Page 1 of 16

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

4th Railway Packaç

UROPEAN

Impact Assessment Questionnai

COMMISSION

Page 1/

Section A
l\

Your organisation

Which organisation do you represent7
Please select your organisa\lon type from the list below If more than one 1$ applicable please select all relevant
organisalions lf you are a representalive body please select Ihs orQanlsetlon type that you represenl For some
organlsahons there are addilional Queslions after those on (he flrst page The~ cen be pnnted by clicking Ihe pdl ieons
below, To download a pdt of Ihe non-organlsatlon speelfie quesUons pleese

click here

Nature of organisation

I" Infraslructure managers

r Passenger organlsatlons

1

1
1

Rail regulalory bodies

1

Incumbent freight railway undertakings

Workers' Represenlallves

r CO'11petlllon ALJlhonlies
1

Natlonal Safety Aulhonlles

r- New enlranl passenger railway LJndertaklngs

1- Rolling stock leasing compa.nies

1

1
1

New enlranl frelght railway undertaklngs

I" Public Transport Authontles (Competent Authonty)

1
B

Ineumbenl passenger railway undertaklngs

Industry Suppilers
Transporl (or other responsible) mlnlstnes

Olherl

Please state the name of your organisation and Member State(s) you operate in
Name of
Organisation:
Country(ies) of operatlon (lick EU tf active in all Member States)

Belgiumili- Bulgaria
Fmland+-l-

Hungary

Ireland'

r

Ir

Latvia

1- Netherlands

r

Poland _ I

Portugal

r

Spain

luxembourg

=,'
=
r
r

Slova.kla

All oflhe EU

Section B

=

Slovenia

Th

FrancellrItaly

r-

r- Czech Republic

Austna_r"
Estonia-r

=
1

=

Germany-r-

Sweden:

Oenmark.:r
Greece:Cr

r

llthuania

=

Romania

1

I Ir

1 Un:ted Klngdom!:ZB r

qualJty i)f rBil .:G VIC ~'3 In t' E EU

T ,B '--'""1111',
1)1 h3S "110 t 'rl qS K{)9d rvl'l? ll'.:~·(lS : ) ' l r1ql !::urop 3n
Tr'lnsport f\rp;j" a "'urn ,,' (initlé"l"Ve'", ne hrs
1"': jr:h is ere ti 9 " {ru,.
lo,e I I m rk t '(Jr ral ~orvlces hls':> St:E:ro dl> r: roe e ;;) r{ sls" 10 elimtnale
e
;:;- "I' (""rn~ l-,::1 --' "I ''',,'~;r', ,:"\<1 ;~"" ,!{, .. }') J Th I', ' ' tb") r"i' S' t'1' i[1 ),1rt[, dar lts
c )nll .,tIUV,~ 1(' 1\1 i 1 ",p pc,re
nltl'~r tran'
Ir
-, drl~ en
y t
8112(-'11 pr\ biefTI vi ~sfl,,;,erh>
I ,Ile IJ lt'y "nrJ tHlJ(.l€ 11, y 0' ra
rVILes Th€ '
Issue of lW I,ly
of fundamental ;r p rt;:. (' 1 l ': a "Iy, 10 blO. un ertaken Ir

thtS Imp

t J

&

s~;ment.

, ur lhl: ! urp 'es d lhi~ surV<JV Wt; (onsldor l1ç lity t inducJ->; pundu /Ilv
as!;; - 0 er comfort, on t),' ar :L vlr,es \ ,nclu:jing typo. f,i
nlinl;;$S ;;JI;-ç sSlblllt
Intormalian. ,'ervic frequency. Intra model Bod lntBrm dal IntBgrali n all< Illy
also rel- Ls 10 I rj plJnclualily. celut'llty ('J[\(j Cu~\t')mer ne0d f r r( 19111 secvices

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Q1.1

Page 2 of 16

FolJowlng from the description set out above, are there any other aspects relating to the quatity
of rail services that you think are relevant?
{

Yes

{

No

r

No opinion

j'e§e spédfy these othe' aspects land th. sp.dOe M.mbe' Stales you, co~monts ,..., 10)

