EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.1.2021 SWD(2021) 1 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Seventh monitoring report on the development of the rail market under Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council



{COM(2021) 5 final}



Contents 1.Rail and sustainability 1.1Environmental performance of rail 1.1.1Emissions 1.1.2Energy consumption 1.1.3Noise 1.2Green financing and cost internalisation 20 1.3Resilience 2.The state of the union railway network 2.1Description 2.2Infrastructure management 2.2.1Infrastructure governance 2.2.2Infrastructure expenditure 2.2.3Infrastructure funding and financing 3.The evolution of rail services 3.1Traffic volumes 3.2The passenger market 3.2.1Rail passenger policy developments 3.2.2Evolution of passenger volumes

3.2.3Evolution of rail passenger revenues 3.3The freight market 3.3.1Rail freight policy developments 3.3.2Evolution of freight volumes 3.3.3Evolution of rail freight revenues 3.3.4Multimodal and intermodal transport 4.The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 4.1Charging principles for service facilities, additional and ancillary services 4.2Passenger stations 4.3Other service facilities 4.4Complaints related to access to service facilities 5.The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 5.1Harmonisation 5.1.1EU legislation 5.2Licensing of railway undertakings 5.2.1Active licences 5.2.2Average fee to obtain a licence 5.2.3Average time to obtain a licence 5.3Charging principles for the infrastructure 5.4Access charges for different categories of passenger trains

5.5Access charges for different categories of freight trains 5.6Infrastructure managers’ revenue calculated for passenger and freight trains 5.7Capacity allocation and congestion 5.7.1Allocating capacity 5.7.2Managing capacity shortages 5.8Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 5.8.1PSO scope 5.8.2PSO award 5.8.3PSO compensation 5.9Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 5.9.1Opening of the freight market 5.9.2Opening of the passenger market 5.9.3Challenges of market opening 5.10State aid 5.11Regulatory bodies 5.12Development of employment and social conditions in the rail market 5.12.1Employment in rail 5.12.2Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 5.13Digitalisation 5.14External dimension of rail transport policy

6.The quality of rail services 6.1Safety 6.2Punctuality and reliability of passenger services 6.2.1Punctuality by category of passenger services 6.2.2Reliability by category of passenger services 6.2.3Frequency, frequency intensity and average speed of direct passenger rail connections 6.3Punctuality and reliability of freight services 6.3.1Punctuality by category of freight 6.3.2Reliability by category of freight 6.3.3Average timetabled speed of freight services 6.4Passenger rights 7.Conclusions Table of figures Figure 1: Share of GHG emissions by transport mode (rail, road, domestic aviation, domestic navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes CO2 equivalent, EU27 2018) Figure 2: Share of CO2 emissions of transport modes (rail, road, domestic aviation, domestic navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes, EU27 2018) Figure 3: Share of each transport mode (including rail) on total energy consumption per country (% in 2018) Figure 4: Cost of railways per inhabitant (infrastructure expenditure plus PSO compensation) 2015-2018 Figure 5: Length of national networks per country (thousand line-km, 2018) and relative change (2015-2018) Figure 6: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population per country (line-km per million people and line-km per thousand km2, 2018)

Figure 7: Percentage of electrified network per country (2018) and change in the percentage of electrified network (2015 vs 2018) Figure 8: Development of high-speed lines in Europe, current and potential (line-km, current 2015-2019, further for those under construction) Figure 9: Length of dedicated high-speed line per country (line-km, 2015-2019) Figure 10: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals (EUR billion, 2011-2018) Figure 11: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals per country (EUR billion, 2018) Figure 12: Expenditure on infrastructure per inhabitant per country (EUR, 2018) Figure 13: Expenditure on infrastructure per household per country (EUR, 2018) Figure 14: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-km per country (EUR thousand, 2015-2018) Figure 15: Expenditure by category by country (EUR billion, average of 2015-2018) Figure 16: Expenditure on high-speed rail by typology of expenditure and by Member State (EUR billion, average 2015-2018) Figure 17: Rail infrastructure funding by source and country (EUR billion, 2018) Figure 18: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per Member State and per funding objective (April 2020) Figure 19: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-km (EUR thousand per line-km, May 2020) Figure 20: Passenger and freight volumes (pax-km, tonne-km and train-km, 2005-2018) Figure 21: Passenger and freight volumes, compound annual growth rate per country (2015-2018) Figure 22: Relative share of passenger and freight train-km on total train-km per country (% in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 23: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for passenger transport per country (millions of pax-km per line-km in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 24: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for freight transport per country (millions of tonne-km per line-km in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 25: Propensity to travel by rail 2018 and compound annual growth rate per country (pax-km per inhabitant, 2015-2018) Figure 26: Passenger land transport modal split (% in 2007-2018)

Figure 27: Passenger land transport modal split by country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points for rail (2015-2018) Figure 28: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international in total traffic) (billion pax-km, 2007-2018) Figure 29: Passenger traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international on total) by country (pax-km in 2018) Figure 30: Compound annual growth rates of domestic, international and total passenger traffic volumes per country (%, 2015-2018) Figure 31: Number of pax-km per passenger train-km per country (passenger trains’ load factor) (2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 32: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per country (billion EUR, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 33: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per pax-km per country (EUR per passenger-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 67 Figure 34: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per train-km per country (EUR per passenger train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 35: Sources of passenger railway undertakings’ revenue per country (% in 2018) Figure 36: Freight land transport modal split (%, 2007-2018) Figure 37: Freight land transport modal split by country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points for rail (2015-2018) Figure 38: Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international in total traffic) (billion tonne-km, 2007-2018) Figure 39: Rail freight traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international on total) by country (tonne-km, 2018) 75 Figure 40: Number of tonne-km per freight train-km per country (freight trains load factor) (2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Figure 41: Railway undertakings’ revenues from freight transport services per country (billion EUR, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 77 Figure 42: Railway undertakings’ revenues from freight transport services in tonne-km per country (EUR per thousand tonne-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 78 Figure 43: Railway undertakings' revenues from freight transport services in freight train-km per country (EUR per freight train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 79 Figure 44: Average distance between stations by country (km, 2018) 83 Figure 45: Number of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) 83 Figure 46: Proportion of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) 84

Figure 47: Number of freight terminals by country (2018) 85 Figure 48: Number of marshalling yards by country (2018) 86 Figure 49: Number of maintenance facilities by country (2018) 87 Figure 50: Number of maritime and port facilities linked to rail activity by country (2018) 88 Figure 51: Number of refuelling facilities by country (2018) 89 Figure 52: Number of complaints being processed and decisions made by country (2018) 90 Figure 53: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 31 July 2019 93 Figure 54: Number of active railway licences per country (2018) 94 Figure 55: Average fee to obtain a licence by country (EUR, 2015 and 2018) 95 Figure 56: Average time to obtain a licence by country (calendar days, 2015 and 2018) 96 Figure 57: Access charges (excluding markups) for different categories of passenger trains, by country (EUR per train-km, 2018) 98 Figure 58: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for suburban and regional passenger trains by country, (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 99 Figure 59: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for conventional long-distance passenger trains by country, (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 100 Figure 60: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for high-speed passenger trains by country (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 101 Figure 61: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for different categories of freight trains, by country (EUR per train-km, 2018) 102 Figure 62: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 1 000 tonne freight trains by country (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 103 Figure 63: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 1 600 tonne freight trains by country (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 104 Figure 64: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 6 000 tonne freight trains by country (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 105 Figure 65: Infrastructure managers' revenue earned from charges (TACs, station charges and other charges) paid by passenger trains, per country (EUR billion, 2015 and 2018) 106 Figure 66: Proportion of infrastructure managers' revenue earned from TACs, station charges and other charges on total charges paid by passenger trains, per country (% in 2018) 107

Figure 67: Infrastructure managers' revenue earned from charges (TACs, freight terminals charges and other charges) paid by freight trains, per country (EUR million, 2015 and 2018) 108 Figure 68: Proportion of infrastructure managers' revenue earned from TACs, freight terminals charges and other charges on total charges paid by freight trains, per country (%, 2018) 109 Figure 69: Share of passenger and freight charges on infrastructure managers' total revenues earned from trains, per country (% in 2018) 110 Figure 70: Network utilisation per country (thousand train-km per line-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 111 Figure 71: Successful and rejected path allocations for scheduled path allocations per country (million path allocations, 2018) 113 Figure 72: Successful and rejected path allocations for ad hoc path allocations per country (thousand path allocations, 2018) 114 Figure 73: Total length of track declared congested (total and freight corridors) (km, 2012-2018) 115 Figure 74: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers (number of MS assigning each priority, 2018) 118 Figure 75: Share of passenger traffic offered respectively under a PSO and commercial rail services per country (% of pax-km, 2018) 120 Figure 76: Share of passenger traffic offered respectively under domestic and international PSO services per country (% of pax-km, 2018) 121 Figure 77: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (billion pax-km, 2018) 122 Figure 78: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (million train-km, 2018) 123 Figure 79: Apparent average PSO compensation per country (EUR per train-km, 2018) 124 Figure 80: Share of PSO and commercial fares on total revenues of railway undertakings (% in 2018) 125 Figure 81: Competitors’ market share in the rail freight market per country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points (2015-2018) 126 Figure 82: Competitors' market share in the commercial passenger market per country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points (2015-2018) 128 Figure 83: Competitors' market share in the PSO passenger market per country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points (2015-2018) 130 Figure 84: Stock of locomotives and railcars (number per country, 2015-2018) 135 Figure 85: Stock of coaches, railcars, trailers for passenger transport (number per country, 2015-2018) 135 Figure 86: Stock of goods transport wagons (number per country, 2015-2018) 136

