( – Mostiska) C-E 30

Warszawa – Katowice C-E 65

Warszawa – Bialystok – Sokolka – Suwalki – Trakiszki ( – Mockava) C-E 75

Warszawa – Lublin – Dorohusk ( – Izov) C 28


190


The Czech Republic

Brno – Olomouc – Prerov – Hranice na Morave – Bohumin C-E 40 section Brno-Prerov

not in AGTC

Brno – Breclav – Lanzhot ( – Kuty) C-E 61

Praha – Horni Dvoriste ( – Summerau) C-E 551

Slovakia

Cadca – Zilina – Poprad – Tatry – Kosice – Cierna nad Tisou ( – Chop) C-E 40

(Lanzhot – ) Kuty – Bratislava – Rusovce ( – Hegyeshalom) C-E 61

Zilina – Leopoldov – Bratislava ( – Kittsee) C-E 63

Hungary

(Wien – ) Hegyeshalom – Gyor – Budapest – Miskolc – Nyiregyhaza – Zahony ( – Chop) C-E 50

(Bratislava) – Hegyeshalom C-E 61

Slovenia

Ljubljana – Ilirska Bistrica ( – Sapjane) C-E 65

Divaca – Koper C-E 69

(Villa Opicina – ) Sezana – Ljubljana – Zidani Most – Dobova ( – Savski Marof) C-E 70

Croatia

(Ilirska Bistrica – ) Sapjane – Rijeka C-E 65

(Dobova – ) Savski Marof – Zagreb – Strizivojna Vrpolje – Vinkovci – Tovarnik ( – Sid)

C-E 70

Zagreb – Karlovac – Ostarije – Rijeka C-E 71

(Bogojevo – ) Erdut–Vinkovci–Strizivojna Vrpolje – Slavonski Samac ( – Samac/Bosanski Samac) and (Capljina – ) Metkovic – Ploce

C-E 771

(Magyarboly – ) Beli Manastir – Osijek – Strizivojna Vrpolje C 773


(Slavonski Samac – ) Samac/Bosanski Samac – Sarajevo – Capljina ( – Metkovic) C-E 771

Serbia

Beograd – Vrsac ( – Stamora Moravita) C-E 66

(Tovarnik – ) Sid – Beograd – Nis – Dimitrovgrad ( – Dragoman) C-E 70

Subotica – Bogojevo ( – Erdut) C-E 771

(Kelebia – ) Subotica – Beograd and Nis – Presevo ( – Tabanovci) C-E 85


(Presevo – ) Tabanovci – Skopje – Gevgelia ( – Idomeni) C-E 85

Kumanovo – Kriva Palanka( – Gjushevo) not in AGTC,under construction

Greece

(Gevgelia – ) Idomeni – Thessaloniki – Athinai C-E 85

(Kulata – ) Promachon – Thessaloniki C-E 855

Strymonas – Alexandroupolis – Dikea ( – Svilengrad) C 70/2


191


Romania

Arad – Timisoara – Craiova – Bucuresti C-E 56

Timisoara – Stamora Moravita ( – Vrsac) C-E 66

Pascani – Buzau – Ploiesti – Bucuresti – Videle – Giurgiu ( – Ruse) C-E 95

Bucuresti – Constanta C-E 562

(Vadul Siret – ) Vicsani – Suceava – Pascani C-E 851

Craiova – Calafat ( – Vidin) C 95

Bulgaria

(Dimitrovgrad – ) Dragoman – Sofija – Plovdiv – Dimitrovgrad Sever – Svilengrad ( – Kapikule) C-E 70

(Giurgiu – ) Ruse – Gorna Oriahovitza – Dimitrovgrad C-E 95

Sofija –Mezdra – Gorna Oriahovitza – Kaspican – Sindel – Varna C-E 680

Plovdiv – Zimnitza – Karnobat – Burgas C-E 720

Sofija – Kulata ( – Promachon) C-E 855

(Dikea – ) Svilengrad C 70/2

(Calafat – ) Vidin – Mezdra – Sofija C 95

Sofija – Gjushevo ( – Kriva Palanka) not in AGTC, under construction

Belarus

(Terespol – ) Brest – Minsk – Orsha ( – Krasnoye) C-E 20

(Kena – ) Gudagai – Maladzeczna – Minsk C 20/3

Minsk – Homyel – Markaviczy ( – Dobrjanka) not in AGTC

Ukraine

(Medyka – ) Mostiska 2 – Lvov and Kiev – Kharkiv C-E 30

(Cierna nad Tisou – ) Chop C-E 40

(Zahony – ) Chop – Lvov and Znamyanka – Dnipropetrovsk – Krasnoarmeisk C-E 50

(Novosavytskoe – ) Kuchurgan – Razdelnaya and Kiev – Khutor Mikhailovsky – Zernovo ( – Suzemka) C-E 95

Ternopil – Vadul Siret ( – Vicsani) C-E 851

(Dorohusk – ) Izov – Kovel – Sarni – Korosten – Kyiv C 28

Odessa – Usatovo – Razdelnaya C 95/1

(Markaviczy – ) Dobrjanka – Cernihyv – Nizyn not in AGTC


Chisinau – Bendery – Novosavytskoe ( – Kuchurgan) C-E 95


192



St. Petersburg – Moskva C-E 10

(Orsha – ) Krasnoye – Smolensk – Moskva – Nizhniy Novgorod C-E 20

Moskva – Ryazan C-E 24

Gukovo – Likhaya – Volgograd – Astrakhan ( – Aksaraiskaya II) C-E 50

(Zernovo – ) Suzemka – Bryansk – Moskva C-E 95

Ryazan – Kochetovka I and Rostov na Donu – Krasnodar – Veseloe ( – Gantiadi)Novorossiysk

C-E 99

Kaliningrad – Cherniakhovsk – Nesterov ( – Kibartai) C 20/3

Kochetovka – Gryazi – Povorino – Volgograd not in AGTC

Astrakhan – Makhachkala – Samur ( – Yalama) not in AGTC

Turkey

(Svilengrad – ) Kapikule – Istanbul – Haydarpasa – Ankara – Sivas C-E 70

Ankara-Sivas under construction of the

new line

Mersin – Adana–Toprakkale – Fevzipasa and Toprakkale – Iskenderun C-E 97

Lithuania

(Trakiszki – ) Mockava – Sestokai – Kazlu Ruda – Kaunas – Radviliskis – Siauliai – Joniskis ( – Meitene) C-E 75

(Nesterov – ) Kybartai – Kazlu Ruda and Kaisiadorys – Vilnius – Kena ( – Gudagai) C 20/3

Georgia (Adler – ) Gantiadi – Sukhumi – Senaki – Tbilisi – Gardabani ( – Boyuk Kasik) not in AGTC

11.2 Terminals of importance for international combined transport

The following terminals of importance for international combined transport, located or closely linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks, are listed in Annex II to the AGTC Agreement. The distance to the terminals not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the respective revised backbone networks is given in the “Remark” column.

