PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

286
give CEE countries a second chance to retrofit the selections that had already been agreed
upon at the ministerial level in light of additional national interests and newly emerging
developments in terms of actual traffic flows in the region. The resulting TINA Final
Report is thus a remarkable document that deserves some detailed attention.
The preamble of the TINA report reiterates key EU interests in the region, noting
that “the elements of the European Transport infrastructure network in the [Central
European] region are vital to competitiveness, economic growth and employment
throughout Europe, and in the European Union in particular” (TINA 1999:11). When
pledging consistency with the “principle of sustainable mobility,” the report defines this
principle as “bringing together the economic and social goals of efficiency, safety and
minimalisation of environmental damage.” Multimodality is identified as a core aim.
The TINA process is then divided into two main stages: first, an initial, cost-conscious
definition of the network and second, the identification of investment measures which
would the network “up to a desired quality level.” Built into the report was the typical,
yet disputable assumption that forecasting present trends into the future alone presents a
necessary justification for infrastructure expansion. As the report notes (p. 14):
?? The network should be in line with the criteria laid down in the EU Guidelines for the
Development of the TENs…
?? The technical standards of the future infrastructure should ensure consistency
between the capacity of network components and their expected traffic.…
?? The time horizon for the achievement should be 2015.
?? The cost of the network … should not exceed 1.5.% of each country’s annual GDP
over the period up to 2015. (my emphasis)
The most stunning fact with regard to the defined network, however, is that the
vast majority of the so-called “needs assessment” consists of a rather blatant continuation