- Email: [email protected]
Scenarios for the transport infrastructure of Europe: Planning and financing
0886-7798(94)00064-6
Scenarios for the Transport Infrastructure of Europe: Planning and Financing W. De Lathauwer Abstraet---Thie paper describes the objectives for and concepts of Trans-European transport networks, from the viewpoint of the European Commission. The objective of the policy of the transEuropean networks is tr, create a ~polymodaF approach, Le., one that involves all modes of transport, combined transport being one such mode. The paper addresses financing schemes for such networks. Possible schemes involving Central and East European countries are also considered. Finally, some transport tunnels located onpriority axes are mentioned.
his p a p e r is divided into four parts: the first, pert~inlng to the 12 countries- that belong to the European Union; the second, extending the concepts of TrAn~-Eurepean networks to the five European Free Trade Association (E.F.T.A) countries, the countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe and the western Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.); the third, considering future possibilities for European transportation infrastructure; and the fourth, presenting some possible trenspel~ tunnels located on priority axes. It must be noted at the outset that while the overall concept of trans-European t r a n s p o r t a t i o n networks is rather well-defined, the routes themselves axe ever-changing, as the proposed routes and priorities for achieving them are subject ~o constant scrutiny from local, national and international perspectives. Therefore, the dis-
T
Present address: W De Lathauwer, Secretary-General, Belgian Tunnelling Association (ABTUS), rue de la Loi 155, BI040 Brussels, Belgimn. This paper is based on l~marks presented at a seminar o n ' r h e Gal~between Demand and Realisation of Underground Traffic Infrastructure in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe ~(held January 18-20, 1994, in Budapest, Hungary), adapted, where possible, to incorporate more recent information.
cussion ofparticnlar routes in this paper should be viewed as part of the general concept of planning for TrAnslEuropean Networks, and not as the final word on specific projects to be incorporated in the networks.
I. Trans-European Transport Networks within the European Union
Background The concept of T r a n s - E u r o p e a n Networks (TENs), developed over the past five years within the European Union, has led to schemes approved by the European Council of Ministers of Transport for high-speed t r A i n s t ( ~ V 8 ) , motorways and highways, navigation routes, and combined transport. Before presenting the major principles t h a t govern the actions of the Commission of the European Union (E.U.) today with regard to trans-European transport networks, it m a y be useful to review briefly the history of tr-n~port infrastructure policywithin the European Union. Table I provides a s u m m a r y ofpJ Annin~of the network. In 1978, a Committee for Infrastructures was created as an advisory group composed of representatives of Member States of the European Union and representatives of the European Commission. The mission of this group is to consider all questions concerning the development of the network of transportation routes t h a t are of interest to the Union.
Tunnellingand UndergroumlSpare Technology,Vol. 10, No. l, pp. 45-51, 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0886-7798/95 $9.50 + .00
Rdsumd--Cet article d~crit les objectifsde et lea concepts pour lea r~ecaux transeurop~ens de transport, du point de vuc de la Commission europ&nne. L'objectifde cettepolitiquc de recssuax tranecurop~ens de transrport eatde er~erune approche "polymodale', qui inclut dons tous lea modes de transport, le transport combin~ en ~tant un parmi d'autres. Le texts pr&ente des ech~mas financiers pour ces r~seaux. Des schemas possibles incluant lea pays d'Europe centrals et orientale sont ~galementpris en consid~rativn~ Finaiement, quelques tunnels de transport situ~s sur des axes prioritaires sont cites.
Pergamon
The concept of T E N s - - t h a t is, those routes that takeinto account, in a single rationale, all of the 12 territories comprising the actual European Union-did not originate with the Treaty on the European Union. In its White Paper of December 1992, on the common Transport Policy, the Commlssion already had endorsed the concept, as shall be seen in the concrete examples of networks discussed below. In 1982, the role of the European Union was strengthened by the creation of a budget intended for the financing--or, in most cases, the cof i n a n c i n g - - o f t r a n s p o r t infrastructures. It m u s t be noted, however, that this budget supports only in/and transport projects--ports, maritime navigation projects and aviation projects are excluded.
The Situation Today Today, under the application of the Maastricht Treaty ~1),what are the rules of play concerning trRni~port infrastructure projects for Europe? First, a f u n d a m e n t a l point: the Union will play only a subsidiary role with regard to Trans-European tranAport networks. It will neithe~ promote nor manage i n f r ~ u r e projects inself, but rather proposes to play the role of catalyst, by: • Encouraging investment in such projects; • Organizing the feasibility study (technical and financial); and
Table 1. History of the Trans-European transportation network planning.
• in extreme cases, supplying the (small) missing part in the financing scheme. Under the terms of article 129B of the Treaty of the Union, the Union will contribute to the creation and development of Trans-European Networks in the sectors of transport infrastructures, telecommunications and energy, with a view to: (1) contributing to the establishment of an area without internal borders; and (2) strengthening economic and social cohesion among Member States of the European Union. To achieve these objectives, the Treaty specifies the nature and alms of this action as follows: 1. The Union will define a number of guidelines relating to objectives and priorities, as well as the broad outline of the envisaged actions. 2. The guidelines will 'identify projects of common interest. 3. The actions implemented must make it possible to ensure the interoperability of the networks.
4. The Union can support the financial efforts of Member States.
Concepts of and Guidelines for Trans-European Transport Networks We now turn to defining the above notions, beglnnlngwiththe guidelines. The Commlasion did not walt for the Maastricht Treaty to enter into force officially before issuing a m a s t e r plan for transport. At its meeting in December 1990, the Council of Ministers of Trenxport (which included representatives of the mlni~tries from E.U. countries) welcomed the Commission's proposal relating to the development of a Trans-European Network of highspeed tr~inR (T.G.V.s). Furthermore, on 29 October 1993, following three-way talkx between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of 1Minlsters of Transpert, the Council approved three network plans, concerning: 1. Combined transport, involving two work stages---one for a six-
46 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
year period, the other for twelve years. 2. Roads, comprising 55,000 km of Trans-European connections, including 12,000 km ofmoterways to be constructed over a period of ton years. Moreover, this road network includes the ~ t r u c ture for management of traffic and of user information. 3. Inland waterways, with the Aim of establisbing an interoperable network in ten years' time. Other plans, including those involving conventional railways, are still under preparation. The above items testify to the Union's aim of addressing all modes of tr~nxpert. In fact, the initial approach concentrated primarily on the various modal networks (i.e., rail, road, waterways) separately. In contrast, the objective of the policy of the Trans-European Networks is to achieve an overall ~polymodal~ approach that considers all modes of transport as part of an integrated m a s t e r plan.
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
Identifying Common, Projects The provisions of.Article 129C set forth the guidelines identifyingtransport projects ofcommon interest. These projects are those t h a t are considered particularly necessary for establishing the Trans-European Network, in its broadest definition. The projects must permit and encourage interconnection of the national networks; interoperability of the networks (see =Concept of Interoperability, ~below); and access to the networks. With regard to access, very close attention is being paid to the situation of the =insular," ~wedged," and =peripheral ~ regions--i.e., those that are located on islands, instd~cientlyllnkod, and far from the center of Europe, respectively--and to the need to connect them to the central regions of the European Union. This need for linkage reflects a constant concern of European policy for the future of these areas. In this respect, Jitmust be noted that the E.U. Cohesion Fund contributes financially to the execution of projects in the fieldof transport infrastructures in the four =cohesion~ countries,which are Spain, Portugal,Greece and Ireland. Moreover, the Treaty of the Union stipulates t h a t Union aid for the financial efforts of Member States, in particular, m u s t take the form of cefinancing of feasibility studies, granting of loan guarante,~s, and interest rebates. These methods of granting Union financial assistance were the subject of a proposal for a Council Regulation t h a t was adopted by the Commission on 2 March 1994, and which is now under discussion in Parliament and in the Council of Ministers of Transport.
