The second reason is that it is truly incredible that whoever drafted the title and presentation of the document (clearly a political hand) among the criticisms he collected only that which did not go into the functional and economic rationality of the projects, but only their serious delay. If the criticisms of merit, especially the insufficient demand to justify the projects, or even just so low as to render reasonable put them off, the delays would have even created benefits for the countries concerned! Instead the title is an invitation to go “full speed”, that is to accelerate expenses whose sensibility is heavily questioned in the text.
1. “For the Lyon-Turin Ift, the freight traffic forecasts made previously are much higher compared to current traffic levels “;
2. “For the base tunnel of the Brenner, the three Member States have not conducted a harmonized traffic study and have questioned each other’s figures and methods, while the Commission has not carried out its own independent needs analysis “;
3. “For all eight Ift, the changes concerning the design and scope that have occurred over time have so far involved increases costing € 17.3 billion (or 47%) compared to the initial cost estimates “;
4. “The quality of traffic figures in cross-border infrastructure is limited and particularly susceptible extremely optimistic forecasts “;
5. “Traffic forecasts were not always based on sound market-oriented assessments, nor were they built on good scenarios of economic development. Some forecasts have been very simplistic, with growth rates that remain constant over time “;
6. “Future traffic data could be significantly lower to these traffic forecasts, which could therefore turn out to be extremely optimistic “;
7. “On the rail link Lyon-Turin, the latest data indicate that less than 3 million tons of goods are transported every year. Nonetheless, the traffic forecast for 2035 is 24 million tons, or eight times the current flow “;
8. “For the Lyon-Turin connection, the conclusions of the new assessment were that the Van is between -6.1 and -6.9 billion; in other words, once again, i costs for society they would be much higher than the benefits deriving from the construction ” (there is also reported the Italian controversy that arose on this project and its evaluation, editor’s note);
9. “Although the Brenner base tunnel, by the total cost of € 9.30 billion, has received approximately 1.58 billion euros of EU co-financing so far, neither the EU nor Austria, Italy and Germany have ever carried out a general strategic cost-benefit analysis “;
10. “Therefore, so far there has been no in-depth analysis of the tunnel’s costs and benefits, including the related access lines “;
11. “THE environmental benefits brought by the Ift in terms of CO2 emissions must take into account the negative effects of construction, and the long-term positive effects of operations “;
12. “The environmental benefits depend on the volume of traffic actually transferred from other modes of transport. Given that the modal shift has been very limited in the past 20 years, there is a strong risk that the positive effects of many Ift are overestimated “;
13. “Over time, they often intervene changes to the design and scope of the Ift. These changes lead to cost increases which, in the longer term, could have an impact negatively on the EU budget “;
14. “In previous reports, the Court concluded that, when EU co-financing is available, this may in some cases induce project promoters to increase project specifications or build larger structures. without a good reason. ”
Really the lobby of cement can also deny the evidence.