The new railway tunnels of Frejus and Gothard: a political and institutional comparative analysis

  • Gerardo Marletto DEIR/CRENoS, University of Sassari (I)
Keywords: rail transportation, tunnel, conflicts, Frejus and Gottardo tunnels

Abstract

Projects of the two new railway transalpine tunnel of Frejus and Gothard have similar technical characteristics: an identical length (57 km), a similar cost (10 billion Euros) and the existence of a highway along the same Alpine corridor. But, whilst the new Gothard is now under construction and should become operational in 2017, the new Frejus is at standstill at preliminary phases and has faced a very strong local opposition on the Italian side of the Alps. This difference can be explained by analysing the political and institutional framework of the two projects. The new Swiss tunnel is integrated into a national scheme of transport policy which is based on: the development of a new system of railway infrastructures, which features two new transalpine tunnels (the new Gothard and the Loetschberg);  the implementation of a distance-related heavy vehicle fee, which is levied on the basis of total weight, emission level and the kilometres driven; the provision of financial resources to stimulate the transfer of transalpine freight from road to railway. The approval of such a scheme started twenty years ago: it was based on a constitutional decree, implemented through several Federal acts and supported by three confirmatory referenda. The new French-Italian infrastructure is not integrated in any transport policy scheme. The new tunnel is only partially consistent with the overall goals of the European transport policy and the Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention (which has not yet been ratified by the Italian Parliament): actually no action for modal shift is envisaged. Moreover, the new tunnel was initially supported by a structured consultative and participative procedure – based on the ‘débat public’ technique – only in France. In Italy this megaproject was not backed by an effective deliberation process, neither at the local nor the national level; on the contrary: it was considered among the strategic projects of the so-called ‘Legge obiettivo’ and therefore it could bypass the ordinary administrative procedures (and the otherwise mandatory environmental impact assessment). The late creation of a consultative committee (the so-called ‘Commissione Virano’) and the implementation of participative procedures have not been always consistent and has not proved valid to stop the fierce opposition to the project.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Gerardo Marletto, DEIR/CRENoS, University of Sassari (I)

Gerardo Marletto is associate professor of applied economics at the University of Sassari (I). He has been working for fifteen years for private research bodies where he directed more than twenty projects on business strategy, industrial policy, regulation of public services and transport policy. His current research interests are: heterodox economics, environmental economics and policy, socio-technical analysis of transport systems, participated assessment techniques. He recently edited two special issues on heterodox environmental economics (published by Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment) and on new frontiers of transport research (published by European Transport). He also edited the volume 'Creating a sustainable economy. An institutional and evolutionary approach to environmental policy', to be published by Routledge in February 2012.

References

ARE – Ufficio federale dello sviluppo territoriale (2010). Equa ed efficace – La tassa sul trasporto pesante commisurata alle prestazioni (TTPCP) in Svizzera. Berna

Ecoplan e Infras (2011). Wirtschaftlichkeitsstudie NEAT 2010 - Schlussbericht (Studio di fattibilità NFTA 2010 - Rapporto finale). 28 marzo 2011, Berna e Zurigo. (Scaricabile da: http://www.bav.admin.ch/alptransit/).

Giorgi L. e Schmidt M. (2005). Transalpine transport: a local problem in search of European solutions or a European problem in search of local solutions? Transport Reviews, 25: 201-219.

Greyl L., Healy H. e Temper L. (in pubblicazione). High speed transport infrastructure in Italy. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment.

Marletto G. (2010). Transalpine transport policies: towards a shared approach. International Journal of Transport Economics, 38: 353-370.

Ollivier-Trigalo M. (2001). The implementation of major transport projects: conflicts and coordination, in: L. Giorgi and R. Pohoryles (eds.) Transport policy and research: what future? Aldershot, Ashgate.

Prud’homme R. (2007). Essai d’analyse coûts-bénéfices du tunnel ferroviaire Lyon-Turin. Mimeo, 4 giugno 2007. (Scaricabile da: http://www.rprudhomme.com/resources/2007+ACB+Lyon-Turin.pdf).

PSAC - Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention (2007). Transport and Mobility in the Alps. Report on the State of the Alps, Innsbruck.

Rui S. (2004). Transport policy and public involvement : concertation between mobilization and frustration. Innovation : The European Journal of Social Science Research, 17: 129-144.

UFT – Ufficio federale dei trasporti (2011a). Grandi progetti ferroviari. 30 giugno 2011, Berna.

UFT – Ufficio federale dei trasporti (2011b). Alpinfo 2009. 21 gennaio 2011, Berna.

Published
2011-12-11
How to Cite
Marletto, G. (2011). The new railway tunnels of Frejus and Gothard: a political and institutional comparative analysis. Tema - Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 4(4), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/607