No. / Country / Location Situated on backbone Remark


Austria

1. Linz-Stadthafen TEM, TER

2. Graz Süd/Werndorf TEM, TER

3. Salzburg Hauptbahnhof/Liefering TEM, TER

4. Villach Süd TEM, TER

5. Wels Hauptbahnhof TER motorway linkage to TEM 12 km

6. Wien Freudenau Hafen TEM, TER

7. Wien Nordwestbahnhof TEM, TER


193


Belarus

8. Brest TEM, TER

9. Minsk TEM, TER


10. Sarajevo TEM, TER

Bulgaria

11. Burgas TEM, TER

12. Dimitrovgrad Sever TEM, TER

13. Filipovo (Plovdiv) TEM, TER

14. Gorna Oriahovitza TER road linkage to TEM 7 km

15. Kaspichan TEM, TER

16. Ruse TEM, TER

17. Sofia TEM, TER

18. Stara Zagora TEM, TER

19. Svilengrad TEM, TER

20. Varna TEM, TER

Croatia

21. Rijeka TEM, TER

22. Slavonski Brod TEM, TER

23. Split TEM, TER

24. Zagreb TEM, TER

The Czech Republic

25. Brno TEM, TER

26. Lovosice TEM, TER

27. Praha Uhrineves TER road linkage to TEM 5 km

28. Praha Zizkov TEM, TER

Greece

29. Aghii Anargyri (Athinai) TEM, TER

30. Alexandroupolis TEM, TER

31. Patras TEM narrow gauge rail linkage to TER 203 km

32. Thessaloniki TEM, TER

33. Igoumenitsa TEM no rail linkage

34. Volos no road linkage to TEM 12 km

rail linkage to TER 54 km


194


Hungary

35. BILK Kombiterminal Budapest TEM, TER

36. Budapest Kikotö TEM, TER

37. Miskolc-Gomori TEM, TER

38. Sopron TER road linkage to TEM 38 km

39. Szeged-Kiskundorozsma TEM rail linkage to TER 41 km

40. Szolnok TER road linkage to TEM 64 km

41. Záhony TEM, TER

Italy

42. Bari-Lamasinata TEM rail linkage to TER 440 km

43. Bologna-Interporto TEM, TER

44. Brindisi TEM rail linkage to TER 560 km

45. Busto Arsizio no road linkage to TEM 20 km


46. Milano Greco Pirelli TEM rail linkage to TER 157 km

47. Milano-Rogoredo TEM rail linkage to TER 157 km

48. Padova-Interporto TEM, TER

49. Pescara-Porta Nuova TEM rail linkage to TER 198 km

50. Pomezia-Santa Palomba no rail linkage to TER 40 km

road linkage to TEM 240 km

51. Rivalta Scrivia TEM rail linkage to TER 210 km

52. Trieste TEM, TER

53. Verona-Quadrante Europa TEM, TER

Lithuania

54. Draugyst (Klaipeda) TEM, TER

55. Klaipeda TEM, TER

56. Paneriai (Vilnius) TEM, TER

57. Kaunas TEM, TER

58. Sestokai TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

Poland

59. Gdansk TEM, TER

60. Gdynia TER expressway linkage to TEM 26 km

61. Gliwice TEM, TER

62. Krakow TEM, TER

63. Lodz TEM rail linkage to TER 45 km

64. Malaszewicze TEM, TER


195


65. Poznan TEM, TER

66. Pruszkow TER road linkage to TEM 10 km

67. Sosnowiec TEM, TER

68. Warszawa TEM, TER

69. Wroclaw TEM, TER


70. Ungeny TER road linkage to TEM 58 km

71. Chisinau TEM, TER

Romania

72. Bucuresti TEM, TER

73. Constanta TEM, TER

74. Craiova TEM, TER

75. Oradea TER road linkage to TEM 120 km


76. Blochnaya (Perm) TER road linkage to TEM 920 km

77. Brjansk-Lgovskiy (Brjansk) TEM, TER

78. Kirov-Kotlasskiy (Kirov) TER road linkage to TEM 490 km

79. Kostarikha (Nizhniy Novgorod) TEM, TER

80. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Smolenskaya TEM, TER

81. Novorossiysk-Port TEM, TER

82. Rostov-Tovarnyi (Rostov-na-Donu) TEM, TER

83. Smolensk TEM, TER

84. St. Petersburg Port TEM, TER

85. St. Petersburg-Tovarnyi-Vitebskiy TEM, TER

86. Ekaterinburg-Passagirskiy TER road linkage to TEM 1,240 km

87. Kuntsevo II (Moskva) TEM, TER

88. Kutum (Astrakhan) TEM, TER

89. Moskva-Kievskaya TEM, TER

90. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Oktyabrskaya TEM, TER

91. Moskva-Tovarnaya-Paveletskaya TEM, TER

92. Voinovka (Tyumen) TER road linkage to TEM 1,560 km

93. Volzhskiy (Volgograd) TEM, TER

Serbia

94. Beograd TEM, TER


196


Slovakia

95. Bratislava TEM, TER

96. Cierna nad Tisou TER road linkage to TEM 40 km

97. Kosice TEM, TER

98. Zilina TEM, TER

Slovenia

99. Koper TEM, TER

100. Ljubljana TEM, TER

101. Maribor TEM, TER


102. Skopje TEM, TER

Turkey

103. Derince TEM, TER

104. Iskenderun TEM, TER

105. Istanbul TEM, TER freight village

106. Izmir TEM, TER

107. Mersin TEM, TER

108. Samsun TEM, TER

199. Bandirma TEM, TER

Ukraine

109. Chop TEM, TER

110. Dnepropetrovsk Gruzovoy TEM, TER

111. Kiev TEM, TER

112. Kiev-Lisky TEM, TER

113. Kharkov Chervonozavodskoy TEM, TER

114. Lvov TEM, TER

115. Lugansk Gruzovoy TEM rail linkage to TER 70 km

116. Usatove (Odessa) TEM, TER

As this overview shows, practically all of the AGTC international combined transport terminals are located on TEM or TER backbone networks, which indicates that the revised layout of these networks has been properly designed.


197

11.3 Other terminals of importance for international combined transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks

In the course of drafting the revised backbone networks of the Master Plan, additional terminals (freight villages, logistics centres and other intermodal transhipment points) were indicated by the participating countries. They are listed below. As for the AGTC terminals, for those not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the respective revised backbone network, the distance is given in the “Remark” column.


Austria

117. Container terminal Enns TEM, TER

118. Hafen Krems no road linkage to TEM 35 km


119. Terminal Bludenz TER motorway/road linkage to TEM320 km

120. Terminal Hall in Tirol TER motorway linkage to TEM 128 km

121. Terminal Kapfenberg TER expressway linkage to TEM 65 km

122. Terminal Lambach TER road linkage to TEM 12 km

123. Terminal St. Michael TER motorway linkage to TEM 58 km

124. Terminal St. Polten TEM, TER

125. Terminal Wolfurt TER motorway/road linkage to TEM 310 km

126. Brenner/Brennersee TER motorway linkage to TEM 280 km

127. Worgl TER motorway linkage to TEM 95 km

Azerbaijan

128. Baku International Sea Trade Port TEM, TER

129. Alat Sea Port (under construction) TEM, TER


130. Mostar (planned) TEM, TER

131. Banja Luka (planned) TEM, TER

132. Tuzla (planned) no road linkage to TEM 70 km


133. Brcko (planned) no road linkage to TEM 30 km


134. Samac/Bosanski Samac (planned) TEM, TER


198


Bulgaria

135. Lom no road linkage to TEM 50 km


136. Septemvri TER road linkage to TEM 38 km

Croatia

137. Osijek TEM, TER

138. Zadar TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

139. Solin TER rail linkage to TEM 15 km

140. Ploce TEM, TER

141. Pazin TEM rail linkage to TER 55 km

142. Vinkovci TER road linkage to TEM 25 km

143. Koprivnica TER road linkage to TEM 40 km

502. Spacva road linkage to TEM 20 km

The Czech Republic

144. Prerov TER road linkage to TEM 15 km

145. Paskov (Ostrava) no expressway linkage to TEM 10 km


Georgia

146. Poti TEM, TER

147. Batumi TEM, TER

148. Tbilisi TEM, TER

Italy

149. Genova TEM

150. Trieste TEM, TER

151. Mestre TEM, TER

152. Ancona TEM

153. Bari TEM

154. Brindisi TEM

Romania

155. Brasov TEM, TER

156. Arad TEM, TER


157. Moskva (Beliy Rast) TEM, TER planned

158. Ekaterinburg (Gipsovaya) TER road linkage to TEM 1,240 km

159. Samara TER planned, road linkage to TEM 410 km

160. St. Petersburg (Shushary) TEM, TER


199


161. Kaliningrad TEM, TER planned

162. Nijni Novgorod (Doskino) TEM, TER planned

163. Saratov TEM, TER planned

164. Chelyabinsk TER planned, road linkage to TEM 1,300 km

165. Yaroslavl TEM, TER planned

166. Ust-Luga TER road linkage to TEM 140 km,

167. Kazan TER planned, road linkage to TEM 400 km

168. Voronezh TEM, TER planned

500. Krymsk (Razyezd 9 km) TEM, TER planned

501. Ufa TER planned

Serbia

169. Novi Sad TEM, TER

170. Nis TEM ,TER

171. Subotica (planned) TEM, TER

172. Senta (planned) no road linkage to TEM 35 km


173. Sombor (planned) no road linkage to TEM 45 km


174. Sabac (planned) TER road linkage to TEM 25 km

175. Smederevo (planned) no road linkage to TEM 15 km


176. Prahovo (planned) no road linkage to TEM 145 km


177. Jagodina (planned) TEM, TER

178. Uzice (planned) TEM, TER

179. Krusevac (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 15 km

180. Kragujevac (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 30 km

181. Presevo (planned) TEM, TER

Slovakia

182. Sladkovicovo TER road linkage to TEM 20 km

183. Zvolen (planned) TEM rail linkage to TER 95 km

184. Ružomberok TEM, TER

185. Dunajska Streda no road linkage to TEM 50 km



200


Slovenia

186. Celje TEM, TER

187. Sezana TEM, TER

Turkey

188. Gokkoy (Balikesir) TEM, TER

189. Bogazkopru (Kayseri) TER road linkage to TEM 150 km

190. Hasanbey (Eskisehir) TER road linkage to TEM 100 km

191. Kosekoy (Izmit) TEM, TER

192. Palandoken (Erzurum) TEM, TER

193. Kaklik (Denizli) TEM, TER

194. Usak TEM, TER

195. Kayacik (Konya) TEM, TER

196. Tekirdag TER new railway line from Muratli

108. Gelemen (Samsun) TEM, TER freight village

197. Yenice (Mersin) TEM, TER freight village

The list of additional terminals of importance for international combined transport shows that the great majority of them are again located on the TEM and/or TER revised backbone network. These terminals and intermodal transhipment points are, or will preferably be, located on the major railway lines. Therefore, in some countries, where the main road or motorway link follows other routes (e.g. in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation), the majority are located on the railway backbone network only.

