Estratti dalle Relazioni del Coordinatore della Torino-Lione
Riferimenti al “dialogo” con i cittadini e ai concetti di linea mancante e collo di bottiglia
https://www.presidioeuropa.net/blog/?p=6115
1 – Relazione annuale d’attività anno 2006 Loyola de Palacio 2006_07_pp 06_fr
Pag. 4
iii. section franco-italienne (tunnel de base), St Jean de Maurienne (F) – Bruzolo (I), la date la plus réaliste pour son achèvement se situe – au mieux – vers 2019-2020. Cette section rencontre l’opposition des habitants de la vallée de Suse à sa réalisation. La France a lancé le 23 mai 2006, l’Enquête d’Utilité Publique (EUP) qui s’est terminée le 30 juin 2006 et qui doit aboutir, d’ici la mi-2007 à une Déclaration d’Utilité Publique (DUP) prélude au lancement de l’opération.
Pag. 10
la décision des autorités italiennes, le 12 décembre 2005 de créer un « Observatoire de la vallée de Suse », auquel est donnée la responsabilité trouver des solutions aux difficultés que traverse le projet dans la vallée de Suse. M. Virano nommé à sa tête par le précédent gouvernement a été confirmé, début juin. Le gouvernement italien a également réuni – le 29 juin – les principaux acteurs nationaux et régionaux au sein d’un groupe de contact dans le but d’examiner les réponses à donner aux interrogations des opposants au projet. L’objectif que le gouvernement s’est fixé est de parvenir à une proposition concrète d’ici la fin de l’année 2006 (voir chapitre dédié à ce sujet) ;
Pag. 11
5. QUESTIONS SENSIBLES
5.1. Situation dans la Vallée de Suse et conséquences sur le projet.
Il s’agit à l’heure actuelle de la question la plus sensible qui pourrait avoir un impact sur le développement de l’ensemble cet axe prioritaire, à laquelle le coordonnateur considère qu’il est urgent d’apporter une réponse. Le chantier de Venaus – dans la vallée de Suse – où devait être réalisée une des quatre galeries de reconnaissance prévues est arrêté depuis début 2005, compte tenu de l’opposition d’une partie des habitants de la vallée. Les retards qui en découlent ont désormais pris des proportions inquiétantes et risquent d’avoir un impact significatif sur le calendrier de mise en œuvre du projet. Les opposants au projet, manifestent plusieurs griefs à l’égard du projet et de son impact sur la vallée de Suse, ils considèrent notamment que:
- le projet n’est pas justifié, compte tenu du trafic escompté et du fait que la vallée de Suse est déjà largement concernée par des infrastructures (transport – énergie) ;
- la ligne historique possède encore une réserve de capacité de trafic, qu’ils estiment importante en cas de modernisation de celle-ci;
- le projet présente des risques pour la santé (présence d’amiante et de radon) et l’environnement non maîtrisés. A cela s’ajoute le fait que la législation en vigueur (Legge n°441, dite « Legge Obiettivo ») n’exige pas d’Evaluation d’Incidences sur l’Environnement (EIE) pour les tunnels exploratoires 13.
Dans le cadre de son mandat, le coordonnateur qui s’est rendu dans la vallée de Suse, le 24 novembre dernier – a décidé de promouvoir une médiation européenne afin de tenter de relancer le dialogue en apportant certaines garanties aux habitants de la vallée. La Commission a ainsi fait réaliser, par des experts, une évaluation indépendante de la qualité et de la cohérence des études réalisées par Lyon-Turin Ferroviaire sur les questions au cœur des préoccupations des habitants de la Vallée de Suse, à savoir :
- santé;
- environnement;
- choix de la réalisation d’une ligne nouvelle contre modernisation de la ligne actuelle.
