Page 2 / 59 · Gergely Havas Hungary Miklos Keresztes Hungary Sandro La Monica Italy Pier Paolo...

Page 2 / 59

Trans-European road network, TEN-T (Roads) 2011 performance report

Prepared by: CEDR PG PLANNING Group leader: Lars Bergman Sweden Group members: Frederic Plumier Belgium (Wallonia)

Elpida Epamenonda Cyprus Charalambos Kais Cyprus Bo Ekman Denmark Eric Thor Straten Denmark Jaan Ingermaa Estonia Pekka Ovaska Finland Roman Limbach Germany Katerina Romaidou Greece Olympia Stratigaki Greece Gergely Havas Hungary Miklos Keresztes Hungary Sandro La Monica Italy Pier Paolo Cartolano Italy Henrik Hooimeijer Netherlands Randi Harnes Norway Grzegorz Obara Poland Anton Svigelj Slovenia Alejandro Mosquera Casares Spain Nigel Edwards UK (England)

Other contributors: Gerald Egger Austria Joseph Hammel Austria Matti Raekallio Finland Guillaume Lapierre France Klaus-Peter Schwartz Germany Eva Kassapi Greece Brendan Kennedy Ireland Eirikur Bjarnason Iceland Martins Dambergs Latvia Arunas Rutka Lithuania Paul Mangen Luxembourg Georges Simon Luxembourg Willem de Vries Netherlands Paal Tvedt Norway Christoph Kaeser Switzerland Chris Spong Consultant Steve Williams Consultant Edited and published by: CEDR's Secretariat General Approved and amended by: CEDR's EXECUTIVE BOARD on 28 June 2012 Addressed to: CEDR's GOVERNING BOARD on 27 September 2012 This document expresses solely the current view of CEDR. Readers should not regard these views as a statement of the official position of CEDR’s member states.

Page 3 of 59


This report is: FOR PUBLICATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second biennial CEDR report on the performance of the trans-European road network, TEN-T (Roads). It shows the state of the art of the TEN-T (Roads) network on 1 January 2011. The 2011 TEN-T (Roads) performance report builds on the previous report to show that it is possible to produce comparable information on the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network within the majority of CEDR member states.

The 2009 report covered 17 countries and 61% of the TEN-T (Roads) network and a limited number of performance indicators. The 2011 report includes data from 20 countries and covers nearly 78,000 km or 83% of the TEN-T (Roads) network. This network represents the most important roads in Europe. More than two billion vehicle kilometres are driven on this network every day. The number of performance indicators has also increased since the 2009 report.

Discussions with other CEDR groups have continued in order to establish the need for additional performance indicators and the associated base data that can be defined and collected from the CEDR countries. The following performance indicators are included in the second CEDR performance report: Structure of the network Performance of the network

Road Type Average Traffic Flow Number of Lanes Traffic Density Length of Bridges Proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles Length of Tunnels Heavy Goods Vehicles Traffic Flow Road Environment Fatal Accident Rate ITS and PPP Schemes Performance of ITS Sections

Definitions of the performance indicators are given in section 7, Appendix 2: BASE DATA DEFINITIONS. Data collected on the extent of tolled sections of the TEN-T (Roads) network have not been included in the report due to a lack of common definitions. It is expected that these issues will be addressed in the next performance report in 2013.

It should be noted that at present, the data for Belgium only covers TEN-T roads in the Walloon region, and the UK data only covers TEN-T roads in England.

As this is the second biennial performance report, and many countries are either participating in the report for the first time or are correcting errors in the data from the previous report, it is not yet possible to thoroughly examine changes or identify trends in the performance of the network. The intention is that this will be possible in future as the process and underpinning data definitions become more stable, and the report seeks to consolidate rather than introduce new indicators.

However, the performance reporting framework will enable member states to provide consistent data about network performance that could enable meaningful comparison of information and benchmarking between member states of CEDR. The work on the 2009 and 2011 performance reports has shown that it is possible to produce a performance report of TEN-T (Roads) within the CEDR member states with a common location referencing system as well as with common data definitions throughout Europe.

Page 4 / 59


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background and context ................................................................................. 6

1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Publication of maps ......................................................................................... 7

1.4 Data quality and validity .................................................................................. 7

2. ABOUT THE TEN-T (ROADS) NETWORK ........................................................... 8

2.1 Scope of the report ......................................................................................... 8

2.2 Participating countries ..................................................................................... 8

3. STRUCTURE OF THE NETWORK ..................................................................... 12

3.1 Road Type .................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Number of Lanes .......................................................................................... 14

3.3 Length of Bridges .......................................................................................... 16

3.4 Length of Tunnels ......................................................................................... 18

3.5 Road Environment ........................................................................................ 20

3.6 ITS and PPP schemes .................................................................................. 22

4. PERFORMANCE OF THE NETWORK ............................................................... 24

4.1 Average Traffic Flow ..................................................................................... 24

4.2 Traffic Density ............................................................................................... 26

4.3 Proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles ............................................................ 29

4.4 Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic Flow ................................................................ 32

4.5 Fatal accident rate ........................................................................................ 34

4.6 Performance of ITS Sections ........................................................................ 36

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ............................................ 37

6. APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 38

7. APPENDIX 2: BASE DATA DEFINITIONS ......................................................... 39

7.1 Road Type .................................................................................................... 39

7.2 Section Length .............................................................................................. 39

7.3 Number of Lanes .......................................................................................... 40

7.4 Traffic Flow ................................................................................................... 40


Page 5 of 59


7.6 Fatal Accidents ............................................................................................. 41

7.7 Fatal Accidents involving Animals ................................................................. 41



7.10 Tolled Sections ............................................................................................. 43

7.11 PPP Sections ................................................................................................ 43

7.12 ITS ................................................................................................................ 43


8. APPENDIX 3: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MAPS.......................................... 45

8.1 Road Type .................................................................................................... 46

8.2 Number of Lanes........................................................................................... 47




8.6 Sections with ITS .......................................................................................... 51

8.7 Sections with PPP Schemes ......................................................................... 52

8.8 Average Daily Traffic Flow ............................................................................ 53

8.9 Traffic Density ............................................................................................... 54


8.11 Average Heavy Goods Vehicles Per Day ...................................................... 56

8.12 Annual Fatal Accident Rate ........................................................................... 57

9. APPENDIX 4: TEN-T (ROADS) LOCATION REFERENCING MODEL .............. 58

Page 6 / 59


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and context

National road administrations (NRAs) are required to provide information about the performance of their road networks, including the strategic routes that form the trans-European road network, TEN-T (Roads), to the European Commission and others. The effort involved in extracting and providing this information can be considerable, and the lack of common location referencing models and data definitions make the meaningful comparison of this information difficult. CEDR has recognised the need for high-quality, comparable information about the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network and undertaken work to develop a common performance reporting framework that could be used by all members to provide such data. During the period of CEDR's Strategic Plans 1 and 2, Project Group Planning (PG Planning) has developed a common location referencing model for the TEN-T (Roads) network and common definitions for base data that could form the basis of performance indicators. This framework has advantages over other initiatives such as TENtec because: � all data is referenced to a common, stable location referencing model; � all data is based on common data definitions; and � objective data is provided directly by NRAs. The performance reporting framework was successfully implemented as the basis of the biennial CEDR report on the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network. The first report covered the performance of the network in 2009; this second report shows the performance of the network on 1 January 2011. CEDR's intention in producing these reports is to establish a stable set of data with which to monitor trends and identify changes in the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network. As well as enabling the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network to be reported, this framework can continue to provide the backbone for the collection, referencing, and graphical representation of any other data required by CEDR (e.g. customer consultation, environmental data) in its Strategic Plan 3. This framework is the state of the art and represents the best source of performance data on the TEN-T (Roads) network.

1.2 Methodology

The TEN-T (Roads) network performance reporting framework employs a common location referencing model and common data definitions that have been developed by practitioners with an understanding of the data. Data is provided directly by NRAs and is processed centrally to produce this report and the accompanying maps.