11.4 Ferry links/ports forming part of the international combined transport network

The AGTC lists those ferry links/ports in the region covered by the revised TEM and TER Master Plan as follows (the numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22).200. Samsun – Constanta (TUR – ROU)201. Mersin – Venezia (TUR – ITA)202. Gdynía – Ystad (POL – SWE)203. Gdynía – Stockholm (POL – SWE)204. Gdynía – Helsinki (POL – FIN)205. Calafat – Vidin (ROU – BGR) (until bridge completion)206. Kaliningrad – Lubeck (RUS – DEU)207. Draugyste (Klaipeda) – Mukran (Sassnitz) (LTU – DEU)208. Varna – Odessa (BGR – UKR)209. Varna – Novorossiysk (BGR – RUS)210. Varna – Poti/Batumi (BGR – GEO)211. Burgas (port) – Novorossiysk (BGR – RUS)212. Burgas (port) – Poti (BGR – GEO)


201

11.5 Other ferry links of high importance linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks213. Varna – Kavkaz (BGR – RUS)214. Kavkaz – Crimea (RUS – UKR)215. Kavkaz – Poti (RUS – GEO)216. Kavkaz – Samsun (RUS – TUR)217. Ilyichevsk – Poti (UKR – GEO)218. Ust-Luga – Baltiisk – Sassnitz (RUS – DEU)219. Varna – Ilyichevsk (BGR – UKR)220. Constanta – Derince (ROU – TUR)221. Tekirdag – Bandirma (TUR)222. Tatvan – Van (TUR)223. Tekirdag – Derince (TUR)

11.6 Other sea ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks

Note: The numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22.

Albania301. Durres302. Porto Romano303. Petroliferra (Vlore)

Azerbaijan304. Baku International Sea Trade Port305. Aliat International Sea Port (under construction)

Croatia306. Rijeka307. Zadar308. Sibeník309. Split310. Ploce311. Pula

Georgia312. Batumi

Greece313. Pireas314. Thessaloniki315. Patra316. Alexandroupoli317. Volos318. Kalamata319. Igoumenitsa320. Iraklio

The Russian Federation321. Murmansk


202

322. Belomorsk323. St. Petersburg324. Vyborg325. Rostov na Donu326. Tuapse327. Makhachkala328. Alya329. Astrakhan

Slovenia330. Koper

Ukraine331. Ilyichevsk

Turkey332. Haydarpasa333. Derince334. Iskenderun335. Izmir336. Antalya337. Ordu338. Giresun339. Trabzon340. Rize341. Hopa342. Ceyhan343. Bandirma344. Ambarli (Marport)345. Zonguldak346. Sinop347. Cesme

It should be noted that, according to the UNECE report on “Hinterland Connections of Seaports”, the ports of Pireas (Greece), Constanta (Romania) and Genova (Italy) are ranked in 12th, 14th and 15th place respectively among the 20 top EU container ports, . Similarly, on the basis of the volume of containers handled, the ports of St. Petersburg (the Russian Federation), Ambarli and Izmir in Turkey are in 13th, 14th and 20th place respectively among the top non-EU ports in the world.

11.7 Terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combi-ned transport linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks

The following terminals in inland waterway ports of importance for international combined transport, listed in Annex II of the “Protocol on Combined Transport on Inland Waterways” to the AGTC Agreement, are located or closely linked to the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.

Note: The numbers indicated correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22 followed by the number of the waterway indicated in Annex I to the “Protocol on Combined Transport on Inland Waterways”.


203

Austria400. C-P 80-33 Linz 401. C-P 80-34 Linz-Voest402. C-P 80-35 Enns-Ennsdorf403. C-P 80-37 Wien

Bulgaria404. C 80-01 Vidin405. C-P 80-56 Rousse

Croatia406. C-P 80-08-01 Osijek407. C-P 80-12-01 Slavonski Brod

The Czech Republic408. C-P 20-15 Decin409. C-P 20-16 Usti nad Labem410. C 20-01 Pardubice (planned)411. C-P 20-06-01 Praha

Hungary412. C-P 80-42 Budapest

Poland413. C-P 30 Gliwice Labedy414. C-P 30 Opole415. C-P 30 Wroclaw

Romania416. C-P 80-51 Turnu Severin417. C-P 80-57 Giurgiu418. C-P 80-14-03 Constanta

The Russian Federation419. C-P 50-02 St. Petersburg river port420. C-P 50-03 Podporozhie (Volgo-Baltijskiy canal)421. C-P 50-04 Cherepovets (Volgo-Baltijskiy canal)422. C-P 50-06 Nizhniy Novgorod423. C-P 50-09 Samara424. C-P 50-10 Saratov425. C-P 50-11 Volgograd426. C-P 50-12 Astrakhan427. C 50-03 Tolyatti428. C-P 50-02-01 Moskva Northern Port429. C-P 50-02-02 Moskva Western Port430. C-P 50-02-03 Moskva Southern Port431. C-P 50-01-01 Perm432. C-P 90-03 Azov433. C-P 90-04 Rostov na Donu434. C-P 90-05 Ust-Donetsk


204

Slovakia435. C-P 80-38 Bratislava436. C-P 80-41 Sturovo-JCP437. C 81-01 Sered438. C-81-02 Sala439. C 20/30-01 Devinska Nova Ves

Ukraine440. C-P 40-05 Kyiv441. C-P 40-09 Dnipropetrovsk

11.8 Other river/lake ports of high importance linked to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks

Note: The numbers correspond to those on Maps No. 21 and 22.

Austria442. Krems

Bosnia and Herzegovina443. Samac444. Brcko

Bulgaria445. Lom

Croatia446. Vukovar447. Sisak

The Republic of Moldova448. Giurgiulesti449. Bendery450. Ungheni451. Ribnita

Romania452. Calafat453. Cernavoda454. Braila455. Galati

The Russian Federation456. Kazan457. Yaroslavl458. Eysk

Serbia459. Beograd460. Novi Sad461. Smederevo

Slovakia462. Komarno


205

Turkey463. Van464. Tatvan

Ukraine465. Bilhorod-Dnistrovskiy466. Ismail467. Ust-Dunaisk468. Reni469. Kherson470. Zaporozhye471. Mykolaiyv

Maps No. 21 and 22 show the locations of the terminals, ferry links, sea and river ports and their positions vis-a-vis the TEM and TER revised backbone networks.


206


207

12. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

In a very general sense, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and services relate to the connection between information and communication technologies, vehicles and transport networks. There are many current ITS applications aimed at the intelligent and efficient use of existing motorway, road, railway, seaport and airport infrastructures, and new applications are emerging on a frequent basis. New technologies such as radio-frequency identification, satellite navigation (GPS, Galileo) and the global system for mobile communications (GSM), coupled with other ITS applications, may ease the interfaces between transport modes as well as cross-border traffic, and create greater possibilities for managing transport and the more efficient use of infrastructure, and thus create better overall service levels. Such new technologies and other ITS applications also make the logistics and the handling of goods more efficient, improve just-in-time deliveries and could also reduce congestion in cities. In railways, they can inter alia boost their competitiveness by reducing safety distances between trains and thus increasing line capacity. ITS applications can further enable accurate and continuous tracking of boxes, containers and pallets and, coupled with other technologies such as radio frequency identification devices, improve the management of supply chains and fleets in all transport modes. The potential of ITS could be increased greatly by their integration. Such integration requires a strategic framework to act as a basis for choices concerning their design and deployment as well as for investment decisions covering technical aspects as well as all organizational, legal and social issues involved. The ability for integration is a factor of growing importance since it represents a precondition for the much-needed interoperability of ITS at the European level.

12.1 ITS in the road sector

In the road sector, the ITS applications can be broken down into those intended for passenger cars, for public passenger transport, for trucks and lorries and for motorway and road infrastructure. The ITS for passenger cars include traffic information systems, wireless application protocol (WAP) services, traffic message canals (TMC), parking information and guidance systems, car navigation and location systems, uniform emergency calling systems, and advanced driver assistance systems (driver behaviour tracking, weather information, visibility improvement, collision warning or avoidance, speed and car distance control, voice recognition, etc.). Floating car data (FCD) and Extended floating car data (XFCD) systems make use of mobile phones and other sensors in cars as anonymous traffic probes, and convert these data into accurate traffic flow information. Data communication and exchange, information services for passengers, automatic vehicle location, speed control and public transport priority assignment systems, and electronic ticketing are some of the ITS applications for public passenger transportation. Systems for the management and tracking of HGV pools, the routing and tracking of vehicles carrying dangerous goods, and the intelligent location of accidents and for their investigation, as well as digital tachographs and weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems, belong to the category of the ITS for goods vehicles. These ITS result in the better management of vehicles and loads, improved safety and reduced vehicle wear, transportation times and fuel consumption.

