pan european corridor x state of play and perspectives n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pan-European Corridor X: State of Play and Perspectives PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pan-European Corridor X: State of Play and Perspectives

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20
Download Presentation

Pan-European Corridor X: State of Play and Perspectives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation

Pan-European Corridor X: State of Play and Perspectives

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Technical Secretariat Pan-European Transport Corridor X Pan-European Corridor X:State of Play and Perspectives M. Miltiadou, Surveyor & Transport Engineer MSc Member of the Technical Secretariat of the Steering Committee for Pan-European Corridor X Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Egnatia Str., 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece, tel.+30 2310 996154, fax +30 2310 996030, • Rail Investment South East Europe 2009 (RISEE09) • Zagreb, 30 June – 01 July 2009

  2. The Corridors concept • Prague Declaration on All-European Transport Policy, 1991 • Foresaw the indication of the most important transport routes • Crete Declaration, 1994 • Set of indicative guidelines covering the main infrastructure Corridors for the various transport modes • Definition of nine Corridors • Helsinki Declaration, 1997 • Definition of Corridor X • Definition of Transport Areas • Overall objective: promote sustainable, efficient transport systems • Sub-objective: promote rehabilitation or reconstruction of problematic links, giving priority to measures, which better exploit existing infrastructures • Mean: collective and coordinated effort of all parties concerned in order to ensure appropriate investment schemes

  3. Definition of Corridor X • 2.300km roads • 2.528km railways • 12 airports • 4 sea- & river- ports Main Axis: Salzburg – Ljubljana – Zagreb – Beograd – Nis – Skopje – Veles – Thessaloniki Branch A: Graz (Austria) – Maribor (Slovenia) – Zagreb (Croatia) Branch B: Budapest (Hungary) – Novi Sad (Serbia) – Beograd (Serbia) Branch C: Nis (Serbia) – Sofia (Bulgaria) and further via Corridor IV toIstanbul Branch D: Veles (F.Y.R.O.M.) – Bitola (F.Y.R.O.M.) – Florina (Greece) and further via Florina – Kozani (via Egnatia) to Igoumenitsa

  4. Structures for the development of Corridor X • Preparative meetings of delegations of countries concerned and representatives of the European Commission and other International Organizations • 15 March 2001: Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by the Ministers of Transport of the participating countries and the European Commission • MoU • Aim: Cooperation for the development of Corridor X infrastructure, operation and use • Means for implementation of the MoU: • General rules on studies • Exchange of information • Agreement on technical standards providing interoperability • Border crossings and customs cooperation • Framework for the participation of private sector and International Financial Institutions • Definition of priorities, budgets, time-plans for specific measures • Coordination by the Steering Committee

  5. Steering Committee for the implementation of the MoU • Delegates of the eight countries participating in Corridor X and representative of the European Commission + observers (International Organizations and third countries) • Meets at least once a year • Chaired by Greek Ministry of Transport since 1999 until 2010 • Supported by a Technical Secretariat (T.S.) • Assigned to the Department of Transportation and Hydraulic Engineering of the Faculty of Surveying Engineering of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

  6. The role of the Technical Secretariat of Corridor X (1/3) • Collection and evaluation of existing information and relevant studies with respect to Corridor X • Coordination and monitoring approach: • Annual questionnaire based surveys in all countries of Corridor X • Extended on-site visits for expertise and meetings with members of the road and rail authorities and organizations in each country • Collection of reports from various sources (international and national organizations) about Corridor X • International cooperation • European Commission – DG TREN, DG REGIO • Other Corridors in the area • UN/ECE Transport Division • European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank • Infrastructure Steering Group of the Joint office for SEE of EC and WB

  7. The role of the Technical Secretariat of Corridor X (2/3) • Data analysis – Development and maintenance of a Database and a relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) • Dissemination of results: Reports, papers, conferences, Website • Inventory of existing studies and evaluation and exploitation of their results • Suggestions for the terms of references for new studies • Examination of conditions providing interoperability and promoting intermodality • Assistance to participating countries for the involvement of the private sector and International Financial Institutions • Traffic flows forecasting study for definition of priority needs for projects