Q1.2a

How would you rate the q ual ity of rai I services in you r home cou ntry?
Please choose a number In lhe range 1 (Q 5, where 1 "'very bad and 5"'very gOOd,

Rail pass enger services

l

Rail freighl services

r

2

3

4

5

No oplnion

NIA

l

r

r

r

r

r

l

r

r

Please comment and provide any evidence and data that can substantiate your response,

I

-

~

1

~

I

Q1.2b

Looking at other countries you operate in, where do you think the quality of the passenger rail
sector is a problem?
You ean seleCl more than one Member State

Austria=r

Belglumllr Bulgaria

Estonia-r-

F,nla"d +

r

Hungary=r

Ireland '

Slovakia

,
I

Czech Republlc

FrrJncel Ir

Germany

Denmark::r"

r

r­

Greece:

r
Latvla=r

Lithuanla" r

r

ltalylli

r

Poland_r

Portugal

Slove ma H!IIJI r-

Spain=r

Sweden::r Unileo Kingdom 00 r

Luxembourg - I Netherlanós=
All of Ihe EU

r

Romanlal

r

Ir

j'oose comme", aod p,ov;d. '"V ev;dence and data that ean ,ubslanfiate y~ m,pon,e

Q1.2c

Looking at other counlries you operate in, where do you think the quality of the freight rail
sector is a problem?
You can select more than one Member State

Austria=r

Belgiuml f

r­

Bulgaria . . ;­

Czech Republic"'r-­

Estonia-,

Finland + 1

Francellr

Germany

Hungary= f'­

Ireland

Luxembourg Slovakia

,--

llaly

r-

r

Denmark::r
Greece:::= ,

Latvia=1

Lithuanla_r­

r- Net"erlal1ds = ,

Poland_r

Portugal

,

Spain=r

Swede"::1 Uniled Klngdom

SlovenlaH!IIJI,

,­

Romanlallr

SB,

All of the E U " ,

.... ,i ­

I

Please comment and provide any evidence and data thai can subslantiate

Y05 response,

I

-:.I

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Q1.3

Page 3 of] 6

Do you consider quality issues are different for passenger services provided under public
service contracts and those provided by open access?
Yes

î

C

No

('

No oplnion

If yes, please explain what are the reasans for such disti netion in you r "iewand provide, where
possible, examples and statistical data:

I
Q.4

To what extent do you think that the quality of rail services affects the competitiveness of the rail
sector in the country(ies) you operate in?
Ta <I great eJ(tenl

Ta same extent

Frelght services
(­

Passenger services

Ta a minor exient

Not at all

('

('

('

('

No apin ion

î

Please explain your answer with reference to any specific example.

01 Sa

Ta what extent do you believe that the following quality and financial elements affect demand for
rail passenger services?
Quality elements
To a minor Nat at

To a grcat

Ta some

cxtent

extent

e.xtent

all

opinlon

C

'"

(

('

('

('

('

\

\

\

r

('

r

î

('

('

r

('

('

('

r

r

r

(

('

r-

"

î

('

r-

Service frequency
lntramodallntegrat,on (between rail serviceS of

~

diFferenl operators Incl udlng through-ticketlng)
Intermodal integratlon (e,g, 111terchange raad-rail
Including the poss,bility of ,n(egrated ticketing)
Punctualily

On board Services (e 9 train eieanl' ness, a Ir
conditlonmg, etc.)
Inform<ltlon to passengers

No

,~

Financial elements
To a great

To same

To a minor

Not at

No

extênt

extent

extent

all

opinion

('

r

r

c

('

C

('

r

r

r

C

,

î

r-

e

T,cket prices
Public subsidies for infra structure
developmenl
Publlc fU'1dîng for plJbliC service contract
compensatlon

Qi.Sb

r

Other problem eJements, quality or financial (please specify in the comment

..:5X)

l

~

To what extent do you believe that the following quality elements affect demand for rail freight
services?

