Even before the adoption of the
Lisbon strategy in 2000, sustainable
economic growth was a major objective of the European Commission. Accordingly, a key element of the 'old' EC
policy has been a balanced development of transport. In the 2001 White
Paper "European transport policy for
2010: Time to decide", the European
Commission pleaded strongly for a rebalancing of transport modes.
On the threshold to the 21st century, it became abundantly clear that
an unbridled expansion of road traffic would soon push our civilization to
the brink of disaster. At the same time,
it was realized that only by providing
convenient alternatives to both Road
and Air, could the crowded continent
escape the horrors of congestion.
In order to protect our environment
from the disastrous impact of the swelling road traffic and the anticipated expansion of aviation, the EC proposed
to break the link between economic
growth and transport growth, among
others by shifting the balance between
the modes of transport, to achieve,
eventually, their all-round integration.
Hence, revitalising the railways and
promoting water transport (both inland
and sea shipping) were among the
principal objectives considered back in
2001. In fact, the growing popularity of
high speed (HS) trains and the encouraging record of the expanding HS rail
network, promised not only to reduce
pollution, but also help save energy.
The White Paper programme
In the section "The need for integration of transport in sustainable devel
opment" (pp. 14-16), the White Paper
proposed an integrative approach that
would bring about a shift of balance between the transport modes from 2010
onwards (p. 15). The ultimate goal was
wholesale integration, based on a well-
balanced pan-European transport network.
With this strategic objective in mind,
the White Paper proposed to give pri-
ority to railways (p. 13), to monitor the energy efficiency of transport modes
(p. 14), to break the link between eco-
nomic growth and transport growth (p.
14), to improve the modal split (p. 15),
and to restructure the road sector (pp.
25-26).
In the White Paper, the following environmental problems were dis-
cussed: massive encroachments of the
expanding road network (pp. 24-25),
aviation as a source of noise and atmospheric pollution (39-40), the burden of
external costs (76-77), and the growing
demand for fuel and energy (82-86).
Seeking to promote HS trains as
a substitute to inter-city driving and
short-haul flights, the White Paper stated bluntly (p. 38): "We can no longer
think of maintaining air links to destinations where there is a competitive high
speed rail alternative" (however loosely
expressed, the concept of substitution
is there!), and on pp. 51-53 we read of
"the ability of high speed trains to replace air transport" and of "integrating
the high speed train network with air
transport".
In a word, to protect the environment and conserve energy, the 2001
White Paper admonished us to substitute Rail for Road and Air as much and
as far as possible.
The mid-term review
Five years on, in June 2006, the
European Commission summed up its
mid-term review of the 2001 White Paper in a communication entitled Keep
Europe moving - Sustainable mobility
for our continent [COM(2006), XXX].
The communication tells us how
much (or rather, how little) had been
achieved halfway through the pro-
gramme. In fact, on reading Keep Europe moving, we come upon significant gaps:
(1) the White Paper's declared policy
of rebalancing the modes of transport, or modal shift (from Road and
Air to Rail), is barely mentioned;
(2) high speed (HS) railways are mentioned in passing in a few places,
mainly in the context of freight;
(3) not a single word is devoted to the
extension of HS rail to the new EU
member states of East-Central Europe;
(4) completely ignored is the idea of
interconnecting major airports by
HS trains;
(5) air transport (aviation) is treated
marginally (p.10), though environmental aspects of aviation are
mentioned in a few places.
Ostensible concern with environmental issues contrasts with the actual
projections for 2010 and 2020: from
the two graphs, Evolution of modal
split in passenger/freight transport, we
learn that the relative share of Road
and Rail in passenger transport will
not improve even by 2020, while in
freight, the share of Rail is expected to
decline: from 11% in 2000 to 9% in
2010, and to 8% in 2020. In the same
time span, the share of air traffic is to
grow from 8% to 11%.
