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 on the use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area, amending Directive 2012/34/EU and repealing Regulation (EU) No 913/2010
Date: 2023-07-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, crisis management, management planning, rail transport, trans-European network, transport capacity, transport company, transport infrastructure, transport market, transport planning

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 11.7.2023  SWD(2023) 444 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 on the use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area, amending Directive 2012/34/EU and repealing Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 {COM(2023) 443 final} - {SEC(2023) 443 final} - {SWD(2023) 443 final}  
 
 
A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

Rail is a sustainable mode of transport, which is expected to support the shift to a  climate neutral EU 
economy.  At  present,  the  rail  sector  is  struggling  to  provide  services  that  meet  the  needs  of  the 
customers,  in  particular  in  regard  to  freight.  First,  poor  performance  in  terms  of  responsiveness  to 
customers’  needs,  punctuality,  reliability  and  speed  often  make  rail  a  second  choice  as  mode  of 
transport. Second,  rail infrastructure managers and transport service providers (railway undertakings) 
do not always make good use of scarce rail infrastructure capacity.  

The  rules  for  the  management  of  rail  infrastructure  capacity  and  traffic  are  set  in  EU  legislation. 
Directive 2012/34/EU  establishing a single European railway  area sets up the  Union’s general legal 
framework for the Single  European railway area.  Regulation (EU) 913/2010 concerning  a European 
rail  network  for  competitive  freight  (‘the  RFC  Regulation’)  defines  specific  rules  for  11  rail  freight 
corridors  which  include  lines  crossing  the  territory  of  at  least  two  Member  States  and  linking  two  or 
more terminals. Evidence  shows that  the current framework does not serve all rail market segments 
equally  well;  in  particular  freight  and  cross-border  transport  struggle  to  get  capacity  of  adequate 
quantity and quality to meet customers’ needs.  

Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers have  lauched  several  initiatives, most notably the 
Timetable  Redesign  Project  (TTR)  aimed  to  revise  the  process  for capacity  management  in  Europe. 
However, the implementation of the measures tested in this project is only possible  by changing EU 
legislation.  

What should be achieved?  

This initiative seeks to improve the management of capacity and traffic on the EU rail network with a 
view  to  support  the  growth  of  rail  transport.  To  this  end,  the  initiative  aims  to  address  the  two  key 
problems  identified.  Its  specific  objectives  are  to:  1)  enable  more  effective  capacity  management 
procedures;  2)  strengthen  incentives  to  improve  performance  of  rail  infrastructure  and  rail  transport 
services; 3) introduce more effective mechanisms for coordination between stakeholders, in particular 
across  borders  and  4)  support  the  deployment  of  digital  tools  enabling  better  capacity  and  traffic 
management.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

Even  though  the  majority  of  rail  passenger  traffic  is  domestic,  roughly  half  of  freight  traffic  is  cross-
border  and  expectations  are  that  demand  for  cross-border  rail  services  will  increase  driven  by  the 
ambitious decarbonisation goals for transport and the policy measures proposed  and put in place by 
the European Union and Member States. Therefore, there is a strong cross-border dimension for rail. 

Action  at  EU  level  will  inevitably  consider  the  development  of  rail  services  that  go  beyond  national 
borders.  This  allows  to  leverage  the  competitive  advantages  of  rail  which  increase  over  longer 
distances.  Action  at  EU  level  is  essential  for  improving  the  punctuality  and  reliability  of  cross-border 
traffic.  In  addition,  the  new  rules  will  affect  positively  the  quality  of  all  rail  services  on  the  network, 
including domestic ones. 

The  2021  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation  outlines  a  rail  market  which,  without  further 
intervention  at  EU  level,  remains  focused  on  national  services,  with  railway  undertakings  and 
infrastructure managers missing out on the opportunity to expand on the basis of better performance. 
By  design,  infrastructure  managers  set  up  in  the  overwhelming  majority  at  Member  State  level 
concentrate  on  managing  the  national  rail  network.  Therefore,  seamsless  cross-border  rail  transport 
requires  effective  coordination  and  integration  at  EU  level  to  address  issues  related  to  capacity  and 
traffic  for  cross-border  trains  on  the  whole  EU  network,  overcoming  the  limitations  of  the  rail  freight 
corridors, which are only responsible for part of the capacity on part of the rail network.  

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  
Four  policy  options  (PO1,  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4)  have  been  developed  in  the  context  of  this  impact 
assessment. All options propose solutions to the identified problems, but vary in terms of the scope of 
the actions envisaged at EU level. PO1 focusses on maintaining the corridor approach and extends it 
to all cross-border traffic. PO2, PO3 and PO4 are inspired by stakeholders’ initiatives and introduce a 

1 

 
new and unique set of rules for management of capacity on the whole network. They differ in terms of 
the mechanisms to ensure coordination of capacity management across borders, as well as in aspects 
such  as  performance  monitoring  and  regulatory  supervision.  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  envisage  an 
accelearation in the digitalisation and automatization of capacity management.  

