07-06-02 UIRR d-fine ZCCT-Roadmap Study FINAL 29.11.2022

51 This effect can be diminished due to higher weight of batteries for BEV trucks. However,

BEV trucks operating on CT road legs do not require the range provided by current BEV truck models. Thus, battery capacity and wei ght could be reduced [4]. 52 Based on expert interviews [33]. The industry composition and the involvement of CT operators is unclear. For usage in CT, rather lower annual mileages are to be expected [81]. 53 Average price of € 10,000 for new container chassis is assumed [33]. Costs for additional tractor units are not factored in since they would also be required without an increased shift to rail. However, compared to the transport projection in the EU Reference Scenario, the net effect of less road transport should also result in net less required tractor units.

22

4.

Investment needs for intermodal assets To be able to handle the projected volume of intermodal consignments, major increases in terminal capacity are required, as the number of expected transhipments in rail-road CT should reach about 84 million in 2050. To this end, upgrading of existing terminals and the construction of additional ones is required to establish the necessary transhipment capacities. The costs for these measures are estimated with € 47 billion until the year 2050 (about € 1,6 billion annually).

4.1

Capacity and utilisation of current intermodal infrastructure A recent study on transhipment technologies for intermodal transport on behalf of the European Commission concluded that around 850 terminals for transhipment to rail (around 1,000 when including all types of intermodal terminals) exist in EU-27 and Switzerland [36]. Of these, 212 rail-road terminals are located directly alongside the TEN-T core network corridors and offer each a capacity for processing more than 40 thousand consignments per year 54 [27] (Figure 4).

© O pe n St re e tMa p c on t ri b ut o rs , Cre d it : E C -GI SC O, © E u ro Ge o g ra p hi cs f o r t he a d m ini s t ra ti ve bo u nd a r ie s | © E ur o pe a n Co m m is s i on - D G M O VE – 2 018

Figure 4: Map of the TEN-T rail network and terminal distribution. Terminals on the core network are marked in green-red, terminals on the comprehensive network are marked in whitered. High speed rail tracks are marked in purple, all other rail tracks are marked in green [70].

850 rail-road terminals provide total transhipment capacity for 66 million consignments per year Following a bottom-up approach based on the available handling equipment per terminal 55, the referenced study identified a current transhipment capacity of 261 million consignments per year for the terminal network. This implies that each terminal would on average have a capacity for processing 250,000 consignments. This can be considered as a theoretical upper limit that likely overestimates the actual capacity due to several limitations 56.

54 For 2021, UIRR reported statics for 124 terminals managed by members companies. 55 Assuming that all terminal equipment is in use. 56 There are several limitations to this estimate. Only for about 500 terminals exists infor-

mation on handling equipment. For terminals without information an average capacity was assumed. It is likely that the number of active terminals is smaller. Since RFP data might more likely be available f or larger terminals, capacities of small terminals might be overestimated. Only two handlings per consignment were assumed, while realistic numbers might be higher and, thus, reducing the actual processing capacity.

23

Consequently, in this study a top-down approach is applied for the assessment of actual capacities. Following the approach used for the impact assessment for the TEN-T regulation [27], the terminals are classified into categories of transhipment capacity based on the offered equipment. For the 40 % of terminals without gantry equipment or for which no information on the available transhipment equipment is available [36], an average capacity of 40 thousand consignments per year is assumed. However, also terminals without gantry cranes may be capable of processing more than 100,000 consignments annually 57. The remaining terminals are categorised as follows: 30 % of the terminals are medium sized (40 – 100 thousand consignments transhipped), 21 % are large (100 – 150 thousand consignments), and 9 % mega-hubs (> 150 thousand consignments) [27] 58. Assuming these shares and average processing capacities within each size category 59 results in a projected transhipment capacity of 73 million intermodal consignments throughout the entire European terminal network. Further considerations need to be made regarding terminal capacities: ▪

besides handling capacities also throughput at the entrance gate and through the storage yard can pose the upper limit for terminal capacities. An analysis for the Baltic Sea region found storage throughput (50 %) and handling equipment throughput (40 %) to be the most common limiting factor [53].