Les experts ont ainsi fourni des éléments à la Commission permettant de juger si les études réalisées par LTF peuvent être considérées comme cohérentes et fiables avec les objectifs affichés et, le cas échéant, ils ont indiqué les éventuelles lacunes que l’on pourrait constater et les recommandations sur des améliorations à apporter ou des études complémentaires à intégrer. Les experts considèrent notamment que la possibilité – avancée par les opposants au projet de ligne nouvelle – d’envisager une modernisation de l’ensemble de la ligne historique ne permettrait pas de répondre à l’objectif du rapport modal compte tenu des caractéristiques intrinsèques de cette ligne qui date du milieu du XIXème siècle. Le rapport a été mis rendu public à la fin du mois d’avril 2006 14.
Au-delà même des résultats de cette évaluation, le rapport des experts fournit des éléments d’information sur le projet afin que les habitants de la vallée de Suse puissent se forger leur propre opinion sur l’intérêt de réaliser cet ouvrage15. Sans pour autant minimiser les risques – la découverte d’amiante durant le chantier reste possible – ni l’impact sur le territoire pendant la phase de construction, le rapport confirme le bien fondé des études en cours afin de minimiser l’impact du projet sur l’environnement et d’assurer la maîtrise des risques sur la santé. Le gouvernement italien pourra s’appuyer sur « l’Osservatorio » de la vallée de Suse, afin d’apporter des réponses, claires, transparentes aux interrogations des habitants de la vallée de Suse, en matière notamment de santé et d’environnement, en leur permettant de comparer les avantages escomptés de ce projet avec ses nuisances potentielles (notamment pendant sa phase de construction).
Le coordonnateur attache une importance particulière aux démarches qui seront entreprises à travers l’Osservatorio de la vallée de Suse. Il invite notamment les autorités concernées, au niveau local, régional et national, à étudier la façon de mettre en œuvre le projet Lyon-Turin parallèlement à un processus de réhabilitation de la vallée de Suse (par exemple assainissement des terrains – réaménagement de certains réseaux notamment électrique16).
Par ailleurs, le coordonnateur souhaite pouvoir organiser une réflexion – large – sur l’avenir du transport à travers les Alpes qui tiendra compte des aspects tels que le rééquilibrage modal, le respect de l’environnement, la sécurité ou encore aux conséquences sur le transport – à moyen long terme – du renchérissement et de la raréfaction des énergies fossiles.
Nota 13 – La Commission a ouvert une procédure d’infraction à l’encontre de l’Italie sur la compatibilité de la Legge Obiettivo avec le droit communautaire. L’exclusion des galeries de reconnaissance – telles que Venaus – du champ d’application complet de l’EIE pourrait être en infraction avec la législation communautaire.
2 – Relazione annuale d’attività anno 2007 Report Brinkhorst 2007_07_19_pp06_
Pag. 6-7
3.2 Setting up the Val Susa “observatory”
In the previous report, Mrs de Palacio ad emphasised the delicate situation in the Val Susa and its potential impact on the project timetable. On 21 June 2006, during her last journey as the coordinator, she had a meeting with the Italian prime minister Mr Prodi to convey to him her concern about this issue and the need to find a way to resume dialogue between the various stakeholders. One of the opponents’ main complaints was that current legislation (Italian Law No 441/2001, known as the “Legge Obiettivo”) does not require environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for exploratory tunnels. On 29 June 2006, at the second meeting of the “Tavolo Istituzionale de Palazzo Chigi”9 involving the various stakeholders (government and ministers on the one side, and opponents represented by the mayors of the municipalities concerned on the other), Mr Prodi, on a proposal from the infrastructure minister Mr di Pietro, as a pledge of the government’s goodwill, decided to withdraw the project from the list of those covered by the “Legge Obiettivo”. The project is now governed by the so-called “Merloni” Act which provides for an EIA procedure concerning the final project and greater involvement of the local population in the decision-making phase.
On 4 July 2006, Mr Mario Virano was confirmed as head of the “Observatory for the Turin-Lyon rail link” (hereinafter the “observatory”), an entity set up by the previous government with a view to facilitating dialogue. The observatory began its task on
12 December 2006. Composed of experts from the administrations concerned (national, regional and local), infrastructure managers, LTF and representatives of the Lyon-Turin CIG (intergovernmental Commission), the observatory has since met every week without exception. By the end of June 2007 there had been 29 meetings.
