Action 3.1: Mapping Ongoing Public and Private Investments

Action 3.1: Mapping ongoing public and private investments

Hubs Clustering – Final Report of Action 3.1

Hellenic Institute of Transportation (HIT) / Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)

Period 2

Table of Contents

Action 3.1: Mapping ongoing public and private investments ...... 1 Hubs Clustering – Final Report of Action 3.1...... 1 Table of Contents ...... 1 List of Tables ...... 2 List of Figures...... 2 List of Charts ...... 3 1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 The project ...... 5 1.2 The project Study area ...... 6 1.3 Objectives of WP3 “Pilot investment actions and policies for long term sustainability” ...... 7 1.4 Scope of Action 3.1 “Mapping ongoing public and private investments” ...... 8 1.5 Structure of the current report ...... 9 2 Presentation of the 11 hubs, basic characteristics and future investments ...... 10 2.1 Hub of Bologna ...... 10 2.2 Hub of Bratislava ...... 13 2.3 Hub of Bucharest ...... 15 2.4 Hub of Budapest ...... 18 2.5 Hub of Ljubljana ...... 20 2.6 Hub of Sofia...... 22 2.7 Hub of Thessaloniki ...... 24 2.8 Hub of Trieste ...... 27 2.9 Hub of Venice ...... 28 2.10 Hub of Vienna ...... 30 2.11 Hub of Zagreb ...... 32 3 Analyzing the hubs ...... 35 3.1 Comparative analysis of Hubs ...... 35 3.1.1 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs regarding urban/ regional level integration ...... 36 3.1.2 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at national level ...... 41 3.1.3 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at transnational level ...... 45 3.1.4 Conclusion of hubs comparative analysis ...... 48 3.2 Hubs clustering for synergies in serving rail demand ...... 51 3.3 Hub’s clustering regarding rail competitiveness achievement ...... 54 3.3.1 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bologna ...... 54 3.3.2 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bratislava ...... 56 3.3.3 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bucharest ...... 59

3.3.4 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Budapest ...... 61 3.3.5 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Ljubljana...... 63 3.3.6 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Sofia ...... 66 3.3.7 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Thessaloniki ...... 68 3.3.8 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Trieste ...... 71 3.3.9 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Venice ...... 73 3.3.10 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Vienna ...... 76 3.3.11 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Zagreb ...... 78 3.3.12 Priority clusters of Hubs for rail competitiveness achievement...... 80 4 Key suggestions for necessary developments in RAIL4SEE hubs ...... 82 ANNEX A: Definition of terms ...... 85 ANNEX B: Action 3.1 - Template for the individual reports ...... 87 ANNEX C – ANNEX L: Individual partners reports ...... 92

List of Tables

Table 1: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bologna’s hub ...... 11 Table 2: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bratislava’s hub ...... 14 Table 3: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bucharest’s hub ...... 16 Table 4: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Budapest’s hub ...... 19 Table 5: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Ljubljana’s hub ...... 20 Table 6: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Sofia’s hub ...... 22 Table 7: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Thessaloniki’s hub ...... 24 Table 8: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Trieste hub ...... 27 Table 9: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Venice hub...... 28 Table 10: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Vienna’s hub ...... 30 Table 11: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Zagreb’s hub ...... 33 Table 12: Criteria and rating, urban / regional level ...... 37 Table 13: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, urban / regional level ...... 38 Table 14: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, urban/regional level ...... 39 Table 15: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, future changes at urban/regional level ...... 40 Table 16: Criteria and rating, national level ...... 42 Table 16: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, national level ...... 43 Table 17: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, national level ...... 44 Table 18: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, transnational level ...... 46 Table 19: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, transnational level ...... 47 Table 20: Rail connections among RAIL4SEE hubs (shortest in terms of time), [ÖBB Fahrplan] ...... 51 Table 21: Connections that can rail can be competitive ...... 80 Table 23: Potential clusters of RAIL4SEE involved hubs according to TEN-T projects ...... 83

List of Figures

Figure 1: RAIL4SEE reference area ...... 6 2

Figure 2: Clustering of hubs according to their characteristics ...... 8 Figure 3: Hubs’ categorization, current situation at urban/regional level ...... 39 Figure 4: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at urban / regional level ...... 41 Figure 5: Hubs’ clustering, current situation at national level ...... 44 Figure 6: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at national level ...... 45 Figure 7: Hubs’ categorization at transnational level, current situation ...... 47 Figure 8: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at transnational level ...... 48 Figure 9: Hubs’ clustering in relevance to their role in serving rail demand in SEE ...... 53 Figure 10: Clustering of hubs according to their characteristics ...... 86 Figure 11: Type of financing for every investment ...... 90

List of Charts

Chart 1: Costs of trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 54 Chart 2: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 55 Chart 3: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes...... 56 Chart 4: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 56 Chart 5: Costs of trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 57 Chart 6: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 57 Chart 7: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 58 Chart 8: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 58 Chart 9: Costs of trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 59 Chart 10: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 59 Chart 11: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 60 Chart 12: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes...... 60 Chart 13: Costs of trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes...... 61 Chart 14: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 62 Chart 15: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 62 Chart 16: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 63 Chart 17: Costs of trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 64 Chart 18: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 64 Chart 19: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 65 Chart 20: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 65 Chart 21: Costs of trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 66 Chart 22: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 67 Chart 23: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 67 Chart 24: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 68 Chart 25: Costs of trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 69 Chart 26: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 69 Chart 27: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 70 Chart 28: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 71 Chart 29: Costs of trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 72 Chart 30: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 72 Chart 31: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 73 Chart 32: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 73 Chart 33: Costs of trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 74 Chart 34: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 74 3

Chart 35: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 75 Chart 36: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 75 Chart 37: Costs of trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 76 Chart 38: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 77 Chart 39: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 77 Chart 40: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 78 Chart 41: Costs of trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 79 Chart 42: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 79 Chart 43: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 80 Chart 44: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes ...... 80 Chart 45: Urban population and percentage of urban in metropolitan population ...... 82

1 Introduction

1.1 The project “RAIL4SEE – Rail Hub Cities for SEE”, is a project of “South East Europe programme” which, in the framework of the Regional Policy's Territorial Cooperation Objective, aims to improve integration and competitiveness in an area [SEE programme official website]. RAIL4SEE deals with Priority Axis: “Improvement of the accessibility”, and aims to implement actions that lead to a successful contribution on the improvement of rail and Public Transport (PuT) in SEE.