Page 7 of 59


As this is only the second biennial report that has been produced, and many countries are participating for the first time, there have been issues about data quality and interpretation of the data definitions, but this will improve as countries become more familiar with the process. The process itself is still in its infancy and is currently largely manual. However, the intention is that in future, it could become more automated and therefore more up-to-date data could be provided. More information about the methodology of producing the report is provided in Section 6.

1.3 Publication of maps

Maps of the various performance data have been produced to accompany the statistics in this report and are included in Section 8. High-resolution versions of these maps, as well as the report itself, are publically available as PDF files on the CEDR website at www.cedr.eu.

1.4 Data quality and validity

The data included in this report is intended to accurately represent the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network in 2011 and is assumed to be correct as of 1 January 2011. However, as the data has been provided by individual NRAs and requires aggregation of local data and interpretation of data definitions, it is possible that the quality varies. CEDR therefore takes no responsibility for the accuracy and quality of the data that has been used to produce this report. Future work to be undertaken during CEDR's Strategic Plan 3 will continue to improve the quality and stability of the data by providing clearer definitions of the base data requirements, where necessary, to reduce inconsistencies and misinterpretations.

Page 8 / 59


2. ABOUT THE TEN-T (ROADS) NETWORK

2.1 Scope of the report

The 2011 TEN-T (Roads) performance report includes data from 20 countries and covers 77,985 km of the TEN-T (Roads) network. This network represents the most important roads in Europe. More than two billion vehicle kilometres are driven on this network every day.

Km % Length of TEN-T roads

1 103,226 -

Length of TEN-T roads in CEDR countries 94,388 -

Length covered by 2009 report 57,201 61

Length covered by 2011 report 77,985 83

This is the second biennial report published by CEDR on the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network. It covers 83% of the network compared with 61% covered in the previous 2009 report. The intention is that by the time the 2013 report is published, this figure will be close to 100%.

2.2 Participating countries

Involvement in the TEN-T (Roads) performance report is entirely voluntary. However, 24 out of a possible 27 CEDR member states have chosen to participate in the 2011 report as shown below.

1 TEN-T Roads in EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/ten-t-policy/transport-

mode/doc/road_tab1.pdf)

Figure 1: Countries participating in the 2011 TEN-T (Roads) network performance report

Page 9 of 59


Figure 2: The TEN-T (Roads) network covered by the 2011 performance report

Page 10 / 59


2.3 National statistics

The length and performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network in each of the participating countries, and other general statistics such as population and surface area, are given in the table and graphs below for information2.

The figure below shows the distribution of population and traffic density (calculated as Annual Average Daily Traffic per lane) on TEN-T Roads in each participating CEDR country and shows significant differences between countries.

Figure 3: Comparison of population and traffic density on TEN-T roads

2 Published by Eurostat (see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home)

CountryPopulation

(1000's)

Total Area

(km^2)All Roads Motorway Expressway Ordinary

Traffic Flow

(AADT)

Traffic Density

(AADT/Lane)

Proportion

HGV (%)

Austria 8,404 83,872 1,782 1,667 115 - 45,992 10,264 11

Belgium (Wallonia) 3,498 16,844 882 791 91 - 48,063 9,992 16

Cyprus 804 9,248 187 162 8 17 27,365 6,873 10

Denmark 5,561 43,098 916 864 - 52 33,561 7,737 13

Estonia 1,340 45,228 1,018 111 44 863 10,556 3,653 12

Finland 5,375 338,424 4,056 716 123 3,217 14,306 4,505 10

France 65,048 551,500 13,555 10,554 1,877 1,064 21,399 6,713 14

Germany 81,752 357,021 10,137 9,860 131 146 55,909 11,348 15

Greece 11,310 131,990 3,888 1,477 14 2,397 20,513 6,025 12

Hungary 9,986 93,030 2,439 937 189 1,313 26,421 7,356 18

Iceland 318 103,001 1,803 3 59 1,741 11,435 3,190 7

Ireland 4,481 70,280 2,017 768 117 1,132 23,397 6,660

Italy 60,626 301,338 7,500 5,907 1,232 361 28,527 7,796

Latvia 2,230 64,589

Lithuania 3,245 65,200 1,657 321 200 1,061 8,391 2,895 17

Luxembourg 512 2,586 90 90 - - 43,097 10,704 16

Netherlands 16,656 41,543

Norway 4,920 385,252 3,726 392 417 2,917 13,937 4,665 14

Poland 38,200 312,685

Slovenia 2,050 20,273 607 535 - 71 28,305 7,118 14

Spain 46,153 504,030 12,091 10,143 - 1,948 29,248 6,851 15

Sweden 9,416 449,964 5,603 1,692 237 3,674 16,590 4,497 14

Switzerland 7,870 41,290

UK (England) 51,807 130,395 4,031 2,666 1,174 191 77,763 14,097 13

Total/Average 441,563 4,162,681 77,985 49,657 6,028 22,164 29,239 7,147 13

TEN-T (Roads) Network Length (km) TEN-T (Roads) Network Use (Average)National Statistics

Page 11 of 59


Figure 4: Comparison of the length of the TEN-T network and the surface area of CEDR countries

The figure above compares the length of TEN-T (Roads) network and the surface area of each participating country. Not surprisingly, this shows that the length of the TEN-T network is proportional to the size of a country but also that there are two groups of countries; the first are those countries with a surface area of less than 150,000 km2 and a TEN-T (Roads) network of less than 4,000 km. These countries are all very close to the line. The second group includes countries with a surface area greater than 300,000 km2 and a much wider spread in terms of network length, ranging from just under 4,000 km (Norway) to almost 14,000 km (France). Overall, however, the figures show that the largest five countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) have the largest lengths of motorway in Europe, not only in terms of network length but also in terms of traffic flow and traffic density. The proportion of HGVs is relatively consistent across the whole of Europe, with all countries except Iceland (7%) reporting figures of between 10% and 18%. The wide range of network characteristics shows that different countries have interpreted the TEN-T Guidelines3 differently. For example, some countries, such as the UK (England), have chosen only the busiest sections to be part of TEN-T (i.e. not all motorways included in TEN-T); others, such as Germany, have included the majority of their national networks. It should be noted that as many of the performance indicators in this report are shown as percentages of network length, countries with relative short TEN-T (Roads) networks such as Cyprus and Luxembourg can have disproportionately high results. Care should be taken when interpreting this data. It should also be noted that the UK data only includes performance data from England.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/ten-t-policy/legal-basis/guidelines_en.htm

Page 12 / 59


3. STRUCTURE OF THE NETWORK

3.1 Road Type

For the purposes of this report, there are three kinds of TEN-T section road types: Motorway, Expressway, or Ordinary road. Full definitions of these road types are given in Section 7. These

types are analogous to those in the TEN-T Guidelines3.

