EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels,8.11.2017 SWD(2017) 361 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services



FINAL REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services {COM(2017) 647 final}



{SWD(2017) 360 final}



5.2. 5.2. Effectiveness 5.3. 5.3. Effic iency 5.4. 5.4. Coherence 5.5. 5.5. EU added value 6. 6. Conclusions Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation or Fitness Check. Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation or Fitness Check. Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Evaluation questions Annex 3: Evaluation qu estions 1.Introduction 1.1.Purpose of the evaluation This evaluation focuses on Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 (the Regulation) laying down common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 . The Regulation establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within the EU by carriers for hire or reward. It was adopted as a part of a legislative package together with Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market . Together, these three regulations regulate the conditions for accessing the profession and for accessing the markets of transport of goods and people by road. They aimed to achieve this by harmonising rules and simplifying the legal framework in place. The purpose of the ex-post evaluation is to provide the Commission with an assessment of the implementation of the Regulation and its effects over the period 2009 to 2015. The evaluation assesses to what extent the Regulation has contributed to reaching its objectives to create an internal market, fair competition and modal shifts. It assess whether the provisions foreseen by the Regulation were fit for purpose and still are in view of the changing market situation. The aim is to have a view of the achievements, of the potential issues and of possible improvements/recommendations. The results of the evaluation may either contribute to improving implementation of the Regulation or be used as an input for possible future policy development, including for an impact assessment study. 1.2.Scope of the evaluation The evaluation covers the 5 standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. It covers the time period of 2009 (entry into force of the Regulation) to 2015. It has the same geographical scope as the Regulation, which is the whole of the EU. The provision in the Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 561/2006 in relation to driving times and rest hours (Article 29) are excluded from the evaluation. That provision was introduced to encourage tourism and promote the use of environmentally friendly means of transport which are not linked to market access and access to the profession.

2. Background to the Regulations 2.1.Description of the initiative and objectives The freedom to provide services is a basic principle of the common transport policy and requires that carriers from all EU countries have access to international transport markets without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment. The Regulation establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within the EU by carriers for hire or reward. In the 1990’s the internal market for bus and coach services was created by two separate pieces of legislation, namely Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus and Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State . It replaced national legislation (often restricting services) and bilateral agreements between the Member States. In 2006, the Commission concluded that the lack of clarity or complexity of the existing provisions rendered enforcement difficult and unnecessary administrative burdens were identified in the following areas: –The scope of application of the Regulation was unclear as regards passenger transport by Community carriers to and from third countries and transiting Member States. –A company wanting to enter the market was faced with barriers such as an application for an authorisation when operating a new international line which required the agreement of other Member States affected by the service. The procedure was perceived, especially by the industry, as creating high barriers for new entrants and unnecessary burdens. –The exchange of information between Member States was rather ineffective. Undertakings which operated on the territory of a Member State other than the Member State of establishment hardly risked any administrative sanctions, as a result of which competition was distorted between these undertakings less inclined to comply with rules and the others. –The diversity of formats used for Community licences and certified true copies created problems during inspections and often led to a loss of valuable time for operators and enforcement staff. In addition to the problem of unnecessary administrative burden, the problems of no single market for bus and coach services, discrimination by Member State authorities of non-national provides and the sub-optimal mix of transport modes for the transport of passengers also existed. The Regulation was proposed to revise and consolidate the existing Regulations on the access to the market of coach and bus services and address the problems listed above. Error! Reference source not found. , illustrates the links and causal relationships between the root causes, problem drivers, problems, general objectives, specific objectives, operational objectives and input/output. The intervention logic of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 is provided below. 2.1.1.Freedom to provide services The rules regarding the freedom to provide services remained in substance largely unchanged. The Regulation provides carriers for hire and reward with the freedom to provide regular services, including special regular services and occasional services by coach and bus, without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment if he:

·is authorised in the EU country of establishment to undertake carriage by means of regular services in accordance with the market access conditions in national law; ·fulfils the conditions within the EU rules on admission to the occupation of road passenger transport operator in national and international transport operations; and ·meets the legal requirements relating to EU standards for drivers and vehicles. 2.1.2. Community Licence The Regulation simplified and standardised the Community licence. It provided more detailed specifications for the format of the Community licence and certified true copies of the Community licence in order to reduce the administrative burden and to reduce problems during inspections that often led to losses of valuable time for operators and enforcement staff. Community licences were harmonised and international carriage shall be carried out subject to the possession of a Community licence issued by a competent authority in a Member State. The Community licences shall be issued for renewable periods of up to 10 years and is non-transferable. Every two years, Member States must report to the Commission the number of carriers possessing Community licences and the number of certified true copies corresponding to the vehicles in circulation. EU countries may also decide that the Community licence is valid for national transport operations. 2.1.3.Authorisation procedure for regular services The Regulation introduced a simpler and faster authorisation procedure for regular services. An authorisation is issued in agreement with the competent authorities of all Member States in whose territories passengers are picked up or set down. Applications for authorisation of international regular services are submitted to an authorising authority. The authorisations are issued in the name of the carrier for a period of up to five years and are non-transferable. However, an authorised carrier, with the consent of the competent authority of the EU country where the point of departure is located, may operate the service through a subcontractor. The new authorising procedure eliminated the special protection granted by Regulation (EC) No 684/92 to railways and existing regular services. The basic principal of the new authorising procedure is that the authorisation is granted unless there are clearly specified grounds for refusal attributable to the applicant. Only one ground for refusal relating to the relevant market remains, namely that the service applied for would seriously affect the viability of a comparable service operated under a public service obligation on the direct sections concerned. Transit countries, i.e. Member States which are not affected by the service because no passengers are picked up or set down, are not heard anymore, but are informed once the service has been authorised. As part of the new authorisation procedure Member States were required to establish criteria on a non-discriminatory basis, for determining whether a service applied for would seriously affect the viability of the comparable service. It also enables Member States, with the agreement of the Commission and having given 6 months’ notice to the carrier, to suspend or withdraw an authorisation to run a service If the procedure for reaching an agreement does not enable the authorising authority to decide on an application, the matter may be referred to the Commission. The Commission shall take a decision after having consulted the Member States involved. The authorisation must specify the type of service, the route, the stops and timetable, and the period of validity, and entitle their holder to operate regular services in the territories of all EU countries over which the routes of the service pass. Except in the case of force majeure, the operator of a regular service must take all measures to guarantee a transport service that fulfils the standards of continuity, regularity and capacity and complies with the conditions laid down by the competent authority. 2.1.4.Rules applicable to cabotage operations The Regulation defines cabotage operations as either national road passenger services for hire and reward carried out on a temporary basis by a carrier in a host Member State, or the picking up and setting down of passengers within the same Member State, in the course of a regular service. The rules on the performance of cabotage operations remained in substance largely unchanged. Non-resident carriers are permitted to operate national road passenger services, but the extent of permitted cabotage operations is dependent on the type of service. For regular services the performance of cabotage is permitted provided it is part of a regular international service, excluding urban and suburban services, and subject to the legislation in force in the host Member State. 2.1.5.Enforcement and cooperation between Member States In order to strengthen and facilitate the exchange of information between national authorities Member States became obliged by the Regulation to exchange information via the national contact points which were set up pursuant to the Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 on the admission to the occupation of road transport operator. These national contact points are designated administrative bodies or authorities in charge of carrying out the information exchange with their counter parts in the other Member States. In the event of a serious infringement of EU road transport legislation, the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment of the carrier concerned must take appropriate action, which may include a warning or the imposition of administrative penalties. If a non-resident carrier seriously infringes EU road transport legislation, the EU country in which the infringement is ascertained will send the competent authorities of the carrier’s EU country of establishment a description of the infringement, the category, type and seriousness of the infringement, and the penalties imposed. All serious infringements must be recorded in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings.

