Analysis based on two scenarios |
|
 |
Conventional scenarioThe Basque Country's historical transport problems can
be summarised as follows: · A particularly high dominance of road transport
that increases over time, due to a major flow of trucks
in transit and intense traffic in some areas. Factors that
generate high congestion. Rail is a residual mode for
freight: its market share is under 2%. |
UPV Lecturer |
|
· Lack of rail infrastructure and precariousness for
most existing infrastructures to meet daily trip demands,
with the exception of the Bilbao Metro and to a much
lesser extent, sections of the Euskotren, RENFE and FEVE
local railway. Regional and long distance trains are practically
nonexistent. Precarious bus services, connecting
capitals and serving some metropolitan areas.
The only response from Basque Government institutions
(BGI) is to promote new infrastructures. This policy is showered
with a wide range of positive factors: boosting competitiveness
and economic development, strengthening the territorial
and social backbone and cohesion, guaranteeing uniform
accessibility throughout the territory, assuring sustainability for
the transport system, re-establishing balance between the
different modes of transport and, finally, managing to insert the
Basque system appropriately within the international
context. However the fact that Local
Governments have many more financial resources
than the Basque Government (BG)
has determined, on the one hand, a particularly
intense push towards road construction
that monopolises and maintains the precarious
situation of the inland rail network (falling
with the BG remit).
According to the BGI, the Basque
Country requires a High Speed (HS) rail
structure between the three capitals that
would also "connect us to Europe". The foral
territories (Gipuzkoa, Bizkaia and Araba)
significantly lack transport infrastructures.
Bizkaia needs a new ring road for Bilbao
(known as the Supersur), further widening of the Txoriherri
corridor, etc.; Gipuzkoa needs a new port (external) in Pasaia,
airport expansion at Hondarribia, San Sebastian needs a
new ring road and maybe a Metro, etc.: Araba needs a major logistics
centre (Araba Sur), plus it is considered essential (along
with Gipuzkoa) to finish the Eibar-Vitoria motorway and reactivate
its ailing airport, etc.
There is little foundation to the defence that the proliferation
of infrastructures makes a major contribution to economic
growth. There is wide consensus among transport economists
that, once industrialised countries have attained normal levels
of infrastructures, further construction can even have negative
effects on the economy. The British SACTRA report (1999) states
that there is a transport threshold beyond which greater mobility
has harmful effects on economic activity and this threshold
has been reached by industrialised countries. The Eddington
report (2006) confirms these conclusions: "historically, new
connections have played a central role in the period of rapid
economic growth in many economies, but mature economies
(...) must focus their policy and investment on improving productivity
for existing transport networks." The French State Audit
Office (Cour de Comptes, 2006) criticises that socio-economic
profitability studies aiming to justify building major infrastructures
are manipulated, exaggerating the advantages and
playing down the disadvantages and it agrees with previous studies
that "greater priority should be given to spending on renovating
existing equipment over development investments."
allege, as in the EU and in Spain, that the high speed rail link
would contribute to modal rebalancing because it would be getting
passengers off planes; another line of defence is required,
proposing that it becomes a mixed line, which would alleviate
congestion by taking passengers and freight off the roads, in addition
to reducing CO2 emissions. However, mixed lines do not
exist anywhere in the world except in Germany (on just one HS
line and after preparing it for this use with gentle slopes, large
car parks and convoys that travel at 140 km/h, although it is only
used for light freight with a high market value) and the Euromed
(due to the physical impossibility of building a new line along
the Mediterranean coast, incurring high maintenance costs). In
this case, the flow of freight is very low because when the line
was renovated, specific needs for freight transport were not taken
into account, as shown in the Davignon Report (2008), by
the European coordinator for cross-Pyrenean transport: the lines
are too steep and the "scarce number of overtaking places
and car parks will not make freight transport easy." A line that
exclusively joins the three capitals cannot contribute to territorial
cohesion in the Basque Country. The "connection with Europe"
demagogy is impossible, because the French government
does not want to bring the high speed line as far as the border.
Finally, the HS train line does not reduce CO2 emissions, but increases
them. This was stated in a recent report by the Swedish
rail administration and it is the logical consequence that HS
trains double the energy consumption of a conventional train.