Figure 5: National distribution of road types on the TEN-T network (2011)

Expressway Ordinary

CountryNetwork length

(km)Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 1,667 93.5 115 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 791 89.7 91 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 162 86.6 8 4.3 17 9.1 0 0.0

Denmark 916 864 94.3 0 0.0 52 5.7 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 111 10.9 44 4.3 863 84.8 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 716 17.7 123 3.0 3,217 79.3 0 0.0

France 13,555 10,554 77.9 1,877 13.8 1,064 7.8 61 0.5

Germany 10,137 9,860 97.3 131 1.3 146 1.4 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 1,477 38.0 14 0.4 2,397 61.6 0 0.0

Hungary 2,439 937 38.4 189 7.7 1,313 53.8 0 0.0

Iceland 1,803 3 0.2 59 3.3 1,741 96.6 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 768 38.1 117 5.8 1,132 56.1 0 0.0

Italy 7,500 5,907 78.8 1,232 16.4 361 4.8 0 0.0

Latvia No data 100.0

Lithuania 1,657 321 19.4 200 12.1 1,061 64.0 75 4.6

Luxembourg 90 90 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Netherlands No data 100.0

Norway 3,726 392 10.5 417 11.2 2,917 78.3 0 0.0

Poland No data 100.0

Slovenia 607 535 88.3 0 0.0 71 11.7 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 10,143 83.9 0 0.0 1,948 16.1 0 0.0

Sweden 5,603 1,692 30.2 237 4.2 3,674 65.6 0 0.0

Switzerland No data 100.0

UK (England) 4,031 2,666 66.1 1,174 29.1 191 4.7 0 0.0

Total (all data) 77,985 49,657 63.7 6,028 7.7 22,164 28.4 137 0.2

Total (ex 'No data') 77,849 49,657 63.8 6,028 7.7 22,164 28.5 - -

Road Type

Motorway No data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ordinary

Expressway

Motorway

No data

Page 13 of 59


These figures show that 64% of the TEN-T (Roads) network is motorway, 8% is expressway, and 28% is made up of ordinary roads. More than 50% of the TEN-T (Roads) network in Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden is made up of ordinary roads. In all other countries, at least 60% of the TEN-T (Roads) network consists of motorways.

Overall, only 8% of the TEN-T (Roads) network is categorised as expressway, whereas in the UK (England), this figure is nearly 30%. The figures show that much more needs to be done to improve the level of service on the TEN-T (Roads) network. However, while many countries have plans to upgrade their networks, the key factor is to achieve an appropriate national mix of road types. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of upgrading must be considered.

28%

8%64%

Ordinary

Expressway

Motorway

Figure 6: Overall distribution of road types on the TEN-T road network (2011)

Page 14 / 59


27%

52%

19%

2%

2 lanes or less

More than 2, up to 4 lanes


More than 6 lanes

3.2 Number of Lanes

The Number of Lanes is the average number of lanes along a TEN-T section in both directions. This figure is aggregated from the data from individual national sections so that, for example, a TEN-T section that consists of five national sections that are 2-lane roads and one national section that is a 4-lane road will have an average number of lanes greater than two and so will

be included in the category 'More than 2, up to 4 lanes'. A fuller definition is given in Section 7.

These results show that most of the TEN-T (Roads) network (52%) consists of roads with between 2 and 4 lanes, but that more than a quarter (27%) of the network is made up of roads that have 2 lanes or less.

In Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden, more than 50% of the TEN-T (Roads) network consists of roads that have 2 lanes or less. Of the remaining 21% of the TEN-T (Roads) network, less than 2% has more than 6 lanes. In the UK (England), this figure is nearly 17%.

Country Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 116 6.5 885 49.7 732 41.1 49 2.7 0 0.0

Belgium (Wallonia) 10 1.1 339 38.4 520 58.9 14 1.6 0 0.0

Cyprus 6 3.2 181 96.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Denmark 0 0.0 579 63.2 318 34.7 19 2.1 0 0.0

Estonia 859 84.4 159 15.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Finland 3,247 80.0 802 19.8 8 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

France 1,147 8.5 10,201 75.3 2,174 16.0 34 0.3 0 0.0

Germany 18 0.2 5,054 49.9 4,799 47.3 266 2.6 0 0.0

Greece 2,234 57.5 1,325 34.1 284 7.3 0 0.0 45 1.2

Hungary 1,246 51.1 1,108 45.4 85 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Iceland 1,699 94.2 95 5.3 9 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ireland 1,123 55.7 874 43.3 20 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Italy 186 2.5 5,265 70.2 1,870 24.9 181 2.4 0 0.0

Latvia 100.0

Lithuania 1,052 63.5 605 36.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Luxembourg 0 0.0 88 97.3 2 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Netherlands 0 100.0

Norway 3,361 90.2 365 9.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Poland 100.0

Slovenia 42 6.9 396 65.3 168 27.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Spain 1,880 15.5 8,683 71.8 1,399 11.6 129 1.1 0 0.0

Sweden 3,088 55.1 2,404 42.9 111 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Switzerland 100.0

UK (England) 201 5.0 998 24.8 2,151 53.4 681 16.9 0 0.0

Total (all data) 21,514 27.6 40,404 51.8 14,651 18.8 1,372 1.8 45 0.1

Total (ex 'No data') 21,514 27.6 40,404 51.9 14,651 18.8 1,372 1.8 - -

No data

Number of Lanes

2 lanes or less More than 2, up to 4 lanes More than 4, up to 6 lanes More than 6 lanes

Figure 7: Overall distribution of the number of lanes on the TEN-T road network (2011)

Page 15 of 59


Comparisons with 2009 data show significant changes in the distribution of data in Austria, Denmark, and Hungary. Austria and Denmark show an increase in the proportion of '4- to 6-lane' roads and a decrease in '2- to 4-lane roads', whereas Hungary shows an increase in the proportion of '2-lanes or less' roads and a decrease in '2- to 4-lane' roads. However, it should be noted that the overall length of TEN-T roads in Hungary has more than doubled from 1,119 km in 2009 to 2,439 km in 2011, which may explain the change in the overall character of the

network. The distribution of data in the UK (England) also shows 5% of the TEN-T (Roads) network as having '2 lanes or less'; this figure was zero in 2009, which could be explained by changes in

the data rather than changes to the network.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 lanes or less



More than 6 lanes

No data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2 lanes or less



More than 6 lanes

No data

Figure 8: National distribution of the number of lanes on TEN-T roads (2011)

Figure 9: National distribution of the number of lanes on TEN-T roads (2009)

Page 16 / 59


3.3 Length of Bridges

This is a new indicator that was developed in response to the BEXPRAC4 report. It shows the proportion of the TEN-T (Roads) network length that is made up of bridges. In order to focus only on bridges that are most important at European level, only bridges that are longer than

100 m have been included. A fuller definition is included in Section 7.

These figures show that less than 1.5% of the TEN-T (Roads) network for which data is available consists of long bridges. However, there are significant national variations, as shown

in the figure below.

4 http://www.cedr.fr/home/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/2010/e_BEXPRAC.pdf

Country

Network length

(km)All roads % Motorway Expressway Ordinary

Austria 1,782 102.2 5.7 99.3 3.0 0.0

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 9.4 1.1 9.1 0.3 0.0

Cyprus 187 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Denmark 916 9.3 1.0 9.3 0.0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9

Finland 4,056 48.7 1.2 21.6 4.1 23.0

France 13,555

Germany 10,137 164.6 1.6 159.7 1.4 3.5

Greece 3,888 25.4 0.7 24.7 0.0 0.7

Hungary 2,439 39.8 1.6 20.4 7.7 11.7

Iceland 1,803 5.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.6

Ireland 2,017

Italy 7,500

Latvia

Lithuania 1,657

Luxembourg 90 5.1 5.7 5.1 0.0 0.0

Netherlands

Norway 3,726 54.6 1.5 19.1 18.0 17.5

Poland

Slovenia 607 24.0 4.0 24.0 0.0 0.0

Spain 12,091 135.0 1.1 120.0 0.0 15.0

Sweden 5,603 43.7 0.8 27.5 3.3 12.9

Switzerland

UK (England) 4,031 36.0 0.9 28.3 7.1 0.6

Total (all data) 77,985 704.9 0.9 568.2 45.4 91.4

Total (ex 'No data') 53,256 704.9 1.3 568.2 45.4 91.4

Length of Bridges (km)

Page 17 of 59


This shows that only in Austria, Luxembourg, and Slovenia does 4% or more of the TEN-T (Roads) network consist of bridges longer than 100m. In no other countries that provided data

do bridges longer than 100 m represent more than 2% of the TEN-T (Roads) network.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0%

ag

e N

etw

ork

len

gth

Figure 10: Proportion of the length of national TEN-T roads comprising bridges (2011)

Page 18 / 59


3.4 Length of Tunnels

This is a new indicator that was developed in response to the BEXPRAC4 report. It shows the proportion of the TEN-T (Roads) network length that is made up of tunnels. In order to focus only on tunnels that are most important at European level, only tunnels that are longer than

300 m have been included. A fuller definition is included in Section 7.