The  preferred  policy  option  PO3  introduces  all  measures  proposed  by  the  sector  to  modernise  the 
rules  for  capcity  management  to  better  suit  the  needs  of  all  rail  market  segments.  It  adds  a  rules-
based  coordination  mechanism,  empowering  the  network  of  infrastructure  managers  as  a  decision-
making  body,  supported  by  a  legally  appointed  operational  entity.  As  a  regulatory  counterpart  at  EU 
level, it strengthens the mandate of the network of rail regulatory bodies. Detailed rules, including on 
the selection of an entity for operational tasks, which will support the decision-making process, will be 
laid down in non-legislative acts after extensive consultations with stakeholders. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
The  stakeholder  consultation  has  shown  a  clear  consensus  that  the  current  rules  for  capacity 
management  will  not  enable  the  rail  sector  to  grow  in  line  with  policy  ambitions  at  EU  and  Member 
State level. The approach to overcome the rigidity of the annual timetable process and to complement 
it with more strategic and more agile/flexible processes, as jointly pursued by railway undertakings and 
terms, 
infrastructure  mangers, 
stakeholders emphasized aspects particularly relevant to them. Railway undertakings stressed the fact 
that  capacity  management  must  consider  market  needs,  warning  of  an  excessively  ‘supply-driven’ 
approach, which risks to make capacity management rigid and detached from customer needs. Some 
regulatory  bodies  shared  that  view  and  many  of  them  highlighted  the  benefits  of  competition  in  rail 
transport markets, highlighting the importance of their task to ensure a level playing field particularly if 
infrastructure  managers  are  given  a  more  proactive  role  in  capacity  management.  In  this  context, 
regulatory bodies maintained that any joint decision-making responsibilities of infrastructure managers 
at EU level need to be counterbalanced by similar powers at EU level on regulatory side. 

found  wide  support.  Notwithstanding  consensus 

in  general 

As regards the introduction of coordination mechanisms at EU level, considering the key characteristic 
differentiating  PO3  and  PO4  from  PO2,  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers  took  a 
reserved stance in the initial phase of the consultation. Infrastructure managers emphasized that their 
expertise  and  on-the-ground  knowledge  could  not  be  replaced  by  an  EU  level  entity.  Railway 
undertakings  raised  concerns  that  any  EU  level  structures  faces  the  risk  of  being  sidelined  by 
infrastructure  managers  in  the  face  of  the  prevalent  national  interests.  Railway  underatkings  placed 
higher  expectations  in  an  entity  combining  managerial  and  regulatory  functions  at  EU  level,  in  a 
subordinate position vis-à-vis infrastructure managers, as a driving force towards better conditions for 
cross-border rail transport.    

Customers of rail transport services, in particular in the freight segment, have highlighted the need for 
urgent  and  significant  increases  in  performance  as  an  essential  precondition  for  shifting  additional 
transport volumes to rail. In particular for freight, the importance of reliability, punctuality and customer 
information have been emphasized. Rail customers have shown the relatively strongest support for the 
more ambitious policy options (PO3 and PO4), involving significant responsibilities at EU level. 

Although limited feedback was received from Member States during the consultation, it was generally 
supportive of the objective of the initiative to promote the development of rail transport while remaing 
relatively  vague  as  regards  the  means  to  achieve  it.  There  was  a  tendency  towards  maintaining  the 
corridor-based approach to cross-border coordination.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                       

The  preferred  policy  option  results  in  total  benefits  estimated  at  EUR 13 502.7  million,  expressed  as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. 

Direct benefits include an increase of the usable capacity of the existing infrastructure, which allows a 
4% increase  in rail traffic (expressed in train-km) compared to the baseline  in  2050. Further  impacts 
include  improvements  in  train  punctuality,  the  reliability  of  rail  services  and  the  reduction  of  the 
negative impact of rail infrastructure works on traffic. The benefits for railways undertakings due to the 
increase of the usable capacity are estimated at EUR 2 575.7 million, expressed as present value over 
2025-2050  relative  to  the  baseline,  while  those  due  to  the  improved  train  punctuality  at  EUR 658 
million.  The  preferred  policy  option  results  in  some  cost  savings,  in  particular  for  RUs  and  IMs 
(including  of  operational  costs)  but  also  for  public  authorities.  Total  costs  savings  for  railway 

2 

 
undertakings  are  estimated  at  EUR 482.8  million,  while  costs  savings  for  infrastructure  managers  at 
EUR  493.5  million  (of  which  EUR 8.2  million  administrative  costs  savings).  For  public  authorites  the 
total  costs  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR 9.4  million,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050 
relative to the baseline, of which EUR 2.6 million administrative costs savings.  

