Rail connectivity index : executive summary.
Date: 2023-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Subjects: carriage of passengers, combined transport, cross-border transport, feasibility study, performance measurement, rail network, sustainable mobility, transport infrastructure

Rail connectivity index 

Executive summary 

Written by 

November – 2023 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate C - Land 
Unit C.3 – Single European Rail Area 

E-mail:  move-c3@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rail connectivity index 

Executive summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the  authors,  and  the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the 
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of 
this  document 
licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).  This  means  that  reuse  is  allowed  provided  appropriate  credit  is  given  and  any 
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly 
from the respective rightholders.  

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-10286-2 

doi:10.2832/455078 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

The  report  presents  the  outcome  of  a  feasibility  study  for  the  development  of  a  European 
scale rail connectivity index. A first iteration of a tool computing and communicating the rail 
connectivity index has been developed, following the outcome of the feasibility study. 

General background and political context of this study 

Boosting cross-border and long-distance rail transport within the EU  will have a vital role in 
realising  the  strategic  and  ambitious  milestones  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy.  It  is  in  this  context  that  the  European  Parliament 
and  the  Council  declared  2021  as  the  European  Year  of  Rail.1  A  main  objective  of  this 
Decision  was  to  promote  rail  transport  as  a  sustainable,  innovative,  interconnected  and 
intermodal,  safe  and  affordable  mode  of  transport.  The  Decision  reads  as follows  in  Article 
3(2):  

The Commission shall consider initiating, during the European Year: 

(a) … 

(b)  a  feasibility  study  with  a  view  to  introducing  a  rail  connectivity  index,  with  the  aim  of 
categorising  the  level  of  integration  achieved  through  the  use  of  services  on  the  rail 
network and showing the potential of rail to compete with other modes of transport.  

The Commission decided to link the development / testing of a theoretical framework and a 
first iteration of the index within this study. The Commission decided  the focus of the index 
should be passenger transport. 

Objective and scope 

The  overall  objective  of  the  project  is  to  develop  a  tool  producing  a  rail  connectivity  index 
concerning rail passenger transport that satisfies the criteria established by the Decision on 
designating 2021 as the European Year of Rail. Table 0.1 defines the scope for this study to 
the feasibility and development of a tool producing a rail connectivity index. 

Table 0.1 Scope of the study 

Scope aspects 

Feasibility and development of a tool producing a rail connectivity index 

Geographic scope 

EU27 and if available data allows, Norway and Switzerland. 

Sectoral scope 

The tool is developed in the context of the passenger railway sector. 

Ideally it should be possible to link the rail connectivity index to connectivity 
indices  of  other  transport  modes,  especially  air  transport,  with  the  aim  of 
establishing a multimodal index in mind. 

Target group 

The tool is developed for both the general public as well as policy makers. 

1   Decision (EU) 2020/2228, see here. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Methodology 

A feasibility phase: 

Desk research; literature review, data collection and data analysis 

Stakeholder consultation; stakeholder workshop 

A development phase: 

Development  of  the  economically  and  technically  feasible  tool  specified 
under the feasibility phase 

Results of the feasibility study 

Principles of the index 

The  questions  that  the  rail  connectivity  index  should  answer  are  defined  as  input  to  the 
feasibility  analysis.  These  questions  are  bound  by  the  objective  and  the  scope  of  the  rail 
connectivity  index.  They  were  further  refined  in  the  stakeholder  workshop  and  in  progress 
meetings with the European Commission. 

Table  0.2.  provides  an  overview  of  the  potential  uses  of  the  rail  connectivity  index.  A 
distinction is made between static uses (i.e. at one moment in time) and dynamic uses (i.e. 
over  time,  for  instance  over  multiple  years).  Another  distinction  made  is  between  uses 
focusing  on  the rail  network  as  well  as  on  rail  services,  and  uses comparing  rail  with  other 
modes of transport. 

Table 0.2 Potential uses of the rail connectivity index 

Focusing  on  the  comparison  with  other 
modes of transport (i.e. towards the ambition 
of realising a multimodal index) 
Comparing  the  connectivity  of  rail  transport 
with  the  connectivity  of  other  (in  particular 
long distance) modes of transport  

[the rail connectivity index is not intended for 
journey planning type functions] 

Static 

Dynamic 

(i.e. 

