Study on Strategic Evaluation on Transport Investment Priorities under Structural and Cohesion funds for the Programming Period 2007-2013 ppt

Study on Strategic Evaluation on
Transport Investment Priorities
under Structural and Cohesion
funds for the Programming Period
2007-2013
N
o
2005.CE.16.0.AT.014

Country Report Spain
Final










Client: European Commission, DG-REGIO
ECORYS Nederland BV





Rotterdam, November 2006

ECORYS Nederland BV
P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00
F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
E
W www.ecorys.com
Registration no. 24316726

ECORYS Transport
T +31 (0)10 453 87 59
F +31 (0)10 452 36 80




Table of contents
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 The Strategic Evaluation 8
1.3 The Country Report 8
1.4 Structure of the report 8
2 Transport Sector: current situation 10
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Spain 10
2.3 Situation per mode of transport 11

2.3.1 Roads and road transport 11
2.3.2 Railways 14
2.3.3 Urban transport 16
2.3.4 Inland waterway transport 17
2.3.5 Sea ports 17
2.3.6 Airports 20
2.3.7 Trends and indicators 21
2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system 23
3 Accessibility analysis 25
3.1 Introduction 25
3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index 25
3.3 Transport needs 26
4 Previous support programmes 32
4.1 National public funding for transport infrastructure 32
4.2 EU funding 32
4.3 Other sources of financing 32
5 National Transport Strategy 37
5.1 Introduction 37
5.2 Long term National Transport Strategy and Planning 37
5.3 Operational Programme 2007-2013 40
5.4 Main objectives of the OP 40
5.5 Priorities in OP by sector 41
6 Prioritisation of Transport Investments (2007-2013) 42
6.1 Introduction 42
6.2 Community Strategic Guidelines 43

6.3 Additional factors for the prioritisation of transport investments 44
7 Impact assessment of scenarios 47
7.1 Introduction 47
7.2 Methodology 47

7.3 Scenarios 49
7.4 European effects 64
8 Conclusions on investment priorities 67
8.1 Introduction 67
8.2 Transport investment priorities 2007-2013 67
Annex A: TEN-T priorities 69
Annex B: Accessibility “red flag” analysis 75





7

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The recent enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States clearly creates a new challenge
for its Cohesion Policy. Disparity levels within the EU have increased substantially and
will further increase with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. This is an
explicit point of attention as the Treaty states that, in order to strengthen its economic and
social cohesion, the Community shall aim at reducing the disparities between the levels of
development of various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or
islands, including rural areas. This aim lies at the core of the Commission’s regional
policy.

One of the key elements of the cohesion policy of the Commission is the contribution of
the development of new transport infrastructure to regional economic development.
Extensive spending has taken place in this domain under ERDF, Cohesion Fund and
ISPA.

One of the prominent initiatives in the European Union in this respect is the development
of the Trans-European transport networks (TEN-T). In 2003 the Commission has
identified the 30 priority projects of the TEN-T up to 2020.
1
The priority projects include:
“the most important infrastructures for international traffic, bearing in mind the general
objectives of the cohesion of the continent of Europe, modal balance, interoperability and
the reduction of bottlenecks”.

For the new programming period 2007-2013 the Commission seeks to strengthen the
strategic dimension of cohesion policy to ensure that Community priorities are better
integrated into national and regional development programmes. In accordance with the
draft Council Regulation (article 23), the Council establishes Community Strategic
Guidelines for cohesion policy to “give effect to the priorities of the Community with a
view to promote balanced, harmonious and sustainable development”
2
.

To assess the impact of programmes in relation to Community and national priorities the
Commission has indicated that evaluations on a strategic level should be undertaken. The
present evaluation should be seen as one of these specific strategic evaluations. The
strategic evaluation should feed in the process of determining transport investment
priorities and the preparation of the national strategic reference frameworks and

1
Decision 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004. The total investment of the 30 priority projects amounts to € 225 billion at the 2020
horizon.
2
COM(2004)492
8

operational programmes. As such, it should serve to enhance the quality, effectiveness
and consistency of Fund assistance.


1.2 The Strategic Evaluation
The strategic evaluation is directed the transport sector.

Three specific objectives have been formulated for this strategic evaluation:
• To provide an analysis of the situation in selected fields relevant to transport, using
structural indicators across Member States, plus Romania and Bulgaria;
• To assess the contribution of Structural and Cohesion funds relative to the current
and previous programming periods and draw lessons of relevance for the purpose of
the study in terms of identification of potential shortcomings in the development of
transport priority projects that might have hampered the utilization of those funds or
their expected benefits;
• To identify and evaluate needs in the selected fields and identify potential investment
priorities of structural and cohesion funds for the programming period 2007-2013.


