Transcript Project 2.1.1

ESPON 2.1.1
Territorial Impact of EU Transport and TEN
Policies
Nils Schneekloth, University of Kiel
ESPON seminar
October 11, 2004
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
1
Structure of the TIA
 Analysis of impacts of transport policies with two economic models
– CGEurope (Spatial CGE model of transport flows with monopolistic
competition)
– SASI (quasi-production function model of accessibility)
 Impacts per NUTS-3 region
 Comparison of „with“ and „without“ for 13 scenarios in the Final Report:
– Change of accessibility
– Change of GDP per capita
– Equivalent variation of income
2
Summary of transport policy scenarios
Time horizon
Policy type
Scenario characteristics
Retrospective 19912001
Reference
A0
Do-nothing
Infrastructure
A1
Only rail projects
A2
Only road projects
A3
Rail and road projects
Reference
00
Do-nothing
Infrastructure
B1
Priority projects (new list)
B2
TEN/TINA projects
B3
TEN/TINA projects except cross-border corridors
B4
TEN/TINA cross-border corridor projects only
B5
TEN/TINA projects only in Objective 1 regions
C1
Reduction of the price of rail transport
C2
Increase of the price of road transport
C3
Social marginal cost pricing of all modes
D1
Priority projects plus SMCP (B1+C3)
D2
TEN/TINA projects plus SMCP (B2+C3)
Prospective
2021
2001-
Pricing
Combination
3
4
5
Scenario B1: Distributive effects of the implementation of the
TEN priority projects (SASI)
6
Scenario B1: Implementation of the TEN priority projects (CGEurope)
7
Scenario B2: Implementation of TEN and TINA projects (SASI)
8
Scenario B4: TEN/TINA, cross-border projects only (CGEurope)
9
Scenario B5: TEN/TINA, objective-1 regions projects only (CGEurope)
10
Scenario C3: Pricing of all modes of transport (CGEurope)
11
SASI model: Accessibility cohesion effects in
EU27+2
Accessibility cohesion effects (+/–)
Scenario
CoV
Gini
G/A
RC
AC
A1
Only rail projects 1991-2001
+
+
·
+
––
A2
Only road projects 1991-2001
+
+
+
+
–
A3
Rail and road projects 1991-2001
+
+
+
+
––
B1
Priority projects
+
+
++
++
–
B2
All TEN/TINA projects
++
++
++
++
–
B3
TEN/TINA except cross-border corridors
++
++
++
++
–
B4
TEN/TINA only cross-border corridors
+
+
+
+
–
B5
TEN/TINA only in Objective 1 regions
+
+
+
+
–
C1
Reduction of price of rail transport
+
+
+
++
––
C2
Increase of price of road transport
–
–
–
––
++
C3
SMCP of all modes
–
–
––
––
++
D1
B1+C3
+
+
+
+
++
D2
B2+C3
+
+
++
+
+
+/++ Weak/strong cohesion effect: disparities reduced
–/–– Weak/strong anti-cohesion effect: disparities increased
·
Little or no cohesion effect
CoV
Gini
G/A
RC
AC
Coefficient of variation (%)
Gini coefficient (%)
Geometric/arithmetic mean
Correlation relative change v. level
Correlation absolute change v. level
12
SASI model: GDP/capita cohesion effects in
EU27+2
GDP/capita cohesion effects (+/–)
Scenario
CoV
Gini
G/A
RC
AC
A1
Only rail projects 1991-2001
–
–
·
–
––
A2
Only road projects 1991-2001
–
–
·
–
––
A3
Rail and road projects 1991-2001
–
–
·
–
––
B1
Priority projects
+
+
·
–
––
B2
All TEN/TINA projects
+
+
·
+
––
B3
TEN/TINA except cross-border corridors
+
+
·
+
––
B4
TEN/TINA only cross-border corridors
+
+
·
+
––
B5
TEN/TINA only in Objective 1 regions
+
+
+
+
–
C1
Reduction of price of rail transport
–
–
·
–
––
C2
Increase of price of road transport
+
+
·
+
++
C3
SMCP of all modes
+
+
·
+
++
D1
B1+C3
+
+
·
·
·
D2
B2+C3
+
+
+
+
––
+/++ Weak/strong cohesion effect: disparities reduced
–/–– Weak/strong anti-cohesion effect: disparities increased
·
Little or no cohesion effect
CoV
Gini
G/A
RC
AC
Coefficient of variation (%)
Gini coefficient (%)
Geometric/arithmetic mean
Correlation relative change v. level
Correlation absolute change v. level
13
Polycentricity impacts
 Methodology presented in FR of 1.1.1 applied to transport scenarios
 Score measure containing sub-indices of size, location and
connectivity applied at national scales
 Calculation for the reference scenario and all transport scenarios
 Evaluation for all transport scenarios, if national polycentric structure
is improved or if it declines
14
Development of polycentricity of national urban
systems in the old EU member states 1981-2021
15
