Alp-Net: Inception Report

344 Pages·2002·1.64 MB·English

by  Florian Gubler

European Commission DG TREN
Fifth Framework Programme
Competitive and Sustainable Growth

Key Action 2
Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality

Task 2.1.1/8
Thematic Network on Trans-Alpine Crossing
Contract Number: GTC1/2000/28057-SI2.315865

Work Package 1 Trans-Alpine Crossing – An Overview

Deliverable 1 Inception Report

Author
ECOPLAN
With contributions from partners and members

16 November 2001

Co-ordinator ICCR
Core partners NESTEAR (cid:56) ECOPLAN (cid:56) NEA (cid:56) DITS
Permanent members IWW (cid:56) ITEP (cid:56) NETR (cid:56) MARIBOR
(See inside for details of consortium members)
Author:
ECOPLAN
Felix Walter
Florian Gubler
David Kramer

With contributions from partners and members as indicated at the beginning of each section.

Partner Explanation Scientific contact person
ICCR The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Re- Mr. Michael Schmidt
search in the Social Sciences; [email protected]
Vienna (Austria)
NESTEAR NESTEAR - Nouveaux Espaces de Transport en Mr. Christian Reynaud
Europe; [email protected]
Arcueil (France)
ECOPLAN Ecoplan – Economic Research and Policy Consul- Mr. Felix Walter
tancy; [email protected]
Berne (Switzerland)
NEA NEA – Transport Research and Training; Mr. Philippe Tardieu
[email protected]
Rijswijk (The Netherlands)
DITS University of Rome „La Sapienza“; Department of Mr. Antonio Musso
Hydraulics, Transport and Roads; [email protected]
Rome (Italy)
IWW University of Karlsruhe; Institute for Economic Mr. Claus Doll
Policy and Research; [email protected]
Karlsruhe (Germany)
ITEP Federal Institute of Technology; Institute for Trans- Mr. Panos Tzieropoulos
portation and Planning; [email protected]
Lausanne (Switzerland)
MARIBOR University of Maribor; Faculty of Civil Engineering; Mr. Marjan Lep
Road and Traffic Centre; [email protected]
Maribor (Slovenia)
ALP-NET Overview (cid:132) 3
Overview

Overview................................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary................................................................................................................4
Contents................................................................................................................................14
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................15
2. Policy context..............................................................................................................16
3. Research on horizontal themes (WP2)......................................................................117
4. Research on vertical themes (WP3)...........................................................................208
5. Other relevant research issues...................................................................................292
6. The first ALP-NET Workshop..................................................................................293
List of Abbreviations..........................................................................................................315
References..........................................................................................................................318
4 (cid:132) Executive Summary ALP-NET
Executive Summary
Introduction
ALP-NET is a thematic network launched under the Key Action ‘Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality’
of the GROWTH programme of the 5th Framework Programme for Research and Development of the
European Commission.
The subject matter of ALP-NET is transport in the Alpine regions. The latter faces specific problems due
to the capacity limits of existing infrastructure and the sensitive ecological landscape.
As a thematic network ALP-NET will not carry out new research but instead bring together teams from
ongoing research projects and policy makers and stakeholders in order to synthesise, concert and co-
ordinate ongoing-work and for discussing open questions.
This inception report comprises an annotated bibliography on relevant themes and as such represents a
starting point for discussions on specific issues. It provides a very broad overview on recent and current
policy and research developments. It served as a ’general compendium’ for the discussions at the first
project workshop in October 2001. As such, it will allow specifying the agendas for the forthcoming
workshops within the ALP-NET project.
Furthermore, it includes a summary of the contributions and the conclusions of the first workshop held in
Brussels in October 2001.