1.3 The Country Report
The strategic evaluation results in specific country reports for all 15 countries and a
synthesis report. The current report is the Country Report for Spain. Its main aim is to
give a more detailed indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the transport system in
the country and to address areas for future intervention. Where relevant this accompanied
by recommendations with respect to the overall transport policy of the country. The
country reports feed into the joint programming effort with the Member States for the
next period, as will be detailed in the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the
subsequent Operational Programmes.

1.4 Structure of the report
The report is structured around three building blocks.
• First a needs assessment is presented based on an analysis of the current transport
systems and a modelling analysis which reveals the current (relative) level of
accessibility per region. This leads to first conclusions strengths and weaknesses
of the current transport system and related transport investment needs (Part A).
• Next an overview is presented of the transport investment priorities in the past
period (Part B).
• Finally, future areas for priority transport investments are identified. This builds
on the needs assessment in the first part but also addresses other factors such as
the contribution to EU and national policy objectives, the availability of other
sources of funding and the administrative capacity of the country (Part C).


9



Part A: Needs assessment current situation
10

2 Transport Sector: current situation
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the current transport situation and policy in Spain. After a brief
introduction on the geographical and economic characteristics of the country, it first
describes the situation per mode of transport. The analysis of the current situation is
summarized in a SWOT table on the main strengths and weaknesses. The assessment of
the transport system is followed by an analysis of the key transport policy issues in Spain.

2.2 Spain
Spain is one of the larger EU countries with around 40 million inhabitants. The northern
border with France is dominated by the Pyrenees Mountains, with only few cross border
road and rail infrastructure. The western border with Portugal is mainly flat terrain, with
the exception of the northwest part (near Vigo). Several TEN projects are relevant:
• TEN-3 High-speed railway lines of south-west Europe (Lisbon - Badajoz – Madrid;
Barcelona - Figueras - Perpignan - Montpellier – Nimes; Madrid - Vitoria -
Irun/Hendaye – Bordeaux; Aveiro- Salamanca)
• TEN-8 Multimodal Portugal/Spain - rest Europe (Coruna-Lisbon-Sines; Lisbon-
Valladolid)
• TEN-16 Freight Railway line Sines – Madrid – Paris
• TEN-19 High-speed Rail interoperability on the Iberian Peninsula
• TEN-21 Motorways of the sea


11


Basic data
Population 40.98 million
Total area 504,782 km
2
, including 5,240 sq km water
2
Population density 81 inh/ km
2

Main cities Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Seville
Source: Eurostat

The population of Spain is steadily growing, the growth rate is however lower than in the
70s and 80s.

Economic data
GDP (2004) 837.3 bn€
Government debt as % of GDP (2004) 46.4%
Government deficit as % of GDP
(2004)
-0.1%
GDP per capita, Spain (2004) 19,600 €
GDP per capita, EU15 (2004) 25,800 €
GDP per capita, EU25 (2004) 22,700 €
Source: Eurostat

As is the case in most European countries, the Spanish services sector has grown steadily
since the Second World War and now dominates the economy, accounting for 66.2% of
GDP in 2001. This expansion has come largely at the expense of the agriculture, forestry
and fisheries sector. In the services sector, retailing, tourism, banking and
telecommunications all make a crucial contribution to economic activity. The tourist
industry is especially important and Spain is now one of the most popular tourist
destinations in the world. In the agricultural sector, Spain is a particularly important
producer of wine, olive oil, fruit and vegetables. It has developed a greenhouse industry
in the south-east which, thanks to the benign climate, has become one of the most
competitive suppliers of fresh produce to the main European markets. Spain's fishing fleet
and associated industry is also highly developed, thanks in part to its maritime location
and the high domestic consumption of fish. Spain's most prominent manufacturing
industry is vehicle production, which accounts for about 5% of GDP and exports more
than 80% of its output. The GDP per capita in Spain is some 10% below the EU25
average.

2.3 Situation per mode of transport
2.3.1 Roads and road transport
Infrastructure
The Spanish Road Network is divided into different sub-networks under different
authorities.
• The Spanish State Road Network managed by the State
• The Road Network which is managed by Autonomous Communities
• The Road Network which is managed by Municipalities and Town Councils
12

• Others Road Network

The Road Network with the most traffic is the Spanish State Road Network which
comprises 24,857 kilometres. This represents a growth of 10.3% in comparison to the
1994 data.

