Summary Report - Transport & Mobility Leuven · Rhine rail route. The study was carried out in...

3RX Feasibility study alternative Rhein – Ruhr Rail Connection

DECEMBER 2017

Summary Report

http://www.tmleuven.be/index.htm

http://pictures.attention-ngn.com/portal/35/127023/logo/1411381590.8166_3_o.jpg

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL

Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

2

Authors:

WIM SPIT Overall project leader

KRIS CASTELEYN Work package Environment

ROBERT JAN ROOS Work package Technical

GRIET DE CEUSTER Work package SCBA

KOEN VERVOORT Work package Traffic

WOLF-DIETRICH GEITZ Work package Financing

Robert jan roOS

Consultant

CARL VERELST Project manager

Version:

Final - December 2017

"The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union

is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained

therein."

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


3

CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES 5

PREFACE 7

1 BACKGROUND 9

1.1 History of the Iron Rhine 9

1.2 Market logic Iron Rhine 9

1.3 Government policies 10

2 THE 3RX ROUTE 13

2.1 Present situation 13

2.2 Review of the present infrastructure 16

2.3 Identified measures 17

2.4 Environmental feasibility of measures 19

2.5 Investment costs 3RX 20

2.6 Costs of other alternatives 23

2.7 Planning 23

3 TRAFFIC DEMAND 25

3.1 Present traffic 25

3.2 Future traffic 29

4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS 33

4.1 Methodology 33

4.2 Project effects 34

4.3 Results 35

4.4 Sensitivity analysis 37

5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 41

6 FINANCING OPTIONS 43

7 RISK ANALYSIS 45

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


4

8 NEXT STEPS 49

8.1 Legal road map 49

8.2 Process architecture 52

APPENDIX A 57

APPENDIX B – TASK REPORTS 59

R1 – Introduction 61

R2 – The logic of a solution Iron Rhine 63

R3 - Present situation 65

R4 & R5 – Required Quality and Capacity 67

R6 – Environmental Assessment 69

R7 – Stakeholder analysis 71

R8 & R9 – Road map for realization 73

R10 – Atlas 75

T1 – T4 – Costs, Technical variants and planning 77

E1 – Present traffic 79

E2 – Traffic forecast 81

E3 – E5 – Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA) 83

E6 – Risk analysis 85

E7 – Financial analysis 87

E8 – Financing options 89

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


5

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Planning of works 24

Figure 2: Share of East-West rail freight traffic for the relevant O-D’s (% train count,

2015) 26

Figure 3: Montzen border crossing train counts per day in 2015 28

Figure 4: Montzen border crossing train counts per day in 2015 28

Figure 5: Autonomous growth of East-West rail freight trains (daily counts) 29

Figure 6: Different steps within a SCBA (Based on Gauderis, 2013) 33

Figure 7: Flow chart showing project management connected with public relations 54

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


7

PREFACE

This report presents the findings of a study of the feasibility of the 3RX route: an

alternative rail route between the seaports of the North Sea and the industrial Rhein

Ruhr Area in Germany, which is based on existing rail infrastructure. The 3RX route

has been developed as an alternative option for reactivation of the Historical Iron

Rhine rail route.

The study was carried out in December 2015-December 2017 and was financed by

the Flemish Government with co-financing by the European Union (Connecting

Europe Facility).

This summary report is based on the various task reports that have been prepared

during the study. It describes the various analyses carried out and summarizes the

main findings of the task reports. It does not contain new information. More details can

be found in these task reports.

The study was overseen by a Steering Committee consisting of representatives of the

five national and regional governments involved, i.e.:

• Flanders

• North Rhine-Westphalia

• Belgium

• Germany

• The Netherlands

The list of members of the Steering Committee can be found in Appendix A to this

report.

The study has been carried out by a consortium of companies from the three

countries involved: Arcadis (Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands), Railistics

(Germany), Transport and Mobility Leuven (Belgium) and Ecorys (The Netherlands).

On behalf of the consortium I would like to express my gratitude to the members of

the Steering Committee for their valuable contributions to the study and the

stimulating discussions on the various reports.

In addition I would like to thank the representatives of the three infrastructure

providers involved: Infrabel, DB-Netz and ProRail.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank the Flemish government for providing the

support we needed, thereby enabling this challenging study.

Rotterdam, December 2017

Wim Spit, Project leader

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


9

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 History of the Iron Rhine

The Treaty of London of 1839, which formalized the separation between Belgium and

the Netherlands, gave Belgium the right to establish a direct rail connection between

Antwerp and Germany across Dutch territory. The subsequent Iron Rhine Treaty of

1873 set out the modalities of a rail connection between Antwerp and

Mönchengladbach, via Weert and Roermond. This route is called the ‘historical Iron

Rhine route’.

The Iron Rhine was operational as a rail freight transport route until 1991. After years

of inactivity, in 1999 the Belgian and Dutch ministers signed a Memorandum of

Understanding with the purpose of reactivating the dormant historical route. However,

in the years that followed no agreement could be reached on the division of costs of

its reactivation.

In 2005 the case was brought to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The tribunal

confirmed Belgium’s right of way to Germany across Dutch territory. Equally so the

tribunal determined the methodology for the division of costs of reactivation of the

route between the two countries.

However, the prospect of a reactivated historical route met with strong opposition,

partially because the rail section passes through the Dutch nature reserve De

Meinweg. Alternative routes were considered to find a more acceptable and viable

solution. One such alternative is the ‘A52 route’ which follows the route of the A52

motorway in Germany. Another alternative is the so-called “Dritte Weg” or Rhein-Ruhr

Rail Connection (3RX).

This report focuses on the technical, environmental and economic feasibility of this

3RX-route. In the economic appraisal the route is compared with the two other

alternatives to revitalise the ”Iron Rhine”, namely the Historical Route and the A52-

route.

1.2 Market logic Iron Rhine

Presently the Montzen-route is the predominant route for rail freight transport between

the Flemish seaports and the German hinterland. However, this route has several

limitations. Firstly, the competitiveness of the Montzen-route versus road transport is

negatively affected by its longer transport distance and longer transport time. The

longer distance partially results from the southern bend around the Netherlands,

before tracks go up north again to the Ruhr Area.

Secondly, several characteristics of the route such as the inclinations along the route

and the need to change direction at Aachen for southbound trains, have a negative

impact on time and costs.

Thirdly, there are few alternatives to the Montzen-route. The alternative Brabant-,

Betuwe- and Athus-Meuse routes all imply much longer travel distances, as well as

the need for trains to change direction. Moreover, the capacity of these routes to cope

with additional rail freight is limited. This means that in case of a major calamity on the

Montzen route east-west rail freight transport is considerably hampered.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


10

1.3 Government policies

European Union

Although the Iron Rhine is not part of the TEN-T Core Network, European policy (e.g.

TEN-T Coordinator) considers it a relevant route. The project aligns with the broader

rail freight transport agenda which sets out the EU’s objective to promote sustainable

mobility by rebalancing the modal split in favour of rail.

Belgium

The Iron Rhine is acknowledged by the Federal and Flemish governments as

important infrastructure, which potentially adds economic value to the Flemish ports

and contributes to a range of policy objectives, including modal shift and reduced

emissions. Positive spill-over effects are considered to exist for the regions of Kempen

and Northern Limburg, although there are also local concerns over adverse impacts.

Flanders’ rail strategy

Recently it has been decided that electrification of the line Mol-Neerpelt-Hamont, one

of Flanders’ rail priorities, will be realised by 2020. This project was included in the

virtuous debt settlement. The investment works cost € 46 million and are co-financed

by Europe.

Germany

In Germany rail infrastructure investments are prioritized by both federal and regional

policy as a means to mitigate road congestion and pollution. While the importance of

the Iron Rhine is acknowledged, local concerns regarding noise pollution are explicitly

addressed and externalities should be targeted through appropriate measures.

In the Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030 that was published in 2016 a project is included

that specifically aims at facilitating passenger and freight rail traffic between Venlo and

Mönchengladbach. This project envisages, among other things, a double track

between Kaldenkirchen and Dülken. The cost benefit analysis was finalized in

November 2017 and shows a favourable result. The Bundesverkehrswegeplan now

rates the project as “Vordringlicher Bedarf”. This means that preparations for the

realisation can be started.

New coalition agreement in North Rhine-Westphalia

The chapter on logistics and transport in the new NRW coalition agreement of June

2017 explicitly mentions the importance of cross border railway connections,

specifically for freight transport: “At the European level we commit, together with our

partners in Belgium and the Netherlands, to a highly-performing railway connection

between the port of Antwerp and the European hinterland. This is also in the interest

of North Rhine-Westphalia.”

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands government policy acknowledges the importance of rail freight

transport, but the national government is not explicit about the Iron Rhine. The

instances when the Iron Rhine is discussed typically relate to local concerns about

noise pollution and environmental impacts. At the same time there are opportunities

identified in terms of synergies with logistic services and passenger transport in

Limburg.

In 2015 the province of Limburg started two CEF co-financed studies into

improvement of border crossing rail passenger traffic between the Netherlands and

Belgium and The Netherlands and Germany respectively. Some of the passenger

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


11

services are envisaged to use sections of the 3RX-route (i.e. Hamont – Weert and

Venlo – Mönchengladbach).