In addition, the Regulation clarifies the sanctions that the Member State may impose on the carriers established within its territory, namely the withdrawal (temporary or permanent) of certified true copies of the Community licence or of the Community licence. The Regulation introduces a new procedure to be followed by the Member State which ascertains an infringement committed by a non-resident carrier. The Member State has 6 weeks from the final decision to communicate the information according to a minimum standard format. It may ask the Member State of establishment to impose administrative sanctions and the Member State of establishment of the carrier concerned has 6 weeks from the final decision to inform the other Member State of the follow-up. 2.1.6.Other modifications The reporting obligations for Member States were increased and combined into one article. Member States were provided with the liberty to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements on the further liberalisation of the services covered by this Regulation, in particular as regards the authorisation system and the simplification or abolition of control documents, especially in border regions. For regulatory purposes international coach and bus services in the EU are categorised into different types as illustrated in Table 1 below. Table 1: Categories of coach services used in the Regulation Type Definition Market and typical examples Special regular services Services which provide for the carriage of passengers at specified intervals along specified routes, passengers being picked up and set down at predetermined stopping points, by whomsoever organised, which provide for the carriage of specified categories of passengers to the exclusion of other passengers. Regular, scheduled service not open to all passengers, such as: ·School services serving only those attending a school. ·Staff services serving only those working at a location. Regular services All other services which provide for the carriage of passengers at specified intervals along specified routes, passengers being picked up and set down at predetermined stopping points. Regular, scheduled service open to all passengers. Occasional services All other services, the main characteristic of which is the carriage of groups of passengers constituted on the initiative of the customer or the carrier himself. Multi-day visit or tour requested by a customer or offered by a carrier. Excursion or day trip requested by a customer or offered by a carrier. Local excursion or day trip offered to those already on a multi-day visit or tour. 2.2.Baseline During the baseline period of 2009 to 2011 Directive 96/26/EC together with Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 as amended by Regulation (EC) 11/98, and Regulation (EC) No 12/98 formed the major regulatory basis for the internal market for international passenger transport services by road. In comparison to rail and air transport sectors, there was little European legislation applying to the coach and bus sector. This resulted in significant differences in the regulatory environment within which the coach and bus sector operated in different Member States. A Study of passenger transport by coach in 2009 reported that the variation in regulation was particularly significant for national regular services and varied from: ·Liberalisation, as in the UK, with no restrictions on operation of new services and therefore there can be on-road competition between operators. ·A concession system, as in Spain, where operators bid for the right to operate individual routes, but there is no 'on-road' competition. ·Other forms of licensing restrictions, as in Greece. ·Prohibition on operations, as in Germany, where regular national coach services are (with some exceptions) not permitted. In 2009, 2 years before the application of the Regulation, the bus and coach sector accounted for a significant proportion, some 8.8%, of overall surface passenger transport within the EU . However, these high level statistics for the bus and coach sector at the European level do not accurately describe the types of coach and bus services within the scope of this Regulation. In Europe most available statistics on bus and coach passenger transport are defined or categorised differently by Member States. The statistics often cover all types of bus and coach services (e.g. urban, school buses, hop on hop off tours, etc.) and may include both national and international services. The performance of the sector in terms of vehicle-kilometres and passenger-kilometres are estimated and reported differently, and mutually inconsistent, ways by different Member States. 2.2.1.Freedom to provide services The legal acts enabled carriers to provide international transport services between Member States without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment, provided that they are authorised in the State of establishment to undertake carriage by coach and bus; meet the conditions laid down in accordance with rules on admission to the occupation of road passenger transport operator; and meet the legal requirements on road safety as far as the standards for drivers and vehicles are concerned. 2.2.2.Community licences The Community licence facilitates inspections made outside the State of establishment. It acts as proof that the carrier is authorised in the State of establishment to undertake international carriage by coach and bus, and that the undertaking in question meets the conditions of access to the profession of road passenger transport operator.

The number of Community licences can be seen as a measure of the number of operators wishing to operate international services. The number of Community licences for road passenger transport in the EU-27 at the end of the baseline period in 2011 was 34,959 (the Regulation entered into force on 4 December 2011). The distribution of community licences across Member States is illustrated below in Figure 3 . A certified true copy of the Community licence is issued for each vehicle used for the international carriage of passengers at the disposal of the holder of a Community licence. The numbers of certified true copies of the Community licence can be seen as a measure of the number of coaches potentially operating international services. The number of certified true copies of Community licences in the EU-27 in 2011 was 260,683. At the same time, the stock of registered buses and coaches in the EU was 817,600. There were an estimated 39,185 enterprises operating bus and coach services in both national and international markets (not including urban or suburban services) involved in employing some 518,300 people with a reported turnover of EUR 33,884 million . The lack of uniformity of certified true copies of Community licences creates problems for carriers during roadside checks especially regarding the authenticity of the control document and this often leads to considerable loss of time for both operators and enforcement authorities. 2.2.3.Authorisation procedure for regular services The authorisation procedure for international regular passenger services established in Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 provided for authorisations to be issued with the consent of the competent authorities of Member States affected by the service. The authorisation procedure laid down for regular international services constitutes an important exception to the general principle of opening up the transport market. In all passenger or goods transport sectors, whether by road, rail, sea or air, the European Community has endeavoured to develop an increasingly liberalised market, while also maintaining high standards of services and safety. Member States on whose territory passengers are picked up or set down could reject an application for one of six specified grounds. These grounds for rejection, and most notably the grounds aimed at protecting incumbents and rail, enabled the competent authorities of Member States to intervene in the market by effectively blocking market entry by a new operator. The authorising process was time-consuming despite the fact that Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 provided for a decision to be taken by the authorising authority within four months. The authorising procedure was cumbersome, especially when transit countries had to be heard, and was perceived, especially by the industry, as creating high barriers for new entrants and unnecessary red tape. 2.2.4.Rules applicable to cabotage operations Coach operators holding a Community licence were permitted to temporarily operate services within other Member States without having to be established in that State. The Regulation did not define “temporarily” and in practice left the definition to each Member State. This resulted in inconsistent interpretations across Member States. Operators reported that the lack of cabotage as part of an international regular service was partly because a number of Member States had in practice banned all cabotage operations. Even if this was not the case, cabotage could only be operated on a temporary basis, so cabotage was impossible to operate as part of international regular services which were usually operated on fixed timetables over long periods. The rules also provided a safeguard measure that in the event of any serious disturbance of the internal market caused by or aggravated by cabotage, the Member State concerned could refer the matter to the Commission for consideration but this has never happened. The 2009 study reported there were almost no regular cabotage services as most Member States did not allow cabotage operations in order to protect rail operators, to protect domestic coach operators or because of concerns about the lack of oversight of international operators. The impact of cabotage on national markets was very small with cabotage operations being carried out mainly in adjacent Member States. For occasional services one of the main reasons why non-resident carriers occupy a small share is that cabotage had to be on a temporary basis. If the carrier wanted to operate effectively in another market it needs to operate services frequently. To do this it needs to establish itself in the Member State. For regular services Member States were able to block the operation of cabotage services through their right to refuse authorisation for the operation of international regular services that cross their territory. However, even if Member States did not block the service, cabotage services were limited as they could only be operated on a “temporary” basis whilst international regular services usually operate over long periods. 2.2.5.Enforcement and cooperation between Member States Regulation 684/92 provided for the mutual assistance by Member States. This included exchange of information on breaches of Community rules applicable to the international carriage of passengers and on penalties imposed on own carriers in respect of breaches committed in the territory of another Member State. However cooperation between Member States never fully developed and many contributions received during the public consultation exercise pointed out the need for applying correctly the existing rules and having them enforced properly. The main problem was that infringements committed by operators outside their Member State of establishment were only in isolated cases reported by Member States where the infringement took place as required by Article 16 of Regulation 684/92 and very rarely resulted in a sanction imposed by the Member State of establishment of the carrier. The failure to exchange information and report infringements was prejudicial to road safety and fair competition as operators had fewer incentives to correctly comply with the rules.

