3RX Feasibility study alternative Rhein – Ruhr Rail Connection

DECEMBER 2017

Summary Report

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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

CARL VERELST Project manager

Version:

Final - December 2017

"The sole responsibilityRobert of this jan publication roOS lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein."

Consultant

2 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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

3

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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

4 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

5

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

7

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

9

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

10 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

11

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

13

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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).

14 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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

15

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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)

16 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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:

17

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics • 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

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

Possibly elongation of passing tracks (Herentals) Herentals – Mol Maybe addition of passing tracks

Possibly elongation of the tracks used by freight trains (Mol) Electrification of circa 32 kilometres of track Mol – Hamont Addition and/or elongation of passing tracks In case of growing traffic partial or complete doubling needed

Electrification of freight tracks (Hamont) Possibly addition and/or elongation of passing tracks (Hamont) Electrification of circa 9 kilometres of track Hamont – Weert Installing signalling system and automatic train protection system Upgrade level crossings Possibly raise track speed

Two tracks at the junction (one for eastbound and one for westbound 3RX trains) or creation of waiting tracks of 750 Weert meters at Weert station New bridge across the canal and possibly a fly-over

Optimize freight paths Weert – Roermond Implement Dynamic Traffic Management Risk Analysis of the level crossings

Connection curve east of the Maas bridge (Roermond) Roermond – Venlo Doubling parts of the existing single track sections Risk Analysis of the level crossings

18 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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 Venlo 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

Doubling parts of the existing single-track sections. Venlo – Monchengladbach Connection curve at Viersen Risk Analysis of the level crossings 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.

19

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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- 46.5 Balen

Track doubling Neerpelt - 26.5 Hamont

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 388.3 corrected for decisions taken 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.

20 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 19.0 c) at ground level

Double track curve 68.5 at ground level

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.

21

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 € -213.44

Roermond-Venlo

Curve at Roermond € -128.19

Yard Venlo € -24.42

Full double track curve € -49.50 at Viersen (already in reference (level 0 variant) 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 Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis

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

22 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis

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).

23

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics Figure 1: Planning of works

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

24 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 Direction Path quality Total cost per Kilometres changes (hours lost) freight train (count)

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.

25

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics Figure 2: Share of East-West rail freight traffic for the relevant O-D’s (% train count, 2015)

14%

Brabant route Montzen route

86%

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

26 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics Table 9: Freight volumes between selected EU regions (net mtons, 2015)

Destination

(ex. (ex.

UK

Italy

Other

France

Antwerp

Wallonia

Germany

Antwerp)

Luxemburg

Switzerland GrandTotal

Flanders TheNetherlands Origin

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)

27

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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)

28 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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) Traffic (daily train count) 140 129 120 113 115 100 103 103 95 80 71 60

40

20

0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

High Medium Low

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.

29

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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) 2030 2040 2015 Low Medium High Low Medium High Bra 10 a 12 13 15 13 15 17 Autonomous Mon 61 82 90 99 89 100 113 growth TOTAL 71 95 103 113 103 115 129 Bra 10 7 7 8 7 8 9 3RX Mon 61 71 78 85 77 87 97 (2 curves) 3RX X 17 19 20 18 21 23 Alternative TOTAL 71 95 104 113 103 115 130 Bra 10 4 4 4 4 4 5 A52 Mon 61 52 57 62 56 63 71 Alternative A52 X 41 45 49 44 50 56 TOTAL 71 96 105 115 105 117 132 Bra 10 5 5 6 5 6 6 Historical Mon 61 61 67 73 66 74 83 Route 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.

30 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

Table 11: Number of trains per Iron Rhine alternative in all scenarios including train path delay (average daily train counts, in both directions) 2030 2040 2015 Low Medium High Low Medium High Bra 10 8 9 10 9 10 11 3RX Mon 61 78 85 93 84 95 106 Time penalty 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.

31

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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)

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

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.

33

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

34 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics • 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 rail consumer surplus € 34.78 € 17.35 € 4.99 € 12.38 € 0.06 on consumers

35

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

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

Effects on the tax revenue € -1.50 € -0.44 € -0.32 € -0.74 € -0.01 government

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

36 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis

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

37

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 Source: ARTECORAIL, Task report E3/E4/E5: Social cost benefit analysis

38 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

39

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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 Infrabel ProRail DB Netz Total 3RX no. of trains 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.

41

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

43

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

Lack of available budget, Funding Inflation, unavailability to find a private partner

Cost overrun Higher costs of the project

Financial

Longer implementation, higher Delay costs of the project

Delay in the implementation, Transport policy higher costs

Lower demand, lower income Traffic forecast from TAC

Competition Lower demand than expected

Technical and other factors Problems in the operational Organisational model tasks

Risk impact of new safety rules ERTMS on use of yard for change of direction

Public opposition of different Delay and higher costs stakeholders

Legal, political, social and environmental 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.