New coalition agreement in the Netherlands

The new Dutch coalition agreement of October 2017 reads as follows: “Following the

Belgian investment in the Antwerpen-Hamont line, the connecting section Hamont-

Weert will be reactivated for passenger trains, with co-funding from the regional

authorities. We will also examine how we can improve the connection from Eindhoven

to Germany.” This is part of a broader strategy to work towards eliminating obstacles

which people experience in the border regions.

Conclusion

It is concluded that governments generally favour a modal shift towards rail and

greater seaport-hinterland connectivity via rail. Reactivation of the Iron Rhine could fit

within this framework.

Local opposition, predominantly in the Netherlands, however, needs to be

acknowledged. Several concerns have an impact on the debate. These concerns

mainly are related to the environmental impacts and the impacts on living conditions

along the line.

Recently various decisions have been taken by the Belgian and German governments

to invest in infrastructure on the rail routes Mol – Hamont and Kaldenkirchen-

Odenkirchen which are part of the 3RX route. In the Netherlands the focus is on

improving cross border passenger services with Belgium and Germany.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


13

2 THE 3RX ROUTE

The main goal of this study is to assess the technical, environmental, financial and

economic feasibility of the 3RX route. The route is compared to the previously studied

Historical Iron Rhine and A52-routes. All three routes can be seen as options for

revitalisation of the Iron Rhine. Compared to the other two options, the 3RX uses

existing and operational rail infrastructure as much as possible, while at the same time

taking into account the limitations posed by ecologically sensitive areas.

2.1 Present situation

General overview

The Historical Iron Rhine route (named “‘historical route” in this report) consists of

several railway lines in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. It runs from Antwerp

via Lier and northern Belgium to the town of Weert in the Netherlands. From there it

continues to Roermond and Mönchengladbach to connect to the industrial areas in

the Rhein Ruhr Area.

Map 1: The Historic Iron Rhine, parallel routes and hinterland connections, Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report R10: Atlas

The 3RX route is a variation on the historical route, as it follows a different route

between Roermond and Mönchengladbach. Instead of continuing east from

Roermond, the 3RX route diverts north to the town Venlo. From Venlo the route runs

southeast to the town of Viersen in Germany, and from thereon either south to

Mönchengladbach / Cologne or to Duisburg in the northeast.

The A52-route lies in between the historical and 3RX routes and includes a new

section of rail between Roermond and Mönchengladbach (shown as a dotted line on

the map).

Lastly, the Montzen-route connects Antwerp via Lier to Aarschot and continues via the

village of Montzen to Aachen. From here trains can go either north to

Mönchengladbach or east to Cologne and beyond.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


14

Present use

At present there are no regular trains running the full length of either the historical or

the 3RX-route. The ore train from the port of Antwerp to the zinc factory at Budel near

the Belgian-Dutch border has the highest mileage on the original route. Meanwhile

there is intense freight traffic from/to Germany along parallel routes in Belgium

(Montzen-route) and the Netherlands (Brabant-route, Betuwe-route).

Infrastructure

The historical and 3RX-routes run through three countries and have a variety of

systems for signalling and power supply. In Belgium the track is electrified with the

Belgian 3000 Volt DC system up to the station of Mol and has the Belgian signalling

system with TBL train protection system. In the Netherlands it has only got catenary

between Weert and Roermond, as well as between Venlo and the German border.

Between Weert and Roermond it is electrified with the Dutch 1800 Volt DC and in

Venlo there are both the Dutch 1800 Volt as well as the German 15000 Volt AC

system. The tracks for passenger traffic are equipped with a switchable system and

the tracks for freight traffic have the 1800 Volt on the west, no catenary in the middle

and 15000 Volt on the east up to the German border and further.

The signalling system in the Netherlands is the Dutch system with automatic train

protection by the ATB system. There is no ATB system between the Belgian border

and Weert. At the stations of Weert, Roermond and Venlo there is ATB EG (first

generation) with an added layer of ATB VV (improved version). The ATB EG is also

active on the section between Weert and Roermond. On the Maas railway line

between Roermond and Venlo the ATB NG (new generation) is the train protection

system. At Venlo and into Germany there is the German Indusi train protection system

(also known as PZB).

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


15

Map 2: Infrastructure characteristics; source: ARTECORAIL Task report E3: Present infrastructure

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


16

Gradients

3RX route

The 3RX-route generally runs through very flat terrain and most gradients can be

found at bridges to cross rivers and canals. Between Venlo and Kaldenkirchen,

however, there is a considerable natural incline with a steep gradient. It rises from a

height of 22 metres (above sea level) to 42 metres in just over 2,250 metres. In the

past the heaviest freight trains (up to 5,400 tons excl. locomotives) used banking

locomotives to push the train onto and over the slope when track conditions were poor

(slippery due to leaves in the fall).

There is a risk of heavy trains coming to a stop on the gradient and this happens

occasionally. In such an event a helper locomotive from Venlo pulls the train back at

the cost of delays. There are no other significant gradients along the route.

Montzen route

The Montzen route also features some slopes with high gradients. Train weight is

limited to 1,550 tons from Aachen to Belgium. With a banking engine to push the train

onto the slope from Aachen the maximum weight increases to 2,200 tons for a single

locomotive train. In comparison, the Betuwe route has a maximum weight of 3,600

tons for a single locomotive.

2.2 Review of the present infrastructure

A detailed review has been made of the infrastructure of the 3RX route. Below the

results are summarized by section.

Antwerp - Mol

The railway between the stations of Antwerp and Mol consists of a double track

electrified line. From Antwerp to Lier there are about 30 freight trains every day in both

directions. Between Lier and Mol this number drops to less than 10 freight trains in

both directions. On the first stretch of the track from Antwerp to Lier there is intensive

passenger traffic that shares the track with the freight trains.

Mol - Weert

The railway section between the stations of Mol (Belgium) and Weert (The

Netherlands) consists of a single track non-electrified line. The track is in service at

the moment, but there are no regular trains running the full distance between Hamont

and Weert. Zinc ore trains use the section between Mol and Budel just across the

border in The Netherlands. Because of environmental legislation freight train traffic is

presently limited to a maximum of 51 trains per week.

Points of attention for improvement of the track section Hamont - Weert to allow

intensive freight train traffic between the Netherlands and Belgium include:

• Level Crossing Safety (adding automatic level crossings and changes of the

annunciation)

• Alignment; adjusting the alignment (removal of nods)

• Drainage (ballast bed lies low)

• Structures (state and capability for higher speeds and loads)

• Installing Automatic Train Protection System (ATPS)

• Connection at Weert (Interference with other traffic and ATPS)

• Environment (noise/vibration/wildlife)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


17

Weert - Roermond

The railway line between the stations of Weert and Roermond is part of the Dutch

core railway network and is used by both intercity passenger trains and freight trains.

It is an electrified double track line without intermediate stations or branches and

features a bridge over the river Maas near Roermond.

Present freight traffic avail of two paths (train time slots) an hour in both directions,

which are used by several freight trains per day, both international as domestic. The

section serves as a freight route from the Netherlands to Belgium via Maastricht –

Luik. There are passing opportunities at the stations of Weert and Roermond.

Roermond – Venlo

The railway line between the stations of Roermond and Venlo, also known as the

southern Maas-line, is part of the Dutch regional railway network. It is used by

regional passenger trains and by freight trains. It consists of a single track line with

three intermediate stations, all with passing possibilities, though only two of a length

suitable for freight traffic.

Freight traffic avails of two paths an hour in both directions, which are used by several

freight trains a day. The section serves as a freight route from the Netherlands to

Germany via Venlo – Kaldenkirchen and to Belgium via Maastricht and also serves

domestic freight traffic.

Venlo – Mönchengladbach

The railway line between the border station of Venlo (the Netherlands) and

Mönchengladbach (Germany) is used by regional and freight trains. It is partly double

track and partly single track line, equipped with the German catenary and signalling

system. Between Venlo and Kaldenkirchen it features a serious gradient.

Present freight traffic consists of three paths an hour in both directions which are used

by several trains a day. It is an important freight route from the Netherlands to

Germany and beyond and also serves as a back-up route during problems or

maintenance on the cargo dedicated Betuwe-route.

Between Venlo and Mönchengladbach runs the RE 13 (Regional-Express) passenger

services as Maas – Wupper Express, a regional train service from Eurobahn which

operates every hour in both directions.

2.3 Identified measures

General

This feasibility study uses the same basic assumptions as previous reports on the two

other alternatives (Historical Route and A52). This implies that the 3RX route has

been designed in such a way that it offers capacity for (at least) 72 freight trains per

day (both ways together). This number of freight trains is based on former studies and

checked against the traffic forecast.

Below follows the full list of basic assumptions for the design of the route:

Capacity: 72 freight trains a day, 36 in each direction

Train characteristic: Train length 750m; Maximum axle load of 22,5 tons (class D)

Electrification: Fully electrified line

Change of direction:

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


18

• Based on the present infrastructure, freight trains have to change direction twice

(in Roermond, Venlo) or three times (also in Viersen). According to railway

operators consulted by the study team the route should have at maximum one

change of direction, in order to have a commercially viable route. More than one

time changing direction is not an option, as this would not deliver a competitive rail

product. In principle this change of direction can take place in either Roermond,

Venlo or Viersen.

• Freight trains changing direction have an additional technical turnaround time of at

least 45 minutes (sometimes longer in case of lack of capacity).

Connections:

• The length of connections should be sufficient for freight trains to enter and leave

the main track without disturbing other trains and lead to capacity problems.

• There should be enough double track/passing tracks to ensure a robust rail

network, taking into account possible delays of freight trains.