▪

a practical capacity limit can be assumed to be reached at 80% of the nominal capacity [54, 55].

▪

besides publicly accessible terminals, terminals exclusively servicing the needs of their owners exist. For the Baltic Sea Region, about 25 % of terminals are of restricted access [53]. Statistics on transhipments in these terminals is not provided. However, it can be assumed that these account for single-digit percentages of all transhipment in Europe.

The number of transhipped consignments depends on many factors The 124 UIRR member terminals processed 7.5 million consignments in 2021 [19]. On average, these terminals operated 3.3 cranes, each handling around 18.4 thousand transhipments – resulting in 60,000 consignments on average per terminal per year. This is in line with the average utilisation of 54 % assessed for terminals in the Baltic Sea Region [51]. However, capacity utilisation is highly variable depending on the region where a terminal is located and its architecture. The current terminal infrastructure might not be enough to facilitate the transhipment of 85 million consignments in 2050 The modelling in this study projects a need for up to 85 million transhipments per year by 2050 (see Table 2). In the absence of substantial productivity improvements, the current terminal infrastructure would see a utilisation of 155 %. Implying that each terminal would unrealistically need to handle 100 thousand consignments.

57 Examples exist among the UIRR members [81]. 58 For the Baltic Sea Region, a distribution of 32 % small, 23 % medium, and 45 % large termi-

nals is assumed. This shift might result from the fact that t he sample of 152 terminals included 90 sea terminals, biasing the di stribution towards larger terminals. 59 Mega hubs are considered to handle up to 250,000 consignments per year [26].

24

4.2

Improvements to the terminal infrastructure To establish a comprehensive terminal network, the overall transhipment capacity would need to increase by up to 50 % until 2050. Thus, measures to increase capacity within the existing infrastructure, upgrades of existing terminals, and the construction of new terminals are needed. The proposed revision of the TEN-T Guidelines Regulation defines measures offering capacity gains within the existing infrastructure With the EU’s 2021 Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) call for proposals, a program was launched for upgrading rail-road terminals on the TEN-T network with a total volume of € 350 million. According to the proposed revision of the TEN-T Guidelines Regulation, terminals are obliged to accommodate 740 m long trains complying with the P400 loading gauge as well as to process of all types of consignments and allow for rail-to-rail transhipment by 2030. It is intended to introduce the TEN-T standards also for the last mile rail infrastructure into the terminals, to promote the digitalisation of terminals, and to install infrastructure for alternative fuels at all termina ls. These measures allow for cost and time reductions and the combined costs for upgrading to these standards are estimated at € 15.5 billion (Table 6).

Table 6: Improvements for terminal infrastructure planned within TEN-T, their costs and assessed improvement of costs or processing time [10, 27]. Cost/time reduction

Cost per terminal (in €)

Total cost (in billion €)

Improvement area

Operating all types of ILUs 60

5%

15

2

Overall

Rail-to-rail transhipment 61

NA 62

25

3.7

Handling

Extension of tracks under the crane to handle 740 m trains

5%

15

3.2

Handling

TEN-T standards on last mile

5%

10 – 25

3.6

Overall

Digitised terminal

2 % 63

8.9

1.9

Overall

Alternative fuel infrastructure

NA

0.3

0.06

Overall

50 % 64

35 / 30

2

Handling

Terminal improvements

Terminals with horizontal transhipment (e.g., CargoBeamer / Modalohr) Total upgrade costs

15.5

60 Currently 90 % of European CT terminals accept both ISO containers and continental

containers, 25 % of them accept swap bodies, and 0.3 % accept non-craneable semi-trailers. 61 For medium-sized terminals, an additional gantry crane and additional reach stackers are required, for large terminals 2-3 gantry cranes and 2-3 processing tracks are necessary to enable rail-to-rail handling. Efficient handling of 740 m trains requires at least two gantry cranes in addition to a pathway between the tracks and storage areas [26]. 62 Rail-to-rail shipment offers the opportunity to replace shunting processes on route, because consignments are transhipped instead of moved through shunting operations. 63 Even though digital terminals themselves provide time savings of only 2 %, they are the prerequisite for several digital tools that allow for large terminal productivity increases. 64 Horizontal terminals allow efficient handling of non -craneable semi-trailers [10]. The latter account for about 90 % of all semi-trailers [71]. An average CargoBeamer terminal can handle 130,000 semi-trailers per year (when upgraded: 260,000) [73].