Concept of Interope~'ability The concept of ~interoperubility" is both very specific ~nd essential to e n s u r i n g the o p e r a t i o n of T r a n s European transport n~vtworks. =Interoperability ~ m a y be defined as the means of ensuring compatibility of the national networks beyond and through the physical and technical borders which limit their extension and their effectiveness. Three examples serve to illustrate the importance of this concept: 1. With regard to rvads, one of the main principles of reflection applies to road signs and signal,s. The colour of the panels indicating motorways differs from one country to a n o t h e r - some signs are greerL, others bluc thus creating confusion for drivers passing through the wwious European countries. 2. In the field of a i r traffic management, about 40 centrel3 in Europe represent 22 technically incompatible sys-
Volume 101 Number 1, 1995
terns, which thus maintain air borders irreconcilable with the concept of an area without frontiers. The Commission has proposed technical measures to make the equipment used by the different countries compatible, and thereby increase the effectiveness of air traffic control between countries. 3. In the railway sector, we enceunter the well-known case of differences in gauge and electrical power supply among the various M e m b e r States. The European Union is working toward the realization ofinteroperability in all fields. To this end, the Union plans to adopt a directive on interoperability with regard to maximum speed.
Institutional Framework for Decision-Making The joint decision-mAklugprocedure instituted by the Treaty on the Union applies in the field of Trans-European transport networks; and, therefore, the European Parliament is very involved in the decision-mAking process. In addition, the recently formed Committee of Regions, which must be integrated into this process, will issue its opinions on the guidelines for the transport networks. The thus-widened dialogue should make it possible to adopt guidelines that will be as relevant as possible to all parties concerned. The Commission's White Paper on =Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment" (issued in 1993) provides the legal basis for Union projects involving T r a n s - E u r o p e a n Networks (TENs). This paper received a very favourable reception from all of the Union institutions, the E u r o p e a n Council and the European Parliament, as well as from Member States. The Commission's proposal to combat unemployment and redynamise the European economy rests in particular on the development of TENs for transport, telecommunications and energy. The importance of these networks in the revival of the economy had already been stressed at the 1992 meeting of the European Council of Ministers of Transport, held in Edinburgh. As a result, the Council established, w i t h i n the E u r o p e a n I n v e s t m e n t BAnk, a temporary mechanism for arranging a loan of 5 billion ECU for 1993-1994, aimed at encouraging the financing ofinfrastructures. This idea has sinc e been taken up in the conclusions of the Council m e e t i n g s in Copenhagen and Brussels, held in 1993 and 1994, respectively. In recent years, insufficient attention has been paid to the development of infrastructures. This neglect has affected all of the European countries-and, above all, the citizens who have watched their daily living conditions
deteriorate. The economic parties eventually denounced the rigidities, slowness and malfunctioning t h a t had arisen from their insufficient or aging infrastructures as one of the principal causes of the current weakening of their competitiveness. Financing N e e d s In t e r m s of statistical data, the extent of the needs for financing of the transport sector in the European Community are reflected in the figures below: • The annual public investment of the Member States in the transport sector currently amounts to 0.8--0.9% of the GDP, i.e., about 50 billion ECU a year for the European Union. • In the networks of the Member States, more than 200 projects (including all transport modes), representing a total value of 400 billion ECU, have been identified to be carried out between now and 2010. • Between 1993 and 1999, an investment of approximately 220 billion ECU--i.e., 30 to 35 billion ECU per year--will be necessary to carry out these projects. Vis-/~-vis such needs, and under the current budgetary conditions within both the Community and the Member States, the Commission is well aware t h a t the public sector alone will be unable to ensure such investments. Therefore, participation by private investors will be more essential than ever for the development of TransEuropean transport networks. It is in this spirit that the Commission will approach transport projects henceforth. The decision to submit, in its White Paper on Transport Policy (1992), an indicative list of 26 =priority~ projects for the next five years is a first illustration of the Commission's commitment to investment in such projects. Indeed, this first list of projects is intended to launch the reflection and preparation process, and to encourage partnership among all of the actors concernedqnamely, the official authorities on all suitable levels, the network operators, the users, the service people receiving benefits, the financiers, and the industrialists. This partnership must award a central role to the players who are most likely to activate the private sector and to mobilize private investment. In order to help the proposals of the White Paper become reality, the European Council of Ministers of Transport is encouraging the creation of highlevel groups responsible for monitoring these proposals. One such group is described below.
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY47
The Christophersen Group With regard to Trans-European transport and energy networks, the Christophersen Group, which takes its n a m e from the Commissioner w h o chairs it,is composed of personal representativesofthe heads ofstate ofthe M e m b e r States. The group is charged with encouraging the execution of the projects adopted as a priorityby each M e m b e r State, in agreement with the
European Commistsion. O n 8 April 1993, the Ministers of Finance forthe European Union agreed on an initiallistof 10 isriorityprojects, primarily high-speed trains (T.G.V.s) and the motorways. The listofprojects was approved at the summit meeting ofthe heads of state and of the government ofthe Union, held in June 1994 in Corfu. Working sitesfor the following projects should be developed over the next two years: • The high-speed combined transport North-South Brenner axis Verona-Munich-NiirnbergErfurt-Halle-Leipzig-Berlin. * The high-speed train (Paris)Brussels-Cologne-AmsterdamLondon. , The high-speed train South' Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax. • The high-speed train East ParisMetz-Strasbourg-Appenweier (Karlsruhe), withjunctious MetzSaarbrucken-Mannheim and Metz-Luxembourg. • The B e t t u w e line: combined transport/conventional rail Rotterdam-Rhein/Ruhr. • The high-speed tr~in/cembined transport line Lyon-Turin. , The P a t r a s - G r e c o - B u l g a r i a n border motorway, together with the West-East motorway corridor Igoumenitsa-ThessalonikiAlexandroupolis. • The Lisbon-Valladolid motorway. , The railway connection CorkDublin-Belfast-Larue-Strauraer. • The Oresund fixed rail/road link between Denmark and Sweden, including Danish access routes. • The Italian airport of Malpousa. This first list was supplemented by two groups of projects realizable in the long term; altogether, approximately 35 projects have been identified by the Christophersen Group. The second group, implying the start of the works in perhaps two years, comprises the following projects: • The combined transport Unionwide: projects identified in France, Germany, Italy,Belgium, Portugal and Spain. • Nuremberg-Prague motorway.
• The Berlin-Warsaw-(Moscow) motorway, in parallel with the Berhn-Warsaw-(Moscow) highspeed train link. • The Dresden-Prague motorway. • The Ireland/United Kingdom/ Benelux road link. • The Sparta airport (Athens). • The Berlin airport. • The Autoroute de la Maurienne. • The Autoroute Marateca-Elvas. • A high-speed train route in Denmark. A third group of projects,listedbelow, already has been idenfied, but requires further examination: • The F e h r m a r n Belt fixed link between Denmark and Germany. • The Bari-Otranto motorway. • The Rhine-RhSne canal. • The Seine-Schelde canal. • The Elbe-Oder canal. • Upgrading of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen. • The high-speed train RandstadRhein/Ruhr-AmsterdamArnheim-(Cologne). • The Valencia-Zarageza-Somport road corridor. • The high-speed t r a i n TurinVenice-Trieste. • The high-speed train (Brenner)Milan-Rome-Naples. • The Trans-Apennine highway Bologna-Florence. • The Transrapid magnetic levitation train. • The high-speed train connection Luxembourg-Brussels. Finally, some projects would involve the implementation of new technologies on a Europe-wide basis, i . e . , projects relating to traffic managem e n t and which will improve the use of infrastructure for all modes of transpert (land, sea and air). In this category, the following projects could be considered: • A r o a d traffic m a n a g e m e n t system; • An a i r t r a f f i c m a n a g e m e n t system; • A vessel traffic m a n a g e m e n t system; • A multimedal positioning system by satellites; • Pilot projects for a railway management system. The following projects would concern Central and Eastern Europe: • The Berlin-Warsaw-lVlinRk-Moscow highway and (high-speed) railway; and • The Dresden-Prague and Nuremberg-prague motorways.