These figures show that less than 1.5% of the TEN-T (Roads) network for which data is available consists of long tunnels. However, there are significant national variations, as shown in

the figure below.

Country

Network length

(km)All roads % Motorway Expressway Ordinary

Austria 1,782 158.7 8.9 124.9 33.8 0.0

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0

Cyprus 187 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

Denmark 916 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Finland 4,056 6.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.2

France 13,555

Germany 10,137 46.1 0.5 45.7 0.0 0.4

Greece 3,888 63.4 1.6 63.4 0.0 0.0

Hungary 2,439 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Iceland 1,803 13.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 13.0

Ireland 2,017

Italy 7,500

Latvia

Lithuania 1,657

Luxembourg 90 3.4 3.8 3.4 0.0 0.0

Netherlands

Norway 3,726 237.6 6.4 36.3 44.6 156.7

Poland

Slovenia 607 19.2 3.2 19.2 0.0 0.0

Spain 12,091 87.2 0.7 71.3 0.0 15.9

Sweden 5,603 2.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6

Switzerland

UK (England) 4,031 2.5 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0

Total (all data) 77,985 645 0.8 378.4 78.4 187.8

Total (ex 'No data') 53,256 645 1.2 378.4 78.4 187.8

Length of Tunnels (km)

Page 19 of 59


The figure shows that only in Austria, Norway, Luxembourg, and Slovenia does more than 3% of the TEN-T (Roads) network consist of tunnels that are longer than 300 m. Of the other countries that provided data, only in Greece does more than 1% of the TEN-T (Roads) network consist of

tunnels that are longer than 300m.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

%a

ge

Ne

two

rk le

ng

th

Figure 11: Proportion of the length of national TEN-T roads comprising tunnels (2011)

Page 20 / 59


3.5 Road Environment

This is a new indicator that was developed in response to the BEXPRAC3 report. It shows the proportion of the TEN-T (Roads) network length in three different environments: Urban, Rural,

and Mountain. A fuller definition is included in Section 7.

The figures indicate that less than 6% of the TEN-T (Roads) network is categorised as 'Urban', 11% as ‘Mountain', and the remaining 83% as 'Rural'. Austria, Iceland, Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden have the greatest proportion of mountainous sections, with more than 20% of the TEN-T (Roads) network in these countries categorised as 'Mountain'. Only in Austria, Cyprus, Iceland, and Luxembourg is more than 10% of the TEN-T (Roads)

network categorised as 'Urban'.

Country

Network length

(km)Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 810 45.5 746 41.9 226 12.7 0 0.0

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 0 0.0 882 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 0 0.0 158 84.5 29 15.5 0 0.0

Denmark 916 0 0.0 916 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 0 0.0 977 96.0 40 4.0 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 0 0.0 3,943 97.2 114 2.8 0 0.0

France 13,555 13,555 100.0

Germany 10,137 1,028 10.1 8,315 82.0 794 7.8 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 138 3.5 3,458 88.9 161 4.1 45 1.2

Hungary 2,439 0 0.0 2,343 96.1 96 3.9 0 0.0

Iceland 1,803 840 46.6 765 42.4 198 11.0 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 2,017 100.0

Italy 7,500 7,500 100.0

Latvia 0 100.0

Lithuania 1,657 0 0.0 1,555 93.8 102 6.2 0 0.0

Luxembourg 90 0 0.0 74 82.4 16 17.6 0 0.0

Netherlands 0 100.0

Norway 3,726 1,273 34.2 2,176 58.4 277 7.4 0 0.0

Poland 0 100.0

Slovenia 607 177 29.2 383 63.2 47 7.7 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 467 3.9 11,106 91.9 518 4.3 0 0.0

Sweden 5,603 1,394 24.9 3,676 65.6 533 9.5 0 0.0

Switzerland 0 100.0

UK (England) 4,031 0 0.0 3,980 98.7 16 0.4 35 0.9

Total (all data) 77,985 6,127 7.9 45,453 58.3 3,167 4.1 23,153 29.7

Total (ex 'No data') 54,833 6,127 11.2 45,453 82.9 3,167 5.8 - -

Mountain Rural Urban No data

Page 21 of 59


However, it is clear that different countries have interpreted the definitions differently; Germany has defined 'Mountain' as sections with gradients in excess of 6%; other countries have considered average altitude, weather conditions, or maintenance costs. Similarly, the term 'Urban' has a number of different national definitions, and the terms 'Mountain' and 'Rural' are not mutually exclusive. The next performance report will seek to introduce clearer, less ambiguous definitions for these terms.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No data

Mountain

Rural

Urban

Figure 12: National distribution of TEN-T road environments (2011)

Page 22 / 59


3.6 ITS and PPP schemes

This is a new indicator that was developed in response to the BEXPRAC3 report. It shows the proportion of the TEN-T (Roads) network length that contains an intelligent transport system (ITS) and/or is part of a public private partnership (PPP) scheme. A fuller definition is included in

Section 7.

These figures show that 43% of the TEN-T (Roads) network for which data has been provided contains ITS. Luxembourg, Spain, and the UK have the highest levels of use, while Greece and Estonia have very little. The figures also show that 5% of the TEN-T (Roads) network for which data is available is part

of a PPP scheme. Greece, Hungary, and the UK have the highest proportions of PPP schemes.

Country

Network length

(km)Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 824 46.2 39 2.2

Belgium (Wallonia) 882

Cyprus 187

Denmark 916 195 21.3

Estonia 1,018 43 4.3

Finland 4,056 453 11.2 143 3.5

France 13,555

Germany 10,137 4,416 43.6 386 3.8

Greece 3,888 54 1.4 697 17.9

Hungary 2,439 691 28.3 362 14.8

Iceland 1,803 11 0.6

Ireland 2,017

Italy 7,500

Latvia No data

Lithuania 1,657

Luxembourg 90 90 100.0

Netherlands No data

Norway 3,726 114 3.1

Poland No data

Slovenia 607 80 13.3

Spain 12,091 10,147 83.9

Sweden 5,603 770 13.7

Switzerland No data

UK (England) 4,031 2,483 61.6 746 18.5

Total (all data) 77,985 20,247 26.0 2,498 3.2

Total (ex 'No data') 46,657 20,247 43.4 2,498 5.4

ITS Sections PPP Sections

Page 23 of 59


Originally, this indicator also included information about whether a section was tolled or not. However, due to the wide range of toll types currently in use across Europe, this information was not comparable and was not included in the report. Future reports will seek to introduce clearer, less ambiguous definitions for this indicator so that different types of toll system (e.g. physical or automated toll, vignette, all vehicles, HGVs only)

and different types of ITS solutions can be identified.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

%a

ge

of

len

gth

ITS

PPP

Figure 13: Proportion of national TEN-T roads comprising ITS and/or PPP schemes (2011)

Page 24 / 59


3% 2%

16%

24%

39%

16%

More than 100,000

80,000 - 100,000

40,000 - 80,000

20,000 - 40,000

5,000 - 20,000

Less than 5,000

4. PERFORMANCE OF THE NETWORK

4.1 Average Traffic Flow

Average Traffic Flow on the TEN-T (Roads) network is expressed as Annual Average Daily Traffic or AADT. A full definition is given in Section 7. The average daily traffic on the TEN-T (Roads) network covered by the 2011 Report is 32,017 vehicles per day. The average traffic on motorways is 32,435 vehicles per day, on expressways it is 19,489 vehicles per day, and on ordinary roads it is 5,726 vehicles per day.

The following table shows the distribution of traffic flow in participating countries.

The figures show that 16% of the TEN-T (Roads) network carries less than 5,000 vehicles per day, while 39% carries between 5,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. 40% of the network carries between 20,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day, while 5% carries more than 80,000 vehicles per day. Figure 16 shows the national proportions of traffic flow for 2011.