Development of polycentricity of national urban
systems in the accession countries 1981-2021
16
Conclusions on polycentricity impacts
 The polycentricity of the European urban system has increased in the past
and is likely to continue to increase in the future as large cities in the
accession countries catch up with cities in western Europe.
 However, polycentricity of the European urban system will mainly grow in the
accession countries, whereas it will decline in western Europe because of the
continued growth of the largest cities.
 Polycentricity of national urban systems in Europe has declined in the past
and is like to continue to decline in the future.
 All transport infrastructure policies examined accelerate the decline in
polycentricity of national urban systems because they tend to be directed at
primarily connecting large urban centres.
 Transport pricing scenarios which make transport less expensive have the
same effect as infrastructure improvements.
 Transport pricing scenarios which make transport more expensive in general
strengthen the polycentricity of national urban systems.
17
Impact of scenarios on connectedness of FUAs
18
19
ICT policy impact
 Scenarios based on hypotheses on regional distribution of EU ICTs
investments
– among regions
• lagging vs advanced
– among ICTs policies suggested by eEurope 2002 (DG Information society)
• accessibility
• internet connections
• high-tech employment
 2% of average annual ICTs investments in 15 EU member states
 Estimate of marginal efficiency of investments in accessibility, internet
connections and high-tech employment
 Forecast of pc GDP average annual growth rate in 20 years with
STIMA model
20
Scenario A: pc GDP average annual growth rate (STIMA)
21
Scenario B: pc GDP average annual growth rate (STIMA)
22
Scenario C: pc GDP average annual growth rate (STIMA)
23
Typology of regions by ICTs policies impact
24
Issues and risks in the horizontal co-ordination
of transport policy
 Improving the accessibility of lagging regions leads towards
equalisation of competitiveness and mobility, but especially by less
sustainable modes
 Failure to implement the complete package leads to danger to reduce
the positive benefits and increase negative consequences
 Improving accessibility has the risk that remote and rural regions are
insufficiently competitive to withstand competition
 Risk of out-migration of potential labour force from less competitive
regions, when transport costs to central regions are reduced
 Pressure on structural policies to complement transport policies to
support firms in disadvantaged sectors and regions
25
Issues and risks in the vertical co-ordination of
transport policy
 Impact of policy depends critically on how member states enact
legislation to affect given EU policy objectives
 Different intensities in use of EU policy in formulating national
priorities
– EU-15: little direct use of EU policy to formulate policy goals, but use of
similar concepts with respect to environment, cohesion and regional
impacts
– Accession countries: strong emphasis on TENs and EU priorities in
formulation of policies
 National policies clearly address only national cohesion issues
 Differing policy interests in implementing projects in geographically
adjacent countries can lead to potential conflicts in cohesion and
environmental goals
26
Recommendations on the co-ordination of
transport policy
 Conflicts between national and EU cohesion goals in transport
planning should be avoided
– by territorial impact assessment of cross-border projects
– by co-ordination of policies of geographically adjacent countries
 Identification of benefits and costs of projects arising in countries,
which are not directly involved in deciding the project is necessary
 Improve the clarity with which transport policy is communicated
 Agreement on the relative use of pricing/regulation and infrastructure
policy has to be made
27
Conclusions
 Transport policies have only small effects compared to macro trends
 Large increases in regional accessibility transform into small changes in
regional economic activity
 Regions in the periphery especially with underdeveloped transport and