48 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
II. Extending the Tran$European Networks in Central and Eastem Europe and Beyond The politicaland economic changes that have taken place in Central and Eastern Europe over the lastfew years have made the West look more closely at these countries (and vice-versa)vis~-vis the possibilitiesfor economic development that they offer;and have led to the need for closercollaborationand integration of the transport networks in a pan-European context. Please note the differencein wording: ~ T r a n s - E u r o p e a n ~ means inside the Community, which in some cases extends to the E.F.T.A. (European Free Trade Association)countries,whereas ~Pan-European ~ encompasses the whole of geographic Europe. A firstPan-European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, called together by the Commission and the European Parliament, was held in Prague in October 1991. Discussions at the conference led to the conclusion that m u c h more collaborationand coordination were needed among all of the European countries in the fieldof transport. Within the European Union, this conclusion was confirmed by the Treaty of Maastricht, which gives the Commission the mandate to negotiate bilateral or m u l t i l a t e r a l t r a n s p o r t agreements with the Central and Eastern European countries. The Directorate General for Transport for the Commission recently took the initiative to present a series of schemes for Trans-European Networks for the whole of Europe at the Second Pan-European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, which was held in Crete on 14-16 March 1994. Although the main work for the presentation was done within the Cornmlssion, there was good collaboration with the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations in Geneva, and with the permanent institution called European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which has its secretariat in Paris. The hope was fidfilled that all parties would try to concentrate their financial efforts on nine selected corridors--witbeut any investment cemmitment, but preferring these projects to investments for construction, modernization or maintenance of other transpert infrastructure works. In this sense, "all parties ~ includes: 1. The European Union and all of its involved p r o g r a m m e s , such as P H A R E (Technical assistance programme for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, except countries in the Commonwealth of Indepemdent States [C.I.S.]), TACIS (Technical assistance programme for C.I.S. countries), the Edinburgh and Copenhagen
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
initiatives, and the l ~ c t o r a t e General VII (Transport) of the European Commission. These progrAmmes are described briefly below. 2. The internatiova] financial institutions, namely the World BRnk; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and the European Investment Bank, which is in fact part of the European Unio~a. 3. The private secter counterparts to these programmes ~md institutions. This effort does not imply in any way an intervention in the national t r a n s p o r t policy of each country. Rather, it is designed only as a guideline for possible outside financing for transport projects.
European Union Financing Programmes It may be useful to, briefly explain the functions of the European Community organizations referred to in item 1, above. • P H A R E is the European Union technical assistance programme for Central and Eastern Europe, excluding the C.I.S. (Commonwealth of I n d e p d e n t States) countries. The programme also inc|udes Albania, Slovenia and, since 1994, F y r o m ( F o r m e r Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia), as well as the Baltic States, but excludes the C.I.S. countries. PHARE is a multi-purpose organization that is driven by the demands of the various countries. 'l~nis meonR that the use ofthe available grants is mainly defined by the countries themselves, rather than by Brussels. The amount of money involved is approximately 1 billion ECU/year for tl~e 10 main sectors and the 12 countries together. Transport receives, on average, 10% of this amount, dependizLg on the priorities fixed by each coventry. Of this amount, about 25% is earmarked for the regional component (i.e., concerning at least two countries) and about 75% for the national component. • TACIS is a similar programme for the C.I.S. countries. It involves about 450 million ECU/year, 8% of which, on average, is devoted to transport. The program places a major emphasis on nuclear safety, by allocating, on request of the countries, major fin a n c i a l support in this field. Both PHARE and TACIS concentrate on technical assistance, trAi-l-g and feasibility studies. The main condition for grant money is a fair competition between consultants from the European Union and thqerecipient countries themselves. • The E d i n b u r g h I n i t i a t i v e , issued at the end of 1992, provides for more possibilities through the European Investment Bank.
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
• The C o p e n h a g e n I n i t i a t i v e , dating from spring 1993,mainly served to create the possibility to use 15% of the total PHARE money (i.e., about 150 million ECU) to help finance, as a grant and in combination with other institutions, infrastructure projects in the fields of energy, transport and environment which are of common interest. Thus, this initiative is intended for i n v e s t m e n t s , and not for studies. • A special B o r d e r - C r o s s i n g Ini. tiative, recently approved by the European Parliament, assigns an additional 150 million ECU, also from the PHARE budget, to development of border crossings between E.C. countries and PHARE countries. • Also regarding border crossings, at the Central Europe Security Conferenco in January 1994, it was decided to allocate the financial means to improve the transport infrastructure in the countries victimized by the embargo against Serbia. As of Augnst 1994, two corridors for p r i o r i t y b o r d e r ~ r o s s i n g i m p r o v e m e n t a c t i o n s had been defined: 1. Austria-Hungary-Romania-Bulgeria-Istanbul. 2. Adriatic Sea-Albania-BulgariaBlack Sea.
Trans-European Transport Priorities (as of March 1994) At the Second Pan-European Conferenes of Ministers of Transport, held in Crete in March 1994, the Directorate General for Transportation presented a series of schemes for Tr~n~European networks. These priority transport schemes took the form of a three-tiered system. Projects were assigned to a particular tier, depending on their priority, as well as their technical and financial maturity. They depend, as well, on a number of technical, economical, fin a n c i a l and environmental criteria, which play an important role in the degree of mutual interest for both the Central and Eastern European countries and the European Union. The three tiers of transport projects are described below. T i e r I corresponds to the ideal network, as seen by the countries and by international organizations such as the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations, the European Conference of Ministers of TrAnRport, etc. This network, which consists of roads, railways and internal navigation, is estimated at about 400 billion ECU, and has no assigned time frame. T i e r 2, which is the most important tier, includes within the network of Tier I the nine polymodal corridors on which all efforts should be focused during at least the next decade in
order to carry out a basic transport network. The totalinvestment for comple_~-g these nine corridors is estimated at about 100 billion ECU, although it is very difficult to make accurate estimates for works that have not yet been defined. As shown in Figure 1, the nine selected polymodal corridors are: • C o r r i d o r 1 : Ta]linn-Riga-Vilnius and extension Riga-I~llnln~radGdanak. • C o r r i d o r 2: Berlin-WarsawMinsk-Moscow. • Corridor 3:Berlin/DresdenWroclaw-Katowice-KrakowLvev-Kiev. • C o r r i d o r 4: Dresden/NiirnbergPrague-Brno-BratislavaBudapest-Arad-TimisoaraDobreta Turnu Severin-Danube crossing-Fofia-Thessaloniki, with extensions ViennaBratislava, Vienna-Budapest, Arad-Bucharest-Constanta and Sofia-Plevdiv-Istanbul. •
Corridor5:TriesteiKoper/Rijeka-
Ljubljana-Budapest-UzgorodLvov, and extension BratisfiavaZilina-Kosice-Uzgorod. •
C o r r i d o r 6: G d a n s k - L o d z ( W a r -
saw for the rail) -Katowico-Zillna, and extension (road only) to Foznan. • C o r r i d o r 7: T h e full Danube River, from the Austrian border to the Black Sea, including all ports along this approx. 2000km-long stretch. • C o r r i d o r 8: D u r r e s - T i r a n a Skoplje-Sofia-Plovdiv-BurgasVarna. • Corr/dor 9: Helsinki-St. Petersburg-Vitebsk-Kiev-ChisinauBucharest-(near) Plovdiv, and extensions Moscow-Kiev, Kaliningrad-Kaunas-Vilnius-Minsk and to Odessa. T i e r 3 consists of those projects within Tier 2 that are ready for implementation, both at the technical and the financial levels, in the very short term. The total investment for carrying out the total of 68 identified projects in ten countries amounts to about 10 billion ECU, which can be broken down as follows: 75% for roads. 20~ for rail. 5 % for ports and navigation. 0% for aviation and urban projects. There was a general consensus on this approach and the selected corridors by all of the Conference participants; and, particularly, by the 40 delegations, headed at the ministerial level, from the European Union coun-
TUNNBLUNGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY49
tries,the E.F.T.A. countries, the Central and Eastern European countries, the Western C.I.S.countries,and most of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Three constructive remarks were made by the conference delegates: I. Hope should not be abandoned that the situation in the former Yugoslavia will stabilize and be clarified over time. 2. Integration of the T R A C E C A (Transport Corridor Europe - Central Asia) corridor through the Black Sea, the South Caucasian republics, the Caspian Sea, and the Central Asian (South C.I.S.) countries, up to China along the former "Silk Road", should not be neglected. 3. Care should be taken to integrate the countries that border the Mediterranean Sea, including North Africa and its links to the European Union.