25

Increasing the reliability of rail infrastructure is crucial for terminal productivity The capacity utilisation of lines and terminals are strongly interdependent. Currently, one of the biggest obstacles to efficient use of terminals are unreliable timetables and the lack of punctuality of freight trains. Most punctuality problems in terminals can be traced back to delayed trains for which the reason is to be found in the railway system [55]. By addressing this issue through, for instance, the TTR [37], it becomes possible to increase terminal capacity by double-digit percentages through less delays and accurate estimation of arrival time s [56, 57]. As of today, most terminals lack information on the type of cargo (e.g., hazardous materials) and the arrangement, status, and delay of incoming trains as well as on exact times when units are to be picked up [55]. In the CT sector, efforts are being made to address these problems through the implementation of a European open digital CT service platform [58] and the harmonisation of digital processes – for the electronical European cleaning document (eECD), the electronic freight documents (eFTI), and the electronical estimated time of arrival (ELETA, [57]). This is planned to be combined with a central platform for international time tabling and train path management.

Projects like QELETA 65 will offer a comprehensive quality management system 66 and improve the accuracy of the estimated time of arrival [40]. Increased operational efficiency on rail and in terminals will provide cost saving opportunities and facilitate efficient CT chains. Streamlining of processes and fostering the digital transformation of terminals is thus of value for achieving higher operational efficiency. This can be incentivised by regulatory measures and dedicated investment programmes. Transhipment capacity can be increased by the use of photogates with OCR capability Besides installation of additional traffic lanes, overall transhipment capacity can mainly be improved through digitalised solutions, e.g., systems for truck arrival prenotification and optical character recognition (OCR) gates on both the road- and the rail side of terminals [53]. OCR gates allow to automatically process arriving vehicles, whether road or on rail – one of the most urgent improvements according to rail terminal operators [59]. Their costs are estimated to € 310,000 67 per terminal, while reducing handling hours per train by 22 %. Retrofitting all terminals limited by gate capacity (15 %) with OCR gates would require a total investment of € 40 million.

Mathematical optimisation can increase efficiency by up to 7 % Data-based optimisation of storage handling – especially at peak times – offer large productivity gains by reducing the number of handlings to reshuffle containers. The optimal heuristics depend on terminal characteristics and allow to reduce total operational costs by up to 7 % with respect to generic algorithms [60].

65 Within the EDICT project, algorithms and potentially advanced AI methods for delay

identification and classification are developed to improve quality and punctuality of CT services. Integration with the ETA information is in scope . 66 A Europe-wide train identification system that works across borders is a prerequisite for the exchange of ETA, train running and train composition information to track trains from origin to destination. This is defined in the TA F/TAP TSI [40]. 67 One gate is needed for the road and for the rail entrance. A nnual maintenance costs lead to increased terminal operating costs of € 5 thousand per year.

26

Physical extension of terminals is planned along large parts of the network Until 2030, every fourth intermodal terminal in the TEN-T core network will undergo capacity related construction works 68, implying that additional extension works can be expected until 2050. Consequently, about 60 % of the current terminals will likely face an upgrade until 2050. Estimating an average capacity improvement unlocked by these upgrades is hampered by the fact, that the impact is only reported for a small fraction of these projects. A recent evaluation of transhipment technologies for intermodal transport analysed several terminal upgrade projects which were performed within the CEF framework. For 10 of these, information on capacity improvement is provided and ranges between 14 % and 117 % [36]. Corresponding costs also vary highly due to the different project sizes 69 – the average of € 50 million should thus be interpreted with caution. A rough calculation yields that approximately the capacity for processing 4,200 consignments is generated per million invested in terminal upgrades. It can, thus, be estimated that each 10% overall increase in transhipment capacity would costs about € 2.4 billion 70.