The BG (2007) argues that the Basque Y would leave the
conventional network free for freight: "In addition to the very
possibility of using the Y for freight, its presence can free up
the tracks that are now used for the long distance lines and
many of the regional trains." However he adds that this network
is inadequate for transporting freight: "Freight traffic on
the Iberian gauge network has been practically stagnant over
the last few years. This is mainly due to the existence of a series
of critical areas that limit capacity." The critical areas are
the Orduña pass and the Alsasua-Zumarraga connection. Another
aggravating factor in the Basque country is that typical
freight from Basque industry and freight coming through the
port of Bilbao is very heavy. RENFE has ruled out mixed lines,
which means that the trucks travelling through and heading
north would have to offload their loads on to the Basque Y
when they get to Vitoria.
It is also absurd to try and eliminate road congestion by
building more roads. Nobody has managed this, nor will they
ever do so, because, as stated by the EU White Paper on transport
(2000), when a new road infrastructure is created, this
activates a latent demand which ends up saturating it.
Oil contributes 98% of the energy consumed by transport, and
74% of the aforementioned quantity is consumed by road transport.
This ratio is similar in the Basque Country although with a
historical tendency to get stronger: annual increase over 3% on
average in the period 1996-2007.
There is overwhelming evidence that oil is starting to run
out. This is proved by the stagnation of the oil supply produced
in the period 2005-2008, which led to the price of oil reaching
147$/barrel in June
2008. Afterwards, the
crisis (magnified by escalation)
reduced the
demand and the price of
the barrel fell to 32 $/b.
However, consensus is
growing among experts
that the oil ceiling (the
maximum extraction
capacity) was reached
in 2008. This would explain
why the price of oil
is recovering (standing
at around 80 $/b at the
start of November 2009) although the world economy is taking
longer to recover. So when the economy starts to get back on its
feet, the barrel will go beyond the maximum price for 2008, and
the world economy will fall into a deep and long economic crisis.
Fatif Birol (2007), chief economist for the International
Energy Agency (IEA), states that "if we don't do something
quickly, and courageously (...) the wheels are going to fall off
our energy system. This is the message we wish to give." For this
reason, the IEA is asking governments to find an alternative to
oil in a hurry. Even the European Commission has ended up
accepting the problem. In its communication entitled "A sustainable
future for transport", it includes a section on "Growing
scarcity of fossil fuels" (COM–2009– 279/4).
As a consequence of the oil ceiling, there are going to be
many changes in the transport system, although their dimensions
are difficult to evaluate. However it is clear that many
people will have to give up their daily car trips and will demand
efficient collective transport instead. Within this context, there
is no sense in continuing to build roads, but it would be logical
to modernise and extend rail lines and improve bus services.
In order to carry out this task, Local Governments should work
with the BG, following the precedent of the Bilbao Metro.
Air transport will be drastically reduced, and the current
rate of major airline fusions will be strengthened. The vast majority
of low cost airlines will disappear because the high costs
of fuel leave little margin to reduce other costs. Many small airports
will have to close because they will lose more money than
at present. Out of the 47 Spanish airports managed by the State,
only Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga, Palma and Alicante are profitable.
Hondarribia and Vitoria should be closed.
In freight transport, processes involving offloading from road
to rail and boat will intensify on long trips. Demand for rail transport
will hit the roof, if there is a minimally acceptable infrastructure
and so the Basque Y should be reconverted to give priority
to freight, regardless of its phase of construction when the
energy crisis hits. Davignon is convinced that the two cross-Pyrenean
rail corridors will be reconverted to give priority to
freight: "I am even more convinced (than at the start of his mandate)
that the purpose of these infrastructures should evolve
essentially towards freight transport"(Davignon, 2008: 12).
Maritime freight traffic will be reinforced, but it does not
make sense to build an external port at Pasaia, taking into
account the economic depression that the energy crisis will cause
and that the port of Bilbao is generally too large for its current
load.
Nevertheless, this is not just a matter of adapting different
modes to new circumstances, but also to continuously improving
the transport system. The Commission's "Green Paper" on
transport requests "a growing effort with a view to more efficient
use of infrastructures". However, it also goes one further
to proclaim the failure of its previous policy of promoting a European
high speed rail network (RTE-T) and declare (in the light
of the new situation) that "the political focus should firstly be
widely reviewed."
|
|