Jllity

To a great

Tosome

Ta a minor

Not at

No

extent

elCtent

extent

all

opinlon

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Page 4 of 16

r

Punctualily
Service offer
adapted to

('

r

Price

r

r

r

('

Intermodailly

C

r

r

('

customers'

r

neoos

01,?c Please rank the tollowing elements trom the one with the greatest importanee to the one with the
least importanee tor the competitiveness of the rail sector, unless you have indicated "no
opinion" or "not at all" in question 1,Sa,
Passenger services

Rank
importanee
(1 ~mosl ,mporta~l
9'IO<Ist Important)

Service frequency

r-3

Intramodal integralion (betweer< rail services of different operators InclLJdmg through­

r--iJ

\Icketlng)
Intermodal Integrat,on (e g, Inlerchange raad-rail InclLJdlng the possibility of integrated

r:::J
r-3
1-3

\Icketing)
On board services (e,g, train cleanllness, air conditIOning, etc.)
Inrormatlon to passengers
Ticket prices

r-3

PLJbl,C subSidies lor Inlrastruclure development

r::J

PLJbllC fund Ing for public service contract compensatlon

1- .:l

Other elements (please specify in the comment box):

..:J
01,5d

Please rank the tollowing elements trom the one with the greatest importanee to the one with the
least importanee tor the competitiveness of the rail sector, unless you have lndlcated "no
opinion" or "not at all" in question 1.5b.
Rail frelght services.
Rank importanee
(1 ~most Imp~rt$nl 5~10ast important)

Rellabllity
PLJncllJalily
Service offer adapted to cLJslomers' needs
Price
Intermodailly

Please comment and provide any evidence and data that can substantiate your response

.<

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Conunon Questions

Section C
the EU

ISSU8S af'ectmg th > qua lty of f31:

Page 5 of 16

pass., 9

r\ f

f S

In

The ElH'(jpi?an Commis Ion believe" hal dOf e t1(: r' iI pa $enge r 5efYICO!S suffer
frürr ,Ol Inw level of , 18111y 8, eff!Glen y whlch i ,< (iS to p
r int(l( rnodal
,.l;rtorl11anu'. Accord<ng tü ~l prellmin;;,ry drnly 'I'::' II the Eur~pe (l Com i slun
thls _lhJallon C,Hl tic allr,bull;-d ,0 the prt';·s neF, of S' Een ':ibs cles wnlch amper
merkel 3(,lA~3S limits new entrónl- clnd hl (Jer the I lternal rmHk ·,t f r rail
passonç;or sorvices '/lh !la'i 'Identifie(l r I.'r Bin drl\.""rs affecting h ~ qual~ly of
rail servicr,'S In the . U, e<lCr of the 1 .ümpnSInU a I'W11b r 1)1 olements W' are
intcr0sH!d In jOll r 0 llnlOti wlth r8SpeGt t{) thl;se IssUeS,

Q2.1

To what extent do you agree that the followin9 aspects affect the quality of rail services and
have an impact on the competitiveness of the rail sector in the EU?
Strongly

Partlally

Neither

Par1ially

Strongly

No

agree

agree

agree nor

disagree

dlsagree

opinion

,

('

('

("

disagree

,

r

(e.9 access la rail relaled services

r

,

('

(~

r

and rolli ng stock, atc )

,

,

("

('

C

('

,r

,r­

(­

('

r

e

(.

Access barners for railway
undertakmgs
OIscriminatory Iramework condilions

Inadequate regulator)' overslgrt

('

(~

l..<iIck ol competitlve Incentives on
railway undenakings la Improve

r

qualilyl reduce la res
Othe r

-!

e

c

Please explain your suggested "Other" category in more detail
...

-:J

I

2.2

-=.J

To what extent do you believe that the following factors contribute to each of the problems listed
in the previous question?
a} Access barrlers for raîlway undertakings to the rail sector

Consira ints conc;ernl ng access to rail
relaled services

Ta a great

Ta some

Ta a minor

Not at

No

edent

extent

extent

all

opinion

r

C

('

('

C

Inlrasltucture capacity constramts

(

­

(­

C

('

(-

Constrarnts on rollrng stock avallabllity

(­

('

î

("'

('

('

("

Oth'lr;

I

C

,

,

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Page 6 of 16

b) OIscriminatory framework conditIons

To a

Tosome

Toa

Not

No

great

edent

minor

at all

opinion

("

extent

exOOnt

Insllfflclenl independence of InfrastruClure Manager
functions (in relahon to capacity allocalion and

r

r-

r

r

C

r

r

r

r
r

r

['

r

r

charging)
Leek of finaneiall technical lransparency
Other.

