The influential yet contested EU rationale

The rationales for developing a high-speed rail project of European relevance can be diverse and do not necessarily need to be related to a ‘European-wide interest’²⁰. However, due to the trans-European dimension of the transport infrastructure considered in this research, it is appropriate to address the specifically European justifications for it. Even if in this case a variety of EU goals can be sought (Ross, 1998, p. 182), a common, overarching argument is that the development of efficient transport networks is essential to enable and maximize the benefits of the EU Single Market, which was notably stated in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (Article 170 in the current Treaty on the functioning of the European Union) and developed in the Commission’s White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (CEC, 1993).

Moreover, this argument assumes the possibility of successfully integrating economic growth with environmental protection. This assumption became explicit in the early 2000s with the Gothenburg Sustainable Development Strategy (European Council, 2001) and the White Paper on a European Transport Policy for 2010 (CEC, 2001). This White Paper, while maintaining the aforementioned argument, placed emphasis both on promoting modal shift, in order to respond to road transport growth and contribute to a more sustainable transport system, and on eliminating bottlenecks, to reduce the congestion that increases pollution and compromises the economic competitiveness of Europe. In this respect, the assumption resonates with the policy discourse of ecological modernization (Hajer, 1995), which, in spite of recognizing the structural nature of the ecological crisis, nonetheless assumes that it can be overcome within the existing institutions of society. This general argument on transnational transport infrastructure development is frequently articulated under a transport rationale and a political economy rationale.

The transport rationale refers to the potential role of high-speed rail in responding to the transport repercussions of an integrating European economy and society. The integration process and in particular the development of an internal market entail, in the first place, a foreseeable increase in transport demand due to the facilitation of movement across

20 Indeed, the extraordinary development of high-speed rail in Europe cannot simply be attributed to

‘EU reasons’. High-speed rail experiences at nation-state level, the association of this mode with technological innovation, and emblematic projects such as the Channel Tunnel have contributed to some degree to this development (Ross, 1994).

39 state borders²¹. Indeed, due to this but also to social, economic and technological developments, there has been a dramatic increase in mobility in Europe since the 1970s (Banister et al., 2000). Over the 1995-2006 period transport performance²² grew at average yearly rates of 2.8% for goods and 1.7% for passengers, reinforcing the use of those transport modes with a seemingly higher environmental impact (i.e. road and air transport) (Eurostat, 2009). These developments have led not only to negative environmental impacts, but also to a reduced efficiency of the network due to congestion. In this respect, high-speed rail has the potential both to cater for the increase of transport demand across borders and to contribute to modal shift from road and air transport. Firstly, high-speed rail increases capacity directly due to the high frequency and size of its trains, and indirectly as they free capacity on the conventional network for both freight and regional passenger services (Givoni, 2006). But also, high-speed rail is likely to contribute to modal shift due to this increased capacity and the possibility to compete with road and air transport in travel distances that, based on time thresholds of around one to three hours of travel, range roughly between 200 and 800 km (Albalate and Bel, 2012; Vickerman, 1997).

This transport rationale has been usually addressed through a wider political economy rationale, that is through the relationship between transport and the economic development of the EU. The construction of trans-border infrastructures has been seen as key in maximizing the potential of the EU Single Market whilst contributing to a balanced development within it. The Single Market requires the removal of internal barriers in order to function efficiently, achieve economies of scale, and enhance the competitiveness of European businesses in the global arena. Integrated transnational transport networks seem therefore key in facilitating its smooth functioning, an argument shared and mobilized not only by EU state actors (CEC, 1993) but also by European business interests (ERT, 1984).

Significantly, this rationale is usually accompanied by the assumption that investment in transport infrastructure is also essential to reduce development disparities within the EU by increasing general levels of accessibility across its territory (Jensen and Richardson, 2004, pp. 76–81; Vickerman et al., 1999). Both dimensions have been central in the EU policy discourse since the inclusion of a specific Title on Trans-European Networks in the Maastricht Treaty. The relevance of high-speed rail with respect to them is likely to be higher concerning passenger transport, as it is particularly suited for this type of traffic.