ICT networks are most positively affected by investments in
infrastructure
 Past and future transport infrastructure policies show a positive
tendency in the impact on cohesion in EU-27
 Uniform pricing policies have a slightly negative impact on cohesion in
EU-27
 Future EU transport investments have a relatively small, but negative
impact on polycentrality in EU-15 and the 12 accession countries
 ICT policies can have a considerable effect on spatial development
depending on the way of implementation (balanced vs concentrated)
28
Conclusions and recommendations
 Infrastructure policies tend toward a positive effect for cohesion in Europe, so
a complete re-orientation is not necessary
 TEN policy shows a tendency to strengthen congested central regions that
are threatened by congestion due to capacity constraints and missing pricing
mechanisms
 In countries with spatial inequality problems, infrastructure development
reinforces rather than mitigates the tendency of polarised economic
development, especially in the accession countries
 Accession countries should strengthen their secondary networks, so that their
peripheral regions gain from the more rapid growth in their agglomerated
centres
 Transport policies in peripheral regions may weaken agglomeration
advantages, whereas ICT policies are supposed to be generally growth
enhancing and improve peripheral access to information and communication
29
Conclusions and recommendations
 SMCP is in tendency unfavourable of peripheral regions and negative
with respect to our cohesion measures, even though some caveats
have to be made
 But: SMCP is most attractive means of managing undesirable external
environmental effects
 SMCP should be accompanied by a compensation scheme for those
regions that definitely suffer from losses
30
Conclusions and recommendations
 Strengthening secondary networks as well as environmental/pricing
policies lies in the responsibility of national and regional authorities
 Shift of responsibilities for infrastructure to higher authorities is not
recommended, because of interactions with other policy fields, in
which subsidiarity is still predominant
 Better communication between EU, national and regional authorities
is recommended being aware of the conflicts that were analysed
31
Future research questions (1)
 Can we identify a stable impact of transport and ICT policies on GDP
and economic welfare?
 Are there network effects, i.e. is the impact of large policy
programmes greater than the sum of the impacts of the development
of individual links?
 Are GDP per capita or GDP based indicators such as equivalent
variation sufficient as measures of regional well-being, or should more
meaningful indicators of quality of life be included in the analysis?
 How do we measure the contribution of transport and ICT policies to
polycentricity?
 What is the trade-off between scale economies of concentration and
lower transport costs encouraging dispersion?
 Do lower transport costs always encourage dispersion, is there an
optimum level of transport or transport intensity in the economy?
32
Future research questions (2)
 At what spatial level should polycentricity be assessed, and how can
the conflicts between polycentricity at different levels be resolved?
 How have results on pricing policies to be modified, if redistribution of
revenues is taken account of?
 What is the appropriate institutional structure to ensure the efficient
delivery of transport and ICT policy consistent with the needs of EU
spatial policy?
 How much government at which level?
 How can policy be communicated between different levels of decision
making?
33
Networking
 Close contact with other ESPON projects especially through mutual
participation of project partners, close contact with ESPON 1.1.1,
1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 3.1
 Results of other studies in FP4 and 5 have been taken account of,
especially IASON, TEN-ASSESS and TEN-STAC
 Division of labour into 6 work packages
 3 partners for modelling
 2 partners for the analysis with respect to policy goals
 2 partners for dealing with transport flows and policy interaction
34