This démarche by the Italian government is useful and might result in profound changes in the planning of major infrastructures in Italy, not only by associating more closely with the decisions those who will have to put up with the effects of creating a new infrastructure (i.e. the local population) but also by enabling the dissemination of more precise information about the project . This is the role that the observatory has now been playing for nearly eight months, and the results clearly show the usefulness of this structure. The observatory’s success in a situation where institutional communication arrangements on the Italian side had failed shows that those arrangements had not been suited to coping with the challenges of this project and had very adversely affected the understanding and acceptance of the project by the local population. The great care taken to inform and consult the local population on the French side from the very beginning of the project (care that is part of the inspiration for the observatory) resulted in the public utility enquiry concerning the section of the base tunnels situated in France running very smoothly between May and June 2006: the remaining sticking points are confined to project detail modifications10.
_____________________________________________________
9 Translatable as the “Palazzo Chigi institutional working group”.
10 The matter was referred to the Council of State on 30 March and the Declaration of Public Utility (DUP) of the French portion of the base tunnel might in principle be delivered by the end of the year.
Pag. 15
The Val Susa observatory has played an essential part in finding a solution to the serious problems affecting the area. Even if all the problems are far from resolved, the situation in July 2007 is definitely better than it was in June 2006.
The real challenge now facing the Italian authorities will be to implement the decisions advocated by the observatory21. The choice of the “revised” route for the access link to the Turin node is also a major issue on which much of the success of the project will depend.
3 – Relazione annuale d’attività anni 2007- 2008 – RELAZIONE ANNUALE DI ATTIVITÀ 2007-2008 – Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
Pag. 5
2.3 Lavori dell’Osservatorio
I lavori dell’Osservatorio per il collegamento ferroviario Torino – Lione sono iniziati nel dicembre 2006 per rispondere all’opposizione al progetto manifestata da gruppi ambientalisti, autorità municipali e cittadini della Val di Susa. Il compito dell’Osservatorio, presieduto dal signor Virano, consisteva nel coinvolgere tutte le parti in causa – comuni, regione, provincia, imprese ferroviarie ecc. – in un processo tecnico grazie al quale sarebbero stati esaminati tutti gli aspetti connessi alla nuova linea ferroviaria.
L’Osservatorio ha saputo avviare un processo di ampia portata dopo un periodo di accese polemiche. Il Tavolo Istituzionale di Palazzo Chigi del 13 febbraio 2008 ha conferito all’Osservatorio l’incarico di terminare i lavori entro giugno 2008 e presentare le sue raccomandazioni al governo su un possibile tracciato in Val di Susa.
L’Osservatorio ha concluso le attività rispettando i termini fissati, dopo aver tenuto 70 riunioni e organizzato circa 300 audizioni con la partecipazione di circa 60 esperti internazionali.
A maggio e giugno 2008 i lavori si sono particolarmente intensificati, mentre Lyon Turin Ferroviaire e Rete Ferroviaria Italiana hanno organizzato una serie di presentazioni sul possibile tracciato in Val di Susa. Le proposte rispettano pienamente la sensibilità ambientale del territorio e sfruttano quanto più possibile l’infrastruttura esistente.
In base al nuovo tracciato proposto la galleria internazionale sboccherebbe a Susa, dove sarà costruita una stazione internazionale.
Il 28 giugno l’Osservatorio ha pubblicato un documento, comunemente noto come “Accordo di Pracatinat”, che presenta i punti di accordo per la progettazione della nuova linea ferroviaria e per le nuove politiche di trasporto per il territorio.
4 – Relazione annuale d’attività anni 2009-2010 - Relazione Annuale 2009.2010 Brinkhorst PP6-IT-900
Pag. 8
2.4. Progressi istituzionali in Italia
L’“Osservatorio per il collegamento ferroviario Torino-Lione” ha avviato le proprie attività nel dicembre 2006 in risposta all’opposizione al progetto da parte dei cittadini della Val di Susa. L’Osservatorio, presieduto dal sig. Virano, ha avuto un grande successo nel realizzare un processo di inclusione dopo un periodo di accesi dibattiti. La fase 1 delle attività dell’Osservatorio è terminata, come previsto, alla fine del giugno 2008.