Opportunities and Cautions for Private Financing Private financing has been viewed as the miracle solution to the problem of financing transportation infrastructure. Indeed, its usefulness has been demonstrated on various occasions inside the Union. The best known examples are the French and Italian motorways and the CbAnnel T~lnnel, which began operations only recently and the financial viability of which will be confirmed in the future. In Central and Eastern Europe, only one example of privatization is really underway: the M1-M15 motorway from Gyor, Hungary, to the Slovakian and Austrian borders. The time required to finalize this project and to convince the financial partners is t e s t a m e n t to the fact that it was a difficult exercise, and one in which all of the elements were not (and perhaps are not yet) fully known. Recently the Czech Government decided to close the file on private financing of an important part of the motorway between Plsen and Prague, and to return to traditional budget financing. For the private financing of infrastructure projects, and particularly for toll motorways or other road infrastructure, one of the essential points is the traffic forecast, which normally is based on both the present t r a f f c and predicted economic development. In Central and Eastern Europe, the latter is far from easy to estimate. In addition, a large portion of local traffic will not use such facilities because of the cost, unless forced to do so by artificial constraints. Compulsory hard currency for tolls is obviously also a disincentive for increased local use; in many cases, even the actual
trafficis too low to justify fullprivate financing. The case is differentfor other infrastructure works at a single location that depend directlyon the demand. A successful example is the Warsaw airport; other possibilities are the container ports on the Black Sea, or possibly the new Danube border crossing between Bulgaria and Romania. Where is the middle ground between public and private financing? The answer is easy: mixed financing. Implementation of this concept creates a new discipline,financial engineering, which must take into account all the aspects of private and public funding, including unusual ones such as those noted above, e.g., P H A R E grants, interest rebates, bank warrant subsidies, etc. It is really a new branch of the economic sciences. The main difficulty will be to define the proportion of the project to be privately financed. Even more than the concession duration, this factor could be the key element in comparing and weighing the offers in a competition among potential private financiers.
Funding of Non-Priority Infrastructure Projects A word should be said about funding projects not located on the TransEuropean Networks (TENs), but still important for the habitabilityof cities, which always need more urban tunnels for metros, urban railway connections, and road bypasses. These urban works are not normally a part of the European Union priority transport corridors pro-gramme, despits their importance for international, as well as national, regional, and local traffic. Neither are they oRenincluded under the auspices of PHARE or TACIS transport programmes, even though they are determined by the various national Ministries of Transport, beth for t h e n a t i o n a l a n d r e g i o n a l progammes. Instead, in most countries the urban infrastructure is the responsibility of the cities, which often depend on the Ministry of the Interior and have almost no contact with the national Ministry of Transport. The same can be said for the e n v i r o n m e n t programmes of PHARE and TACIS. However, one example will serve to illustrate the potential for funding of such infrastructure needs: Leakage problems in the metro of Erevan were put forward by the Armenian Ministry of Transport, and were immediately accepted by the European Union as the subject of a study, including a pilot section, funded by TACIS. Therefore, it is avisable that city authorities,particularlythose in charge of tunnels for metro and road, but for
50 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
alltypes of cables and canalizations as well, to talk with their P H A R E or TACIS representatives and explore possibilities for funding. In addition, it should be remembered that the PHARE pregrAmmes applies not only to infrastructure, but also to multi-purpose projects. Furthermore, the Copenhagen initiative for financing includes environment and energy projects as well as transport projects. Because all three areas make heavy use of underground works, there are opportunities available for those who are sufficiently knowledgeable and persevering to seek them out.
III. Looking to the Future Where does the Commission intend to go now? Inside the Union, on three approved levels of Christophersen G r o u p projects,the Commission willcontinue the search forfinancing or co-financing of the priority infrastructures. Outside the Union, the nine priority corridors have to be finalized, taking into account the remarks of the Crete Conference. These corridors must be defined more precisely in terms of localization, transport mode, and priority sections, in order to identify the bottlenecks and the missing link.. Both scenarios need to define still more a p p r o p r i a t e criteria for the projects, and to collect and organize the extensive administrative, technical, traffic-related, financial, and other data required. These tasks are not i n s i g n i f i c a n t : e a c h fiche of a Christophersen Group project is five to eight pages long, and the total number of specific sections in the Crete Conference exercise has increased to about 300, for the Central and Eastern European countries alone. To s , mmarize the view for the future of the proposed transport infrastructure projects: 1. There is, and there will remain for a long time, a large gap between needs and means~ 2. There also is a large gap between the whole of the priority corridors and the number of projects truly ready for implementation in the short term. 3. Each improvement on the road or highway system allows an increase in the speed of cars and trucks, implying a decrease in safety, particularly in the cities and villages. Therefore, investments in measures to increase safety m u s t be taken into account at the same time, a n d as an integral part of the projects, not afterwards. 4. On the other hand, the increasing speeds on the roads will lead to time savings. For example, an improvement allowing 80 km/h instead of 40 km/h along a 400-km stretch of roadway through a country translates,
Volume 10, N u m b e r I, 1995
for a truck, into a benefit of five hours. However, at the berders of some countries, the average waiting time currently averages one to two days; so everything remains ro]lative.
IV. Tunnels for Transport in Cental and Eastern Europe Where are the tunnels for transport in all of these plans? In Central and E~mtern Europe, most of the t-nnels would be associated either with urbml metros in the larger cities, or with railways (some of which are located on the corridors of Tier 2, above). Inside and around the European Union, a number of potential tunnel projects are under prepration, although for some of them neither the final decision in favour of the underground solution nor the financing arragements have been finalized. AJ~ong these are: • Inside the Union: - The F e h r m a n n link (Germany-Denmark); - The h i g h - s p e e d / c o m b i n e d lower rail tmmel under the Frdjus (France-Italy); and - The high-speq~ train t - n n e l under the P ~ n d e s (FranceSpain). • At the borders of the Union:
-
The fixed link: crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar (SpainMorocco); - The lower raJil tunnel under the Brenner pass (Italy-Austria); and
Volume 10, Number 1, 1994
-
The Oresund fixed link (Sweden-Denmark).
• In the immediate vicinity of the Union:
-
-
The Swiss rail tunnels under the St. G o t t h a r d and the Lotchberg; and The new links for rail, road and/or s u b w a y u n d e r the Bosphorus in Istanbul.
The following transport t-nnels for the Central and East European countries are currently under study because they are part of the designated priority corridors: • A 5-km-long t u n n e l on the motorwaybetween Ljubljana and M a r i b o r on the L j u b l j a n a Budapest axis. • A series of tunnels crossing the Karpati mountain chain in Bulgaria, on the axis between Bucharest and Istanbul. • A sunken tunnel on a second fixed link for railand read across the Danube, between Bulgaria and Romania, linking Sofia and Craiova. The feasibility study and optimal location research for this project will begin very soon under the auspices of the Regional P H A R E programme. • T w o tunnel alternatives to the surface solution at the GermanCzech border crossing,on the new road between Dresden and Prague. • At least two railway t-nnels at the borders between Bulgaria
and Macedonia, and between Macedonia and Albania, to complete the Black Sea-Adriatic Sea corridor. It is worth noting that about I k m ofthe firsttunnel, near Kustendil in Bulgaria, was excavated during the 1940s and only about 50 m remains unfinished, although the height is not appropriate for electrical traction. • A n u m b e r oftunnels on the EastWest link between Kosice and Zilinia in northern Slovakia. • Possible tunnels on the M 7 along Balaton Lake in Hungary, in response to environmentalists' objections to increased and faster traffic through the highly touristed towns and villages along the lake. Moving further east, the European Union isconcentrating itseffortsin the southern portion ofthe Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.),on the T R A C E C A axis. Although itis too soon to define any specific tunnels on this existing corridor, it can be assumed that these countries desire better links that can be used year-round. In mountainous areas such as the Himalayas, this will undoubtedly m e a n that tunnels will be a part of any T R A C E C A transport project. []
Note The Maastricht Treaty refers to the European Treaty (October 1991) that was ratified by all countries in the European Union by the end of 1992.