4.3

Additional terminal infrastructure and a comprehensive network of intermodal terminals In addition to the overall processing capacity of the terminals, the distribution of these terminals across Europe is also crucial to enable efficient CT services with reasonably short road legs. This ensures that the advantages of CT regarding energy efficiency and also costs for long distances can be fully exploited 71. Currently the distance between railroad terminals is well above 300 km in many regions throughout the TEN-T network, which limits the availability of multimodal transport in these regions [27]. For this very reason, current network connectivity in terms of intermodal terminals was identified as insufficient within the proposal for the revision of the TEN-T policy. To achieve a network of terminals with less than 200km distance from each other 72, the construction of at least 300 new terminals along the comprehensive network was found to be necessary 73 [27]. With average construction cost of € 47 million per terminal [61], the total investment for the entire network accumulates to € 14 billion. This addresses deficiencies in terminal infrastructure but does not consider unevenly distributed cargo density. Additional terminals may be needed to accommodate the projected growth of CT while allowing for efficient CT road leg distances of 70 km or less [36]. Thus, every indus-

68 An assessment for Austria and its bordering regions found the extension rate to be even

higher. In total 19 out of the 28 investigated terminals have been extended in the last 5 years or their extension is already planned [73]. 69 Some terminal improvements provide capacity gains for less than additional 10,000 TEU per year while others unlock capacities for over one million additional TEU per year. 70 Assuming constant conversion rates of 1.53 TEU per average consignment. 71 Although making up only 15 % of transport distance, road legs account for 40 % of the transport costs in CT [3]. 72 Another assessment proposed that at least one terminal per transhipment technique should be available every 850 km. In this case, the construction of 169 new terminals with a total investment of € 2,6 billion would be needed [36]. 73 Each urban node (> 100,000 inhabitants) should have at least one average size terminal, with a capacity for processing 120,000 consignments. In addition, one additional hub per 500,000 inhabitants should be build.

27

trial location and central city should be provided with sufficient terminal infrastructure within this distance. In more densely populated areas and near the busiest railway lines, even higher densities may be needed to meet capacity requirements in 2050. A recent study indicates, that since transport flows are significantly higher between European logistics hubs, investments should concentrate on these sections of the core network that concentrate 65 % of the total land freight transport. As a consequence of their bottom-up analysis of terminal capacities, the authors indicate that about 400 new terminals and new pass-through concepts for terminals may be required 74 [62].

4.4

Impact on railway rolling stock In the context of the impact assessment of the revision of the Noise TSI, a comprehensive survey of the wagon fleet in Europe 75 was conducted. While the total wagon fleet is assessed at 630,000 wagons for 2017 [63], about 64,000 intermodal wagons especially designed for CT 76 were reported for the same year [64]. Within the last 10 years, this fleet has increased by only 15 % and is expected to increase annually by 1 % until 2025. Due to the increase in rail and CT traffic, the current fleet of rolling stock needs to be used more efficiently and expanded until 2050. Without any form of efficiency improvement, the current fleet would have to increase by approximately the same factor as the number of trains, while the share of CT wagons would need to rise disproportionately to accommodate for the projected CT share of 70 %. This would imply an increase of the total rail wagon fleet from 630,000 to 1.45 million of which at least 235,000 should be suitable for CT. This implies investment needs into intermodal wagons of € 12 billion until 2050 (€ 0.4 billion per year) 77. The considerations regarding CT wagons can be transferred almost identically to the demand for and the use of ILUs. By 2050, the number of handlings per year will quadruple. Accordingly, it must be assumed that the demand for ILUs will also rise sharply.

Only more efficient use (e.g., through reduced storage times and avoidance of empty redistribution) will presumably not be sufficient to cover the additional demand , so that investment into further ILUs becomes necessary.

4.5

Qualitative gap analysis and investment assessment The strong increase in CT poses a challenge for the existing terminal infrastructure, which will be confronted with a tripling of the number of consignments by 2050. However, various measures exist to increase capacity that can be implemented by 2050. By improving the current terminal infrastructure (17 %), introducing digital tools (~20 %), increasing transhipment efficiency (7 %), upgrading existing terminals, and construction of additional terminals (35 %), the current European intermodal transhipment capacity can be increased – from the current

74 The gap analysis for terminal capacities included different scenarios for operating

hours. Capacity varies significantly between these scenarios and operating schedules are not uniform among all terminals in the network impacting the resulting gap assessment. 75 Europe includes EU27 plus UK, CH, NO, EE, LV, LT 76 In addition to the intermodal fleet presumably not more than 50,000 standard rail freight wagons can also be used for CT services. 77 Assuming a purchase price of 70,000 per wagon [83].