All information on studies, projects, publications and key actors is also available on our project homepage
at www.alp-net.org.
Policy Context
In the main part of the inception report, the international and national policy background is briefly pre-
sented and key actors are identified. In this executive summary, we briefly outline the key issues.
The centrally located Alps have always been an important feature of European transport. Since Europe
has consolidated as a single economic area, the transit route through the Alps has gained in importance.
Over the years, the continued growth of trans-Alpine transport has led to a significant increase of trans-
port-related problems, such as ecological damage, safety risks and noise. Congestion is a recurrent prob-
lem that can be explained by the fact that transport demand exceeds the capacity of the existing infrastruc-
ture. Reducing bottlenecks by merely building new (road) infrastructure is not considered a sustainable
solution. This would reinforce the ecological problems and the resistance of the population in the affected
regions. Furthermore, there are problems to finance new infrastructure projects.
Instruments that try to curb the demand or to shift it to environmentally friendly modes of transport have
had a limited success so far. Apart from the conflicting interests of shippers, there are also conflicts
among the Alpine countries since every national measure has repercussions for the neighbours.
New strategies are called for and this at different levels of government. The trans-national nature of trans-
port makes clear that only co-ordinated transport policies can lead to successful results. The bilateral
agreement with Switzerland as well as the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention are attempts to
integrate non-EU countries in this process.
ALP-NET Executive Summary (cid:132) 5
The analysis of EU policy documents shows that there is no explicit European Alpine transport policy.
Instead, there are elements affecting trans-Alpine traffic such as the promotion of Combined Transport,
the TEN (some of them across the Alps), and the attempts to harmonize weight limits, working hours and
pricing/financing, where the new White Paper on the Common Transport Policy contains some specific
provisions for sensitive areas like the Alps.
In order to analyse the EU policy context it is necessary to draw attention to politics within the European
Union. It was mostly the Commission that took the initiative to present economically and environmen-
tally innovative transport policy strategies in its White and Green Papers. The limited progress can in part
be explained by the fact that implementation is for several transport issues subject to majority decision in
the Council of Ministers (where Member States are represented). Problematic also remains the implemen-
tation deficit of directives agreed upon.
Austria and Switzerland, the two countries situated at the heart of the Alps, have the most active transport
policy regarding trans-Alpine transport. As a member of the European Union, Austria will have to give up
its Ecopoint system by 2003. The latter helped contain growing transport and pollution to a certain de-
gree. Although the accession agreement between the EU and Austria clearly states that after 2003 the
Austrian road network will be subject to the same rules as any other road within the EU, it remains un-
clear whether Austria will be able to defend some special regulations in order to protect its Alpine space
from road traffic. In any case, Austria plans to introduce road pricing for HGV as of 2003.
Switzerland’s transport policy is characterized by its role as a non-Member State of the EU. Transport
agreements with the surrounding countries and later the EU have always had a major impact on the na-
tional policy. With the soon-to-be-implemented bilateral agreement on land transport (BALT), two main
pillars of Swiss transport policy were co-ordinated and agreed upon with the EU. These pillars are the
construction of a new Alpine rail link (NARL) until 2007/2013 and the recent introduction of a mileage-
related heavy vehicle tax (MRHVT), a première in Europe. At the end of a transitional period, both meas-
ures together should lead to a significant shift of freight transit traffic from road to rail.
In Germany, Italy and – to a lesser degree - France, the Alps cover a smaller share of the national territory
than in Austria and Switzerland. Their transport policy is subsequently less focused on Alpine-specific
solutions. These countries rely on expanding infrastructure in order to reduce bottlenecks. France and
Italy have recently decided to build a new rail link between Lyon and Turin. Germany plans to introduce
a distance-related road-charge on motorways for HGVs from the year 2003 onwards. Besides the financ-
ing of new road infrastructure, the charge aims at making rail freight transport more attractive.
Slovenia does not have an officially formulated transport policy. A White Paper on transport policy,
which was initiated in 1996, has never been finished and will be rewritten soon. The national motorway
construction programme has priority to other measures.
The analysis of the policy context shows that the Alpine countries have different approaches to trans-
Alpine transport. Due to institutional reasons, the EU is not acting as effectively as desired by the Com-
mission. Some countries have come up with innovative policy measures in order to tackle the problems
evoked by the ever-growing trans-Alpine transport. A joint effort is needed however to bring trans-Alpine
transport back to a sustainable path.
The review carried out for the inception report has confirmed that an improved co-operation between
policy makers and with the research community is needed on a number of issues. More specifically, we
need:
• a harmonised base for analysis and forecast (evaluation models for projects, data collection, transport
