EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 11.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3029 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning a European rail netw ork for competitive freight 
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
   
{COM(2008) 852 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3028}  
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
 
Proposal for a  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning a European rail netw ork for competitive freight 
   
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
1. 
ORGANISATION AND PLANNING FOR THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
This impact assessment follows up the Co mmunication adopted by the Commission on 18 
October 2007 entitled "Towards a rail network giving priority to freight"1. It was carried out 
together with an external consultant.  
Several consultations were also carried out: fi rstly, in 2006 in support of the Communication 
adopted in October 2007, which wa s favourably received by the s ector and the Parliament and 
the Council; then between Janua ry and June 2008 via a group of experts representing different 
stakeholders affected by this initiative in different Member States; and lastly, in June and July 2008, a public consultation was la unched in accordance with  Commission standards.  
2. 
WHY IS A MEASURE NEEDED TO CREATE A RAIL NETWORK FOR COMPETITIVE 
FREIGHT ? 
The rail network for goods has been experiencing difficulties for more than thirty years for a 
number of reasons: changes in industry, the development of motorways, and new logistic 
requirements on the part of companies. In order to respond to these difficulties, the 
Community has launched an active policy for the revitalisation of rail transport based on 
progressively opening up transport services to competition (effective for all freight since 1 
January 2007) and developing the in teroperability of rail systems. 
The slow progress made with rail freight to date  is due to several fact ors including the slow 
development of competition and interoperability  and the lack of cap acity of good-quality and 
reliable infrastructure allocated to international freight. 
Existing Community legislation, in particular  Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of 
railway infrastructure capacity, contains a number of provisions relating to cooperation 
between national infrastructure managers (IMs) in order to facilitate the international transport 
of goods and the manner in which this type of tra ffic must be dealt with in terms of allocating 
train paths. These provisions seem inade quate as they are not specific enough.  
                                                 
1 COM (2007) 608 
EN 3   EN The most sensitive questions which therefore aris e with regard to the infrastructure capacity 
for rail freight, and in particular internationa l freight, are a lack of cooperation, both in terms 
of investment and the operational management  of infrastructure, which can lead to 
discontinuation at borders; the l ack of coordination between the ra il infrastructure part and the 
terminals in general (at ports, on the ground or at marshalling yards); the need for greater 
transparency of the information provided to infrastructure users; and with regard to operations on mixed-traffic lines and the choice of investment, freight is very often treated less 
favourably in comparison with passenger traffic.  
If no new measure is taken, the difficulties refe rred to above are likely to increase and to 
prevent rail transport from responding appr opriately to the mobility needs of goods. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
The Commission's objective is to improve the serv ice provided by the infr astructure managers 
to international freight operators by extending, increasing and/or adding to existing initiatives in order to create an internati onal rail network for competitive freight made up of corridors.  
The initiative which is assessed in this study meets the growth objectives of the Lisbon 
Agenda and is fully in line with the guidelines set by the Commission in the White Paper on Transport for 2010, and in its mid-term review, published in 2006. It also represents a contribution to the Union's sustainable development objectives.  
Finally, several initiatives contribu te or have contributed to the creation of such corridors: the 
1
st railway package (Directives  2001/14/EC and 2001/12/EC), the TEN-T (trans-European 
transport network) programme, cooperation between  Member States (MS) and IMs within the 
framework of ERTMS, and the deployment of TSI TAF (Technical Specification for 
Interoperability Application of telematics to freight). 
The Commission would like to act in four areas corresponding to the main problems: 
improving coordination between IMs; improving the conditions of access to infrastructure; 
guaranteeing freight trains adequate priority, and improving inter-modality along the 
corridors. 
4. OPTIONS  
In order to develop this netw ork three alternative strategi es have been assessed by the 
Commission within the framework of th e Communication adopted in October 20072: no new 
initiative; creating a network for competitive freight; and creating a network dedicated to 
freight. The Commission has concluded that the creation of network for competitive freight is 
the most appropriate. However its implementati on must not, in the longer term, prevent the 
development of a network dedicated to freight. 
This impact assessment concerns the creation of the network, for which three options have 
been examined: 
                                                 