Per rispettare tale scadenza, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire e Rete Ferroviaria Italiana hanno proposto un nuovo possibile tracciato attraverso la Val di Susa. Tale tracciato rispetta pienamente il delicato contesto ambientale del territorio e utilizza il più possibile infrastrutture già esistenti. Secondo il nuovo tracciato proposto nel giugno 2008, l’uscita della galleria internazionale si troverebbe a Susa, dove sarà costruita una stazione internazionale.
Il 28 giugno 2008 l’Osservatorio ha raggiunto un accordo chiamato “Accordo di Pracatinat”. Il 29 luglio 2008 le autorità italiane preposte, riunite nel cosiddetto “Tavolo Istituzionale di Palazzo Chigi”, hanno stabilito che l’Osservatorio continui le proprie attività dedicando una particolare attenzione a risolvere i problemi di trasporto locale dell’area, avviare attività di trasferimento modale per garantire che le strade alpine dell’area vengano liberate da 100.000 mezzi pesanti entro l’ottobre del 2011 e avviare le procedure di progettazione preliminare per la nuova linea dalla frontiera francese a Settimo Torinese.
Nell’arco del periodo di riferimento l’Osservatorio ha proseguito il proprio lavoro tecnico con i rappresentanti di tutte le parti interessate. Le attività della seconda fase dell’Osservatorio si sono concluse il 30 giugno 2010 con il trasferimento alle autorità dei progetti preliminari per la linea sul territorio italiano fino a Torino. L’accordo raggiunto dovrebbe ora essere confermato in un documento giuridicamente vincolante riguardante il nuovo tracciato. L’Osservatorio accompagnerà tutte le attività riguardanti la linea in Italia fino alla fine del 2010.
5 – Relazione annuale d’attività anni 2011 – 2012 – Report Brinkhorst PP6 2011-2012
Pag. 4
The efforts of the Italian authorities to engage with the local population of the Susa valley continued throughout the reporting period. Mr. Mario Virano, chairman of the Italian Observatory for the Torino-Lione railway link continued his valuable work in facilitating and organising a structured dialogue with all interested local and regional parties. The work of the Observatory has been instrumental in organising a transparent and democratic decision-making process in Italy. Without the unflinching efforts of the Observatory under the leadership of Mario Virano, the entire project would not have reached the current momentum of support.
Pag. 9
1.3. The Italian Observatory
The work of the Observatory for the rail link Turin-Lyon started in December 2006 in response to opposition to the project by citizens of the Valley of Susa. The Observatory, chaired by Mr Virano, was successful in establishing an inclusive process after a period of fierce confrontation. The Observatory Phase I ended its activities according to schedule at the end of June 2008 by proposing a new alignment in the Susa valley. In the following two phases the Observatory continued its technical work with representatives of all interested parties during the elaboration of the preliminary project. The third phase of the Observatory was concluded on 30 June 2010 with the handover to authorities of the preliminary project for the line on Italian territory up to Turin.
In the fourth phase (from July 2010 onwards) the Observatory developed the concept of phasing the works, i.e. postponing the construction of the Orsiera tunnel in the Susa Valley and instead interconnecting the new railway line with the historic line at Susa. Furthermore, the Observatory oversaw the elaboration of the cost-benefit analysis which was presented by the Italian Transport Minister on 26 April 2012.
In the reporting period, Mr Virano continued his efforts to communicate the project to the local population, notably the future works on the La Maddalena exploratory and access tunnel at Chiomonte. In the CIG on 6 July 2011, Mr Virano explained that of the 14 municipalities affected by the project, at present only four were opposed and ten were in favour of the project.
Despite this clear majority in favour of the project, a small yet determined group of opponents continued to stage violent protests throughout the summer of 2011, culminating at one point in leaving 200 hundred police injured.
Criminal as well as civil liability charges have been brought against the demonstrators and are still pending in the courts and tribunals of Turin.