2.2.6.Modal Split In terms of the modal split of total land-based passenger transport, in 2011 car journeys were by far the dominant mode accounting for 73% of all internal EU‑28 pkm (passenger kilometres). Between 2000 and 2011, there was a strong shift from buses and railways to cars. The modal share of bus and coach in 2011 was 8.2% of total passenger transport with a 9.2% modal share of passenger transport on land. 2.2.7.Terminals Terminals are used to assemble and disperse passengers as well as acting as a location to change coach and to change mode. Terminals are of greater importance for regular coach services than for special regular services of occasional coach services. Special regular services are generally based around the school or workplace concerned and occasional services ae usually specified by the procurer of the service. The 2009 study reported that regular service operators had indicated that access to terminals was a significant issue for the operation of international regular services to/from other Member States. For example in Poland, where practically all the terminals were owned and managed by the dominant bus operator, there were complaints of discriminatory treatment of operators. In two specific cases (Germany and Greece) the availability of terminal infrastructure was not a problem due to the overarching legislation preventing access to the market for national regular services. 3.Methodology 3.1.Data sources 3.1.1.Baseline The main sources used to define the baseline in this evaluation are the underlying Impact Assessment and the Study of Passenger Transport by Coach 2009. 3.1.2.Fact Finding Studies The ex-post evaluation builds on the findings of the "Comprehensive study on passenger transport by coach in Europe" (the study), prepared by Steer Davies Gleave for the European Commission in 2016. The study provides a thorough review and analysis of the European coach industry, including national long and medium distance regular services, international regular services, special regular services and occasional transport. It establishes a comprehensive and comparative overview of the current situation of the coach industry in the EU through an analysis of trends and possible future developments in respect of key EU priorities: efficient mobility, co-modality, fair competition and social aspects. It builds on the work and findings of the "Study on passenger transport by coach in Europe" prepared by Steer Davies Gleave for the European Commission in 2009. It focuses on the relevant regulatory framework –including both legislative and administrative practices – of all 28 Member States, including key elements on the structure and operation of the sector and the provided services in each of the Member States. It provides information on the coach transport sector, its characteristics, its segmentation, its needs and the challenges it faces in the current economic, legal and social environment. Ten case studies were carried out as part of the study. The eight Member States (Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and UK) previously investigated as part of the 2009 study were included to enable investigation of the key changes in their respective markets during the intervening period. In addition, the markets in France and Lithuania were investigated to ensure the widest possible range of experience. The case studies demonstrate how alternative market models have influenced the level and quality of service provided as well as the choice available to passengers. The case studies are supplemented by a qualitative assessment of the impact of the regulatory and competitive environment on the development of coach services together with an assessment of how far the level of competition observed in different Member States and on major international routes can be explained by the market models and regulatory framework and anti-competitive behaviour. The consultation process engaged all the identified stakeholder groups and overall 45% of those approached during the fact finding study replied. The approach to stakeholder engagement in the study involved telephone interviews using questionnaires covering all 28 Member States in order to understand the issues, identify the relevant stakeholders, identify experts, collect data and find sources of information. This was followed by the detailed case studies, which built on the information obtained in the previous stage through face-to-face interviews with a number of stakeholders in each of the selected countries in order to obtain more specific and detailed information.

3.1.3.Open public consultation This ex-post evaluation is performed back-to-back with an impact assessment and is covered by a single common open public consultation. The open public consultation was carried out by the Commission between the 14 December 2016 and 15 March 2017. The open public consultation was open to everyone and it comprised of two questionnaires, one for the general public published in all 24 official EU languages and a more specialised one for key stakeholders available in English. The open public consultation provided the general public and stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views on all elements relevant to the functioning of the internal market in road passenger transport and asked for feedback on the initial problems identified during the ex-post evaluation and the main elements of the impact assessment, i.e. the problem definition including respective drivers and root causes, the objectives of the initiatives, the issue of subsidiarity and the EU dimension to the problem, the policy options and their likely impacts. A total of 18 complete or partial responses were received for the general questionnaire, mostly from citizens/consumers and companies, as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Classification of stakeholders responding to the questionnaire - general Stakeholder category Number of responses Percentage of responses A company 7 39% A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 2 11% A road passenger transport worker (e.g. driver) 0 0% A citizen/consumer 8 44% An academic 0 0% Other 1 6% Total 18 100% A total of 153 complete or partial responses were received for the specialised questionnaire, mostly from companies engaged in the transport chain and non-governmental authorities. A breakdown of respondents is provided in the Table 3 below. Table 3: Classification of stakeholders responding to the questionnaire - specialised Stakeholder category Number of responses Percentage of responses Company engaged in transport chain 68 44% EU Governmental authority 3 2% A non-governmental authority (e.g. NGO) 28 18% Regulatory authority (e.g. national transport regulator, national competition authority) 7 5% Enforcement authority 3 2% A road passenger transport worker (e.g. driver) 17 11% A citizen/consumer 1 1% An academic 1 1% Other 25 16% Total 153 100% The outcome of the open public consultation carried out by DG MOVE is the main source of qualitative data and complements the statistical data gathered in the fact finding study. 3.1.4.Infringements and complaints A review of infringements and complaints regarding the Regulation was conducted. The aim of the review was to collect information on the problems with the application, interpretation and enforcement of the Regulation and to identify why these difficulties may have arisen. The information was used to assess the effectiveness and impact of the Regulation whilst answering the evaluation questions. 3.1.5.Information from Member States The reports submitted by Member States in accordance with Article 28 of the Regulation provide information on the number of authorisations for regular services issued as the total number of authorisations at the end of the reporting period. The reports also provide information on the number of carriers holding a Community licence and the number of certified true copies corresponding to the number of vehicles in circulation on that date. 3.1.6.Desk research The information gathered within the framework of the study and the open public consultation was complemented by additional desk research. Primarily, the information gathered by desk research was used to verify the evidence from the other data sources, ensuring the robustness of findings and an unbiased approach. This data collection process was also carried out to better understand the underlying problems and to respond to any information gaps whilst addressing the evaluation questions. 3.2.Evaluation methodology The data collected was used to respond to the evaluation questions. All the analytical findings constitute the basis for the assessment on how the Regulation has scored on the five defined evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. The evaluation process was assisted by a Steering Group composed of the representatives of DG CLIMA, DG EMPL, DG ENV and DG GROW as well as the Legal Service and the Secretariat General. DG COMP was also consulted.

The Steering Group steered and monitored the progress of the exercise, ensuring the necessary quality, impartiality and usefulness of the evaluation. Being composed of members from different functions and having the necessary mix of knowledge and experience, the Steering Group brought together a range of different perspectives and provided the necessary input, in particular where the evaluation touched different policy areas. 3.3.Limitations – robustness of quantitative findings The evaluation was limited in the delivery of robust quantitative findings due to the lack of available and comparable statistical data on the coach and bus sector in different Member States, and the difficulty to disentangle the impact of the economic and financial crisis and the impact of national measures. The scope, quality and availability of data vary widely across Member States. There are inconsistencies across Member States in the definition of services (regular, international regular, special regular and occasional) and the distinction between bus (usually urban) and coach services (usually interurban). Vehicle-kilometres and passenger-kilometres are reported in different and mutually inconsistent ways by different Member States. The statistics available at the European and Member State levels frequently refer to all bus and coach services together. While some statistics are available at an aggregate level (and usually conflate both bus and coach operations) there are few statistics available for sub-sections of the market, e.g. medium or long distance coach services. The quality and availability of data and statistics pertaining to aspects of the Regulation is often limited. Although the information required to be reported under Article 28(1) & (2) of the Regulation is clear, the start and finish dates of the reporting period are not provided and no deadline for the submission of the report is mentioned. This has resulted in inconsistent reporting periods being used and reported by Member States. Even if good and reliable data were available on the number of passengers and the amount of passenger-kilometres concerning cabotage operations, there are few statistics available for sub-sections of the market (e.g. medium or long distance coach services) to put the cabotage data into context. In general, individual Members States use a variety of different methods to collect data and operate under different assumptions. The data is often not comparable or it may not reflect the real situation as it is based on permissions (Community licences and authorisations for regular services) granted rather than either services operated in the present or the extent to which the services are used. To address this limitation the available data was examined to determine the extent to which it could be used. It was reviewed for inconsistent or implausible values and educated estimates were made where deemed possible. In the course of the fact finding study the consultants were requested to disaggregate the heterogeneous Member State data, which includes all bus and coach service, to the extent possible and to use extrapolation where appropriate. Between 2008 and 2012 the impact of the economic and financial crisis was evident in passenger transport demand and traffic volumes during this period dropped significantly in many countries. The impact of the crisis on the coach and bus market masks the full effects of the Regulation. For this reason, the evaluation compares percentage share and growth rates of different modes rather than absolute values. The international market for coach and bus services is strongly affected by the national markets. Liberalisation of national markets for bus and coach services may have a greater impact on the number of international services than pan-European legislation alone. It is not possible to eliminate the effect of national markets on the international market. For this reason it was decided to ask stakeholders during the study to provide a qualitative assessment of the effects of the Regulation on the international market for bus and coach services. 4.market context and development and state of play 4.1.Market context and development The international market for coach and bus services, although small compared to national markets, plays an important role. Indeed it provides collective transport which, as a sustainable alternative to private cars, can contribute to reducing emissions from transport and to improving accessibility to isolated and low population density regions. Occasional service have been liberalised while regular services are still subject to an authorisation procedure prompted by concerns over safety and protection of passengers’ rights. The data available does not allow an accurate estimate of the overall market size. Nevertheless, the study estimated that international coach passenger numbers grew by 40-60% and international coach passenger-kilometres grew by between 0-40%, between 2009 and 2014. These estimates suggest that the average international coach trip is getting shorter. The study indicates that there has been consistent growth in the market since 2010. The data available does not allow an accurate estimate of the overall market size, but it can be estimated to be several tens of millions of passengers per year travelling, on average several hundred kilometres each. This stronger growth in international markets relative to the overall market suggests that operators have responded to opportunities provided by international liberalisation. In 2013, 2 years after the application of the Regulation, the bus and coach sector was 8.1% of passenger transport and 9.2% of surface passenger transport within the EU . Although the sectors share of the surface passenger transport market has grown by 0.4% since 2009 these high level statistics do not accurately describe the types of coach and bus services within the scope of this Regulation and due to the limitations described in section 4.3. it is not possible to use them to determine the size and trends of the international market for coach and bus services. The number of enterprises operating bus and coach services in both national and international markets (not including urban or suburban services) grew by 11% since 2011 to 43,352 in 2013. Over the same period turnover grew by 4.0% EUR 35,234 million and employment decreased by 4.0% to 497,800 employees. In the study employment levels are estimated at 570,000 in 2008 decreasing to 550,000 in 2014 with a margin of error of ±10%. Although the time periods are different it is notable that both sources of employment information show decreasing employment levels and the trends remained stable for the periods with no visible change after the 4 December 2011 when the Regulation became applicable. This decline in employment may conceal a mixture of growing volumes and increasing productivity. 4.2.State of play The Regulation lays down the rules for the authorisation of regular services. The Regulation also contains rules on cabotage operations, enforcement and penalties for infringements of its provisions, as well as rules covering administrative cooperation between Member States. The Regulation has applied since the 4 December 2011 and the state of implementation of these provisions is analysed below.