Figure 87: Regulatory bodies staff dealing with rail market access, (number, available to the Commission on 1st April 2020) 140 Figure 88: Regulatory bodies staff dealing with rail market access (employees, as available to the Commission on 1 April 2020, per billion train-km and per billion transport units, 2018) 141 Figure 89: Proportion of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings on total rail employees per country, (% in 2018) 144 Figure 90: Total number of employees in the rail market (infrastructure managers plus railway undertakings) per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 145 Figure 91: Total number of employees of the infrastructure managers per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 146 Figure 92: Total number of employees of the railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 147 Figure 93: Number of employees of the main railway undertaking per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 148 Figure 94: Number of employees of other railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 149 Figure 95: Number of train drivers of main and other railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 150 Figure 96: Number of valid EU train driver licences, (2018) 151 Figure 97: Total employees (main infrastructure managers plus railway undertakings) by gender structure, (% in 2018) 152 Figure 98: Main infrastructure managers' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) 153 Figure 99: Main railway undertakings' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) 153 Figure 100: Employees by age group, main railway undertakings and infrastructure managers (%, 2015-2018) 155 Figure 101: Main railway undertakings’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018) 155 Figure 102: Main infrastructure managers’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018) 156 Figure 103: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract type (permanent or temporary) per country, (% in 2018) 157 Figure 104: Employees of main railway undertaking by contract type (permanent or temporary) per country, (% in 2018) 157 Figure 105: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract type (full-time or part-time) per country, (% in 2018) 158 Figure 106: Employees of main railway undertaking by contract type (full-time or part-time) per country, (% in 2018) 159

Figure 107: Employees of main infrastructure manager in training per country, (% in 2018) 160 Figure 108: Employees of main railway undertaking in training per country, (% in 2018) 160 Figure 109: ERTMS deployment on CNCs for the period 2017-2023 163 Figure 110: Fatality risks of different transport modes (fatalities per billion pax-km, 2014-2018) 171 Figure 111: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties (number, 2010-2018) 172 Figure 112: Significant rail accidents by type of accident (number, 2012-2018) 174 Figure 113: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 176 Figure 114: Punctuality of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 176 Figure 115: Reliability of regional and local passenger services per country, (%, 2015-2018) 177 Figure 116: Reliability of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 178 Figure 117: Frequencies of direct rail connections, 2019 180 Figure 118: Average speeds of direct rail connections, 2019 181 Figure 119: Length by inhabitant of rail connections departing in the country, by speed category, 2019 182 Figure 120: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) 183 Figure 121: Reliability of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) 184 Figure 122: Average timetabled speed of freight services per country, (Km/h, 2018) 185 Table of tables Table 1: External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) Table 2: EU27 Main infrastructure managers with less than 100% share of total route length (2018)

Table 3: Institutional setting of the main infrastructure manager, EU27 (except CY and MT) Table 4: Contractual agreements between competent authorities and infrastructure managers Table 5: Allocation of CEF transport funds to railway actions (April 2020) Table 6: Allocation of CEF funds to railway actions per funding objective (April 2020) Table 7: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per envelope and per Member State (April 2020) Table 8: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes (May 2020) Table 9: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes per Member State (EUR million, May 2020) Table 10: EFSI financing – Approved operations until December 2019 Table 11: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 31 December 2018 Table 12: Track declared to be congested (total including freight corridors) per country, (km, 2015-2018) Table 13: Nodes declared to be congested per country, (km, 2015-2018) Table 14: Main railway gauge and electric current used per country (2018) Table 15: State aid decisions 2015-2018 Table 16: Regulatory bodies' sources of funding (2018) Table 17: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market (2018) Table 18: Serious accidents 2019-2020 (update 15 August 2020) Table of boxes Box 1: European Year of Rail 2021 Box 2: European Commission COVID-19 related measures for rail

Box 3: PRIME benchmarking Box 4: Extensive study on infrastructure managers’ funding and financing Box 5: Rail freight corridors Box 6: European Rail Facility Portal Box 7: Electricity charging Box 8: Energy metering Box 9: Reservation charges Box 10: Development of international passenger transport, in particular night trains and high-speed trains 127 Box 11: Development of low-cost rail services Box 12: Language pilot train drivers (Translate4rail) Box 13: Gender aspects in rail 154 Box 14: Skills shortages, Blueprint initiative and the rail sector 161 Box 15: Issues logbook - Provision for interoperability and harmonisation of operations 166 Box 16: Regulation on electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) 167 Box 17: Second safety culture twinning programme 174 Box 18: Eurobarometer on passenger rights 187 List of abbreviations

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations B2A Business to administration B2B Business to business CAGR Compound annual growth rate CCA Cross-cutting activities CCS-TSI Control command and signalling - technical specifications for interoperability CEF Connecting Europe Facility CF Cohesion Fund CNC Core network corridor COTIF Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail CO2 Carbon dioxide dB Decibel DG MOVE European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport DMT Deployment management team DTLF Digital Transport and Logistics Forum EDP European deployment plan EEA European Environment Agency OR European Economic Area EET Economic equilibrium test EFSI The European Fund for Strategic investments EFTA European Free Trade Association eFTI Electronic freight transport information EIB European Investment Bank ELETA Electronic exchange of information on estimated time of arrival ENE-TSI Energy - technical specification for interoperability ENRRB European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies ERA European Union Agency for Railways (formerly European Railway Agency) ERADIS European Union Agency for Railways database of interoperability and safety ERDF European Regional Development Fund ERTMS European Railway Traffic Management System ESIFs European Structural and Investment Funds, include Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ETA Estimated time of arrival ETCS European Train Control System GEURL Group of Experts towards Unified Rail Law GHG Greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information System GSM-R Global System for Mobile communications - Railways GTFS General transit feed specification H2020 Horizon2020 IEA International Energy Agency ILU Intermodal loading unit IM Rail infrastructure manager INEA EU Innovation and Networks Executive Agency IRG-Rail Independent Regulators’ Group – Rail ITU Intermodal transport unit km Kilometre KPI Key performance indicator MaaS Mobility as a service NEBs National enforcement bodies NIP National implementation plan NSA National safety authority OSJD Organisation for Cooperation of Railways OTIF Organisation for International Carriage by Rail PAYG Pay as you go pax-km Passenger kilometres PRIME Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe PSA Programme support action PSC Public service contract PSO Public service obligation REGIO European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy RFC Rail freight corridor RMMS Rail Market Monitoring Survey RMMS Regulation Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market monitoring RNE RailNetEurope ROSCO Rolling stock company RU Railway undertaking SERAC Single European Railway Area Committee SWD Staff working document S2R (JU) Shift to Rail (Joint Undertaking) TAC Track access charges TAF - TSI Telematics applications for freight TCR Temporary capacity restriction TEG Technical Expert Group TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network TEU Twenty-foot equivalent unit TRAMOS-Rail Transport Monitoring System – Rail TTR TimeTable redesign TSI Technical specifications for interoperability tonne-km Tonne kilometres The Agency European Union Agency for Railways, until June 2016 called European Railway Agency (ERA) train-km Train kilometres UIC Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer UIRR Union Internationale pour le transport combiné Rail-Route UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe WHO World Health Organization List of countries EU European Union EU13 EU Member States having joined the EU in or after 2004 EU15 EU Member States having joined the EU before 2004 EU27 All current EU Member States EU28 EU Member States between 1 July 2013 and 31 January 2020 BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CZ Czechia DK Denmark DE Germany EE Estonia IE Ireland EL Greece ES Spain FR France HR Croatia IT Italy CY Cyprus LV Latvia LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg HU Hungary MT Malta NL Netherlands AT Austria PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SI Slovenia SK Slovakia FI Finland SE Sweden UK United Kingdom EU Member 1973-2020 NO Norway Member of EEA since 1994, of EFTA since 1960



Introduction This Commission staff working document accompanies the Seventh Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development of the rail market (‘the Seventh Report’). The data and graphs used in this document have been made available in Excel format on the DG MOVE website . Coverage of the Report This document presents a non-exhaustive report covering the main developments in the EU rail market, reflecting the topics listed in Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area (the ‘Recast Directive’), according to which the European Commission must report to the European Parliament and the Council every 2 years on: 1.the evolution of the internal market in rail services (Chapter 3); 2.services to be supplied to railway undertakings as per Annex II to the Recast Directive (Chapter 4); 3.the framework conditions (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6), including: -infrastructure charging; -capacity allocation; -investment made in infrastructure; -developments with regard to prices; -quality of rail transport services; -rail transport services covered by public service contracts (PSCs); -licensing;