Country

Total

length (km) Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 0 0.0 391 21.9 713 40.0 528 29.6 25 1.4 25 1.4 100 5.6

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 27 3.1 116 13.2 414 46.9 298 33.8 22 2.4 6 0.6 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 6 3.2 77 41.2 67 35.8 37 19.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Denmark 916 0 0.0 267 29.1 404 44.1 219 23.9 26 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 461 45.3 519 51.0 24 2.4 13 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 1,763 43.5 1,857 45.8 365 9.0 71 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

France 13,555 385 2.8 5,876 43.3 3,140 23.2 1,422 10.5 67 0.5 75 0.5 2,591 19.1

Germany 10,137 0 0.0 1,131 11.2 3,270 32.3 4,649 45.9 702 6.9 385 3.8 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 792 20.4 2,098 54.0 649 16.7 199 5.1 0 0.0 36 0.9 115 2.9

Hungary 2,439 126 5.2 1,602 65.7 328 13.4 340 13.9 24 1.0 7 0.3 12 0.5

Iceland 1,803 1,641 91.0 127 7.0 23 1.3 12 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 48 2.4 1,598 79.2 249 12.3 102 5.1 20 1.0 68 3.4 0 0.0

Italy 7,500 0 0.0 2,135 28.5 2,217 29.6 1,089 14.5 140 1.9 0 0.0 1,920 25.6


Lithuania 1,657 711 42.9 808 48.7 63 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 76 4.6

Luxembourg 90 0 0.0 11 12.7 26 29.2 52 58.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0


Norway 3,726 2,360 63.3 1,033 27.7 226 6.1 96 2.6 11 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0


Slovenia 607 21 3.5 250 41.2 216 35.7 119 19.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 1,096 9.1 5,925 49.0 3,644 30.1 793 6.6 151 1.3 131 1.1 351 2.9

Sweden 5,603 2,417 43.1 2,452 43.8 596 10.6 99 1.8 36 0.6 3 0.1 0 0.0


UK (England) 4,031 0 0.0 113 2.8 888 22.0 1,440 35.7 494 12.2 1,061 26.3 35 0.9

Total (all data) 77,985 11,855 15.2 28,386 36.4 17,522 22.5 11,577 14.8 1,718 2.2 1,797 2.3 5,199 6.7

Total (ex 'No data') 72,786 11,855 16.3 28,386 39.0 17,522 24.1 11,577 15.9 1,718 2.4 1,797 2.5 - -

No data

Annual Average Daily Traffic Flow (AADT)

Less than 5,000 5,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 40,000 40,000 - 80,000 80,000 - 100,000 More than 100,000

Figure 14: Overall distribution of traffic flow on TEN-T roads (2011)

Page 25 of 59


It shows that the UK (England) has by far the busiest TEN-T (Roads) network, with only 3% carrying less than 20,000 vehicles per day and 26% carrying more than 100,000 vehicles per day (although it should be noted that this is partially because the UK has only selected its busiest roads to be part of the TEN-T (Roads) network).The next busiest networks are in Germany and Luxembourg, where almost 60% carry more than 40,000 vehicles per day. Conversely, the countries with the lowest levels of traffic on the TEN-T (Roads) network are Iceland and Norway, with more than 60% carrying less than 5,000 vehicles per day.

The following figure shows the same traffic flow data for 2009.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 100,000

80,000 - 100,000

40,000 - 80,000

20,000 - 40,000

5,000 - 20,000

Less than 5,000

No data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 100,000

80,000 - 100,000

40,000 - 80,000

20,000 - 40,000

5,000 - 20,000

Less than 5,000

No data

Figure 15: National distribution of AADT on TEN-T roads (2011)

Figure 16: National distribution of AADT on TEN-T roads (2009)

Page 26 / 59


A comparison with the 2009 data shows that there has been an increase in the level of traffic using the TEN-T (Roads) network in Austria, Germany, and Slovenia, whereas there has been a decrease in Estonia, Hungary, and the UK (England). This may be due to changes in the underlying data or may reflect actual changes on the network due to the economic crisis or other

local factors.

4.2 Traffic Density

Traffic density on the TEN-T (Roads) network is expressed as Annual Average Daily Traffic or AADT per lane5. A full definition is given in Section 7. The average traffic density on TEN-T (Roads) network is 7,252 vehicles per lane per day. The average traffic density on motorways is 8,732 vehicles per lane per day, on expressways it is

7,144 vehicles per lane per day, and on ordinary roads it is 3,339 vehicles per lane per day.

5 It is recognised that there are other measures of traffic density in use within Europe. This indicator is therefore necessarily a

compromise that aims to allow relative performance to be examined.

Country Total length (km) Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 21 1.2 609 34.2 811 45.5 219 12.3 22 1.2 100 5.6

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 57 6.5 268 30.4 392 44.4 158 17.9 7 0.8 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 26 13.9 76 40.6 55 29.4 30 16.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Denmark 916 26 2.8 295 32.2 520 56.8 75 8.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 690 67.8 290 28.5 37 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 2,414 59.5 1,292 31.9 336 8.3 14 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

France 13,555 2,436 18.0 5,251 38.7 2,900 21.4 314 2.3 65 0.5 2,591 19.1

Germany 10,137 185 1.8 1,633 16.1 5,013 49.5 2,973 29.3 333 3.3 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 1,519 39.1 1,598 41.1 556 14.3 49 1.3 52 1.3 115 2.9

Hungary 2,439 455 18.7 852 34.9 927 38.0 158 6.5 35 1.4 12 0.5

Iceland 1,803 1,720 95.4 46 2.6 34 1.9 3 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 226 11.2 1,092 54.1 574 28.5 78 3.9 47 2.3 0 0.0

Italy 7,500 884 11.8 1,552 20.7 2,783 37.1 336 4.5 94 1.2 1,852 24.7


Lithuania 1,657 1,157 69.8 392 23.7 32 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 75 4.6

Luxembourg 90 0 0.0 25 27.7 33 36.8 32 35.5 0 0.0 0 0.0


Norway 3,726 2,568 68.9 684 18.4 388 10.4 64 1.7 22 0.6 0 0.0


Slovenia 607 83 13.7 228 37.7 250 41.2 41 6.8 4 0.7 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 3,481 28.8 4,934 40.8 2,721 22.5 455 3.8 150 1.2 351 2.9

Sweden 5,603 3,186 56.9 1,765 31.5 561 10.0 88 1.6 3 0.1 0 0.0


UK (England) 4,031 0 0.0 154 3.8 1,510 37.5 1,885 46.8 447 11.1 35 0.9

Total (all data) 77,985 21,134 27.1 23,035 29.5 20,434 26.2 6,971 8.9 1,281 1.6 5,131 6.6

Total (ex 'No data') 72,854 21,134 29.0 23,035 31.6 20,434 28.0 6,971 9.6 1,281 1.8 - -

No data

Traffic Density (AADT / lane)

Less than 3,000 3,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 12,000 12,000 - 18,000 More than 18,000

Page 27 of 59


2%9%

28%

32%

29%

More than 18,000

12,000 - 18,000

6,000 - 12,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

The figures show that 29% of the TEN-T (Roads) network has a traffic density of less than 3,000

vehicles per lane per day. The proportion of the network with a traffic density of between 3,000 and 6,000 vehicles per lane per day and between 6,000 and 12,000 vehicles per lane per day is 32% and 28% respectively.

As for the busiest roads, 11% of the TEN-T (Roads) network has a traffic density of more

than 12,000 vehicles per lane per day.

