Table 3: Transport Sector Issues - Future Outcomes and Probabilities
________________Issues________________ |
________________Possible Future Outcomes________________ |
Probabilities* |
Technical and operational integration |
A. Integration greatly increased |
2 |
B. Some increased integration |
1 | |
C. Integration unchanged_________________________________________ |
3 | |
Implementation of the EU's 2nd and |
A: Objectives fully achieved |
3 |
B: Some progress on objectives |
1 | |
C: No change_____________________________________________ |
2 | |
A shift in transport costs and |
A: Major shift achieved |
3 |
B: Modest shift achieved |
2 | |
C: Little change_____________________________________________________ |
1 | |
Restructuring of Ferry operators |
A: Most operators withdraw/reduce services |
3 |
B: Some operator turnover, services stable |
1 | |
C: Ferry services stable and expanding___________________________ |
2 | |
Financial restructuring of Eurotunnel |
A: New operator after bankruptcy |
3 |
B: No real change |
1 | |
C: Successful refinancing of Eurotunnel___________________________ |
2 | |
Restructuring of Eurostar |
A: Eurostar Expands services and intermediate stops using two |
3 |
B: Eurostar Focuses on CTRL Route with intermediate stops |
1 | |
minimum stops____________________________________________ |
2 | |
The impact of CTRL |
A: CTRL triggers integrated through services using Tunnel |
2 |
B: CTRL track used by Eurostar and rail franchise services only |
1 | |
C: CTRL track used by Eurostar only___________________________ |
3 | |
The role of the low-cost airlines |
A: LCA's continue expansion including near continental |
1 |
B: LCA's continue but with limited cross-Channel services |
2 | |
C: LCA's marginalised in all relevant markets_____________________ |
3 | |
The impact of M25, M20, M2 |
A: Congestion from rising traffic volumes and no investment |
2 |
B: Some investment relieves congestion |
1 | |
C: Major investment in Thames crossing and motorway capacity |
3 |
* Probabilities: High = 1, Moderate = 2, Low = 3
Table 4: Issues in a Broader Context - Future Outcomes and Probabilities
________________Issues________________ |
__________________Possible Future Outcomes__________________ |
Probabilities* |
The differences in retail prices |
A: Major differentials persist |
3 |
B: Some price differentials occur |
1 | |
C: Price equalisation____________________________________________________ |
2 | |
The intensification of security and |
A: High security sensitivity persists |
1 |
B: Security concerns moderate |
2 | |
C: Security concerns cease___________________________________________ |
3 | |
Integration of the cross-Channel |
A: High levels of cross-Channel commuting |
3 |
B: Modest growth in cross-Channel commuting |
2 | |
C: Cross-Channel commuting remains minimal______________________ |
1 | |
A change in Kent’s position in the |
A: Kent develops economic activities using locational advantage in | |
UK economy |
relation to Europe |
3 |
B: Kent and Thames Gateway become economic growth areas within |
1 | |
C: Kent economy dominated by commuting and local services_________ |
2 |
* Probabilities: High = 1, Moderate = 2, Low = 3
23
More intriguing information
1. Spectral density bandwith choice and prewightening in the estimation of heteroskadasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrices in panel data models2. AGRIBUSINESS EXECUTIVE EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE: NEW MECHANISMS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INVOLVING THE UNIVERSITY, PRIVATE FIRM STAKEHOLDERS AND PUBLIC SECTOR
3. A dynamic approach to the tendency of industries to cluster
4. Strategic Planning on the Local Level As a Factor of Rural Development in the Republic of Serbia
5. Accurate and robust image superresolution by neural processing of local image representations
6. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar
10. Determinants of Household Health Expenditure: Case of Urban Orissa