As the project stands now – further to the signing of the 2012 Agreement – the only two municipalities actually affected by physical changes (both by the project itself and the ensuing construction sites) are Chiomonte and Susa.
Chiomonte is the location of the Italian descending shaft, which will become one of the four access points of the base tunnel for safety and rescue purposes (the other three are in France).
6 – Relazione annuale d’attività anno 2013 - Rapport Brinkhorst Octobre 2013 pp6_fr
Pag. 7
Les efforts déployés par les autorités italiennes pour dialoguer avec la population locale de la vallée de Suse se sont poursuivis tout au long de la période de référence. M. Mario Virano, président de l’Observatoire italien pour la liaison ferroviaire Turin-Lyon, a poursuivi son excellent travail en facilitant et en organisant un dialogue structuré avec toutes les parties locales et régionales intéressées. Les travaux de l’Observatoire ont joué un rôle déterminant pour l’organisation d’un processus décisionnel transparent et démocratique en Italie. Sans les efforts inlassables de l’Observatoire sous la direction de Mario Virano, l’ensemble du projet n’aurait pas atteint la dynamique actuelle de soutien.
Pag. 9 – 10
1.2.4. L’Observatoire italien
Les travaux de l’Observatoire italien pour la liaison ferroviaire Turin -Lyon, sous la direction éclairée de M. Mario Virano ont été détaillés dans les derniers rapports annuels. Il suffit de rappeler dans le présent rapport que M. Virano a réussi, après une période de féroce confrontation dans la vallée de Suse, à établir un processus inclusif.
Il a en outre joué un rôle important dans l’élaboration du projet préliminaire de ligne sur le territoire italien, jusqu’à Turin. L’Observatoire a également développé le concept d’échelonnement des travaux, qui consiste à repousser la construction du tunnel d’Orsiera dans la vallée de Suse et à rattacher, au lieu de cela, la nouvelle ligne ferroviaire à la ligne historique à Suse.
Malgré une nette majorité parmi les communes de la vallée de Suse en faveur du projet, un petit groupe d’opposants déterminés a continué à organiser de violentes protestations au cours de la période couverte par le rapport, et ce, de plus en plus sous la forme d’attaques contre les sites de construction de La Maddalena et d’actions dirigées contre les entreprises qui y travaillent. Des manifestants font actuellement l’objet de poursuites, au civil et au pénal auprès des tribunaux de Turin.
Avec le projet actuel – suite à la signature de l’accord de 2012 – les deux seules municipalités réellement affectées par des changements physiques (à la fois par le projet lui-même et les chantiers qu’il entraîne) sont Chiomonte et Suse. Chiomonte est l’emplacement de la descenderie italienne, qui deviendra l’un des quatre points d’accès du tunnel de base pour la sécurité et le secours (les trois autres sont en France), Suse servira de point d’entrée/sortie du tunnel de base du côté italien et accueillera le site italien de construction pour les principaux travaux.
Ce site est établi sur une zone déjà touchée par un centre de fret routier et une piste de conduite sûre. Cette zone, une fois l’installation terminée, abritera tous les équipements techniques (maintenance, salle de contrôle, sous-stations électriques, etc.) et la nouvelle gare internationale de passagers.
Ces deux municipalités, les deux seules vraiment affectées par la nouvelle ligne, sont deux des principales villes; elles ont toujours été présentes dans l’Observatoire et ont toujours favorisé le dialogue dans toutes les institutions.
7 – Relazione annuale d’attività anno 2014
The Core Network Mediterranean Corridor Corridors Progress Report
pag. 39
2.3. Critical issues on the corridor
Most of the main critical issues concern the railway infrastructure along the corridor and comprise missing links, bottlenecks and interoperability issues
1) Main missing links
• Lyon-Turin
• Montpellier-Perpignan (the last section missing to complete the high-speed line Paris-Barcelona)
• Trieste-Divača
2) Bottlenecks
• Railway nodes of Lyon, Torino, Milano, Treviglio, Verona, Venice and Trieste
• Treviglio-Brescia (this double track line faces capacity problems and needs to be enlarged to four tracks)
• In Slovenia, the main railway lines along the corridor need upgrading in order to increase capacity:
Divača – Koper (second track); Divača – Ljubljana; Zidani Most – Celje; Pragersko –Hodoš; Pragersko – Hungarian border (project in progress, electrification)
• The entire Croatian railway network requires upgrading: almost the entire network consists of single track lines, except the section Dugo Selo-Zagreb.