Travelling time:

• The travelling time for passenger trains is derived from their present operating

schedule.

• The travelling time for freight trains is estimated by means of track length and

average speed. This average speed is 80 km/h between Kaldenkirchen and

Dülken (trains don’t have to stop).

Based on these track quality expectations the necessary and potentially needed

measures have been identified for each section of the 3RX route. They are

summarized on the table below.

Table 1 Identified measures for 3RX

Section Identified measures

Lier – Herentals Possibly addition and/or lengthening of passing tracks

Possibly addition of Dynamic Traffic Management

Herentals – Mol Possibly elongation of passing tracks (Herentals)

Maybe addition of passing tracks

Mol – Hamont

Possibly elongation of the tracks used by freight trains (Mol)

Electrification of circa 32 kilometres of track

Addition and/or elongation of passing tracks

In case of growing traffic partial or complete doubling needed

Hamont – Weert

Electrification of freight tracks (Hamont)

Possibly addition and/or elongation of passing tracks (Hamont)

Electrification of circa 9 kilometres of track

Installing signalling system and automatic train protection

system

Upgrade level crossings

Possibly raise track speed

Weert

Two tracks at the junction (one for eastbound and one for

westbound 3RX trains) or creation of waiting tracks of 750

meters at Weert station

New bridge across the canal and possibly a fly-over

Weert – Roermond

Optimize freight paths

Implement Dynamic Traffic Management

Risk Analysis of the level crossings

Roermond – Venlo

Connection curve east of the Maas bridge (Roermond)

Doubling parts of the existing single track sections


THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


19

Venlo

Possibly connection curve near Tegelen

If no curve is available the following measures are needed:

• Number of tracks on the Venlo freight section;

• To make it possible that the 3RX train can enter and

leave the freight section with DB-Netz 15.000 Volts AC

and ProRail 1.500 DC catenary system;

• The train safety system on the freight section has to be

changed;

• Creation of (extra) tracks with a length, net train length,

of 750 meters plus the length of (shunting) locomotives;

• Noise reduction for the environment

Venlo – Monchengladbach

Doubling parts of the existing single-track sections.

Connection curve at Viersen


Source: ARTECORAIL Task report R4/R5: Required quality and Required capacity

2.4 Environmental feasibility of measures

The measures necessary to develop the 3RX-route have been assessed on their

environmental effects. The main conclusions are as follows.

In Belgium, no land take will occur because only a doubling of the track is necessary.

The doubling of the track can increase the disturbance of surrounding areas. These

effects do not differ between the Historical route, A52 route and 3RX-route.

In the Netherlands and Germany, the modifications of the track for shunting or curves

will cause additional environmental effects. The variants where trains make use of the

yard cause more nuisance (noise and vibrations) and have a higher risk for local

residents. This is a logical consequence of the fact that a curve (or tunnel) prevent

that trains have to drive through the urban area. The curve (and tunnel) options,

however, imply that a new track must be constructed so that land take occurs. The

effects do depend on the location and dimensions of the new track.

Along the existing track, the number of local residents that will be hampered will

increase. Measures to reduce the nuisance caused by noise and vibrations will be

necessary.

Further investigations will be needed once the combination options for yards/curves is

chosen and when the modifications of the track have been elaborated in more detail.

Section Hamont - Weert

In the Netherlands, the 3RX route crosses the Birds Directive area “Weerter- and

Budelerbergen & Ringselven”. On this section presently exist a maximum allowed

number of freight trains.

For the Belgian/Dutch border to Weert, a request for reactivation has been submitted

by ProRail. Opinions on the request have been submitted and eventually a decision has

been made at the session of the Council of State. This decision specifies that a

maximum 51 freight trains per week are allowed. It also specifies a calculation rule if

freight paths are used during vulnerable time periods. The Council of State has

substantiated its decision.

On 7 October 2014, the Secretary of State of Economic Affairs responded to the

"decision on the appeal", in which, alongside substantive issues such as the number of

trains per day, it is specified that if a decision to reactivate the Iron Rhine were to be

made, it would entail a wholly new procedure with further decisions.

Without mitigating measures, the noise contour of 40 dB LAeq, 24h is located

approximately 690 m from the railway and the 45 dB contour approximately at 390 m.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


20

As in the current situation there are almost no trains on the railway between the

Belgian/Dutch border and Weert, a significant disturbance will occur within this Natura

2000 area. An acoustic barrier of 5 to 6 m high will be needed to ensure a standstill

situation. The effects of nitrogen deposition are not considered relevant since full

electrification is assumed.

2.5 Investment costs 3RX

Based on the necessary measures identified by section, cost estimates have been

prepared for the measures needed. Some measures are needed in all configurations

of the 3RX-route. These are the so-called fixed elements.

For other elements of the route, in particular at Roermond, Venlo and Viersen, various

options have been developed, which either consist of works in the station yards (in

case of a change of direction) or construction of a curve connection two rail sections.

These are the variable elements of the route.

The tables below give an overview of the development costs of the fixed and variable

elements, inclusive of provisions for risks, excluding VAT. All estimates have an

uncertainty margin of +/- 30%.

Table 2 Investment costs fixed elements 3RX-route (in million Euro, price level 2015, excluding VAT)

Sections Works Cost (mln Euro)

Mol – Hamont – border BE-NL Electrification 70.0 a)

Track doubling Neerpelt-

Balen 46.5

Track doubling Neerpelt -

Hamont 26.5

Weert Connection Weert 62.3

Weert – Roermond - Venlo ERTMS 15.9

Roermond – Venlo Track doubling 213.4

Kaldenkirchen – Dülken Track doubling 114.4 b)

TOTAL FIXED ELEMENTS 549.0 c)

TOTAL FIXED ELEMENTS

corrected for decisions taken 388.3

Source: Task report T1-4 Cost and timing a) The total cost estimate of the electrification is 70.0 mln. A major part of this (46.3 mln) is already covered by the CEF project Mol – Hamont – Weert, which is co-funded by CEF. b) Cost estimate prepared by German consultants for the BVWP project 025. c) Due to developments in 2017 investment In Mol - Hamont and Kaldenkirchen - Dülken have already been decided by the respective governments. The net additional investment cost for fixed elements is therefore lower.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


21

Table 3 Investment costs for various options for variable elements of the 3RX-route (in mln Euro, price level 2015, excluding VAT)

Station Works Cost (mln Euro) a)

Roermond Yard 45.7

Curve 128.2

Venlo Yard 24.4

Buried curve 407.4 plus 103.4 b)

Bored tunnel 762.0 plus 103.4 b)

Viersen Yard 0

Above ground curve 84.4

Single track curve

at ground level 19.0 c)

Double track curve

at ground level 68.5

Buried curve 327.8

Bored curve 802.6

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report T1-4: Costing and timing a) Mean estimate, with an uncertainty margin of + / - 30%. b) When a curve is chosen additional works are needed on the track between Venlo and Kaldenkirchen (80.7 mln) and in Kaldenkirchen yard (22.7 mln) c) Option developed for the German federal ministry as part of BVWP project 025. It does not satisfy the condition that freight trains do not interrupt other traffic.

Combination of the options for the variable elements gives several possible

configurations for development of the 3RX-route. The most expensive combination of

options to develop the 3RX route requires € 2.3 billion (excluding VAT, including risk

provisions). This gives a route with three curves, implying that no change of direction

is required. It also has optimal embedding in the physical environment, including a

tunnel near Venlo.

Cheapest option 3RX

The cheapest option that has the required quality (only one change direction) and

quantity (72 trains per day), requires a total investment of € 770 million (excluding

VAT, including risk provision). This combination has curves in Roermond and Viersen

(i.e. the double track curve at ground level). If the single track option is taken in

Viersen total costs would be approximately € 50 million lower.1

This cost estimate does not yet take into account the decisions that have recently

been taken by the Belgian and German governments, on electrification of Mol -

Hamont (with co-financing from CEF) and on the BVWP project 025 Kaldenkirchen -

Odenkirchen (including track doubling Kaldenkirchen – Dülken and a single track

curve in Viersen). When these decided investments are taken into account, the

additional costs for construction works needed realise the 3RX amount to € 590

million.

1 This option does not satisfy the design criterion of a capacity of 72 freight trains per day.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


22

The following table shows total additional costs for this configuration of the 3RX

project, including risk provisions, but excluding VAT and study costs.

Table 4: Additional investment costs 3RX (million euro), including mitigating measures and provision for risk, excluding VAT

BE NL DE Total

Track Belgium € -96.70

(electrification already

in ref: € -46.30)

Weert € -62.32

ERTMS € -15.88

Track doubling

Roermond-Venlo

€ -213.44

Curve at Roermond € -128.19

Yard Venlo € -24.42

Full double track curve

at Viersen

(level 0 variant)

€ -49.50

(already in reference

case: € -19.00)

Kaldenkirchen- Dülken (already in reference

case: € -114.40)

Total € -96.70 € -444.25 € -49.50 € -590.45

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis

In addition the costs for preparatory studies have to be taken into account. Adding the

study costs to the investment costs gives the following total costs.

Table 5: Total investment costs including study costs (million euro) excluding VAT.

BE NL DE Total

3RX € -97 € -467 € -51 € -614


The following table shows the incremental investment and preparation costs including

VAT. It should be noted that the SCBA has been carried out in factor costs, which

means that taxes and duties are not included. The information below is shown for

budget purposes only.