On the evidence of those forecasts,
the European habitat will see no relief
and will be delivered to the oncoming
climate change, which is a very real
scare for a continent thriving on the
Gulf Stream
Expansion before consolidation
The formidable task of European
transport integration is compounded by
the stepwise enlargement of the Union,
a sizeable one recorded in May 2004,
and a smaller envisaged as of 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria). One would think
that a corollary of each successive en-
largement is the consolidation of previous acquisitions.
Consequently, any further expansion of the European Union ought to be
preceded by an integration of the previously acquired territory, particularly
in terms of transport. Like an army that
must consolidate its territorial gains,
the affluent Western countries should
first shore up their new possessions and
lay firm tracks for their future advances
in eastern and south-eastern Europe.Leaving a vacuum anywhere behind
the front lines is bound to put the next
offensive at risk.
Now, such a vacuum is clearly in
evidence on all the charts and maps
published in recent years. In the High
Level Group chart Major trans-national
axes (p.3, Networks for Peace and De-
velopment, Nov. 2005) [see
] we find, for instance, the
plains of Poland crossed longitudinally
by just one red line (rail, bifurcating
to Gdansk) and one green line (road).
Besides those two, the flatland of Po-
land is crossed latitudinally by two 'old'
axes: Berlin - Warsaw - Brest (C2) and
Dresden - Katowice - Lviv (C3), each
comprising a motorway and an upgrad-
ed railway (160 km/h).
Please note that the HLG has in
mind two horizons: projects to start
before 2010 and those extending be-
yond 2020. While reaching out to the
Mediterranean as well as to the Cau-
casus and Siberia (!), the HLG seems
to assume that those axes will cope
with what the bulging European Union
is likely to generate in terms of traffic
(freight and passenger alike) in all those
directions over the next 10 to 20 or
more years.
In Networks for Peace and Devel-
opment the HLG envisions an expan-
sion of 'European' transport routes all
around the Mediterranean Sea, across
Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Sinai, Egypt,
Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco
(which is also to be reached from the
Iberian peninsula), and in addition, to
the Caucasus, and right into Siberia,
that is, far beyond Europe. Even if this is
projected beyond the horizon of 2020,
the compelling conclusion is: too far,
too fast as long as the recent acquisi-
tions have not been consolidated.
There is a lot of evidence that a
similar haste overshadows other cur-
rent debates.
While looking far ahead, much far-
ther than the 2001 White Paper, the
HLG report does mention HS railways
outside the 'old' EU, but much to our
surprise, these are not linked in any
way to the European network as known
from available programmes: "high
speed passenger railway line Moscow -
St Petersburg" and "high speed railway
line Casablanca - Marrakech" (!).
Our reference to the HLG chart is
meant to illustrate a trend that seems
to dominate the thinking of many EU
captains consumed by the desire to
expand as quickly as possible, without
regard for what is going on behind the
front lines
Disparate interests
The lofty ideas of the 2001 Transport White Paper have clashed with the
sombre realities of the EU Administration, afflicted, as any other, by a rigid
division of competences. One inevitable consequence is compartmentalization. Thus,
(1) environmentalists are busy measuring pollution - reaching the conclusion that we are heading for an
ultimate destruction of our natural
environment, preceded by a progressive deterioration in the quality
of life;
(2) energy experts are busy looking for
new resources - and predict that our fuel resources will be com-
pletely exhausted in the span of
two generations;
(3) road traffic analysts point to the
declining chances of halving the fatality rate by 2010 - but show no
interest in finding alternatives to
Road;
(4) the rail sector is seeking comfort in
the growing HS traffic - which can
not outweigh the decline in general
passenger and, especially, freight
traffic;
(5) aviators are gratified to see the
steep rise in air traffic - much to the
dismay of environmentalists.
What is missing in the EC mid-term
review Keep Europe moving is an overall
assessment of the situation and a plan
to harmonise the divergent tendencies
as well as reconcile the disparate interests of all the agents concerned (by interests we rather mean preoccupation, and not necessarily mercantile gain).
Obviously, there is an urgent need of
a cross-modal integrative approach that
would clearly define the objectives for
all the sectors and modes involved.