I

p lease comment and provide any evidence and data that ean substantiate Y i j response .

.:J

l

c) Inadequate Regulatory Qverslght

Toa

To

To a

Not

No

great

some

minor

at

opinion

extent

e)(OOnt

e)(tent

all

Inadequate scope of regulalory compelenees (e.g.
exlendlng scope 10 open access and pubiic service

['

contracts ror domeslic passenger services includi ng lhe
definltion of pubi,c service conlracls)
Inadequate resources/ regulalory expertise (e gin tenms of
slaff numbers necessary fo react to a market with multiple

r

operators or wlth sufficient expenence in deailng with
regulatory issues)

r

Divergent Interpretatlon of leglslatlon
Other.

I

r

r

dl Lack of competitive incentives on railway undertakings to improve qualitylreduce fares

laek of competltive award of Public Service

To a great

Tosome

To a minor

Not al

No

e)(tent

e)(tenl

e)(tent

all

oplnJon

(

e

("

r

e

r

r

r

r

r

r
r

r
r

e

(

e
r

Contrac1s
Inadequate defln ilion and scope of pu bilt
service obi igations
lack of open access nghls
Other

r-

r

Please eomment and provide any evidence and data that ean substanliate your response.

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Page 7 of 16

QZ.S Are there any other problems within the rail sector that are hindering the creation of a high
qual ity passen ger servi ce th at can compete with other modes of transport?

r

Yes

r

No

r

No opinion

Please commen! and provide any evidence and data that can substantiate your response.

~

I

-.J

02.4 What effect do the following extemal factors have on the competiliveness of the rail sector?
Very

Positlve

posltive

Nelther

Negatlve

positive nor

Very

No

negative

opinlon

negative
Increasing raad congestio n

L

L

L

r

r

r

Im praving q uality of domestic air

r

('

r

r

('

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

r

(~

r

('

r

Î

Increasing raad priclng

('

('

(~

Olher. J

r

r

('

r
r

r
r

transport services
Decreasing pnce of air transport
services
Deterloratlng state of the
economy

(~

r

Please comment and provide any evidence and data that can substantiate your response.

~

I
Section 0 Th

objectivcs of this poiicy Initialive

Tre Europ an Commis lor VilShHS cO ccntnbute to lh~ Gompie/Ion of ttle InfBrnal
frlarket far lL.. n:o.p 0 rt throiJ gh 11'11 provsm ont;:; to I he o~, ralion ol H,e integraterJ E
rEl dW21y sys liS rn a nd I1s I nsiitlJ1<)(l<) I fra iTlüwork In (") rei PI 10 do thiS H n umber of
potortléll objeclives havE; been IdcnUficd

Q31

Do you believe thai the following objectives address the issues previously discussed in Section

C of this survey? Click er" 10 see Issues
Yes No
Improve access la infrastructure at cost·refiectlve charges that creala apprapnate

('

No
opinion
('

incentives for new entrants
Imprave access la rolling slock on competitlve lerms for new entrants
Ensure independent deciSlon maklng In relalion to provision of, and charges for.