The Road Network managed by the Autonomous Community is made up of roads
belonging to just one Autonomous Community. They are managed by their own
autonomies. In 2003 they comprised of 70,270 kilometres, 43% is part of the National
Road Network.

The Town Council Road Network is made up of municipal roads. These are managed by
the municipality. It consists of 69,457 kilometres, of which 43% is part of National Road
Network. There are also other Municipal Networks. They are made up of urban roads and
streets which are managed by the City Council. In 1999, the length of this network was
489,698 kilometres.

The High Capacity Roads are made up of motorways, dual carriageways and double

roads.

Table 2.1 Length of road network in Spain (1994-2003) in kms
1994 2003

% change
State Road Network
High Capacity roads
Other roads

6,002
16,534

8,794
16,062

47%
-3%
Autonomous roads
High Capacity roads
Other roads

1,489
71,076

2,361
67,909

59%
-4%

Council Roads
High Capacity roads
Other roads

257
66,238

854
68,603

232%
3%
Total
High Capacity roads
Other roads
7,748
153,848
12,009
(9,910 km motorways)
a
152,574
55%
-1%
Source: D.G. de Carreteras (Mº de Fomento), Comunidades Autónomas y Diputaciones
a
Source: Eurostat

The High Capacity Roads amount to 12,009 kilometres of which 2,515 kilometres are toll
motorways. The total length of the motorway network in 2003 amounts to 9,910 km.

Table 2.2 Motorway density in Spain
Length motorway/1000 km
2
Spain (2003) 19.6
EU15 (2004) 16
EU25 (2004) 14
Source: Eurostat, Statistical Office Spain

13


The above table shows that the motorway density in Spain exceeds the EU15 average.

Demand
The car ownership in Spain steadily grew from 351 per 1000 inhabitants in 1994 to 459
cars per 1000 inhabitants in 2002, which is equal to the EU25 average.

Table 2.3 Car ownership Spain
Spain (2002)

EU15 (2002)

EU25 (2002)

Cars/1000 inh 459

491

459

Source: Dirección General de Tráfico. Mº del Interior.

Obviously, the number of registered vehicles also showed a substantial increase, which is
higher than the increase in population.

Table 2.4 Number of vehicles 1993-2003 (in 1000 vehicles)
1993

2003

Percentage change

Cars 13,441

18,688

39%

Lorries and vans 2,735

4,189

53%

Source: Dirección General de Tráfico. Mº del Interior.

Road charging
The current legislation (Land Transport Act, Ley de Ordenación de los Transportes
Terrestres - LOTT – of 1987, and all subsequent amendments, by law or royal decree,
made between 1998 and 2003) establishes a mixed pricing formula for land transport,

leaving the door open for practically all possible modalities. In particular, the Act
provides that:
“The transport authorities may establish compulsory or reference tariffs for
public transport and ancillary and complementary activities for the transport
regulated hereunder. These tariffs may establish specific amounts or maximums,
minimums or both. If no tariffs are set, contracting shall be made at local market
or usual prices.”

In practice for the road sector there is a fuel excise tax which is part of fuel taxing (apart
from VAT). As mentioned already, most of the roads are managed by Regional
Authorities and Local Councils. Each region is encouraged to develop a “Plan of
Sustainable Mobility” as framework for the performance of the different administrations.
These plans will include road pricing policies to finance road maintenance.

At present Spain has 36 toll concessions in operation (excluding shadow tolling), 26 of
which were granted by the Central Government and ten by the Autonomous Regional
Governments. The tariff revision systems have not been exactly the same in the different
Government authorities and this is still the case, even though the differences are not
substantial.

14

Road accidents
Despite a decrease in the number of fatal road accidents in Spain, road safety is still
below the EU25 average.
Table 2.5 Fatal road accidents (fatalities per mln inhabitants)
Spain EU25

1994

1998

2003

2002

143

150

133

110

Source: D. G.de Tráfico. Mº del Interior

2.3.2 Railways
Infrastructure
In Spain two different gauge systems exist: the Iberian gauge (1.668 m) and the
UCI/European gauge (1.435 m).

Between 1990 and 2002, the length of the RENFE network remained at around 12,500km
of Iberian gauge track, with a slight decrease in the total (up to 12,323km) but with an
increase in the electrified network (which went from being 51 to 57% of the total). The
network is radial with its centre in Madrid, the only exception being the Mediterranean
axis. The high speed lines built or under construction have, until now, reinforced this
characteristic: Madrid-Seville, Madrid-Barcelona, Madrid-north of Spain, etc.