-degree of market opening; -harmonisation between Member States; -development of employment and related social conditions; 4.the state of the Union railway network (Chapter 2); 5.the utilisation of access rights (Chapter 5); 6.barriers to more effective rail services (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6); 7.infrastructure limitations (Chapter 5); and 8.the need for legislation (Conclusions). An overview of rail as a sustainable mode of transport is also included (Chapter 1). The focus of the Seventh Report and this accompanying staff working document is on developments between 2015 and 2018. When the RMMS Regulation is the only source, trends are assessed for the period 2015-2018 to ensure data comparability. When using other sources, trends may be presented over a longer period. The sources of data include responses to the Rail Market Monitoring Survey (‘the RMMS’), the EU Transport in Figures statistical pocket book , Eurostat , IRG-RAIL, statistics collected by various sectoral organisations and ad hoc presentations and studies. Contributions have also been considered from the Member States, national regulatory bodies and stakeholders participating in the Working Group for Rail Market Monitoring under the aegis of the Single European Railway Area Committee (SERAC). All current EU Member States are covered, except Cyprus and Malta, as they have no railways. Data for the United Kingdom is presented throughout the Seventh Report and this accompanying staff working document as during the reference period until 2018 the country was still participating in the RMMS as an EU Member State. Aggregated data and averages refer, however, only to the EU27 (i.e. to the current EU Member States). The totals and averages for the EU28 are also provided, either in the text or in the Excel file published on the DG MOVE website together with the Seventh Report. As Norway participates in the RMMS but is not a Member of the European Union, Norwegian data are shown in graphs per country but not included in EU27 totals and EU27 averages. The implementing act for rail market monitoring The first five RMMS reports drew on Member States’ voluntary responses to the RMMS questionnaire. The Seventh Report is the second report to actually draw on the mandatory data collection set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market monitoring (‘the RMMS Regulation’) applicable from 1 January 2016. It is also the first report to be produced after the end of the transitional period for the implementation of the RMMS Regulation, in 2018. The questionnaire annexed to the RMMS Regulation was developed in close cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders participating in the SERAC Working Group for Rail Market Monitoring. While building mainly on the previous RMMS, the new questionnaire added some new indicators, particularly related to revenues and traffic outputs, public service obligation (PSO), infrastructure charges and employment. In addition, under the new regime, Member States’ reports have been submitted electronically and validated through exchanges with the Commission using the TRAMOS-Rail (Transport Monitoring System – Rail) web tool. This Seventh Report therefore benefits from better-defined data requirements, a mandatory collection process and a validation review, which has gradually led to more consistent and coherent data after the end of the transitional period in 2018. Member States have until 31 December of each year to submit in TRAMOS-Rail the data from the RMMS questionnaire for the previous year. DG MOVE then reviews the consistency of inputs for each Member State in January, asking for additions or clarifications if needed. The process is closed by the end of the first quarter. Every 2 years, when preparing the biennial report, DG MOVE performs more in-depth data checks across countries and years to verify the coherence and consistency of the RMMS database. Estimates or other reliable data sources are used in case of data gaps. Finally, time series are checked against data published in the previous RMMS report and other similar (though not fully comparable) data in order to identify and explain any major deviation. Estimates, alternative sources and discontinuities are duly reported in the relevant parts of the accompanying staff working document. The refinements implemented during the transitional period may have led some Member States to alter the data and approach they use to respond, which may result in some comparability issues over time. However, steps have been proactively taken by both the Commission and Member States to ensure that these comparability issues have been minimised wherever possible. The Commission has started discussions with Member States to identify developments in the rail market, improvements in data availability, new methodologies, definitions and methods of collecting data that may make it desirable to amend the RMMS questionnaire in the Annex to the RMMS Regulation.

1.Rail and sustainability Transport is central to the European economy and daily life, and demand for it continues to rise. Estimates suggest increases in European passenger and freight transport by 42% and 60% by 2050 respectively. However, transport generates around a quarter of all EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – which have serious health and environmental consequences. As public awareness about climate change increases, demand for sustainable forms of transport does too – be it for cross-border travel or for everyday commutes. Transporting more freight by rail instead of by road is another essential element of making transport more sustainable. To accelerate sustainable transport across Europe, having an attractive rail system with sufficient capacity and modernised infrastructure will be key. With the European Green Deal, the European Commission has proposed to cut GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030, and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. To achieve climate neutrality, a 90% reduction in overall transport emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels is needed. This will be one main objective of the forthcoming Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. To meet this challenge, rail will have to take up a bigger share of the transport system. Through its policies and legislation, the EU aims to make rail more efficient, affordable and innovative. EU policies focus on aspects that are crucial for developing a strong and competitive rail industry and a green and sustainable transport system overall. These are: ·Facilitating a strong and competitive rail sector Establishing a single European railway area where railway companies can operate in a single and competitive EU-wide market i.e. the same rail operator can offer services anywhere in Europe, without national borders. This will bring down costs and make rail more attractive for passengers. ·Removing barriers to seamless rail transport EU legislation harmonises diverging safety, administrative and operational requirements across the EU. In this way, the same train will be able to run on networks all over Europe, following the same rules. The EU Agency for Railways (ERA) has a mandate to issue single safety certificates and vehicle authorisations, which are valid in multiple European countries. ·Developing a modern rail infrastructure network Capacity constraints and ageing infrastructure are hampering rail traffic. That is why public and private investment in Europe’s infrastructure is needed, in particular for cross-border links. ·Stimulating innovation Tackling challenges and opportunities such as rising transport demand, decarbonisation and digitalisation requires innovative solutions. The Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking is a public-private partnership in the rail sector, providing a platform for EU research and innovation. For rail to fulfil its role in the European Green Deal as an attractive and effective alternative to more polluting modes of transport, it has to be safe, punctual, reliable, affordable and inclusive, and able to adapt to the changing needs of passengers and industries. This depends on the performance of both rail operators and infrastructure managers. Box 1: European Year of Rail 2021 On 4 March 2020, the European Commission proposed to make 2021 the European Year of Rail, to support the delivery of its European Green Deal objectives in the transport field. The European Year of Rail 2021 will support the efforts of the EU, the Member States, regional and local authorities, and other organisations to increase the share of passengers and freight moving by rail. Through a series of dedicated events, campaigns, initiatives and projects in 2021, the European Year will promote rail as a sustainable, innovative and safe mode of transport. It will highlight its benefits for citizens, the economy and the climate. By reaching out to the broader public, in particular to young people, the initiative intends to convince more people and businesses to make use of rail. It will also help to step up the pace of rail modernisation and focus on the remaining challenges to create a true single European railway area without borders. 2.Environmental performance of rail Rail has the potential to play a significant role in accelerating the reduction of transport emissions, being the most carbon-efficient motorised way to travel. In 2018, rail accounted for only 2% of total EU27 energy consumption in transport, while carrying 12.6% of goods and 6.9% of passengers of all transport modes (land, air and waterways). 3.Emissions In 2018, the transport sector (including international aviation and maritime) accounted for 27.2% of the total GHG emissions in the EU27 (27.9% in EU28). Within the transport sector, ( Figure 1 ) shows how rail represented only 0.4% of GHG emissions from all transport modes in the EU27 (0.5% in EU28), while continuing to be the only mode to have almost continuously reduced such emissions since 1990.

Figure 1: Share of GHG emissions by transport mode (rail, road, domestic aviation, domestic navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes CO2 equivalent, EU27 2018) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. When considering only CO2, in 2018 the transport sector (including international aviation and maritime) accounted for 32.6% of the total CO2 emissions in the EU27 (33.4% in EU28). Figure 2 shows how within the transport sector rail represented only 0.4% of CO2 emissions from all transport modes in the EU27 (0.5% in EU28). Rail has continued to be the only transport mode to have almost continuously reduced these emissions since 1990. Figure 2: Share of CO2 emissions of transport modes (rail, road, domestic aviation, domestic navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes, EU27 2018) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Looking at rail from a life-cycle perspective shows that train operations are not the only source of emissions for rail transport. The construction of railway infrastructure, the manufacturing of rolling stock, and its maintenance and disposal are all activities producing emissions. Despite these considerations, the overall benefits of using trains remain significant. Finally, a modal shift to rail would have beneficial effects not only in terms of improved air quality but also in terms of reduced congestion. 4.Energy consumption The transport sector accounted for 30.5% of the total final energy consumption in the EU27 in 2018 (31% for EU28); by contrast, within the transport sector rail accounted for only 1.9% of the final energy consumption (2.0% for EU28). The distribution per country is available in Figure 3 . Figure 3: Share of each transport mode (including rail) on total energy consumption per country (% in 2018) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Rail transport not only represents a minor part of transport’s energy use, but it also saves overall energy consumption. According to a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in cooperation with the International Railway Association (UIC), if the world’s passenger and freight traffic currently served by rail was transported by other transport modes, global oil demand for transport would be 16% higher. The IEA-UIC report also shows that rail significantly outperforms other transport means in terms of energy efficiency, measured as tonne oil equivalent per passenger kilometre or per tonne kilometre. Rail is the most energy-efficient motorised land passenger mode and the second most efficient mode overall after shipping. Two major factors influence the energy intensity of rail:

-Specific energy consumption of different typologies of trains: under the same conditions, electric trains are less energy intensive than diesel trains, given the higher efficiency of their engines and their higher capacity to enable regenerative braking and minimise inertial losses; -Train capacity and utilisation rates: the higher the occupancy rate or the load factor, the lower the energy intensity. Already today, four out of five trains in the EU run on electricity, and fleet renewals are driving the gradual replacement of diesel vehicles with better-performing diesel engines or electric vehicles. Electric hybrid battery trains and hydrogen trains are also coming into use. Railway undertakings are increasingly promoting the use of traction electricity from renewable sources (hydroelectric power, sun and wind) and are starting to install on-board energy meters for energy consumption or to introduce eco-driving programmes. The utilisation of rail has been increasing in Europe in the past few years. Passenger rail volumes were consistently growing and rail freight was finally recovering from the financial and economic crisis, while estimated load factors appear to have also slightly increased. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a heavy toll on rail volumes in 2020; its impact has still to be fully assessed. 5.Noise According to the World Health Organization (WHO), environmental noise is an important public health issue with negative impacts on human health and well-being, featuring among the top environmental risks to health. European Environment Agency (EEA) figures for 2017 show that the number of people exposed to harmful noise levels produced by railways, although significant, is lower than the number of people exposed to harmful noise levels produced by road. Railway noise affects nearly 22 million people (of which approximately 10.9 million people exposed to railway noise outside urban areas and approximately 10.7 million people exposed to railway noise inside urban areas). Given the predominantly international nature of rail freight transport (more than 50% of rail freight wagons run across borders), any attempt to reduce rail noise at source needs a coordinated European response. The most cost-efficient measure to achieve this reduction is the retrofitting of existing freight wagons with ‘silent’, composite brake blocks, replacing cast iron brake blocks. Recently built wagons are already equipped with composite brake blocks, thereby complying with the more stringent noise limit values introduced in 2011. A number of initiatives have been already adopted at the EU level to reduce noise exposure. These include: -the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC; -the technical specification for interoperability (TSI) on noise, which was revised in 2019; -financial assistance under the CEF for the retrofitting of rail freight wagons with ‘silent’ brake technology (which to date has allowed for the co-financing of retrofitting of some 207 000 ‘noisy’ wagons); and -a European framework laying down modalities for noise-differentiated track access charges. However, despite the efforts of the Commission and Member States, there is still a risk that excessive levels of railway noise can lead to uncoordinated unilateral actions by Member States, such as applying speed limits and restrictions on operating at night. The 2019 revision of the TSI Noise mandates the introduction of ‘quieter routes’ from December 2024. This affects the railway lines in the EU with the busiest freight traffic, on which only ‘silent’ freight wagons may be operated. By the end of 2017, some 350 000 freight wagons present in the EU still needed to be retrofitted with ‘silent’ brake blocks . By mid-2020 this number had fallen to approximately 100 000, excluding freight wagons that cannot be retrofitted for technical reasons, as well as freight wagons for which retrofitting would not be economically feasible. The Commission is also evaluating the results of Commission Implementing Regulation on noise differentiated track access charges (EU) 2015/429 (NDTAC). The Commission will assess in particular the progress of retrofitting wagons, the balance between bonus deductions and malus payments, the passing on of the incentives from railway undertakings to wagon keepers, as well as the cumulative level of bonuses wagons have received from different schemes. Based on the results of the evaluation, the Commission may, if deemed appropriate, decide to revise the framework. 6.Green financing and cost internalisation In order to increase its relevance in the modal share of individual and business users, rail needs to become more competitive against other modes. This involves deploying sufficient investments and adequate customer-focused innovations. In 2018, the total cost of railways, defined as infrastructure expenditure (irrespective of the funding source) plus PSO compensation, was around EUR 138.20 per EU27 inhabitant (EUR 138.58 including the UK), which is an increase of 5.6% compared to 2015. Whereas infrastructure expenditure decreased by 1.7%, PSO compensation increased by 20.8% in the same period according to the figures reported in the RMMS ( Figure 4 ). Figure 4: Cost of railways per inhabitant (infrastructure expenditure plus PSO compensation) 2015-2018

Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. Missing data for EL, PL, RO and ES. The cost of railways as defined above rests heavily on public funding and in turn on taxpayers. This is due not only to the PSO compensation but also to the infrastructure expenditure element. Expenditure in rail infrastructure in fact is also mainly financed through public funding: EUR 28.8 billion (domestic public funds and EU funds) in 2018 for the EU27, roughly equivalent to 80% of the total funding according to figures reported in the RMMS by Member States. Considering only domestic public funds and PSO compensations (i.e. excluding EU funding and infrastructure managers’ own funding), in 2018 the cost of railways for the EU27 was around EUR 111 per capita. Green taxonomy Green bonds and climate-aligned bonds represent so far only a small share of the financing instruments used to finance rail projects. However, a growing green bond market could enable a significant share of investment in the EU’s railway sector to be financed by green bonds, thus diversifying from traditional public financing sources. Reorienting capital flows towards a more sustainable economy requires, however, establishing a clear classification system for sustainable activities, i.e. an EU taxonomy to define how ‘green’ a company or public institution is as regards its investments and turnover. Following its action plan on financing sustainable growth (March 2018), the European Commission established, in July 2018, a Technical Expert Group (TEG) on sustainable finance . The expert group’s remit was to develop recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities to be considered environmentally sustainable. In May 2019, the Commission published a study providing an overview of classification systems (taxonomies) which determine environmentally sustainable activities within the transport sector both globally and in the EU. The study also analysed the green bonds market and its state of play. According to the findings, in 2017 13% (EUR 15.9 billion) of green bonds in Europe were dedicated to transport projects; the majority of these green bonds were railway projects. The green bonds market has grown significantly over the past 10 years, but according to the study there is further growth potential if market bottlenecks – such as the lack of a green bonds definition and framework or the lack of information and market knowledge – are properly addressed. Based on this study and on almost 2 years of intensive discussions, in March 2020 the TEG published its recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities ( TEG report on EU taxonomy ). Based on the TEG report, the Commission in turn presented a proposal for a regulation on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment: this was the Taxonomy Regulation , which entered into force on 12 July 2020 following its adoption by the European Parliament and the Council. The Taxonomy Regulation sets six environmental objectives: 1)climate change mitigation; 2)climate change adaptation; 3)the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; 4)the transition to a circular economy; 5)pollution prevention and control; and 6)the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. To establish the degree to which an investment is environmentally sustainable, an economic activity must qualify as environmentally sustainable. The Taxonomy Regulation establishes that this happens where that economic activity:

-substantially contributes to at least one of the environmental objectives; -does not significantly harm any of the remaining objectives; -complies with minimum safeguards as defined in the Taxonomy Regulation; and -complies with technical screening criteria established by the Commission in specific delegated acts. The Commission is set to publish a first delegated act by end-2020 presenting the technical criteria (based on the TEG report) for the climate change mitigation and the climate change adaptation objectives, for entry into force end-2021. A further delegated act covering the four remaining objectives should be adopted by end-2021, for entry into force end-2022. Transport-related activities (both operations and manufacturing) contribute substantially, both directly and indirectly, to (at least) the climate change mitigation objective. Therefore, most of the relevant technical screening criteria for transport investments will be already published by end-2020, falling at least within the scope of the first delegated act. To make a substantial contribution to climate mitigation, the activities and technical screening criteria included in the Taxonomy need to focus on the main emissions sources from the transport sector, supporting reduction in GHG emissions and indirectly accelerating modal shift towards less polluting transport modes such as rail and inland waterways. The transport taxonomy mainly concerns operations of vehicle/vessel fleets and rolling stock (both wagons and locomotives) and the associated enabling infrastructure, including telematics applications such as ERTMS, focusing on three categories of criteria: -efficient, low- and zero direct emission fleets -fuel substitution to net-zero carbon fuels -improving the efficiency of transport system – modal shift. The manufacturing sector is also a high producer of emissions, and some manufacturing activities are therefore included in the taxonomy. For transport, the taxonomy includes the manufacture of low-carbon fleets and vehicles in road, rail and waterborne. Most eligible actions relate to the manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, although until 2025 some low-emission vehicles could still be eligible (in accordance with EU emission standards). Finally, transport of captured CO2 by rail, ship or pipeline is also covered. Cost internalisation On the costs side, another aspect to take into account when considering rail competitiveness against other modes is the relative capacity of different modes to internalise external costs caused by their activities, in particular their environmental impact. Internalising external costs would make them part of the decision-making process of transport users. In 2019, the Commission funded an independent study on sustainable transport infrastructure charging and internalisation of transport externalities. The study provided an overview of the progress made by EU Member States towards the full internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of transport and tried to identify approaches for further internalisation. The results show only partial internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of transport in the EU28. The total external costs of transport in the EU27 were estimated at EUR 867 billion (EUR 987 billion for EU28), composed as follows: -costs of accidents (29%) -costs of congestion (26%) -environmental costs (45%).