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY51
Scenarios for the Transport Infrastructure of Europe: Planning and Financing W. De Lathauwer Abstraet---Thie paper describes the objectives for and concepts of Trans-European transport networks, from the viewpoint of the European Commission. The objective of the policy of the transEuropean networks is tr, create a ~polymodaF approach, Le., one that involves all modes of transport, combined transport being one such mode. The paper addresses financing schemes for such networks. Possible schemes involving Central and East European countries are also considered. Finally, some transport tunnels located onpriority axes are mentioned.
his p a p e r is divided into four parts: the first, pert~inlng to the 12 countries- that belong to the European Union; the second, extending the concepts of TrAn~-Eurepean networks to the five European Free Trade Association (E.F.T.A) countries, the countries ofCentral and Eastern Europe and the western Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.); the third, considering future possibilities for European transportation infrastructure; and the fourth, presenting some possible trenspel~ tunnels located on priority axes. It must be noted at the outset that while the overall concept of trans-European t r a n s p o r t a t i o n networks is rather well-defined, the routes themselves axe ever-changing, as the proposed routes and priorities for achieving them are subject ~o constant scrutiny from local, national and international perspectives. Therefore, the dis-
T
Present address: W De Lathauwer, Secretary-General, Belgian Tunnelling Association (ABTUS), rue de la Loi 155, BI040 Brussels, Belgimn. This paper is based on l~marks presented at a seminar o n ' r h e Gal~between Demand and Realisation of Underground Traffic Infrastructure in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe ~(held January 18-20, 1994, in Budapest, Hungary), adapted, where possible, to incorporate more recent information.
cussion ofparticnlar routes in this paper should be viewed as part of the general concept of planning for TrAnslEuropean Networks, and not as the final word on specific projects to be incorporated in the networks.
I. Trans-European Transport Networks within the European Union
Background The concept of T r a n s - E u r o p e a n Networks (TENs), developed over the past five years within the European Union, has led to schemes approved by the European Council of Ministers of Transport for high-speed t r A i n s t ( ~ V 8 ) , motorways and highways, navigation routes, and combined transport. Before presenting the major principles t h a t govern the actions of the Commission of the European Union (E.U.) today with regard to trans-European transport networks, it m a y be useful to review briefly the history of tr-n~port infrastructure policywithin the European Union. Table I provides a s u m m a r y ofpJ Annin~of the network. In 1978, a Committee for Infrastructures was created as an advisory group composed of representatives of Member States of the European Union and representatives of the European Commission. The mission of this group is to consider all questions concerning the development of the network of transportation routes t h a t are of interest to the Union.
Tunnellingand UndergroumlSpare Technology,Vol. 10, No. l, pp. 45-51, 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain 0886-7798/95 $9.50 + .00
Rdsumd--Cet article d~crit les objectifsde et lea concepts pour lea r~ecaux transeurop~ens de transport, du point de vuc de la Commission europ&nne. L'objectifde cettepolitiquc de recssuax tranecurop~ens de transrport eatde er~erune approche "polymodale', qui inclut dons tous lea modes de transport, le transport combin~ en ~tant un parmi d'autres. Le texts pr&ente des ech~mas financiers pour ces r~seaux. Des schemas possibles incluant lea pays d'Europe centrals et orientale sont ~galementpris en consid~rativn~ Finaiement, quelques tunnels de transport situ~s sur des axes prioritaires sont cites.
Pergamon
The concept of T E N s - - t h a t is, those routes that takeinto account, in a single rationale, all of the 12 territories comprising the actual European Union-did not originate with the Treaty on the European Union. In its White Paper of December 1992, on the common Transport Policy, the Commlssion already had endorsed the concept, as shall be seen in the concrete examples of networks discussed below. In 1982, the role of the European Union was strengthened by the creation of a budget intended for the financing--or, in most cases, the cof i n a n c i n g - - o f t r a n s p o r t infrastructures. It m u s t be noted, however, that this budget supports only in/and transport projects--ports, maritime navigation projects and aviation projects are excluded.
The Situation Today Today, under the application of the Maastricht Treaty ~1),what are the rules of play concerning trRni~port infrastructure projects for Europe? First, a f u n d a m e n t a l point: the Union will play only a subsidiary role with regard to Trans-European tranAport networks. It will neithe~ promote nor manage i n f r ~ u r e projects inself, but rather proposes to play the role of catalyst, by: • Encouraging investment in such projects; • Organizing the feasibility study (technical and financial); and
Table 1. History of the Trans-European transportation network planning.
• in extreme cases, supplying the (small) missing part in the financing scheme. Under the terms of article 129B of the Treaty of the Union, the Union will contribute to the creation and development of Trans-European Networks in the sectors of transport infrastructures, telecommunications and energy, with a view to: (1) contributing to the establishment of an area without internal borders; and (2) strengthening economic and social cohesion among Member States of the European Union. To achieve these objectives, the Treaty specifies the nature and alms of this action as follows: 1. The Union will define a number of guidelines relating to objectives and priorities, as well as the broad outline of the envisaged actions. 2. The guidelines will 'identify projects of common interest. 3. The actions implemented must make it possible to ensure the interoperability of the networks.
4. The Union can support the financial efforts of Member States.
Concepts of and Guidelines for Trans-European Transport Networks We now turn to defining the above notions, beglnnlngwiththe guidelines. The Commlasion did not walt for the Maastricht Treaty to enter into force officially before issuing a m a s t e r plan for transport. At its meeting in December 1990, the Council of Ministers of Trenxport (which included representatives of the mlni~tries from E.U. countries) welcomed the Commission's proposal relating to the development of a Trans-European Network of highspeed tr~inR (T.G.V.s). Furthermore, on 29 October 1993, following three-way talkx between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of 1Minlsters of Transpert, the Council approved three network plans, concerning: 1. Combined transport, involving two work stages---one for a six-
46 TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
year period, the other for twelve years. 2. Roads, comprising 55,000 km of Trans-European connections, including 12,000 km ofmoterways to be constructed over a period of ton years. Moreover, this road network includes the ~ t r u c ture for management of traffic and of user information. 3. Inland waterways, with the Aim of establisbing an interoperable network in ten years' time. Other plans, including those involving conventional railways, are still under preparation. The above items testify to the Union's aim of addressing all modes of tr~nxpert. In fact, the initial approach concentrated primarily on the various modal networks (i.e., rail, road, waterways) separately. In contrast, the objective of the policy of the Trans-European Networks is to achieve an overall ~polymodal~ approach that considers all modes of transport as part of an integrated m a s t e r plan.
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
Identifying Common, Projects The provisions of.Article 129C set forth the guidelines identifyingtransport projects ofcommon interest. These projects are those t h a t are considered particularly necessary for establishing the Trans-European Network, in its broadest definition. The projects must permit and encourage interconnection of the national networks; interoperability of the networks (see =Concept of Interoperability, ~below); and access to the networks. With regard to access, very close attention is being paid to the situation of the =insular," ~wedged," and =peripheral ~ regions--i.e., those that are located on islands, instd~cientlyllnkod, and far from the center of Europe, respectively--and to the need to connect them to the central regions of the European Union. This need for linkage reflects a constant concern of European policy for the future of these areas. In this respect, Jitmust be noted that the E.U. Cohesion Fund contributes financially to the execution of projects in the fieldof transport infrastructures in the four =cohesion~ countries,which are Spain, Portugal,Greece and Ireland. Moreover, the Treaty of the Union stipulates t h a t Union aid for the financial efforts of Member States, in particular, m u s t take the form of cefinancing of feasibility studies, granting of loan guarante,~s, and interest rebates. These methods of granting Union financial assistance were the subject of a proposal for a Council Regulation t h a t was adopted by the Commission on 2 March 1994, and which is now under discussion in Parliament and in the Council of Ministers of Transport.