4.2.1.Community licences and authorisations for regular services The Regulation introduces a more harmonised and standardised Community licence and certified true copy of Community licence in order to address the problems regarding the authenticity of these documents. At the end of 2014 there were a total of 35,659 carriers possessing Community licences in the EU-28 and 294,425 certified true copies in circulation. There were a total of 2,412 valid authorisations in the EU at the end of 2014. Member States typically issue Community licences for periods of 5 years or 10 years. The total number of Community licences in the EU was on a slow upward trend between 2010 and 2014 with the amount of licences increasing by 3%. Over the same period the total number of certified true copies of Community licences increased by 15%. Overall, no relevant problems were raised by stakeholders in relation to the Community licences. No issues have been identified with respect to the harmonised control documents, the implementation of which was meant to make it easier (and therefore quicker) to check licenses of non-resident carriers. However, with no comprehensive data on the number of cross-border services, or on the origin and destination of passengers using them, the study found that it is not possible to estimate the likely value of travel time savings. The trend in the numbers of Community licences and certified true copies between 2010 and 2014 indicates that most of the growth has come from expansion and/or consolidation of operators, rather than an increase in the number of operators and that the sector has remained relatively stable in the face of recession and an indication of the responsiveness and flexibility of commercially focused operators across the EU. The evidence suggests consistent growth in the international market since 2010 and against a backdrop of recession and slow recovery this indicates that international market liberalisation has supported the development of competitive and responsive international coach services. The study found evidence of market entry and competition following the introduction of the Regulation (e.g. Flixbus rapid expansion into multiple markets along international corridors), although this is largely anecdotal and insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship. Reports from Member States, submitted in accordance with Article 28(2) of the Regulation, indicate significant growth in the number of authorisations issued and the number of valid authorisations. In 2013 Member States reported issuing 493 authorisations with 1331 valid at the end of the year. In 2014 the number of authorisations issued increased to 904 with 2412 authorisations valid at year end. No relevant problems were raised by stakeholders in relation to the authorisation procedure for regular services. The study found that a number of stakeholders referred to delays with the application process but none provided evidence of a negative impact of these delays e.g. to either coaches or staff being kept idle and wholly unproductive. 4.2.2.Rules applicable to cabotage operations The Regulation defines cabotage operations as either national road passenger services for hire and reward carried out on a temporary basis by a carrier in a host Member State, or the picking up and setting down of passengers within the same Member State, in the course of a regular international service. There have been very few (24) cabotage operations reported on regular international services in 2014. There has only been one report of cabotage during a special regular service and only a few reports of cabotage during occasional services. No relevant problems were raised by stakeholders in relation to the rules applicable to cabotage operations. However, the report did indicate that national regulatory frameworks may impact on the approval of cabotage operations. For example, in 2013 the French competition authority (Autorité de la concurrence) argued that the system for authorising cabotage in France was inefficient and lacked transparency and, given that the French state is also the main shareholder of SNCF, proposed an independent regulator for the coach sector. 4.2.3.Enforcement and cooperation between Member States Consistent information on the enforcement effort by Member States of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Regulation was very difficult to gather, only 15 Member States answered to the requests for this information within the study. Reporting required under the Regulation does not require Member States to provide information on enforcement operations or to collect and submit statistics on controls or penalties. The provisions on mutual assistance of the Regulation require Member States to grant reciprocal assistance in the application and monitoring of the Regulation, and to exchange information via the national contact points. No evidence was found to indicate that the enhanced legal provisions obliging Member States to act when requested to do so by another Member State when a carrier to whom it delivered a Community licence commits an infringement in another country is being applied in any Member State. 4.2.4.Other effects of the Regulation Some stakeholders voiced concerns over the potential for operators to use vehicles that carry less than nine persons, including the driver, in order to avoid the application of the Regulation and the other legal acts concerning road passenger transport. However there is very little data to support or refute claims of the use of smaller vehicles.