28

level of about 72 million consignments to more than 100 million in 2050. The implementation of these improvements requires investments in terminal infrastructure totalling € 35 billion and another € 12 billion in further intermodal assets. Although this study assumes 105 % higher transport volumes by rail in tonne-kilometres compared to the underlying modelling for the proposal for the TEN-T Regulation Guidelines revision, it could show, that no additional terminals beyond the ones planned within TEN -T are required. The capacity to accommodate the projected freight volumes is expected to be achieved by the measures panned within the TEN-T framework. Necessity for additional terminals beyond the proposed 300 new ones within the TEN-T revision proposal could arise from strong concentration of transhipment demand at industrial nodes.

29

5.

Conclusions Until 2050, the European Union aims to reach climate neutrality overall and defined the target for the transport sector to reduce of greenhouse gas emission by 90 % (compared to 1990). Door-to-door CT can help to achieve this target as it offers a CO 2 saving potential of up to 89 % compared to road transport. Even for zero-carbon CT, the necessary technologies are already available today. This study investigates how the existing infrastructure can accommodate the projected increase in freight volumes together with the shift towards zero-carbon modes of transport and what investment and accompanying measures are needed in order to promote zero carbon door-to-door CT.

5.1

Projections for freight transport, upcoming capacity bottlenecks, and possible improvements The EU Reference Scenario projects an increase in freight transport volumes in Europe of 27 % by 2030 and of 51 % by 2050 – compared to 2020. In accordance with the objectives of the rail sector and the European Commission’s Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, it is assumed that a doubling of the share of rail freight can be achieved by 2050, resulting in a tripling of the tonne-kilometre performance of freight trains. This increase is essentially driven by the growth of CT, which can be expected to reach a share of 70 % of total European rail freight transport in tonne-kilometres by 2050. The current railway and intermodal terminal infrastructure would not be able to accommodate this increase. However, for the transport modes involved in CT various measures exist to allow for capacity increases within the existing infrastructure – and, in combination, to meet demand. By achieving the TEN-T standards for rail infrastructure, substantial capacity reserves can be used. With regard to intermodal transhipment, the modernization of the existing infrastructure, and an increase in terminal density are of decisive importance in order to enable effective CT transport chains throughout Europe.

The assessment undertaken as part of the TEN-T revision process indicates that approximately 300 additional terminals will be needed to establish a resilient, comprehensive network. However, the resulting terminal infrastructure should also provide the necessary capacity reserves to accommodate higher utilization due to a higher modal share of rail by 2050.

5.2

Investment assessment for a resilient infrastructure for rail and combined transport sector This study considered and analysed measures included in the original TEN-T Regulation Guideline, as well as measures that go beyond those. The investment costs for these measures are estimated to € 53 7 billion until 2050 – breaking down into € 490 billion for rail infrastructure and € 47 billion for extension and upgrade of intermodal assets. To a large extent, these measures were identified as necessary in the proposal for a revised TEN-T Guideline Regulation, thus, the majority of investment costs were also indicated within the revision.

30

Table 7: Summary of demand development, possibilities to increase infrastructure capacity, and corresponding additional investment needs. Projected demand increase until 2050 Rail infrastructure

+140 % in trains per day

Road leg infrastructure

+350 % in tonne-kilometres

Intermodal assets

+220 % in transhipments

Effect of measures to increase capacity

Total investment needs (in billion)

> 150 %

490

--

net positive78

> 100 %

47

At the same time, the projected rail share of 32 % in freight transport (44 % in long-distance transport) together with an intensive usage of CT (70 % share of intermodal rail in total rail freight transport) offers potential for cost savings in the road transport sector due to the net reduction of truck hours and road infrastructure costs 79. Technically, zero-carbon combined transport is already possible today. In order to achieve widespread implementation and to meet the European climate targets for the transport sector, investments in infrastructure for rail, transhipment and short -distance road haulage are necessary over the next years which should be accompanied by supporting political and regulatory measures.