Concept of Interope~'ability The concept of ~interoperubility" is both very specific ~nd essential to e n s u r i n g the o p e r a t i o n of T r a n s European transport n~vtworks. =Interoperability ~ m a y be defined as the means of ensuring compatibility of the national networks beyond and through the physical and technical borders which limit their extension and their effectiveness. Three examples serve to illustrate the importance of this concept: 1. With regard to rvads, one of the main principles of reflection applies to road signs and signal,s. The colour of the panels indicating motorways differs from one country to a n o t h e r - some signs are greerL, others bluc thus creating confusion for drivers passing through the wwious European countries. 2. In the field of a i r traffic management, about 40 centrel3 in Europe represent 22 technically incompatible sys-
Volume 101 Number 1, 1995
terns, which thus maintain air borders irreconcilable with the concept of an area without frontiers. The Commission has proposed technical measures to make the equipment used by the different countries compatible, and thereby increase the effectiveness of air traffic control between countries. 3. In the railway sector, we enceunter the well-known case of differences in gauge and electrical power supply among the various M e m b e r States. The European Union is working toward the realization ofinteroperability in all fields. To this end, the Union plans to adopt a directive on interoperability with regard to maximum speed.
Institutional Framework for Decision-Making The joint decision-mAklugprocedure instituted by the Treaty on the Union applies in the field of Trans-European transport networks; and, therefore, the European Parliament is very involved in the decision-mAking process. In addition, the recently formed Committee of Regions, which must be integrated into this process, will issue its opinions on the guidelines for the transport networks. The thus-widened dialogue should make it possible to adopt guidelines that will be as relevant as possible to all parties concerned. The Commission's White Paper on =Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment" (issued in 1993) provides the legal basis for Union projects involving T r a n s - E u r o p e a n Networks (TENs). This paper received a very favourable reception from all of the Union institutions, the E u r o p e a n Council and the European Parliament, as well as from Member States. The Commission's proposal to combat unemployment and redynamise the European economy rests in particular on the development of TENs for transport, telecommunications and energy. The importance of these networks in the revival of the economy had already been stressed at the 1992 meeting of the European Council of Ministers of Transport, held in Edinburgh. As a result, the Council established, w i t h i n the E u r o p e a n I n v e s t m e n t BAnk, a temporary mechanism for arranging a loan of 5 billion ECU for 1993-1994, aimed at encouraging the financing ofinfrastructures. This idea has sinc e been taken up in the conclusions of the Council m e e t i n g s in Copenhagen and Brussels, held in 1993 and 1994, respectively. In recent years, insufficient attention has been paid to the development of infrastructures. This neglect has affected all of the European countries-and, above all, the citizens who have watched their daily living conditions
deteriorate. The economic parties eventually denounced the rigidities, slowness and malfunctioning t h a t had arisen from their insufficient or aging infrastructures as one of the principal causes of the current weakening of their competitiveness. Financing N e e d s In t e r m s of statistical data, the extent of the needs for financing of the transport sector in the European Community are reflected in the figures below: • The annual public investment of the Member States in the transport sector currently amounts to 0.8--0.9% of the GDP, i.e., about 50 billion ECU a year for the European Union. • In the networks of the Member States, more than 200 projects (including all transport modes), representing a total value of 400 billion ECU, have been identified to be carried out between now and 2010. • Between 1993 and 1999, an investment of approximately 220 billion ECU--i.e., 30 to 35 billion ECU per year--will be necessary to carry out these projects. Vis-/~-vis such needs, and under the current budgetary conditions within both the Community and the Member States, the Commission is well aware t h a t the public sector alone will be unable to ensure such investments. Therefore, participation by private investors will be more essential than ever for the development of TransEuropean transport networks. It is in this spirit that the Commission will approach transport projects henceforth. The decision to submit, in its White Paper on Transport Policy (1992), an indicative list of 26 =priority~ projects for the next five years is a first illustration of the Commission's commitment to investment in such projects. Indeed, this first list of projects is intended to launch the reflection and preparation process, and to encourage partnership among all of the actors concernedqnamely, the official authorities on all suitable levels, the network operators, the users, the service people receiving benefits, the financiers, and the industrialists. This partnership must award a central role to the players who are most likely to activate the private sector and to mobilize private investment. In order to help the proposals of the White Paper become reality, the European Council of Ministers of Transport is encouraging the creation of highlevel groups responsible for monitoring these proposals. One such group is described below.
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY47
The Christophersen Group With regard to Trans-European transport and energy networks, the Christophersen Group, which takes its n a m e from the Commissioner w h o chairs it,is composed of personal representativesofthe heads ofstate ofthe M e m b e r States. The group is charged with encouraging the execution of the projects adopted as a priorityby each M e m b e r State, in agreement with the
European Commistsion. O n 8 April 1993, the Ministers of Finance forthe European Union agreed on an initiallistof 10 isriorityprojects, primarily high-speed trains (T.G.V.s) and the motorways. The listofprojects was approved at the summit meeting ofthe heads of state and of the government ofthe Union, held in June 1994 in Corfu. Working sitesfor the following projects should be developed over the next two years: • The high-speed combined transport North-South Brenner axis Verona-Munich-NiirnbergErfurt-Halle-Leipzig-Berlin. * The high-speed train (Paris)Brussels-Cologne-AmsterdamLondon. , The high-speed train South' Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax. • The high-speed train East ParisMetz-Strasbourg-Appenweier (Karlsruhe), withjunctious MetzSaarbrucken-Mannheim and Metz-Luxembourg. • The B e t t u w e line: combined transport/conventional rail Rotterdam-Rhein/Ruhr. • The high-speed tr~in/cembined transport line Lyon-Turin. , The P a t r a s - G r e c o - B u l g a r i a n border motorway, together with the West-East motorway corridor Igoumenitsa-ThessalonikiAlexandroupolis. • The Lisbon-Valladolid motorway. , The railway connection CorkDublin-Belfast-Larue-Strauraer. • The Oresund fixed rail/road link between Denmark and Sweden, including Danish access routes. • The Italian airport of Malpousa. This first list was supplemented by two groups of projects realizable in the long term; altogether, approximately 35 projects have been identified by the Christophersen Group. The second group, implying the start of the works in perhaps two years, comprises the following projects: • The combined transport Unionwide: projects identified in France, Germany, Italy,Belgium, Portugal and Spain. • Nuremberg-Prague motorway.
• The Berlin-Warsaw-(Moscow) motorway, in parallel with the Berhn-Warsaw-(Moscow) highspeed train link. • The Dresden-Prague motorway. • The Ireland/United Kingdom/ Benelux road link. • The Sparta airport (Athens). • The Berlin airport. • The Autoroute de la Maurienne. • The Autoroute Marateca-Elvas. • A high-speed train route in Denmark. A third group of projects,listedbelow, already has been idenfied, but requires further examination: • The F e h r m a r n Belt fixed link between Denmark and Germany. • The Bari-Otranto motorway. • The Rhine-RhSne canal. • The Seine-Schelde canal. • The Elbe-Oder canal. • Upgrading of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen. • The high-speed train RandstadRhein/Ruhr-AmsterdamArnheim-(Cologne). • The Valencia-Zarageza-Somport road corridor. • The high-speed t r a i n TurinVenice-Trieste. • The high-speed train (Brenner)Milan-Rome-Naples. • The Trans-Apennine highway Bologna-Florence. • The Transrapid magnetic levitation train. • The high-speed train connection Luxembourg-Brussels. Finally, some projects would involve the implementation of new technologies on a Europe-wide basis, i . e . , projects relating to traffic managem e n t and which will improve the use of infrastructure for all modes of transpert (land, sea and air). In this category, the following projects could be considered: • A r o a d traffic m a n a g e m e n t system; • An a i r t r a f f i c m a n a g e m e n t system; • A vessel traffic m a n a g e m e n t system; • A multimedal positioning system by satellites; • Pilot projects for a railway management system. The following projects would concern Central and Eastern Europe: • The Berlin-Warsaw-lVlinRk-Moscow highway and (high-speed) railway; and • The Dresden-Prague and Nuremberg-prague motorways.