C-

r

L

("

r-

r

r

("

("

r

L

('

Inlrastrudure managemenl funclLons
Enhance regulatDry competencles In relatlon to competltlve award ol publ,c service
contracts
Improve access la rai I rel<Jled services (station lacil ities and llckellng and infoffilatlon
_.. ~'- -ns)

Page 8 ofl6

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Conunon Questions

Ensure competihve award of public service contra cts

r

c

('

Ensure a consistent open access approach lO domestic rail passenger markels

('

l

l

re.,.. comment .odlo, .dd oth", object;yes

Section E

ptions

Pollc

The European Commission has IdE;ntified a nurnber of 0 'tion' tha! could
contrr ute t Uïe fulfilm nt of the policy obJecli es il!ustrated in the prevl us
section end, ultimately, improve [he camp .lltlveness ot tl1e EU rallwal' sector.
Please provide your vi .w on the dlff rent policy optlons illuslrat
belo IV wI,ien
are relaled 10 lwo main ar 'as 1 Inlerv .n/lOn- rnarket opening of rail passenger
service' nd Ind
n enC0 f nrr s ru
r man gement.

Market opening
Th C mmi sion has -1.31.0<1 Jn lts
. j Map th' t il wilt seek 10 stabil h an
rI us
ttracllve nd dynaml op ".
d mark l. We dl CUS In this sc ti n th
Op!IO s f ü ,.
mpleting the Prol ess f m r' e opening

4.1a Do you agree that further market Integration of the rail sector should be progressed by opening
of domestic passenger services through new open access rights?
Strongly agree

Partially agree

,

NelU1er agree

Partlally disagree

Strongly dlsagree

No opinion

e

r

('

nor dlsagree

l

(.

Please comment:

:;]

I
Q4.1b

~

What effect would further market opening (through new open access rights in the domestic
market) have on the following areas7
Very

Positive

No

Negatlve

effect

positive

Very

No

negative

opinion

\

r-

I

(~

r

('

('

r

('

('

l

I

('

r

('

~.

l

('

(~

C

('

r

l

('

(

('

('

('

f-

l

('

Informallon 10 passangers

Î

('

r

(

l

r

Ticket pnces

1-

l

('

e

('

r

PubIIc subsidies for mfrastructure

r

('

('

('

('

r

Service freQuency

(-

Intramodal integration (between rail
services of different operators Includlng
through-ticketing)
Intermodai integratlon (e.g, Inlerchange
raad-rail Includlng the possib Ilily of
integrated ticketlng)
Punctuality
On board services (e.g train cleanl.ness,
air conditioning, elc.)

developmenl
:',J

':~

-

I

~,

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Conunon Questions

Publie fundJng for public service conlract

Page 9 of 16

r

compensalion

Î

Please explain your answer providlng, where possible, national examples
and statistical data

Q4 Za

Do you agree that further market integration of the ralf sector should be progressed byopening
of domestic passenger services through compulsory competitive tendering for publiç service
contracts7
Strangly agree

Partially agree

Neither agree

Partially dlsagree

Strongly disagree

No apinion

nar disagree
~.

('

\

Please comment:

_I

04."b What effect would further market opening (through compulsory competitive tendering for pubIIc
service contracts) have on the following areas?

('

..

Intramodal Inlegralion (between ra il
('

services of differenl operators ineludlng

Negative

effect

('

Service frequency

No

Positive

Very

positive

Very

No

negative

oplnion

Î

('

('

r

('

C'

C­

I

('

Î

C

through-tlcketi ng)
Inlermadal 'nlegration (e ginterchange
road-rail Includ Ing the poss,b,lily of

r

,,..

(~

('

e

,

r­

e

r­

e

('

c

r

r-

..

C'

c

('

l

Î

('

Î

l

Î

/"

('

('

('

('

('

r

r

('

c

e

r

Inlegrated hekeling)
Pu nclualily

On board services (eg train cleanllness,
air conditioning, elc )

.

Informallon 10 passengers
Ticket prlces
Public subs,d ies for Infrastructure

(

development
Pu bi IC fund Ing fOI public se rvi ce contract
compensation

Please explaÎn your answer providing, where possible, national examples
and statistical data

04,3a

If some or all of your network were to be opened to open access operations, please outline your
vÎews on the following ways In which such a policy might be implemented:
Very
positive

Positive

a) A contlnuation of the existing
arrangements In Member States
ir< relalion to the provISIon of

,.. ,

Jen access arrangemenls

No
effect

Î

Negutive

Very

No

negative

opinion

Page 10 of 16

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

b) Open access on routes not

r

covered by publ.c serv.ce

r

contracts

cl Open access as In opllon (b).
but al50 perm,tted on routes
covered by publ.c service

r

conlmcls though Member States
couid limit access lf economie
vlability of publie service
co ntract is affeete d

d) Open aceess unrestricted on
certalJ'llypes of services (such

Î

as long-d,stance, high-speed or
premium airport services)

el Open aceess unrestricted on all
routes (mamtaJnlng the

r

possibllity of publlc funding for
unprofilable services)

f) Other

Î

I
Please provide details of any "Other" option that you have inserted and consider may be
relevant.