Focusing  on  the  rail  network  and  rail 
services 
rail 
the 
dimension) 
  Provide  indication  of  the  current 
rail 
long 

‘internal’ 

distance 

of 

status 
connectivity (indicators); 
gaps 

in 

  Show 

connectivity 

(indicators). 

  Ex-post:  Show  the  development  of 
the 
in 

(indicators)  and 
the  gaps 

connectivity 
development  of 
connectivity; 

  Ex-post  evaluation:  Helping 

to 
evaluate  whether  investments  are 
results  and 
actually  delivering 
added value for the users; 

  Scenario  analysis/  ex-ante:  assess 
the  impact  and  results  of  possible 
rail  network 
investments 
(most  probably  by 
introducing 
potential timetable connections). 

the 

in 

Three  broader  categories  (i.e.  connectivity,  affordability,  sustainability)  and  six  distinct  user 
requirements are defined based upon the types of uses presented above in Table 0.2. Table 
0.3  summarises  these  broader  categories  and  user  requirements.  This  is  followed  by  a 
specification  of  the  questions  that  the  rail  connectivity  index  needs  to  address  in  order  to 
meet the user requirements as specific in the column before. The distinction made in Table 
0.2  between  ‘internal’  rail  requirements  of  the  index  and  the  requirements  in  relation  to  the 
ambition  to  create  a  multimodal  index,  as  well  as  the  requirements  in  relation  to  the 
comparison with other transport modes, are also reflected in this table.  

6 

 
 
 
 
Table 0.3 User requirements and questions defined for the rail connectivity index 

Category 

User 
requirement/indicator 

Question 
dimension) 

(internal 

Connectivity 

Reachable areas 

Where  can  I  get  by  rail 
within  X  hours?  (at  any 
moment of the day) 
Where  can  I  get  by  rail 
during night? (with night 
trains) 

other 
i.e. 

Question 
(Competitiveness 
vis-à-vis 
modes, 
intermodality) 
How 
rail 
does 
performance for this 
item  compare  with 
the  performance  of 
of 
other  modes 
transport? 

Reachable jobs 

Reachable population  Who  can  I  visit  by  rail 
within  X  hours?  (at  any 
moment of the day) 
Who  can  I  visit  by  rail 
during night? (with night 
trains) 
How  many  jobs  can  I 
reach  by  rail  within  X 
hours?  (at  any  moment 
of the day) 
What  is  the  (maximum) 
number  of  passengers 
that  can  travel  by  rail 
from 
to 
destination? 
What  is  the  price  of 
travelling  by  rail  from 
origin to destination? 
What are the emissions 
of travelling by rail from 
origin to destination? 

GHG 
of 
travelling  by  rail  (part 
of external costs) 

Costs  of  travelling  by 
rail for the consumer 

Seat capacity 

emission 

origin 

Affordability 

Sustainability 

As for the user requirements and questions provided in Table 0.3, it should be noted that the 
questions defined for the user requirements ‘Reachable areas’ are an absolute must-have for 
the  development  of  a  rail  connectivity  index  meeting  its  user  expectations  and  objectives. 
The  questions  defined  for  the  user  requirements  ‘Reachable  population’,  ‘Reachable  jobs’ 
and ‘Seat  capacity’ are nice-to-have  for the development of rail connectivity index providing 
more  useful  information  to  its  users  other  than  the  information  that  is  strictly  necessary  to 
meet  its  objectives.  Lastly,  the  questions  defined  under  ‘affordability’  and  ‘sustainability’ 
represent  measures  that  are  not  strictly  connectivity  measures,  therefore,  can  provide 
relevant  information  for  its  users  (for  instance,  as  input  to  decisions  on  ticket  prices  in 
comparison with air transport) but are not part of the direct core and primary focus of the first 
iteration. 

Comparison of existing connectivity indices 

Extensive  desk  research  has  been  completed  to  determine  the  existence  of  theoretical 
frameworks,  as  well  as  their  applicability  both  now  and  in  future  iterations.  In  total,  about 
fifteen  relevant  studies  are  identified.  For  each  of  these  studies,  the  pros  and  cons  for  the 
methods to measure connectivity are summarised, leading to the conclusion that the choice 
for a rail connectivity index should be considered a choice between the simple and practical 
Eurocontrol  indices  and  the  more  integrated  network  quality  models  (Global  Connectivity 
Index and the Connectivity Utility Model). Conceptually combinations of the three approaches 
(e.g. the Connectivity Utility Model applying the population weighing of Eurocontrol) are also 
plausible. 