These aggregate figures hide large differences between transport modes. Overall, road transport is the largest contributor to external costs (EUR 721 billion in EU27, i.e. 83% of the total costs mainly due to passenger cars), whereas rail represents only 2% of the total external costs of transport. Table 1 shows external costs for the EU28. Table 1: External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) Source: Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities (2019). Supporting the modal shift towards rail would have a significant impact on external costs, given: (i) its higher safety compared to other means of land transport; (ii) its larger loading capacity, which would help reduce congestion on roads; and (iii) its better energy efficiency and lower emissions, which would decrease air pollution and climate effects. External and total infrastructure costs of transport are only partly internalised by current taxes and charges in the EU28. For most transport modes, for example, the study found that only 15 to 25% of the overall external and infrastructure costs are covered. On average, trains were found to have lower coverage ratios than road vehicles; however, they are also responsible for a smaller amount of external costs compared to road. Even excluding fixed infrastructure costs from the analysis, current taxes and charges do not cover the external and (variable) infrastructure costs for most modes. However, given the relevance of fixed infrastructure costs in rail, trains score much better, and high-speed trains even see their taxes and charges exceed their costs. This indicator is in line with the Commission’s policy to realise full internalisation of external costs, including wear and tear costs. It recognises that fixed infrastructure costs are sunk costs and that paying for these costs may result in (further) underutilisation of existing infrastructure (e.g. rail). Focusing only on infrastructure cost coverage, the study concluded that there is a limited use of the ‘users-pays’ principle in the EU28. For most modes, only 15 to 30% of the total infrastructure costs are covered by infrastructure charges. Exceptions are aviation and maritime transport. The variable infrastructure costs (i.e. wear and tear costs) are instead broadly covered by the revenues from infrastructure charges across almost all vehicle categories. 7.Resilience Transport infrastructures are essential for the functioning of society and the economy. Their increasing interdependence makes them more complex to operate and requires a significant coordination effort. Breakdowns due to climate change, incidents or technical failures can compromise essential flows of goods or the ability to meet citizens’ needs for mobility. Interruptions of service in railways can be due to different reasons and can range in severity from simple disturbances in daily operations to disruptions linked to technical failures/weather conditions and finally to exceptional and unexpected events like natural disasters or (as experienced recently) a global pandemic. In recent years, the EU railway sector has demonstrated its resilience in the light of very adverse situations. Coordination and cooperation between infrastructure managers and with railway undertakings and public authorities have played an essential role in ensuring this resilience. In case of severe disruptions, the EU infrastructure managers can today trigger a contingency procedure, as provided for in the Handbook for International Contingency Management. The handbook was drafted after the severe Rastatt accident in 2017 to avoid traffic interruptions on rail freight corridors (RFCs) and ensure that rail freight continuously feeds supply chains. Since the adoption of the handbook in May 2018, international contingency management plans have been triggered – partially involving cooperation by different RFCs – after the following four international incidents: ·A derailment on the Scandinavian–Mediterranean RFC that disrupted traffic between Hamburg and the German-Danish border from 2-6 August 2020. ·A collision at Auggen on the Rhine–Alpine RFC between a train and elements of a road bridge under construction, impacting traffic between Germany and Switzerland on the rail line between Müllheim and Schliengen from 2-8 April 2020. ·Two incidents in 2019 on the Mediterranean RFC: (i) a mudslide that interrupted rail traffic between France and Italy (Saint Michel de Maurienne and Modane) from 3-22 July 2019; and (ii) heavy rainfalls that impacted the line connecting France and Spain between Montpellier and Narbonne from 23 October to 25 November 2019. The handbook is currently being updated by RailNetEurope (RNE) to improve and possibly adapt the processes described in it. More recently, the EU rail sector has experienced a significant disruption to business continuity due to a huge drop in passenger mobility and (partially) in freight transport due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to information shared by the sector, during the first half of 2020 average estimated decline in rail passenger revenues for EU27 was about -34%, with a total estimated loss close to EUR 10 billion. Even though rail freight operators proved to be the backbone of logistics chains during the first months of the crisis and kept large flows of goods moving, the freight segment also felt the effects of the pandemic. Over the same period, the average estimated decline in rail freight revenues for EU27 was about -15%, with a total estimated loss of about EUR 1.25 billion. These estimates include the months of January and February, which were before the start of the crisis caused by the pandemic.

During the peak of the crisis in March and April 2020, ridership went down by more than 90% in several countries and even after the end of lockdown rail passenger numbers have not returned to pre-crisis levels in many countries. The freight segment also felt the impact of the pandemic due to the slowdown in economic activities such as car manufacturing and sales. Furthermore, rail infrastructure managers were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to the overall reduction in traffic flows and declining revenues from track access charges. Box 2: European Commission COVID-19 related measures for rail The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 caused lockdowns and other restrictive measures that had a deep impact on rail transport. Keeping transport services running was of crucial importance for the functioning of the EU's internal market, the maintenance of its supply chains and its effective response to the common public health crisis. The European Commission took relief measures to ensure continued and uninterrupted transport services. The main objectives were to: -safeguard operational continuity and basic connectivity across borders; -ensure the availability of goods and essential services while protecting health; -provide legal grounds for exceptional measures in accordance with the regulatory framework in force; and -enable financial support measures while preserving the integrity of the internal market. In an effort to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the transport sector, including the rail sector, the Commission proposed and implemented a number of measures: -Publication of guidelines to ensure EU passenger rights are applied in a consistent manner across the EU (March 2020). -New practical advice on how to implement its guidelines for border management, in order to keep freight moving across the EU during the pandemic (March 2020). To ensure that EU-wide supply chains continued to operate, Member States were requested to designate, without delay, all the relevant internal border-crossing points on the trans-European transport network(TEN-T) as ‘green lanes’ border crossings. The green laneborder crossings had to be open to all freight vehicles, whatever goods they were carrying. Crossing the border, including any checks and health screening, should not take more than 15 minutes. To keep transport moving, the Commission recommended that Member States should take action to ensure the free movement of all workers involved in international transport, whatever the transport mode. -Adoption of a temporary framework for State aid measures (March 2020 and following amendments). -Publication of an overview of the State aid rules and public service obligations rules applicable to the land transport sector during the COVID-19 outbreak (May 2020). -Regulation (EU) 2020/698 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID‐19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation (May 2020, for all transport means). The measures introduced to protect public health made it difficult for some transport operators, individuals and national administrations to complete certain formalities required under EU law, such as renewing licences. The validity date of certain certificates, licences and other authorisations was therefore allowed to be extended. Certain periodic checks in road, rail, inland waterways transport and maritime security were also postponed temporarily . -Directive (EU) 2020/700 of 25 May 2020 amending Directives (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2016/798, as regards the extension of their transposition periods and the delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/782 of 12 June 2020 amending Delegated Regulations (EU) 2018/761 and (EU) 2018/762 as regards their dates of application following the extension of the transposition deadline of Directive (EU) 2016/798. This Directive allowed for a three-month extension of the deadline by which some Member States had to transpose EU law on rail safety and interoperability. The delay aimed to ensure that the sector has legal clarity and could focus its time and resources on coronavirus recovery (May/June 2020). -Regulation 2020/1429 aiming to reduce the financial burden on the rail sector caused by the COVID-19 pandemic through temporary eased rules on charges (October 2020). 8.The state of the union railway network 9.Description National and European authorities cooperate to ensure all the necessary support for building new rail infrastructure and improving the existing one as a part of an EU-wide multimodal network. An integrated EU-wide transport network on long-distances could bring to the people and the businesses of the Union significant benefits, with the more efficient integration of people and economies. Cross-border regions’ exchanges are also important. Lack of cross-border accessibility is one of the main obstacles preventing individuals and organisations to experience the benefits of the internal market; tackling missing cross-border rail links could help improving the offer for sustainable mobility for people in border regions. The TEN-T Guidelines, the objectives of the Connecting Europe Facility, and the Cohesion Fund priorities reflect the importance attached to rail as enhancer of the internal market and as a sustainable and clean mode of transport. Focusing on domestic networks, Figure 5 shows the reported length of the national rail networks of the EU Member States plus the United Kingdom and Norway. Figure 5: Length of national networks per country (thousand line-km, 2018) and relative change (2015-2018) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Infill data from various other sources. The total length of the EU27 rail network in use in 2018 was around 201 000 line kilometres (217 000 for EU28), which is a decrease of 0.4% compared to 2015. Infrastructure density Figure 6 illustrates the diversity of railways in the different States. It compares the number of line kilometres per thousand square kilometres, on the horizontal axis, with the number of line kilometres per million inhabitants, on the vertical axis. Figure 6: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population per country (line-km per million people and line-km per thousand km2, 2018)

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. The chart shows how the rail network of Nordic and Baltic countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) is very dense when related to their population, but quite sparse if related to their surface area. On the other side, we have countries like Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with a very dense rail network when related to their territory, but more sparse when related to their population (especially in the Netherlands). In Greece, the rail network is sparse when related both to the population and the country’s surface area, whereas Czechia has the densest network looking at both indicators at the same time. Electrified lines Figure 7 shows the proportion of the electrified network in 2018, measured in line kilometres, and the change compared to 2015. Figure 7: Percentage of electrified network per country (2018) and change in the percentage of electrified network (2015 vs 2018) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. While around 56% of the total EU27 network was electrified in 2018 (54% for EU28), this proportion ranges widely across countries from 5% in Ireland to 95% in Luxembourg. The EU27 network counted an additional 855 km of electrified route since 2015, an increase of 1.2 % (for EU28: additional 1 599 km for an increase of 1.7%). According to the latest PRIME benchmarking report, in 2018, around 75% of total train-kilometres were travelled thanks to electricity-powered trains . In several cases a higher network utilisation and density appear to be a driver for electrification; since electrifying lines require high investments, electrification makes economically more sense on busy lines. On lower density networks other approaches may be more convenient, as for example battery powered trains and hybrid-diesel electric locomotives. High-speed lines The Commission reports every year statistics on high-speed lines, which are defined as the lines or sections of lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at some point during the journey. Figure 8 shows the development of the EU’s high-speed network (not including the UK), which by the end of 2019 extended to 9 169 line kilometres (9 282 for EU28). Figure 8: Development of high-speed lines in Europe, current and potential (line-km, current 2015-2019, further for those under construction) Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. When considering also the length of high-speed lines currently reported under construction, the estimated EU27 network would have a size of 11 228 line kilometres in 2027 (11 341 for EU28). The EU27 high-speed network increased by almost 1 300 km between 2015 and 2019 (+17%). Figure 9 shows how the length of high-speed lines evolved from 2015 to 2019 in different countries. Figure 9: Length of dedicated high-speed line per country (line-km, 2015-2019)

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Spain is the country with the largest high-speed network (around 3 300 line kilometres). No new lines were added to the relatively small networks in Poland and Belgium between 2015 and 2019. The largest increase compared to 2015 can be seen in France (additional 676 line kilometres) and in Spain (additional 295 line kilometres). 10.Infrastructure management An efficient management and adequate funding of the rail infrastructure is fundamental for the provision of efficient and sustainable rail transport services. Box 3: PRIME benchmarking The PRIME KPI subgroup was set up in 2014 with two main objectives: to monitor common trends at the EU level; and to benchmark performance and by doing so to strive for better results. In 2020, the group presented its third benchmarking report, covering the years 2012-2018. Compared to the first two reports, this edition includes a number of new indicators, a more complete dataset and four new participants (in total 19). Five infrastructure managers are in the transitional phase to join. Taking into account its wider reach, this year’s report offers, for the first time, more detailed explanations and contextual information to make the wealth of data more accessible. For the infrastructure managers, benchmarking helps to understand where each organisation stands and where there is potential for improvement. For the European Commission, there is an invaluable opportunity to identify best practice and to monitor the progress with respect to EU policy priorities. For all stakeholders, it is an opportunity to observe trends as they evolve, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the system. PRIME members have jointly agreed on the key performance indicators that are relevant for their business. The progress on common data definitions and KPIs is documented in the catalogue, which is continuously refined and publicly available on the PRIME website . PRIME continues to work on making PRIME key performance indicators (KPIs) more robust, comparable for benchmarking purposes and more complete, by covering additional aspects. This work will also serve as a basis for discussions on the future RMMS framework. 11.Infrastructure governance The optimised, efficient and non-discriminatory management of the railway infrastructure is essential for the development of railway services. Member States often have a single national infrastructure manager responsible for the entire national network. In other cases, the main infrastructure manager operates together with smaller ones responsible for specific lines, regional infrastructure or service facilities as shown in Table 2 . Table 2: EU27 Main infrastructure managers with less than 100% share of total route length (2018) Member state Share of total route length CZ 98% FR 98% PL 96% HU 94% IT 91% SE 89% AT 88% EE 85% DE 85% DK 79% Source: Eighth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document, IRG-Rail 2020. Within the Fourth Railway Package, Directive 2016/2370 introduced additional measures to ensure that infrastructure managers manage their networks in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner, in particular when they are part of a vertically integrated undertaking. Table 3 provides an overview of the institutional settings of the main infrastructure managers in the EU27 (year 2020). Table 3: Institutional setting of the main infrastructure manager, EU27 (except CY and MT) Fully separated from RU(s) Vertically integrated with RU(s) Distinct legal entities Department within the same company under a common holding company In a relation of parent company - subsidiary State

administrative unit DK Public Agency FI, SE State-owned company BE, BG, CZ,

EE, EL, ES,

HR, NL, PT,

RO, SK AT, DE,

FR, IT, LT,

PL, SI HU (IM = parent company), IE (the IM is a department of the RU) LV (IM = parent company) LU (the IM is a department of the same company as the passenger and freight RUs) Source: Desk research, May 2020. In almost all Member States, the infrastructure managers are performing essential functions (infrastructure charging and path allocation) for their network. In Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg both the infrastructure charging and path allocation are performed by a separate body. In Czechia, the capacity allocation is performed by an independent allocation body but only for privately owned railway undertakings.

Railway infrastructure managers are usually only in charge of the management of railway infrastructure, with some notable exceptions: in Finland, Väylävirasto’s modal competence covers all public passenger and freight traffic on state-owned railroads, state-owned road infrastructure and most Finnish waterways and channels. In Portugal, Infraestruturas de Portugal’s modal competences include rail and road infrastructure. In Sweden, Trafikverket is competent for railway infrastructure, long-term infrastructure planning for road traffic, management of rail traffic, shipping and aviation, as well as for the construction and operation of state roads and railways. The Swedish Transport Administration may also, in agreement with the Swedish Maritime Administration, take responsibility for the implementation of infrastructure projects in fairways, locks and canals. Directive 2016/2370 provides for the main infrastructure managers to participate and cooperate in a European network of infrastructure managers to facilitate the provision of efficient and effective rail services within the Union. The Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe (PRIME), created initially on a voluntary basis in 2013, became in 2017 the formal European Network of infrastructure managers, as provided for in the Fourth Railway Package. Contractual agreements EU transport policy aims to set the legal framework for infrastructure managers and Member States to provide rail infrastructure at the best value for money. Maintaining the infrastructure is crucial for the competitiveness of the rail system as a whole. However, there is still concern about the sustainable financing of existing rail infrastructure, the quality of infrastructure service and the issue of how to get infrastructure managers to perform better. Article 30(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU provides for contractual agreement to be concluded between the competent authority and the infrastructure manager, covering a period of not less than 5 years and including elements as specified in the Directive. Table 4 shows the contractual agreements as reported in 2018 by Member States in the RMMS. Table 4: Contractual agreements between competent authorities and infrastructure managers Number of contractual agreements Performance indicators included Monitoring body AT 1 NO YES BE 1 YES YES BG 1 YES YES CZ 1 NO n/a DE 1 YES YES DK 1 NO YES EE 1 YES YES EL n/a n/a ES n/a n/a FI n/a n/a FR 1 YES NO HR 1 NO NO HU 2 YES NO YES NO IE 1 YES YES IT 12 YES (6) YES (all) NO (6) LT 1 YES YES LU 1 NO YES LV 1 YES NO NL 1 YES NO PL 2 YES YES YES NO PT 1 YES YES RO 1 YES YES SE 2 NO NO NO NO SI 1 NO YES SK 1 YES YES UK 3 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO 1 YES NO Source: RMMS 2020. 12.Infrastructure expenditure The EU has set very ambitious goals to realise a core Trans-European transport (TEN-T) network by 2030 and a comprehensive network by 2050. Realising the core network alone requires investments of around EUR 500 billion over 2021-2030. Rail is particularly involved since rail infrastructure is an important element of the TEN-T network. In April 2019, the Commission launched a review of the TEN-T policy. In the past few years, awareness was raised on new dimensions of the TEN-T policy, as for example the movement of military forces (troops, assets and equipment) within and beyond the EU, which was identified in the action plan on military mobility. Enhancing rail infrastructure investments is also one of the main objectives of national transport policies. Member States have the obligation, stemming from Article 8 of Directive 2012/34/EU, to publish an indicative rail infrastructure development strategy in order to meet future mobility needs in terms of maintenance, renewal and development of their infrastructure based on sustainable financing of the railway system. Figure 10 shows the total annual infrastructure expenditure as the sum of network maintenance, renewals, upgrades and investments into new infrastructure of the EU27 Member States for the years 2011 to 2018 for EU27. The dotted line indicates the share of maintenance and renewals on total infrastructure expenditure. Figure 10: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals (EUR billion, 2011-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. Total EU27 infrastructure expenditure rose from EUR 22.8 billion in 2011 to EUR 38.7 billion in 2018 (from EUR 29.2 billion to EUR 47.5 billion for EU28). Of 2018 expenditure, 26% was on maintenance, 27% on renewals, 26% on upgrades and 21% in investments into new infrastructure. The RMMS gathers data on expenditure in new investments only since 2015. Between 2015 and 2018, the share of maintenance, renewals and upgrades expenditures into the existing network slightly increased, whereas the share of new investments was more variable and finally decreased probably due to budgetary reasons. Figure 11 shows the total annual infrastructure expenditure per country in 2018 as the sum of network maintenance, renewals, upgrades and investments into new infrastructure. The horizontal bar chart indicates the relative share of maintenance and renewals of existing infrastructure in total annual expenditures. Figure 11: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals per country (EUR billion, 2018)

Source: RMMS, 2020. Total infrastructure expenditure in 2018 was highest in Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Highest expenditure for new infrastructure has been reported in Austria and Spain, whereas highest expenditure for infrastructure upgrades can be seen in the United Kingdom and Italy. In 2018, total maintenance and renewal expenditure in the EU27 amounted to EUR 20.6 billion (25.8 for EU28), i.e. 53% of the total expenditure (54% for EU28). The highest proportion was for Latvia and Estonia (100%), and the lowest was for Greece (5%). Figure 12 shows the total annual infrastructure expenditure per inhabitant in 2018 per country. Figure 12: Expenditure on infrastructure per inhabitant per country (EUR, 2018) Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. In 2018 the average infrastructure expenditure per inhabitant in the EU27 was EUR 87 (EUR 93 for EU28). The highest level by far can be seen in Luxembourg (EUR 706 per inhabitant). Using different metrics, in 2018 the average infrastructure expenditure per household in the EU27 was EUR 194 (EUR 223 for EU28). Looking at the distribution per country ( Figure 13 ), Luxembourg shows again the highest value (EUR 1 691 per household). Between 2015 and 2018, the average expenditure either per inhabitant or per household increased only in Estonia, Portugal, Germany, Croatia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy, Slovakia and Finland. Figure 13: Expenditure on infrastructure per household per country (EUR, 2018) Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. Figure 14 shows the sum of annual infrastructure maintenance, renewal and enhancement expenditure per line kilometre per country for the years 2015 to 2018. Figure 14: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-km per country (EUR thousand, 2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. RO 2017, 2018 not available, Issues with EE 2015 data. The EU27 average rose slightly from EUR 143 000 per line kilometre to EUR 153 000 per line kilometre in 2018 (182 000 for EU28). Luxembourg reported the highest expenditure, whereas Greece and Romania are at the lowest end of the surveyed countries. Figure 15 shows the average annual infrastructure expenditure per country from 2015 to 2018 as a sum of average expenditures for conventional lines, high-speed lines, major stations and major freight terminals.

Figure 15: Expenditure by category by country (EUR billion, average of 2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. Average total infrastructure expenditure was highest in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The same applies for expenditure for conventional lines. Average expenditure for high-speed lines was highest in France and Spain. According to the figures reported in the RMMS, expenditure for major stations was highest in Germany and the Netherlands, while expenditure for major freight terminals was highest in Austria. Figure 16 shows the data available on average annual expenditure dedicated to high-speed lines between 2015 and 2018. Figure 16: Expenditure on high-speed rail by typology of expenditure and by Member State (EUR billion, average 2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. Partially missing data for BE, DE, IT, NL. In the top three Member States by expenditure (France, Spain and Germany), more than EUR 4 billion on average were allocated to upgrades over the relevant period. Another EUR 3.5 billion on average were allocated to the construction of new infrastructure. Infrastructure maintenance (EUR 0.6 billion) and renewals (EUR 0.2 billion) played a minor role in these countries. 13.Infrastructure funding and financing A modern, integrated rail transport system is necessary to strengthen the EU’s global competitiveness and to meet the challenges linked to sustainable, smart and inclusive growth. Resources to maintain and improve the rail infrastructure come from a variety of sources, including national public funding, EU projects’ support and railway-generated funds such as revenue from track access charges. Overall, the EU27 Member States reported EUR 35.7 billion of funding for rail infrastructure in 2018 (44.6 for EU28). National budgets contributed to total expenditure and investment by about 70% (more precisely 72% in EU27 and 69% in EU28), whereas EU co-financing accounted for 8% in the EU27 (7% EU28). The remaining share of financing (19% for EU27 or 25% for EU28) came from other sources, including loans, equity financing and charges. The United Kingdom, France and Germany show a significant share of own funds, whereas the highest share of EU funds was received by Poland ( Figure 17 ). Figure 17: Rail infrastructure funding by source and country (EUR billion, 2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. RO not available. Box 4: Extensive study on infrastructure managers’ funding and financing

The platform of rail infrastructure managers in Europe (PRIME) will carry out an extensive study of infrastructure managers’ charging and funding mechanisms, which will be completed in 2021.The study will assess how the mechanism of railway funding can make a difference and enable an infrastructure manager to deliver tangible improvements. These improvements could be in all dimensions of the railway’s performance including safety, punctuality, capacity, efficiency and sustainability. The study will consist of two parts: -an overview of railway funding and financing, exploring in detail state funding; and -an overview of track access charging including its various components. The aim will be to: -describe the existing structures and mechanisms of railway funding and financing in each Member State; -understand the reasoning behind the national systems, considering the individual context; -highlight the experience made with these systems, both with regard to positive outcomes as well as difficulties encountered; -identify lessons learnt and experiences that can be shared to inform policy and implementation; and -draw some conclusions that might help stakeholders to review their existing arrangements and provide inspiration for further improvement. Focusing on EU funding and financing, different instruments are available in order to provide financial support to the rail sector in achieving a sustainable, smart and inclusive growth and ensuring EU global competitiveness: -Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) -European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), including notably: oCohesion Fund (CF) oEuropean Regional Development Fund (ERDF) -European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) -Horizon 2020 Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) CEF general goals The Connecting Europe Facility is an EU funding instrument for strategic investment in transport, energy and telecom infrastructure with a total financial envelope of more than EUR 30 billion under the current CEF programming period 2014-2020. The CEF funds rely on a general CEF envelope, available to all Member States, and a cohesion envelope for eligible Member States funded with CF resources. This programme is implemented through grants and financial instruments. Grants represent the vast majority of allocated funds, with an indicative envelope of EUR 28.8 billion for the three pillars (transport, energy and telecom). The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) manages CEF grants, as well as part of the programme support actions (PSAs). CEF financial instruments are managed with the European Investment Bank (EIB) to which they provide risk-bearing capacity for eligible investments. In some cases, CEF grants and financial instruments can be associated under the same project. CEF for transport In the transport sector, the CEF implements the TEN-T, supports investments in cross-border connections and missing links and promotes sustainability and digitalisation. It supports studies (including pilot deployment activities) and building works for new transport infrastructure or for rehabilitating and upgrading existing infrastructure. The transport sector is the major beneficiary of CEF funding for the current programming period 2014-2020, with a grant budget alone of EUR 23.7 billion, including EUR 11.3 billion reserved for Member States eligible for cohesion funding. Funding is mainly directed to actions on the TEN-T core network and actions linked to horizontal priorities, such as the deployment of ERTMS in rail (notably covered under the Blending Facility). As noted above, CEF support can also be delivered through the CEF Debt Instrument, which de-risks specific EIB investments in the sector. As of April 2020, EUR 21 billion were already allocated to actions in the transport sector, i.e. 84% of total CEF allocated funds so far. Of this, EUR 11.1 billion (53%) came from the CEF general envelope and EUR 10 billion (47%) from the cohesion envelope. CEF for rail A predominant part of the CEF funding for transport (69%) has been allocated to railway actions, as shown by Table 5 . Table 5: Allocation of CEF transport funds to railway actions (April 2020)

CEF transport mode Number of projects Actual funding (EUR bn) % funding Rail 323 14.7 69% - of which cohesion envelope 99 7.9 54% - of which general envelope 224 6.7 46% Road 181 2.0 10% Maritime 148 1.6 7% Air 74 1.6 7% Inland waterways 65 1.3 6% Other 3 0.0 0% Grand Total 794 21.2 100% Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). Table 6 shows how the majority of CEF funds allocated to rail (97.8%) aimed at removing bottlenecks bridging missing links and enhancing rail interoperability, in particular on the core network corridors and for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The table presents data following the three funding objectives of the CEF regulation. Table 6: Allocation of CEF funds to railway actions per funding objective (April 2020) Number of projects Actual contribution (EUR bn) % funding Funding objective 1 - Removing bottlenecks, bridging missing

links, enhancing rail interoperability 241 14.4 97.8% European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) 58 1.0 6.5% Pre-identified projects on the core network corridors 116 12.4 84.2% Pre-identified projects on the other sections of the core network 15 0.7 4.8% Projects on the core and comprehensive networks 26 0.2 1.5% Projects to connect with neighbouring countries 1 0.0 0.0% Rail interoperability 25 0.1 0.8% Funding objective 2 - Sustainable and efficient transport systems 33 0.1 0.6% Freight transport services 9 0.0 0.2% New technologies and innovation 7 0.0 0.1% Rail freight noise 17 0.1 0.4% Funding objective 3 - integration, interconnection

and interoperability of transport modes 49 0.2 1.6% Better accessibility to transport infrastructure for disabled persons 1 0.0 0.0% Multimodal logistics platforms 22 0.1 0.6% Nodes of the core network 26 0.1 1.0% Grand total 323 14.7 100.0% Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). If we look at the allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions by Member State, we see that Poland is the major beneficiary of CEF funds for rail (19% of total allocated funds). Looking in details at CEF funds under the cohesion envelope, which represent 54% of total allocated funds, Poland is by far the major beneficiary, followed by Czechia and Hungary. From the general envelope, Germany, Italy and France are the major beneficiaries ( Table 7 ). Table 7: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per envelope and per Member State (April 2020) Country General envelope Cohesion envelope TOTAL Number of projects Actual funding

(EUR m) % funding from general envelope Number of projects Actual funding (EUR m) % funding from cohesion envelope Actual funding (EUR m) % funding AT 20 753.1 11.18% 753.1 5.13% BE 26 111.4 1.65% 111.4 0.76% BG 3 0.1 0.00% 4 352.3 4.44% 352.4 2.40% CZ 4 38.4 0.57% 32 857.9 10.80% 896.3 6.11% DE 51 1 730.1 25.69% 1 730.1 11.79% DK 6 719.5 10.68% 719.5 4.90% EE 2 1.0 0.01% 3 177.3 2.23% 178.3 1.21% EEIG 8 17.4 0.26% 17.4 0.12% EL 5 4.8 0.07% 6 506.5 6.38% 511.3 3.48% ES 44 557.5 8.28% 557.5 3.80% FI 5 27.3 0.40% 27.3 0.19% FR 49 847.6 12.59% 847.6 5.78% HR 3 0.7 0.01% 4 261.4 3.29% 262.1 1.79% HU 0.00% 10 840.5 10.59% 840.5 5.73% IE 3 11.6 0.17% 11.6 0.08% IT 27 1 202.6 17.86% 1 202.6 8.20% LT 0.00% 4 310.7 3.91% 310.7 2.12% LU 6 28.0 0.42% 28.0 0.19% LV 2 1.1 0.02% 3 270.4 3.41% 271.5 1.85% NL 22 157.3 2.34% 157.3 1.07% PL 10 66.2 0.98% 19 2 722.1 34.28% 2 788.3 19.00% PT 7 130.1 1.93% 4 467.9 5.89% 598.1 4.08% RO 0.00% 6 798.7 10.06% 798.7 5.44% SE 13 150.2 2.23% 150.2 1.02% SI 6 110.8 1.65% 5 167.4 2.11% 278.2 1.90% SK 4 0.8 0.01% 10 207.3 2.61% 208.1 1.42% UK 9 67.1 1.00% 67.1 0.46% TOTAL 335 6 734.8 100.00% 110 7 940.5 100.00% 14 675.3 100.00% 45.89% 54.11% 100.00% Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). Looking at the allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per Member State and per funding objective ( Figure 18 ), we see that the majority of funding goes to Poland, Germany and Italy, in particular for Funding Objective 1. Figure 18: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per Member State and per funding objective (April 2020) Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). European structural and investment funds (ESIFs) Over half of EU funding is channelled through the five European structural and investment funds (ESIFs). Most of the support provided under the ESIFs is channelled through grants. Under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, cohesion policy focused on 11 thematic objectives, sustainable transport and network infrastructure being one of them. The Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) were the main sources of funding for this thematic objective. Both the CF and the ERDF are managed together by the Member States and the Commission through partnership agreements (whereas part of the CF is directly channelled through CEF, as noted above). Overall 26% of CF and ERDF funding for transport was allocated to rail-related projects (EUR 18.6 billion out of EUR 70.7 billion). The detail of rail allocation is provided in Table 8 .

Table 8: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes (May 2020) Cohesion Fund

(EUR million) European Regional Development Fund

(EUR million) Total

(EUR million) Railways (TEN-T Core) 5 658 2 655 8 312 Railways (TEN-T comprehensive) 3 670 483 4 153 Other railways 1 709 2 296 4 006 Mobile rail assets 1 359 797 2 156 TOTAL 18 627 Source: DG REGIO. Looking at the distribution of allocated funds per Member States ( Table 9 ), we see that Poland has been the major beneficiary, followed by Czechia. Table 9: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes per Member State (EUR million, May 2020) Railways

(TEN-T Core) Railways

(TEN-T comprehensive) Other

railways Mobile

rail assets Total of which:

from CF of which:

from ERDF BE 3.19 3.19 3.19 BG 538.00 538.00 538.00 CZ 212.41 926.21 277.44 286.28 1 702.34 1 702.34 DE EE 29.81 29.81 32.49 92.12 92.12 ES 1 471.65 10.41 209.39 1 691.45 1 691.45 FR GR 434.70 42.60 8.00 485.30 281.25 204.05 HR 390.00 50.00 50.21 490.21 490.21 HU 480.00 230.00 170.00 300.00 1 180.00 1 140.00 40.00 IT 636.75 205.04 509.53 176.97 1 528.29 1 528.29 LT 244.14 62.27 306.41 244.14 62.27 LV 404.89 22.54 2.50 429.93 429.93 PL 1 184.14 2 260.64 2 452.47 939.04 6 836.31 5 009.70 1 826.61 PT 207.00 239.00 86.78 532.78 446.00 86.78 RO 1 253.49 29.12 6.53 183.71 1 472.86 1 118.28 354.58 SE 17.97 5.25 6.69 29.91 29.91 SI 198.00 198.00 158.00 40.00 SK 605.84 121.72 72.23 210.00 1 009.79 745.84 263.95 TC 3.60 6.36 30.18 1.50 41.64 41.64 UK 23.89 25.82 8.61 58.31 58.31 Total 8 312.39 4 152.59 4 005.53 2 156.32 18 626.83 12 395.80 6 231.03 Source: DG REGIO. Figure 19 shows the rate of CF and ERDF funding per line kilometre allocated to each Member State, with Poland being allocated more funding per line kilometre than any other Member State. Figure 19: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-km (EUR thousand per line-km, May 2020) Source: INEA, DG REGIO and Statistical pocketbook 2020. European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) Established in July 2015 as one of the three pillars of the Investment Plan for Europe, EFSI was jointly launched by the European Commission and the EIB Group (European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund - EIF) to help overcome the investment gap in the EU and foster economic growth, employment and competitiveness after the global economic and financial crisis. EFSI thereby aims to mobilise private investment in projects that are strategically important for the EU, including rail. EFSI initially consisted in a EUR 21 billion programme (EUR 16 billion portfolio guarantee from the EU budget and a 5 EUR billion capital contribution from the EIB) expected to leverage up to EUR 315 billion in investments by mid-2018. Given the success of the programme, its investment period was extended until end-2020, with an additional EUR 10 billion portfolio guarantee from the EU budget, an additional 2.5 EUR billion capital contribution from EIB and a raised target in terms of investments to mobilise up to EUR 500 billion. Table 10 shows the total investment mobilised under EFSI and the total EIB financing benefiting from the EFSI coverage (for approved operations). Table 10: EFSI financing – Approved operations until December 2019 Investment mobilised

by EFSI

(EUR million) Investment covered by EFSI guarantee

(EUR million) Total EFSI (EIB + EIF) 458.0 84.2 Total EFSI EIB 329.0 75.4 EFSI objective: Development of transport infrastructures,

and equipment and innovative technologies for transport 36.2 11.3 Rail 5.1 1.6 - out of which rolling stock 5.0 1.5 Source: EIB. Horizon 2020 – Shift2Rail Horizon 2020 (H2020) is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness. Funding opportunities under H2020 are set out in multiannual work programmes, prepared by the European Commission within the framework provided by the H2020 legislation and through a strategic programming process integrating EU policy objectives in the priority setting.

Under H2020, the ‘Transport Challenge’ is allocated a budget of EUR 6 339 million for the period 2014-2020 and will contribute to four key objectives, each supported by specific activities: -resource efficient transport that respects the environment by making aircraft, vehicles and vessels cleaner and quieter to minimise transport systems’ impact on climate and the environment, by developing smart equipment, infrastructures and services and by improving transport and mobility in urban areas. -better mobility, less congestion, more safety and security with a substantial reduction of traffic congestion; with a substantial improvement in the mobility of people and freight; by developing new concepts of freight transport and logistics and by reducing accident rates, fatalities and casualties and improving security. -a global leadership for the European transport industry by reinforcing the competitiveness and performance of European transport manufacturing industries and related services including logistic processes and retaining areas of European leadership (e.g. such as aeronautics). -socio-economic and behavioural research and forward looking activities for policy-making. The aim is to support improved policy-making, which is necessary to promote innovation and meet the challenges raised by transport and the societal needs related to it. The rail research and innovation is not done under traditional work programmes in H2020 but by the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (S2R JU), established by Council Regulation (EU) No 642/2014. S2R JU fosters the introduction of better trains to the market (quieter, more comfortable, more dependable, etc.), which operate on an innovative rail network infrastructure reliably from the first day of service introduction, at a lower life-cycle cost, with more capacity to cope with growing passenger and freight mobility demand. All this is developed by European companies, thereby increasing their competitiveness in the global marketplace. S2R JU also aims to support modal shift by making rail more attractive to users. For passengers, this focuses on more travel options, more comfort and improved punctuality. For freight forwarders/shippers, rail freight should offer a more cost-effective, punctual and traceable shipment option. The maximum financial contribution of the Union to S2R JU is EUR 450 million, matched by a contribution of EUR 470 million from the industry members. The European Commission is planning to put forward a proposal for a European Partnership on Rail Research and Innovation in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), building upon the current Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, currently called ‘Transforming Europe’s Rail System’. The future Rail European Partnership will focus on accelerating research, development and demonstrations of innovative technologies and operational solutions, enabled by digitalisation and automation. 14.The evolution of rail services Traffic volume indicators of this section expressed in passenger kilometres and tonne kilometres are based on RMMS data as available from 2005 on. This data covers exactly the scope of Directive 2012/34/EU and provides breakdowns of volumes in terms of market segments (passenger/freight, domestic/international, PSO/non-PSO). Eurostat also reports traffic volumes in passenger kilometres and tonne kilometres per country, but figures could show slight differences with those reported in the RMMS due to variations in the scope of reporting, potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments performed in the RMMS (estimates and integration from other sources for missing data). Since data on train kilometres has been reported in the RMMS only after the entry into force of Regulation 2015/1100, figures reported by Eurostat, UIC and IRG-Rail have been combined to acquire a dataset as complete as possible for the years before 2015. Finally, to assess the modal split, which requires combining the data of different modes, only Eurostat data are used. 15.Traffic volumes Rail transports some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight and 7.1 billion passengers every year in the EU27 (1.6 and 8.9 respectively in EU28). Rail transport is critical as it offers a more sustainable transport option, strengthens economic and social cohesion and connects EU citizens, within and between Member States. The present report covers data up to 2018 and therefore does not provide any evidence of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector. While rail, especially freight, continued to run all throughout 2020, the number of international passengers has been severely down during lockdowns, and demand overall reduced by uncertainty and economic downturn. Figure 20 summarises trends in passenger and freight volumes over the period 2005 to 2018.

Figure 20: Passenger and freight volumes (pax-km, tonne-km and train-km, 2005-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. The 2015 and 2016 data for RO are estimates; the data also include adjustments to the 2018 pax-km value for BE, the 2015 and 2016 tonne-km values for ES, NL and LU, and the 2015 and 2016 train-km values for IE. Total train kilometres, which include both passenger and freight train movements, remained for the most part stable between 2009 and 2018, after a significant increase in the period before the 2008 financial and economic crisis. Total passenger services measured in passenger kilometres increased quite smoothly, whereas freight services measured in tonne kilometres increased comparatively more over the same period, albeit with a few ups and downs. On average, passenger traffic in terms of passenger kilometres in Europe increased by 2.5% annually between 2015 and 2018 (CAGR; 2.4% including the UK), as shown by Figure 21 . Freight services in terms of tonne kilometres increased by 4.1% in the same period (3.8% including the UK). Highest increase for passenger services was in Estonia (+13%), whereas Croatia lost 7% annually. In freight services, the highest increase was in Bulgaria (+22%), whereas Luxembourg and Ireland lost 29% annually. Figure 21: Passenger and freight volumes, compound annual growth rate per country (2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. Data adjusted for BE, EE, RO. Rail transport’s focus varies between countries. On average, 80% of all train kilometres run in the EU27 in 2018 were passenger services (82% in EU28). Fi gure 22 shows that the highest share of passenger services is reported for Ireland (97%), Denmark (95%), the United Kingdom (94%), Luxembourg and the Netherlands (both 93%). The highest share of freight services is reported for Latvia (62%), Lithuania (61%) and Slovenia (53%). Based on available data, between 2015 and 2018 passenger services increased by 53 million train kilometres in Romania and decreased by 34 million train kilometres in France. For freight services, in the same period the highest growth was in Poland (+13 million train kilometres) and the largest decline was in the United Kingdom (-4 million train kilometres) and in Latvia (-2 million train kilometres). Figure 22: Relative share of passenger and freight train-km on total train-km per country (% in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020. RO 2015 and 2016 estimated. Figure 23 shows the intensity of use of the rail network for passenger transport measured in million passenger kilometres per line kilometre in 2018 per country, as well as the evolution compared to 2015. Figure 23: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for passenger transport per country (millions of pax-km per line-km in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. BE 2017 and 2018 adjusted. On average, in 2018 the EU27 network was used by 2.02 million passenger kilometres per line kilometre (2.18 for EU28). The Netherlands ha