Q4.3b

Please rank the following options tor whlch you believe there wlll be a positive er very positive
effect trom the one which you think Is most appropriate to meet the objectives presented in
Section D to the one which is the least appropriate. Click here la se objectives
Rank. importance
(1 ~most positive e~leasl
PO$ltIVS)

aj

A conllnuahon of the eXlstlng arrangements in Member States In relatlon to
the provIsIon of open access arrangemen ls

b)

Open access on routes nol covered by pubilc service contra ets

c}

Open access as in option (b). bul also permitted on routes eovered by pubIIc
servIce contracts lhough Member States could limit aCcess if economie
viabil ity ot publlc service contract IS affected

d}

Open access unrestricted on certs In types of services (sucfl as long-

el

Oper1 access unrestrocted on all routes (mSlntaining the posSlbllity of publie

dlstance. high-speed or premium airport services)

fu nOlng for \Jn profilabie services)

f)

Otherl

r'ease exp'oln you, on~" p",.'d'ng. where poss;b'e. speelfic exomp'es

If 50me or all of your netwerk were subject 10 competitive tendering, pJease oulline your views

on Ihe following ways in which such a pollcy might be implemenled:
Very
posttlve

Positive

No

effect

Negative

Very

No

negatlve

opinion

al Retentlon of the eXlsting legal
framewor1<. in whlch competent
Jlhonlles can determine

Î

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Page 11 of 16

whelhel to award pubhc service
contracls dlrec!ly or through a
compelltlve tendering process

bI Compell!lve tendering
Introduced for public service
contracls where a finanC'<l I or
operalional threshold is
exceeded (eg contract value,
volume of traffie).

I) Fmancla/' where tlJe lotal
contract va/ue IS greater than a

(-

r

Î

pre delermlned flgure

ii) Operational where tho
coniracl rovers more than a pre

r

('

determineo' IJercenlage of tho

('

('

lolal network accordmg to an
agreed me/ne.

Ilï) Other:

r

cl A speciflcation of negotlallon
elemenls allowed under a
competltlve tendenng proeed ure

('

Î

along the lines of the relevant
provIsions In pLibliC procu rement
law

dl Compe\itive tendering for all
public service contra cts

el Other

I

Î

('

co

co

('

co

,r

,-

Please provide details of any "Other" option that you have inserted and consider may be
relevant.

Q404b

ptease rank the following options for which you believe there will be a positive or very positive
effect in relatlon 10 Ihe degree 10 which they meet Ihe objectives presented in Section D. Click he's
(0 s e objectives

Rank importanee
( , ~ mOSI POSHI >Ie 5~ le8st pOSI tIve )

al Retentlon of the eXlstlng legal framework in which competent authoritles
C'ln deterrn ine whe,her to award publlc service contracts dIrectly or

th rough a compelilive lend ering process
b) Competltlve lenderIng In\rodlJced 'or plJbllc service contracts where a
fina ncial or operationa I threshold IS exceeded (e g, contract val ue. volume
ol tralflc)

cl A specif,catiofl of negotlatlon elements allawed under a competitlve
tenderll1.g procedure along the lines or the relevanl provisIons In publlc
procurementlaw
d) Competltlve tendenng lor all public service contracls

el Otherl

I,ea....plal. you' a.swe,

p,~ldl.g, whe,e possl.'e, specWc ...mples

Page 12 of 16

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Q4. a What is the view of you r organisation on each of the followi ng framework condItIons ?
Improved access to rolling stock
Very

al Compulsory transfer of rolling
sloek 10 new operator

No

Positive

Very

No

negaUve

opinion

C-

r

r

r

r

r

Negative

effect

posltille

r

r

r

r-

C

L

r

r

r

r

L

L

r

r

r

r

bl Creatlon of rolling stock leasing
eompanles thaI are te provIde
\r",ns (or public service

r

contrac\s.
cl Rolling stock to be provlded by
competent authonty
d) Other

I

Please provide details of any "Other" option that you have inserted and conslder may be
relevant.

