Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 852 final} {SEC(2008) 3028}
Date: 2008-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, common transport policy, rail network, transport infrastructure, transport market

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3029 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning a European rail network for competitive freight 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 852 final} 
{SEC(2008) 3028} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning a European rail network for competitive freight 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

1. 

ORGANISATION AND PLANNING FOR THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

This  impact  assessment  follows  up  the  Communication  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  18 
October 2007 entitled "Towards a rail network giving priority to freight"1. It was carried out 
together with an external consultant.  

Several consultations were also carried out: firstly, in 2006 in support of the Communication 
adopted in October 2007, which was favourably received by the sector and the Parliament and 
the Council; then between January and June 2008 via a group of experts representing different 
stakeholders affected by this initiative in different Member States; and lastly, in June and July 
2008, a public consultation was launched in accordance with Commission standards.  

2. 

WHY  IS  A  MEASURE  NEEDED  TO  CREATE  A  RAIL  NETWORK  FOR  COMPETITIVE 
FREIGHT? 

The rail network for goods has been experiencing difficulties for more than thirty years for a 
number  of  reasons:  changes  in  industry,  the  development  of  motorways,  and  new  logistic 
requirements  on  the  part  of  companies.  In  order  to  respond  to  these  difficulties,  the 
Community  has  launched  an  active  policy  for  the  revitalisation  of  rail  transport  based  on 
progressively  opening  up  transport  services  to  competition  (effective  for  all  freight  since  1 
January 2007) and developing the interoperability of rail systems. 

The slow progress made with rail freight to date is due to several factors including the slow 
development of competition and interoperability and the lack of capacity of good-quality and 
reliable infrastructure allocated to international freight. 

Existing  Community  legislation,  in  particular  Directive  2001/14/EC  on  the  allocation  of 
railway  infrastructure  capacity,  contains  a  number  of  provisions  relating  to  cooperation 
between national infrastructure managers (IMs) in order to facilitate the international transport 
of goods and the manner in which this type of traffic must be dealt with in terms of allocating 
train paths. These provisions seem inadequate as they are not specific enough.  

1 

COM (2007) 608 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The most sensitive questions which therefore arise with regard to the infrastructure capacity 
for rail freight, and in particular international freight, are a lack of cooperation, both in terms 
of  investment  and  the  operational  management  of  infrastructure,  which  can  lead  to 
discontinuation at borders; the lack of coordination between the rail infrastructure part and the 
terminals  in  general  (at  ports,  on  the  ground  or  at  marshalling  yards);  the  need  for  greater 
transparency of the information provided to infrastructure users; and with regard to operations 
on  mixed-traffic  lines  and  the  choice  of  investment,  freight  is  very  often  treated  less 
favourably in comparison with passenger traffic.  

If  no  new  measure  is  taken,  the  difficulties  referred  to  above  are  likely  to  increase  and  to 
prevent rail transport from responding appropriately to the mobility needs of goods. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The Commission's objective is to improve the service provided by the infrastructure managers 
to international freight operators by extending, increasing and/or adding to existing initiatives 
in order to create an international rail network for competitive freight made up of corridors.  

The  initiative  which  is  assessed  in  this  study  meets  the  growth  objectives  of  the  Lisbon 
Agenda and is fully in line with the guidelines set by the Commission in the White Paper on 
Transport  for  2010,  and  in  its  mid-term  review,  published  in  2006.  It  also  represents  a 
contribution to the Union's sustainable development objectives.  

Finally, several initiatives contribute or have contributed to the creation of such corridors: the 
1st  railway  package  (Directives  2001/14/EC  and  2001/12/EC),  the  TEN-T  (trans-European 
transport network) programme, cooperation between Member States (MS) and IMs within the 
framework  of  ERTMS,  and  the  deployment  of  TSI  TAF  (Technical  Specification  for 
Interoperability Application of telematics to freight). 

The  Commission  would  like  to  act  in  four  areas  corresponding  to  the  main  problems: 
improving  coordination  between  IMs;  improving  the  conditions  of  access  to  infrastructure; 
guaranteeing  freight  trains  adequate  priority,  and  improving  inter-modality  along  the 
corridors. 

4. 

