Assessing the Complementarity of Common Transport Policy Objectives; A Scenario Approach

This paper examines the extent to which the main objectives of the European Common Transport Policy (CTP) are complementary. A total of six scenarios are constructed, reflecting three different policy objectives and two futures of Europe. The three policy objectives considered are economic efficiency, regional development and environmental protection. The two assumptions about the future of the EU (called external frameworks) are ‘Cooperation ’ which assumes greater harmonisation of European policies and actions, expansion of the EU and a high social acceptance of policy measures and ‘Polarisation ‘, which presents more or less opposite developments. The outcomes of each scenario are examined using a selection of indicators to represent the main impacts. It is concluded that there is to some extent complementarity between environmental and efficiency objectives, while there is little complementarity with regional development objectives. 1 The Common Transport Policy of the European Union The objectives and outcomes of transport policy are multifaceted, and include issues such as equity, environment, regional development and economic growth. Consequently, transport policy is shaped by many stakeholders in a complex policy-making environment (Rienstra and Nijkamp, 1997). Scenarios may provide insights in the trade-offs to be made in transport policies, as well as the impacts of these policies on other fields (Masser et al., 1992). In this paper we will apply such an approach to the Common Transport Policy (CTP) of the European Union (EU), which has seven main objectives (CEC, 1992): the continued reinforcement and proper functioning of the internal market facilitating the free movement of goods and persons throughout the Community; the transition from the elimination of the artificial regulatory obstacles towards the adoption of the right balance of policies favouring the development of coherent, integrated transport systems for the Community as a whole using the best available technology; the strengthening of economic and social cohesion by the contribution which the development of transport infrastructure can make to reducing disparities between the regions and linking island, land-locked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community; measures to ensure that the development of transport systems contributes to a sustainable pattern of development by respecting the environment and, in particular, by contributing to the solution of major environmental problems such as the limitation of CO *; actions to promote safety; measures in the social field; the development of appropriate relations with third countries, where necessary giving priority to those for which the transport of goods or persons is important for the Community as a whole. Over recent years, expenditure under the CTP has increased, due to a number of factors, such as to compensate peripheral regions for economic disadvantages of the European Monetary Union criteria (Banister, 1995; Banister and Berechman, 1993; Hey, 1996). The CTP aims to close the gaps in European transnational networks for both road and rail infrastructure (Nijkamp et al., 1994), in order to generate economic growth and to stimulate regional economic development. The European Commission has officially stated that each transport mode should cover its full social and environmental costs (CEC, 1996), although the implementation of these proposals is being hampered by expected negative economic impacts and the low political and social feasibility of measures. European regulation aims at reducing air pollution by road vehicles by setting emission reduction targets per vehicle, by reducing traffic congestion and reducing mobility growth. The first has been relatively successfully applied over recent decades in Europe, which reduced emissions of several gases up to 50% (OECD, 1993). However, the reduction of CO 2 emissions is still seen as a major