Table 6: Total investment costs including study costs (million euro) including VAT (19% in case of Germany, 21% in case of Belgium and The Netherlands).

BE NL DE Total

3RX € -117 € -564 € -61 € -742

Source: ARTECORAIL

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


23

2.6 Costs of other alternatives

In the past cost estimates have been prepared for the Historic route and the A52

route. These have been updated for the purpose of the SCBA. The table below

summarizes the costs for the three alternatives. It shows that the investment costs are

the highest for the Historic route, followed by the A52.

Table 7: Total investment costs (million euro) excluding VAT and excluding study costs

BE NL DE Total

3RX € -96.70 € -444.25 € -49.50 € -590.45

HIS € -96.70 € -611.00 € -459.00 € -1.166.70

A52 € -96.70 € -311.00 € -571.00 € -978.70


2.7 Planning

The next diagram shows a feasible planning of construction works. It does not include

the time required for political decisions, nor for authorisation procedures and possible

objections. It does, however, allow time for testing and releasing the track in the final

phase.

The need for preparation studies varies by country, but will take 8 to 10 years in The

Netherlands. Design and construction varies per section and is estimated to take

between 7 and 13 years (see figure below).

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


24

Figure 1: Planning of works

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report T1-4: Costing and timing

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


25

3 TRAFFIC DEMAND

3.1 Present traffic

A detailed analysis has been carried out of available traffic data in the relevant area.

These data relate to base year 2015 and were provided by the infrastructure

managers Infrabel, DB-Netz and ProRail. In the analysis the data have been used on

realised traffic. Note that this data set shows a lower traffic level than the data on

planned traffic which are also available. The analysis has resulted in the following

insights.

Route characteristics

Operators currently identify two competitive routes catering for east-west flows

between Belgium and the Rhein Ruhr Area (and destinations further beyond): the

Brabant route and the Montzen route. The Brabant route is a logical choice when the

payload per locomotive is higher, compensating the disadvantage of crossing an

additional country (The Netherlands). However, the Montzen route is the most

advantageous route from cost, organisational and technical perspective. While trains

with a heavier payload could encounter issues, the route is the most competitive

between Belgium and the east.

Table 8: Characteristics rail freight transport Antwerp – Duisburg via Brabant or Montzen route

Kilometres

Direction changes (count)

Path quality (hours lost)

Total cost per freight train

Brabant route 235 1 1 € 4,800

Montzen route 256 0 0 € 4,500

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E1: Present traffic

Use

Data provided by Infrabel and ProRail show that in 2015 on an annual basis about

26,000 trains moved between Belgium and the east, constituting about 16.4 million

net tonnes of freight. This reflects on average 71 trains per day. This is the total of the

Montzen border crossing and all transit trains through the Netherlands. So, not all of

these trains pass the border crossings at Venlo (i.e. Brabant route) or Montzen.

Of the selected flows about 86% of the freight trains take the Montzen-route (on

average 61 trains daily) and about 14% (on average 10 trains daily) the Brabant-route,

clearly emphasizing the dominance of the Montzen-route. Trains on the Brabant route

include transit traffic and trains from or to the south of the Netherlands. The traffic with

origin or destination in the south of the Netherlands accounts for about 44% of total

trains. The traffic on the Montzen- route mostly heads to or originates from Antwerp

(48%), with the rest of Flanders and Wallonia taking shares of 41% and 11%

respectively.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


26

Figure 2: Share of East-West rail freight traffic for the relevant O-D’s (% train count, 2015)

Source: ARTECORAIL Task report E1: Present traffic, based on Infrabel (2015) and ProRail (2015)

14%

86%

Brabant route

Montzen route

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


27

Table 9: Freight volumes between selected EU regions (net mtons, 2015)

Destination

Origin

Flan

de

rs (

ex.

An

twe

rp)

An

twe

rp

Wal

lon

ia

Fran

ce

Ge

rman

y

Ital

y

Luxe

mb

urg

Swit

zerl

and

The

Ne

the

rlan

ds

UK

Oth

er

Gra

nd

To

tal

Flanders (ex. Antwerp) n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,02 1,71 1,75 0,10 0,09 0,35 0,00 0,15 4,17

Antwerp n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,44 2,96 1,42 0,43 1,16 1,04 0,03 7,48

Wallonia n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,60 1,37 0,23 0,36 0,01 0,48 0,00 3,06

France 0,02 0,51 0,08 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,03 0,66

Germany 1,88 2,13 0,39 0,01 0,19 0,00 0,01 0,12 4,73

Italy 1,72 0,60 0,07 0,00 2,39

Luxemburg 0,01 0,74 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,78

Switzerland 0,01 0,38 0,10 0,02 0,00 0,50

The Netherlands 0,21 0,61 0,29 0,01 0,04 0,01 1,17

UK 0,11 0,11

Other 0,23 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,25

Grand Total 4,09 4,99 0,96 1,09 6,40 3,41 0,89 1,26 1,92 0,13 0,18 25,31

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E1: Present traffic; based on Infrabel (2015)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


28

On an average day the capacity of the Montzen route is sufficient to cope with the

number of freight trains. However, the figures also show that the number of trains vary

from day to day, and also during the day. Bottlenecks do occur, easily resulting in

delays and extra costs for freight. So the current situation is not optimal, especially at

peak times. This is exacerbated in situations when maintenance is carried out or in

case of calamities along the Montzen route.

Figure 3: Montzen border crossing train counts per day in 2015

Source: ARTECORAIL Task report E1: Present traffic, based on Infrabel (2015);

The figure below shows the same figures, but categorized to number of trains per day

in 2015. The figure once more illustrates the varying numbers of trains along the

Montzen route daily.

Figure 4: Montzen border crossing train counts per day in 2015

Source: ARTECORAIL Task report E1: Present traffic; based on Infrabel (2015)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


29

3.2 Future traffic

This section provides an analysis of the future transport flows between Belgium and

its eastern hinterland for 2030 and 2040, in a situation with and without the (three

alternatives for the) Iron Rhine.

Future rail traffic (without new connection)

It is expected that the number of trains under autonomous growth in the medium

scenario shall increase to 103 trains by 2030 and 115 trains by 2040. This reflects a

growth of 45% to 62% compared to the current situation (71 trains).

In the low growth scenario, the number of trains is expected to increase to 95 trains by

2030 and 103 trains by 2040. This reflects a growth of 34% and 45% compared to the

current situation (71 trains per day).

Finally, in the high growth scenario the number of trains is expected to increase to 113

trains by 2030 and 129 trains by 2040. This reflects a growth of respectively 59% and

82%, compared to the current situation.

Figure 5: Autonomous growth of East-West rail freight trains (daily counts)

Source: ARTECORAIL Task report E2: Future Traffic

From a purely infrastructural perspective it can be argued that the capacity of both the

Montzen and the Brabant routes are both sufficient to deal with the growing number of

trains till 2040, provided that traffic is evenly spread over the week and throughout the

year.

However, with growing traffic the reliability of train services may increasingly become

an issue. Congestion effects could occur during certain peak moments depending on

the season, the weekday and the time of day. Calamities may intensify capacity

issues.

113

129

103

115

71

95103

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

20

37

20

38

20

39

20

40

Traffic (daily train count)

High Medium Low

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


30

Situation with a new connection

The Iron Rhine, be it the historical route, 3RX or A52, is primarily a competitive

alternative for traffic between the North Sea ports and the Rhein Ruhr Area (and

beyond). From a rail operator’s point-of-view the three alternatives differ in terms of

length and in the number of direction changes required.

Between Antwerp and Duisburg the Montzen route offers a direct route via Aachen,

even though it is a relatively long itinerary. Of the three Iron Rhine alternatives

considered, the A52-route provides a shorter itinerary without direction changes. Also

between Antwerp and Cologne the A52-route offers a direct connection without

direction changes.

From a rail operator’s point of view (based on total costs) the A52-route is the most

attractive route, followed by the historical route and the 3RX route. The differences in

competitiveness are substantial. The 3RX, assuming a design without a curve at

Venlo, always means one direction change and a longer route towards Duisburg and

Cologne. Reactivation of the historical route would not mean a need for direction

changes between Antwerp and Cologne.

The calculations for the medium growth scenario show that in 2040 for respectively

the 3RX-, the A52- and the historic route a total of 21, 50 and 36 freight trains will use

the Iron Rhine on a daily average. The Iron Rhine does substantially relieve the

Montzen route and the Brabant route. In all scenarios and alternatives the number of

trains on the Iron Rhine remains below the design limit of 72 trains per day on

average.

Table 10: Number of trains per Iron Rhine alternative in all scenarios, including the 3RX light and three curves alternatives (average daily train counts, in both directions)

2015

2030 2040

Low Medium High Low Medium High

Autonomous growth

Bra 10 a 12 13 15 13 15 17

Mon 61 82 90 99 89 100 113

TOTAL 71 95 103 113 103 115 129

3RX (2 curves)

Alternative

Bra 10 7 7 8 7 8 9

Mon 61 71 78 85 77 87 97

3RX X 17 19 20 18 21 23

TOTAL 71 95 104 113 103 115 130

A52 Alternative

Bra 10 4 4 4 4 4 5

Mon 61 52 57 62 56 63 71

A52 X 41 45 49 44 50 56

TOTAL 71 96 105 115 105 117 132

Historical Route

Bra 10 5 5 6 5 6 6

Mon 61 61 67 73 66 74 83

Hist X 29 32 35 32 36 40

TOTAL 71 95 104 114 103 116 130

Source: ARTECORAIL; Task Report E3: Future Traffic

a: Trains on the Brabant route include transit traffic and trains from or to the south of the Netherlands. The traffic with origin or destination in the south of the Netherlands accounts for about 44% of total trains.