78 No concrete sum is given here, as it is a net saving compared to the assessment of re-

quired costs based on the freight demand projection of the EU Reference Scenario. 79 Other external effects include reduced congestion of roads and higher energy efficiency in transport.

31

References [1]

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION, “'Fit for 55': delivering the EU's 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality,” vol. COM(2021) 550 final, 2021.

[2]

d-fine GmbH, "Combined Transport: carbon footprint and energy efficiency," 2021. [Online]. A vailable: https://www.uirr.com/en/media-centre/leaflet-and-studies/mediacentre/2102-comparative-study-on-co2emissions-in-door-to-door-ct-d-fine.html. [Accessed 11 11 2022].

[3]

Rail Freight Forward, “30 by 2030: Rail Freight strategy to boost modal shif t,” 2018.

[4]

d-fine GmbH, “Zero-Carbon Combined Transport: Technology and efficiency analysis of zero -carbon roadrail combined transport,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.uirr.com/en/media-centre/leaflet-andstudies/mediacentre/2236-zero-carbon-combined-transport-study-by-d-fine-.html. [Accessed 22 11 2022].

[5]

European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action, Directorate-General for Energy, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, De Vita A., Capros P., Paroussos L., Fragkiadakis K., Karkatsoulis P., Höglund-Isaksson L., "EU reference scenario 2020 : energy, transport and GHG emissions : trends to 2050.," 16 07 2021. [Online]. Available: htt ps://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail//publication/96c2ca82-e85e-11eb-93a8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-219903975. [Accessed 22 11 2022].

[6]

European Commission - DG-Move, “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system,” EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Brussels, 2011.

[7]

European Commission, "The European Green Deal," COM(2019) 640, 2019.

[8]

REGULATION (EU) 2021/1119 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, "European Climate Law," Official Journal of the European Union, no. 2021/1119, 2021.

[9]

ITF, “ITF Transport Outlook 2021,” OECD Publishing, Paris, 2021.

[10] CAPACITY4RAIL, “Requirements toward the freight system of 2030 -2050,” 2018. [11] eurostat, “Volume of freight transport relative to GDP,” 20 04 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/view/TRAN_HV_FRTRA?lang=en . [Accessed 01 11 2022]. [12] OECD, “Economic Outlook No 109 - October 2021 - Long-term baseline projections,” 2022. [13] European Commission, “Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy,” European Commission, 2020. [14] European Commission, “European Green Deal: PRIMES Model for 'Fit for 55' MIX scenario,” European Commission, 2021. [15] eurostat, “Annual road freight transport by distance class with breakdown by type of goods,” 14 10 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ROAD_GO_TA_DCTG__custom_3741697/default/table. [Accessed 02 11 2022]. [16] European Commission, “Transport 2050: Commission outlines ambitious plan to increase mobility and reduce emissions,” Brussels, 2011. [17] UIC, “Railway Statistics 2021,” UIC, Paris, 2022. [18] eurostat, “Freight transport statistics - Goods transport,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ttr00006/default/table?lang=en. [Accessed 05 09 2022]. [19] UIRR, “UIRR Report 2021-22: European Road-Rail Combined Transport,” Brussels, 2022.

[20] Fraunhofer ISI, “Reference and Pro Rail Scenarios for European Corridors to 2050,” Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, no. 5, 2018.

[21] eurostat, “Freight transport statistics - modal split,” 7 7 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/view/TRAN_HV_FR MOD?lang=en. [Accessed 22 11 2022]. [22] KombiConsult GmbH, Intermodality Ltd, PLANCO Consulting GmbH,Gruppo CLAS S.p.A., “Analysis of the EU Combined Transport,” European Commission, Frankfurt, 2015. [23] UIC, “2020 Report on Combined Transport in Eur ope,” International Union of Railways, 2022. [24] European Commission, “Seventh monitoring report on the development of the rail market under Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,” Brussels, 2021. [25] J. Doppelbauer, Interviewee, A high-Performance European Railway infrastructure for Combined Transport. [Interview]. 19 May 2022. [26] European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation on Union guidelines for the development of the trans European transport network,” 2021. [27] European Commission, “IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Union guidelines for the development of the trans -European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010,” 2021. [28] European Parliament, European Council, “REGULATION (EU) No 1315/2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU,” 2013.