It may well be that the EU admin-
istration has reached a point beyond
which the top-heavy apparatus loses its
ability to engage in concerted actions,
precisely at a time when Europe will
soon face the disastrous consequences
of climate change - as pointed out by
President Barroso last November.
Strategic decisions in the offing
In defiance of the fragmentation
owed to the progressing specialization
of the administration, the European
Commission must work out an inte-
gral programme of curbing the current
growth in energy consumption by lend-
ing strong support to the most energy-
efficient, and at the same time least environment-damaging transport modes,
while disadvantaging distinctly the most
energy-intensive and least environ-
ment-friendly ones. Pursuing this objec-
tive in a world of snowballing mobility,
we must aim at an all-round integration
of transport modes by replacing the
current competition with a harmonious
cooperation and, eventually, a perfect
symbiosis of Road, Rail and Air.
An even more dramatic challenge
is on the horizon with the economic
expansion of China and India. The
staggering growth rate of the two most
populous countries on Earth make it
abundantly clear that within a decade
or so, the two giants will not only have
grown into superpowers, but will also
be able to ensure ever higher living
standards to their inhabitants, who al-
ready make up more than one third of
the global population.
By 2020, two and a half billion
Chinese, Indians, Koreans etc. will
start thinking of visiting Europe, if only
to inspect the remnants of a great civi-
lization. Assuming that just one in ten
of them chooses this particular desti-
nation, Europe will have to cope with
a flood of visitors numbering hundreds
of millions per year. Of course, they
will be coming by plane.
Where are we going to build the
dozens of runways and terminals
needed to absorb this deluge? Would
anyone consider adding a few more
terminals on the periphery of Heath-
row or Frankfurt, and build another,
and another, and another, runway be-
yond that periphery? The present level
of atmospheric pollution around the
major West European airports makes
us shudder at this prospect. Even to-
day, these airports breathe with relief
watching the offensive of the low-cost
carriers whose planes operate from
secondary airports; they are likewise
relieved to see more and more tran-
sit passengers use alternative hubs to
reach destinations overseas.
The European Commission must
squarely face those global challenges.
Towards a model of Rail-Road-Air
integration
After decades of rivalry in both
passenger and freight traf?c, over
distances of from 200 to 500 miles,
the three basic modes of transport
are very much jealous of each other.
Still, the hard facts of (economic) life
should persuade them to acknowl-
edge eventually their mutual comple-
mentarity. In other words, the three
are in for learning how to coexist in
perfect harmony, while bracing each
other.
All over Europe, within the next
quarter century (by 2030), a skeleton
of high speed (HS) railways linking
the conurbations and major airports
of the region should cope with the
growing demand for quick and com-
fortable travelling over distances of
up to 800 km (a model case: Paris
- Marseilles), not excluding express
goods trains - thus relegating both the
passenger car and the airliner to what
are their sensible uses.
To become truly efficient, HS rail-
ways must follow the French pattern:
they must bypass all cities and settle-
ments (much like motorways) and, in
addition, they must have stations right
under the (mid-field) terminals of the
major airports, from where passen-
gers could proceed (by escalators and
travelators) to the check-ins, concen-
trated within a limited perimeter.
Some countries have undertaken
to interconnect their major airports
by HS rail already. A showcase can
be found in Germany, where a HS
railway was built across hilly coun-
try, to link Frankfurt Airport with Köln
(Cologne) and, in future, other points
of the PBKAL triangle. To make such
Air-Rail interconnections truly effec-
tive, and hence Rail fully competi-
tive against Air, the HS railway station
must be situated under the airport.
The existing solution at Charles de
Gaulle airport does not meet this con-
dition because the TGV station there
is situated between just four of a total
of fourteen terminals.
The first airline that seems to have
realized that short-haul flights simply
don't pay is KLM. According to the
(Dutch) High Speed Alliance, KLM
has taken out a 10% stake in the con-
sortium set up to build and operate
the HS line Amsterdam - Schiphol
-Rotterdam (- Antwerp) with the express purpose of eliminating short-
haul flights (also to Brussels and Paris)
and replacing them with train jour-
neys. The trains will have a stop un-
der Schiphol airport. 'Flying by train'
from Schiphol is likely to begin in
mid-2007.