The design of the 3RX route determines its competitiveness. A route including a curve

at Venlo, together with curves at Roermond and Viersen, results in a more attractive

option and a competitiveness comparable to that of the historical route. The analysis

also shows that in case of a lower quality (e.g. in case of ‘border penalties’) the

competitiveness of the 3RX significantly decreases, as can be seen from the following

table.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


31

Table 11: Number of trains per Iron Rhine alternative in all scenarios including train path delay (average daily train counts, in both directions)

2015

2030 2040

Low Medium High Low Medium High

3RX Time penalty

Bra 10 8 9 10 9 10 11

Mon 61 78 85 93 84 95 106

3RX X 9 10 11 10 11 12

TOTAL 71 95 104 113 103 115 129

Source: ARTECORAIL; Task Report E3: Future Traffic

The results show that the attractiveness of the three Iron Rhine alternatives

significantly decreases when taking into account the time penalty for passing The

Netherlands. Also less modal shift does occur. The sensitivity analysis thus underlines

the importance of establishing efficient operations on the Iron Rhine in order to

become a competitive alternative and attract traffic from the Brabant and Montzen-

routes.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


33

4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS

4.1 Methodology

The economic feasibility of the 3RX project has been assessed based on a cost-

benefit analysis. As each of the three countries involved has its own methodology for

carrying out a CBA, one common methodology has been developed which is as close

as possible to the European guidelines such as “Guide to COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

of investment projects, Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020” and

„Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox“ van de EC .

For the practical execution of the SCBA we follow the different steps as described by

“Standaardmethodiek voor MKBA van transportinfrastructuurwerken – Algemene

leidraad”. This is consistent with the EU guidelines and the other national guidelines .

Where relevant, results from the previous studies for the project alternatives studied

before (Historical Iron Rhine and A52) have been used. However, as the transport

forecasts were updated, we redid some of the previous analyses. Hence the results

cannot be compared one to one with the 2009 study.

The figure below shows the different steps within a SCBA.

Figure 6: Different steps within a SCBA (Based on Gauderis, 2013)


Reference case

An important aspect is the description of the reference case. The reference case is

the situation in which the Iron Rhine is not reactivated. This does not mean that

nothing else happens. It is based on the current situation (“as is”) including (transport)

policy which is already decided.

For example, CEF funding has been guaranteed for the electrification of the Belgian

section Mol-Weert. The project will receive a subsidy of 18.52 million euro (40% of the

eligible costs – estimated at 46.3 million Euro by Infrabel), and is part of the MIP of

Infrabel. This will impact the investment costs needed for all alternatives. We will

assume that this 46.3 million is decided policy. Hence the additional investment costs

for Belgium decrease.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


34

Another element in the reference case is the doubling of the Kaldenkirchen-Dülken

section. In the BVWP 2030 study, a cost estimate of 114.4 million Euro has been

made for this.

4.2 Project effects

In this step we describe the expected and relevant effects of the reactivation of the

Iron Rhine. This step takes into account the input which will come from previous

studies and the Spatial-environmental and Technical work package. Within this step

no calculations are made. The goal is to identify the most important effects and to

describe them qualitatively. The different effects can be categorized in four groups:

• Direct effects

• Indirect effects

• External effects

• Project costs.

The direct effects on the transport system follow from the differences in costs (time

and monetary) of transport and the freight flows in the reference and the project

alternatives. In this case they include the effects for rail within the project area. This

includes the effects on the infrastructure manager (infrastructure fee) as well as on the

operators (operational costs, time and money). These are strongly connected to the

results of the financial model and the traffic forecasts. For this project the following

direct effects are relevant:

a. Changes in monetary transport costs rail

b. Changes in travel time rail

c. Changes in robustness rail

d. Changes in infrastructure fee revenue

e. Changes in tax revenue (changes in excise duty revenue, changes in tax revenue

inland waterways)

f. Changes in travel time road via changes in congestion

g. Changes in travel time road due to rail crossings

h. Effects on passenger rail

The indirect effects are the effects of the reactivation on the wider economy. The idea

is that lower transport costs increase the competitiveness of companies, increasing

sales, production and employment. Goods and services become cheaper, increasing

the purchasing power of the consumer. Note that these wider economic effects also

include shifts in economic activity between regions.

In this SCBA we did not include the calculation of the indirect effects, but the order of

magnitude which can be expected can be found in a previous study2 . In this study the

wider economic benefits of the historical Iron Rhine were calculated. The total welfare

gain from the improved railway connection amounted to 16% of transport benefits

(consumer surplus). The indirect effects were largely associated to the Ruhr Area. For

Belgium, the main benefit was located in the port region (agglomeration of Antwerp).

Surprisingly, the rest of Belgium and the Netherlands experienced a positive welfare

effect too. This was because of cheaper imports supplied from the German Ruhr area.

The external effects describe the impact of the project on the human environment and

nature. They are called external as they are not compensated for. We can distinguish

three types of external effects:

• The external effects of the infrastructure itself (use of space, visual intrusion, etc.);

• The external effects linked to the use of the infrastructure and the changes in

transport flows (air pollution, noise, traffic safety, etc.);

2 Heyndrickx, C., Koops, O., Ivanova. O (2011). The TIGER model: Application of detailed passenger and freight transport in a regional CGE setting.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


35

• The impact on the environment caused by possible changes in location of

economic activity.

The quantification of the external effects is based as much as possible on the

outcome of the environmental assessment. The following external effects are taken

into account, although not all of them are quantified:

a. Change in emissions: air pollutants and greenhouse gasses (CO2, NOx, SOx, PM)

(rail, road, inland waterways)

b. Change in noise (rail and road)

c. Change in accidents (rail and road)

d. Change in external safety (rail)

e. Change in marginal road wear and tear costs

f. Loss of recreational opportunities

g. Vibrations due to rail

h. Loss of living environment

i. Landscape

j. Ecology

k. Soil and water

l. Agriculture

The project costs. This is the difference in

a. investment costs

b. cost of maintenance

c. cost renewal

d. the cost of mitigating measures

between the project alternative and the reference.

4.3 Results

The following table shows the results of the SCBA for the 3RX project under the

medium economic scenario. It gives the discounted value of future costs and benefits

for the years up to 2030 (assumed construction period) and 30 years of operation

(2031-2060). Future benefits and costs have been discounted using a discount rate of

3%.

The table shows that the benefits of the 3RX are € 365 million (discounted value)

lower than costs. The benefit-cost ratio of the 3RX is 0.16.

The relatively low level of benefits is mainly due to the fact that 3RX is quasi perfect

substitute to the Montzen route. Trains shift from the Montzen route to the 3RX, with

some benefits for the consumers (less travel time and costs, however not very much,

as 3RX is only slightly better than the Montzen route).

The environmental impacts are rather small, most are positive. The reason for this is

that quite some mitigation measures are foreseen in the project itself. Also, the 3RX-

route is somewhat shorter, with positive overall effects on e.g. noise in Belgium.

The modal shift from road and inland shipping to rail is very low (again due to the

relative small benefits of the 3RX versus the Montzen route). Road congestion and

time losses at road-rail crossings both improve. The first due to a few less trucks on

motorways, and the second due to foreseen mitigation measures in the project.

Table 12: Social cost benefit analysis: overview, scenario “3RX route – medium”, NPV (at 3% discount rate) for 2015 in million €2015

TOTAL BE NL DE world

Direct effects

on consumers

rail consumer surplus € 34.78 € 17.35 € 4.99 € 12.38 € 0.06

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


36

TOTAL BE NL DE world

rail robustness € 22.17 € 10.82 € 0.13 € 9.48 € 1.73

road congestion € 9.16 € 3.54 € 1.76 € 3.86 € 0.00

road time at crossings € 2.10 € -1.47 € 3.44 € 0.10 € 0.03

Direct effects

on infrastructure

rail infrastructure fee € 1.50 € -6.48 € 7.71 € 0.20 € 0.07

Effects on the

government

tax revenue € -1.50 € -0.44 € -0.32 € -0.74 € -0.01

External effects rail emissions € -0.32 € 1.40 € -1.67 € -0.04 € -0.02

road emissions € 1.17 € 0.33 € 0.20 € 0.64 € 0.00

iww emissions € 0.35 € 0.22 € 0.11 € 0.03 € 0.00

rail noise € 5.76 € 5.78 € 0.00 € 0.00 € -0.01

road noise € 0.08 € 0.02 € 0.01 € 0.04 € 0.00

rail accidents € 0.29 € -0.54 € 0.81 € 0.02 € 0.01

road accidents € 0.08 € 0.03 € 0.01 € 0.03 € 0.00

road wear & tear costs € 0.18 € 0.05 € 0.03 € 0.10 € 0.00

recreation opportunities € -1.12 € -0.33 € -0.79 € 0.00 € 0.00

vibration € -0.35 € 0.04 € -0.38 € -0.01 € -0.00

landscape € -0.00 € 0.00 € -0.00 € -0.00 € 0.00

ecology € -4.39 € -4.39 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 0.00

soil and water PM PM PM PM € 0.00

Project costs investment costs € -433.78 € -69.69 € -327.34 € -36.74 € 0.00

renewal costs € -1.18 € 0.00 € -1.06 € -0.12 € 0.00

maintenance costs € 0.38 € 41.69 € -37.49 € -3.81 € 0.00

TOTAL NPV € -364.65 € -2.08 € -349.86 € -14.58 € 1.87

benefit-cost ratio 0.16 0.93 0.04 0.64


THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


37

The following tables give the results for all alternatives under all three scenarios in net

present value terms and in terms of benefit-cost ratio.