For the purposes of the revision of the Master Plan, the ITS applications for infrastructure are of greatest importance. They include various technologies for electronic toll collection (ETC) which make it possible for vehicles to drive through toll gates at traffic speed, thus reducing


208

congestion at the gates. Another form of road pricing scheme is the high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes which are reserved for passenger cars with more than one occupant. Variable intelligent road signs and messaging also constitute an efficient way to fight congestion and improve safety. Intelligent systems could establish variable speed limits on motorways and roads, and dynamic sequencing of traffic lights in urban environments in order to enhance traffic flows. They could also be used to manage fees and tolls dynamically, and thus to distribute traffic flows over different times of the day and week. Automatically controlled cordon zones make it possible to collect congestion charges and fees from vehicles entering city centres. Automatic road enforcement systems, consisting of cameras and vehicle-monitoring devices, can detect and identify vehicles disobeying speed limits and other road legal requirements, and can contribute considerably to road safety. In the future, ITS may also encompass automated motorways/roads with driverless cars and platooning, where vehicles are coupled, driving very close to one another, thus increasing the capacity of the highway and contributing to the road safety at the same time.

12.2 ITS in the rail sector

In the rail sector, the main components of the ITS are the European Train Control System (ETCS) and the Global system for Mobile Communication for Railways (GSM-R), which both form part of the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System). In 2006, when the original TEM and TER Master Plan was published, the ETCS was installed only on one link in the region, namely on the Vienna – Budapest line in Austria and Hungary. At that time, over the complete length of the main European railway network, the ETCS was installed and in operation on only 1,340 km of line according to the UIC ERIM study. This figure should increase to 36,232 km (about 73 % of the network) in 2020, covering almost all main lines in the EU member and candidate countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan.

The coverage of GSM-R in actual service on the same main network in Europe in 2006 amounted to 8,676 km (about 18 % of the total length). At that time, in the region, it was in operation on only two short sections in the Czech Republic and on most of the main lines in Italy. According to the UIC ERIM study, it is planned to increase the GSM-R coverage to 43,882 km (about 88 %) in 2020, again covering almost all main lines in the EU member and candidate countries participating in the revision of the TER part of the Master Plan.

In the revision of the Master Plan, the participating countries were requested to convey their experience gained in the implementation of individual components of ITS and to describe any plans for their wider exploitation in the future, including possible coordination between the road and rail traffic in urban areas in order to mitigate congestion (including Park and Ride systems etc.). The information obtained is summarized in chapters 12.3 and 12.4 for road and rail ITS systems and services respectively.

12.3 Motorway/road ITS systems and services in the participating countries

Austria

To finance the construction and maintenance of the primary Austrian road network (motorways and expressways), Austria has successfully introduced a dual toll collection system consisting of a time-based toll sticker for passenger cars (in operation since 1997) and a distance-related electronic toll system for trucks and coaches (introduced in 2004).


209

Azerbaijan

The Intelligent Management System of the City Transport in Baku (the Baku city ITS project) is being implemented in the 2009 to 2011 period. This system will automate the management of bus stops, the regulation of intervals between buses, and traffic speeds, will gather information about road/street traffic and will fulfil additional functions. This system will not only cover the capital but also the whole of the Absheron peninsula.

The Czech Republic

ITS are widely implemented. Electronic toll collection is in operation on motorways, and Park and Ride systems are in use, for example at metro terminals in the capital city of Prague. The “Intelligent Motorway” project for traffic control on the section of the D1 motorway between Prague and Brno and on the Prague southern bypass expressway is under implementation. The Centre of Traffic Information provides real-time traffic information for all users of the road network, etc.

Romania

An ad-hoc group comprising experts from the ITS field and transport representatives has been established to examine the use of ITS, to collect data and to propose solutions to be implemented in the forthcoming years.

Serbia

The implementation of ITS applications intended to increase road safety, namely real-time navigation and information systems on the road network and traffic flows, has top priority. The “Strategy of Planning, Development and Implementation of ITS on the Roads in the Republic of Serbia” includes a number of projects of which the following implementations are the most important:• acentrefortrafficmanagement;• ITSapplicationsatringroadsandintunnels;• atrafficmanagementandroaduserinformation;• anRWIS(RoadWeatherInformationSystem;• anetworkofstationsformeasuringaxleloadsofmovingvehicles• a warning system aimed at addressing the safety of road users in areas where there are

construction works;• asystemforpreventingtheformationoficeonthecarriagewaysonbridges;• asystemformeasuringtheweightofcommercialvehiclesintransit;• coordinationoftrafficsignalsystems;• signalsforindicatingtheright-of-wayforemergencyinterventionvehicles;• aninfraredsystemforcheckingvehiclebrakes;• laptopandwirelesscommunicationsforinspectionalongtheroads;• systemsformonitoringcommercialvehiclesremotely;• informationonrestareas;• anti-rolloverwarningsystemsforcommercialvehicles.

Slovakia

The country’s first electronic satellite-based highway toll system, obligatory for all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, was launched on 1 January 2010. The National Highway Company (NDS) signed a EUR 716 × 106 contract with the supplier of ETC services, the SanToll-Ibertax consortium, on 13 January 2009 for construction of the system and its operation over 13 years, with a possible


210

extension for a further 5 years. The project covers not only motorways and dual carriageways but also, to a large extent, first-class roads. The solution of the ETC system, based on GPS-GSM technology, provides maximum flexibility in order to accommodate increases in the volume of freight transport and extension of the road network. There are about 60 distribution and contact points across Slovakia where drivers obtain so-called on-board units (OBUs). Through the use of the OBUs, the system monitors (via satellite) the position of vehicles, and automatically calculates the number of kilometres driven on toll roads. Tolls on first-class roads are lower than those on motorways and dual carriageways. Slovakia has decided to launch the tolling system on first-class roads to avoid the situation wherein heavy vehicles bypass tolled motorways by using the first-class roads.

Turkey

The General Directorate of Highways launched an ITS installation programme on its motorway network in the 1990s. Electronic toll collection was chosen as the primary ITS service to be installed as a first step, and all toll stations have been covered using a microwave-based motorway toll system and contactless smart card system. Three traffic control systems have been established in İstanbul, İzmir and Mersin with a view to managing the traffic and travel information systems. Various stretches of motorway network have been equipped with detection and dissemination systems including meteorological sensors, multi-lane vehicle detectors, travel-time detectors, surveillance cameras, communication systems, variable-message signs and other supplementary equipment. Tunnels longer than 500 m have been equipped with safety-related systems as well as emergency (exits or escapes). The ITS will be extended to the rest of the motorway sections as a function of budget availability. Additionally, new developments in ITS technology will be taken into consideration and the capacity of systems will be broadened.

12.4 Rail ITS systems and services in the participating countries

Austria

In the period 2002 to 2011, investments in the introduction of the European Train Control System (ETCS) system amounted to EUR 109 × 106, in Park and Ride projects to EUR 181.7 × 106 and in technological improvement projects and operational performance improvement projects to EUR 399.7 × 106. Moreover, investments in tunnel safety projects in the years 2002 to 2006 amounted to EUR 65.4 × 106, upgrading of railway terminals to EUR 72.7 × 106 and interconnections of railway and metro stations in Vienna to EUR 189.0 × 106.

Bulgaria

An ETCS level 1 has been implemented along the Plovdiv – Burgas railway line and is in operation since 2003. A strategy for the ERTMS implementation was developed in 2007, according to which the backbone network will be equipped with ERTMS facilities by the end of 2020.

Romania

In September 2007, Romania submitted to the EC its National Plan for the development and implementation of the ERTMS. The implementation of this system at national level is based on the TEN-T corridor strategy. The strategy envisages the implementation of this system along the IV Pan-European rail corridor to an extent of 15 % by 2015. The “Sectoral Operational Programme — Transport” (SOP-T) for the period 2007 to 2013 for modernization and development of the railway infrastructure along the TEN-T priority axis 22 (Curtici – Constanta) will aim at rehabilitating/upgrading/modernizing this TEN-T priority axis. The focus of the operations will


211

be on the northern branch (Curtici – Predeal), while all necessary preparatory studies will be envisaged for the southern branch (Arad – Calafat), with the aim of starting the work in the next programming period. In addition to modernizing the rail infrastructure, and in order to ensure effective interoperability, the project will include the introduction of the ERTMS/ETCS.

Slovakia

With respect to the implementation of the ERTMS (ETCS and GSM-R), Slovakia is modernizing the main Pan-European corridors, mainly Corridors IV, V(a) and VI. In accordance with the EC rules for funding and the interoperability directives, all modernized lines will be equipped with the ERTMS to provide interoperability. For Corridor V(a), the ETCS L1 was implemented from Bratislava to Nove Mesto nad Vahom by 2009, and that from Nove Mesto nad Vahom to Puchov will be implemented by 2015. Corridor VI (Zilina – Krasno – Cadca) should be equipped by the end of 2013 and Corridor IV by the year 2015. A pilot GSM-R project is being built from Bratislava to Senec and Nove Zamky, and should be put into service already in 2010. A GSM-R should be implemented on Corridor V(a) from Bratislava to Zilina by the year 2011.

Slovenia

The implementation of the ERTMS is being carried out in accordance with the “National Implementation Plan of TSI for Control-command and signalling subsystem”. The first implementation will be on the pilot sections of Corridor D (Corridor V). Following that, the conventional signalling will be replaced on the other sections of Corridor D and later on the rest of the Slovenian railway network.