  8. The role of the Technical Secretariat of Corridor X (3/3) • Contribution to the optimization of border crossing operations and procedures • Questionnaire-based surveys • On-site visits for expertise • Constitution of a Working Group under the Steering Committee for the improvement of border crossings along Corridor X • Protocol for cooperation of all authorities involved in border crossing procedures signed in Summer 2006 • Exchange of information with South East Europe Transport Observatory (SEETO) – Technical Secretariat for the implementation of the SEE Core Network • Exchange of information with “ARGE Korridor X” cooperation of the Railway Organizations of the countries of Corridor X

  9. State of play of Road Corridor X • Total length: 2.299,6km • 72,6% of the road network consists of motorways • Main Axis: 1.451,4km [85,9% motorways] • Branch A: 163,4km [73,7% motorways] • Branch B: 352,9km [67,5% motorways] • Branch C: 191,8km [7,5% motorways] • Branch D: 140,1km • Permitted maximum speed along the road axis: 120km/h (in most of the parts) • By 2015 Road Corridor X shall be constructed and operate in motorway profile


  11. Progress of motorway construction on Road Corridor X since 2001 * Problematic section

  12. State of play of Rail Corridor X • Total length: 2.528,2km • 89,3% electrified • 63% single track alignment – 37% double track alignment • Main Axis: 1742,3km (55% single track alignment – Fully electrified) • Branch A: 154,3km (70% double track alignment – Fully electrified) • Branch B: 305,6km (96% single track alignment – Fully electrified) • Branch C: 161,0km (95% single track alignment – 90% diesel) • Branch D: 165,0km (100% single track alignment – Fully diesel) • Limited investments for the improvement of the railway infrastructure by 2015 • Not doubling of tracks, except in Austria and Slovenia • Priority in rehabilitation and upgrading projects


  14. Effective investments on Corridor X since 1994 (excl. PPPs & concessions)

  15. Traffic & Trends • Practically only the Road Corridor X serves long international connections. • International traffic flows, despite the increasing trends, will not be, at least in the short-term, the main component of the rail traffic volumes. • Short-mid term: No saturation problems appear. Usually only 50% of the line capacity is used. • Mid-long term estimation: • Some saturation problems will appear in Croatia (Zagreb – Dugo Selo line) • Some flows close to the capacity in Slovenia (Jesenice – Ljubljana line), in Croatia (Sisak – Novska line) and in Bulgaria (Kalotina – Sofia line). • Low level of quality and service, in terms of speed, comfort and safety.

  16. Development Considerations • The development priorities of the Corridor X’s infrastructure experiences the infrastructure development criteria at Pan-European, and not only national, level. • Transport policy (EC/ DG TREN), is interpreted to the effort of the Pan-European and Trans-European Networks implementation. The national strategies should be adjusted to the same direction, which is the most appropriate way for securing international financing. • Priorities are not defined only by the demand-supply relation, but also by their involvement in development projects of strategic character, where, among their other aims, is also the arsis of the Western Balkans’ area isolation and the securing of the consecutiveness of the structural and operational characteristics of the infrastructures.

  17. Financing issues • The eligibility of infrastructure projects to be financed, and their priority are pretty much depending on their financial feasibility. • That is why large scale road projects secure funds more rapidly. • For large scale railway projects the countries concerned will have to undertake the major part of the cost. National budget resources, borrowing in domestic financial markets, user charges and, where practical, realistic PPP schemes could be examined as alternative financing means.

  18. Conclusions (1/2) • Most realistic conclusion: The share of roads will remain at high levels in the years to come, until the railway organisations will be seriously capable to shift persons and goods in their favour. Railway traffic should in general at best remain stable or increase quite slowly in the coming 15 years. • Railways should face the challenge to overcome the general crisis of the sector especially in the Western Balkans. • Despite the progress made in adjusting the national legal frameworks to the requirements of trade and transport facilitation, their practical application remains unsatisfactory. • Reorganization, cost cutting policies, new rolling stock, double tracks and electrification of lines together with the strategy of the EU to promote railways could significantly increase the use of railways.

  19. Conclusions (2/2) • Capacity should be retained or even be increased by: • optimising the scheduling/ management systems • low cost construction – addition of maneuver lines in small subsections with poor geometry • with systematic maintenance of the infrastructure, the equipment and the rolling stock • Apart from the need to improve the current infrastructure, specific measures should be taken at cross border stations. • Schemes of joint performance of border procedures at the Serbian-Bulgarian frontiers (Corridor Xc), have very encouraging results and should be promoted for implementation as best practice to other borders along international routes.

  20. Thank you for your kind attention!Corridor X Website