The study indicates that a critical factor to the provision of new international services can be more general national liberalisation in one or more of the Member states involved. Once national markets reach a "critical mass", the barriers to operating international services are relatively small and it appears that national liberalisation has generated considerable new activity within the European coach sector. Coach operators and representative associations have called for further market opening in long distance collective land transport in EU Member States. Member States have adopted a number of approaches to how national markets, where they exist, are regulated, categorised and monitored. In different Member States, coach and bus service may variously be liberalised, a national responsibility, or a regional responsibility with varying degrees of liberalisation in different regions or urban areas. There is a general trend toward liberalisation of national markets across the EU. Members States that have recently lifted restrictions on access to the market for national regular services have witnessed significant growth in the demand for interurban bus and coach services. In Germany, since liberalisation on 1st January 2013, the demand for interurban bus and coach services has continued to expand. The number of passengers almost doubled in 2014 to 16 million, i.e. 12 million (+80%) national and 4 million (+160%) international. In Italy, after approximately one year of full liberalisation, services had grown by 38%. More recently, in February 2016, France has reported that in the first six months of its liberalisation of interurban services 1,300 direct jobs were created and about 1,500,000 passengers were transported throughout France. The regulatory frameworks for national coach services vary widely between Member States. The regulatory frameworks also vary within Member States that have a regional, provincial or county level of government where there is often a subdivision of responsibility between national and other authorities. The frameworks can vary between regions, within regions between municipalities, and within municipalities between coach terminals or even between bus stops. Emerging evidence from Germany and France suggests that the demand for coach and bus services, especially regular services, has led to growth in passenger numbers both from new users and through mode shift. This has resulted in increased price competition and product differentiation. However, it has also revealed a shortage of terminal capacity in certain Member States such as Germany where stakeholders have reported that the rapid growth of services since liberalisation has exposed a shortage of capacity at existing terminals. Limited capacity was also revealed in Sweden and the UK where main terminals were found to be congested which limits the scope for new entry. Finally, the study revealed a barrier to entry based on the issue of access to terminals. Discriminatory access to terminals is reported by the study in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Croatia and the UK. In some cases an operator may be denied access to a terminal owned or controlled by an operator of coach or rail services with which it may compete. This distorts the market for regular services as the denial of access to terminals interferes with service patterns and prevents coach and bus services from functioning effectively and from functioning with other modes of collective passenger transport as sustainable alternatives to private car use. 5.Answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Relevance Question 1: To what extent is the opening of the market for the international carriage of passengers and for cabotage operations as introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 necessary and sufficient to address the pre-existing problems of fragmented internal market, discrimination, unnecessary administrative burden, and sub-optimal mix of passenger transport modes? The assessment of relevance analyses the objectives of the Regulation and how well they still match current needs and problems. It also identifies if there is any mismatch in the relationship between the problems and the objectives of the intervention. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1. In the EU separate national markets still exist for bus and coach services and the type of services which have been liberalised and the extent of liberalisation vary widely between Member States. Cabotage is a special category of national operations and is explicitly provided for in TFEU Article 91(1)(b) as one of the elements to be laid down in order to implement a common transport policy. The objective is to create a liberalised road transport market by removing all restrictions that are based on the nationality of carriers or the fact that they are established in a different Member State to the one in which they are providing the service. Cabotage operations are defined in Article 2(7) and the conditions for performing cabotage operations for each form of service are prescribed in Chapter V of the Regulation. The targeting of Chapter V of the Regulation on Cabotage means that the provisions are focused on the issue of cabotage and thus can be considered appropriate in that sense. The provision of passenger cabotage operations on international regular services is authorised as long as it is performed as part of an international service and does not meet the needs of an urban centre or conurbation, and the transport needs between it and the surrounding areas are not authorised cabotage operations. The Regulation provides Member States the flexibility to satisfy specific market demand. It permits bilateral and multilateral agreements on the further liberalisation of and in particular as regards the authorisation system and the simplification or abolition of control documents, especially in border regions. There is one example, from 2003, of Member States using this possibility to further open the market. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden signed an agreement abolishing the requirement for the journey form when performing occasional service in the Nordic countries. Stakeholders from these Member States have reported that the abolition of the journey form has reduced the administrative burden without causing any additional problems. Discrimination of non–national providers By abolishing most of the grounds for refusal relating to the relevant market (with the exception that the service would seriously affect the viability of a comparable public service obligation) and replacing them with grounds for refusal attributable to the applicant, the Regulation tried to address the problem of discrimination for the international carriage of passengers. The risk of indirect discrimination was addressed through the standardisation and harmonisation of control documents. This aimed to make enforcement quicker when dealing with non-national coaches by simplifying the work of enforcement bodies. It removed doubt about the validity or authenticity of documents which leads to efficiency gains for operators and enforcement bodies. The establishment of the conditions for performing cabotage operations enabled non-resident carriers to operate national road passenger services. However, as described in section 4.2.2., the cabotage penetration rate, which means the share of cabotage transport in total national transport of a country, has remained significantly low and does not appear to have increased as expected due to the implementation of the Regulation. Member States often still require establishment in their markets, even after liberalisation, and incumbent operators still benefit from direct restrictions on access to national markets for regular services. Taken together, the problem of discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment remains relevant but the objective has not fully addressed the problem. Unnecessary Administrative Burden The opening of the market has reduced the administrative burden associated with the authorisation procedure. The Regulation has made the authorisation regime more transparent and effectively reduced the regulatory costs for operators and authorising authorities. The study estimates that the standardised authorisation procedure may have reduced the operators’ workload of completing applications to authorising authorities by the equivalent of between three and twenty-one full time equivalent members of staff. Furthermore, the Regulation simplified and standardised the Community licence as described in section 4.2.1 in order to reduce regulatory costs and delays, especially at road side checks. The disruption to coach operators and their passengers from inspections should be less, with potential for both journey time and reliability improvements. Due to the lack of comprehensive data on the number of international services it is not possible to estimate the likely value of travel savings. However, there is evidence that administrative costs incurred by operators can be material and that administrative processes can delay entry. The requirements for authorisation of international services vary significantly by Member State and operators would welcome simpler and more efficient mechanisms for authorising new services. It is clear that there remains a need to address the problem of unnecessary administrative burden.

Sub-optimal mix of Transport Modes The performance of coach and bus services has remained unsatisfactory. The objective of promoting bus and coach transport as a sustainable alternative to individual car transport was developed to encourage a modal shift from passenger car to coach services and therefore address the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes. Although there are some indications of a growth in the use of bus and coach services for international journeys the inter-urban coach and bus sector as a whole has failed to grow at a rate comparable to that of other transport modes the mix has not significantly changed. Encouraging a modal shift from car to coach is a challenging objective and appears to have been over ambitious. From a passenger’s perspective, travel by car is more flexible and convenient (since travel times are not constrained by a published schedule) and typically faster (since a car driver can select the quickest route and does not need to make intermediate stops) so changing modes would require a considerable behavioural change. Furthermore, the results of a Eurobarometer survey confirms that persuading citizens who never use coach services to consider doing so is a considerable challenge. One fifth (20%) of those who never travel by coach actually say that no change to any aspect of coach travel would make them more likely to use coach services. The objective taken in addressing the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes appears not to sufficiently address the needs of citizens. Whilst it is important to acknowledge that there is a sub-optimal mix of transport modes it is suggested that the main problem is that citizens with little or no access to cars or other transport modes, those that live in disadvantaged regions and those with reduced mobility all suffer from poor connectivity. A revised objective should be matched to the needs of these citizens who are deprived of connectivity. This should result in new services supplementing existing bus and rail networks and offering an attractive combination of alternative modes. It is suggested that a revised objective would be more relevant to address the needs of citizens without cars or who have little or no access to other transport modes so that they have an attractive combination of alternative modes of transport and therefore improving their access to employment, education and leisure opportunities across the EU. Additional problems During the course of the evaluation an additional problem was identified that is not being addressed by the Regulation. As described in section 4.2.4, carriers are being discriminated by terminal operators and do not have equal access to terminal infrastructure. The study indicates that Stakeholders in a number of Member States have complained of potential, or actual, abuse of dominance to limit access to terminals. In the public consultation 59% (90 of 153) of respondents agreed that this is a problem, with 39% (59 of 153) considering it a major problem. The lack of access to existing terminal infrastructure results in market distortions as they distorts service patterns (of the 39 companies that responded 31 consider it has a negative impact on the number of international and can increase costs for operators and passengers and 30 consider it has a negative impact on national services) and 74% (23 of 31) of companies consider that this results in administrative costs for carriers. Another impact of this problem is insufficient integration of coaches with other transport modes. Conclusion Based on the 2011 White Paper as well as the above analysis, it can be concluded that fragmented internal market for coach and bus services remains a problem today. Whilst there is no evidence of any significant differences in the rules on access to the international market, the persistence of separate national markets impede integration and undermine efficiency by imposing high administrative burdens on coach and bus services. Hence, the objective of opening the market for the international carriage of passengers and for cabotage is still relevant to the problems identified. The different rules on access to national markets in Member States, the requirement for establishment in the Member State and the low number of cabotage operations indicates that the objective to open the market remains relevant to address the problem of non-national providers being discriminated by Member States. The opening of the market remains a relevant objective to reduce the administrative burden that results from what was considered a cumbersome authorisation regime. The objective taken in addressing the problem of sub-optimal mix of transport modes appears not to sufficiently address the needs of citizens. It may be more relevant to enhance the accessibility of coach and bus services to address the needs of citizens without cars or who have little or no access to other transport modes. The provision of attractive alternatives would alter the mix of transport modes and as coaches and buses are the lowest emitter of CO2 it would continue to fit with the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. In summary, the original operational objectives of the Regulation are still relevant to meet the problems of a fragmented internal market, discrimination and unnecessary burden. However objective addressing the sub-optimal mix of transport modes is not sufficiently addressing the needs of citizens and should be revised. The regulation works alongside other legislation as part of an integrated approach (see section 5.4) and their objectives support the EU goals. Unequal access to terminals was identified as a problem that is not addressed by the original objectives. Question 2: Are the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 still relevant considering the evolution of the market, the present transport policy priorities and the successive enlargements of the EU? Transport Policy Priorities The ultimate aim of the EU transport policy remains the creation of a single European transport area, to help the EU stay competitive by optimising the performance of the entire transport sector for the benefit of all. Progress towards opening up the market for road passenger transport services has been slow. The Impact Assessment accompanying the 2011 White Paper on Transport found that the level of integration of the EU transport market remains low in comparison to other parts of the economy and that a genuine EU-wide internal market exists only in air transport, while other transport modes, including road, suffer from different degrees of fragmentation along national borders. It also found that cross-border transport and competition in national markets is hindered by protectionist regulations or attitudes, often defending the interest of incumbents and restricting foreign operators and new market entrants access to national markets. As described in the study, the absence of applicable common EU rules for national regular services has enabled the emergence of different national models and has caused a patchwork of regulatory frameworks and the persistence of a fragmented market. The objective of opening the market and preventing discrimination therefore remains relevant and fits with the deeper and fairer internal market priorities of the Juncker Commission. The 2011 White Paper describes the Commission's vision for a competitive and sustainable transport system and the need for the consolidation of large volumes of passengers over long distances is publicised. This implies greater use of buses and coaches, rail and air transport for passengers i.e. collective transport. Although curbing mobility is not an option there are other policy priorities that must also be considered, e.g. the greenhouse gas emissions of transport are to be reduced by 60% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels and the number of road fatalities is to be halved by 2020 compared with 2010, with a vision of close to zero road fatalities by 2050. The case for greater use of collective transport is reinforced by: the European Energy Union's aim of a sustainable, low-carbon and climate friendly economy that is designed to last; the COP 21 Agreement's aim to peak global emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between man-made emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century; and with the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. The 2011 White Paper and the European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility aim at an efficient core network for multimodal intercity travel and transport. To develop the core network there is a requirement for greater integration of the modal networks. For the integration of bus and coach services into the network these services must have equal and non-discriminatory access to terminals. As mentioned in Section 6.1., the original objectives of the Regulation do not address this problem of discriminatory access to terminals and the lack of integration of coach and bus services into the multi-modal networks may be a constraint on the development of the coach and bus market as well as other forms of collective transport. EU enlargement