In the present day, the FEVE network totals 1,194 km of track, of which 72.4 km is
double track and 316.8 electrified, in this way it provides a backbone for the whole of the

north of Spain through two routes that link Ferrol with Bilbao, across the north of Galicia,
Asturias, Cantabria and the west of Vizcaya, and Bilbao with Leon through the provinces
of Vizcaya, Burgos, a small part of Cantabria, Palencia and Leon. In the last few years,
FEVE has invested in direct port access, to those such as Santander, Gijon and Aviles, as
well as modernizing its intermodal transport terminals.

The Catalan regional government railway network (Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de
Catalunya, FGC) is based around three main lines which depart from the city of
Barcelona and reach different regions. Only the Llobregat-Anoia line that connects
Barcelona with Martorell, Manresa and Igualada has branch lines for the transportation of
freight, between the salt mines of Suria, the potash mines of Sallent and the Port of
Barcelona.

The total number of kilometres of track being used is 181.1 of which, 150.2 are single
tracks and 30.9 double tracks. All the tracks are metre-gauge. Most of the stretch is
electrified (176.6km). The network runs from Irun, penetrating the Puerto de Pasajes as
far as the port of Bermeo, through Amorebieta.

Two private companies that manage railway freight traffic are both tied to the transport
flows of mining products:
• Ponferrada steel and iron mine railway (Leon): has a total of 51 kilometres of track in
service.
• Soller Railways: has a total of 32 kilometres of track in service.

RENFE
FEVE
Catalonian railways
Euskotren
Private rail operators
15

Table 2.4 Railway density
Railway line/1000 km
2


Railway line/100,000 inh

Spain (2003)


RENFE Iberian gauge (*) 27

34

RENFE UIC gauge (*) 2

2

FEVE 3

3

Autonomous Regions and private companies 1

2

Total 33

41

EU25 67

42

(*) The old RENFE network belongs to ADIF as per 1 January 2005
Source: Ministerio de Fomento – Dirección General de Ferrocarriles

The railway density measured per 1000 km
2
in Spain is substantially below the European
average. If measured per 100,000 inhabitants, the railway density is close to the EU
average.

Figure 2.1 Railway network Spain


Means
The size of the fleet of locomotives is decreasing for all railway operators. Only in
RENFE this process is accompanied by an increase in the number of electric locomotives.
The overall automotive fleet size remains the same, but with an increase in the equipment
of RENFE. High speed trains, long distance trains and suburban automotive trains are
playing a greater role in this fleet. FEVE has seen its fleet decrease in size, but
simultaneously rebuilt it with the ever growing presence of electric automotives, in
RAILWAYS NETWORK
Regular Lines in service
High Speed Lines
16

keeping with its greater role in the transportation of passengers on the regional-
metropolitan scale.

Demand
The demand for passenger journeys has been growing steadily and to a considerable
degree. This is true for all operators, but not for all types of travel. RENFE and FEVE, as
well as the companies dependent on the Autonomous Regions have seen an increase in
passenger numbers
3
. However, the composition of this demand has varied considerably.

It is worth highlighting the sustained increase in the number of passengers transported
and especially the advance the creation of integrated urban transport systems has meant
with the railway covering a significant proportion of the demand in metropolitan areas.

Regarding rail freight, the following remarks are made:
• Traffic grew between 1993 and 2003, but remained practically stable between 1997
and 2003.
• The most dynamic flow is that of combined transport (containers).
• More than 90% of traffic is covered by RENFE. Of the remainder, FEVE is the most
important operator.
• In any case, it must be noted that the negative trend in the movement of general
freight has been negatively affected by the closure of some mines (copper and iron
mines in Andalucía for example) and a reduction in the activity of others (coal in
different areas in the north of the peninsula).

2.3.3 Urban transport
The main innovation in Spain related to urban public transport of the last few years has
been the creation of the transport “consortia” that run the urban transport as an integrated
system of the conventional modes. This led to the introduction of new elements such as

highlighting the importance of the underground, install new tram and light underground
rail lines and the incorporation of buses that run on gas (they already make up 10% of the
fleet), and on hydrogen (still in the experimental phase). The history of these consortia is
quite recent, especially in relation to the integrated supply of urban transport which only
fully materialised when the unified fare systems were introduced.