7 

 
 
Variables, data needs and data availability 

A  longlist  of  possible  variables  has  been  developed  based  upon  the  previously  identified 
literature  and  user  requirements.  These  variables  are  categorised  to  either  must-have, 
should-have, could-have or won’t have, following the MoSCoW method, and based upon an 
analysis and assessment of the importance that each variable has in order to meet the user 
requirements  that  are  defined.  In  Table  0.4,  the  results  of  this  assessment  are  presented. 
This table also provides the data needs per variable. 

Table 0.4 Categorisation of variables and data needs 

Variable 
a)  Number of operators 

Category 
Could-have 

b)  Frequency of services  Must-have 
Must-have 
c)  Travel duration 
Could have 
d)  Ticket price 
Should have 
e)  Population numbers 
Could have 
f)  Job numbers 
Won’t have 
g)  Emissions 
Must-have 
h)  Number of transfers 
Should have 
i)  Travel day and 

Data needs 
Timetable data  
(Operator per product or train) 
Timetable data 
Timetable data 
Timetable data (ticket prices) 
Regions’ statistics data (population) 
Regions’ statistics data (jobs) 
n.a. 
Timetable data 
Timetable data 

moment of the day 

j)  Seat capacity 
(average) 

Could have 

Timetable data (seats per train) 

As can be seen in Table 0.4, necessary data concerns: 

  Base  data:  geo-data  of  regions  (centre  points,  areas)  or  cities  (centre  points),  geo-

positions of stations; 

  Data  necessary  to  calculate  the  desired  variables  (must-have,  should-have,  could-

have). 

Potential  data  sources  are  identified  and  analysed  in  this  respect.  Table  0.5  provides  the 
result of the analysis, i.e., an overview of the recommended data sources and its usage for 
the rail connectivity index as base date or for the calculation of variables.  

Table 0.5 Recommended data sources and their coverage of variables 

Source 

(Nomenclature 
NUTS 
of  territorial  units  for 
statistics) 

Urban Audit Cities 

MERITS 

Purpose, 
explanation 
Base data: Geo-data for 
regions 
NUTS 
(polygons, 
centre 
points)  
Base data: Geo-data for 
cities (centre points) 
Timetable  data,  geo-
data of stations 

TAP TSI timetable data 
sets 
NUTS Population 

NUTS Jobs 

Legend: 

Timetable data 

Regions’  statistics  data 
(population) 
Regions’  statistics  data 
(employment) 

Covered variables 
(d) 
(a)   (b) 

(c) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

Covered 
partially covered or uncertain 
base data 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source 

Purpose, 
explanation 

(i) 

(j) 

(h) 

(f) 

(g) 

Covered variables 
(e) 
(d) 
(c) 
(a)   (b) 
(a)  Number of operators 
(b)  Frequency of services 
(c)  Travel duration 
(d)  Ticket price 
(e)  Population numbers 
(f)  Job numbers 
(g)  Emissions (Won’t have variable) 
(h)  Number of transfers 
(i)  Travel day and moment of the day 
(j)  Seat capacity (average) 

NUTS (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) 

For development of the rail index NUTS 3: small regions for specific diagnoses were chosen. 
The challenge is that NUTS statistical areas have different sizes between areas. The size of 
the  areas  matters,  as  we  use  area-based  analysis  to  arrive  at  an  index  of  rail  connectivity. 
This challenge is addressed as part of the refinement of the index. 

Urban Audit Cities 

Urban  Audit  is  a  European  Commission  sponsored  project  to  provide  comparable  data  on 
urban  areas.  It  covers  over  900  cities  in  the  EU  member  states  as  well  as  the  EFTA  and 
candidate  countries  Norway,  Switzerland  and  Turkey.  The  data  collection  exercise  is 
undertaken jointly  by the  National  Statistical Institutes,  the  Directorate-General for Regional 
and Urban Policy and Eurostat. 

MERITS (Multiple East-West Railways Integrated Timetable Storage) 

MERITS  (Multiple  East-West Railways Integrated  Timetable  Storage)  is a  database,  owned 
by UIC, containing the integrated timetable data of many European and some non-European 
countries  (Russia,  Turkey,  Belarus),  comprising  a  few  hundred  railway  undertakings  (RUs), 
which are published twice a week. MERITS today is not an application for the general public, 
but a tool designed for railway companies, which decide themselves on how their information 
and distribution channels are supplied based on their own commercial policy. 