The national figures show that Germany, Luxembourg, and the UK have the highest levels of traffic density, with more than 30% of the TEN-T (Roads) network in each of these countries

carrying more than 12,000 vehicles per lane per day. Indeed, 11% of the TEN-T (Roads) network in the UK (England) carried more than 18,000 vehicles per day, although it should be noted that this is partially because the UK has only selected its busiest roads to be part of the TEN-T (Roads) network. The countries with the lowest traffic density on the TEN-T (Roads) network are Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden, where more than 50% of the TEN-T (Roads) network

has a traffic density of less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 18,000

12,000 - 18,000

6,000 - 12,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

No data

Figure 18: National distribution of traffic density on TEN-T roads (2011)

Figure 17: Overall distribution of traffic density on TEN-T roads (2011)

Page 28 / 59


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 18,000

12,000 - 18,000

6,000 - 12,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

No data

However, comparisons with 2009 figures for traffic density show a reduction in the proportion of

TEN-T (Roads) with the highest levels of traffic density in a number of countries. As the total traffic volumes are broadly similar, it is not clear whether this reduction is due to increased network capacity, corrections to previous errors in the data, or other factors such as the economic crisis or other local factors. The change in Hungary is likely to be explained by the significant increase in the size of its TEN-T (Roads) network and the resulting change in network characteristics. The intention is that future reports will be able to show trends in the data so that

such changes can be better understood.

Figure 19: National distribution of traffic density on TEN-T roads (2009)

Page 29 of 59


17%

63%

18%

2%

More than 20%

10% - 20%

5% - 10%

Less than 5%

4.3 Proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles

The proportion of the traffic on the TEN-T (Roads) network that comprises heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) is expressed as a percentage. HGVs are defined as weighing in excess of 3.5 tonnes. A fuller definition is given in Section 7. On average, 14.3% of the traffic using the TEN-T (Roads) network each day is HGVs. On

motorways, the figure is 14.8%, on expressways it is 13.0%, and on ordinary roads it is 13.5%6.

The figures show that on only 2% of the TEN-T (Roads) network do HGVs comprise less than 5% of all traffic. On 63% of the TEN-T (Roads) network, HGVs comprise between 10% and 20% of all traffic. HGVs comprise more than 20% of traffic on 17% of the TEN-T (Roads) network.

6 It should of course be noted that as well as reflecting the number of HGVs using a section, these figures are also dependent

on the number of passenger vehicles.

Country Total length (km) Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 11 0.6 428 24.0 1,178 66.1 65 3.6 100 5.6

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 0 0.0 137 15.5 538 61.0 208 23.5 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 9 4.8 103 55.1 75 40.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Denmark 916 0 0.0 126 13.8 724 79.0 66 7.2 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 30 3.0 330 32.5 576 56.6 81 8.0 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 4 0.1 1,838 45.3 2,130 52.5 69 1.7 16 0.4

France 13,555 206 1.5 1,451 10.7 7,146 52.7 2,148 15.8 2,605 19.2

Germany 10,137 44 0.4 1,196 11.8 6,517 64.3 2,380 23.5 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 279 7.2 924 23.8 2,402 61.8 126 3.2 157 4.0

Hungary 2,439 33 1.4 106 4.3 1,257 51.5 954 39.1 89 3.6

Iceland 1,803 240 13.3 428 23.7 1,135 63.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 2,017 100.0

Italy 7,500 7,500 100.0


Lithuania 1,657 9 0.6 292 17.6 926 55.9 355 21.4 75 4.6

Luxembourg 90 0 0.0 0 0.0 84 93.3 6 6.7 0 0.0


Norway 3,726 0 0.0 235 6.3 2,820 75.7 671 18.0 0 0.0


Slovenia 607 71 11.7 211 34.8 225 37.1 100 16.4 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 164 1.4 2,012 16.6 6,015 49.7 2,893 23.9 1,008 8.3

Sweden 5,603 29 0.5 389 6.9 4,544 81.1 638 11.4 3 0.1


UK (England) 4,031 43 1.1 1,441 35.7 2,367 58.7 145 3.6 35 0.9

Total (all data) 77,985 1,172 1.5 11,646 14.9 40,658 52.1 10,903 14.0 13,606 17.4

Total (ex 'No data') 64,379 1,172 1.8 11,646 18.1 40,658 63.2 10,903 16.9 - -

Proportion of total traffic comprising HGVs

Less than 5% 5% - 10% 10% - 20% More than 20% No data

Figure 20: Overall proportion of traffic on TEN-T roads comprising HGVs (2011)

Page 30 / 59


Figure 21: Proportion of traffic on national TEN-T roads comprising HGVs (2011)

The national figures show that the countries with the highest proportion of HGVs on the TEN-T (Roads) network are Hungary, Spain, Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, and Lithuania, where

HGVs comprise more than 20% of all traffic on more than 20% of the TEN-T roads network.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 20%

10% - 20%

5% - 10%

Less than 5%

No data

Page 31 of 59


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 20%

10% - 20%

5% - 10%

Less than 5%

No data

The countries with the lowest proportion of HGVs on the TEN-T (Roads) network are Cyprus, Finland, and Slovenia, where HGVs comprise 10% of all traffic or less on more than 40% of the

TEN-T (Roads) network.

Comparisons with 2009 figures show a reduction in some countries in the proportion of TEN-T (Roads) with the highest proportion of HGV traffic in a number of countries.

As total traffic volumes are broadly similar, it is not clear whether this reduction is due to increased network capacity, corrections to previous errors in the data, or other factors such as the economic crisis or other local factors. The intention is that future reports will be able to show trends in the data so that such changes can be better understood.

Figure 22: Proportion of traffic on national TEN-T roads comprising HGVs (2009)

Page 32 / 59


12%

10%

22%

56%

More than 9,000

6,000 - 9,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

4.4 Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic Flow

As well as understanding the proportion of vehicles using the TEN-T (Roads) network that are heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), it is useful to consider the actual volume of HGV traffic. Full definitions of HGV traffic are given in Section 7.

On average, 4,359 HGVs use each section per day. On motorway sections, this figure is as high as 5,787 per day, while on expressways it

is 3,110 and 892 on ordinary roads. The figures show that 56% of the TEN-T (Roads) network carries fewer than 3,000 HGVs per day, 32% carries between 3,000 and 9,000 HGVs per day, and 12% carries more than 9,000 HGVs per day.

The national figures indicate that the countries that carry the greatest number of HGVs on their TEN-T roads are the UK (England), Germany, Belgium (Wallonia), and Luxembourg, with at least 20% of the network carrying more than 9,000 HGVS per day. The countries carrying the fewest HGVs are Estonia, Finland, Iceland, and Norway, where at least 90% of the TEN-T

(Roads) network carries less than 3,000 HGVs per day.

Country Total length (km) Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) % Length (km) %

Austria 1,782 427 24.0 800 44.9 434 24.4 21 1.2 100 5.6

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 188 21.3 268 30.4 198 22.5 228 25.9 0 0.0

Cyprus 187 148 79.1 32 17.1 7 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Denmark 916 322 35.2 380 41.5 190 20.7 24 2.6 0 0.0

Estonia 1,018 1,018 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Finland 4,056 3,963 97.7 78 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 0.4

France 13,555 6,365 47.0 3,093 22.8 845 6.2 648 4.8 2,605 19.2

Germany 10,137 1,532 15.1 2,814 27.8 1,982 19.6 3,809 37.6 0 0.0

Greece 3,888 3,122 80.3 463 11.9 118 3.0 27 0.7 157 4.0

Hungary 2,439 1,434 58.8 543 22.3 141 5.8 232 9.5 89 3.6

Iceland 1,803 1,801 99.9 2 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ireland 2,017 2,017 100.0

Italy 7,500 1,679 1,405 1,126 1,439 1,852 100.0


Lithuania 1,657 1,421 85.8 160 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 76 4.6

Luxembourg 90 11 12.7 30 33.5 29 32.7 19 21.1 0 0.0


Norway 3,726 3,495 93.8 178 4.8 48 1.3 5 0.1 0 0.0


Slovenia 607 321 52.9 151 24.9 135 22.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Spain 12,091 6,412 53.0 3,411 28.2 718 5.9 542 4.5 1,008 8.3

Sweden 5,603 4,621 82.5 939 16.8 36 0.6 4 0.1 3 0.1


UK (England) 4,031 722 17.9 377 9.4 1,265 31.4 1,631 40.5 35 0.9

Total (all data) 77,985 39,001 50.0 15,124 19.4 7,272 9.3 8,630 11.1 7,957 10.2

Total (ex 'No data') 70,028 39,001 55.7 15,124 21.6 7,272 10.4 8,630 12.3 - -

No data

HGV Traffic Flow (AADT)

Less than 3,000 3,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 9,000 More than 9,000

Figure 23: Overall HGV traffic flow on TEN-T roads (2011)

Page 33 of 59


Comparisons with 2009 figures show a reduction in some countries, including the UK (England), in the proportion of TEN-T (Roads) with the highest volume HGV traffic. However, there has

been an increase in other countries such as Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), and Germany.