Turkey

In order to improve the safety level throughout the whole railway network and to maintain a high safety level for new railway projects, Turkey is giving high priority and importance to the interoperability of the railway network for both domestic and international operations. Accordingly, Turkey has been investing in new high-speed railway lines throughout the country, all of which are equipped with ERTMS.

The Ankara – Eskisehir high-speed line has been in operation since March 2009 and is equipped with ERTMS ETCS Level 1. The Eskisehir – Istanbul high-speed line is under construction and will be equipped with ERTMS ETCS Level 1. There is a project to install a GSM-R system to cover the Ankara – Istanbul high-speed line and to upgrade the high-speed line to ETCS Level 2. The Ankara – Konya high-speed line is under construction and will have ERTMS ETCS Level 1 and Level 2. The third ongoing high-speed line railway project is Ankara – Sivas. Other high-speed lines, such as Ankara – Izmir, Bursa – Osmaneli, Yerkoy – Kayseri and Halkali – Kapıkule, will also be equipped with the ERTMS.

Additionally, there are upgrading projects on conventional lines, all of which also comprise installation of the ERTMS. On the Bogazkopru – Yenice and Mersin – Toprakkale line sections, ERTMS Level 1 has been installed within the scope of the ongoing “Signalling, Telecommunication & Station Extension” project. The “Irmak – Karabuk – Zonguldak Rehabilitation and Signalling” project will be put out for tender in 2011 and will be equipped with ERTMS Level 1 over its whole length. All other signalling upgrading projects and new signalling projects will provide ERTMS to be installed on corresponding line sections in Turkey.


212


213

13. ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND SECURITY ISSUES

13.1 Environmental impacts

According to the “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment” report (MEA 2005), over the past 50 years humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, raw materials and fuel. Transport activities contributed a great deal to these changes through their environmental impacts, namely through noise, vibrations and especially air pollution. The main components of transport emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), particulate matters (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), benzene and volatile components (CmHn). The construction and use of transport infrastructure may cause landscape fragmentation and the partitioning of ecosystems and of species populations; in urban areas they may lead to a reduction in the space available for other users. Moreover, transport activities contribute indirectly to negative environmental impacts through fuel and electricity production and the production and maintenance of vehicles.

All the adverse impacts of transport activities on the environment are clearly significant, and emissions from transport (in particular) constitute a very high share of the overall emissions. The main environmental impacts, such as air and noise pollution, are related to road traffic, but rail traffic also causes noise problems in the vicinity of lines with diesel traction, and near marshalling yards and rail and intermodal terminals. Since the traffic volumes are dominated by road and rail transport, the ultimate extent of the environmental impacts will depend also on the development of the modal split between these two modes of transport. Because rail causes less negative environmental impacts than road, it would be desirable, from the environmental and safety point of view, to increase the share of the rail transport as well as the share of combined transport, in particular along the backbone network links. Nevertheless, it remains questionable whether the objective of shifting freight from road to the more-environmentally-friendly rail is feasible at least in the near future, especially if the basic improvement in the rail infrastructure and the introduction of market-oriented economic reforms in the rail sector are delayed as has happened frequently in the past.

Decisions on the choice of transport mode depend on the quality of alternatives, prices and other market-relevant characteristics such as reliability, frequency of departure, duration of the trip, departure and arrival times, availability of information, safety record and security environment. As long as rail transport does not represent a viable economic alternative, significant shifts to it will not happen and the expansion of road transport will continue to generate significant negative externalities, especially taking into account the environmental consequences of more frequent road congestions.

One way to alleviate this problem and to slow down environmental degradation is the introduction of regulations which form part of the EU transport policy to mitigate potential conflicts between infrastructure and its users on one side, and the environment on the other side. According to the “Evaluation of the Common Transport Policy (CTP) of the EU from 2000 to 2008 and analysis of the evolution and structure of the European transport sector in the context of the long-term development of the CTP” of August 2009, policy measures should in general


214

target overall reductions in emissions rather than specifically modal shift. This could be achieved, inter alia, by the internalization of external costs, which in the transport sector would certainly bring important benefits, namely by taxing environmental degradation, establishing cap and trade systems, and estimating the true external costs (including life-cycle impacts), and using that information to fix criteria for green public procurement. Also, in some places, the application of appropriate charges may establish a sustainable balance between transport and environmental impacts.

According to the 2005 report of the EU HLG chaired by Loyola de Palacio, it is of utmost importance to assess the environmental impacts of transport infrastructure early, i.e. already at the stage of project definition and analysis. Infrastructure projects should be designed so that any severe or dangerous environmental effects are offset by mitigating measures. In the context of strategic environmental assessment, the policy option of promoting alternative modes to road transport ought to be considered always. In cases where such projects are to be funded or co-funded by international financial institutions, they are always subject to their standard environmental impact assessment procedures. In the framework of these procedures, the development banks not only consider the narrowly defined environmental criteria, but also take into account public health and concerns for preservation of the cultural heritage. Furthermore, the UNECE 1991 “Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context” stipulates that its contracting parties have to undertake environmental impact assessments at the project level of planned transport infrastructure activities. Where the proposed activity may have a significant adverse transboundary impact, the party of origin should notify any affected party as early as possible and enter into consultations concerning measures to reduce or eliminate such an impact. Furthermore, the 2003 “Kiev Protocol” mandates its parties to analyse the environmental consequences of their infrastructure development programmes much earlier than does the Convention, and to include extensive public participation. Finally, improvements in rail intermodality and in the combined transport infrastructure may also influence the share of transport modes, because the competitiveness of railways would then be more directly linked to that of other modes. Given the strong economic and transport links that exist amongst the participating countries of the region, the realization of environmental benefits associated with intermodality would require coordinated action at the international level.

In the following text, the most important transport environmental impacts, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and noise pollution, are analysed in more detail.

CO2 pollution

The increase in carbon dioxide emissions reflects a rapid acceleration of human activities, including transport, over the last 50 years. This increase is caused not so much by population growth, but is associated primarily with a rapid rise in per capita consumption by a fraction of the population. Because of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, average global temperatures have also risen as a result of the greenhouse effect. On the basis of baseline climate model projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that without wide-ranging measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global warming would accelerate with severe consequences, such as longer heat-waves and more frequent floods. According to the OECD simulations, if nothing is done and current trends regarding transport technologies and modal share are maintained, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may increase by 52 % by 2050, which would cause increases in mean temperatures of 1.7 °C to 2.4 °C, not taking into account the possible “snowball” effect wherein the reduced sea ice cover would change the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface and increased methane emissions from melting permafrost would accelerate climate change even more.


215

To slow down or limit this trend, the international community should take action now — at the moment does not seem to be the case if one considers the unsatisfactory results of the UN Climate Change Conference in 2009, and the consequences of global economic recession. Theoretically — according to the OECD simulations — climate stabilisation goals are affordable and could be achieved by 2030 through measures costing roughly 0.5 % of world GDP, such as imposing a tax of USD 25 (escalating at roughly 2 % a year) on every tonne of GHG produced. A more ambitious scenario, reflecting a phased-in tax set at the level necessary to limit atmospheric concentrations to 450 ppm of CO2-eq in the atmosphere, would even lead to a reduction in global emissions by about 40 % in 2050 compared to 2000 levels. However, in addition to the total cost of introducing the necessary measures, there would be the problem of their distribution amongst the countries, since should a straightforward global tax policy be used, developing countries would face far bigger GDP losses than would developed countries.

As far as transport CO2 emissions are concerned, transport is the second largest contributing sector to the EU27 greenhouse gases emissions after the stationary energy sector; for example in 2005, it accounted for 23.4 % of all EU27 emissions. Moreover, in the last three decades, CO2 emissions from transport have risen faster than those from all other sectors and will most probably continue to rise even more rapidly in the coming years. The vast majority of these emissions (76 %) are produced by the road transport sector. Both rail and road transport modes also contribute to global warming not only by their direct emissions of CO2, but also by the indirect ones such as emissions from oil refineries, and from the production of electricity used by electric trains, vehicle manufacture, maintenance, support and disposal as well as those caused by infrastructure construction and maintenance. Ideally, all these indirect emissions should be considered, but since their effects are generally negligible, in most cases only emissions from the vehicle operations themselves are taken into account. Nevertheless, indirect emissions from petrol and diesel production will gain in importance for vehicles complying with stricter emission standards such as Euro 2 or higher.

Actions and measures aimed at reducing transport greenhouse gas emissions should be focused on implementation of policies to control emission ratios and on technological innovations, in particular on the evolution of car technologies. For example, the introduction of lower speed limits in road traffic such as 100 km/h for motorways and 80 km/h for roads would reduce CO2 emissions by about 5 % through the elimination of very fast traffic. According to the EC TRANSvisions “Report on Transport Scenarios with a 20 and 40 Horizon” of March 2009, the implementation of the policy package (including pricing mechanisms to increase the average occupancy of cars, the load factor of trucks and the long-distance rail modal share) would reduce CO2 emissions by 2 % in 2020 and 22 % in 2050. Road investments aimed at reducing congestion on roads by 20 % would reduce these emissions by another 1 %. On the other hand, the study forecast that indirect CO2 emissions by vehicles not using fossil fuels will increase significantly due to the presence of fossil fuels in the primary generation of electricity.