48 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
II. Extending the Tran$European Networks in Central and Eastem Europe and Beyond The politicaland economic changes that have taken place in Central and Eastern Europe over the lastfew years have made the West look more closely at these countries (and vice-versa)vis~-vis the possibilitiesfor economic development that they offer;and have led to the need for closercollaborationand integration of the transport networks in a pan-European context. Please note the differencein wording: ~ T r a n s - E u r o p e a n ~ means inside the Community, which in some cases extends to the E.F.T.A. (European Free Trade Association)countries,whereas ~Pan-European ~ encompasses the whole of geographic Europe. A firstPan-European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, called together by the Commission and the European Parliament, was held in Prague in October 1991. Discussions at the conference led to the conclusion that m u c h more collaborationand coordination were needed among all of the European countries in the fieldof transport. Within the European Union, this conclusion was confirmed by the Treaty of Maastricht, which gives the Commission the mandate to negotiate bilateral or m u l t i l a t e r a l t r a n s p o r t agreements with the Central and Eastern European countries. The Directorate General for Transport for the Commission recently took the initiative to present a series of schemes for Trans-European Networks for the whole of Europe at the Second Pan-European Conference of the Ministers of Transport, which was held in Crete on 14-16 March 1994. Although the main work for the presentation was done within the Cornmlssion, there was good collaboration with the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations in Geneva, and with the permanent institution called European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which has its secretariat in Paris. The hope was fidfilled that all parties would try to concentrate their financial efforts on nine selected corridors--witbeut any investment cemmitment, but preferring these projects to investments for construction, modernization or maintenance of other transpert infrastructure works. In this sense, "all parties ~ includes: 1. The European Union and all of its involved p r o g r a m m e s , such as P H A R E (Technical assistance programme for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, except countries in the Commonwealth of Indepemdent States [C.I.S.]), TACIS (Technical assistance programme for C.I.S. countries), the Edinburgh and Copenhagen
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
initiatives, and the l ~ c t o r a t e General VII (Transport) of the European Commission. These progrAmmes are described briefly below. 2. The internatiova] financial institutions, namely the World BRnk; the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; and the European Investment Bank, which is in fact part of the European Unio~a. 3. The private secter counterparts to these programmes ~md institutions. This effort does not imply in any way an intervention in the national t r a n s p o r t policy of each country. Rather, it is designed only as a guideline for possible outside financing for transport projects.
European Union Financing Programmes It may be useful to, briefly explain the functions of the European Community organizations referred to in item 1, above. • P H A R E is the European Union technical assistance programme for Central and Eastern Europe, excluding the C.I.S. (Commonwealth of I n d e p d e n t States) countries. The programme also inc|udes Albania, Slovenia and, since 1994, F y r o m ( F o r m e r Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia), as well as the Baltic States, but excludes the C.I.S. countries. PHARE is a multi-purpose organization that is driven by the demands of the various countries. 'l~nis meonR that the use ofthe available grants is mainly defined by the countries themselves, rather than by Brussels. The amount of money involved is approximately 1 billion ECU/year for tl~e 10 main sectors and the 12 countries together. Transport receives, on average, 10% of this amount, dependizLg on the priorities fixed by each coventry. Of this amount, about 25% is earmarked for the regional component (i.e., concerning at least two countries) and about 75% for the national component. • TACIS is a similar programme for the C.I.S. countries. It involves about 450 million ECU/year, 8% of which, on average, is devoted to transport. The program places a major emphasis on nuclear safety, by allocating, on request of the countries, major fin a n c i a l support in this field. Both PHARE and TACIS concentrate on technical assistance, trAi-l-g and feasibility studies. The main condition for grant money is a fair competition between consultants from the European Union and thqerecipient countries themselves. • The E d i n b u r g h I n i t i a t i v e , issued at the end of 1992, provides for more possibilities through the European Investment Bank.
Volume 10, Number 1, 1995
• The C o p e n h a g e n I n i t i a t i v e , dating from spring 1993,mainly served to create the possibility to use 15% of the total PHARE money (i.e., about 150 million ECU) to help finance, as a grant and in combination with other institutions, infrastructure projects in the fields of energy, transport and environment which are of common interest. Thus, this initiative is intended for i n v e s t m e n t s , and not for studies. • A special B o r d e r - C r o s s i n g Ini. tiative, recently approved by the European Parliament, assigns an additional 150 million ECU, also from the PHARE budget, to development of border crossings between E.C. countries and PHARE countries. • Also regarding border crossings, at the Central Europe Security Conferenco in January 1994, it was decided to allocate the financial means to improve the transport infrastructure in the countries victimized by the embargo against Serbia. As of Augnst 1994, two corridors for p r i o r i t y b o r d e r ~ r o s s i n g i m p r o v e m e n t a c t i o n s had been defined: 1. Austria-Hungary-Romania-Bulgeria-Istanbul. 2. Adriatic Sea-Albania-BulgariaBlack Sea.
Trans-European Transport Priorities (as of March 1994) At the Second Pan-European Conferenes of Ministers of Transport, held in Crete in March 1994, the Directorate General for Transportation presented a series of schemes for Tr~n~European networks. These priority transport schemes took the form of a three-tiered system. Projects were assigned to a particular tier, depending on their priority, as well as their technical and financial maturity. They depend, as well, on a number of technical, economical, fin a n c i a l and environmental criteria, which play an important role in the degree of mutual interest for both the Central and Eastern European countries and the European Union. The three tiers of transport projects are described below. T i e r I corresponds to the ideal network, as seen by the countries and by international organizations such as the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations, the European Conference of Ministers of TrAnRport, etc. This network, which consists of roads, railways and internal navigation, is estimated at about 400 billion ECU, and has no assigned time frame. T i e r 2, which is the most important tier, includes within the network of Tier I the nine polymodal corridors on which all efforts should be focused during at least the next decade in
order to carry out a basic transport network. The totalinvestment for comple_~-g these nine corridors is estimated at about 100 billion ECU, although it is very difficult to make accurate estimates for works that have not yet been defined. As shown in Figure 1, the nine selected polymodal corridors are: • C o r r i d o r 1 : Ta]linn-Riga-Vilnius and extension Riga-I~llnln~radGdanak. • C o r r i d o r 2: Berlin-WarsawMinsk-Moscow. • Corridor 3:Berlin/DresdenWroclaw-Katowice-KrakowLvev-Kiev. • C o r r i d o r 4: Dresden/NiirnbergPrague-Brno-BratislavaBudapest-Arad-TimisoaraDobreta Turnu Severin-Danube crossing-Fofia-Thessaloniki, with extensions ViennaBratislava, Vienna-Budapest, Arad-Bucharest-Constanta and Sofia-Plevdiv-Istanbul. •
Corridor5:TriesteiKoper/Rijeka-
Ljubljana-Budapest-UzgorodLvov, and extension BratisfiavaZilina-Kosice-Uzgorod. •
C o r r i d o r 6: G d a n s k - L o d z ( W a r -
saw for the rail) -Katowico-Zillna, and extension (road only) to Foznan. • C o r r i d o r 7: T h e full Danube River, from the Austrian border to the Black Sea, including all ports along this approx. 2000km-long stretch. • C o r r i d o r 8: D u r r e s - T i r a n a Skoplje-Sofia-Plovdiv-BurgasVarna. • Corr/dor 9: Helsinki-St. Petersburg-Vitebsk-Kiev-ChisinauBucharest-(near) Plovdiv, and extensions Moscow-Kiev, Kaliningrad-Kaunas-Vilnius-Minsk and to Odessa. T i e r 3 consists of those projects within Tier 2 that are ready for implementation, both at the technical and the financial levels, in the very short term. The total investment for carrying out the total of 68 identified projects in ten countries amounts to about 10 billion ECU, which can be broken down as follows: 75% for roads. 20~ for rail. 5 % for ports and navigation. 0% for aviation and urban projects. There was a general consensus on this approach and the selected corridors by all of the Conference participants; and, particularly, by the 40 delegations, headed at the ministerial level, from the European Union coun-
TUNNBLUNGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY49
tries,the E.F.T.A. countries, the Central and Eastern European countries, the Western C.I.S.countries,and most of the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Three constructive remarks were made by the conference delegates: I. Hope should not be abandoned that the situation in the former Yugoslavia will stabilize and be clarified over time. 2. Integration of the T R A C E C A (Transport Corridor Europe - Central Asia) corridor through the Black Sea, the South Caucasian republics, the Caspian Sea, and the Central Asian (South C.I.S.) countries, up to China along the former "Silk Road", should not be neglected. 3. Care should be taken to integrate the countries that border the Mediterranean Sea, including North Africa and its links to the European Union.