As the general total traffic volumes are broadly similar, it is not clear whether this reduction is due to increased network capacity, corrections to previous errors in the data, or other factors such as the effect of the economic crisis or other local factors. The intention is that future reports

will be able to show trends in the in the data so that such changes can be better understood.

Figure 24: National distribution of HGV traffic flow on TEN-T roads (2011)

Figure 25: National distribution of HGV traffic flow on TEN-T roads (2009)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 9,000

6,000 - 9,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

No data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

More than 9,000

6,000 - 9,000

3,000 - 6,000

Less than 3,000

No data

Page 34 / 59


4.5 Fatal accident rate

A new indicator has been developed in order to report the average rate of fatal accidents on a TEN-T section. The indicator is expressed as average annual fatal accident rate per billion vehicle kilometres or BVehKm. It is designed to provide an indication of the relative safety of

TEN-T sections. A fuller definition is provided in Section 7.

On an average section of the TEN-T (Roads) network, there are 9.55 fatal accidents per year for every billion vehicle kilometres driven. On motorway sections, this figure drops to 6.74, on expressways it is 7.95, and on ordinary roads it is 17.13. These figures show that motorways in Belgium (Wallonia), Cyprus, and Lithuania have the lowest relative safety, with more than 10 fatal accidents per BVehKm, while motorways in Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, and the UK (England) have the highest relative safety, with less than 2 fatal accidents per BVehKm. Note that Iceland has only 3 km of motorway. Expressways in Belgium (Wallonia), Lithuania, and Norway have the lowest relative safety, with more than 10 fatal accidents per BVehKm, while Denmark, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden have the highest relative safety, with less than 1 fatal accident per BVehKm. However, it should be noted that the figures for expressways are based on data from a small proportion of the TEN-T (Roads) network in these countries.

Country Motorway Expressway

Austria 2.52 2.94 -

Belgium (Wallonia) 11.57 11.98 -

Cyprus 69.45 3.64 14.54

Denmark 1.93 0.00 7.45

Estonia 7.99 9.47 26.05

Finland 2.05 4.76 6.09

France

Germany 2.23 0.00 0.00

Greece 6.80 0.00 11.31

Hungary 3.81 8.24 17.33

Iceland 0.00 2.10 6.44

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania 24.45 23.55 41.63

Luxembourg 1.12 - -

Netherlands

Norway 4.68 11.05 21.31

Poland

Slovenia 2.22 0.00 8.25

Spain 4.00 0.00 14.67

Sweden 2.01 0.87 4.66

Switzerland

UK (England) 1.25 2.58 3.78

TOTAL 8.75 10.95 24.26

Ordinary

Average Annual Fatal Accident Rate / BVehKm per Section

Page 35 of 59


Ordinary roads generally have a lower relative safety compared with other road types but Estonia, Lithuania, and Norway have the lowest relative safety, with more than 20 fatal accidents per BVehKm. Conversely, ordinary roads in Germany, Sweden, and the UK (England)

have the highest relative safety, with fewer than 5 fatal accidents per BVehKm.

It should be noted that as this is the first year that this indicator has been reported, not all countries were able to provide data over the same measurement period. It should also be noted that further work will be undertaken to refine this indicator which, at the moment, is very sensitive to short section lengths and low numbers of accidents. Future development of this

indicator will also consider the requirements of the European Road Safety Directive. Finally it should be noted that, initially, efforts were made to collect information about fatal accidents involving animals. However, not enough countries could provide data. Those countries that did have data found there was typically less than one fatal accident per year

nationally.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Av

era

ge

An

nu

al

Fa

tal A

cc

ide

nt

Ra

te /

BV

eh

KM

Ordinary

Expressway

Motorway

Figure 26: National distribution of fatal accidents per BVehKm by road type (2011)

Page 36 / 59


4.6 Performance of ITS Sections

The final section shows the performance of ITS Sections compared with the average performance of the whole TEN-T (Roads) network in terms of traffic flow, proportion of HGVs, and fatal accident rates. The colours indicate whether the figures on the ITS Sections are higher (red) or lower (green) than the national average. See Section 3.6 for more information about ITS.

The figures show that in all countries, ITS is installed on sections of the TEN-T (Roads) network with higher than average traffic flow and HGV flow as these are the parts of the network with the greatest need for traffic management. This isn't always the case when considering fatal accidents, which suggests that the accident rate on these sections may be lower than after the installation of ITS. Future reports will seek to differentiate between different types of ITS and to try and identify the effect that ITS has on accident rates.

Country

Network

length (km)Length (km) ITS sections Network avg ITS sections Network avg ITS sections Network avg

Austria 1,782 824 54,101 45,992 5,008 4,815 1.84 2.55

Belgium (Wallonia) 882 0

Cyprus 187 0

Denmark 916 195 48,840 33,561 5,731 4,268 1.50 1.82

Estonia 1,018 43 24,935 10,556 1,807 1,032 18.43 1.28

Finland 4,056 453 16,731 14,306 1,646 1,231 2.74 0.51

France 13,555 0

Germany 10,137 4,416 68,839 55,909 10,235 8,318 2.29 2.17

Greece 3,888 54 99,610 20,513 4,650 2,390 3.08 2.59

Hungary 2,439 691 43,705 26,421 7,526 4,603 2.81 2.10

Iceland 1,803 0

Ireland 2,017 0

Italy 7,500 0

Latvia No data

Lithuania 1,657 0

Luxembourg 90 90 43,097 43,097 6,957 6,957 1.12 1.12

Netherlands No data

Norway 3,726 0

Poland No data

Slovenia 607 80 36,393 28,305 3,689 3,445 2.73 3.35

Spain 12,091 10,147 33,997 29,248 4,334 3,913 3.96 14.67

Sweden 5,603 770 30,339 16,590 6,957 1,973 1.41 4.66

Switzerland No data

UK (England) 4,031 2,483 97,656 77,763 12,112 9,815 1.29 1.58

Fatal Accidents (AAAR/BVehKM)ITS Sections Traffic Flow (AADT) HGV Flow (AADT)

Page 37 of 59


5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The 2011 TEN-T (Roads) Performance Report builds on the previous 2009 report to show that it is possible to produce comparable information on the performance of the TEN-T (Roads) network within the majority of CEDR member states. The report highlights the wide range of characteristics present in different countries and, in particular, highlights the differences between countries at the centre of Europe and those more remote from the centre in terms of network development and level of use. This may be of particular relevance in the light of the forthcoming revision of the TEN-T Guidelines. As this is the second biennial performance report and many countries are either participating in the report for the first time or are correcting errors in the data from the previous report, it is not yet possible to thoroughly examine changes or identify trends in the performance of the network. The intention is that this will be possible in future as the process and underpinning data definitions become more stable, and the report seeks to consolidate rather than introduce new indicators. However, it is recognised that clearer and more detailed definitions should be developed for ITS, Road Environment, and Tolled Sections and new indicators may be required to support other initiatives within CEDR, particularly with regard to the experience of road users. A further future development will be to improve the data collection process to make it more automated and therefore more reliable, efficient, and capable of providing more current data.

