On the way to a more sustainable mobility in the Adriatic-Ionian region University of Ljubljana Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport Trieste, 16th of November, 2016

INTRODUCTION Assessment of Adriatic ferry ports and their integration with hinterland Report on scenarios linked to the development of ferry transport in the region Guidelines for ferry transport development in Adriatic- Ionian region Prior activities: current state of terminals and passengers facilities in the Adriatic-Ionian ports plus ferry and cruise passengers flows in these ports. information on hinterland connections for the selected ports assessment of regulations and possible harmonization initiatives common needs and priorities identified related to passenger maritime transport and its integration

WHAT WE START FROM? Focusing on ferry traffic Number of ferry passengers: AAGR = - 1.4% Estimation of AAGR for international ferry lines: - 3.8% RO-RO ferry flows (Eurostat data): AAGR = - 4.7% Ratio between 2013 and 2006 is 64%. Ferry traffic is much present in domestic transport where it is often the only sollution. In international connections it is loosing the importance although it is often cheper than all road sollution. In cases of fregith vehicles it is also often less time consuming and fore sure more confortable. There are around 40 ports that are involved in ferry transport in the Adriatic-Ionian region, among these around ten are important as international ferry ports. These ports are the Italian ports of Venice, Ancona, Bari and Brindisi, Greek ports Patras and Igoumenitsa, Croatian ports Split and Dubrovnik, Montenegrin port of Bar and Albanian port of Durres. Within the EA SeaWay project, we determined that adequate physical infrastructure in the ports, including vast, preferably protected, parking areas, decent passenger space and good connections to the national road system (especially important for cargo ferry) are the preconditions for development of ferry ports. The availability of public transportation is also a plus. Ferries operating on a regional, national and international scale show different characteristics that change according to geographical and economic context (Martino & Brambilla, 2016). In the northern Adriatic fast passenger crafts connect the attractive city of Venice to Slovenia and Croatia. The longer distance cross sea connections are carried out by regular or fast ro-pax ships. In fact, the Adriatic ports and in particular the Port of Ancona are mainly at the service of trade between Greece and other European Countries; about 25% of Greek goods transit through the port of Ancona and about 50% through Italian Adriatic ports (Pettenati & Simonella, 2010). So ferry transport in the Adriatic-Ionian region is definitely not only passenger oriented. The determination of trends, suggests that we can expect further decline of ferry passenger traffic in the region if nothing changes; so far the AAGR is -1.4%. This trend is even more decisive, if we deduct the approximated amount of domestic ferry traffic; AAGR becomes ‑3.8% with the R squared of determined linear trend being 0.89. Similarly, the calculated AAGR for RO-RO ferry flows in the selected ports in the Adriatic-Ionian region is -4.7%, and in 2013 the accumulated flows in these ports represented only 64% of those achieved in 2006. The linear trend suggests further decline of RO-RO flows; however, the coefficient of determination (R squared) is only 0.59.

WHAT HAVE WE DONE? We have: Sent a questionnaire to ferry operators, but with no success Extended the time series on passenger traffic on main cross- Adriatic ferry connections Searched for best practice examples and assessed the possibility to implement them in AI region Explored EU initiatives for attaining more sustainable transport „Cabotage“ regulation, Subsidies for ferry transport, Tendering, VAT systems for public transport service providers, AETR standards, Road Safety – Cross border enforcement … We are correcting some drawbacks that we encountered previously (inherited problems which were encountered in the previous five reports, namely deficiency and (in)accuracy of received/obtained data, which has, in certain cases, led to somewhat generalized findings). We have extending the time series and we’re focusing on ferry transport. Longer time series allows better forecast, and exclusion of outliers (years of crisis) To determine weather the lines are more passenger or cargo driven; to check the economic viability of lines, marketing solution, services offered by ports and ferry operators. Best practices in new routes establishment, developing landing infrastructure to ensure that ferries are accessible to everyone (disabled persons), attracting passengers,… Ports can take certain initiatives within the port itself to make it safer and more attractive (eg. expansion of the passenger terminal, construction of terminal building with adequate services, construction of safeguarded parking areas, wi-fi coverage, etc.); however without the support of community and region, but also EU, the enhancement of performance will be limited. And consequently, more sustainable mobility of passengers will remain utopia.

WHAT IS THE GOAL? Changes in behavior of transport users With push or pull measures Enhanced efficiency of existing ferry connections Fragmentation of ferry operators in AI region, immense differences among operators Linkage of ferry lines with other transport modes (integrated public transport system) Policies are more acceptable if the public is aware of the negative impacts associated with car use and they understand the need for measures to address these impacts. Ferry transport in Europe is highly dependable on European legislation and initiatives. A switch between transport modes can be achieved by implementation of co-modality and internalization measures, like fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, insurance taxes and/or infrastructure charges, and by increasing individuals’ environmental awareness. offering more choice to users is a core idea of EU transport policy We would like to provide a set of measures to be taken to achieve modal shift in the region Some integration of the service providers and schedule considerations. There are 15 ferry operators in the Adriatic Sea that deliver international ferry services. Altogether, they offer from approximately 200 to approximately 400 weekly connections (inbound and outbound routes included), depending on the season. The ports of Bari and Brindisi alone accumulate for two thirds of cross Adriatic connections. Often these routes are carried out by old, and environmentally unfriendly ships. For example, the 43 years old Jadrolinija ferry ship connects Split to Ancona. Equally old is the ship that operates on the route Bar–Bari, and even older are the ships connecting Albania to Italy. On the other hand, SuperFast (and SNAV) ferries are relatively new, but as the company’s name suggest, the ships involved are faster than regular ro-pax ships; however, such ships have higher environmental impacts per passenger kilometer compared to conventional ones. So ferry flows in the Adriatic-Ionian region are not very clean alternative of transportation.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES? Where future activities and investments should be focused on Planning of resources usage Thorough analysis of past performance Cost reduction possibilities Hierarchy of needs Rationalization of processes Availability of funding options Scenario development  … for ports and ferry operators Seasonal effect, number of passengers, Utilization level estimation, fuel consumption of ship employed. The possibility to employ the ship somewhere else in off season. Seasonality removal in order to determine trends. The countries of AI macro region have somewhat different recent history and they differ significantly in terms of economic development which is consequently perceptible also on the state of transport infrastructure and national transport priorities; while northern Italian provinces register gross domestic product per capita (GDPc) of more than 28,000 EUR, the GDPc in Albania it drops to only 3,500 EUR. In addition, four of the region’s countries are EU member states, while four are still not, which makes cross border transit and trade more demanding.

Thank you for your attention!