Infrastructure
The urban transport infrastructures have experienced strong growth in the last fifteen
years. This growth is characterized by its nature and most recent causes. Specifically:
• The supply of services has increased in response to an increase in demand which in
turn is influenced by different factors, from among which, the secondary role of
demographic growth in the principal cities is worth emphasising.
• Urban development has taken place in many cities, including in some no bigger than
average. This development has shaped wide metropolitan areas in which an emerging
set of specialization patterns in the use of land are apparent:

3
Until 1990 FEVE provided all the services on the narrow gauge network. After that date, the services were shared between
FEVE and the railways transferred to the Autonomous Regions (EuskoTren, FGC and FGV of the Basque Country,
Catalonia and Valencia respectively).
17

• Central areas with no permanent residents and dedicated more and more to
business services, selective commerce and public administration.
• The extension of residential areas on the outskirts following the axes of road
networks.
• Dispersion of industrial employment and of large shopping centres towards
spaces further and further away from central areas, etc.
• The response required to this type of urban-metropolitan growth is the extension of
the transportation network. In order for this extended network to maintain basic

efficiency, serve a large territory and to respect certain rules of sustainability it must
include:
• An increase in services with a dedicated infrastructure (all means of rail
transport).
• An increased importance of underground transport.
• Intermodality
• Pressure from the issue of energy contributes to this reorientation, in which electric
energy and less-polluting fossil fuels are starting to increase in importance.
• Finally, this whole process gives rise to demands in management and quality in the
provision of services which push towards a clear multimodal concept:
• The old scheme of independent modes is replaced and there is a move towards
what is normally known as “transport consortia”, or by any other similar title.
• The idea of an urban transport “system”, whose supply and fare system are
unified is associated more and more with this organisational scheme.

The clearest and most illustrative examples found in Spain of urban transport
infrastructures are provided by the metropolitan areas of Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia,
Bilbao and Seville. However, there is an increasing number of “consortia” nationwide
and so it appears that this process will continue to spread to areas such as the Bay of
Cadiz, the Campo de Gibraltar, the Granada area, the metropolitan area of Malaga, the
central area of Asturias (the metropolitan area of Oviedo-Gijon-Aviles and other
surrounding towns) etc.

Demand
An overall tendency worthy highlighting on account of its national significance is the
increasing importance of track-based urban transport in Spain. The overall figure has
grown from 4.38 million passengers in 1990 to 5.50 million in 2002.


2.3.4 Inland waterway transport

In Spain, there are only purely anecdotal uses of the inland waterways, sections of rivers
or small lakes where there is activity connected to local tourism and estuary traffic, which
is mainly for local supplies and tourists travelling within the port areas.


2.3.5 Sea ports
Spain is the country with the largest length of coastline in the European Union: 8,000km.
53 ports are distributed along its shores, with a frequency of 1 port for every 150 km of
18

coast. More than 20 million people use the Spanish port facilities for travel, and more
than 50% of exports and almost 80% of imports are conducted by way of the sea, as well
as around 15% of domestic commerce flow.

In total 28 port authorities exist. Furthermore, there is a network of ports managed
directly by their respective Autonomous Regions, which are not ports “of general
interest”, but which in 2003 moved almost 12 million tonnes, with more than 70% of
solid bulk (here concessions for the cement and salt trade predominate) and 15% of
general freight (tissue and paper products, foodstuffs etc).

Figure 2.2 Spanish port authorities


In 2003 the total throughput in Spain was 368.4 million tonnes. The following 6 ports
accounted for around 60% of total throughput:
• Bahia de Algeciras: 15.4%
• Canarias (Tenerife, Las Palmas): 9.9%
• Valencia: 9.5%
• Barcelona: 9.4%
• Tarragona: 7.8%

• Bilbao: 7.7%

The evolution of total cargo handled, excluding containers, in the Spanish ports is
presented in table 2.5

Table 2.5 Cargo handled in Spanish ports, excluding containers (in 1000 tons)
Total

Domestic

Foreign

1993

231,171

57,845

173,326

1996 271,676

70,144

201,532

2000 326,023

71,869

254,154

2003 368,393

78,713

289,680


The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 2.8 million TEU in 1003
and has strongly grown until 9.1 million TEU in 2003.

19

Demand
From the point of view of freight traffic, the most determining aspects must be
emphasized, distinguishing the big groups of freight according to its form, that is to say:
• Liquids
• Solid bulk
• General freight (conventional and containerized)
• Containers

When considering liquids, solid bulk and general cargo, the solid bulk accounts for 37%
of all cargo, followed by liquid bulk with 36% and general cargo with 24%. The

In relation to these types of traffic, the following aspects are highlighted.