The model airport has yet to be
built, but there is already one project
meant to implement this idea: BBI, or
the future Berlin airport (in fact, an
extension of Schönefeld), where ICE
trains will come to stop right under-
neath a mid-field terminal
The model airport
The model airport must meet more
requirements than just an HS train sta-
tion under the airport. It must have a
truly mid-field terminal (no extra piers
out of reach for passengers on foot) lo-
cated on top of (at least) two intersect-
ing trunk lines, offering quick, direct
services to conurbations and between
airports as far away as 500 km (= two
hours). Furthermore, such an airport
must be easily accessible from nearby
motorways.
Because of these requirements, the
model airport cannot evolve from an
existing airport; in fact, only a green-
field project can meet all the specified
requirements.
This bland assertion seems to ex-
clude the densely populated areas of
Western Europe from the Garden of
Eden. Well, not exactly, because the
ideal solution may be approached
gradually, at enormous cost, of course,
starting with 'makeshift' solutions, like
the ICE station at Frankfurt Airport, the
TGV station at Charles de Gaulle, the
express train station at Zurich Klöten,
and (very soon) the HS train station at
Amsterdam Schiphol.
The ongoing expansion of the HS
train network will eventually ensure
direct services between many other
airports where rail stations exist or will
be built near the (main) terminal(s).
Though less conveniently located
than the 'ideal' HS train station under
the mid-field terminal, such stations
can still become integrated into what
would become the European airport
network, as part and parcel of a fully
integrated European transport system.
This vision may not come true be-
fore 2020 (hence it is missing in the
2001 paper European Aeronautics:
A Vision for 2020), but it is certainly
worth the effort and expense.
By replacing short-haul flights aswell
as long-distance motoring by HS train
trips, we will not only conserve energy
and protect our environment, but also
save money, simply because the latter
means of transport is definitely more
economical than the other two.
A testing ground for integration
The concept of Rail-Road-Air Inte-
gration, intimated in the 2001 White
Paper, and yet consistently ignored in
the mid-term review, could be put to
the test across the expanses of East-
Central Europe.
The obvious testing ground for
such all-round integration lies east of
the tightly knit network of the 'old'
EU, that is, east of Berlin. A look
at the UIC map of the European
HS network (http://airport-on-rails.
home.pl/pliki_eng/hsneten.htm) en-
visaged for 2020, reveals the planned
extension of HS railways as far as Ber-
lin and Vienna, but not beyond. And
what actually lies beyond, are lands
ideally suited for large-scale projects
of the greenfield type.
The anticipated economic advance
of the newly accessed EU member
states, which - according to EU statis-
tics - in the next 20 years are scheduled
to reach or even overtake the present
per capita GDP of the richest 'old' EU
countries, creates the potential for an
expansion of HS railways fully inte-
grated with the major airports of the
region. The skeleton of the envisaged
fusion of Air and Rail in East-Central
Europe is depicted in the chart Air-
Rail Integration (http://airport-on-rails.
home.pl/eng_illustrations/iint1.htm).
Specifically, the proposed model
of Air-Rail-Road integration can be
put to the test across the relatively
underpopulated and underdeveloped
flatlands of Poland, thanks to copi-
ous funds made available by the EU
as well as the drive and enthusiasm of
the Poles. A vision of the future Central
Poland Airport (CPL), situated on top of
two intersecting HS railways, is present-
ed in www.airport-on-rails.org. The
eventual success of the proposed test
should encourage the most crowded,
congested and polluted regions of
Western Europe to adopt this model,
be it at much higher cost.
Not until a network of such rail-interconnected airports, 300 to 500 km
apart, is in operation all across Europe,
will the European Union have developed a truly efficient, economic and
environment-friendly transport system.
One capable of coping with the challenges of the approaching decades.