32

[29] W. Schade, C. de Stasio, D. Bielanska, F. Fermi, M. Himmelsbach, N. Lindberg and S. Maffii, “Analysis accompanying the Impact Assessment for the revision of Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 – FINAL REPORT,” Karlsruhe, Milano, 2021. [30] UNIFE, “Position Paper on the Revision of the TEN-T Regulation,” 2022. [31] V. Ranjbar, N. O. Olsson and H. Sipilä, “Impact of signalling system on capacity – Comparing legacy ATC, ETCS level 2 and ETCS hybrid level 3 systems,,” Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, no. 23, 2022. [32] B.-L. Nelldal, “Line capacity and train capacity for future rail freight corridors,” KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2017. [33] UIRR , “Intermodal: the increasing importance of P400,” 04 25 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.uirr.com/news/mediacentre/1846-intermodal-the-increasing-importance-of-p400.html. [Accessed 15 09 2022]. [34] European Commission, “ERTMS: Work Plan of the European Coordinator,” 2020. [35] PricewaterhouseCoopers, “Assessment of unit costs (standard prices) of rail projects (CAPital EXpenditure),” European Commission, Brussels, 2018. [36] PricewaterhouseCoopers; KombiCunsult, “Comparative evaluation of transhipment technologies for intermodal transport and their cost,” European Commission, Brussels, 2022. [37] International Energy Agency, “The Future of Rail: Opportunities for energy and the environment,” 2019.

[38] European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions, “Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 2016-2017,” European Commission, Brussels, 2020. [39] RNE; TTR; FTE, “TIMETABLING AND CAPACITY REDESIGN (TTR) - Overall Presentation,” 2019. [40] CER; UIC; UIRR; CEFIC;, “Sector Statement on Rail Freight Corridors Follow -up,” 2020. [41] Mobility Consulting, “Redesign of the International Timetabling Process (TTR) Business Case - Draft,” TTR Steering Committee, 2019. [42] European Court of Auditors, “ Rail freight transport in the EU: Still not on the right track,” 2016. [43] CEDR, “Trans-European Road Network, TEN-T (Roads): 2019 Performance Report,” 2020. [44] M. G. Romana and D. Hernando, “Obtaining a maximum AADT sustained by two -lane roads: an application to the Madrid region in Spain,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 14, pp. 3209-3217, 2016. [45] Louis Berger S.A. , “Transport Infrastructure Regional Study (TIRS) in the Balkans / Final Report - APPENDIX 5,” ITF, 2002. [46] G. Cookson, “Europe’s Traffic Hotspots - Measuring the impact of congestion in Europe,” INRIX Research, 2016. [47] P. Christidis and J. N. Ibáñez Rivas, “Measuring road congestion,” European Commission, 2012. [48] C. Janusz, O. Krzysztof and M.

Tracz, “Variability of Capacity and Traffic Performance at Urban and Rural Signalised Intersections,,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 15, pp. 87-99, 2016. [49] European Court of Auditors, “The EU core road network: shorter travel times but network not yet fully functional,” 2020. [50] R. Monden, K. El Beyrouty, M. Gatto, H. Kramer, L. v. Wijngaarden, A. Schroten, M. Brambilla, V. Lambla, F. Trosky, S. Amaral, M. Killer, D. Bertschmann and S. Maffii, “Overview of transport infrastructure expenditures and costs,” European Commission, Brussels, 2019. [51] R. Vaiana, G. Capiluppi, V. Gallelli, T. Iuele and V. Minani, “Pavement Surface Performances Evolution: an Experimental Application,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 53, pp. 1149-1160, 2012. [52] IDIADA; TML; TUG, “Bodies and trailers – development of CO2 emissions determination procedure,” 2018. [53] M. Bielenia, A. Borodo, G. T. Cirella, E. Czermański, T. Czuba, J. Jankiewicz, A. Oniszczuk-Jastrząbek, M. Sidorowicz and B. Wiśnicki, “COMBINED TRANSPORT TERMINALS BENCHMARK ANALYSIS,” COMBINE, 2020. [54] Kessel + Partner Transport Consultants, KombiConsult GmbH, “Study On Infrastructure Capacity Reserves For Combined Transport By 2015,” UIC, Freiburg/Frankfurt am Main/Paris, 2004. [55] A. Huelsz Prince, “Capacity factors in intermodal road-rail terminals,” Gothenburg, 2015.