• Southern rail bridge in Budapest
• Several sections of HU main lines require upgrading and/or reconstruction of: Boba-Székesfehérvár; Budapest-Szajol-Debrecen-Nyiregyhàza; Kelenföld – Százhalombatta – Pusztaszabolcs –Budapest; Szolnok-Szajol
• Insufficient rail connection to the ports of Barcelona, Marseille, Trieste, Koper and Rijeka
• Lack of last mile rail connection to most Italian IWW ports
• IWW infrastructure in Hungary requires complete overhaul; most serious issue: lack of draught on the Danube; this issue is dealt with by the Rhine-Danube Corridor.
3) Interoperability issues
• UIC standard gauge deployment in Spain
• Use of high-speed line Barcelona-Perpignan by freight trains requires locomotives with 3 (!) signalling systems, which currently do not exist on the market
• Lack of infrastructure for transhipment from sea ships to IWW vessels (Ravenna, Trieste, Levante ports)
pag. 40
3. Objectives of the core network corridor
8 main objectives have been identified in the corridor study for the Mediterranean Corridor:
• Removal of infrastructure bottlenecks and bridging of missing links;
• Upgrading of infrastructure quality to TEN-T level;
• Efficient use of infrastructure;
• Optimal integration and improved interconnection of transport modes;
• Optimal interconnection of national transport networks;
• Promotion of economically efficient and high-quality transport;
• Promote resource-efficient use of infrastructure;
• Reduction of congestion.
During the elaboration of the corridor work plan, these general objectives will be translated into specific objectives and measurement indicators.
4. Outlook by the European Coordinator
The key challenge for this year will be the definition and agreement of the corridor work plan, notably to identify the measures needed to address the above-mentioned missing links, bottlenecks and main constraints, including the administrative and operational barriers.
The work plan will be based on the transport market study, and should pave the way for an effective use of the resources that can trigger the development of key priority projects, starting from national budgets and supported for the high EU added value projects by Community sources (Cohesion Policy, Connecting Europe Facility, EIB). Therefore the corridor will be a useful facilitator to fine-tune the actions by Member States, the European Commission, the EIB, as well as private investors. The identification of projects along the corridor will be the main challenge for the oncoming two Forum meetings, with a view to be comprehensive on the one hand, but to maintain a clear focus on the EU added value on the other hand.
As European Coordinator for the Mediterranean Corridor, I see it as my main task to bring all Member States and other stakeholders together in a transparent and constantly deepening dialogue. The Forum is the ideal place for this, but I will also directly address the Member States and other stakeholders in bilateral meetings, visiting them and witnessing the progress on the ground.
I will thereby continue to particularly value the multilateral/Intergovernmental, cross-border cooperation between Member States. For the main missing links, Lyon-Turin and Trieste-Divača, this cooperation will have to be intensified and I will propose that the Commission become a formal party, given that the EU, as from 2014, contributes 40% of the financial resources to these cross-border projects. I would equally seek to further stimulate similar cross-border cooperation for the other cross-border sections.
Synergies will be sought with the Mediterranean Rail Freight Corridor, notably in addressing the administrative and operational barriers on the historic lines, especially on sections where new cross-border projects are being developed and the historic lines need to serve still as main line in the medium term. The use of the existing infrastructure will need to be improved at the best possible terms to make the corridor not only a distant dream but rather an immediate reality, serving citizens and businesses alike.
Finally, I will propose that the work of the Mediterranean Corridor will be seen in the longer-term framework set by the TEN-T and CEF Regulations and therefore continue to be monitored and fine-tuned over the years to come, making the results of 2014 irreversible through the progress on the ground and projects being realised.
