Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
congestion was achieved only to a limited extent in the sense that they have not prevented a
continuing growth in traffic.
Equally, at most only a relatively small amount of funding was devoted in most cases to
improving intermodal links despite the common recognition of the environmental importance of
those which take traffic and freight off of roads and onto rail, sea transport or waterways.
Although examples of investment on such links emerged from the case studies – such as in
Andalucía or Merseyside, in the form of Liverpool South Parkway railway station with improved
links for bus and car users – the priority given to roads over the period tended to discourage
investment in inter-modality.
Questions were also raised in the course of the evaluation about the case for allocating ERDF
support to high-speed rail projects, which in some cases are of limited relevance for regional
development, especially for intermediate points along the route where there are no stations.
Moreover, it is argued that the reduction in journey time needs to be set against the high cost of
construction as compared with investment in more standard railways. Equally account needs to be
taken of the other sources of finance which might well be available, not least the Cohesion Fund
and the TEN-T budget.
Similarly decisions to allocate funding to modernising regional airports need to give serious
consideration to the question of whether they will lead to sufficiently larger numbers of
passengers, who will in turn add to economic activity in the region, to justify the cost. They also
have to consider whether there might be commercial as well as social returns which would attract
private finance and obviate the need for public funding.
The same applies to the modernisation and expansion of ports, which tend to be competing in a
commercial market for international freight and where the allocation of public funding might
distort competition for no obvious social gain.
3.4.6 Concluding points
The evidence from the evaluation of the transport programmes undertaken in different countries
and the case studies carried out is that ERDF funding of investment in transport made a major
contribution to tackling the main problems identified at the beginning of the period.
Nevertheless, many of the problems remain. In particular, it led at best to a minimal shift from
road to rail in most regions, had a limited impact on urban congestion and established only a
small number of intermodal links. These results together with other concerns identified by the
evaluation raise a number of questions about the future funding of transport investment under
cohesion policy:
• Given the growing concern with the environmental damage caused by road transport in
particular, together with the substantial investment which the ERDF has co-financed over
the past 20 years, should funding in future be provided for road construction or
improvement in EU15 countries?
• Given the uncertain nature of the benefits for regional development stemming from
investment in high-speed rail coupled with the alternative sources of funding available,
should the ERDF be used to finance their construction in future?
• Given the expansion of airports in many regions across the EU and perhaps the limited
scope for a significant net expansion of passenger numbers in future years, should
funding any longer be allocated to their development, especially in the EU15?
87