Throughout the entire period analysed, 80% of liquid traffic was concentrated in the ports
that serve oil refineries: the ports of Bilbao, La Coruña, Huelva, Algeciras, Cartagena,
Castellón, Tarragona and Santa Cruz de Tenerife (the latter serves the only refinery

located outside of the peninsula, in the Canary Islands). The remaining movements of
liquid are much more disperse, with petroleum and chemical products predominating in
the port of Barcelona.

The predominant products are coal, mineral iron, cement and clinker, cereals and soya.
The resulting shipping movements concern:
• The power stations that use coal as a primary source, highlighting Santander, Gijon,
Ferrol, La Coruña, Algeciras, Almeria and Tarragona.
• The whole steel and iron sector located on the Cantabrian coast is the reason for the
steel and iron industry movements of mineral iron and coal in Gijon and coal in
Bilbao.
• The industry that transforms soya into animal feed explains large movements in
Cartagena, Barcelona and Tarragona.
• The cereal business, whose movements are mainly related to farming, with entry and
exit points in different ports depending on the regional farming totals each year. This
throughput is located in the ports of Seville, Cadiz, Santander and Valencia.
• The cement business, in which industry exports predominate, but which also
produces imports for the construction industry. The main movements are
concentrated in the ports of Gijon, Almeria, Cartagena, Alicante and Valencia, as
well as in Santa Cruz de Tenerife (The Canary Islands).
• The fertilizer business, which is conducted through the ports mainly dedicated to the
agricultural supply and those located in the export industry: Ferrol, Huelva (chemical
industry), Valencia, Barcelona and Tarragona (chemical industry).

The port movement of general freight is very much concentrated in one area, especially
that of containerized freight.

The type of movement that predominates within the general freight category is that of
containers. But within this group it is necessary to differentiate areas which have been
consolidated throughout the period of 1993-2004, specifically:

• The port of Algeciras predominates with almost 30% of the total movements within
the Spanish port system. These are essentially containers in transit, a situation that
Liquid bulk
Solid bulk
General cargo
Containers
20

has remained the same despite efforts to increase the number of containers with
origin/destination in the peninsula. It should be noted that its land access must be
improved: a study is underway.
• The ports of Valencia and Barcelona are the main commercial links of peninsular
Spain, with clearly differentiated routes: Valencia started in second place but
manages to situate itself clearly above Barcelona in the present day. In any case, both
add up to 40% of the total movement of containers within the Spanish port system.
• The port of Bilbao is very much in the background, with a clear loss of importance
which it has not been able to counteract even with the expansion of the exterior port
nor with the opening of new terminals.
• The ports of the Canary Islands regularly bring in around 15% of the total traffic, but
a redistribution of roles has been observed between them; thus, while Las Palmas
grows considerably, operating as the hub of the archipelago, Santa Cruz de Tenerife
restricts itself more to serving as traffic support in its own area.

As the reflection of a trend which can be considered global, container traffic is becoming
more and more focused on a small number of ports. Thus, within the Spanish port system
and that of the overall movement of shipping containers, the six major ports absorbed
88% of all traffic in 1983 which went up to 92% in 2000, (the first three: Bahia de
Algeciras, Valencia and Barcelona went from 60% to 68% in the same period).

The total container throughput in all Spanish ports amounts to 9.1 million TEU in 2003.

Between 1993 and 2004, passenger traffic increased by about 50%. Almeria and
Barcelona are the major mainland players (with rises of 3.5% and 4% respectively); the
Canary Islands are the other big-growth off-shore region: their movements having more
than doubled from an already high growth ratio.

When considering the overall throughput figures, in the period 1993-2004 the port of
Valencia has faced the highest growth rate in Spain: 237%. The Canarias ports grew
146% and the port of Villagarcía is ranked third wit a growth of 132%.

2.3.6 Airports
Infrastructure
The basic airport infrastructure comprises 47 airports which are managed by AENA.
These airports are distributed throughout the entire peninsular; in the Balearic and Canary
islands and in the autonomous cities of Melilla and Ceuta (the latter only possesses a
heliport). For a territory of 505,988 km
2
and approximately 44,000,000 inhabitants, this
represents:
• 1 airport for every 10,766 km
2

• 1 airport for every 200,000 inhabitants

Demand
The use of this infrastructure is related to the different categories of the 47 airports. This
is reflected in the concentration of the movements of passengers and freight. Over 90 %
of passenger transport by air in Spanish airports is distributed throughout 16 airports,
which is a third of the whole.