[56] Hacon Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH; To70 B.V, “Performance Indicators & Expected Benefits,” Hannover, The Hague, 2021. [57] UIRR, “Electronic exchange of ETA information - Project objectives and consortium,” [Online]. Available: https://www.uirr.com/en/projects/ongoing/item/21-electronic-exchange-of-eta-information/34ongoing.html. [Accessed 22 11 2022]. [58] UIRR, “MORE EFFICIENCY THROUGH DIGITALISATION IN COMBINED TRANSPORT,” in 18th Florence Rail Forum, Florence , 2019.

[59] CAPACITY4Rail, “Rail Freight Systems of the Future (Final),” 2017. [60] C. Colombaroni, G. Fusco, N. Isaenko and L. Quadrifoglio, “Optimization of container operations at inland intermodal terminals,” in 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Naples, 2017.

33

[61] B. Wiegmans and B. Behdani, “A review and analysis of the investment in, and cost structure of, intermodal rail terminals,” Transport Reviews, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 33-51, 2018. [62] FERRMED, “Presentation of the final results of the FERRMED study of traffic and modal shift optimsation in the EU,” in Eurasian Connectivity and industrial Cooperation Forum (Europe) , Brussels, 2022. [63] ERA, Full Impact Assessment - Revision of the Noise TSl: Application of NOI TSI requirements to existing freight wagons, European Union Agency for Railways, 2018. [64] UIC, “2018 Report on Combined Transport in Europe,” International Union of Railways, 2018. [65] Independent Regulators’ Group – Rail, “A survey of congested infrastructure, priority criteria and capacity charges in Europe,” IRG-Rail , vol. 4, no. 19, 2019. [66] Deutsche Bahn AG, “Leistungs- und Finanzierungsvereinbarung: Infrastrukturzustands - und entwicklungsbericht 2020,” 2021. [67] RailNetEurope, “RFC KPIS,” [Online]. Available: https://rne.eu/rail -freight-corridors/rfc-kpis/. [Accessed 23 09 2022]. [68] European Commission - DG-Move, “TENtec Viewer,” 7 6 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec -portal/map/maps.html. [Accessed 04 10 2022]. [69] BDI, “Climate Giant in Chains – Combined Road/Rail Transport,” Industrie-Förderung Gesellschaft, Berlin, 2022. [70] J. Schrampf, P.

Weiss, N. Sedlacek and I. Steinacher, “Terminalkonzept 2022,” Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie, Mobilität, Innovation und Technologie, Vienna, 2022. [71] U. Expert, Interviewee, Discussion on Combined Transport. [Interview]. 11 2022. [72] CAPACITY4RAIL, “Parameters for capacity and costs of freight trains in Sweden including Business cases and validation of new freight wagons,” KTH, 2017. [73] CargoBeamer, “CargoBeamer opens terminal in Calais,” 12 July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.cargobeamer.com/news/cargobeamer-opens-terminal-in-calais.html. [Accessed 18 10 2022]. [74] European Commission - CORDIS, “Shifting to rail via longer freight trains,” 6 October 2015. [On line]. Available: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/91132 -shifting-to-rail-via-longer-freight-trains. [Accessed 19 10 2022].

Contact d-fine GmbH An der Hauptwache 7 | 60313 Frankfurt | Germany transportation@d-fine.com

UIRR s.c.r.l. 31, rue Montoyer – bte 11 | B-1000 Brussels | Belgium headoffice.brussels@uirr.com Contact d-fine GmbH An der Hauptwache 7 | 60313 Frankfurt | Germany transportation@d-fine.com

34

35