Following last year’s rejection of the expansion programme for Switzerland’s national highways, and the financial difficulties in the 2035 rail expansion service concept, Swiss transport policy is at a crossroads. On behalf of the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC), ETH Zurich has prioritised around 500 planned projects for road, rail and urban transport. Ulrich Weidmann, Professor of Transport Systems, explains the key?insights.
In brief
ETH Zurich was commissioned by DETEC to conduct an independent analysis to assess and prioritise the planned expansion projects for Switzerland’s roads, railways and urban transport for the period from 2025 to 2045.
The now external page published report "Transport 2045" (in German) concludes that the Swiss transport system in all regions can be expanded and made fit for the future with the funds available. The crucial factor will be to dispense with some projects, rescale or postpone others and ensure better coordination between transport systems.
In the interview, Ulrich Weidmann, Professor of Transport Systems and author of the report, explains the criteria used to prioritise the projects and what this prioritisation means for the upcoming political decision-making process.
Mr Weidmann, what exactly was the task that DETEC assigned to ETH Zurich back in January?
ETH Zurich was commissioned to conduct an independent and strategic analysis to assess and prioritise the planned expansion projects for Switzerland’s roads, railways and urban transport, factoring in a specified funding framework for the period from 2025 to 2045. It was not about putting together our own project proposals or assessing the quality of the individual projects per se. My scientific assistant Michael Nold and I instead analysed the projects officially planned for this period and compared them according to their effectiveness and impact.
How did you evaluate the projects and based on which criteria?
DETEC wanted a relative comparison using simple, predominantly qualitative and intermodal criteria. It was also important to the federal government that we incorporated the interplay between projects and developed sensible regional packages. So, no simulations and no sophisticated calculations.
What were the criteria exactly?
For each project we assessed in a semi-quantitative way the benefit that the project would bring if it were realised. This includes, for example, improvements to service quality – so shorter journey times or increased capacity –, optimised network operation, such as enhanced security or redundancy in the case of failure, as well as spatial and environmental aspects, such as connecting up peripheral regions and energy consumption. The benefits identified were compared with the anticipated costs, including those of subsequent operation and use.
Special emphasis was also placed on the multi-modal effects. In certain regions, such as around Lake Geneva, we noticed that the railway has a great deal of catching up to do. In those areas, we therefore propose focusing on expanding rail and postponing the expansion of the motorways or only repurposing hard shoulders for the time being.
“If we’d done the same review 30 years ago, you would have noticed a concentration on the Alpine area with projects planned in L?tschberg, Gotthard and Ceneri.”Ulrich Weidmann
You analysed the projects according to their overall benefit to the transport system. If you take that view, it’s not surprising that projects in the Greater Zurich area and around Lake Geneva are prioritised. Did the rural regions slip through the net?
No, not at all. We prioritised what is already in the pipeline, and the planned projects are currently concentrated on the Lake Geneva region, Northwestern Switzerland and Zurich. There are various reasons for this, the main one being the rapid growth of these regions and the associated congestion on all modes of transport. If we’d done the same review 30 years ago, you would have noticed a concentration on the Alpine area with projects planned in L?tschberg, Gotthard and Ceneri.
In other words, investment priorities reflect the strategic priorities of the time?
Exactly. By the way, the breakdown of the investments we prioritised doesn’t differ that much from that of all projects proportionally speaking – so our prioritisation doesn't result in preferential treatment for individual regions or modes of transport. It’s also important to highlight that the projects we recommend implementing are not only those at the highest priority level. Funds are available for many other projects throughout Switzerland. In some cases, we simply propose scaling a project back or replacing it with more cost-effective alternatives.
Are the specified financial resources even sufficient to expand the Swiss transport system in a rational way?
To me, this is the encouraging finding from our analysis: it shows that by focusing on high-impact projects, we can expand the Swiss transport system in all regions and make it fit for the future. And we can do so with the funds available for the period from 2025 to 2045. The crucial factor will be to dispense with some projects, rescale or postpone others and ensure better coordination between transport systems. Incidentally, the greatest challenges are not only in the financials but also in the practical feasibility of projects within the planned timeframe.
In what respect?
Even if the funds have been allocated, significant staffing capacities are needed to ensure that the projects can actually be implemented successfully. Many experts in this field are set to retire, which I see as a major challenge and a key task for ETH Zurich and other education institutions. Investment is urgently needed in training and supporting the next generation. What’s more, there’s a limit to how much we can interrupt transport operations for construction work.
You’ve also prioritised projects that were rejected by the electorate. Didn’t the will of the people feature in your analysis?
This was stipulated by DETEC, and I think that particularly in view of the fact that the overview is intended to be multi-modal and interregional, it makes sense to cross-reference these projects with future plans. Also, the package that was rejected at the time comprised six projects, and people weren’t given the opportunity to express an opinion on any of them individually. If one of the projects from the rejected package now shows a comparably high level of effectiveness, it’s not unusual in Switzerland to revisit a political debate. If it doesn’t, then all the more reason to leave the project shelved. Our task as independent experts wasn’t to pre-empt this political decision-making process. It’s up to politicians to decide whether and how such projects should be discussed again.
How independent was your work from the authorities and interest groups?
Our situation analysis explicitly built on DETEC’s preliminary work. Besides the task, however, we didn’t receive any kind of instructions regarding expected outcomes or preferences and so we were entirely unswayed in our work. In the development of our analysis, the interest groups were represented in what was known as the sounding board. They were updated on the project status and on our methodology on an ongoing basis, but they had no influence on the outcomes. And there were no attempts by these groups to influence our work in any way. The actual consensus building now has to take place as part of a political process.
“Our assessment is primarily intended as a tool to aid decision-making.”Ulrich Weidmann
What happens next?
Our assessment is primarily intended as a tool to aid decision-making. The federal government has set out the next steps. Other criteria – federalist aspects, for example – will now be incorporated in the discussion. I firmly believe that if we focus on structurally effective projects and supplement these in a targeted way with smaller measures, significant improvements can be made – and we will open up new scope for future decades.
Over the past nine months or so you have analysed around 500 highly complex projects worth a total of CHF 113 billion. How did you manage to fit that in alongside your role as Vice President for Infrastructure?
Of course this entailed a great deal of extra work for me, and my colleague Michael Nold was also very involved. At the same time, I considered the task important, both for Switzerland and for ETH Zurich. I believe that through our expertise in such topical and socially relevant challenges, we as researchers can give something back to the country. Thanks to strong prioritisation within my own role, the support of the entire Executive Board and above all my experienced and efficient team at the Vice Presidency for Infrastructure and Sustainability, we were able to work together to complete the task.
About:
After studying civil engineering at ETH Zurich, Ulrich A. Weidmann completed his doctorate at the Institute for Transport Planning and Systems (IVT). From 1994 to 2004, he was responsible for the services on the suburban (S-Bahn) and regional networks of Swiss Federal Railways (SBB). As head of engineering for the infrastructure division at SBB, he oversaw railway technology, architecture, diagnostic technology and innovation management.
In 2004, Weidmann returned to ETH Zurich as a full professor of transport systems. His research has focused on the design of passenger transport systems, the integration of rail freight transport systems in logistic chains, the efficiency and automation of railway networks and track construction. Since January 2016 he has been a member of the ETH Executive Board as Vice President for Infrastructure and Sustainability. In this role he is responsible for the procurement, replacement and maintenance of needs-based infrastructures and for providing a broad range of services for teaching, research, transfer, outreach and administration.