Transport infrastructure at regional level
From Statistics explained
- Data from March 2008, most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.
The major importance of modern high-capacity transport links and hubs for all modes of transport for European economic integration has been recognised by the European Union (EU) and its Member States via the definition of major trans-European transport axes within the framework of the trans-European networks (TEN). These have been a key component for the development of the single market and for promoting economic and social cohesion within the EU.
From a regional perspective, an extensive network of roads, motorways and railway links is a prerequisite for economic development and interregional competitiveness.
Contents |
Main statistical findings
Motorways
Map 1 shows the density of the motorway network in the European NUTS 2 regions in 2006, expressed as kilometres of motorway per 1 000 km2.
In general, the density of the motorway network is closely correlated with population density and thus with the degree of urbanisation. The densest motorway networks can therefore be found in the Netherlands, Belgium, the western regions of Germany and the UK. As regards the motorway infrastructure at country level, the Netherlands has the highest density with 63 km/1 000 km2, followed by Luxembourg (57 km/1 000 km2). Trailing some distance behind Luxembourg, in third place, comes Germany with 35 km/1 000 km2, followed by Slovenia, Portugal and Denmark. The countries with the lowest motorway density are Romania and Poland (2 km/1 000 km2), and also Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, with numbers well below 10 km/1 000 km2.
A closer view reveals that the highest density of motorways is to be found around European capitals and other major cities, and in major industrial conurbations. Looking at European history, it is fair to say that, historically, the motorway infrastructure (in these specific regions) was a product of regional development rather than the driving force behind it.
Important industrialised areas with high motorway densities include the German regions in the ‘Ruhrgebiet’ (Düsseldorf: 118 km/1 000 km2) and the ‘Rhein-Main-Region’ (Köln: 76 km/1 000 km2, Darmstadt: 64 km/1 000 km2) as well as the north-western part of England, with Greater Manchester (140 km/1 000 km2) as the centre, and the densely populated ‘Randstad’ in the western part of the Netherlands (Utrecht: 122 km/1 000 km2, Zuid-Holland: 103 km/1 000 km2).
Most European capitals and large cities are surrounded by a ring of motorways in order to meet the high road transport demand originating from these metropolitan areas. The densest motorway networks can be found around the capitals: Lisboa (220 km/1 000 km2), Wien (108 km/1 000 km2), Madrid (93 km/1 000 km2), Berlin (82 km/1 000 km2) and Paris (Île-de-France: 51 km/1 000 km2). Since the motorways are concentrated in a ring close to the cities, the reported density decreases with the area of the respective NUTS 2 region. As a result, the reported motorway density for the small NUTS 2 region of Lisboa is higher than for the much larger NUTS 2 region of Île-de-France, even though the motorway network of Paris is actually larger.
High motorways densities are also found around the major seaports of northern Europe: the motorway densities of the NUTS 2 regions of Bremen (176 km/1 000 km2) with the port Bremerhaven, Hamburg (107 km/1 000 km2), Zuid-Holland with the port of Rotterdam (103 km/1 000 km2) and Prov. Antwerpen (76 km/1 000 km2) with the port of Antwerpen are among the highest of all European regions.
Another reason for the higher density of the motorway network in central European countries such as Germany is the similarly high and growing volume of transit traffic in freight transport.
In addition to the regional structure described above, it is noticeable that coastal regions with a substantial tourism industry have denser motorway networks than other peripheral regions. This is especially true for Spain (Pais Vasco: 60 km/1 000 km2) and for Italy, with Liguria (69 km/1 000 km2) being the peripheral coastal region with the densest motorway network in Europe. Not surprisingly, the supply of motorways on islands is generally low, since islands cannot be reached directly by road transport, and they rely instead on sea or air for access. However, the motorway density of the Canarias — at 34 km/1 000 km2 — is still relatively high.
While ready accessibility for goods and passengers may be an important factor in shaping a region’s ability to compete, this does not mean that regions with a high GDP necessarily have a high density of motorways in all cases. While a high regional accessibility is generally a prerequisite for a region’s economic performance, this can likewise be achieved by means of transport other than road, such as air and rail.
Railways
The regional pattern of the distribution of physical railway infrastructure is shaped by economic development, specific historical developments and the geographical characteristics of the regions. As a legacy from the socialist era, the countries in central and eastern Europe have retained a more concentrated rail network than their western counterparts, while at the same time having a substantially less developed motorway network. Although these countries — with the support of the EU (e.g. through the Phare programme and the Structural Funds) in addition to national efforts — have made substantial changes in their transport policy since the beginning of the 1990s, their infrastructure landscape still reveals differences.
Map 2 illustrates the density of railway lines per unit of territory in Europe.
In general, the network-to-area ratio for railway lines at national level is high in central Europe (including the Benelux countries, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland) and lower in the peripheral countries (including Scandinavia, the Iberian peninsula, western France, the Baltic countries, Turkey and Bulgaria). The highest network density can be found in the Czech Republic, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany (above 100 km/1 000 km2), followed by Hungary, Austria, Poland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Slovakia (65–80 km/1 000 km2). At the lower end of the range are Norway, Finland, Turkey, Greece and the Baltic States, with values of 20 km/1 000 km2 and below. While the significant differences in population density between the countries account for most of the differences observed, the relatively high values for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland exemplify the still strong relevance of the socialist heritage for Europe’s infrastructure landscape of today.