Table 13: Social cost benefit analysis: overview for all 9 scenarios/variants, NPV (at 3% discount rate) for 2015 in million €2015

3RX HIST A52

Low € -374 € -545 € -175

Medium € -365 € -495 € -86

High € -358 € -463 € -30

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis Table 14: Social cost benefit analysis: overview for all 9 scenarios/variants, benefit-cost ratios (at 3% discount rate) for 2015

3RX HIST A52

Low 0.14 0.40 0.78

Medium 0.16 0.45 0.89

High 0.18 0.49 0.96


The SCBA shows a negative result at the 3% discount rate for all variants and

scenario’s. The cost of the new infrastructure is for 3RX in all scenario’s (much)

higher than the benefits, which mainly consist of the consumer surplus and

robustness.

The other two alternatives, Historical route and A52, show a picture similar to 3RX.

The results for the Historical route are more negative than for 3RX, which is mainly

due to its higher investment costs that wipes out the higher benefits.

The results for A52 are less negative than for 3RX, which is mainly due to the

relatively high transport benefits of this alternative that compensate its higher costs. It

should be noted, though, that recently a much higher cost estimate became available

for the A52-route, which has a high impact on this result (see sensitivity analysis

below).

Note also that the results of the SCBA are only slightly better if a higher economic

scenario is assumed. Conversely, the results are only slight more negative in case of

a low economic growth scenario.

4.4 Sensitivity analysis

The following sensitivity analyses have been carried out.

3RXlight variant

The 3RX variant focusses on upgrading a number of existing railway sections in the

Maas-Rhein-Ruhr border region linking Weert with Viersen via Roermond and Venlo.

This 3RXlight alternative can be seen as a first step in a fully developed Iron Rhine. It

consists of:

• All fixed elements (Lier-border, Weert, Weert-Roermond, Maaslijn)

• Curve at Roermond but only a single track instead of a double track

• No curve at Viersen: use the yard

• Use of the yard in Venlo

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


38

The result for the 3RX light is less negative € -304 million euro for 3RXlight option

(benefit-cost ratio 0.16), versus € -365 million for 3RX.

3RXlater variant

In this variant, the investment costs are made 10 years later than in the regular 3RX

variant. Consequently, the operation of the railway link will also be 10 years later,

starting in 2040. The transport forecast based on economic assumptions obviously

remains the same, but the effect of the project starts only in 2040. Thus, the

calculation of the effects will start as well in 2040 and not 2030 as in the regular 3RX.

Compared to the regular 3RX variant, the result for the 3RX later variant is less

negative: € -285 million for 3RXlater (benefit cost ratio 0.12) versus € -365 million for

3RX.

This is due to the fact that all effects are smaller because they are more depreciated

(2040 versus 2030). Also, the benefits of consumer surpluses are higher in later

years due to the autonomous growth. The negative effects (investment costs) still

outnumber the positive effects (consumer surplus), but in absolute terms the

difference gets smaller.

3RXexpensive variant

This variant takes into account a possible higher cost of the 3RX variant on the

German side, as there is uncertainty about the costs. This cost variant is higher as it

is based on more expensive solution for the Viersen curve.

Compared to the regular 3RX variant, the total is more negative: € -464 million for

3RXexpensive variant (benefit cost ratio 0.13), versus € -365 million for 3RX.

3RXpenalty variant

In the report on traffic forecasts, a sensitivity analysis is calculated in which an extra

penalty for cross border traffic is included. No full-fledged analysis has been carried

out for this variant, but tentative analysis gives the following results.

In this case traffic on the 3RX would be 50% lower. The effect on the consumer

surpluses would be in the same order of magnitude. The 3RX project has a consumer

surplus of € 35 million. In a sensitivity where the cross border effect is taken into

account in a more stringent way, this would lower by € 10 to 20 million. Emissions,

safety and congestion would be also affected however these effects are small, and

are equally positive as negative.

The benefit-cost ratio will be lower, as can be seen in the table below, assuming a €15

million lower consumer surplus.

Table 15: Social cost benefit analysis: overview, scenario “3RXpenalty – medium”, costs, benefits, NPV for 2015 in million €2015,

benefits costs NPV bc ratio

3RX € 69.93 € -417.91 € -364.65 0.16

3RXpenalty € 54.93 € -417.91 € -379.65 0.13

difference € -15.00 € 0.00 € -15.00


THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


39

A52expensive variant

This variant takes into account a possible higher cost of the A52 variant on the

German side, as there is uncertainty about the costs. This cost of this variant are also

higher as it is based on another technical solution for the Viersen curve3. Total costs

for this variant are estimated at € 1.7 billion.

Compared to the regular A52 variant, the outcome of the SCBA for the A52 expensive

variant is much more negative: € -640 million euro (benefit-cost ratio 0.52) versus

€ -86 million for A52.

3 Gegenüberstellung Machbarkeitsstudie 3RX – BVWP PF 2-025-V01

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


41

5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Revenues from Track access charges

Based on the before mentioned train numbers and train kilometres, revenues for each

of the three Infrastructure Manager’s (Infrabel, ProRail, DB Netz) have been

calculated using the average income for infrastructure manager:

• Average income per train for Infrabel (Belgium): 1,45 € / kilometre

• Average income per train for ProRail (Netherlands): 3,46 € / kilometre

• Average income per train for DB Netz (Germany): 3,28 € / kilometre.

The final incomes of infrastructure manager are depending on the type of route and

vary significantly. The results for all routes in different time frames for all three

infrastructure managers are summarised in the following table and are based on the

average operational days of 300 per year.

Costs and revenues 3RX

With the mentioned track access charges and train numbers the expected revenues

for each IM can be calculated in more detail for the 3RX-route. The results show that

the expected yearly income per IM manager will increase slowly, and could reach 3

million Euros until 2040, that represents a fairly low income for all involved

infrastructure managers.

Table 16: Forecasted annual income from Track Access Charges 3RX- route only

Year Forecasted no. of trains

Infrabel ProRail DB Netz Total 3RX

2030 17 732,105 € 1,002,293 € 1,168,451 € 2,902,849 €

2040 19 818,235 € 1,120,210 € 1,305,916 € 3,244,360 €

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E7: Financial analysis

Utilising the various scenarios and the associated maintenance costs, the percentage

of the maintenance costs that are covered by income from the tack access charges

has been determined. For ProRail, by 2040 the track access charges will cover

between 32% and 33% of the annual maintenance costs, depending on the scenario

chosen.

Due to the low maintenance costs encountered by DB Netz in the CBA variant and the

high revenue from TAC, DB Netz covers all of relative maintenance expenses.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


43

6 FINANCING OPTIONS

The various financing options for the 3RX project have been analysed and several

funding options for rail infrastructure projects have been described. Financing of rail

infrastructure is concentrated along three main sources of support; at the European

level, contributions from the national and regional governments, and private investors

through a public-private segment of financing (Public-private-partnership). Based on

the description and analysis the following conclusions are drawn.

It is strongly recommended that the 3RX project seeks all available sources of

financing, starting at the European level followed by contributions from the national or

regional/ provincial governments that should represent a majority of the overall project

investment. A third financing option that includes involvement of a private partner may

be less likely, as every investor seeks a clear business case (return on investment)

offered by the project, but due to low income from track access charges, this is

unlikely to be achievable in the 3RX project.

The central question of the EU co-funding is related to the (non-) involvement of the

3RX line on the TEN-T core network. According to regulation 1316/2013, the line is

not a part of the TEN-T core network, but the option of inclusion in the Core network in

the case of the agreement between involved Member States still exists and should be

verified. Additionally, it needs to be considered that the Commission will carry out a

review of the implementation of the core network by 31 December 2023 and there is a

possibility the status of the 3RX line can change after the review phase.

The chances of a contribution from the EU through co-funding of CEF calls for core

network, blending, project bond initiative or EFSI are until that stage not very

probable. However, other sources of financing such as EIB loans could present

possible options. A very positive sign of the recognised importance of the 3RX railway

line from the EC point of view is the recently approved funding for the electrification

between Mol and Weert in the amount of 18.52 million Euro.

Contributions from the national and regional governments are recommended and

should form the main part of the overall project investment package. Experience of the

EU Member States indicates that rail infrastructure financing from government

budgets is the prevailing source of financing in rail infrastructure projects. In all three

countries, regional participation in the financing of transport infrastructure projects

also occurs. Some successful cases of mixed financial contribution from the national

and regional level are Stuttgart – Ulm and the Liefkenshoek link. These examples

show that projects in all three involved countries can be (pre)-financed by regional

authorities, aside from contributions by the national governments.

The involvement of a private partner is recommended, but on the other hand, the

private partner must see a clear business opportunity and the contribution and interest

of the private partner strongly depend on the return on investment that the project can

offer. The situation where a private partner would take a major share in the financing

of the line is unlikely if the only benefit would come from the track access charges.