OPTIONS 

In  order  to  develop  this  network  three  alternative  strategies  have  been  assessed  by  the 
Commission within the framework of the Communication adopted in October 20072: no new 
initiative;  creating  a  network  for  competitive  freight;  and  creating  a  network  dedicated  to 
freight. The Commission has concluded that the creation of network for competitive freight is 
the  most  appropriate.  However  its  implementation  must  not,  in  the  longer  term,  prevent  the 
development of a network dedicated to freight. 

This  impact  assessment  concerns  the  creation  of  the  network,  for  which  three  options  have 
been examined: 

2 

See Impact Assessment – SEC(2007) 1322 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Option A (status quo): a reference scenario in the sense that no new measure is undertaken 
and  the  measures  already  undertaken  (TEN-T  programme,  policy  in  favour  of 
interoperability) are continued. Measures which are scheduled (in particular the recasting 
of the 1st railway package and the implementation of the strategy on internalising external 
costs) but not yet started have not been taken into account, however; 

–  Option  B  (policy  initiatives):  extend  the  ERTMS  initiative  to  include  other  corridors; 
disseminate  best  practices;  systematically  verify  the  application  of  existing  legislation 
(concerning  international  cooperation  and  the  introduction  of  performance  schemes,  in 
particular);  encouraging  the  MS  and  IMs  to  cooperate  more  and  to  create  corridors 
voluntarily; 

–  Option  C  (legislative  reinforcement):  propose  additions  to  existing  legislation  involving 
cooperation  between  MS  and  IMs  over  at  least  one  corridor  per  MS  before  2013;  in  this 
corridor the freight would have sufficient priority and competition between operators will 
be facilitated; this additional legislation will apply to a network of corridors. 

5. 

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The  Commission  has  opted  for  an  assessment  of  the  impact  in  Corridors  A  (Rotterdam-
Genoa) and E (Dresden-Budapest), which are complementary in geographical terms (oriented 
North-South/East-West;  situated  in  different  areas  of  the  Union)  in  terms  of  outlets 
(maritime/land; dense/non-dense areas), in terms of actual traffic (intensity of traffic; division 
of  traffic  between  passengers  and  freight/between  international  and  internal  freight)  and  in 
terms of the past experience of cooperation between the different national stakeholders3. 

The results obtained for these two corridors have been extrapolated from the ERIM4 network 
which  links  the  sections  most  used  to  carry  freight  (this  network  covers  20%  of  all  the 
European lines, on which 56% of all the tonne-kilometres are carried). 

For each corridor, initially the operational impact has been assessed, followed by the societal 
impact using the Transtools model, on the basis of general hypotheses and results regarding 
the operational impact5.  

To  progress  from  assessing  operational  impact  to  assessing  societal  impact,  the  results 
obtained at the operational level have been translated, for each corridor, into "change factors" 
for  costs  and  the  commercial  speed  of  the  rail  freight  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  commercial 
speed  of  passenger  rail  transport  on  the  other  hand.  These  "change"  factors  have  then  been 
integrated into the data required in order to use Transtools. 

6. 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR CORRIDORS A AND E 

In  terms  of  quality,  the  main  benefit  of  Option  B  is  that  it  would  allow  great  flexibility  in 
terms of defining and implementing the measures necessary for making the desired progress. 

3 
4 

5 

See the main data relating to the ERTMS corridors in Annex 7. 
ERIM is a project which has been piloted by the International Railway Union. See the map of the ERIM 
network in Annex 8. 
In  the  annexes,  the  impact  on  an  operational  level  is  called  micro-level  impact  and  that  on  a  societal 
level is called macro-level impact. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
In  this  context,  the  IMs  and  MS  could  better  adapt  their  actions  to  meet  their  specific 
requirements.  On  the  other  hand,  Option  B  poses  very  high  risks  as  regards  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  planned  measures  and  as  regards  the  heterogeneity  of  the  different 
corridors, both in technical and organisational terms and in terms of the pace of progress. 

For its part, Option C would represent a more rigid framework, but its benefits would include 
greater  visibility  of  freight  operators  regarding  change  in  the  corridors,  better-coordinated 
creation  of  the  freight  network,  and  a  real  change  in  terms  of  managing  the  mix  of  traffic 
using the infrastructure. 

7. 

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS 

The quantitative analysis of the impact indicates progress regarding the reduction in waiting 
time at borders or terminals, unit costs of rail transport of goods which are more sensitive with 
Option C than with Option B, both for Corridor A and Corridor E. The administrative costs 
incurred through increased cooperation between IMs would in part be offset by gains in terms 
of administrative costs for rail companies.  

Overall,  the  monetised  operational  and  societal  impacts  give  the  following  results  for  the 
whole  of  the  ERIM  network  (the  figures  in  the  table  express  the  change  in  comparison  to 
Option A in millions of euros): 

Technical harmonisation of 
the infrastructure 

Cost(s)/benefits 

Investments to extend sidings 

Reduction in costs of rail freight 

OPTION B  OPTION C

NPV (M €)   NPV (M €)  

-3,219.6 

-3,219.6 

2,409.9 

2,409.9 

Reduction in waiting times at the borders 

4,941.4 

6,532.7 

Rules for allocating train 
paths and managing traffic 

Additional capacity for freight trains 

Reduction in times (scheduled and unscheduled) for freight

Reduction in times (scheduled and unscheduled) for 
passengers 

Increase in tolls for rail freight 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Investments to extend transfer tracks 

-322 

1,209.3 

854.2 

-473.8 

-263 

-322 

Terminals 

Reduction in the cost of assembling trains 

221.9 

221.9 

Reduction in transfer times 

Reduction in waiting time 

Administrative costs 

Additional administrative costs 

Total updated net value at the 
operational level (without 
additional capacity) 

1,160.3 

1,160.3 

- 

5.9 

3,770.9 

-0.8 

5,197.8 

10,670.7 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total updated net value at the 
operational level (with 
additional capacity) 

Cost(s)/benefits 

OPTION B  OPTION C

NPV (M €)   NPV (M €)  

11,880 

Economic impact 

Reduction in the cost of transport 

3,806.9 

5,604.3 

Environmental impact 

Total updated net value at the 
societal level (without 
additional capacity) 

Total updated net value at the 
societal level (with additional 
capacity) 

8. 

SENSITIVITY AND RISKS 

External costs avoided 

Congestion costs avoided 

58,050.5 

86,567.3 

303,912.3 

455,298.9 

61,857.4 

92,171.6 

365,769.7 

547,470.5 

Option A, which is more positive in terms of technical harmonisation and the management of 
terminals,  has  been  chosen  for  the  sensitivity  analysis  at  operational  level.  The  latter  shows 
that  Option  C,  even  if  the  reference  scenario  is  more  optimistic,  would  still  have  a  largely 
positive impact. 

As regards analysing the impact at a societal level, the sensitivity of the results to variations in 
the costs of the transport of goods by road (due to a stronger increase in the price of diesel, 
greater  internalisation  of  external  costs  or  the  putting  into  service  of  heavier  and  longer 
vehicles) has been tested. This test shows that Option A is the most sensitive to variations in 
the costs of road transport and Option C the least sensitive. On the other hand, the sensitivity 
of the three options to the introduction of more voluminous and heavier road vehicles is equal. 

The  main  threat  to  the  effective  implementation  of  Option  B  is  the  absence  of  guarantee  of 
results  in  some  areas  of  involvement  for  which  obligations  appear  almost  inescapable  (this 
concerns in particular areas relating to giving priority to freight); 

For Option C, the main risk is that the ambitions of the different stakeholders are too limited 
or unequal; the other major risk lies in the "political sensitivity" of giving priority to freight 
and  potentially  handling  passenger  transport  in  a  slightly  less  favourable  manner  than  it  is 
currently handled. 

9. 

SUMMARY OF CRITERIA - OPTION CHOSEN 

The table below is a multi-criteria assessment of how each option meets the various specific 
and general objectives. 

OPTION A 

Status quo 

OPTION B 

OPTION C 

Political 
initiatives 

Legislative 
initiative 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OPTION A 

Status quo 

OPTION B 

OPTION C 

Political 
initiatives 

Legislative 
initiative 

SPECIFIC 
OBJECTIVES 

GENERAL 
OBJECTIVES 

Improving coordination between 
infrastructure managers 

Improving the conditions of access to 
infrastructure 

Guaranteeing freight trains adequate 
priority 

Improving inter-modality along the 
corridors 

Economic impact 

Environmental impact 

Social impact 

+ 

0 

-- 

+ 

0 

- 

0 

+ 

0 

- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

- 

Legend:  ++:  very  positive impact;  +:  positive  impact;  0:  no  significant  impact; -:  negative  impact;  --  : 
very negative impact. 

In terms of the results obtained at an operational level, the impact of options B and C appears 
to be positive, even very positive, in terms of both quantity and quality. However, they each 
have a different impact. To the extent that Option B constitutes a voluntary approach, the risks 
relating to its implementation seem more significant that those for Option C. Moreover, the 
provisions  relating  to  priority  being  given  to  freight  and  to  the  terminals  provided  for  in 
Option C produce more benefits (they make a significant contribution to the NVP difference 
between the two options - €5.1  billion for Option B as opposed to €10.6 billion for Option C 
on the ERIM network), although there is a great risk that they will not be implemented within 
the framework of Option B. 

In  terms  of  the  results  obtained  at  a  societal  level,  the  impact  also  turns  out  to  be  positive. 
Furthermore, Option C has a general societal impact which is more positive than Option B. 
This is particularly true for Corridor E, in which Option B would have an almost negligible 
societal impact whilst Option C would have an NVP in the region of € 5.5 billion.  

It could be considered that the results obtained in quantitative terms are sufficiently positive 
for Option C to be chosen and that, consequently, legislative action be started at Community 
level, which is also confirmed by the different consultations carried out within the framework 
of this study. 

Finally, it is important to state that public consultation has revealed that there is widespread 
support for the Commission's proposals in respect of Options B and C. For a large majority of 
the areas of involvement6, 80% or more of the respondents consider that these proposals will 
have  a  positive  or  slightly  positive  impact.  The  proposals  concerning  the  terminals  are 
particularly  well  received.  The  existing  governance  structures  have  been  deemed  to  be 
inadequate  by  69%  of  the  respondents.  They  must  be  improved.  The  proposals  concerning 

6 

91%  of  respondents  believe  that  the  proposed  involvement  will  have  a  positive  impact  (or  slightly 
positive for more than 75% of respondents). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
more  favourable  allocation  rules  for  freight,  would  also,  in  accordance  with  the  opinions 
expressed, have  a  positive  or slightly positive  impact,  according to more than 80% of those 
who expressed an opinion.  

In  view  of  these  factors,  the  Commission  has  chosen  Option  C  as  a  priority.  Elements  of 
Option B can be implemented in order to prepare, monitor and, where necessary, create and 
support a legislative initiative.  

In  terms  of  selecting  corridors  and  governance  of  the  network  for  competitive  freight,  the 
approach  whereby  the  MS  propose  the  creation  of  corridors,  and  this  is  validated  by  the 
Commission in accordance with pre-established criteria, seems the most balanced. Indeed, it 
should  allow  sufficient  control  over  the  development  of  the  network  at  Community  level, 
whilst retaining high political feasibility. It will also ensure consistency between the network 
for competitive freight and the networks for the TEN-T programme (network TEN-T, priority 
projects,  ERTMS  corridors)  to  ensure  the  readability  of  the  Community  policy  in  terms  of 
European  railway  infrastructure  and  to  allow  the  development  of  the  European  rail  network 
for competitive freight to profit from Community financial support within the framework of 
this programme. 

10. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The Commission will present a proposal for a regulation concerning the creation of a network 
for  competitive  freight  (Option  C)  before  the  end  of  2008.  This  legislative  instrument  is 
favoured  over  a  directive  as  it  allows  provisions  and  obligations  to  be  addressed  to 
stakeholders in the sector and to the Member States, can be implemented more rapidly than a 
directive  which  must  be  transposed  into  national  law,  and  it  ensures  a  homogeneousness  of 
the measures implemented on both sides of the borders. It will supplement political initiatives 
to make progress with the file as quickly as possible and to prepare the implementation of this 
regulation.  

The  approach  chosen  is  to  develop  international  corridors.  The  Community  impact  will  be 
assessed by monitoring the creation of these corridors and their content on the one hand, and 
by  monitoring  the  quality  and  capacity  of  the  international  rail  freight services  on  the  other 
hand. The impact on the rationalisation of investment, the relationship between operators and 
infrastructure  managers,  the  management  of  operational  problems  and  the  transport  of 
passengers in these corridors will be examined in particular. 

To ensure that this monitoring is carried out the Commission proposes the creation of a group 
of  infrastructure  managers.  It  will  also  propose  calling  upon  a  Committee  to  validate  the 
guidelines for the corridors and the consistency of the different corridors.  

EN 

8 

   EN