When rail network density is measured by population instead of territory, the overall picture changes. The highest supply of railway infrastructure per inhabitant is in the Scandinavian countries and Latvia. The new Member States in central Europe follow some way behind, while by far the lowest values are found in Turkey, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. For Scandinavia, the sheer vastness of the country requires high levels of investment per inhabitant in railway lines in order to ensure a sufficient degree of rail accessibility for their population. Furthermore, it has to be remembered that the way in which the railway lines are operated differs significantly between countries with low and high population densities respectively. While the level of service is comparatively low in countries with a high rail infrastructure supply per inhabitant, countries with a high population density, like the Netherlands and Germany, operate their rail infrastructure using highly complex rail traffic management systems in order to meet the high level of demand on their heavily used railway network.
There are also other differences between rail transport systems that are due to the spatial distribution of population within countries. As an example, the French system can be described as a kind of ‘hub-and-spoke’ system, with Paris at its centre, while in Germany the degree of direct connectivity between population centres is significantly higher, reflecting Germany’s more even population distribution. This results in a more complex railway network.
In many central and eastern European countries, since 1990, there has been a significant drop in rail freight transport in terms of both total volume and modal share. By contrast, road transport volumes have surged ahead. This development can be regarded as part of the economic and social transformation process undergone by the countries which joined during the last two enlargements. As a result, the density of the railway network decreased in some countries — a phenomenon which was not seen in the case of any national motorway network. A particularly striking reduction in rail infrastructure supply was seen in Poland, where the railway density dropped from 84 km/1 000 km2 in 1990 to 74 km/1 000 km2 in 1998 and then to 65 km/1 000 km2 in 2006. Data on regional rail infrastructure supply in Poland have been available since 1998. The most striking reductions between 1998 and 2006 took place in Dolnośląskie (– 27 %, 2006: 75 km/1 000 km2), Lubelskie (– 26 %, 2006: 42 km/1 000 km2), Warmińsko-Mazurskie (– 22 %, 2006: 128 km/1 000 km2) and Wielkopolskie (– 20 %, 2006: 103 km/1 000 km2), compared with a decline of 13 % for Poland as a whole over the same period. Most of these regions had high-density networks in 1990. An exception is the Śląskie region, where the legacy of a high-density rail network has actually been significantly extended since 1998 (+ 16 % in 2006: 174 km/1 000 km2).
With respect to passenger transport, the most important recent development is the ongoing expansion of the high-speed rail network. While this development is not reflected in the railway density indicator, it does account for major recent investment in railway nfrastructure.
Turning to the individual regions, the densest rail networks are in the capital regions: Berlin (681 km/1 000 km2), Wien (434 km/1 000 km2) and Praha (385 km/1 000 km2). While these central European capitals have indeed had a traditionally strong railway infrastructure, the strikingly high values are due to the small size of these regions within the European NUTS 2 classification and the fact that the density of urban infrastructure tends to be much higher than the density of inter-urban roads and railway lines.
Next among the top-ranking regions come Bremen (416 km/1 000 km2) and Hamburg (373 km/1 000 km2), two more small NUTS 2 regions where extensive freight lines to and from the seaports contribute to the high ratios. Like the capital cities mentioned above, these two Hanseatic cities, which are also German federal states, are much smaller than regions like Zuid-Holland and Prov. Antwerpen, with their competing ports of Rotterdam and Antwerpen. These differences make it hard to draw direct comparisons with the infrastructure supply at the North Sea ports.
Freight lines also play an important role in some traditional regions with coal and steel industries, like the Saarland in western Germany (142 km/1 000 km2) and Śląskie in the southwest of Poland (174 km/1 000 km2). Interestingly, Śląskie is, as mentioned above, also the only Polish region with significant recent net additions to its rail network. Thus, the development of rail infrastructure in Śląskie runs counter to the general development in Poland, although this can probably be attributed to the strong economic development in this region.
Further individual regions with a high railway density are Comunidad Valenciana in Spain, Lisboa in Portugal and Bucureşti — Ilfov in Romania.
Data sources and availability
Regional transport statistics contain data at NUTS level 2. Data from various national sources (not only National statistical offices) are sent to the specialised Eurostat Transport unit, based on a series of different regulations, decisions and directives.
Context
The major importance of modern high-capacity transport links and hubs for all modes of transport for European economic integration has been recognised by the European Union (EU) and its Member States via the definition of major trans-European transport axes within the framework of the trans-European networks (TEN). These have been a key component for the development of the single market and for promoting economic and social cohesion within the EU.
The implementation of these priority transport axes involves the enhancement and extension of existing regional transport infrastructure to include the trans-European axes that have been identified. However, the removal of transport bottlenecks, particularly on cross-border sections of the networks, is also important for the regions’ improved accessibility. Enhancing the capacity of cross-border links has traditionally been neglected by nationally focused transport planning concepts, and so the EU is putting particular emphasis on their future development. In many cases transport bottlenecks are caused not only by an insufficient provision of physical infrastructure, but also by organisational constraints. This is especially true of rail transport, where the inherited organisation of the national railway companies, each with their own technical standards, hampers international traffic flows. However, in recent years, progress has been achieved. The extension of the Schengen area to include the eastern European countries in 2007 was a major step in terms of the mobility of goods and passengers on the roads.
From a regional perspective, an extensive network of roads, motorways and railway links is a prerequisite for economic development and interregional competitiveness.
Further Eurostat information
Publications
Database
Regions and cities, see:
-
Regional statistics
-
Data
-
Database
-
Regional transport statistics (reg_tran)
- Road, rail and navigable inland waterways networks at regional level (tran_r_net)
-
Regional transport statistics (reg_tran)
-
Database
-
Data