modelling and tools such as GIS)
• a co-ordination in pricing and financing measures and the research related to this issue
• a co-ordination of measures to promote Combined transport and related research
• a better understanding of the peculiarities of the political process in the case of the Alps
6 (cid:132) Executive Summary ALP-NET
Horizontal themes
Methods
This section is about methods for assessing the functioning and efficiency of various transport modes in
relation to the bottlenecks and other constraints in the Alpine area.
There exist several evaluation methods rooted in different theoretical and analytical frameworks. In trans-
port, and particularly with regard to the appraisal of infrastructure, the standard methods in use are cost-
benefit analysis and multi-criteria analysis. Environmental assessment (and as of recently strategic envi-
ronmental assessment) are supplementary methods. The Thematic Network on Policy and Project Evalua-
tion Methodologies (TRANS-TALK) provides a platform for the exchange of methods and evaluation
concepts.
Despite the fact that most countries use the same or similar appraisal methods, there are as of yet no
commonly accepted standards or conventions with regard to the types of impacts to include in the analy-
sis and/or their valuation. For Alpine corridors, there is a need for co-ordination between the various
plans to improve the existing infrastructure in order to avoid under- or over-capacity. This co-ordination
requires a minimal common denominator that should allow a comparison of the evaluation at project
level. Such a common denominator would for instance be necessary for projects like the Brenner or the
Mont Cenis rail base tunnels.
Models
In this context, we use the term ‘models’ to refer to quantitative transport models that are able to analyse
route and mode choice and the impact on traffic flows of scenarios with different growth rates, network
characteristics and policy constraints. Models are frequently also used to complete missing information,
e.g. to estimate origin-destination-matrices when only traffic flows on certain axes are known.
Various models have been developed on a European or regional scale. Furthermore, some of these models
have been applied in case studies for the Alpine area (or part of the Alps), e.g. the STEMM and the PETS
models and the scenarios from SCENES. Models that cover well the Alpine routes are INTRAPLAN,
MATISSE and EUFRANET. The thematic network THINK UP tries to bring together the “architects”
and the users of these models.
However, despite various efforts there is no model that covers all the Alpine crossings and which is up-
to-date, detailed enough and taking into account the modal and route choice and the capacity constraints
on all the crossings. Such a model should also be able to show the effects of various policy measures
(prices, permits, weight limits etc.). Furthermore, there is no clear picture about the possibilities and lim-
its, strengths and weaknesses of the existing models. A particular problem of such a model is that it has to
take into account the long distance transit traffic and at the same time short distance traffic in order to
assess the capacity bottlenecks at the Alpine crossings.
We therefore conclude that there is a need for a better exchange of information on existing models and
ongoing developments. Furthermore, an attempt should be made to develop one or several models in a co-
ordinated way and to assure an independent quality review of these models. These aspects should also be
at the centre of interest of the work to follow in ALP-NET
Data and Statistics
The gap between ambitious data requirements for policy decision-making and the availability of data is
widening. It is obvious that a better statistical tool needs to be developed at the European level. A Euro-
ALP-NET Executive Summary (cid:132) 7
pean Transport policy Information System (ETIS) is long outstanding. A lot of research has been carried
out to determine what exactly should be included in such an ETIS system. One conclusion was to use the
Alpine area as a pilot region and to build up an Alpine transport information system ATIS as a part of the
MESUDEMO project. Many different data sources were compared, harmonised and combined for this
purpose. The ATIS freight database contains freight flows at the regional level disaggregated per origin,
destination, transport mode, transhipment location, commodity group and Alpine Crossing.
Furthermore, there is a co-operation between France, Switzerland and Austria to regularly provide data on
trans-Alpine freight transport.
As recently confirmed by an ECMT report, there is still a long way to go until data collection and data-
bases on trans-Alpine traffic are reasonably harmonised. Despite very advanced existing co-operation, an
additional effort to co-ordinate especially the data bases from European projects and the data collected by
France, Switzerland and Austria should be made. However, the ongoing activities should not be dupli-
cated, rather the existing gaps in the exchange of information should be filled. This intensified co-
operation should be connected to the modelling issue.
GIS
A geographic information system (GIS) is necessary to analyse and visualise the relations between trans-
port infrastructure networks, socio-economic and demographic information and transport flows.
Our literature review reveals that currently several systems and software tools are in use. In most national
administrations the process of standardisation and implementation of GIS has just started. At the Euro-
pean level, several systems and networks were analysed and compared by the MESUDEMO project,
amongst them the APUR-GISCO and GEOSYSTRANS systems. Well-known software used to visualise
relations between transport infrastructure networks and transport flows are for example MapInfo and
ArcInfo.