8 – Relazione annuale d’attività anno 2015
Mediterranean Work Plan of the European Coordinator Laurens Jan Brinkhorst
pag. 13-14
Cross-border sections
- Spain-France: The new HS line between Figueres and Perpignan, which opened on 1 January 2013, offers capacity, fluidity and safety; but it is still underutilized despite significant growth between 2013 and 2014: fewer than 5 freight trains are dispatched per day. In order to run on the new HS line, freight locomotives need to be able to handle three different voltages and three different signalling systems. There are no locomotives available on the market capable of coping with these requirements. The few freight trains currently running on the line are pulled by retrofitted HS passenger locos.
- France-Italy: the steep gradient of the existing railway line on the French side of the border requires double push locomotives for regular sized freight trains (single loco trains are limited to 650 tons). In addition, the existing sidings and passing tracks restrict further the train lengths making the line uncompetitive.
The new railway link Lyon-Turin with a 57km base tunnel as its main part is the main project of the whole Mediterranean corridor. It is highly strategic, because it is the main missing link in the corridor which aims at connecting south-western Europe with central and eastern European countries. Failing this high performance connection transport relations especially between Italy and France, Italy and Spain, Spain and Italy, and Spain and central and Eastern Europe are hampered. As a consequence freight flows are confined to road transport and deviated to other routes causing congestion and creating additional costs.
pag. 18
5. Objectives of the Mediterranean Corridor
Identification of corridor objectives
It almost goes without saying that developing the Corridor as the backbone of international exchanges between the Eastern and Western parts of Europe will contribute to the economic growth and competitiveness of these countries. Furthermore it will facilitate the connection of the corridor countries with third countries (in particular with countries in North and West Africa as well as in the East).
The TEN-T Regulation defines the general objective of the TEN-T network as to strengthen the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the Union and contribute to the creation of a single European transport area. It shall demonstrate European added value by contributing to the objective in the categories: (i) territorial and structural cohesion; (ii) efficiency between different networks; (iii) transport sustainability; (iv) and increasing the benefits for the users.
Based on this general objective 8 operational objectives have been identified for the Mediterranean Corridor:
• Removal of infrastructure bottlenecks and bridging of missing links;
• Upgrading of infrastructure quality to TEN-T level;
• Efficient use of infrastructure;
• Optimal integration and improved interconnection of transport modes;
• Optimal interconnection of national transport networks;
• Promoting economically efficient and high-quality transport;
• Promoting resource-efficient use of infrastructure;
• Reduction of congestion.
pag. 19-20
6. Recommendations and outlook by the European Coordinator
The year 2014, the first year of the new corridor approach, marks the successful start into the implementing of the core network corridors. A lot has been achieved: there is agreement on the alignment and we have gained a detailed overview of the state of compliance of the Corridor infrastructure with the TEN-T requirements. The transport market study analysed the socio-economic situation of the Corridor as well as its transport flows. For the first time there is a clear picture of the investments needed on the Corridor for all modes to reach the EU targets of 2030. The project list in the annex to the Corridor Study offers a first picture of the individual measures to be taken, together with timing, financial requirements and funding sources.
It is against this background that my recommendations should be read. It will not come as a surprise that they flow from the critical issues discussed earlier on in the Work Plan. As a general rule all interventions which resolve critical issues need to be tackled. In addition, it is the duty of the European Coordinator to recommend certain priorities, given that not all critical issues can and should be addressed at the same time.
Based on the analysis of the Corridor and on the wide consultation with stakeholders in the Corridor Forum but also in the Member States I conclude that efforts need to be concentrated primarily in these areas in order to development the Corridor:
- Completion of missing key sections;
- Ensuring full interoperability;
- Ensuring full connectivity of ports;
- Implementation of ERTMS;
- Development of urban nodes.
- Completion of missing key sections
The new railway link Lyon-Turin is the key section on which the optimal functioning of the whole corridor hinges. Without this new link the Corridor will not be able to perform its role of the major east-west axis south of the Alps.