2 See Impact Assessment – SEC(2007) 1322 
EN 4   EN – Option A (status quo): a reference scenario in the sense that no new measure is undertaken 
and the measures already undertaken (T EN-T programme, policy in favour of 
interoperability) are continued. Measures whic h are scheduled (in pa rticular the recasting 
of the 1st railway package and the implementation of  the strategy on internalising external 
costs) but not yet started have not  been taken into account, however; 
– Option B (policy initiatives): extend the ERTMS initiative to include other corridors; 
disseminate best practices; syst ematically verify the application of existing legislation 
(concerning international cooperation and the introduction of performance schemes, in 
particular); encouraging the MS and IMs to  cooperate more and to create corridors 
voluntarily; 
– Option C (legislative reinforcement): propose a dditions to existing legislation involving 
cooperation between MS and IMs over at least one corridor pe r MS before 2013; in this 
corridor the freight would have sufficient prio rity and competition between operators will 
be facilitated; this additional legislat ion will apply to a network of corridors. 
5. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF  THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
The Commission has opted for an assessment of  the impact in Corridors A (Rotterdam-
Genoa) and E (Dresden-Budapest), which are co mplementary in geogra phical terms (oriented 
North-South/East-West; situated in different areas of the Union) in terms of outlets 
(maritime/land; dense/non-dense areas), in terms of actual traffic (intensity of traffic; division 
of traffic between passengers and freight/between international and internal freight) and in 
terms of the past experience of cooperation between the different national stakeholders3. 
The results obtained for thes e two corridors have been extrapolated from the ERIM4 network 
which links the sections most used to carry freight (this network covers 20% of all the 
European lines, on which 56% of all the tonne-kilometres are carried). 
For each corridor, initially the operational impact  has been assessed, followed by the societal 
impact using the Transtools model, on the basi s of general hypotheses and results regarding 
the operational impact5.  
To progress from assessing operational impact to assessing societal impact, the results 
obtained at the operational level have been tran slated, for each corridor, into "change factors" 
for costs and the commercial speed of the rail  freight on the one hand, and the commercial 
speed of passenger rail transpor t on the other hand. These "change" factors have then been 
integrated into the data require d in order to use Transtools. 
6. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CORRIDORS A AND E  
In terms of quality, the main be nefit of Option B is that it would allow great flexibility in 
terms of defining and implementing the measures  necessary for making the desired progress. 
                                                 
3 See the main data relating to the ERTMS corridors in Annex 7. 
4 ERIM is a project which has been piloted by the International Railway Union. See the map of the ERIM 
network in Annex 8. 
5 In the annexes, the impact on an operational level is called micro-level impact and that on a societal 
level is called macro-level impact. 
EN 5   EN In this context, the IMs and MS could better adapt their acti ons to meet their specific 
requirements. On the other hand, Option B poses  very high risks as regards the effective 
implementation of the planned measures and as  regards the heterogeneity of the different 
corridors, both in technical and organisational terms and in terms of the pace of progress. 
For its part, Option C would represent a more ri gid framework, but its benefits would include 
greater visibility of freight ope rators regarding change in the corridors, better-coordinated 
creation of the freight network, and a real change in terms of managing the mix of traffic 
using the infrastructure. 
7. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS  
The quantitative analysis of the impact indica tes progress regarding the reduction in waiting 
time at borders or terminals, unit costs of rail transport of goods which are more sensitive with 
Option C than with Option B, both for Corridor  A and Corridor E. The administrative costs 
incurred through increased coopera tion between IMs would in part be offset by gains in terms 
of administrative costs for rail companies.  
Overall, the monetised operational and societal  impacts give the following results for the 
whole of the ERIM network (the  figures in the table express the change in comparison to 
Option A in millions of euros): 
OPTION B  OPTION C
 Cost(s)/benefits  
NPV (M €)  NPV (M €)  
Investments to extend sidings  -3,219.6 -3,219.6 
Reduction in costs of rail freight  2,409.9 2,409.9 
Technical harmonisation of 
the infrastructure 
 