It is not yet clear in which fields and to what degree a harmonisation of GIS as a tool should take place.
With regard to the Alpine region, it would be helpful if the GIS tools used at national levels and within
projects commissioned by the European Commission were compatible.
In the future work of ALP-NET, the needs for harmonisation and possible action with respect to this
should be discussed in more detail.
Vertical Themes
Decision Making Process
The decision-making context is of particular interest for the Alpine case because
• non-EU-countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia) are involved
• special agreements on trans-Alpine transport have been concluded (Alpine Convention with its
Transport protocol, bilateral transport agreements with Switzerland and Austria)
• several conflicting interests are at stake (shippers, operators, affected population, a sensitive envi-
ronment etc.).
Trans-Alpine transport was not a focal point of the Common Transport Policy of the period 1995-2000
but is likely to be one in the forthcoming years, not least because of the expiry of the transit agreement
between Austria and the EU, and specifically of the Ecopoint system, in 2003. We can therefore expect an
intensification of bilateral and multi-lateral activities in the next couple of years.
8 (cid:132) Executive Summary ALP-NET
Finding appropriate regulatory and/or economic measures that deal with the problems faced in the trans-
Alpine crossing and which are accepted by all relevant parties to the agreements will not be easy. Solu-
tions must be elaborated by the Commission in consultation with Member countries and other stake-
holders, but have then to be approved by the Council of Ministers. With few exceptions, the European
Parliament has (until now) no major co-decision power in transport, yet it has to be consulted. The same
applies to the Council of Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. There are, in other words,
several points at which pressure from various groups, regional governments or Member States can be
exerted.
Mention must also be made of the European Court of Justice and of intra-institutional interaction, espe-
cially within the Commission. The ECJ already once played a major role in pushing through a common
transport policy agenda following the intervention of the European Parliament. Recently it was called to
decide on the dispute between Austria and the European Commission on the implementation of the Eco-
point system. Otherwise, the failure of the Commission to come up with a new White Paper on the Com-
mon Transport Policy in early 2001 as originally planned is related, amongst others, to disagreement
within the Commission about the contents of this paper – in particular from within the general director-
ates of budget and environment.
Another important player is the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), where the non-
EU-countries are fully integrated. ECMT has been active in Alpine policy as well.
The ALP-NET literature review produced a good number of studies dealing with decision-making proc-
esses in the countries involved, but little specific information for the trans-Alpine crossing. Several of the
studies dealing with the policy contents of transport policy at European and national level (in comparative
perspective and/or for the purpose of elaborating future scenarios) have produced as a by-product an in-
sightful analysis of the special nature of policy-making in the European Union and the role and position-
ing of various actors representing different interests. This analysis is interesting for ALP-NET in that it
largely explains the difficulties the EU is facing in the field of trans-Alpine transport. Nevertheless, there
would appear to be a need for a more systematic and tailored analysis of the decision-making context
surrounding the trans-Alpine crossing.
In Austria there are some interesting studies describing the decision-making process from the perspective
of representatives of the citizens’ initiatives that are fighting against the official transport policy of their
country.
For Switzerland, studies show the influence of federalism and direct democracy on the country’s transport
policy. Political scientists claim that Swiss transport policy is increasingly determined by the European
level and that fully autonomous Swiss solutions are no longer tenable.
To sum up, there are a limited number of studies that have dealt with the specific trans-Alpine transport
issue from a political science point of view. It would certainly be interesting to draw conclusions from the
political process and to improve future co-operation in this field. For all actors involved, it would be in-
teresting to learn how to deal successfully with complex situations There is often a significant gap be-
tween collaboration for the purpose of exchange of information and active co-operation and co-ordination
For the EU it is not easy to deal with “special cases” like the Alps and non-member states. Therefore, as a
first attempt, the planned ALP-NET workshop on policies and decision-making should be used as a plat-
form to analyse the peculiarities of the political process surrounding the Alpine transport issue and to
discuss innovative approaches to tackle the existing problems in co-ordination and co-operation.
Combined Transport
Combined Transport (CT) is usually seen as one possible solution for the trans-Alpine transport problem.
There are several important issues in this field:
ALP-NET Executive Summary (cid:132) 9
• technical problems (loading systems at terminals, infrastructure)
• capacity optimisation and the modelling of capacities
• modelling combined transport in transportation models
• current operational and organisational problems (lack of co-operation between railways, administra-
tive problems with track access and track fees)
• design and evaluation of political programmes for the promotion of CT