Croatia became the 28th Member State on 1 July 2013. This has been the only enlargement of the EU since the entry into force of the Regulation and although its accession led to the growth on the internal market and the introduction of an additional national regulatory framework it has had no discernible impact on the relevance of the objectives of the Regulation. Market developments As mentioned in section 4.2.4, there has been a general trend toward liberalisation of national markets for regular services across the EU. This has resulted in significant growth in demand for national and international interurban coach and bus services e.g. Germany , France , and Italy . However, the study found that the types of service and the extent of liberalisation have continued to vary widely between Member States making it difficult for carriers to exploit the full potential of operating in an Internal Market. The public consultation indicates that stakeholders consider the patchwork has a significant negative impact on administrative costs for carriers, compliance costs for carriers and the number of national regular services. These market developments have resulted in new operators facing barriers to entry. It is difficult to determine the effect of these barriers because their scale and impact vary significantly between markets but the study found clear evidence that the development of services is being unduly constrained in some markets (AT, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HR, IT, SE, SK & UK). The evidence indicates that number and diversity of regulatory frameworks across the EU deters coach operators from providing international services. This is confirmed by the public consultation in which all stakeholder groups agreed that the patchwork has a negative impact on the number of international regular services. The majority of all stakeholders in the public consultation also agreed that the patchwork has a negative impact on administrative and compliance costs. The study found that access terminals can be a barrier to entry. The majority of terminals provide a range of services and onward connectivity making them particularly attractive and important for operators of long-distance coach services. It also found evidence that in some Member States operators suffered from discriminatory access, abuse of dominance, or constrained capacity when accessing terminals. These restrictions distort service patterns and can increase costs. The problems are accentuated in newly liberalised countries (e.g. Germany and France) as a result in the increased demand for coach and bus services. The lack of access to terminals restricts the use of multimodal connection platforms and may impede the development of an efficient core network for intercity travel. This problem prevents the development of multimodal passenger transport chains and may be constraining the coach and bus sector from providing services that would capture modal share from passenger car. One stakeholder in the public consultation commented that it is unclear how to classify commercially viable on-demand services managed through an App or through digital platforms and that innovative services are not able to fit with the present regulatory framework. Conclusion In summary, the original objectives remain relevant as the internal market remains fragmented and there remains a sub-optimal mix of passenger modes but this problem needs to be redefined Although the intervention does not aim at integrating national markets for regular services, the national markets are recognised as a critical factor in the provision of international services and the evolution of the market, in terms of different and divergent rules on access to national markets in Member States, is a problem that was not previously apparent or considered when the intervention was designed. The objectives were not aimed at the problem of discrimination in access to terminals. This introduces administrative and compliance costs for operators and hampers the possibility to develop an efficient core network for multimodal intercity travel. In the Member States where the networks of regular services are restricted citizens may be denied access to affordable services and forced to either curb their mobility or use less efficient (combination of) modes, e.g. passenger cars. This is likely to be negatively impacting on the mobility of EU citizens. The evolution of the market has made visible the transport needs of citizens as is evident from the significant growth in demand witnessed in the recently liberalised Member States but it is not clear how new and innovative services, such as on-demand services managed through an App or digital platform can fit within the present framework. 5.2.Effectiveness Question 3: To what extent has the Regulation led to the establishment of a true internal market for bus and coach services? The establishment of an internal market for coach and bus services involves the removal of barriers to market access and any other technical and administrative barriers that generate bottlenecks. This also often requires the streamlining of national differences which can cause distortions of competition. The assessment of effectiveness analyses how successful the intervention has been in achieving or progressing towards the objective of a true internal market for coach and bus services. Progress towards an Internal Market Progress towards removing all restrictions on access to the internal market for road passenger transport services has remained slower than other modes of passenger transport and also slower than road haulage. The following markets remained closed for bus and coach services: ·national regular services which are not performed as part of a regular international service; ·urban services; ·suburban services. Since the Regulation became applicable in 2011, the reports, submitted in accordance with Article 28(1), from Member States indicate a relatively slow upward trend in the number of carriers holding a Community licence for road passenger transport, from 34,959 in 2011 to 35,077 in 2014. Romania is the Member State that reported the largest increase to the number of Community licences held between 2010 and 2014 (700 licences) which reflects the trend in coach demand which increased by 16% over this period. It is also notable that during this period Romania also opened its national market for coach and bus services based on the principles of non-discriminatory and free competition. The increase in the numbers of certified true copies of Community licence held in the EU-28 of 11.4% between 2011 and 2014 suggest that growth has come from expansion and/or consolidation of operators, rather than an increase in the number of operators. However, as a number of Member States phased out national licences and replaced them with Community licences, and as the licences are in practice permissions granted rather than services operated, caution should be exercised whilst drawing conclusions from these statistics.