21 The EU Single Market requires the establishment of ‘an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured’ (Article 26 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union).

22 Transport performance is measured in tonne-kilometres in the case of goods transport and in passenger-kilometres in the case of passenger transport.

40 However, as cross-border freight transport is also important for an integrated European economy, high-speed rail development can also potentially contribute to its growth in two respects: indirectly, by freeing capacity on conventional rail lines to be used by freight services; and directly, by carrying both passenger and freight traffic on its lines in case they are designed with the appropriate specifications. However, as Germany’s HSR mixed-traffic system shows, the resulting increased industrial connectivity entails higher construction and operation costs (Albalate and Bel, 2012).

Apart from this main political economic rationale, an important although arguably less explicit one responds to a Keynesian approach to public policy, whereby the periodic crises of capitalism would be overcome through state intervention. Under this conception, particularly marked in the European Commission transport initiatives of the early 1990s (Ross, 1998, p. 192; Sichelschmidt, 1999, p. 172), apart from contributing to the competitiveness of the European economy in the long term, major public infrastructure works would encourage economic growth and create employment in the short and medium term.

However, the rationales for the development of transnational HSR infrastructure have been critically examined by a diverse body of research which formulates important doubts about them. Existing work can be divided between, first, evaluations of the policy objectives in themselves and, second, assessments of the extent to which they are accomplishable.

Firstly, several scholars have pointed out the contradictions between policy objectives in EU transport policy, in particular between the economic competitiveness, balanced development, and environmental objectives (ESPON, 2004; Jensen and Richardson, 2004; Peters, 2003a).

In general terms, it has been widely argued that the economic growth and competitiveness dimension of TEN-T policy has been prevalent over the balanced development and environmental ones (Jensen and Richardson, 2004; Peters, 2003a; Spiekermann and Wegener, 1996; Vickerman et al., 1999). The second body of work suggests that the potential of high-speed rail to contribute to these objectives is in any case unclear at best.

Firstly, although there may be an increase in the competitiveness of the EU as a whole, the reduction of regional inequalities through transnational transport infrastructure is questionable on two grounds: the non-homogeneous increase in accessibility that the development of a trans-European HSR network entails (Spiekermann and Wegener, 2006, 1996); and the contested assumption that higher accessibility and transport infrastructure investment promotes economic convergence between regions in Europe (Puga, 2002;

41 Spiekermann and Wegener, 2006; Tomaney and Marques, 2013).²³ Secondly, the environmental benefits of high-speed rail are not clear either. Despite certain environmental advantages with respect in particular to air transport operations (Janic, 2003)²⁴, high-speed rail has a significant impact on local air pollution, noise pollution, and land consumption, and in any case its advantages are dependent on whether high-speed rail development generates new transport demand or not (Givoni, 2006).

These questions are particularly significant due to the high costs involved in the construction, maintenance and operation of this type of infrastructure. If those wider positive impacts of high-speed rail cannot be demonstrated, a high-speed rail line needs a significant level of demand to be economically profitable and compensate these high costs (de Rus and Nash, 2007; Givoni, 2006). This poses questions on the justification of high-speed rail development in relatively low-density European areas (de Rus and Nash, 2007), as cost-benefit analyses of two high-speed rail lines in Spain have shown (de Rus and Inglada, 1997;

de Rus and Román, 2006). In spite of these qualifications, the political momentum in the development of HSR networks has been remarkable. This has been noted, in some cases with frustration, by a number of the previously cited authors (de Rus and Nash, 2007; Tomaney and Marques, 2013; Vickerman, 1997). In fact, several scholars have pointed out the potential of the Trans-European Transport Network rationale to conceal these contradictions and uncertainties and to be shared among across the EU multi-level policy-making environment.