Full implementation of the Euro 5 directive for cars, according to which vehicles with old technology would be replaced by vehicles with Euro 5 technology, would reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 2 %. More promising is the car design evolution: according to “Trends in Vehicle and Fuel Technologies” published by the EC Joint Research Centre — Institute for Prospective Technological Studies ( JRC-IPTS) in 2003, a likely evolution of car technologies may increase the market shares of hybrid cars by 27 %, of fuel cell cars by 10 % and of electric cars by 5 % by 2020 and bring about a 28 % reduction in CO2 emissions in fossil-fuel-based cars due to increases


216

in their efficiency. In the short term, the present economic recession and lower economic growth over the next years may result in slower growth of transport greenhouse gas emissions, provided that governments and companies do not cut their research and technical development investments, that the renewal of vehicle fleets is not significantly decreased and that the pace of technological innovations is maintained.

In order to reduce air pollution and thus to protect human health and the environment, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe determined target values for pollutants. In this Directive, most of the existing legislation has been merged and new objectives and limit values for particles were included. The respective standards and objectives in the Directive apply over different periods of time for each of the pollutants because the observed health impacts associated with various pollutants have different exposure times.

Noise pollution

Noise is the second most important transport environmental impact. Its levels are much more difficult to predict than those from CO2 emissions, since it represents a very local burden and non-linearities are involved in its aggregation and perception by human beings. It is recognized not only as a nuisance, but also as a serious health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), half of the citizens in European live in noisy surroundings and about third of them suffer from sleep disturbances during the night time. Road traffic noise also hinders communication and learning, contributes to fatalities and causes physical health problems including hearing loss, raised blood pressure and heart disease. It is generally understood that the noise levels causing health impacts are the following:

- above 40 dB(A) Leq to 50 dB(A) Leq may lead to significant annoyance;

- between 40 dB(A) Leq and 60 dB(A) Leq may disturb sleep;

- between 65 dB(A) Leq and 70 dB(A) Leq may be risk factors for school performance and ischemic heart diseases;

- above 70 dB(A) Leq may cause hearing impairment.

The European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise, the aim of which was to provide a common basis for tackling the noise problem in the EU. This Directive is based on the following principles.

1. Monitoring of the environmental problem by requiring competent authorities in Member States to draw up “strategic noise maps” for major roads, railways and agglomerations, using the harmonized noise indicators Lden (day-evening-night equivalent level) and Lnight (night equivalent level). These maps will be used to assess the number of people annoyed and sleep-disturbed throughout Europe.

2. Informing and consulting the public about noise exposure, its effects, and the measures considered to address noise.

3. Addressing local noise issues by requiring competent authorities to draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The respective measures to be used in the action plans will remain at the discretion of the competent authorities.


217

4. Developing a long-term EU strategy, which includes objectives to reduce the number of people affected by noise in the longer term, and provides a framework for developing existing European Community policy on noise reduction from source.

In this Directive, the EC did not set any common threshold values, but required the Member States to determine national target values not to be exceeded. The Directive established a way to identify areas where noise calculations need to be carried out. For roads, these are the areas where the main roads carry more than 6 × 106 vehicles per year. For railways, they are those areas with more than 250,000 inhabitants that are crossed by railroads carrying more than 60,000 trains/year.

In recent years, the EU Member States have transposed this Directive into national legislation. The elaboration of strategic noise maps along the main roads and across large agglomerations in each member country is to be followed by the drafting of specific action plans and implementation of the proposed initiatives. Following the implementation of the first action plans, each country should provide to the EC feedback on the effectiveness of the measures taken to reduce noise pollution. This effectiveness should not be measured in terms of a reduction in dB (decibels) only, but should also take into account the general feeling of improvement perceived by the inhabitants. The application of mandatory impact assessment methods in the EU member countries should significantly contribute to the reduction in noise pollution and improve the quality of life of its citizens.

In general, road and rail traffic noise nuisance can be reduced by (i) measures at the source, (ii) measures connected to the diffusion of noise, and (iii) measures undertaken at buildings. Abatement measures which reduce the traffic noise nuisance connected to new infrastructure construction include alteration of the horizontal and vertical alignment, erection of absorptive or reflective noise barriers and provision of low-noise road surface materials, which can reduce noise by up to 3 dB(A). In built-up areas, roads and streets carrying heavy traffic flows should be located as far as possible from residential areas, speeds on urban expressways and other major roads should be reduced, trees and shrubs should be planted as noise mufflers, buildings and dwellings should be sound insulated and appropriate traffic management systems should be employed. In addition to most of these measures, rail-structure-borne noise at the source could be reduced by making use of elastic pads for rail fasteners, elastic sleeper pads, ballast mats, elastic supports for slab tracks and troughs (mass-spring systems).

13.2 Road safety

Road traffic accidents and fatalities have an important social impact, whereas figures regarding rail accidents and fatalities are comparatively negligible. According to data provided by the WHO, about 1.2 × 106 people are killed and more than 50 × 106 are injured every year in road accidents. During the decade 1994 to 2004, in the UNECE member countries, each year there were on average more than 150,000 persons killed and about 6 × 106 injured in 4 × 106 road accidents. In Europe, road safety indicators are improving in general as a consequence of a number of policy measures implemented at both the EU and the national level. The steep decline in road deaths in the participating countries in the period 2008 to 2009, as well as in the first decade of the 21st century, is illustrated in the following table which is based on data of the IRTAD Group of the International Transport Forum (ITF).


218

CountryRoad fatalities

2008 2009 Evolution 2008 to 2009 Evolution 2000 to 2009

Austria 679 633 -6.8 % -35 %

The Czech Republic 1,076 901 -16.3 % -39 %

Greece 1,553 1,456 -6 % -29 %

Hungary 996 822 -17.5 % -32 %

Italy 4,731 4,050 -14.4 % -43 %

Lithuania 499 370 -25.9 % -42 %

Poland 5,437 4,572 -15.9 % -27 %

Slovenia 214 171 -20.1 % -46 %

Moreover, according to the WHO’s “Global Burden of Disease”, the number of road accident victims will decrease in these countries by 30 % over the period from 2000 to 2020. Meanwhile, this positive development will be more than offset in the same period by an 80 % increase in victims in developing countries (where about 90 % of the global road fatalities occur). Therefore, reduction in the number of traffic casualties remains a very important objective of transport policy and especially of the road infrastructure development, since newly-built roads and motorways with improved standards are assumed to have a positive effect on road traffic safety. With the aim of reducing road accidents and fatalities, the United Nations declared the period 2011 to 2020 the Decade of Action for Road Safety.

The following table, which summarizes data from the UNECE statistical database and from the ITF, shows for the countries participating in the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan, the number of road traffic accidents per 103 road motor vehicles in 2008, the number of road fatalities per 105 in 2009 and per 109 vehicle-km travelled on roads in 2008.

CountryAccidents per 103 vehicles

2008

Fatalities per 105 inhabitants

2009

Fatalities per 109 vehicle-km

2008 a)

Albania 3.5

Austria 8.4 7.6 9.0

Azerbaijan 3.5

Bulgaria 2.9

Croatia 8.0

The Czech Republic 4.2 8.6 19.4

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 14.2

Georgia 11.5

Greece 2.5 13.8

Hungary 5.5 8.2

Italy 4.6 7.9

Lithuania 9.5 11.0


219

CountryAccidents per 103 vehicles

2008

Fatalities per 105 inhabitants

2009

Fatalities per 109 vehicle-km

2008 a)

The Republic of Moldova 6.9 (2007)

Poland 2.5 12.0

Romania 2.3

The Russian Federation 5.7

Slovakia 4.1

Slovenia 7.8 8.4 12.3

Turkey 10.8

a) The indicator “fatalities per 109 vehicle-km travelled” represents a direct measure of the risk of road travel in the country, but most of the countries do not systematically collect data on vehicle-km.

Regarding the future development in the individual EU countries, the TEN-STAC study on “Scenarios, Traffic Forecasts and Analysis of Corridors on the Trans-European network” of September 2004 forecast the accident rates for 2020 taking into account the past and current accident rates, the impacts of new transport infrastructure as well as realistically achievable safety improvements. The results for the countries which took part in the revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan were as given in the following table.