The formation of an independent project company (SPV) is recommended, even if the

project will not involve private partners. It can be formed as a completely new

company (like Rail Baltica), consisting of different stakeholders (example Keyrail,

Betuweroute). The advantage of a project company is that it can more consistently

manage the budget and time constraints of the project.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


45

7 RISK ANALYSIS

Risk management in infrastructure projects is complicated, but many risks that occur

are common to many large projects. Due to the complexity and involvement of three

countries in the 3RX project which brings along different political and social interests,

new potential risks were identified (such as environmental issues, organisational

model, etc.).

Risks identified for the 3RX project can be grouped into different levels, such as

technical, financial, social and legal or political. The technical risks depend on the

technical complexity of the project (traffic forecast, competition, and organisational

model) which is in the case of 3RX much higher than for a single country project. The

financial risk primarily consists of securing sufficient funding and potential cost

overrun. Finally, the social and political risks include the political decision-making

process and public perceptions of the 3RX.

Table 17: Risks identified for the 3RX project

Risk Group Risk Effect

Financial

Funding

Lack of available budget,

Inflation, unavailability to find a

private partner

Cost overrun Higher costs of the project

Delay Longer implementation, higher

costs of the project

Transport policy Delay in the implementation,

higher costs

Technical and other factors

Traffic forecast Lower demand, lower income

from TAC

Competition Lower demand than expected

Organisational model Problems in the operational

tasks

ERTMS

Risk impact of new safety rules

on use of yard for change of

direction

Legal, political, social and

environmental

Public opposition of different

stakeholders Delay and higher costs

Legal Delay and higher costs

Natura 2000 Lower capacity

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E6: Risk analysis

For these risks mitigation measures have been identified. Table 15 summarizes all the

risks, their probability, impact, overall risk, their mitigation measures, and their

residual risk. There will be no remaining residual high risk for the project as measures

are available and likely to be implemented to manage potential overall risks.

Additionally, risk mitigation strategies and criteria for the key risks are explained.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


46

Table 18: Risk mitigation

Risk Probability Impact Overall

risk

Mitigation

measures

Residual

risk

Different costing

methods C

Imprecise

costing

calculation

Low

Precise evaluation of

costing methods before

the start of the project.

Close monitoring of the

situation after the

project start is required.

Low

Delay in project

implementation B

Construction

delay High

Set up a strong project

management unit, and

close monitoring of the

situation before and

during the construction

phase, that includes

time control and

appropriate scheduling.

Additional Investment in

early-stage engineering

and design can reduce

the effect of project

delay.

Moderate

Insufficient

funding C

Construction

delay Moderate

Identification of all

possible sources of

funding, including EU

funds, private partner

and national/regional

contributions. Possible

PPP models should be

taken into account.

Low

Legal D Construction

delay Moderate

Following the situation,

possible changes in the

legislation.

Low

Organisational

model D

Operational

and

organisational

issues

Low

Set up an appropriate

model for 3 different

countries, with an

agreement between

partners, who is

responsible for a certain

part of the project risk.

Low

Cost overruns A

Higher

investments

costs than

initially

planned

High

Set up of a strong

project management

unit. Precise planning

before and during the

construction phase is

required, taking into

account all unexpected

costs that may occur.

Additional Investment in

early-stage engineering

and design can reduce

the effect of cost

overruns.

Moderate

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


47

Risk Probability Impact Overall

risk

Mitigation

measures

Residual

risk

Competition B Lower

demand High

Closely monitor the

performance and modal

split from Antwerp

Moderate

Transport policy D Construction

delay Moderate Close monitoring Low

Realised vs.

forecasted traffic A

Lower traffic

than expected High

Careful estimations

based on realistic

scenarios and close

monitoring on the

situation.

Moderate

ERTMS C Safety aspect Low

Close monitoring of the

safety rules and its

impact on use of the

yard.

Low

Environmental B Lower

capacity High

Further analysis in the

second step of the

project and evaluation

of the potential

environmental

mitigation measures.

Moderate

Probability: A – very likely; B – likely; C – about as likely as not; D – unlikely; E-very unlikely

Risk Level: Low; Moderate; High; Unacceptable

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E6: Risk analysis

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


49

8 NEXT STEPS

8.1 Legal road map

Various legal steps are needed for implementing the 3RX variant on Belgian, Dutch

and German territory. The nature and the extent of the works determine the permits

needed and the time period which should be provided for this. In order to get the

permits studies need to be carried out.

Belgium

In accordance with applicable legislation, the works and exploitation are subject to

permits (planning permission and environmental permits), authorizations and road

permits.

In this case, one must also consider the need to compile a project EIA. In addition, to

obtain a permit for track doubling, the regional plan will first need to be modified via a

Regional Spatial Implementation Plan (RSIP). The RSIP is legally subject to a plan

EIA (environmental impact assessment to account for development proposals). If

negative impacts are identified in the plan EIA, mitigating measures will be formulated

and must be reflected in the SIP guidelines so that the impacts in question can be

mitigated. The government will also initiate the SIP (and the necessary impact

assessments). Nonetheless, various stakeholders can signal the need to compile an

SIP. Formal decision-making will be made at political level.

Expropriation (perhaps partial) will also be needed in order to carry out the work.

Considering the potential transport of hazardous goods (e.g. SEVESO products and

chemical substances from storage/transshipment to processing), the issue of safety

must be thoroughly investigated in the plan EIA. The need for an environment safety

report (OVR) will be examined after consultation and based on the preliminary

investigation.

Two options

Because procedures will be started after this study, two formal approaches (tracks)

can be followed for realisation:

1.TRACK 1: Integrated spatial process with expropriation followed by environmental

permit

• Integrated spatial process RSIP and plan EIA

• Simultaneous expropriation for public utility

• Environmental permit including draft project EIA

2.TRACK 2: Complex project with expropriation

• Complex project

• Expropriation for public utility

The Netherlands

For the 3RX on Dutch territory there are a number of procedures that can be tailored.

These are:

1.The ProRail core process

2.The MIRT - framework for Long-Term Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial

Planning and Transport (National Government)

3.The Infrastructure (Planning Procedures) Decree (and co-ordination arrangement)

4.Permits (Environmental Licensing (General Provisions) Bill (Wabo))

5.The designation of a reservation area for 3RX in the Rarro (Ordinance on General

Spatial Planning Regulations)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


50

The core process and the MIRT are processes for arriving at good decision making.

The Infrastructure (Planning Procedures) Decree goes through a statutory procedure

that is also aimed at arriving at a balanced decision. The final product is the

Infrastructure (Planning Procedures) Decree, which is an implementing decision.

During the Infrastructure (Planning Procedures) Decree process, environmental

permits may also be applied for in advance of the decision for matters that already

apply within the current spatial plans and decisions.

Germany

New railroad projects in Germany are being planned based on the Federal Transport

Infrastructure Plan (Bundesverkehrswegeplan) and on the requirement plan according

to the Federal Railways Improvements Act (Bundesschienenwege-Ausbaugesetz).

These plans build upon a forecast of the traffic development, which is relevant for the

following need of coordination and approval process. In that way, the requirements for

the expected traffic volume, an increased demand in infrastructure and an

environmental friendly design are met. Furthermore, these data built the baseline for

the dimension of noise and vibration protection as well as for the Environmental

Impact Assessment and the assessment of the Natura2000 directives.

Regional Planning Procedure

To make sure that big infrastructural projects are in line with the public interest and

are also compatible with material and legal requirements they must undergo a

Regional Planning Procedure (Raumordnungsverfahren - ROV). This procedure is

executed as an internal administrative procedure by the district government. During

the ROV all affected planning authorities and associations are involved, for example

nature conservation organizations. Within the procedure alternatives are investigated

and unsuitable solutions can be discarded at this early planning stage.

Before this procedure is conducted there should to be a preliminary assessment if a

Regional Planning Procedure is necessary.

The documents submitted by the applicant are send to the various planning

authorities and other parties. The documents contain an explanatory report, detailed

maps, graphs, and explanations as well as an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Plan Approval Procedure

Railway facilities, including the tracks, electrification, and ancillary buildings, can only

be build or changed through a Plan Approval Procedure (Planfeststellungs- /

Plangenehmigungsverfahren). The approval process is conducted by the Federal

Railway Authority (Eisenbahnbundesamt -EBA).

Afterwards the application will be send to the affected hearing authority in the relevant

state. In the present case this are going to be the district governments of Viersen and

Mönchengladbach, who must conduct the public hearing autonomous and

independent. The public hearing includes that the documents will be laid out in the

communities of affected citizens and that they are able to issue statements and

objections about the project. Other affected authorities and third-parties must be given

the opportunity to hand in a statement, too. If appropriate a public discussion should

be organized. The public hearing process ends with a statement by the hearing

authority, which is send to the EBA.

Based on the submitted documents of the project initiator and the hearing authorities,

the EBA determines the admissibility of the project in regards to all affected public

interest. It is the task of the EBA to balance the affected issues by consideration of all

public and private interest. Through provisions and official requirements, the EBA

ensures that third-party rights will not be affected. The plan can be seen as an

equivalent to a building permit.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


51

Studies to be carried out

In order to be able to demonstrate the acceptability of spatial developments, studies

should be carried out as a rule. The following table summarizes the possible studies

and indicates when such a study should in all probability be carried out.

