The Foundation for Applied Economics Studies (Fedea) is very critical of the development of infrastructure in Spain, both roads, trains and airplanes, due to the “absence of integrated planning” and the persistent “neglect of the economic criteria of profitability” to the benefit of those of “political opportunity. The result of this “dysfunctional policy,” he says in a report presented today, are “significant shortcomings and imbalances” and “striking contrasts” between one type or another of infrastructure.

The review begins with the high-speed rail network. “If a serious study had been done on the AVE, only the one in Madrid and Barcelona would have been done, period, because the others do not cover the cost,” said Ángel de la Fuente, executive director of Fedea. The current network is “a luxury that we can hardly afford and that we would not have opted for if a rational calculation had been made,” he stated before regretting the way in which the effort has been planned: “There is a mentality that “If others have it, I want it too.”

Fedea estimates that accumulated investments in the high-speed network are around 50 billion euros. Deployment absorbs 42% of investments in infrastructure, compared to 37% for roads or just 14% in airports and 6% in ports. On the other hand, the train barely moves 4% of passengers and 1% of goods, compared to the percentages of over 90% in both categories recorded by roads.

The professor of Applied Economics and one of the authors of the Fedea report, Ginés de Rus Mendoza, uses the expression “dysfunctional politics” to refer to these “striking contrasts between some facilities and another”, alluding to the lack of effort on roads and other infrastructure.

The passenger transport figures on high-speed trains, 25 million passengers per year, are equivalent, he says, to that of a single line in France, and currently “new routes are being built for very low population densities.” It is not even a consolation, he says, that the demand for the connection to Galicia has been better than expected because, even so, the income “barely serves to cover the operating and machine costs.”

Added to this circumstance is what De la Fuente has described as “centralist fetishism.” “The idea that each province goes to Madrid is not always rational” and “if the decisions had been made based on economic analysis, a different map would have been generated.” “It is true that Madrid weighs a lot, but” the optimal infrastructure map is surely a more meshed and less radial network, “he stated.

For the director of Fedea, the great railway deficit is found in a Mediterranean Corridor from Algeciras to France, passing through Barcelona. “Intuitively, I am quite clear that it would be a very profitable infrastructure, at least much more than others that are going to be built.”

De Rus has complained about the “misconception” that investing in infrastructure generates economic growth when “the empirical evidence is the other way around,” that it is prior growth that calls for infrastructure. “The direction of causality is reverse, and the AVE should be done where there is more activity,” he stated.

This expert complains more about excess railway investment than about the radial model, which “has a part of historical origin.” “Population density is where it is and Spain does not have enough density,” he says to describe the problem in a broader way. Regions that wish to receive high speed, he adds, “should take responsibility” instead of “asking for the best because they don’t pay.”

Regarding roads, Fedea’s complaint is the significant maintenance deficit and the inefficient concessions model, in which projects are promoted with erratic projections of future demand and risks are not adequately distributed.

The think tank defends a better analysis of the project before its approval, even led by a new independent body, and the possibility of extending the terms of the concession when circumstances have arisen that justify it, so that the operators can recover the investment.

For De Rus, in Spain there has been investment “by flooding”, that is, dedicating many resources without much precision in specific areas and neglecting others. It would be necessary to have a centralized body capable of planning a complete network in which airports, railway lines and roads responded to common objectives.