Passengers
21

Figure 2.4 Traffic development Spanish airports
Evolution air transport
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Nº OF
OPERATIONS
(thousand)
Nº OF
PASSENGERS
(million)
FREIGHT
(thousand ton)


The Madrid - Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat airports handle nearly 40 % of total
passenger movement (and 65 % of freight). These are the airports that assure Spain’s
principal foreign connections with regards to passengers

The following ten largest airports handle nearly 50 % of passenger movement, and the
most prominent aspect is that they are airports in which tourism predominates; in fact, 30
% of the total movement takes place in insular airports, of Balearic and Canary Islands.

The third block is formed by the airports of cities of medium size (Bilbao, Valencia and
Seville) and a regional capital (Santiago); the exception is Zaragoza placed half a way
and well connected with Madrid and with Barcelona by land. But these airports represent
only 6 % of the total movement.

2.3.7 Trends and indicators
Modal split
The share of car transport for passenger transport (81%) in 2002 in Spain is more or less
in line with the average found for EU15. The most important differences occur in the
share of buses and coaches: this share (12%) is significantly higher than EU15 average of
8.8%. The most probable reasons for the high bus share are:
• Lower prices compared with those of the railway services.
• Many regional and national railway services have been suspended due to heavy losses
• Improvement and development of Spanish four-lane motorways network, which is
also beneficial for long-distance bus transport

The railway share is now increasing in Spain and will probably reach a higher share in the
near future due to:
• Investments in High Speed Rail and other high performance lines
• Return to the former policy of new railway infrastructures and services integrated in
urban transport systems (for a number of years the investments went only to tram and
metro)
22

• Return to the former policy of large investments in the conventional railway network,
to improve security and increase capacity.

Table2.6 Modal split passenger transport (share in passengerkilometers, 2002)
Passenger cars Buses Railways Tram & metro
Situation 2002

Spain 81.4

12.1

5.1

1.3

EU15 83.5

8.8

6.6

1.0

Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2004

In freight transport, measured in tonne-kilometres, road is the dominant mode with a
share of almost 90%, which is far above the EU15 average. The share of rail freight
transport (6%) is only half of the average found for EU15.

Table2.7 Modal split freight transport (share in tonkilometers, 2002)

Road Rail Inland Waterways Pipeline
Situation 2002
Spain 89.3

6.4

-

4.3

EU15 75.5

12.9

6.9

4.6

Source: EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2004

The following figure illustrates the trend in the last decade, where railways lost
significant market share to road haulage.

Figure 2.5 Development of the modal split in freight transport in Spain
-
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(mln tonnes-km)



23

2.4 Conclusions: SWOT analysis transport system
The current situation in Spain, together with the foreseen global developments in the
transport sector, has been subject for a Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threat
(SWOT) analysis. This analysis is summarized through the table on the following page.

It is necessary to emphasize four aspects, which seem to be especially significant to
describe the situation and to analyse the future expectations. In particular:
• The difference in gauge in the railway system, in addition to a series of factors that
prevent interoperability at a European level.
• “Non-railway” distances over which freight is transported, which constitutes a
fact in favour of the internal predominance of roads.
• Occupation of the peninsular territory where only Madrid and Zaragoza
constitute areas of real weight, away from the Mediterranean, Atlantic and
Cantabrian coasts.
• A solid uni-modal culture (that prevents the development of an inter-modal one)
whose prominence can be seen in the institutional system and in the organization of
the different providers’ offers.
• Risks of going from the great lack of infrastructure that Spain had in the mid eighties,
to excess in capacity due to over investing.
• Obstacles to the advance of liberalization and of the consequent increased presence of
providers both of infrastructure and of services, especially in the railway system,
where the dominant presence of the State offer continues to be evident.

