Francesco Ramella // 25 March 2026

The EU has made the development of cross-border transport infrastructure a central pillar of its integration agenda, with major investments channelled through initiatives such as the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). This paper argues that the case for large-scale EU-funded transport projects is often overstated, with persistent cost overruns, delays, and questionable economic returns undermining their value to taxpayers.

Drawing on recent evidence from the European Court of Auditors, the paper shows that flagship infrastructure projects consistently exceed initial cost estimates and face significant delays in completion. These outcomes reflect deeper structural issues in project planning and governance, rather than isolated implementation failures.

While potential benefits such as improved connectivity, regional cohesion, and emissions reductions are frequently cited, the paper finds that these are often limited in practice. In particular, the role of high-speed rail in shifting demand away from air travel is constrained, and the environmental gains are relatively modest when set against the scale of investment required.

The paper argues that EU-level financing creates a misalignment between those who bear the costs and those who benefit, weakening incentives for careful project selection and fiscal discipline. Greater reliance on national and local decision-making, alongside the involvement of private risk capital, is presented as a more effective approach to infrastructure investment.

The paper recommends reassessing the EU’s role in financing transport infrastructure and prioritising a more decentralised, market-oriented framework. A more disciplined approach would improve efficiency, reduce waste, and better align infrastructure development with genuine economic demand.

The main findings of the briefing include:

• EU-funded transport projects under the TEN-T framework are characterised by substantial cost overruns and delays, with average costs rising significantly above initial estimates and completion timelines extending by many years.
• Evidence from the European Court of Auditors indicates that these issues are systemic, driven by optimistic forecasting, evolving project scope, and weak incentives for budgetary discipline.
• High-speed rail investments, while politically prominent, often deliver limited economic and environmental benefits, with only marginal impacts on modal shift and carbon emissions.
• The expansion of EU-level financing creates a disconnect between beneficiaries and taxpayers, reducing accountability and encouraging the continuation of projects even where costs outweigh benefits.
• Traffic forecasts for major infrastructure projects are frequently overestimated, leading to inflated expectations of demand and revenue.
• The liberalisation of air transport has already delivered significant gains in European connectivity, raising questions about the necessity of further large-scale rail investment.
• The EU’s proposed €500 billion high-speed rail expansion plan is unlikely to pass rigorous cost–benefit analysis in many cases and would impose substantial costs on taxpayers.
• Private sector involvement and risk-sharing mechanisms are largely absent from current EU infrastructure financing models, limiting incentives for efficiency and cost control.
• A more decentralised approach, with greater responsibility at national and local levels, would better align investment decisions with actual mobility patterns and economic needs.
• Overall, the evidence suggests that current EU transport infrastructure policy risks prioritising political ambition over economic viability, with significant implications for public finances and long-term efficiency.