Content: UIC MERITS contains integrated timetable data of many European and some non-
European  countries;  excellent  coverage  of  long-distance  trains;  includes  geo-locations  of 
stations. 

Usage conditions: Licence costs (MERITS Silver Licence: 8,000.-/year) 

Gaps (analysis status August 2022) concern: 

Countries: EE, LV, ES (gaps for regional traffic & cross-border lines to PT), Northern Ireland, 
Greece (western parts) 

(Non-UIC) operators: FlixTrain (DE, SE), Italo/NTV (IT; Rome, Milan, Turin, Naples, Florence 
and Venice), MTRX (SE, Gothenborg-Stockholm), RegioJet (CZ), LEO Express (CZ; mainly 
Prague-Kosice), WESTbahn (AT) 

Data (seat capacity) – not included. 

MERITS  data  has  been  also  analysed  in  relation  to  night  train  services.  The  following 
services  are  included:  SJ  AB  (SE),  Transdev/Snälltåget  (SE–DK–DE).  Other  services  such 
as  European  Sleeper  (BE/NL-DE-CZ)  have  not  yet  started  and  other  originally  considered 
services have stopped operation (e.g. RDC (DE-CH; Alpen-Sylt Nachtexpress)). 

9 

 
 
TAP TSI timetable datasets 

The TAP TSI Services Governance Association (TSGA) was set up in December 2016 as a 
long-term  governance  structure  aiming  to  provide  regulatory  services  that  are  needed  for 
railways  to  meet  their  obligations  and  for  third  parties  to  enjoy  their  rights  under  the 
regulation. 

MMTIS  National  access  points  according  to  Delegated  Acts  of 
(2010/40/EU) 

the  ITS  Directive 

The provision of EU-wide Multi-Modal Travel Information Services (MMTIS) is covered by the 
delegated  regulation  2017/1926  of  31  May  2017  supplementing 
the  ITS  Directive 
2010/40/EU.  National  Access  Points  provide  mechanisms  for  accessing,  exchanging  and 
reusing transport related data under Delegated Acts of the ITS Directive. 

NUTS population 

In order to provide a detailed picture of the diverse EU territories and to monitor EU regional 
policy targets, Eurostat has developed a range of statistics based on different classifications 
and typologies. This population statistics refers to NUTS 3. 

Specifying a feasible first iteration of the index 

The first tool computing the rail connectivity index is developed based upon the analysis and 
measuring of five concepts. Table 0.6 and Table 0.7 summarises these five concepts and the 
way that they have been operationalised. 

Table 0.6 Operationalisation of indicators 

Indicator 
Train frequency 
Travel duration 
Reachable population intensity 
Number of transfers 

Variable 
Number of interregional departures per weekday (24 hrs) 
Average interregional travel duration per 100 km (Euclidean) 
Ratio of the number of people in an area to the area in sq.km 
Number of transfers index sums all directly connected regions from 
the origin region  

Two  of  these  indicators  can  be  meaningfully  combined  to  represent  the  concept  of 
‘accessibility’.  All  train  services  are  then  not  considered  equal  by  the  index.  Instead,  train 
frequency  can  be  weighted  by  reachable  population  intensity  to  differentiate  between  the 
level of opportunity provided by interregional services – thus differentiating them. 

Table 0.7 Calculation of the combined indicator 

Combined indicator 
Accessibility 

Recommendations 

Calculation 
Sum  of  the  ratios  of  reachable  population  intensity  and  linear 
distance  (i.e.  for  each  interregional  departure,  reachable  people 
with distance decay applied) 

The  recommendations  are  drafted  in  view  of  the  ambitions  defined  for  rail  transport  in  the 
Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. In this context, three concrete policy areas that will 
support the development of the Single European Railway Area  are selected, i.e.: improving 
the  market  offer  for  railway  passengers,  promoting  the  interoperability  of  national  railway 
systems and boosting cross border connections. The potential for the rail connectivity index 
to  contribute  to  measuring  the  delivery  of  these  policy  objectives  are  considered  from  two 
perspectives:  

  Ex-ante,  to  analyse  the  potential  impact  of  improvements  on  key  performance 

indicators (KPIs); 

10 

 
 
  Ex-post, to monitor (evaluate) progress in relation to the same KPIs. 

There are four concrete areas in which next steps are foreseen in order to produce a robust 
and  reliable  dynamic  rail  connectivity  index  that  is  able  to  perform  ex-ante  and  ex-post 
analyses of the development of connectivity over years. These four areas are introduced in 
three separate sections below.  