RAIL4SEE objective is to provide passengers in SEE with an attractive and efficiently organized and developed (in terms of high interconnectivity and accessibility at all three existing layers – urban & regional, national and transnational level) Public Transport System based primarily on rail. Tackling the low use of PuT in SEE, from the one hand through supporting high speed and long distance connections among the hubs of the study area (transnational level) and from the other hand through developing a coherent and stable feeding network (urban and national level), RAIL4SEE aims to contribute to the future policy making actions in EU Commission by providing, as regards the abovementioned issues, models, concepts and harmonized strategies for the improvement of intermodal rail based passenger transport inside the study area.

The project emphasizes on pilot actions which will improve quality and governance schemes of transport services connecting major SEE rail hubs: Bologna, Venice, Trieste, Ljubljana, Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest, Thessaloniki, Sofia, Zagreb, Bucharest (the 11 involved RAIL4SEE hubs) [RAIL4SEE Application Form] Furthermore, RAIL4SEE goes one step further by bringing in touch other (non partners) key actors in public transport provision and monitoring / management procedure and concluding in necessary actions taking in mind a wide spectrum of ideas and aspirations.

Project’s main pillars of interest are:

 Governance & Services financing: it develops Public Transport Partnerships (Regional Transport Associations) as new integrated governance & operational approach to deliver services to transport users (agreements among rail and PT operators to integrate transport supply) and a transnational platform to harmonize investments and regulations which are the base to optimize and strengthen transnational rail services. The financing of services is another issue of special interest in RAIL4SEE project since it is thought as a strong instrument that being correctly used it will contribute to an increase of PuT use.

 Operations: it develops measures for new and improved rail services at metropolitan and transnational level, by means of harmonization of timetables, proposals for rail links based on demand analysis.

 Services to citizens: development of information systems (ICT and non-ICT) for easing travel information access to PT users and integrated ticketing measures.

 Awareness rising: specific campaigns developed in the selected hub cities [RAIL4SEE Application Form]

The main visible outcomes are policy & investments improvements, pilot actions on integrated ticketing & information systems for transport users, the setup of regional & transnational cooperation platforms and improved rail services in SEE. In more detail, the expected outputs are:

1. Set of shared standards and procedures (included border crossing procedures) and schemes to harmonize legislation for the participating countries in order to allow a transnational accessibility to the passengers by organization and coordination of the existing collective transport services.

2. A pilot network of main agglomeration/capital cities with increased capacity to act as nodes of transnational SEE accessibility, as well as connected to pilot surrounding regions, satellite agglomerations and functional areas (including neighboring airports and ports, also when located beyond borders).

3. Operating physical and virtual hub systems for existing transport services, around the railway stations of participating (Hub) cities, and standardized quality in interchanges (at transnational level)

4. Database of operating collective (public and private) transport services and connections within the project area with easy online access for the public and plans for maintenance and update also after project life.

5. Harmonized timetables and services for the potential users at transnational level as a basis for the improvement of the accessibility to and across the SEE area. [RAIL4SEE Application Form]

1.2 The project Study area RAIL4SEE project examines passengers’ transportation in South East Europe and focuses especially on 11 hubs (Bologna, Venice, Trieste, Ljubljana, Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest, Thessaloniki, Sofia, Zagreb and Bucharest. The project reference area is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: RAIL4SEE reference area

This reference project area is constituted by both urban/metropolitan and regional areas of each hub which are considered for integration & accessibility assessment. Transport service connectivity analysis in SE area is performed for assessing level of hubs interconnection.

1.3 Objectives of WP3 “Pilot investment actions and policies for long term sustainability” Work Package 3 of Rail4See project focus on pilot investment actions and policies that can guarantee long term sustainability as regards rail passenger service in South East Europe. WP3 is divided in five actions:

 Action 3.1: Mapping of ongoing investments  Action 3.2: Priorities of interventions in each hub  Action 3.3: Pilots investments  Action3.4:Regional & National Policies  Action 3.5: South East Strategy Paper on Rail Transport

Through the abovementioned Actions and the input from the parallel Actions in the other technical packages, WP3 aims to create a clear picture for the current level of accessibility (inside the hub) and interconnectivity (among hubs) in SEE and to examine the changes that would be made by the investments (ongoing and planned) in each hub. The investments mapping also provides the special focus of the policy applied in each hub for achieving green & seamless accessibility of passengers, thus defining the individual orientation of the hubs regarding priority modes and services to be developed in the future in SEE region.

The comparative analysis of current status with the foreseen future changes (as mapped by the future investments) will enable definition of necessary interventions in each hub for achieving the project priority objectives. A pilot detailed implementation plan will be prepared in order to formulate the pilot cases scenarios for each city/ hub. The results of the pilots from the other side are expected to influence the general policy & interventions priorities for each city thus enhancing the decisions makers view and stimulating transnational cooperation and intra hub coordination for reaching interhubs improved accessibility by rail. The interventions to be proposed for each hub would be in line with the development of a strong public transport network which acts as feeder to the rail. General directions for the necessary interventions to be followed so as to increase PuT share can be migrated also to other SEE hubs that present common characteristics with the examined ones (under careful examination of the peculiarities presented in each case). The clustering of the hubs based both on as is and future characteristics can contribute towards this direction (migration of guidelines) and will also form the basis for the development of policies (regional, national and transnational) for long term rail and PuT sustainability.

Finally, one of RAIL4SEE pilot activities takes place in WP3; investment on information systems to improve citizens accessibility to rail transport along the whole pilot network is part of this WP. The pilot focuses on both non ICT (visual/prints out), standard information to transport users on lines, services, timetables to increase the use of public and rail transport and on ICT to improve citizens information about rail and non-rail services (lines, timetables, operators).