Indirect impacts include additional employment (1.06 million additional persons employed over 2025-
2050), as well as a reduction in the external costs of CO2 emissions, air pollutant emissions and, road 
accidents  and  congestion.  The  benefits  due  to  the  reduction  in  external  costs  are  monetized  and 
estimated  at  EUR 3 309.3  million  for  CO2  emissions,  EUR  681  million  for  air  pollution  emissions, 
EUR 2 801.6 million for accidents and EUR 2 374.8 for congestion.  

A  number  of  economic  operators  should  benefit  from  the  increase  in  rail  freight  services  and  their 
improved quality. These include terminal operators and customers of rail freight. 

Facilitation  of  cross-border  rail  services  will  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  passenger  rail  and  thus 
benefit EU citizens. 

When  also  considering  the  costs,  the  net  benefits  for  the  preferred  policy  option  are  estimated  at 
EUR 11 408.8 million, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

The costs of the preferred policy option are estimated at EUR 2 094 million in addition to the baseline 
costs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050.  

The largest part of these costs will fall on infrastructure managers due to several policy measures. A 
major  share  of  total  costs  results  from  the  deployment  of  the  IT  tools  and  applications  necessary  to 
comply  with  EU  technical  specifications for interoperability (TAF TSI) for rail  and to simplify capacity 
management through digitalisation and automation more generally. The EU coordination mechanisms 
will result in significant costs to ensure ongoing operations and sound decision-making. Infrastructure 
managers will also incur costs for ensuring the best possible alignment with the work at EU level and 
with  their  neighbouring  peers.  The  high  share  of  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  reflects  that  their 
role  in  capacity  and  traffic  management  is  strengthened  by  the  initiative,  but  also  that  they  must 
provide a level playing field by implementing comprehensive consultation mechanisms. Total costs for 
infrastructure managers are estimated at  EUR  1,609  million,  expressed as present  value over  2025-
2050 (relative to the baseline).  

The costs for railway undertakings that result directly from this initiative (EUR 435.1 million) are much 
smaller, and relate mostly  to an accelerated introduction  of TAF  TSI compliant interfaces for their IT 
systems related to capacity  management as  well as  to their active participation in consultations  with 
infrastructure managers. 

Regulatory bodies will need to ensure that their network has the resources to monitor and intervene in 
the  new  process  of  capacity  management.  Total  costs  for  national  public  authorities,  including 
regulatory  bodies,  are  estimated  at  EUR 31.1  million,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050 
relative  to  the  baseline.  In  addition  the  European  Commission  will  incur  costs  estimated  at  EUR 1.8 
million. 

Other  stakeholders  (terminal  operators  and  multimodal  transport  services)  will  bear  smaller  costs 
(EUR 17 million, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline). 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The preferred policy option does not target SMEs, but it is expected  to reduce the barriers to market 
entry and ensure a level playing field. This would favour new entrants on the market of rail services, 
some of which are likely to be SMEs.  

Rail facility operators and providers of rail-related services, some of which are SMEs, are likely to see 
an increase in economic activity due to the increase in rail traffic.  

Thus the initiative is expected to have an overall positive impact on SMEs. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
Most infrastructure managers rely  on state funding.  As they are  expected to  bear a large  part of the 
costs, it can be assumed that this will have an effect on the national budgets, in particular in the first 5 
years due to necessary IT investments. 

3 

 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
There will be positive impact on the internal market from the increase in rail traffic. The preferred policy 
option will result in a higher level of harmonisation and integration of rail infrastructure services, which 
will  benefit  operators  developing  cross-border  services,  thus  providing  opportunities  for  more 
competition and contributing to a single European railway area. 

Proportionality 
The  preferred  policy  option  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  reach  the  overall  policy 
objectives. The objective to improve rail’s performance includes cross-border traffic. The policy option 
provides  a  reinforced  mechanism  of  coordination  compared  to  the  current  rail  freight  corridors’ 
governance, but takes into account the fact that at present rail traffic is predominantly domestic. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
The policy will be reviewed allowing for an adequate period of time after the proposal’s adoption and 
the  introduction  of  detailed  rules  via  non-legislative  acts.  Policy  measures  will  require  time  to  take 
effect and to generate impacts. Unless implementation issues occur this will not be less than  5 years 
after the legislation comes into force. 

Furthermore, the Commission will be assisted by a performance review body and will participate in the 
work of the infrastructure managers and regulatory bodies at EU level, thus keeping an overview of the 
progress of implementation and the impact of the measures.  

4