Opportunities and Cautions for Private Financing Private financing has been viewed as the miracle solution to the problem of financing transportation infrastructure. Indeed, its usefulness has been demonstrated on various occasions inside the Union. The best known examples are the French and Italian motorways and the CbAnnel T~lnnel, which began operations only recently and the financial viability of which will be confirmed in the future. In Central and Eastern Europe, only one example of privatization is really underway: the M1-M15 motorway from Gyor, Hungary, to the Slovakian and Austrian borders. The time required to finalize this project and to convince the financial partners is t e s t a m e n t to the fact that it was a difficult exercise, and one in which all of the elements were not (and perhaps are not yet) fully known. Recently the Czech Government decided to close the file on private financing of an important part of the motorway between Plsen and Prague, and to return to traditional budget financing. For the private financing of infrastructure projects, and particularly for toll motorways or other road infrastructure, one of the essential points is the traffic forecast, which normally is based on both the present t r a f f c and predicted economic development. In Central and Eastern Europe, the latter is far from easy to estimate. In addition, a large portion of local traffic will not use such facilities because of the cost, unless forced to do so by artificial constraints. Compulsory hard currency for tolls is obviously also a disincentive for increased local use; in many cases, even the actual
trafficis too low to justify fullprivate financing. The case is differentfor other infrastructure works at a single location that depend directlyon the demand. A successful example is the Warsaw airport; other possibilities are the container ports on the Black Sea, or possibly the new Danube border crossing between Bulgaria and Romania. Where is the middle ground between public and private financing? The answer is easy: mixed financing. Implementation of this concept creates a new discipline,financial engineering, which must take into account all the aspects of private and public funding, including unusual ones such as those noted above, e.g., P H A R E grants, interest rebates, bank warrant subsidies, etc. It is really a new branch of the economic sciences. The main difficulty will be to define the proportion of the project to be privately financed. Even more than the concession duration, this factor could be the key element in comparing and weighing the offers in a competition among potential private financiers.
Funding of Non-Priority Infrastructure Projects A word should be said about funding projects not located on the TransEuropean Networks (TENs), but still important for the habitabilityof cities, which always need more urban tunnels for metros, urban railway connections, and road bypasses. These urban works are not normally a part of the European Union priority transport corridors pro-gramme, despits their importance for international, as well as national, regional, and local traffic. Neither are they oRenincluded under the auspices of PHARE or TACIS transport programmes, even though they are determined by the various national Ministries of Transport, beth for t h e n a t i o n a l a n d r e g i o n a l progammes. Instead, in most countries the urban infrastructure is the responsibility of the cities, which often depend on the Ministry of the Interior and have almost no contact with the national Ministry of Transport. The same can be said for the e n v i r o n m e n t programmes of PHARE and TACIS. However, one example will serve to illustrate the potential for funding of such infrastructure needs: Leakage problems in the metro of Erevan were put forward by the Armenian Ministry of Transport, and were immediately accepted by the European Union as the subject of a study, including a pilot section, funded by TACIS. Therefore, it is avisable that city authorities,particularlythose in charge of tunnels for metro and road, but for
50 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
alltypes of cables and canalizations as well, to talk with their P H A R E or TACIS representatives and explore possibilities for funding. In addition, it should be remembered that the PHARE pregrAmmes applies not only to infrastructure, but also to multi-purpose projects. Furthermore, the Copenhagen initiative for financing includes environment and energy projects as well as transport projects. Because all three areas make heavy use of underground works, there are opportunities available for those who are sufficiently knowledgeable and persevering to seek them out.
III. Looking to the Future Where does the Commission intend to go now? Inside the Union, on three approved levels of Christophersen G r o u p projects,the Commission willcontinue the search forfinancing or co-financing of the priority infrastructures. Outside the Union, the nine priority corridors have to be finalized, taking into account the remarks of the Crete Conference. These corridors must be defined more precisely in terms of localization, transport mode, and priority sections, in order to identify the bottlenecks and the missing link.. Both scenarios need to define still more a p p r o p r i a t e criteria for the projects, and to collect and organize the extensive administrative, technical, traffic-related, financial, and other data required. These tasks are not i n s i g n i f i c a n t : e a c h fiche of a Christophersen Group project is five to eight pages long, and the total number of specific sections in the Crete Conference exercise has increased to about 300, for the Central and Eastern European countries alone. To s , mmarize the view for the future of the proposed transport infrastructure projects: 1. There is, and there will remain for a long time, a large gap between needs and means~ 2. There also is a large gap between the whole of the priority corridors and the number of projects truly ready for implementation in the short term. 3. Each improvement on the road or highway system allows an increase in the speed of cars and trucks, implying a decrease in safety, particularly in the cities and villages. Therefore, investments in measures to increase safety m u s t be taken into account at the same time, a n d as an integral part of the projects, not afterwards. 4. On the other hand, the increasing speeds on the roads will lead to time savings. For example, an improvement allowing 80 km/h instead of 40 km/h along a 400-km stretch of roadway through a country translates,
Volume 10, N u m b e r I, 1995
for a truck, into a benefit of five hours. However, at the berders of some countries, the average waiting time currently averages one to two days; so everything remains ro]lative.
IV. Tunnels for Transport in Cental and Eastern Europe Where are the tunnels for transport in all of these plans? In Central and E~mtern Europe, most of the t-nnels would be associated either with urbml metros in the larger cities, or with railways (some of which are located on the corridors of Tier 2, above). Inside and around the European Union, a number of potential tunnel projects are under prepration, although for some of them neither the final decision in favour of the underground solution nor the financing arragements have been finalized. AJ~ong these are: • Inside the Union: - The F e h r m a n n link (Germany-Denmark); - The h i g h - s p e e d / c o m b i n e d lower rail tmmel under the Frdjus (France-Italy); and - The high-speq~ train t - n n e l under the P ~ n d e s (FranceSpain). • At the borders of the Union:
-
The fixed link: crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar (SpainMorocco); - The lower raJil tunnel under the Brenner pass (Italy-Austria); and
Volume 10, Number 1, 1994
-
The Oresund fixed link (Sweden-Denmark).
• In the immediate vicinity of the Union:
-
-
The Swiss rail tunnels under the St. G o t t h a r d and the Lotchberg; and The new links for rail, road and/or s u b w a y u n d e r the Bosphorus in Istanbul.
The following transport t-nnels for the Central and East European countries are currently under study because they are part of the designated priority corridors: • A 5-km-long t u n n e l on the motorwaybetween Ljubljana and M a r i b o r on the L j u b l j a n a Budapest axis. • A series of tunnels crossing the Karpati mountain chain in Bulgaria, on the axis between Bucharest and Istanbul. • A sunken tunnel on a second fixed link for railand read across the Danube, between Bulgaria and Romania, linking Sofia and Craiova. The feasibility study and optimal location research for this project will begin very soon under the auspices of the Regional P H A R E programme. • T w o tunnel alternatives to the surface solution at the GermanCzech border crossing,on the new road between Dresden and Prague. • At least two railway t-nnels at the borders between Bulgaria
and Macedonia, and between Macedonia and Albania, to complete the Black Sea-Adriatic Sea corridor. It is worth noting that about I k m ofthe firsttunnel, near Kustendil in Bulgaria, was excavated during the 1940s and only about 50 m remains unfinished, although the height is not appropriate for electrical traction. • A n u m b e r oftunnels on the EastWest link between Kosice and Zilinia in northern Slovakia. • Possible tunnels on the M 7 along Balaton Lake in Hungary, in response to environmentalists' objections to increased and faster traffic through the highly touristed towns and villages along the lake. Moving further east, the European Union isconcentrating itseffortsin the southern portion ofthe Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.),on the T R A C E C A axis. Although itis too soon to define any specific tunnels on this existing corridor, it can be assumed that these countries desire better links that can be used year-round. In mountainous areas such as the Himalayas, this will undoubtedly m e a n that tunnels will be a part of any T R A C E C A transport project. []
Note The Maastricht Treaty refers to the European Treaty (October 1991) that was ratified by all countries in the European Union by the end of 1992.
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY51