COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 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
Date: 2017-11-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: bus, carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, international road transport, international transport, market access, road cabotage, services of general interest, transport licence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.11.2017  SWD(2017) 359 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  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) 358 final}   
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 on access to the international market 
for coach and bus services 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
The main problems are: 1) operators are facing obstacles in national markets to develop inter-urban coach 
services  and  2)  a  low  share  of  sustainable  passenger  transport  modes.  Citizens  are  faced  with  a  lack  of 
connectivity and also face more road accidents and fatalities, emissions and congestion due to greater use 
of car.  
What should be achieved?  
The  general  objectives  are  making  inter-urban  mobility  and  connectivity  easier  for  all  Europeans  and 
increasing the share of sustainable transport modes.  
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
Across the EU there is a patchwork of rules for access to national markets for coach and bus services which 
constrain carriers’ ability to develop services into pan-European coach networks. Member States acting alone 
cannot introduce or ensure the coherence and coordination of uniform market access rules.  

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If 
not, why?  
Option 1: open access to the market for regular services with the possibility to refuse authorisation if the 
viability of a public service contract (PSC) is compromised.  
Option  2:  open  access  to  the  inter-urban  market  for  regular  services  over  distances  of  100km  or  more. 
Authorisation can be refused if the viability of an urban PSC is compromised.  
Option 3: open access to the inter-urban market for regular services without an authorisation process for 
long distance services.     
Option 4: soft regulation encouraging fair and non-discriminatory access to terminals.  
Option 5: equal access rules requiring fair and non-discriminatory access to terminals.  
Preferred option is a combination of 2 and 5. 
What are the different views of the interested parties? Who supports which option?  
Interested parties generally support the establishment of a common EU framework but the views of national 
authorities were mixed. Mixed opinions were also expressed on the issue of guaranteeing access to national 
regular service markets without discrimination and the abolishing of the requirement for occasional services 
to  hold  a  journey  form  (mainly  PO1,  PO2,  &  PO3)  There  was  broad  agreement  that  the  authorisation 
procedure  should  be  maintained  (mainly  PO1  &  PO2)  and  that  a  definition  of  coach  terminals  should  be 
devised  (mainly  PO4  &  PO5).  Most  interested  parties  also  supported  providing  common  requirements  to 
ensure that access to coach terminals is fair. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
EUR 183 million net cumulative CO2 emission costs savings and net cumulative savings in air pollution costs 
of EUR 590 million; create 85,000 new jobs in 2030; reduction in fares, increased frequency and improved 
availability  of  services;  savings  for  businesses  and  administrations  in  the  range  of  EUR  1,560  million; 
increase  transport  activity  of  coach  by  about  11  %  in  2030  relative  to  the  baseline  and  by  almost  1 
percentage point in terms of modal share; improve connectivity of disadvantaged social groups by 62 billion 
passenger-kilometres  in  2030  relative  to  the  baseline;  and  contribute  to  lower  accident  costs  of  EUR  2.8 
billion. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
-  Negative  but  limited  impact  on  other  modes  of  transport  with  an  estimated  4.8  %  reduction  for  rail 
transport activity in 2030 relative to the baseline due to improved performance of coach services. 
- Negative impact on some PSCs with a loss of PSC rail revenue of about 1.4 %. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
Most  measures  are  not  expected  to  have  particular  impacts  on  SMEs  but  greater  market  stimulation  is 
expected to result in more opportunities. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

2 

 
 
 
The preferred options would entail additional costs for national authorities to enforce the rules on terminals 
(but far less significant than the savings for businesses). 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
Increase in inter-urban travel. Improve mobility for people who otherwise could not afford to travel. Reduce 
the  negative  impacts  of  inter-urban  passenger  transport,  such  as  emissions,  accidents  and  fatalities,  road 
congestion as well as improve the efficiency of use of transport resources. 
Proportionality?  
The  preferred  options  do  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to  solve  the  original  problem  and  meet  the 
objectives of the proposal. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Five years after the rules start to apply. 

3