[Publication] Investing in Transport in the new MFF

The 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) will be the first full seven‑year European Union (EU) budgetary cycle implemented under the revised Trans‑European Transport Network (TEN‑T) Regulation and in a changed geopolitical context, marked in particular by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and rising security concerns at the EU’s external borders. A central issue is how the main funding instruments are designed and combined so that limited public resources deliver high value for money in terms of TEN‑T completion, decarbonisation, resilience, security and territorial cohesion.

In 2021–2027, the combination of CEF‑Transport, Cohesion Policy funds, InvestEU and EIB lending, complemented by NextGenerationEU, mobilised substantial investment but with heterogeneous results. Fragmented governance, variable administrative capacity and limited coordination between instruments contributed in some cases to delays, under‑absorption or support to projects with weaker European added value. Where robust project pipelines and clear corridor strategies existed, EU support was more effective at attracting additional investment and accelerating delivery.

For 2028–2034, the European Commission proposes a reinforced CEF‑Transport, transport‑relevant windows under the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), redesigned Cohesion instruments framed by National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), a successor to the Horizon Europe framework programme and continued InvestEU and EIB operations. CEF‑Transport is envisaged as the core instrument for cross‑border and core TEN‑T projects, with a stronger focus on military mobility, dual‑use infrastructure and alternative fuels infrastructure deployment. Cohesion instruments are expected to focus on accessibility, multimodality and last‑mile connections in less developed and transition regions, while the ECF and InvestEU would support innovation, industrial capacity and higher‑risk segments of strategic mobility value chains.

The study finds that this configuration can generate higher European added value than in 2021–2027 if several conditions are met. CEF‑Transport should be reserved for projects with strong cross‑border, cross‑regional or dual‑use characteristics unlikely to proceed at the same scale or pace without EU intervention. The interface between research and innovation and large‑scale deployment should be reinforced through coordinated programming between the Horizon Europe successor, CEF‑Transport, Cohesion funds and the ECF, so that successful pilots and demonstrations evolve into mature investment pipelines and can be scaled up along TEN‑T corridors. Financial instruments and blending operations should be used on the basis of explicit additionality and risk‑sharing criteria, rather than as a generic default.

Three main investment families are identified where EU‑level action is particularly warranted: (1) completion and upgrading of critical TEN‑T cross‑border and missing links across rail, inland waterways, maritime links and multimodal terminals; (2) large‑scale deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure and digital systems, such as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and advanced traffic management; and (3) investments combining civilian connectivity objectives with military mobility and critical infrastructure protection. In these domains, well‑structured EU grants, often combined with financial instruments, can unlock national and private co‑financing and generate spill‑overs beyond individual Member States, particularly when framed in coherent corridor investment plans.

The study also highlights structural risks: possible dilution of transport‑specific priorities within broader envelopes where internal allocations remain indicative, and the persistence of administrative capacity constraints in certain Member States, which may hinder timely absorption and compliance with TEN‑T, climate, state‑aid and security requirements.

On this basis, the study formulates recommendations, emphasising both investment priorities and the governance, flexibility and performance arrangements needed to realise them. It is recommended that CEF‑Transport focuses on high‑impact cross‑border, corridor and dual‑use projects, supported by corridor‑level implementing acts and transparent project lists, complemented by regular monitoring of progress and cost developments. Cohesion Policy and NRPPs could include transport‑related conditionalities and performance frameworks linking allocations to measurable accessibility, safety and decarbonisation outcomes, with reinforced technical assistance where necessary. The study also suggests introducing a clearly defined transport flexibility window – for example a ring‑fenced component within broader flexibility instruments – together with a concise set of transport‑specific, outcome‑oriented indicators and band‑type flexibility rules (core and flexible shares within envelopes), so that reallocations in response to shocks favour high‑value, climate‑aligned and cohesion‑relevant projects. A structured “innovation‑to‑deployment” pipeline could also align mission‑oriented calls under the Horizon Europe successor with CEF‑Transport and ECF work programmes, supported by shared roadmaps for zero‑emission and digital corridors. InvestEU and EIB lending could target revenue‑generating or higher‑risk components, such as terminals, rolling stock and innovative technologies, while grants remain focused on elements with high socio‑economic benefit but limited financial returns. TEN‑T and transport investment governance could also be further strengthened through an enhanced role for European Coordinators and consistency checks between national transport plans and EU‑level corridor strategies, while security and resilience are mainstreamed across CEF‑Transport, the ECF and Cohesion interventions.