Page 38 / 59


6. APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY

The process of producing the report is summarised as follows: 1. Individual countries referenced their local networks into Logical Nodes and Sections using

the TEN-T (Roads) Location Referencing System developed by CEDR in SP1.

2. They then submitted their network and performance base dataincluding the geographical

coordinates of each nodeusing a standard Excel spreadsheet and a set of base data definitions (see Section 7).

3. Once received, the data was checked, and errors were corrected in consultation with the

individual countries. 4. The data was then loaded into a database for statistical analysis using SQL queries and the

production of GIS data in ESRI ShapeFile format for the production of the maps. 5. An Excel spreadsheet containing the results of the SQL queries is exported from the

database and is used to produce the maps and charts in this report. The intention is that, in the future, this process may be automated so that countries can load their data directly into a database using a web-based data loader.

Page 39 of 59


7. APPENDIX 2: BASE DATA DEFINITIONS

7.1 Road Type

Title Road Type

Description The predominant Road Type along a Logical Section

Permitted Values Motorway, Expressway, Ordinary

Definitions Motorway: A road of two carriageways, separated by a physical barrier for most of its length. All crossings are normally grade separated. No stopping and usually a minimum speed. Access is generally restricted to certain types of vehicle.

Expressway: A national road or other high-speed road of one or two carriageways, with or without a physical barrier. Has some interaction with the normal network through high-quality interchanges (grade separated, at grade, roundabouts, etc.).

Ordinary: All other roads

7.2 Section Length

Title Section Length

Description The route length of a Logical Section in kilometres

Permitted Values Integer

Definitions The route length of a section is the distance from the start node to end node of a Logical Section, measured in one direction only. This means that, for dual carriageways, the length is included once only and is the average of the distances on each carriageway.

The route length should be rounded off to the nearest kilometre.

Page 40 / 59


7.3 Number of Lanes

Title Number of Lanes

Description The average number of lanes along a Logical Section

Permitted Values Real number to one decimal place (e.g. 4.2)

Definitions The length-weighted average number of lanes in both directions along a Logical Section, including crawler lanes etc.

The Number of Lanes should be calculated as the length-weighted average number of lanes in one direction plus the length-weighted average number of lanes in the other direction.

For example, if a Logical Section has 2 lanes for 25% of its length and 1 lane for 75% of its length in one direction, and has 1 lane for 100% of its length in the other direction then its length-weighted average number of lanes is:

(25% x 2 + 75% x 1) + (100% x 1) = 2.25

This Logical Section will be recorded as having 2.3 lanes.

7.4 Traffic Flow

Title Traffic Flow

Description The annual average daily traffic along a Logical Section


Definitions The length-weighted average annual daily traffic (AADT) along a Logical Section, in both directions, rounded off to the nearest integer. This includes all vehicle types.

The Traffic Flow should be calculated as the length-weighted AADT in one direction plus the length-weighted AADT in the other direction.

See Number of Lanes for a description of length weighting.

If traffic count data is not available, estimates can be used.

Page 41 of 59



Title Proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicles

Description The proportion of annual average daily traffic along a Logical Section that comprises Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).

Permitted Values Percentage to one decimal place.

Definitions The proportion of length-weighted average annual daily traffic (AADT) along a Logical Section, in both directions, that comprises Heavy Goods Vehicles. Expressed as a percentage.

See Number of Lanes for a description of length weighting. HGVs are goods vehicles weighing in excess of 3.5 tonnes.

7.6 Fatal Accidents

Title Fatal Accidents

Description The total number of fatal accidents that occurred along the Logical Section over the last five calendar years.


Definitions The aggregated number of fatal accidents that occurred on the section during the period 1January 2006 to 31 December 2010.

Any accidents that occurred at a Logical Node should be allocated to a single Logical Section as appropriate.

7.7 Fatal Accidents involving Animals

Title Fatal Accidents involving Animals

Description The total number of fatal accidents that occurred along the Logical Section over the last five calendar years where animals were a contributory factor.


Definitions The aggregated number of fatal accidents that occurred on the section during the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010 where animals were a contributory factor.

Any accidents that occurred at a Logical Node should be allocated to a single Logical Section as appropriate.

Page 42 / 59



Title Length of Bridges

Description The total length of bridges along a Logical Section in kilometres.

Permitted Values Real number to one decimal place.

Definitions The Length of Bridges along a section is the total length of road along a Logical Section that crosses bridges, measured in one direction only. This means that, for dual carriageways, the length is included once only and is the average of the total length of bridges on each carriageway.

Only road-carrying bridges that have a length greater than 100 m should be reported.

The total Length of Bridges along a Logical Section should be rounded off to the nearest 100 m.


Title Length of Tunnels

Description The total length of tunnels along a Logical Section in kilometres.

Permitted Values Real number to one decimal place

Definitions The Length of Tunnels along a section is the total length of road along a Logical Section that passes through tunnels, measured in one direction only. This means that, for dual carriageways, the length is included once only and is the average of the total length of tunnels on each carriageway.

Only tunnels in excess of 300 m in length should be reported.

The total Length of Tunnels along a Logical Section should be rounded to the nearest 100 m.

Page 43 of 59


7.10 Tolled Sections

Title Tolled Sections

Description Whether or not the Logical Section is subject to tolls.

Permitted Values Yes or No

Definitions A Logical Section should be recorded as including a toll if it wholly or partially includes one or more lengths of road, or structure, for which

road users pay an additional chargeover and above normal

taxationto use.

7.11 PPP Sections

Title PPP Sections

Description Whether or not the Logical Section includes one or more Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Scheme.


Definitions A Logical Section should be recorded as a PPP Section if it wholly or partially includes one or more lengths that are part of a PPP Scheme.

PPP Schemes are defined as lengths of road or structures that are funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies, in which the private party assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk in the project.

Includes Public–Private Partnerships (PPP), Public Finance Initiatives (PFI), etc.

7.12 ITS

Title ITS

Description Whether or not the Logical Section includes an Intelligent Transport System (ITS).


Definitions A Logical Section should be recorded as including ITS if it wholly or partially includes one or more lengths where traffic is actively managed using real-time driver information provided by physical infrastructure (e.g. variable message signs).

Page 44 / 59



Title Road Environment

Description An indication of the predominant environment along a Logical Section.

Permitted Values Urban, Rural, or Mountain

Definitions Urban: the Logical Section predominantly passes through built-up areas.

Rural: the Logical Section predominantly passes through non built-up areas.

Mountain: the Logical Section predominantly passes through an area of relatively high altitude and is likely to be subject to extreme physical and/or winter conditions (e.g. high gradients, tight curves, passes subject to road closure etc.).

Each Logical Section can only be allocated to a single Road Environment.

Page 45 of 59


8. APPENDIX 3: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MAPS

The following section includes a map of each of the 2011 TEN-T (Roads) network performance indicators. The maps are also available as high-resolution PDF files from the CEDR website.

Page 46 / 59


8.1 Road Type

Page 47 of 59


8.2 Number of Lanes

Page 48 / 59



Page 49 of 59



Page 50 / 59



Page 51 of 59


8.6 Sections with ITS

Page 52 / 59


8.7 Sections with PPP Schemes

Page 53 of 59


8.8 Average Daily Traffic Flow

Page 54 / 59


8.9 Traffic Density

Page 55 of 59



Page 56 / 59


8.11 Average Heavy Goods Vehicles per Day

Page 57 of 59


8.12 Annual Fatal Accident Rate

Page 58 / 59


9. APPENDIX 4: TEN-T (ROADS) LOCATION REFERENCING MODEL

Ref: CEDR report 2013/04 TDManagement2013 / TEN-T performanceReport

La Grande Arche, Sud 19e

FR – 92055 PARIS – LA DEFENSE Tél. : + 33 (0) 1 40 81 36 87 Fax. : + 33 (0) 1 40 81 99 16

Date post:	10-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Page 2 / 59 · Gergely Havas Hungary Miklos Keresztes Hungary Sandro La Monica Italy Pier Paolo...

Documents