 Reduction in waiting times at the borders  4,941.4 6,532.7 
Additional capacity for freight trains  - 1,209.3 
Reduction in times (schedul ed and unscheduled) for freight - 854.2 
Reduction in times (scheduled and unscheduled) for 
passengers  - -473.8 
Rules for allocating train 
paths and managing traffic 
 
 
 Increase in tolls for rail freight  - -263 
Investments to extend transfer tracks  -322 -322 
Reduction in the cost of assembling trains  221.9 221.9 
Reduction in transfer times  1,160.3 1,160.3 
Terminals 
 
Reduction in waiting time  - 3,770.9 
Administrative costs  Additional administrative costs  5.9 -0.8 
Total updated net value at the 
operational level (without 
additional capacity)   5,197.8 10,670.7 
EN 6   EN OPTION B  OPTION C
 Cost(s)/benefits  
NPV (M €)  NPV (M €)  
Total updated net value at the 
operational level (with 
additional capacity)    11,880 
Economic impact  Reduction in the cost of transport  3,806.9 5,604.3 
External costs avoided  58,050.5 86,567.3 
Environmental impact  
Congestion costs avoided  303,912.3 455,298.9 
Total updated net value at the 
societal level (without 
additional capacity)   61,857.4 92,171.6 
Total updated net value at the 
societal level (with additional 
capacity)   365,769.7 547,470.5 
8. SENSITIVITY AND RISKS  
Option A, which is more positive in terms of technical harmonisation and the management of 
terminals, has been chosen for the sensitivity an alysis at operational le vel. The latter shows 
that Option C, even if the reference scenario is more optimistic, would still have a largely 
positive impact. 
As regards analysing the impact at a societal level, the sensitivity of the results to variations in 
the costs of the transport of goods by road (due to a stronger increase in the price of diesel, 
greater internalisation of external costs or the putting into service of heavier and longer 
vehicles) has been tested. This test shows that Option A is the most sensitive to variations in 
the costs of road transport and Option C the l east sensitive. On the other hand, the sensitivity 
of the three options to the intr oduction of more voluminous and h eavier road vehicles is equal. 
The main threat to the effective implementation of Option B is the absence of guarantee of 
results in some areas of involvement for whic h obligations appear al most inescapable (this 
concerns in particular areas relati ng to giving priority to freight); 
For Option C, the main risk is that the ambitio ns of the different stakeholders are too limited 
or unequal; the other major risk li es in the "political sensitivity" of giving priority to freight 
and potentially handling passenger transport in a slightly less favourable manner than it is 
currently handled. 
9. SUMMARY OF CRITERIA - OPTION CHOSEN  
The table below is a multi-crite ria assessment of how each option meets the various specific 
and general objectives. 
  OPTION A 
Status quo  OPTION B 
Political 
initiatives  OPTION C 
Legislative 
initiative  
EN 7   EN   OPTION A 
Status quo  OPTION B 
Political 
initiatives  OPTION C 
Legislative 
initiative  
Improving coordination between 
infrastructure managers  + + ++ 
Improving the conditions of access to 
infrastructure  0 0 + 
Guaranteeing freight trains adequate 
priority  -- - + SPECIFIC 
OBJECTIVES  
Improving inter-modality along the 
corridors  + + ++ 
Economic impact  0 + ++ 
Environmental impact  - + + GENERAL 
OBJECTIVES  
Social impact  0 0 - 
Legend:  ++: very positive impact; +: positive impact; 0:  no significant impact; -: negative impact; -- : 
very negative impact.  
In terms of the results obtained at an operationa l level, the impact of options B and C appears 
to be positive, even very positive, in terms of both quantity and quality. However, they each have a different impact. To the extent that Option B constitutes a voluntary approach, the risks relating to its implementation seem more signi ficant that those for Option C. Moreover, the 
provisions relating to priority being given to freight and to the terminals provided for in 
Option C produce more benefits (they make a significant contribution to the NVP difference 
between the two options - €5.1 billion for Option B as opposed  to €10.6 billion for Option C 
on the ERIM network), although there is a great ri sk that they will not be implemented within 
the framework of Option B. 
In terms of the results obtained at a societal le vel, the impact also turns out to be positive. 
Furthermore, Option C has a general societal impact which is more positive than Option B. 
This is particularly true for Corridor E, in which Option B would have an almost negligible 
societal impact whilst Opti on C would have an NVP in the region of € 5.5 billion.  
It could be considered that the results obta ined in quantitative terms are sufficiently positive 
for Option C to be chosen and that, consequently, legislative action be started at Community 
level, which is also confirmed by the different consultations ca rried out within the framework 
of this study. 
Finally, it is important to state that public cons ultation has revealed that there is widespread 
support for the Commission's proposals in respect of  Options B and C. For a large majority of 
the areas of involvement
6, 80% or more of the respondents co nsider that these proposals will 
have a positive or slightly positive impact. The proposals c oncerning the terminals are 
particularly well received. The existing governa nce structures have been deemed to be 
inadequate by 69% of the respondents. They  must be improved. The proposals concerning 
                                                 
6 91% of respondents believe that the proposed involvement will have a positive impact (or slightly 
positive for more than 75% of respondents). 
EN 8   EN more favourable allocation rules for freight, would also, in accordance with the opinions 
expressed, have a positive or sl ightly positive impact, accordi ng to more than 80% of those 
who expressed an opinion.  
In view of these factors, the Commission has chosen Option C as a priority. Elements of 
Option B can be implemented in order to prepare, monitor and, where necessary, create and support a legislative initiative.  
In terms of selecting corridors and governance  of the network for competitive freight, the 
approach whereby the MS propose the creation of corridors, and this is validated by the 
Commission in accordance with pre-established cr iteria, seems the most balanced. Indeed, it 
should allow sufficient control over the deve lopment of the network at Community level, 
whilst retaining high political feasibility. It will also ensure consistency between the network 
for competitive freight and the networks for th e TEN-T programme (network TEN-T, priority 
projects, ERTMS corridors) to ensure the read ability of the Community policy in terms of 
European railway infrastructure and to allow the development of the European rail network 
for competitive freight to prof it from Community financial support within the framework of 
this programme. 
10. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission will present a proposal for a re gulation concerning the creation of a network 
for competitive freight (Option C) before the end of 2008. This legislative instrument is favoured over a directive as it  allows provisions and oblig ations to be addressed to 
stakeholders in the sector and to the Member States, can be implemented more rapidly than a 
directive which must be transposed into nati onal law, and it ensures a homogeneousness of 
the measures implemented on both sides of the bo rders. It will suppleme nt political initiatives 
to make progress with the file as  quickly as possible and to pr epare the implementation of this 
regulation.  
The approach chosen is to develop internatio nal corridors. The Community impact will be 
assessed by monitoring the creati on of these corridors and thei r content on the one hand, and 
by monitoring the quality and capacity of the in ternational rail freight services on the other 
hand. The impact on the rationalisation of invest ment, the relationship between operators and 
infrastructure managers, the management of  operational problems and the transport of 
passengers in these corridors will be examined in particular. 
To ensure that this monitoring is carried out the Commi ssion proposes the creation of a group 
of infrastructure managers. It will also propose calling upon a Committee to validate the 
guidelines for the corridors and the consistency of the different corridors.