Improved access to rail related services, in particular Ucketlng
Very

a. Reinforeed access rvles for
licketmg facltitles

Î

L

Very

No

negative

opinion

r

r-

r

Negative

.'

L

r

I

I

I

r
r

c

r

r

r

î

r

î

r

r-

C"

C-

cl Inter-avallability of tickets

I

No
effect

b) Compu Isory th ra ugh-tlcketlng

d) Other

Posltlve

positlve

Please provide details of any "Other" option that you have inserted and consider may be
relevant

Tenderlng procedures
Very

Positive

posltlve

No

Negative

effect

Very

No

negative

oplnlon

a) Clear conditions (0 be

mtroduced on the manner in
whlch staff IS öppropna lely

L

I

e

î

I

I

L

r

('

protected dunng the transfer
from one operator to anmher.

b) Extendlng [he competerce of
the regulalory bodles in the
tendering process te cover
areas such as definlng the
Criteria lhat authorltles are ta
use 10 formulatlOg tenders
c) Mandatory application of
compensatlon rules In Annex 10
Regulallon 1370/2007 In C8S8 of
• I

single bidder

,,-.

Page 13 of 16

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

r·.. ---·..···_-

dl Other

r

r

Please provide details of any "Other" option that you have inserted and consîder may be
relevant.

I
a4.Sb Please rank each of the following framawork conditions ror which you believe there will be a
positive or very positive effect in relation to the degree to which they meet the objectives
presented in Section O. CliCk here 10 "ee ()bJec.\lves
Improved aCCess to rolling stock
Rank importanee
(1 ~mo5t posltlve

4~Ieast poSlllvel
a) Compulsory lrarlsfer ol rolling stock to rlew operator
b} Crealion ol rolling stock leasrng companles that are la provIde trains lor pubiIc

servIce cont raets .
cl Rolling stock 10 be provlded by competent authonty

rse

d) Other

I

expla;".you, ans..., pmvid;ng, whe... poss'hle, speeffi-" examples

Improved access 10 rai I related services, in part,cular tickeling
Rank importance
(1 :most pos~fi'-"e

4=l"asl posilive)

al Rel rlforeed access rules for tlcketing faclll\les

b) Compulsory through-tlcketln9.
c) Inler-availability ol tickets.
d} Other

r

I'ease exple;" you. e"swe, proa;d;"g, who... poss;Ole, spedfie ex~ples

Tendering procedures
Rank importance
(1 ~most pos'\lve
4~1€3SI pO~II"G)

a} Clear conditrans 10 be rntroduced on the manner in which staH 1$ appropriately

prolected duri ng fhe transfer from ane operator to anolhe r.
b) Extendlrlg the eompetence of the regulalOry bodles In the tendenng process 10
cover areas such as den ning lhe enten a that authontles a re to use In IDrmulaling
tenders
c) Marldatory application of compensatlon rliles In Annex to Regulation 1370/2007 in
case of a single bidder
d) Other

I

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

r"'"

Page 14 of 16

.,plaln ~ou, answe, p,"vldlng. wh.re posslbl•• specific .,.mples

.J

Enhanced independenee of infras ructure management
The Comm! $Ion has st~ te In lts Whlte sper thaI it will seek tQ ensure eff0cllv8
<~nd n n.. oiscrlmin< Dry acces to raJl intr- slructuro in partlcular lhrougl slructural
,eparation (enhanced mr,Jl"penci ~nCB of lnfrastrv ture mön' gement) between
Infr tru cru re m
gB P1Elrl tand servi CB provIS Ion, We dl scuss In this s ~ ctlO n trH':l
vanous option f r Ihis ;<;:nhanc
Independenee of mfrastructure manag m n ,