Country

Fatalities per 109 vehicle-km2020

Injurous accidents per 106 vehicle-km2020

Motorways Other roads Total Motorways Other roads Total

Austria 5.43 9.42 8.28 0.13 0.53 0.42

Bulgaria 10.40 24.80 16.30 0.15 0.40 0.37

The Czech Republic 6.90 24.51 21.86 0.09 0.54 0.48

Greece 8.09 15.09 14.38 0.10 0.20 0.19

Hungary 8.16 25.83 23.18 0.09 0.45 0.40

Italy 4.63 11.59 9.46 0.14 0.47 0.37

Lithuania 26.20 36.65 34.87 0.43 0.47 0.45

Poland 15.45 26.94 25.68 0.10 0.30 0.29

Romania 12.07 36.40 34.13 0.10 0.13 0.12

Slovakia 7.47 32.09 28.80 0.06 0.48 0.43

Slovenia 6.83 18.15 15.91 0.12 0.68 0.52

Injuries and disabilities resulting from road traffic accidents put a significant drain on economies, typically consuming between 1 % and 3 % of a country’s gross national product per annum. In this connection, one of the crucial points is the calculation of the social costs of accidents. Globally, estimates in 2003 suggested that the economic costs of road traffic injuries amounted to USD 518 × 109 per annum. In developing countries, the costs were estimated to be USD 100 × 109, twice the annual amount of the development assistance given to developing countries. According to the British trade union Unite, the value per fatality was EUR 2.158 × 106 in 2003 values, consisting of a statistical life value of EUR 1.962 × 106 and health care costs of


220

EUR 0.196 × 106. For serious and minor injuries, the respective figures were 13 % and 1 % of these values.

Acknowledging the importance of the work focused on the improvement of road safety, the UNECE established already in 1950 the Ad Hoc Working Group on the prevention of road accidents which was replaced by the Working Party on Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) in 1988. Within the general mandate of the United Nations, WP.1 initiates and pursues actions aimed at reinforcing and improving road safety, developing and harmonizing traffic regulations and rules for road signs and signals and strengthening cooperation between member countries. The WP.1 developed the “Geneva Convention on Road Traffic”, the “Vienna Convention on Road Traffic” and the “Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals”, as well as the European Agreements supplementing them. WP.1 remains today the only permanent intergovernmental body in the United Nations dealing with road safety and is open to all countries of the world.

Moreover, the UNECE, concerned with the importance of improving safety in both road and rail tunnels, created two ad hoc Multidisciplinary Groups of Experts on Road and Rail Safety in Tunnels. Final reports produced by the two groups contain recommendations for minimum requirements concerning safety in road and rail tunnels respectively. These recommendations have been taken into account in the work of national authorities and international entities such as the EC.

In the period 2008 to 2009, the United Nations Development Account funded the project “Improving Global Road Safety: Setting Regional and National Road Traffic Casualty Reduction Targets”, which was set up to assist governments in low- and middle-income countries to develop regional and national road safety targets and to exchange experience in good practice for achieving these targets by 2015. The project emphasized the importance of knowledge transfer from high-income countries, where progress has already been made, to low- and middle-income countries where the effects of increased motorization on safety performance have not yet been mitigated by effective risk-reducing actions.

13.3 Transport security

The national economies of all countries are heavily dependent on transport and energy networks. Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the threat of terrorist attacks against critical transport infrastructures has emerged. It is increasingly recognized that all transport modes are at risk from such attacks and crimes. In these attacks, transport systems have been used either as a means or as a target. Since the safety of people and the integrity of critical infrastructures are at stake, security concerns in both international and national transport, and measures to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and to minimize their consequences, have become increasingly prominent. In addition to a considerable tightening of security, especially that in the container transport field, the strategic approach to national security has to include further improvements in the infrastructure and the regulatory environment influencing both the road and the rail sector. Although the fight against terrorism is of primary importance, security is also an issue with respect to common criminal acts such as the theft of vehicles, transported goods and dangerous substances, attacks on drivers and conductors, illegal immigration, smuggling and physical aggression in public transport vehicles. The need to protect passengers, drivers, personnel, vehicles, freight as well as vulnerable transport infrastructure is, therefore, becoming increasingly urgent.

The EC has recently funded “Counteract”, a research project focused on improved security against terrorist attacks, aimed inter alia at public passenger transport and intermodal freight


221

transport. The project reviewed the existing security policies, procedures, methodologies and technologies to identify the best practices, which in turn will be promoted throughout the relevant EU security community.

Acknowledging the importance of the transport security issue, the UNECE has paid great attention to the work on this topic. In 2007, a Multidisciplinary Group of Experts on Inland Transport Security (AC.11) was established to examine threats to inland transport security and to provide recommendations to UNECE Governments on how to tackle them. Amongst other things, the group prepared the document “Guidelines and Best Practices in The Field of Inland Transport Security”, published in Geneva in 2008.

Road

The leading international organization in the road transport security field is the IRU. The IRU has developed many important documents and reports on the topic, and these have greatly contributed to increased security and crime prevention in the road sector.

The report “Haulage Security in the EU and beyond: IRU Position” contained a variety of recommendations designed primarily to combat terrorism. The report stated inter alia that security cooperation between the public and private sectors can be extremely effective, and it made the following recommendations: the existing security/facilitation instruments offering both security and facilitation benefits, such as the UNECE TIR and the EU’s Common and Community Transit procedures, should be used to the maximum; “self-security” measures taken by the haulage industry should remain high on the agenda; security policies must be information-based; enhanced security should not reduce unnecessarily operators’ freedom; electronic advance customs declarations should not be implemented hastily and, in the case of road traffic at border crossings, a 24-hour pre-arrival notification to customs authorities is excessive. The IRU position is that the economic needs of transport organizations and entities should be balanced with the necessary security. The facilitation of transport and trade cannot be ignored, even when security considerations are high on the agenda.

The IRU “Position on Supply Chain Security” formulated proposals for increasing the level of security without impeding the free flow of trade and for establishing a common transport framework for Europe. These proposals included establishment of a mandatory system requiring EU Member States to create a security quality label (“secure operator”) to be awarded to operators who meet European minimum security levels in the land transport supply chain, and introduction of a voluntary scheme for operators to increase their security performance in exchange for incentives. The proposals further provided for four separate “security operators” within the security framework, with the following separate functions: the preparation of goods for shipment and shipment from the production site; the transportation of goods; the forwarding of goods; the warehousing, storing and inland terminal operation shipping.

The “IRU Resolution on Security in Road Transport” adopted by the IRU General Assembly in November 2002 included the following proposals for governments in addressing land transport systems. • Applyallpossiblepreventivemeasuresinthefightagainstinternationalterrorismandcriminal

activities at national and international levels in cooperation with the road transport industry. • Takeandguideeffectivemeasuresagainstcrimeringsspecializinginsmugglingandhuman

trafficking.


222

• Reinforce the control and application of national law and international conventions,permitting the identification and sanctioning of all beneficiaries of illegal activities.

• Providefairandhumanetreatment,aswellasallnecessaryassistance(legalandotherwise),to all commercial vehicle drivers and owners involved in the transport of illegal immigrants without their knowledge.

• Preservethetradefacilitationbenefitsprovidedbyinternationalcustomstransitsystems,suchas the common transit and the TIR systems.

• Increasetheefficiencyofstatecontrolandcrimepreventionbypolice,otherauthoritiesandlicensed special private organizations against smuggling and laundering of huge financial profits.

• Cooperate with the national organizations representing the transport industry, includingtrade associations, to exchange information.

• Increasethenumberofsecureparkingplacesandprovidemoreaccurateinformationontheirfacilities and location in cooperation with private business.

• Improvebordercrossingconditionsandfacilitiesinordertoreduceaccessbyterroristsandcriminals to drivers, vehicles, cargo and information.

• Makeconsignorsandconsigneesco-responsible for fraudulentand illegalactivities inroadtransport operations.

• Promote international security standards through the World Customs Organization, theWorld Trade Organization and other relevant bodies, to create a secure environment without impeding commerce and tourism, or undermining the efficiency and reliability of the road transport industry.

• Developandapplyeffectiveandefficientmeasures,includingriskmanagement,inaccordancewith cost–benefit analyses.

The report further required transport associations and operators• toimplementintheirdailybusiness,riskmanagementproceduresestablishedbytheprofession,

including all the IRU rules, procedures and recommendations to counter terrorism, crime and fraudulent activities;

• toencouragethedevelopmentofinternalsecuritymanagementsystemswithincompanies,• to reinforce the criteria for access to the facilitiesprovidedbycustoms transit systemsand

association membership, • topromoteandimplementthebesttriedandtestedfraudandcrimepreventionpractices,• tosupporttheuseofmoderninformationandcommunicationtechnologiesindailyoperations,

including vehicle and goods tracking, • to support, recommend and apply the use of industry codes of conduct, rules and

recommendations aimed at making the environment of transport operations secure, • toentrustdangerousgoodstransportsafetyadvisorswiththespecialtaskofreducingtherisk

of terrorism, in partnership with consignors and consignees, • to improve the information flow and quality of driver training with special attention to

security and the risk of terrorism, illegal immigration and fraud, • toexchangeinformationamongstassociationsand,ifnecessary,withthecompetentauthorities,

on issues of relevance in the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration, smuggling and crime, • to cooperate fullyonall issueswithpolice andother authorities including licensed special

private agencies, and • toextendcooperationwithothertransportmodeswithdueregardtoensuringsecurityacross

the complete intermodal transport and supply chains.


223

The “IRU Road Passenger Transport Security Guidelines” dealt with security issues concerning public transport, and proposed voluntary guidelines for operators. The document discussed recommendations for all aspects of transport security, including specific forms of transportation (e.g. buses), specific situations (i.e. bomb threats) and security suggestions for public transport administrative entities. The report also listed a collection of security-related support materials that can be used in security plans.