In order to understand better the “risks of over investing” the following three main issues
should be considered:
• Maritime ports. Currently and for the next years the Spanish ports system is
increasing its capacity at a very high rate, most of all in deep-water ports and
container terminals. For instance, four ports are finished (Bilbao), are in construction
(Gijon) or preparing projects for new deep-water ports with big container terminals

(Ferrol, A Coruña). In the north of Spain, container traffic is now under 500,000
TEUs (80% in Bilbao) and growing since 1995 at an annual rate of less than 2%
(forecast for South Europe from Drewry shows a growth rate over 9% for the period
2002-2009).
• High Speed Rail. Some projects are being re-scheduled in the Plan Estratégico de
Infraestrucuturas y Trasporte 2005-2020 (PEIT). A number of them will be for
freight-passenger services at 220 km/h, and others will be redefined as “high
performance” lines for passenger services (250 instead of 350 km/h). The meaning of
these changes is clear: the former over-investment in high speed rail (for instance, in
short distances) is substituted by a larger combination of freight dedicated lines and
high performance network for passenger services.
• Four-lane motorways network. The main goal is to link all the capitals of the 47
provinces and a number of other important cities by four-lane motorways. The daily
intensity of traffic in many of these relations is below the usual standards for the
construction of four-lane motorways.

With regards to “obstacles to the advance of liberalization” the following should be
considered:
24

• The railway infrastructure remains under state control, the passenger railway services
are not liberalized and the freight railway services are liberalized since the 1
st
January
2005 but no private operators are yet working under the new legislation.
• The road network investments are concentrated on free four-lane motorways and
local roads, so private participation is quite unusual in the last years, except for the
“R” toll motorways in the metropolitan area of Madrid and a short number of small
regional motorways with shadow toll system.
• Airports stay under state control, and only port container terminals are now a field of

interest and participation of private sector.

Strengths Weaknesses
Roads
• High density network
• Competitive service offer
• Developed network of logistical platforms
• Door-to-door service capacity
Rail
• Competitive routes with high demand
Urban Public Transport
• Integrated services is successful
Maritime
• High capacity of ports
Air
• Great capacity and renewing offers

Roads
• Lack of connection to ports and railways
• Network too radial
• Dysfunction in metropolitan areas
• Difficulty in transferring environmental costs
Rail
• Low level of interoperability with EU
Urban Public Transport
• Return to unimodal services
Maritime
• Low level of domestic cargo
Air
• Weak competitive position with railways for

domestic trips
Opportunities Threats
Roads
• Development of intermodal facilities
• Rural transport on demand
Rail
• Increase in quality of rail product due to
entry of new private operators
Urban Public Transport
• Coordinated policy of councils and regional
governments
• Increase in metropolitan and urban demand
Maritime
• More competitive through improvement of
port management
• Increase in public-private initiatives
Air
• Great capacity and renewing offers
• Increasing use of regional airports
Roads
• Unimodal ideas persist
Rail
• Lack of coordination between European
networks
• High Speed Rail offer on routes with low
demand
• Risk of continuity of public monopoly
Urban Public Transport
• Growth of metropolitan areas without
adequate sustainable transport policy

Maritime
• Risk of too high capacity in peninsular
system
Air
• Tendency to maintain the subordination of
passengers
• Discredit for lower quality of service

25

3 Accessibility analysis
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a more quantitative transport needs assessment on a regional level.
It clearly complements Chapter 2 in which the current situation of the transport system is
described where potential deficiencies are addressed. The analysis on the current situation
together with the analysis of transport needs from a cohesion perspective forms a basis
for identifying possible investment priorities.

In this chapter, first a description of the needs assessment methodology is presented.
Especially the determination of the composite Accessibility Problem Index (API), which
forms a central role in the approach, is explained. The higher the value of the index, the
higher the need for intervention. This approach has been labelled as the “red flag”
analysis.

This composite Accessibility Problem Index is a combined measure, which addresses
transport network quality, population density and regional disparity (a more elaborate
explanation is provided in Annex B). As such the accessibility analysis is much more
linked to cohesion policy than a more traditional accessibility analysis. Next, results of
the application for the specific country are illustrated and analysed. This analysis
identifies main areas for intervention in rail and road transport for the current situation

(2006).


3.2 Methodology: Accessibility Problem Index
To determine the need for transport investments, the SASI model has been used to assess
the present situation of the road and rail systems in each country without the national
transport projects to be examined later. For this the accessibility provided by the road and
rail systems in each country was evaluated from both a national and a European
perspective in order to identify regions with serious accessibility deficits that should be
addressed by European transport policy taking account of the stated EU goals
competitiveness and territorial cohesion. In the SASI model accessibility, which is
directly influenced by transport policy and investments, is judged to play a crucial role in
promoting the realisation of the cohesion objectives.

To determine the appropriate assessment of transport investment need from the cohesion
policy perspective an agreement on the indicator of accessibility to be used is required.
Traditional accessibility indicators are not useful for this. They measure the total effect of
both geographical location (periphery v. core) and quality of transport provided by the