Summing up, WP3 expect outcomes are:

 Reports on ongoing investments and funding by key actors (11 hubs analyzed)  Pilot detailed implementation plan  Reports on measures of interventions in each hub (11 hubs analyzed)  Pilot experiments on information systems to improve citizens’ accessibility to rail transport (pilot network)  Drafting transport improving agreements, including set of shared standards, procedures & schemes for passengers mobility (also border crossing)

 Policy docs contributing to the Danube strategy (2)  SEE strategy paper on rail transport

1.4 Scope of Action 3.1 “Mapping ongoing public and private investments” Action 3.1, entitled “Mapping ongoing public and private investments”, aimed to capture all the ongoing and future planned investments which would be developed under public or private financing (or mixed funding schemes) and that would improve hubs’ current status of operation regarding hub’s integration at urban /metropolitan level, accessibility at regional/national level and interconnectivity at transnational level. The three levels of operation analysis of each hub result from the “Hub” definition approved by RAIL4SEE partners at the beginning of the project (Figure 2). provides examples of investments /interventions projects that could substantiate changes in each level of hubs operation and thus identifies the three pillars on the basis of which profiling of each hub and clustering of hubs may be performed.

Transnational National Regional/local

International National airport Metro terminal Railway gateway Interregional Suburban buses terminal railway terminal International Airport Interregional Urban buses railway station terminal

CITY HUB interconnectivity CITY HUB accessibility CITY HUB Integration • Projects promoting new & upgrade • Projects promoting seamless transport • Terminals physical integration international connections • Coordination of time schedules • Integrated ticketing • Integrated ticketing • Info-mobility services • Info-mobility services

Figure 2: Clustering of hubs according to their characteristics

The comparative analysis of the current & future level of operation of hubs’ can indicate the domains that decision and policy makers should adjust their plans so as to transform hubs in strong nodes of SEE passengers’ rail network. It can also conclude useful messages as regards the near future hubs’ development that can be used by the relevant Authorities in their Strategic Transport Agendas for contributing in the reinforcement of rail use and of a sustainable way of transport.

The expectations from Action 3.1 work may be summarized in the following:

1. Data collection (in line with RAIL4SEE pillars and pilots) for: • Understanding current governance scheme for investments • Identifying future plans for investments

2. Provision of input for RAIL4SEE future scenarios creation (Action 5.1) 3. Assessment of compatibility of future investments with pilots content

Finally it should be mentioned that goal of Action 3.1 is to conclude in a clustering of the 11 hubs taking into account issues such as currently provided services, existing governance and financial schemes and potential future improvements brought by the realization of ongoing and future plans.

Clusters of hubs are defined as sub groups of the examined hubs which in current status substantiate a synergetic operational scheme for green & seamless transportation of passenger in SEE and/or groups of hubs which in accordance to their future investments plans are compatible in scope, priorities and time schedule of their future investments and can create the basis for joint development of new, modern rail based services of high penetration to passengers thus strengthening in the future rail transport attractiveness. For these groups of hubs and associated modern services more detailed analysis on viability and governance schemes would be performed in the context of subsequent project WPs for formulating scenarios of relevant proposals and policy measures, assessing their feasibility and supporting adoption by the relevant stakeholders.

In this content main scope of this project action is to feed WP5 with appropriate data also from pilots execution in order the alternative scenarios to be developed.

1.5 Structure of the current report The current report is the final outcome of Action 3.1 of RAIL4SEE project. It is an effort to combine and critical analyze the input provided by partners as regards current situation and changes that will be brought by the completion of the ongoing investments in each hub.

Except from the first introductory part of this report that presents a summary of the project, the methodological steps followed and the study area, the other chapters refers to:

 The presentation of each hub in terms of key profile characteristics (status quo) and future investments’ focus. The presentation of each hub is structured around RAIL4SEE pillars (services projecting & management, governance in hubs development, financing of services and PTPs) and RAIL4SEE pilots (on integrated ticketing, timetables harmonization and info provision) core axis at the 3 level examined in the project: o Urban/regional level (city hub integration) o National level (city hub accessibility) o Transnational level (city hub interconnectivity

 The clustering analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs made also in the same 3 level approach and based on current profile and potential future changes brought by the mapped investments

The report closes with key messages deriving from the whole analysis as regards the future needs of each hub and the necessary investments that can contribute to the development of a seamless passengers’ intermodal public transport network rail based in SEE. The definitions of terms used in the framework of Action 3.1 (annex A), the methodology for data collection from partners (annex B) as well as the individual partners’ reports (annexes C - L) are presented as annexes in the current deliverable.

2 Presentation of the 11 hubs, basic characteristics and future investments

This chapter summarizes for all 11 hubs involved in RAIL4SEE project, key hub’s profile characteristics and the focus of the ongoing investments mapped by the partners.

In the framework of Action 3.1 the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs were requested to provide summary information regarding the status quo of their transportation system (organization, management, operation). Although the collection of those data can be considered as part of mapping the “AS IS” situation, an attempt to summary information collection under Action 3.1 was made in order to facilitate the clustering of hubs and for better understanding the main changes envisaged to be brought by the completion of the ongoing and future investments in each hub.

More analytically as regards the current situation in each hub, partners were requested to provide:

 A description of transportation services provided in each hub (e.g. rail services connecting the hub with other cities in national and transnational level..., metro and busses for urban transportation covering all hub or a part of it, air connection with other hubs in country and international connections ..., intercity buses connecting with ... etc).  A description of the legal background of the organizations involved in transport issues (policy makers, operators, managers, transport associations etc) as regards their hub (description of all existing and potential future stakeholders). Legal & Financial Framework (definition of the legal basis of current rail services, long distance and feeder lines, funding etc.) of currently provided services

As regards the core data collection in Action 3.1, a table organizing the investments according to the 4 RAIL4SEE pillars and a common template for collecting partners input were proposed by CERTH/HIT (annex B).

The conduction of the first set of “Round tables” in the framework of Action 6.3 provided the study teams with the opportunity to come to an open dialogue with involved actors in hub’s transportation system. This interactive procedure at least as it has been perceived by CERTH/HIT helped the sketching of hub’s status quo and also gave added value in the critical assessment of the mapped investments.

Through a critical analysis of the individual partners’ reports, CERTH tried to concentrate all the necessary information needed for developing a clear picture for the current situation in transportation issues and for the changes brought by the investments in each hub (with special focus on RAIL4SEE pillars – references to RAIL4SEE pillars are made both on the tables presented and on the key messages extracted). This procedure gave useful input and acted as a preliminary step for hub’s clustering that is both a part and an important milestone of the current report.

2.1 Hub of Bologna Bologna is the largest city (and the capital) of Emilia-Romagna Region in Northern Italy. Bologna is home to the Guglielmo Marconi International Airport, recently expanded to accommodate larger aircrafts. Today, it is the seventh busiest Italian airport for passenger traffic (almost 6 million passengers handled in 2011). Bologna Centrale railway station is one of the most important train hubs in Italy thanks to the city's strategic location. It serves 58 million passengers annually. The city is also served by a large network of public bus lines, run by Azienda Trasporti Pubblici Bologna (ATC).

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Bologna’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 1: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bologna’s hub Bologna Urban Area Bologna city – 140.845 Kmq Metropolitan area – 3.0703 Kmq Urban Population Bologna city - 384.672 Metropolitan area - 991.924 Transportation Buses, trolleys and trains services Future investments Buses and trolleys: Requalification and enhancement of the bus station, new trolley bus Urban / lines, new trolley buses regional level Trains: realization of 12 new SFM train stations, Bologna – Portomaggiore undergrounding, Rebuilding of 4 tracks in Bologna Central Station (for local traffic), new rolling stock, improved connections between airports or between airports and city, Increased Roveri storage capacity Future investments in service projecting and management  Study of interval timetables for SFM (Metropolitan Rail Service) by-passing lines  Entry of new technologies in daily operations  New website (app, online ticketing service, old town access) for bus services Information Yes provision Buses and trolley: Information on web site pre-trip (travel planner). Real-time information at the bus stop on the steps of the busses, real time information on mobile phone (via sms) Trains Information on web site pre-trip, real time information on mobile phone Interconnectivity of Good interconnectivity among hubs, the Bus Terminal is located next to Central Rail Station terminals inside the and there is a good city - Airport connectivity hub Future investments  Connections between airport and city  Underground station in Central Railway Station  Construction of infrastructure related to the high-speed railway Harmonization of Partly harmonized, there are some examples of harmonization of timetables of trains with timetables buses, especially in suburban areas. Future investments Study of intervals in RAIL4SEE project Integrated ticketing Yes Integrated No Transport Authority Transportation Rail, Road (buses) and air services services Future investments National level New check-in, new baggage handling system, restyling of the bus station Restyling of the rail station, new underground high speed station, new parking, construction of infrastructure related to the high-speed railway By-passing underground rail Interconnection to Verona Interconnection to Venezia ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) and new technologies use in daily operations 11

New road access of Airport, Bologna by-passing highway, Parking expansion Information Information on web site pre-trip, real time information on mobile phone for rail services provision Future investments New website (app and online ticketing service) for bus services Harmonization of Yes as regards national and local rail timetables timetables Integrated ticketing No Transportation Rail, Road (buses) and air services services Future investments International Airport: Airport ground extension, Squares broadening, Terminal extension, Runway level expansion, New terminal Information (As at national level) provision Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing No

I. Key profile characteristics

 Currently, the PuT share in Bologna city is 19% with an aim to increase this percentage.  Buses and trolleys currently serve the city; however, Bologna’s Metropolitan Rail Service (SFM) is under construction and aims to better serve passengers’ needs.  Information provision to passengers at urban level is quite good; however, an integrated platform is also in this case missing (similar to Thessaloniki’s case).  Bologna presents good interconnectivity among modal terminals that will be further enhanced with the completion of SFM.  Examples of timetable harmonization exist between trains and buses in suburban areas but not in Bologna’s city.  The International Airport of Bologna is the 7th busiest in Italy, therefore good city – Airport connectivity is necessary.  There are high speed trains connecting Bologna with Milan and Florence – Rome, thus the backbone of Italy. National accessibility is therefore considered as very good.  STIMER – Mi Muovo project has set integrated tariffs in Bologna’s hub.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 Bus and Trolley services are operated by TPB Scarl (Trasporti Pubblici bolognesi), which manages urban, area ad cross-area local public transport services with tram and bus lines for Bologna and its province.  The regional rail services are responsibility of Consorzio Trasporti Integrati (CTI) established by Trenitalia (FS Spa) and TPER  National rail services main operator is TRENITALIA  International rail services are provided by TRENITALIA and Trenord+DB+OBB  The management of regional railway is responsibility of FER Srl  The management of national railways is responsibility of RFI  Governance schemes o Bus and trolley services: service contract, services entrusted with a public procurement process by Local Mobility Agencies SRM (Società Reti e Mobilità) which are the instruments of local bodies for planning public transportation and public procurement processes o Rail services: concession, services regulated by ”Service agreement by Regional authority 12

 Services financing o Bus and trolley services: regional funds paid to TPB Scarl as payment of the contract o Rail services: contributions

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 The development of an Integrated Transport Authority is one of the main topics of discussion at present in Bologna’s hub because of many ongoing institutional changes, the forthcoming completion of Metropolitan Rail Service (SFM) and the consequent deriving issues (need for systems’ integration and resources maximization).

IV. Future investment focus

 Bologna seems to be oriented towards rail strengthening in all three levels (urban & regional, national and international).  The Governance system is considered as a key issue to improve the overall hub operations along with the functioning of all elements related to it. This subject is currently at the centre of all discussions concerning the ongoing institutional changes in Italy and particularly in Bologna in the light of the future development of the Metropolitan City.  At urban level, the following investments have already begun: o SFM – urban metro rail to be completed by 2016 with station at the Central Railway Station o Railway Stations improvements – Central Station requalification and new underground high speed traffic station (2015) o Improvements on systems providing passengers’ information o Harmonization of timetables among different operators o “People mover”, improved rail – air connectivity o New trolley bus lines o Requalification of bus station and improvement of user assistance systems All the abovementioned projects are estimated to upgrade hub’s profile and offer a high level of integration among the PuT services. Necessary improvement is considered the development of an Integrated Transport Authority that will centrally coordinate the existing services. Ticket integration, integrated information platforms and timetables further harmonization are issues more easily dealt with the existence of such an Authority.  Rail network improvements at regional level and better connectivity Bologna – Eastern side of the Region are under realization.  Fast interconnection to Venice/Verona is considered as more than necessary to achieve national accessibility of high level.  Rail network improvements are also planned at international level  Requalification & expansion of airport terminal that is an ongoing project shows that Bologna makes a big effort to keep its strong position as International Air Hub.

2.2 Hub of Bratislava Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia and, with a population of about 460,000, the country’s largest city. Bratislava is in southwestern Slovakia on both banks of the Danube River and on the left bank of Morava River. Bordering Austria and Hungary, it is the only national capital that borders two independent countries.

As a rail hub, the city has direct connections to Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany and the rest of Slovakia. Petržalka and Bratislava Hlavná stanica are the main stations. Other Stations and railway stops are Bratislava-

Nové Mesto, Bratislava-Vinohrady, Bratislava-Poddunajské Biskupice, Bratislava-Železná Studienka, Bratislava-Lamač and Bratislava-Vajnory. All stations are mutually accessible by public transport.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Bratislava’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 2: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bratislava’s hub Bratislava Urban Area 853,15 km2 Bratislava region (district of Bratislava, Senec, Pezinok, Modra, Stupava, Malacky) Urban Population Bratislava city population: 432 801 Metropolitan region population: 622,706 Transportation Buses, trolleys, trams and regional rail services services Future investments: Improvement of tram and trolley services Urban / Information Via internet regional level provision Future investments: New on board technology for better information provision Interconnectivity Interconnectivity among modal terminals is considered as of medium level, the terminals of terminals inside are connected but better service is necessary the hub Future investments: Main train station and main bus station improvements Better accessibility of airport by tram services Harmonization of Partially, not in all cases and not among all operators (regional bus and train schedules are timetables partially harmonized and the same happens also among urban PuT modes) Integrated No ticketing Integrated Yes Transport Authority Transportation Rail, Road (buses) services services National level Information  As regards rail services, information to passengers are provided through internet and provision mobile  Real time train positioning is also available Harmonization of No timetables Future investments National and international railway timetables harmonization. Integrated No ticketing Transportation Rail, road (buses), air services services International Information (As at national level) level provision Harmonization of No timetables Future investments National and international railway timetables harmonization. Integrated No ticketing

I. Key profile characteristics

 Buses, trolleys, trams currently serves Bratislava’s hub.  Not all operators in Bratislava are prepared for implementing integrated ticketing  Information provision to passengers at all three levels (urban, national and international) needs to be upgraded  Currently rail traffic exceeds station’s capacity (plans to reconstruct or transfer traffic)  There is a large completed & ongoing infrastructure plan and the modernization of rail network inside the hub has already started  Commuting cross border traffic towards Hungary and Austria is high and thus investing on improving international rail services is an urgent need

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 The involved operators in transport services provision inside Bratislava’s hub are: o Dopravný podnik Bratislava a.s. (Bratislava public transport company – urban transport services, public company) o Slovak Lines a.s. (regional bus service operator, private) o Železničná Spoločnosť Slovensko a.s. (national rail operation, public company) o RegioJet (regional rail services, private)  As regards urban PuT services financing, revenue from tickets cover approximately 40% of expenses, 60% is paid by city.  Governance schemes for services: o At urban transportation all responsibility lies on the city of Bratislava while monitoring authority is the Ministry of Transport o As regards regional bus services, all responsibility lies on regional government while monitoring authority also in this case is the Ministry of Transport o As regards regional rail service all responsibility is under the Ministry of Transport

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Integrated transport authority was established in 2005 as company 65% owned by Bratislava region and 35% by city of Bratislava. Bratislava Integrated Transport (Bratislavská integrovaná doprava) coordinates the whole transportation system (trains, suburban buses and intra-city transportation) in the hub.

IV. Future investment focus

 An intermodal terminal that will be completed by 2015 and better metropolitan rail services aim to act as leverage for improving hub’s interconnectivity. Terminal’s interconnectivity will be improved also via better rail services to Bratislava’s Airport  New rolling stock is scheduled.  There are large air transport investments, however, mainly related to freight transportation  Infrastructure development for railway network to achieve better accessibility to TEN and thus better international rail connectivity is planned.

2.3 Hub of Bucharest Bucharest is the capital municipality, cultural, industrial, and financial center of Romania. It is the largest city in Romania, located in the southeast of the country and lies on the banks of the Dâmbovița River. 15

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Bucharest’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 3: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Bucharest’s hub Bucharest Urban Area 238 skm Urban Population 1.943.981 Transportation Four modes of transport operate in Bucharest (buses, metro, tram, trolley) services Future investments Improvements on tram network Information Via internet, information kiosks and real time information on buses and trolleys Urban / provision Future investments regional level Implementation of TAP TSI (telematics applications for passenger services) by the passenger railway operator Interconnectivity of Bucharest presents very good terminals’ interconnectivity; Gara de Nord Train terminals inside the Station is served by underground while buses, trams and trolleys stop less than hub 50 m walk from the station. The hub is also well connected to the Airport. Future investments  Improvement of the Basarab interchange  Improvement of tram – train connection  Setting up of new interchanges between urban public transport and regional railway Harmonization of No timetables Future investments Implementation of TAP TSI Integrated ticketing Contactless smartcard, for the moment between RATB R.A. and METROREX S.A. The system, however, allows integration with 6 more public transport operators. Future investments  Integration of ticketing between urban passenger transport and the regional passenger rail transport  Introduction of automatic vending and top up machines  Implementation of TAP TSI by the CFR Calatori SA Integrated Yes Transport Authority Transportation Rail, Road (buses) and air transportation services National level Information Information on rail services via internet provision Future investments Implementation of TAP TSI Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing Future investments Implementation of TAP TSI Transportation Rail, Road (buses) and air transportation services International Information Information on rail services via internet level provision Future investments Implementation of TAP TSI Harmonization of No timetables

Integrated ticketing No Future investments Implementation of TAP TSI

I. Key profile characteristics

 Bucharest presents a strong multimodal profile as regards PuT services provision (buses, metro, trams, trolleys serve the whole area)  As regards hubs integration, there is a very good level of interconnectivity among terminals. Integrated ticketing (RATB and METROREX) is another significant provision and there are plans to extend the service also for rail travels (CFR).  There is a good level of passengers’ info provision; however, integrated efforts are missing also in this case (e.g. an integrated e-platform concentrating data from all available sources).

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 The operator for buses, trolleybuses, trams is Regia Autonoma de Transport Bucuresti – RATB R.A. which is owned by Bucharest Municipality  The operator for underground is METROREX S.A.  The surface public transport is managed by The Transport, Roads and Traffic Planning Department of Bucharest Municipality, having the following responsibilities: strategy elaboration, planning, coordinating and monitoring; development of urban public transport methodology and taxi, minibus and bus licensing; approval of tariffs.  The underground transportation lies under the responsibility of Ministry of Transportation Authority.  RATB is subsidized by the Bucharest City Council and METROREX by the Ministry of Transportation.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Bucharest Metropolitan Transportation Authority is public institution which has as domain of activity to ensure correlation and coordination of the policy of public passenger transport services in the metropolitan area of Bucharest.

IV. Future investment focus

 There is a special focus on ticket integration at all three levels, real time info for rail and on increasing rail accessibility of the region to the hub.  At urban/regional level, Bucharest’s investments focus on: o improvement of the existing rail infrastructure in order to increase regional rail use (in the framework of RAIL4SEE) o New interchanges with local PuT system (in the framework of RAIL4SEE) o Reevaluation of public transport lines in the area of Gara de Nord (Central Railway Station of Bucharest) o Ring rail in the near future for better service of the area o Services provision (assistance to reduced mobility persons, real time information system – also rail integration with city transport system, modernization of automatic ticketing system & integration with other operators, card vending and recharging machines, card control and recharging)  At national level the improvement of info provision is on the center of Bucharest’s attention  At international level, Bucharest will invest on e-ticket services.

2.4 Hub of Budapest Budapest is the capital and the largest city of Hungary, the largest in East-Central Europe and the seventh largest in the European Union. It is the country's principal political, cultural, commercial, industrial, and transportation centre. According to 2011 Census, Budapest had 1.74 million inhabitants. The Budapest Commuter Area is home to 3.3 million people. The city covers an area of 525 square kilometers within the city limits.

As regards PuT in Budapest, there are BKV buses, trams, 3 metro lines, HÉV (suburban railway), cogwheel railway; other interesting means of transport: ferry boats, the Budavári sikló (Buda Castle Funicular), gyermekvasút (Children’s Railway) and the Zugligeti libegő (Zugliget chairlift). The main railway stations are 4; Nyugati (Western), Keleti (Eastern), Déli (South) and Kelenföldi pályaudvarok while its Airport, Ferihegyi nemzetközi repülőtér (Ferihegy International Airport), is located 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) east-southeast of the centre of Budapest.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Budapest’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 4: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Budapest’s hub Budapest Urban Area 525,16 Urban Population 1,75 mio. Transportation All types of PuT modes serve Budapest (metro, bus, tram, trolleybus, suburban train, cog- services wheel railway, funicular, boat) Future investments: Improvement of suburban rail network, new intermodal stations with P&R, B&R, facilities, Urban / tariff integration, new rolling stock for the new tramlines and new bus lanes regional level Information Real time traffic data is available for suburban trains only at the moment, on board of the provision vehicle info audio and visual are available generally, no ICT information provision Future investments: Real-time passenger and traffic management information system (FUTÁR project) Interconnectivity of Currently low to medium level interconnectivity; depending on the terminal. terminals inside the Future investments: hub Improvement of Station’s current status (Kelenföld station, Nyugati station, etc.) Harmonization of Partly (not in all cases and not among all operators) timetables Future investments will focus on timetables harmonization Integrated ticketing Exist for passes (season tickets) within the city only. For singe tickets there are no common ticketing Future investments will focus on ticket integration Integrated Transport Yes Authority Transportation Road (buses), rail services services National level Information Traditional audio and visual and online real-time for railways provision Harmonization of Partly timetables Integrated ticketing No Transportation Road (buses), rail, air services services International Information Traditional audio and visual level provision Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing Only some examples (e.g. to Prague and Vienna combined train ticket and local transport pass for 2-4 days)

I. Key profile characteristics

 Budapest is served by various means of PuT (metro, bus, tram, trolleybus, suburban train, cog-wheel railway, funicular, boat)  There are balanced investment in rail and road (modest approach)  International rail services face strong competition by air low cost carriers  New rail services are under development for international and suburban traffic (Railjet trains, high quality IC)  There are strong commitment and expectations by Traffic Management and passenger information system (FUTAR) development  There is an obvious need for investing on ICT provision  Currently, terminals’ interconnectivity is of medium level, however, improvements are foreseen 19

 There is also a need for broadening timetables harmonization and integrated ticketing implementation (however, future investments focus on these pillars)  What is needed also is an S-bahn (a city center and suburban metro) service.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 BKV, a public company, is the operator of the urban PuT and of some suburban buses and rail services  BKK, is the public body (Municipality of Budapest) that orders and finances public transport services  There are also other private operators in Budapest  MÁV-START Ltd. (public company) operates most of the suburban trains. MÁV-Start operates international trains in cooperation with other foreign rail companies  AS regards the financing of services the following patterns are used: o Local services; income from other revenues (e.g. parking), budget of Budapest Municipality, budget of Central Government o Suburban services; settlements, Central Government  Since 2010 a new model for transport management & planning applied at municipal level. Expansion of this model to cover rail services and the suburban area is also assumed.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Budapest has an Integrated Transport Authority since 2010 (excluding state rail and regional buses)  Previous governance models failed and now Budapest is in search of new models

IV. Future investment focus

 Many investments in urban and regional rail network are under realization  New intermodal stations are being developed  The implementation of tariff integration is on discussions (new integrated development zone system with e- ticket for the whole metropolitan area will be realized in the near future)  New rolling stock for tramlines and bus lines is already scheduled.  Improving speed along rail sections of the TEN that plays important role in serving National & Suburban traffic.  Improving the status of motorways in the proximity of the hub allows better service of suburban busses  Rail projects for facilitating commuters traffic by rail (upgrade of Rail Bridge over Danube, major station etc) is very important at national scale

2.5 Hub of Ljubljana Ljubljana is the capital and largest city of Slovenia and its only center of international importance. It is located in the centre of the country in the Ljubljana Basin, and is the center of the City Municipality of Ljubljana. With approximately 272,000 inhabitants, it classifies as the only Slovenian large town.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Ljubljana’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 5: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Ljubljana’s hub Ljubljana Urban Area 2.500km² 20

Urban Population 520.000 inhabitants living in the urban region, 300.00 living in the city of Ljubljana Transportation Buses and suburban railway services Future investments Development of new railway stations Information Real time traffic data, on board bus info on Ljubljana Public Transport (LPP) busses Urban / provision Future investments regional level Modernization of the passenger information system in the Ljubljana railway station Interconnectivity Currently is considered very good, the railway and bus terminal are on the same location of terminals Future investments inside the hub A new intermodal terminal (road and rail) Harmonization of Partially due to frequent bus services timetables Future investments will most likely focus on timetables harmonization Integrated No ticketing Future investments will most likely focus on ticket integration Integrated No Transport Authority Transportation Road, rail, air transport services  Future investments focus A new railway line between the Koper port and the town of Divača is planned National level Information Rail services info on Slovenian Railways Website provision Future investments Rail network  Introduction of the GSMR system (transmission technology) in the Slovenian railway network  Set-up of a new data system  Set-up of passenger information systems Harmonization of As at regional level timetables  Future investments will most likely focus on timetables harmonization Integrated -Does not exist ticketing - our goal in the Regional development agency Ljubljana is to establish a Regional public transport body, maybe with the help of the RAIL4SEE project Transportation Road, rail, air transport services International Information Rail services info on Slovenian Railways Website level provision Harmonization of As at regional level timetables Integrated No ticketing

I. Key profile characteristics

 Buses are the only PuT mean of transport in Ljubljana  Electronic Urbana Card for urban lines (planned also for suburban bus lines) is available for passengers in Ljubljana  Not very high level of info provision at all three levels (urban, national and international)

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 Ljubljana Public Transport is a limited liability company that has the responsibility of transportation in urban and regional level. Its sole owner and founder is Ljubljana Public Holding that is established by 7 Municipalities and is being financed by incomes from tickets and by the Municipal Budget  Slovenian Railways, state owned company, finances its services by tickets revenues and by State Budget  All private transport companies in Ljubljana operate under a state concession agreement  The Ljubljana municipality subsidizes the fares on LPP while the Central Government subsidizes the fares on the Slovenian railways

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Ljubljana’s ambition is to establish a Regional public transport body that can manage all transport related issues inside the hub.

IV. Future investment focus

 Ljubljana focuses on the improvement of regional rail services and bus services inside the hub. Better information provision to rail passengers is also in its plans.  The improvement of terminals interconnectivity will be made through the development of a new intermodal terminal (road - rail). Furthermore, better airport road connection will contribute in hub’s integration.  At national level, Slovenia pays also attention in rail services improvements (GSMR, passengers’ information system, improvements on rail network) as well as on road axis improvements.

2.6 Hub of Sofia Sofia is the capital and largest city of Bulgaria and the 15th largest city in the European Union with a population of around 1.2 million people. It is in western Bulgaria, at the foot of Mount Vitosha and approximately at the center of the Balkan Peninsula.

Sofia is the most important railway hub and facilitates the connection with all parts of the country in 5 directions. There are 8 stations (Central, Smirnenski, Sofia-North, Iliyantsi, Poduyane, Iskar, Zaharna Fabrika, Gorna Bania) and two stops (Obelya and Bakurena Fabrika). Furthermore, Sofia Central Bus Station is well connected with almost all neighborhoods in Sofia by means of public transport.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Sofia’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 6: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Sofia’s hub Sofia Area (city) 492 km2 Population (city) 1.204.685 Transportation Buses, Metro, Trams, Trolleys serve Sofia services Information Center for Urban Mobility (interactive virtual schedules are available for individual travel 22

Urban / provision planning) regional level Interconnectivity High, well connected terminals through the existing PuT services of terminals inside the hub Harmonization No available data on partner’s report of timetables Integrated No available data on partner’s report ticketing Integrated No available data on partner’s report Transport Authority Transportation Road (Buses), Rail and Air services services National level Information On Bulgarian Railways website provision Harmonization No available data on partner’s report of timetables Integrated No available data on partner’s report ticketing Transportation Road (Buses), Rail and Air services services International Information On Bulgarian Railways website and paper info level provision Information on lines schedules for buses leaving from Sofia Central Bus Station through SMS Harmonization No available data on partner’s report of timetables Integrated No available data on partner’s report ticketing

I. Key profile characteristics

 Sofia presents a multimodal PuT urban profile (buses, metro, tram and trolleys serve passengers’ transportation needs inside the hub)  Sofia presents also an ambitious plans and strategic agenda.  There is a very good connectivity of modal terminals in the hub although seamless mode changes is still a challenging issue for Sofia  Air flights serve international connectivity to many destinations and there is an obvious emphasis of Sofia on air transportation. From the other side, there are vast ongoing investment plans also in railways mainly along TEN that is a good starting point for RAIL4SEE scopes.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 3 private operators (buses, tram and trolley, metro) serves Sofia’s hub.  Compensations from the Government are paid for decreased profits

III. Public Transport Partnerships

(No available data on partner’s report)

IV. Future investment focus

 Sofia seems to have many investments on air transport development but not only. There is a continue effort to improve sections of the TEN both on road and rail transportation.  Modernization of national rail network, integration of Bulgarian railways in the TEN network (Corr. IV, X) and provision of rail connection between Asia & Europe (Cor. VIII) are main goals of Sofia’s hub.  At urban level, there is a strong support on all existing modes integration (Sofia Intermodal Transport terminal, Sofia Central Railway Station, extension of metropolitan metro to central railway terminal & bus terminal). Furthermore, the investment on improving Sofia’s Airport connectivity with the city via a metro line will undoubtedly improve terminals interconnectivity.