45

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

Table 18: Risk mitigation

Overall Mitigation Residual Risk Probability Impact risk measures risk

Precise evaluation of costing methods before Imprecise Different costing the start of the project. C costing Low Low methods Close monitoring of the calculation situation after the project start is required.

Set up a strong project management unit, and close monitoring of the situation before and during the construction phase, that includes Delay in project Construction B High time control and Moderate implementation delay appropriate scheduling. Additional Investment in early-stage engineering and design can reduce the effect of project delay.

Identification of all possible sources of funding, including EU Insufficient Construction funds, private partner C Moderate Low funding delay and national/regional contributions. Possible PPP models should be taken into account.

Following the situation, Construction Legal D Moderate possible changes in the Low delay legislation.

Set up an appropriate model for 3 different Operational countries, with an Organisational and D Low agreement between Low model organisational partners, who is issues responsible for a certain part of the project risk.

Set up of a strong project management unit. Precise planning before and during the Higher construction phase is investments required, taking into Cost overruns A costs than High account all unexpected Moderate initially costs that may occur. planned Additional Investment in early-stage engineering and design can reduce the effect of cost overruns.

46 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

Overall Mitigation Residual Risk Probability Impact risk measures risk

Closely monitor the Lower Competition B High performance and modal Moderate demand split from Antwerp

Construction Transport policy D Moderate Close monitoring Low delay

Careful estimations based on realistic Realised vs. Lower traffic A High scenarios and close Moderate forecasted traffic than expected monitoring on the situation.

Close monitoring of the safety rules and its ERTMS C Safety aspect Low Low impact on use of the yard.

Further analysis in the second step of the Lower project and evaluation Environmental B High Moderate capacity of the potential environmental mitigation measures. 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

47

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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)

49

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

50 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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

• When departing from the existing rail destination and the land in the applicable Archaeology zoning plan is assessed as having an archaeological value

• When departing from the existing rail Soil destination

• If cultural historical values or monuments are Cultural history concerned and the development could have an effect on this

• When departing from the existing rail destination and there is any reason for encountering explosives. The latter will quickly become an issue in the area Explosives 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

• If the transportation of dangerous substances is an issue, and: • the track gets closer to a (limited) vulnerable function and/or External safety • 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

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/or • If the track gets closer to a vulnerable function /destination, and/or Noise • 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

• If visible activities take place in the surrounding area, and/or Landscape • If activities take place on the track that are visible from a distance

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/or • If the track gets closer to a vulnerable function /destination, and/or Air quality • If it will be used more frequently, and/or • If it will be used at a higher speed (with a view to harder braking)

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/or • If the track gets closer to a vulnerable Nature – Flora and fauna flora/fauna (including the National Nature Network) or crosses these areas, and/or • If it will be used more frequently, and/or

51

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics

Study When necessary

• If it will be used at a higher speed

• 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 – Natura2000 • If the track gets closer to a vulnerable nature or crosses these areas, and/or • If it will be used more frequently, and/or • If it will be used at a higher speed

• If it is expected that (legal) persons will be disadvantaged by the new development. This Damage risk-analysis study only makes sense if the initiator still allows its plans to be affected by any planning damage claims

• If other rolling stock will be used, and/or • If the track gets closer to a vulnerable function /destination, and/or Vibrations • 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

• If activities take place that lead to the Traffic removal of traffic connections and/or new traffic connections

• When departing from the existing rail destination, and: • The surface hardening increases significantly, and/or; Water • Degradation of the surface water takes place, and/or • Degradation of the groundwater takes place

• If there are water barriers in the area of activity Water safety • 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?

52 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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.

53

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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. 54 THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics • 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.

55

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics 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)

57

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics APPENDIX B – TASK REPORTS

59

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R1 – Introduction

61

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R2 – The logic of a solution Iron Rhine

63

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R3 - Present situation

65

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R4 & R5 – Required Quality and Capacity

67

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R6 – Environmental Assessment

69

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R7 – Stakeholder analysis

71

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R8 & R9 – Road map for realization

73

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics R10 – Atlas

75

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics T1 – T4 – Costs, Technical variants and planning

77

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E1 – Present traffic

79

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E2 – Traffic forecast

81

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E3 – E5 – Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)

83

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E6 – Risk analysis

85

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E7 – Financial analysis

87

THV AR-T-ECO-RAIL Arcadis – TML – ECORYS - Railistics E8 – Financing options

89