Q5.1

Currently, Membe( States have chosen to adopt different approaches to vertical separation.
Wh ich of the followin 9 vertical separatlon models ex ist in you r country(ies) of operation :
Institlrtional

Partial separatlon

se pa rati on

IJ nlras tru ctu ra Man ag erand Ra jlWay

separatod but same

Partiallntegration
(I nlras truc ture Ma na gor
and Railway Undertaklng

Inlrastructure Managor activitios

undor the same halding

undertako n by Iha Rallway

company)

Underta~;ng

FIJI! Integration wilh
independent
alloclItIon and
charging bodjes

Undottaklng)
('

Q5.2

e

r-

r

Please explain what the advantages and dlsadvantages are of the model(s) you have selected in
question 5,1

...:J
Institutîanal!y separated model

Q5.3 To what extent does this model address the following aspects?
Toa

Tosome

Toa

Not

No

great

e>:tent

minor

at all

opinion

enent

extent

î

î

('

r

r
r

(~

(-

Ersuring fina ncial lransparency

r

C

Preventing dIscrim Inatory pracllces

('

r

Facllitating cross-border cooperation

C

Avoiding 100 extenSlve and costly regulatory oversight

r

("

,

/"'

C

limiting lransacllon costs

r
r-

e

r

c-

(-

Ensuring allgnmellt/coordillation between
infrastructu re management and provIsIon of transport

r

r

.

r

r

r

,

r

C-

'"

..

Î

services
Other

I

~

Please provide evidence and any data that you may have to support your vie1j

I

-:J

Non-Institutlonally separated model
Nhat extent does thls model address the following aspects?

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Comrnon Questions

Page 150f16

Toa

To some

To a

Not

No

great

extent

minor

at all

opinion

('

extent

extent

r
r
r

Ensunng nnancial transparency

('

('

Preventlng discómlnalory practices

('

('

r
r
r

r
r-

r

l

\

r

r

\

Facililating cross-border cooperatlon

r

Avoldmg 100 extenslve and costly fegulatory overSlght

('

Llmltlng transaction casts

('

infrastructure management and provIsIon of transport

r

r

('

Y"

r

l

r

r

l

_.

Ensunng allgnmentlcaordinatlon be(ween

r

r
r
r

services
Other

I

Y"

Pllease provide evldence and any data that you may have to support your vies

I

~I

QS.S Fer which of the following functions do you consider that independance of declsion making
must be reinforeed to ensure non-discrimination?
Yes

No

No opinlon

("

('

r

Infrastruclure maintenance acllvlties

r

r

Î

intrastruclure charging

C

('

('

Infrastructure planning and finanClng

l

l

r

Other.j

('

('

Î

Capacity allocation (Includlng (raiNc management)

Please provide where possible ex.amples including quantified data as weil as any detailed
comment on different activities and functions listed above

I
Please rank the following options trom the one which you thlnk is most appropriate to meet the
objectives presented in Section D to the one which is Ihe least appropriate. Chck here 10 s e

Q5.6

objeC1ives

Rank importance
11=most appropriate
S'=leagl appropliate)

a) Exisllng separatlon requirements (Iegal , organlsatlonal and d ecision maklng)
b} Existlng separatlon requlrements (Iegai. organ'satlonal and decision maklng) but

also applying 10 addftional funcllons of the lofraslructure manager

cl Inslltu110nai sepa ration applYI ng only to (he body In cha rge of the esse'1tia I
lunclions

d) Instltutlonal separalion app IYlng to all functlDns of the Infra strLJctule Manager
e} Otherl

Please ex.plain your answer and/or indicate alternative oplions providing,
where possible, specific examples

" '.

Page 16 of 16

4th Railway Package Impact Assessment - Common Questions

Q5.

In addition to the optlons in question 5.6, would you support the creation of a specific body
including, in a non-discriminatory manner, representives trom all Infrastructure users to ensure
that their interests are duly taken into consideration?
('

Yes

('

No

('

No oplnion

.J
steer davi,es gleave