Table 19 Studies that may be needed in each of the three countries involved

Study When necessary

Archaeology

• When departing from the existing rail

destination and the land in the applicable

zoning plan is assessed as having an

archaeological value

Soil • When departing from the existing rail

destination

Cultural history

• If cultural historical values or monuments are

concerned and the development could have

an effect on this

Explosives


destination and there is any reason for

encountering explosives. The latter will

quickly become an issue in the area

concerned since the necessary war activities

took place there. Furthermore, it concerns a

track that already existed before WW2 and

railways were a likely target for destruction

External safety

• If the transportation of dangerous substances

is an issue, and:

• the track gets closer to a (limited)

vulnerable function and/or

• it will be used more frequently, and/or

• it will be used at a higher speed, and/or

• other or more dangerous substances will

be transported

Noise

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/or

• If the track gets closer to a vulnerable

function /destination, and/or

• If it will be used more frequently, and/or

• If it will be used at a higher speed, and/or

• If the surface over which it travels changes

Landscape

• If visible activities take place in the

surrounding area, and/or

• If activities take place on the track that are

visible from a distance

Air quality





• If it will be used at a higher speed (with a

view to harder braking)

Nature – Flora and fauna



flora/fauna (including the National Nature

Network) or crosses these areas, and/or


THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


52

Study When necessary

• If it will be used at a higher speed

Nature – Natura2000

• If it cannot be ruled out in advance that there

are significant effects are to be expected.

This can also be an issue:

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/of


nature or crosses these areas, and/or


• If it will be used at a higher speed

Damage risk-analysis

• If it is expected that (legal) persons will be

disadvantaged by the new development. This

study only makes sense if the initiator still

allows its plans to be affected by any

planning damage claims

Vibrations





• If it will be used at a higher speed, and/or

• If the surface over which it travels changes

Traffic

• If activities take place that lead to the

removal of traffic connections and/or new

traffic connections

Water


destination, and:

• The surface hardening increases

significantly, and/or;

• Degradation of the surface water takes

place, and/or

• Degradation of the groundwater takes

place

Water safety

• If there are water barriers in the area of

activity

• If activities take place in areas that are part of

the flow carrying or water-storage regime

Source: ARTECORAIL, Task Report R8/R9: Legal road map and process architecture

8.2 Process architecture

The above mentioned the formal procedures that the project should go through in the

respective countries. In addition to these legal provisions, the complexity of the project

lies in the fact that adjustments are necessary in three countries for the success of the

project. A political process will have to lead to unambiguous agreements between

Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany to start legal proceedings. The process

should serve all the interests of the stakeholders through participation and

communication with the stakeholders.

A thorough utility and necessity analysis will create support from those directly

involved and citizens, making decision-making faster. This concerns answering the

central question: Why is a project like the 3RX necessary?

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


53

Participation: walking three tracks

Alongside the formal, official track of legal procedures there must also be political

consensus. We bring the participation under three tracks: the political, the legal/formal

and communication track.

Political track

As the project will require an international treaty between Germany, Belgium and the

Netherlands, the establishment of a 3RX steering group at the highest level

between the treaty partners will be a necessity. From the start of the project

(preparation of the planning), an advisory board may advise the client on issues of

stakeholders. This advisory board can act as a link to the political level.

A first step is to make a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the countries

concerned. This MoU has no legal status. The (accelerated) continuation of ministerial

consultations between Belgium and the Netherlands regarding existing agreements is

crucial here.

Legal/Formal track

The formal track is described in section 8.1. The procedures are aligned at maximum

and are open and accessible to all concerned. An important role for formal track is

that the national process commits counsellors at regular intervals. They inform about

the progress of the project at national level (content, planning and risks). They report

to the 3RX steering group. This steering group is expected to be assisted by

thematic working groups (e.g. concerning infrastructure, spatial, economic,

communication, financial and taxation modes of transport, etc.). These thematic

working groups can be composed nationally, bilaterally or with all countries.

Communication track

As high local and regional public interest in this project is very likely, it makes sense to

integrate communication and public participation into the project structure and

planning. The public as a key-stakeholder should not only be informed about the

project, but also integrated into the planning and design process. Communication as a

component of project planning can reduce the risks of potential interruption of the

planning-process by stakeholder initiated conflicts.

As this is a pure freight traffic project, certain stakeholder-groups may receive it as a

threat to the living conditions in the neighbourhoods and communities. Noise, traffic

disturbance and potential transport of hazardous goods might shrink the perceived

quality of life and so foster the establishment of citizens’ initiatives.

Communicating honestly on face-to-face level with stakeholders, clearing their

concerns and illustrating implications transparently from the very beginning of the

project is the basis of reducing speculations and being able to lead the dialogue.

Integration of planning and communication

Connecting the operational communication strategy, the participation process and

public relations with defined project management -phases (see figure) enables an

integrated transparent and reliable perceived communication strategy.

From this it follows, that windows for communication operations should be

implemented when setting up the overall project and its structure. The

communication’s project-structure is based on and strongly connected to the overall

project-structure and its topics. Needed resources like a communications team, or a

budget for information events should also be included in the overall project-plan. Clear

roles and responsibilities like an official speaker, should be defined in advance, prior

to the project-start. The communications team should be included in all internal

meetings, which could have an effect on the public perception, to ensure the steering

of the dialogue.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


54

Figure 7: Flow chart showing project management connected with public relations

Source: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (2015): VDI 7000 - Frühe Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bei Industrie- und Infrastrukturprojekten. Berlin

A precise internal preparation for the participation and communication strategy is

crucial. The overall and detailed planning of different parts of the communication-

strategy should be closely connected to the project-progress. For being able to steer

the dialog (not just react), preparation is needed.

A project-environment-analysis offers insights for designing an elaborate

communication-strategy. Having a deep look into the history of the project and the

project-areas to understand the stakeholder’s perspective is important. There is also

the option for a more detailed stakeholder- and issue-mapping. Based on this, the

preparation of crisis communication material should be decided. Information-cascades

must be prepared as a structure for the official communication of project-progresses

and news, and to prevent ruffling feathers.

Windows of opportunity for dialogue

The on-going communication and public relation should offer different ways of

communication to reach a broad group of stakeholders. Having a homepage, and

working with the press is the basis. But there are also different ways of explaining the

project and its impacts to different stakeholders. For example simulating acoustical

freight traffic noise (with and without noise-protection) at information events, or

showing the functionality of whisper-breaks. It pays off to be transparent about the

planning-process and not raise hope by initialising a participation if there is nothing to

decide about. The focus should be on explaining the planning process and the project

with its impacts in a very transparent manner.

Success factors

In comparison to other rail-projects, this just freight traffic-project falls into a difficult

category when it comes to raising acceptance.

• Integrating the project-communication at the very beginning and developing a

communication project-structure with resources and defined information-events

(that tell about the method and the status of planning) ensure the basis of a

transparent perceived communication.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


55

• It is crucial to find and align with local politicians, trade associations and advocates

for the project on the ground. So the abstract economic benefit gets personally

demonstrated in the particular area.

• There should be clear benefits for the local stakeholders. For example a voluntary

stronger noise-protection as needed by law or other optional add-ons like replacing

level-crossings by a bridge or a tunnel or a renovated train station for the public.

Framing the rebuilding as a chance to optimize the local rail infrastructure from a

stakeholder’s perspective might be an important point.

As the project is not an entire new construction, there will not be a wide range of

options for participation. Communicating transparently about the project and its

opportunities and not raising unrealizable hopes in terms of participation is crucial,

especially because of the long story of the project.

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


57

APPENDIX A

Members of the Steering Committee

Germany

Jürgen Papajewski / Dr. Martina Habibes (Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital

Infrastructure)

Rainer Stefan Hiltermann (German Embassy Brussels, Belgium)

North Rhine-Westphalia

Dietmar Rosarius (NRW Ministry of Transport)

Norbert Lammering (Representation of NRW to the EU)

The Netherlands

Robert de Jong (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)

Henk Meeldijk (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)

Marcel Tijs (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment)

Kasper vander Gugten / Lotte Lankveld (Dutch Embassy Brussels, Belgium)

Belgium

Frederik De Ridder (Belgian Ministry of Transport)

Filip Van Vracem (Belgian Ministry of Transport)

Stefaan De Weireld (Office of Belgian Minister of Transport Bellot)

Dirk Verdickt (Office of Belgian Minister of Transport Bellot)

Flanders

Reginald Loyen (Flemish Ministry of Mobility and Public Works)

Filip Vandermeulen (Office of Flemish Minister of Mobility and Public Works Weyts)

Jurian Van Parys (Flemish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Pim Bonne (Flemish Ministry of Mobility and Public Works)

Koen Haverbeke (General Representative of the Government of Flanders in

Germany)

Axel Buyse (General Representative of the Government of Flanders in The

Netherlands)

Natasja Duhem (Deputy General Representative of the Government of Flanders in

The Netherlands)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


59

APPENDIX B – TASK REPORTS

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


61

R1 – Introduction

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


63

R2 – The logic of a solution Iron Rhine

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


65

R3 - Present situation

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


67

R4 & R5 – Required Quality and Capacity

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


69

R6 – Environmental Assessment

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


71

R7 – Stakeholder analysis

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


73

R8 & R9 – Road map for realization

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


75

R10 – Atlas

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


77

T1 – T4 – Costs, Technical variants and planning

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


79

E1 – Present traffic

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


81

E2 – Traffic forecast

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


83

E3 – E5 – Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


85

E6 – Risk analysis

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


87

E7 – Financial analysis

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL


89

E8 – Financing options

Summary Report - Transport & Mobility Leuven · Rhine rail route. The study was carried out in...

Documents

Transcript of Summary Report - Transport & Mobility Leuven · Rhine rail route. The study was carried out in...