The study found evidence of substantial annual growth (2009-2014) in international passenger numbers in a certain Member States, notably Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland. The available data on international coach passenger-kilometres echo the trends in number of passengers with growth in Poland and Estonia being similarly strong. This evidence taken together indicates that the market for international coach and bus services has expanded between 2009 and 2014 with market entry and competition following the introduction of the Regulation. However, it has proved difficult to find evidence that directly links increase in activity to the introduction of the Regulation and some of the evidence is largely anecdotal and insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship as described in section 4.2.1. The available data indicates that opening the market has had little impact on the cabotage penetration rate whether for regular, special regular or occasional services. However, as described in section 4.2.2., this low number may be due to the manner in which cabotage operations are monitored. On the other hand, during the study operators reported that there is an administrative barrier associated with regular services cabotage operations as the operator is often required to prove that a cabotage operation is not the principle purpose of the service. There is conclusive evidence that the liberalisation of national markets in combination with the liberalisation of international services created a favourable environment for the expansion of coach services at national and international level. The opening of national markets for regular services in countries such as Italy, Germany and France that followed the liberalisation of international services triggered the expansion of some transport operators and enhanced the provision of new international services. It appears that once a national market for regular service is established, operators may choose to exploit their national position through offering services to neighbouring countries. The study indicates that for example following the liberalisation of the German coach market in 2013, start-up FlixBus expanded rapidly within the German market, most notably through merging with competing start-up MeinFernbus. In addition to operating international routes to Denmark, Sweden and Belgium from Germany, the company has begun a programme of internationalisation through entry into other national markets. Since July 2015, FlixBus has entered the Italian, French and Dutch markets and expanded its international route network to serve these countries. Of particular note is its introduction of international services which do not have an origin, destination or intermediate stop within Germany. The Regulation is likely to have enabled FlixBus’s rapid expansion into multiple national markets along international corridors. Barriers to the internal market The evidence presented in the study suggests that some barriers to the internal market still exist. Operators have reported that the administrative barriers to operating international regular services remain high and the authorisation procedure causes a bottleneck as there is a lack of clarity and diverging interpretations concerning the authorising procedure and some Member States unnecessarily delay authorisations by the maximum period permitted. They also reported that the administrative barriers for cabotage operations remain high with unnecessary burdens on these types of services due to Member States requesting operators to provide further information which they deem relevant in support of the application for authorisation. There is some evidence in the study indicating that this burden is often linked to national requirements and these national burdens may mask the scale of benefits delivered by the Regulation. Whilst the evidence indicates that international coach services have expanded since the entry into force of the Regulation with stronger growth in international markets relative to the overall market and an increase in cross-border competition there are a number of reasons (e.g. accession of Croatia, national liberalisation, operator expansion and consolidation and the effects of European Regulation) that make it difficult to apportion the growth between these various factors. The evidence presented in the study suggests that the patchwork of national regulatory frameworks presents an administrative barrier to the operation of international services and the range of access arrangements deters national coach operators from providing international services. The flexibility for Member States to organise the conditions for national transport services has resulted in separate national markets which is contrary to the establishment of a true internal market. This patchwork disproportionately affects SMEs which have limited resources with which to develop EU-wide business strategies. SME's may act in partnerships, groups or alliances if it enables them to offer a more effective network. Member States may organise the conditions under which these transport services can be provided in their jurisdiction and this has resulted in the patchwork of regulatory frameworks. As operators require establishment in a Member State in order to provide international services these patchworks create differences between Member States and divergent implementation of the provisions of the Regulation. This results in an administrative barrier that negatively impacts on the extent to which the regulation has opened. In the public consultation companies reported that the requirement to be established has significant negative impacts in terms of administrative costs (81%; 29 of 36) and compliance costs (53%; 18 of 34) but the extent of the impact is unclear. Most Member States require operators of national regular services to be locally established creating an administrative and technical barrier. Although the Regulation provides the possibility for Member States to decide that the Community licence is also valid for national services and removes this administrative barrier there is no evidence that Member States have availed of this provision. The study maintains that international coach operators may face barriers at national, regional and local levels through lack of suitable facilities or either compulsory use of, lack of capacity at, or difficulties in obtaining access to, suitable terminals. Conclusion Without doubt, the elimination of the special protection provided to incumbent road passenger transport operators and railways in Regulation 684/92 has opened the international market to cross-border competition and progressed towards the establishment of a true internal market for bus and coach services. The available data broadly indicates that market opening has resulted in growth in the number of operators, numbers of passengers and the number of services; however it is difficult to determine the exact growth that can be attributed to the Regulation in isolation. The authorisation procedure became more transparent and it now favours operators as there are fewer possibilities for refusal of applications for services. The patchwork of national regulatory frameworks undermines competition and hinders the development international services and of a true internal market and also introduces administrative costs but the extent of the impact is unclear. The requirement for local establishment acts as an administrative and technical barrier. Market opening has had little impact on cabotage operations and the market penetration for all types of bus and coach services appears to have remained persistently low although with the caveat that the data is not considered very robust. Member States have not availed of the opportunity for further liberalisation provided for in the Regulation. Although the Regulation has resulted in further progression towards, it has not lead to a true internal market for bus and coach services and the study provides clear evidence that the development of services is being constrained in some markets, including the international market, by barriers. The persistence of these barriers is contrary to the establishment of a true internal market. Question 4: To what extent has the intervention enhanced fair competition including non-discriminatory access to all the markets covered by the provisions of the Regulation? The Regulation aimed at enhancing fair competition including the prevention of discrimination. Promotion of fair competition The Regulation aims at promoting fair competition which implies an open market and a level-playing field in order to provide carriers with equal conditions for operating. This requires that carriers from all Member States be guaranteed access to international transport markets without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment. Fair competition is a key principle to achieve the benefits of liberalisation such as the provision of choice and value for money for consumers whilst supporting quality, productivity, efficiency and innovation in the road passenger transport sector.

Access to markets There is some evidence of negative impacts of the intervention on competition. In the context of the ex-post evaluation there have been a number of complaints included in submissions from operator representative bodies and operators about persistent anti-competitive practices. One large European operator representative body maintains that the patchwork of national regulatory systems across the EU enables operators in protected markets to remain insulated from competitive forces introducing the risk that they use profits to develop business on markets which are open to competition, (e.g. international regular services), and this also introduces the risk of dumping. Furthermore, there is no reciprocity of opening of markets across Member States which causes imbalances between Member States and continued fragmentation of the internal market. For instance, carriers may remain protected against competition on their historic market and can use the profit to develop business on markets which are open to competition leading to unfair competition between carriers. In similar fashion, a carrier operating in a host Member State is permitted to pick up and set down passengers in that Member State in the course of a regular international service provided that this is not the principal purpose of the service. In contrast, a carrier established in that same Member State may be refused permission to operate a line on the same route. Accordingly, national carriers do not have a level playing field with carriers from another Member State. Operator representative bodies and some operators also claim that national carriers do not have a level playing field with carriers established in other Member States whilst both are operating international regular services. National carriers may be prohibited from picking up and setting down passengers on a line in their country of establishment (even if this part of the service is part of an international regular service) whilst a carrier from another Member State may be authorised to operate this service. The Regulation prescribes the conditions to pick up and set down passengers within a Member State but Article 15(c), on cabotage, explicitly gives this right to operators not established in the host Member State. Carriers operating within their Member State of establishment cannot invoke this provision to provide such services. Whilst this is not incompatible with EU law operators have reported that these circumstances create an unlevel playing field. On the other hand a large pan-European operator reported that the regulation has caused important positive outcomes and that the enhanced fair competition and has resulted in lowered prices, improved quality, increased standards and delivered a better overall product to the market. Furthermore it believes that it has fostered employment and economic growth. The study also identified limited evidence that market liberalisation placed competitive pressure on the evolution and dynamics of coach fares. Access to Terminals The study indicates that carriers may be denied access to terminals in certain Member States (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, France, Croatia, & the United Kingdom). The public consultation indicates that discrimination in access to terminals is a problem with 59% (90 of 153) stakeholders agreeing including the majority of all stakeholder groups. Terminals are vital links in the mobility chain and essential infrastructure required to consolidate large volumes of passengers for transfers over medium to long distances. The refusal of terminal operators to provide access to coach operators limits capacity in the market, denies competitors access to the market and distorts service patterns. While coaches are discriminated from accessing terminals they cannot integrate effectively into the door-to-door mobility chain. Notably, denying coach and buses access to multi-modal terminals significantly reduces the possibility to create and efficient core network for multimodal intercity travel and the potential for optimising the performance of all resource-efficient collective modes of transport. Examples of discriminatory access to terminals include France where the only suitable terminal space in many towns and cities is the railway station operated by SNCF, which may refuse access to potential competitors. A further example is Croatia where many terminals are operator owned and they may deny access to potential competitors. The study also suggests that terminals can be a barrier to entry where no discrimination or abuse exists but capacity is constrained. This is the case in Stockholm (Cityterminalen), London (Victoria Coach Station) as they suffer from congestion. It is also the case in Germany where there has been widespread lack of terminal capacity since liberalisation. Complaints about unfair competition and discriminatory practices The Commission has not received complaints about unfair competition or discriminatory practices for regular services or occasional services since the implementation of the Regulation. However the Commission received one complaint about discriminatory practice on a special regular service. The complaint focused on the interpretation of the temporary character of the provision of these services. However this had previously been clarified by the Commission "The expression 'on a temporary basis', contained in Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 is not relevant for the authorised cabotage operations mentioned under (a) and (c). In practice, it concerns only occasional services mentioned under (b) to be performed 'on a temporary basis', which is necessarily the case, given the nature of the latter services. In this limited part of the market (occasional services), the legislator decided to leave to the Member state the definition of what they consider to be 'services carried out on a temporary basis' ." Prior to the implementation of the Regulation the Commission had to act as arbitrator in the authorising procedure for regular services on several occasions . Since its implementation there has been no referral of an application to the Commission by an authorising authority. The absence of referrals implies a positive impact of the intervention and there appears to be an increase in the authorising authority ability to make a decision on applications due to the improved clarity and the abolishment of some of the grounds for refusal. Conclusion In summary, the available evidence indicates that the Regulation is partially effective and that it has had a mixed impact on enhancing fair competition. The market remains fragmented causing imbalances between Member States and unfair competition between operators. Also, there is evidence that operators are denied access to and are discriminated from accessing terminals causing problems in areas such as service patterns, interchanging to other coach and bus services, transfers to other collective modes of transport, and accessibility for persons with reduced mobility. Question 5: Has market opening of bus and coach services contributed to a shift from other passenger transport modes (individual car transport, rail transport and aviation) and hence led to an increase in the use of bus and coach services? In case a shift took place, is it in line with overarching EU transport policy goals? The Regulation aimed at promoting bus and coach transport as a sustainable alternative to individual car use. The ideal situation, as incorporated in overarching EU transport policy, is for bus and coach services to operate in competition with individual car and complementary to other forms of collective transport modes such as rail and airlines. General trends in passenger transport As indicated in Section 3.3 and in the study, the limitations in high level statistics mean it is not possible to determine the size and trends of the international market for coach and bus services. Between 2009 and 2014 individual car transport decreased by 2.1%. The decrease mainly affected EU-15 countries, with a total decrease of 3.1%, whereas car transport in the EU-13 grew by 4.6%. Notably there are considerable differences between countries during this period. The demand for individual car transport increased significantly in some countries e.g. Poland 16.6% and Bulgaria 10.9%. This strong growth could be due to the much lower levels of car ownership and use compared to the EU-15 at the start of this period. On the other hand, it decreased significantly in others e.g. Italy 16.8%, Czech Republic 10.6% and Spain 9.7% which may be a result of the economic downturn. Analysis of the other relevant forms of passenger transport reveals increases in demand. Rail passenger transport volumes grew by 5.1%. Whilst growth was significant in the EU-15 at 6.7% the EU-13 recorded a similarly significant decrease in demand of 7.4%. Air passenger transport volumes increased by 11%. However, it should be noted that traffic volumes in 2009 had fallen to record lows with a decrease of 6.9%.