Many reports have been written about the current problems and the potential of CT; so the need for fur-
ther research may be limited to some specific aspects such as: terminal location and network operation,
competition between techniques; importance of rolling motorways, and priorities for slots allocation.
As for the international co-operation of operators, working groups of the railway companies have been
put in place already. There is no need for further co-ordination.
However, better co-operation among the policy makers in order to harmonise their programmes for the
promotion of CT would probably be helpful. Therefore, we recommend putting the stress on this issue for
the workshop planned within ALP-NET.
Pricing and Financing
Pricing is a key issue of the Common Transport Policy as well as of research Currently the various re-
search activities are co-ordinated through the IMPRINT-EUROPE thematic network. The focus of the
ongoing projects is the establishment of harmonised national transport accounts, the real-world
implementation of pricing schemes and the use of revenues (e.g. about cross-financing other modes).
At the political level, the introduction of heavy vehicle charges that are related to mileage and emissions
characteristics is at the centre of the debate, especially after the successful introduction of the electronic
Mileage-related Heavy Vehicle Tax (MRHVT) in Switzerland.
Several studies have dealt with the trans-Alpine transport prices. They generally found large deviations
from optimal pricing and distortions between modes and routes. Several impact studies show that mar-
ginal cost pricing will not benefit the environmentally friendlier mode in any case. Furthermore, pricing
can have a large impact on traffic, particularly if the pricing scheme is applied in an internationally har-
monised way and for the whole distance and not only on a small stretch like a tunnel.
The financing issue has gained importance in the last months. This is related to the fact that new infra-
structure, like the Mont Cenis or the Brenner base tunnel, requires heavy investments.
It is recommended to relate more closely the research and the policy makers concerned with the freight
taxes and financing of infrastructure in the Alpine area. Information on recent and ongoing case studies as
well as on political plans needs to be more actively exchanged.
Further issues
There are several issues in the field of Alpine transport that are beyond the direct scope of the terms of
reference of ALP-NET. However, it was agreed to list such issues and to discuss whether they should be
treated within ALP-NET or in another way.
10 (cid:132) Executive Summary ALP-NET
Co-ordination of infrastructure planning
The international co-ordination in the planning of new infrastructure (like Brenner, Mont Cenis etc.) was
addressed in part in the chapter on methods. As there are heavy investments and financial risks involved
and the European Commission (TEN-T) as well as all the Alpine countries have an interest in co-
ordinating these plans, there could be room for improved co-ordination and for a better exchange of in-
formation between researchers and other actors. This issue should be included in the method workshop,
but furthermore, a co-ordination on specific projects could be necessary.
Environmental monitoring
Usually transport experts mainly think about transport data and less about the environmental impacts of
transport. In most countries, a monitoring of key environmental data is in place. These data are not always
linked to transport databases. Furthermore, the data are not always harmonised at an international level.
Since the environmental problems are (together with infrastructure and financial constraints) among the
main underlying problems in Alpine transport, it should be explored whether and how a better co-
ordination of environmental monitoring could be achieved.
Safety in tunnels
After several heavy vehicle accidents in Alpine tunnels (Mont-Blanc, Tauern, Gotthard), the safety pre-
cautions have been reviewed by most countries. Improvements in the tunnels are planned. The rules for
the equipment, the load of dangerous goods and the training of the actors involved have also been dis-
cussed. There might be a need for further co-operation in this field.
Conclusions drawn from the first ALP-NET workshop
Policy Developments in Alpine Transport and the Decision Making Con-
text
1. No single policy instrument is sufficient on its own to overcome the problems faced by trans-Alpine
transport. Thus whilst both combined transport and pricing promise to ameliorate the situation with
regard to modal split, congestion and environmental externalities, their application needs to be com-
bined and possibly also co-ordinated, spatially as well as temporally. The same is true for each pol-
icy instrument separately.
2. Temporal co-ordination involves considering the phasing of policies in such a way so as to deal with
immediate and short-term problems to the maximum extent possible (besides resolving problems in
the longer-term). This also applies to the political decisions that are or should be upcoming in the
near future regarding how to deal with the higher charges being proposed by the French government
on the Italian-French crossing and the possible extension of the Austrian Ecopoint system until that
time that a European charging system is realised.
3. Spatial co-ordination involves a higher degree of collaboration among Alpine countries and regions
so as to avoid the ”Not in my Back Yard (NIMBY)” syndrome whereby unilateral or bilateral deci-
sions lead to an amelioration of the situation in a specific country or over one particular crossing but
to no positive results, or indeed a worsening of the situation in another country or at another cross-
ing. Such co-ordination should also consider the transport situation of specific countries – for in-
stance, the higher current ‘dependency’ of Italy on the Alpine crossings for the transfer of goods.