Close data gaps 

The current index has a number of data gaps which affects the reliability of the connectivity 
level in the European rail network that the index provides. A very high level of reliability is a 
crucial  prerequisite  for  unlocking  the  potential  of  the  index  as  described  before.  Therefore, 
these data gaps need to be resolved in order to provide a more reliable connectivity index in 
future iterations and thus unlock the potential of the rail connectivity index.  

As a concrete next step, it is recommended to further close data gaps using single timetable 
data  from  net  yet  included  operators  or  timetable  data  gathered  via  Google  Directions  API 
(e.g.  for  Italo).  Further  data  gaps,  for  instance  in  the  case  of  Estonia  and  Latvia,  can  be 
closed  using  timetable  data  sets  per  country  from  MMTIS  National  Access  Points.  Further 
research concerning these data sources is required with respect to their content, format and 
license fees, as well as their usability for upgrading the rail connectivity index tool, providing 
added  value  to  the  timetable  source  already  included,  and  the  technical  integration  of 
multiple data sources. If, in a future situation, an open data source such as MMTIS National 
Access  Points  provides  a  more  complete  and  integrated  coverage  than  MERITS  this  data 
source would be preferred.  

Refine the index calculation 

The  calculation  method  for  each  variable  needs  to  be  further  interrogated.  As  new 
technological  methods  become  available  and  data  quality  increases,  more  sophisticated 
(from a mathematical specification perspective) variable calculations can be considered. For 
example,  ‘access  to  opportunity’  could  be  represented  by  more  than  simply  reachable 
population (GDP or jobs or even care services could be included). Another major opportunity 
is  to  systematically  and  transparently  define  and  evaluate  weights  for  each  indicator  within 
the composite index (ideally involving stakeholders). 

Link to other indices 

The ambition for the current rail connectivity index is to – in future iterations – link the index 
to connectivity  indices  of  other  modes of  transport  in  order to  establish  a multimodal index. 
Especially  air  transport  is  considered  in  this  context.  The  first  reason  for  this  is  that  most 
existing  connectivity  indices  address  air  transport.  The  second  reason  for  is  that  a  shift  of 
passenger  travel  from  air  to  rail  –  in  particular  for  travel  distances  up  to  500  kilometres  – 
would  help  to  realise  the  ambitious  goals  defined  in  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy.  

As a  concrete next step for assessing the feasibility and comparability of combining the rail 
connectivity  index  with  indices  for  other  modes  in  general,  it  is  recommended  to  make  a 
detailed analysis of the extent to which the index parameters are comparable. This needs to 
be  done  in  close  collaboration  with  the  developers for  the  other  index.  As  an  alternative  to 
linking the rail connectivity index to other modes, the rail connectivity index can be extended 
to  further  modes,  not  only  limited  to  air  but  also  including  for  instance  long-distance  road 
transport.  This  would  require  further  data  sources  for  these  modes  and  potential  further 
development  of the  tool.  However,  priority should  be  paid to  closing  data  gaps  and  refining 
the  index  calculation,  as  opposed  to  creating  a  multimodal  index,  for  the  same  reasons  as 
provided in the section below. 

11 

 
 
Extend the scope 

Table  0.3  has  listed  a  number  of  user  requirements  and  questions  defined  for  the  rail 
connectivity  index.  The  current  index  does  address  those  user  requirements  which  are 
considered to be an absolute necessity for an index information on the connectivity level. It is 
recommended to – for future iterations – consider extending the scope of the index to other 
user  requirements  listed  in  Table  0.3  (for  example  by  including  emissions  at  the  service 
level). The scope of the index could for instance be extended to the categories of affordability 
and  sustainability,  in  reference  to  the  categories  in  Table  3.2.  However,  it  should  be  noted 
that first and foremost a stable and complete version of the tool needs to  be established in 
future iterations before there will be real added value in extending the scope of the index. As 
such,  priority  should  be paid  to  first  and  foremost  close  data  gaps, then  to  refine  the  index 
calculation. 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Table  0.8  presents  the  output  of  the  cost-benefit  analysis  (with  a  quantitative  focus  on  the 
cost elements). We stress two points:  

  Direct costs have a rather high level of certainty;  

  The  potential  benefits  will  outweigh  the  modest  costs  of  index  development  and 

maintenance 

Table 0.8 CBA results (in 1.000 euro) 

Typology  Effects 

Direct 
costs 

Direct 
effects 

Results 

Development costs 

and 

costs: 

operation 

Regular 
maintenance 
Time savings 
Improving information quality 
Insight into environmental footprint 
External  effects  resulting  from  modal 
shift effects (CO2, NOx, PM) 
Net present value (NPV) 

RCI  
(base)* 

€ 0 

€  190  -  € 
300 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

RCI 
(informatio
n gap) 
€  20  -  € 
40 
€  640  -  € 
850 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

RCI 
(multimod
al) 
€  40  -  € 
50 
€  420  -  € 
760 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

RCI 
(extended 
scope) 
€  60  -  € 
110 
€  400  -  € 
510 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

€  190  -  € 
300 

€  660  -  € 
890 

€  460  -  € 
820 

€  470  -  € 
620 

The  total  development  costs  range  between  €  0  (base)  and  roughly  €  110.000  euro 
(multimodal).  The  largest cost  component  are  the  regular  costs  for  providing  an  actual  and 
updated  tool.  Dependent  on  the  iteration  the  costs  over  a  15  year  period  range  between 
roughly € 190.000 and €890.000. 

The benefits of improved information for transport decision makers are notoriously difficult to 
monetise at the European scale. Since we have been able to define the costs in some detail, 
we take here a slightly different approach than defining the aggregate expected benefits. The 
description  below  shows  what  benefits  would  need  to  be  realised  in  each  category 
individually  in  order  to  cover  the  cost  of  the  index  (i.e.  deliver  a  benefit  to  cost  ratio  of  1) 
(break-even analysis). The required benefits shown here are clearly higher for each benefits 
category than one would expect given multiple benefits categories are likely to be positive. 

In  order  to  place  the  results  into  perspective  a  quick  break-even  analysis  is  made  on  the 
potential benefits that would be needed to match the costs of the Rail Connectivity Index. In 
other words, a simulation of the required benefits in order to arrive at a benefit to cost ratio of 
1 is performed. Three types of benefits are used for this analysis:  

  Time savings; 

 

Improving information quality; 

12 

 
 
  Environmental effects. 

In terms of time savings, the rationale is that quicker access to information can result in time 
being saved by the user of the Rail Connectivity Index. For the purpose of this analysis, we 
have  assumed  that  roughly  1  hour  of  labour  is  saved  by  the  user  of  the  Rail  Connectivity 
Index and the European user has an average labour productivity of roughly €55 per hour. In 
order to outweigh the costs, the number of users for the Rail Connectivity Index is required to 
vary between 30 and 115 users per month (dependent on the type of iteration).  

The  second  benefit  looks  at  the  rail  connectivity  index  from  an  information  quality 
perspective. Better information quality could  lead to an information advantage, an improved 
political  process  or  other benefits.  In  order  to  quantify the  improved  information  quality, the 
value of using the Index need to be roughly estimated. We have conservatively assumed that 
the  Index  could  be  worth  €8.000  per  time  that  the  Index  is  used  to  improve  information 
quality (e.g. in political process). This is based upon the data license costs that feed directly 
into the calculation. The Index needs to be used between 3 and 12 times per year in order to 
outweigh the costs.  

As  a  third  benefit,  we  have  looked  at  the  environmental  footprint  of  multimodal  options  
versus rail transport. The purpose of this calculation is to estimate the number of people (and 
their associated footprint) that need to shift from multimodal options to rail transport in order 
to match the costs of the index. We have made an estimation for passenger cars to illustrate 
this  point,  using  key  emission  figures  calculated  by  CE  Delft.  As  for  this  example,  in  total 
between  800  to  3.000  people  have  to  change  from  car  to  rail  transport  until  the  costs 
outweigh the benefits of the index.  

Table 0.9 Break-even analysis of three types of benefits 

Typology 

Effects 

Unit 

RCI  
(base)* 

users p. month 
times p. year 

33 
3 

RCI 
(informati
on gap) 
136 
12 

RCI 
(multimod
al) 
115 
10 

RCI 
(extended 
scope) 
115 
10 

Direct 
effects 

Time savings 
Improving 
information 
quality 
External  effects 
from 
resulting 
shift 
modal 
to 
effects 
rail) 

(car 

number 
people 

of 

800 

3.500 

2.750 

2.750 

13 

 
 
M
I
-
0
5
-
2
3
-
5
1
6
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN 978-92-68-10286-2   

doi:10.2832/455078