Modal Shares in passenger transportation The role and competitive traits of coach or bus services have not been studied as intensively as other modes of transport. The study found that the provision of coach services, and their relative success, generally depends on the characteristics of competing modes including car, rail and air. The factors considered by passengers when deciding on which mode to choose are usually distance, travel time, frequency, price and purpose of journey. Competition between modes is particularly relevant for distances between 300 km and 700 km, as it seems to be the only segment for which coach and bus services compete with car, trains (conventional and high speed) and planes. A review of some recently published reports indicates that coach and bus services may compete more with passenger car than other modes of transport for intercity transport. For example, the French authorities, in their review of the interurban bus market 6 months after liberalisation of the national market for coach and bus services, found that the interurban bus services were competing more with car and carpooling than with rail. In Italy a recent study found that long distance coach and rail transport are basically complementary, and coach services often fill the qualitative and quantitative gaps of the rail. Finally, in Germany the intercity coach market grew by 25% in 2015 compared to 2014, with a significant proportion of demand transferring from less sustainable modes including the private car. There are major differences between data with regard to which means of transport were used by coach customers before the coach market was liberalised. In 2013 the Federal Office estimated that 10-15% had previously travelled by rail but some surveys put this as high as 30% from long distance rail. It is estimated that 38% of passengers previously used car. It should also be noted that since rail had almost no competition prior to the liberalisation of the coach market, it seems obvious that a large proportion travellers would have previously used rails as well as private transport. In terms of modal share the high level trends have remained generally stable between 2009 and 2013. The decrease in individual car transport has been very modest from 73.5% to 72.3%. This has been to the benefit of rail, which increased by 0.4 percentage points %, to 6.6% and air which increased by 0.9 percentage points to 9%. Between 2009 and 2013 buses and coaches lost 0.1 percentage points of market share and in 2013 it had an 8.1% share. This is not a new trend as it has been continuing to lose market share at a very slow rate since 1992 when its share was 9.4%. However, the study found broad indications of an increase in international passenger numbers across Europe, although this headline trend hides significant variation by Member State. As such, the study estimated that international coach passenger numbers grew by 40-60% and that international coach passenger-kilometres grew by between 0-40%, between 2009 and 2014. Conclusion EU policy aims at greater numbers of travellers being carried jointly to their destination by the most efficient and low emissions (combination of) modes of transport and passengers making greater use of bus and coach as part of the core network for multimodal intercity travel. Although the numbers of passengers using international regular services has increased there is no data available that indicates any significant shift from passenger car to buses and coaches, during the reference period but any shift could be masked by the difference in relative volumes of passengers between the two modes. The potential for coach and bus to shift passengers from car is apparent from observing the recent evolution of the Italian, French and German markets where there is data available that shows growth in the coach sector has resulted in a significant number of passengers shift from cars. Question 6: To what extent has the Regulation had an impact on the quality, reliability and price of the services? Quality and reliability of services Attractive frequencies, safety, comfort, easy access, reliability of services, and intermodal integration are the main characteristics of service quality. The availability of information over travelling time and routing alternatives is equally relevant to ensure seamless door-to-door mobility, for passengers. These are the expected outcomes of increased competition as a result of opening the market for the international carriage of passengers and for cabotage operations as introduced by the Regulation. The study provides evidence of growth in the international market and increases in the frequency and number of services for regular international services since the implementation of the Regulation as described in section 4.1. However, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on the basis of the limited data available and there is little evidence to suggest that this growth is caused by the implementation of the Regulation. The study indicates that the standardisation of documents across all 28 Member States is likely to have reduced the disruption to coach operators and their passengers from inspection with potential for both journey time and reliability improvements. However, with no comprehensive data on the number of cross-border services, or on the origin and destination of passengers using them, it is not possible to estimate the likely value of travel time savings or reliability improvements. In terms of safety, the number of people killed in these accidents in the EU fell from 964 in 2009 to 736 in 2013, a fall of almost 24%. This trend of decreasing the number of fatalities extends back to 2004 when 1,437 people were killed. For comparison, over the same period fatal car accidents reduced from 24,334 in 2004 to 11,838 in 2013.The portion of fatalities in accidents involving buses and coaches has remained relatively consistent at about 3% . Bus and coaches remains one of the safest modes of transport. Comparisons of fatality risks for travelling passengers (occupants) across the different modes of land transport reveals that a rate of 0.16 fatalities per billion passenger kilometres (2009-2014) which is only slightly behind rail 0.14 and is considerably lower than car (2.28) or powered two-wheeler (37.5) . Coach and bus therefore remains one of the safest modes of transport. The fatality risk of a bus and coach passenger is comparable to the risk of a railway passenger (see Table 4). Table 4: Fatality risk of passengers using different modes of transport (EU-27 in 2008-2012) Transport mode used by user Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres (2009-2013) Airline passenger 0.01 Railway passenger 0.14 Bus/Coach passenger 0.16 Car occupant 2.28 Powered two-wheelers 37.50 Over the past 15 years, successive EU road safety action plans have been implemented by the European Commission and Member States, with support from the EU institutions. The EU interventions which are likely to be influencing current road safety outcomes the most are legislative initiatives adopted before 2011 in motor vehicle design and safety equipment: electronic stability control systems in cars and trucks; advanced and anti-lock braking systems in motorcycles; daytime running lights in powered two-wheelers, cars and trucks and pedestrian protection . Although the evidence indicates that there have been significant improvements in safety it is impossible to establish a link between the Regulation and these improvements due to the wide variety of factors and actions that influence road safety. Comfort level is another characteristic of service quality and is one of the top criteria affecting customer satisfaction. Stakeholders reported that the comfort level on coaches continues to improve but this cannot be directly attributable to the Regulation. In addition to providing air conditioning and WC facilities, they report that customers are often provided with reclining seats, free Wi-Fi, touch screen multi-media devices, power supplies. The average age of a coach provides an indirect indication of the quality of the services provided in terms of comfort levels as well as safety and environmental performance. There is very little data available regarding average fleet age or fleet quality. However, the available vehicle registration data suggests that the demand for coach vehicles has been remarkably stable through time, despite the 2008 economic downturn. Terminals have an important role in the quality of services as the facilities in terminals are linked with comfort, easy access and intermodal integration of bus and coach services. The range of facilities and onward connectivity which the majority of coach terminals provide makes them particularly attractive (and important) for operators of long distance coach services where catchment areas for access and egress may be large, and where the propensity for passengers to interchange between services is greater. The provision of terminals across Member States remains variable. While some Member States (CY, EL, HU, RO) appear to consider it to be an integral part of the responsibilit