COMMON GAPS (1) National Development Plans NDPs are bare compilation of projects not a broader strategy with diverse measures Declared goals and actual measures do not match Only infrastructure measures are funded – frames are set already by EU regulations NDPs were drafted without taking into account needs and possibilities to invest into rolling stock, “soft” measures, public transport Transport externalities are not taken into account Very few SEA-s have been made

COMMON GAPS National Transport Policies Secondary rail lines and roads are deteriorating and lacking funding – Few expensive fancy projects take away the money Prices for PT passengers have gone up faster than for car users Earmarking money for roads but not for other measures “Investing into roads” and “subsidising public transport” mentality Privatisation of railway services in some countries has been “lethal” for passenger transport and hinders development of infrastructure

COMMON GAPS Local/Regional policies Lack of vision for sustainable transport Local authorities have put more capacity for road planning and fund raising Planning roads is far ahead from more general transport and spatial planning -- integration is impossible Lack of concrete development plans for public transport

EU Funding – Temptation to Spend Big Money in Unnecessary and Wasteful Projects

Blue cars/d Red – cars Green -- < 1000 cars Planned harbour Planned Fixed link 7 km, ISPA/CF TA TEN-T road network

Case 1 – Saaremaa fixed link 7 km, ISPA/CF TA

Traffic volumes on main roads in Estonia Blue cars/d Red – cars Green -- < 1000

Case 2 – Via Baltica Access Roads to Tallinn Ports

Present situation between Via Baltica/Corridor I and ports in Tallinn “Improving the road link between the port of Tallinn and Corridor I”

ISPA/Cohesion Fund “Improving the road link between the port of Tallinn and Corridor I”

Tallinn case – “Access Road to Via Baltica Port” - Locating a freight port in the middle of the city was a political decision. There is another port 15 km from the centre witch connecta to an existing by-pass. - Port related traffic makes up < 5% of the traffic -the road cuts mostly through living districts and inner city green zones -No resources are planned/applied for Traffic Demand Management for the existing through road -No strict zoning/planning laws or guidelines exist to avoid development along the new corridor. >> EU will be practically funding inner city highway development.

“We either find a way or build it!”

Opening Maria Valeria bridge in Hungary Opening a renovated road in Tallinn

Common problems Projects are separate projects or extracted from road development strategies, and only alternatives assessed are road alignments Integrated transport plans do not exist Institutional and human capacity for integrated planning non-existent Time pressure to come out with applicable project proposals.

Outcome of current project proposals Overdimensioned, inadequate projects promoted CBA, SEA and EIA limited to strictly road based solutions and alternatives Wasting tax-payers money on environmentally and socially controversial projects. Real cost-effective alternatives go underfinanced. (Investments into education, local services, local economy)

MOTORWAYS TO THE SEA Estonia is Building up its Transit potential, Baltic Review 1995

RECOMMENDATIONS Give equal funding opportunities to public transport, travel demand management measures Integrate environmental targets to transport policy and monitor implementation Implement SEA for national policies and programmes Better cost-benefit analyses of projects, include external costs More funding to secondary roads and lines that would spread the benefits more evenly. More transparency and public participation