Finally, the “IRU Road Transport Security Guidelines” fulfilled a similar purpose for individuals involved in inland transport. Again, the report discussed the possible security measures and proposed voluntary guidelines. It dealt with dangerous goods specifically, providing general provisions for dangerous goods transport and emphasizing the need for the appropriate training of personnel. Finally, the report considered cooperative arrangements with customs and customs officials.

The IRU also recently published facts and figures on “Attacks on Drivers of International Heavy Goods Vehicles”, underlining the fact that the number of vehicle thefts and freight robbery incidents are not only a major security issue, but appear to be increasing in many countries. According to this document, about 17 % of all drivers interviewed had suffered an attack during the past 5 years, and 30 % of the attacked drivers reported that they had been attacked more than once. About two thirds of attacks (66.8 %) happened during the night between 22:00 and 6:00. About 42 % of all the attacks occurred in truck parks, and a further 19 % of them were at motorway service stations. Moreover, some attacks remained unreported for multiple reasons such as language difficulties, lack of trust in the authorities and insufficient information about where and to whom to report. In this connection, the document pointed out that the increasing number of attacks on drivers of international HGVs resulted also from the fact that effective measures to fight crime, such as the provision of a sufficient number of secure truck parking areas, the wider use of protective devices onboard vehicles, the setting up of efficient and accessible incident reporting and recording structures as well as the awareness raising of police forces, are in most countries implemented either insufficiently or not at all.

Rail

In November 2008, the UNECE Working Party on Rail Transport (SC.2) established a Task Force on Rail Security to address selected security issues in the rail sector, including the collection and exchange of information about best practices in securing rail systems, cost–benefit assessments, regional and international cooperation as well as cooperation between government agencies and railway sector. Experts from the public sector and international organizations (the EC, OSJD, OTIF, OSCE, UIC), railway companies as well as those from the business sector took part in this task force.

The task force concluded that for the time being, mandatory rules and standards for railway security at the UNECE level are neither desirable nor necessary. However, best practice guidelines for the installation and use of specific security tools [e.g. closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras] could be useful for national authorities. Mandatory rules at the national level, tailored to specific security needs, continue to be appropriate as well as mandatory rules at the bilateral or trilateral levels, if needed. Industry representatives in the task force have emphasized that since ordinary crimes present everyday problems for rail operators, practically each network has to set up an organization involving stakeholders to control and reduce these crimes. Counter-terrorism approaches ought to be based on these pre-existing structures created for coping with ordinary criminal activities, and additional responsibilities should be assigned to them.


224

With respect to the international transport of goods and passengers, the task force agreed that guidelines and intergovernmental cooperation are important, although national security regimes need not be uniform. An effective combination of such national risk-adequate diversities and intensive cross-border cooperation may change over time in response to technical progress and emerging threats. Effective methods of managing railway security should be shared and their adoption encouraged across the region. Further cooperation along these lines could lead to the elaboration of an international framework agreement that would leave enough scope for the individual approaches to be adapted efficiently to national conditions.

The task force also recommended to national authorities to develop a suitable architecture for a toolbox of guidelines and good practices. This could be accomplished by setting up a Technical Working Group (TWG) that would become a unique internationally accepted focal point for rail security. The TWG would be asked to analyse existing security requirements and practices, and to produce guidelines and design strategies for an effective sharing of good practices by national authorities and railway industry professionals. It would also develop an international research agenda for rail security. The main rail security guidelines, once developed by the TWG and approved by participating Governments and industry representatives, ought to be promoted by the UNECE and other regional commissions of the UN system. Technically, the toolbox would be a protected website that would help policy makers, law enforcement authorities and designated rail transport professionals to solve security problems.

The task force also agreed that the cost–benefit analysis of rail safety measures can be applied to a limited extent to security problems. Therefore, an appropriate model for appraising rail security risks based on this analysis needs to be developed with the assistance of national and international transport research centres.


225

14. CONCLUSIONS

The work on the revision of the 2005 TEM and TER Master Plan represents a substantial contribution to the development of road and rail infrastructure in the region and to the integration and harmonization of road and rail infrastructure even beyond Europe. The implementation of the investment strategy of the revised Master Plan would also stimulate the economic growth of the participating countries and be beneficial to their populations. Furthermore, this investment strategy as well as the other results will assist the participating countries in the elaboration and revision of their national master plans and/or of their medium- and long-term transport infrastructure development plans.

However, the work on the revised Master Plan cannot be considered to be complete but should continue; such follow-up work will require the strong desire, commitment and political will of the participating countries as well as close cooperation between the participating countries and their immediate neighbours, the UNECE and the TEM and TER project Central Offices.

These follow-up activities will first and foremost need a permanent monitoring system with continuous data supply with respect to all the topics covered in the TEM and TER Master Plan revision. In particular, this relates to missing information about individual participating country plans, priorities and missing data from some participating countries, as well as to the progress in bringing the Master Plan backbone networks up to the UNECE AGR and AGC requirements and to the TEM and TER standards and recommended practices. Of the same importance will be the monitoring of the implementation of the identified road and rail projects on the basis of commonly accepted technical and operational standards.

The successful implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan and the follow-up work will require in particular the following actions.• Therelevantdatashouldbesupplieddirectlybytheparticipatingcountries tosupportthe

decision-making processes regarding the development of transport infrastructures and to adjust and modify the layout of the backbone networks in order to respond appropriately to the economic development of the countries in the region.

• Amonitoringsystemfortheimplementationoftheidentifiedroadandrailprojectsmustbeestablished to ensure that the investment plan contained in the revised Master Plan is kept up to date. To facilitate the monitoring process, countries participating in the elaboration of the Master Plan who are not yet members of the TEM and TER Projects, may wish to consider full membership.

• The possibilities for external financing of projects which have not fully secured fundingat present should be explored and considered using the ways and methods identified and recommended in Annexes III to VI of Volume II of the final report as well as through PPP schemes.

• Theregularprovisionofdataonroadandrailtrafficflowsintheforthcomingyearsshouldbe assured to permit the verification and updating of the rail and road traffic forecasts for the years 2015 and 2020 in the revised Master Plan in the participating countries and in the region covered.


226

• Changesandrevisionsofnationalmasterplansandapprovednewroadandrailinvestmentplans should be reported as soon as possible to the TEM and TER projects Central Offices so that they can be duly reflected in their transport infrastructure databases as well as in the maps of the 2015 and 2020 backbone network status.

• Reflecting these infrastructure changes as well as the results of the relevant work of therespective bodies of the UNECE and of international organizations and institutions dealing with the road and rail transport, the status of the bottlenecks identified and the situation at border crossings should be monitored and necessary remedial measures proposed.

• Informationaboutthelocationsofneworextendedtranshipmentpoints,seaandmajorriverports, freight villages and logistics centres should be supplied to make it possible to adjust connections to the revised TEM and TER backbone networks.

• TheexperiencegainedbytheparticipatingcountriesregardingtheITSandplans fortheirfuture implementation should be communicated to the TEM and TER projects Central Offices and thus shared with the other countries that participated in the revision of the Master Plan.

• Inthecourseofthefollow-upwork,thedeeperinvolvementofboththeTEMandtheTERprojects in activities aimed at enhancing technical interoperability of the ITS systems at the European level, and especially in the participating countries which are not members of the European Union, should be considered.

• Within the framework of theDecade of Action for Road Safety declared by theUnitedNations, the TEM project should organize, preferably already in 2011, a seminar on road infrastructure safety in which the experience gained in the course of the revision of the Master Plan can be exploited.

• TheGeographicalInformationSystemoftheTEMandTERprojectsCentralOffices,whichinter alia served the purposes of the revision, should be further upgraded and developed.

• A special follow-upprogramme should be established based on regularmonitoring of theprogress in implementation, as described above. The results should be submitted to the sessions of the TEM and TER Steering Committees at least once a year.

• TheTEMandTERprojectsCentralOffices, inclosecollaborationwith theparticipatingcountries and the UNECE, should regularly publish information about the implementation progress and the results of the revised Master Plan.

These actions and activities cannot be treated as single and one-off since the implementation of the revised TEM and TER Master Plan will require that they are carried out on a permanent basis. It is also recommended that the next revision of the TEM and TER Master Plan and of its investment strategy should follow and be carried out in five years, i.e. in the years 2015 to 2016, with the related preparatory work starting as early as 2014.

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Final Report Volume I: Main text

Trans-European Motorway (TEM)Trans-European Railway (TER)

Projects

2011

Printed by the Publishing Service, United Nations, Geneva — GE.12.20689 — February 2012 — ECE/TRANS/183/Rev.2 (Vol. I)

TEM and TER revised

Master Plan

ECE

TEM a

nd TER

revised M

aster Pla

n - Final R

eport - V

olu

me I: M

ain

text

United

Nations

TEM and TER Master Plan - UNECE

Documents

Transcript of TEM and TER Master Plan - UNECE