2.7 Hub of Thessaloniki Thessaloniki is the second largest city in Greece after its capital, Athens. According to the 2011 census the Municipality of Thessaloniki today has a population of 322,240, while the urban area (the contiguous built up area forming the "City of Thessaloniki") has a population of 790,824. Furthermore, Thessaloniki Metropolitan Area extends over an area of 1,455.62 km2 and its population in 2011 reached a total of 1,006,730 inhabitants.

Located in the crossroad of the two most important national road axis (PATHE motorway, Patras/Athens/Thessaloniki/Evzonoi - Greek – FYROM borders and Egnatia Odos linking Igoumenitsa – Western Greece – to Greek – Turkish borders) that provide entrance to European road networks and representing until recently (economic crisis has strongly affected this profile) also a strong air – passenger and sea - freight gate, Thessaloniki acts as a major transportation hub for the rest South East Europe. From February 2011, due to the economic crisis, all international train links from the city were suspended. Until then, the city was a major railway hub for the Balkans, with direct connections to Sofia, Skopje, Belgrade, Moscow, Vienna, Budapest, Bucharest and Istanbul, alongside Athens and other destinations in Greece. However Thessaloniki will regain its status as one very important railway hub in SEE from the upcoming spring when TRAINOSE, the Greek railway operator, will re-establish the connection from Thessaloniki to Sofia and Skopje.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Thessaloniki’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 7: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Thessaloniki’s hub Thessaloniki Urban Area 112km2 Urban Population 790.824 Transportation Buses (OASTH) – urban and regional services, Suburban railway (TRAINOSE) – to two major services cities of Macedonia (Larisa and Edessa) and Intercity Buses (KTEL THESSALONIKIS) – suburban and regional services Future investments Urban /  Thessaloniki’s Metropolitan Railway completion regional level  Establishment of a rail line that will serve the western side of Thessaloniki, bypassing the Central Railway Station and through a stop at the center of the city (near the port) will continue as suburban line to Larissa Information  OASTH e-services (urban buses information, trip planner) provision  Thessaloniki's Intelligent Urban Mobility Management System (trip planning and information provision services for easily avoiding traffic congested areas and for

promoting sustainable mobility, public transportation and alternative ways of transport)  Mobility Centre of Kalamaria Municipality  TRAINOSE e-platform (information provision, e-ticket) Interconnectivity of  frequent bus services operating among terminals terminals inside the  TRAINOTAXI service (taxis serving rail passengers from Railway Station to the hub Prefecture in lower tariffs) Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing No Future investments Development of integrated e-ticket for urban and suburban rail and urban / regional buses Integrated Transport No Authority However, THEPA, Thessaloniki's Integrated Transport Authority, aims to be transformed in a Metropolitan Integrated PuT Authority. Transportation Rail, Road (Buses), Air services Future investments in network National level Improvement of the rail network in the main Greek rail backbone (Patra – Athens – Thessaloniki) Information  TRAINOSE e-platform provision  Information provision via Easytrip project e-platform for travellers from Thessaloniki to Serres and Kavala - this integrated platform will offer trip planning via all available transport modes Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing No Transportation Intercity Buses, Air services services Future investments in services International Re-establishment of rail connection between Thessaloniki - Sofia & Thessaloniki – Skopje level Future investments in network  Improvement of the rail network from Thessaloniki to borders (Eidomeni - Promaxonas)  Expansion of runway in Thessaloniki’s International Airport Information No provision Future investments  Integration of information and e-ticketing for new international rail connections in TRAINOSE e-platform  Information provision via Easytrip project e-platform for travellers from Thessaloniki to Bulgaria (Krumovgrad, Bansko, Sofia) Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing No

I. Key profile characteristics

 Thessaloniki lies on the crossroads of significant road axis that connects the city with other Greek Prefectures and also provides access to international destinations; FYROM, Bulgaria, Turkey, Albania and Italy (multimodal road – sea transportation).  Thessaloniki also represents the sole Greek rail gateway to Balkans. The reestablishment of the rail connections from Thessaloniki to Sofia and Skopje from the spring of 2013 will open the gate to SEE countries. 25

 Commuter rail services from Larisa and Edessa.  Public transport in Thessaloniki is currently served only by buses.  At national and regional level e-ticketing and info provision for rail services are available in TRAINOSE website.  The provision of information to passengers at urban level is high. o OASTH provides passenger with a series of web services for better organizing their trips by PuT (information provision for all its services, real time info on board and pre-trip, trip planner, Points of Interest in Thessaloniki’s city and ways to reach them by urban buses etc). o Thessaloniki's Intelligent Urban Mobility Management System is a unified effort of the key players of the city dealing with urban mobility, transport and environment and consists a very innovative “tool” that informs properly travelers in Thessaloniki city. However, what is still missing so as to provide a holistic informative system to passengers is a single window platform integrating all existing info sources. This approach can further open the way for the development of strong cooperation schemes among transport providers that are essential for supporting issues of major importance such as integrating ticketing and timetables harmonization.  Interconnectivity of modal hubs inside Thessaloniki is considered quite efficient. However, the completion of Thessaloniki’s metro which is scheduled for the next years, the new suburban services and the operation of more frequent bus services linking the terminals would improve the interconnectivity.  Air traffic to and from the city is served by Macedonia International Airport for international and domestic flights. Many airlines used to serve air passengers from Thessaloniki’s Airport. However, under the hard situation caused by the economic crisis and the insertion of Ryanair into Thessaloniki’s Airport, the previous situation changed. Many airlines limited or even stopped their services from Thessaloniki and there is an obvious threat for the future of air transportation.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 Urban bus services o OASTH - Organization of Urban Transportation of Thessaloniki, so far the only bus operator in Thessaloniki, is a legal entity with private interest, founded on 1957 with government decree, which serves as public carrier the province of Thessaloniki. Concession agreements (financial concessions) signed between Greek government and OASTH define the role and responsibilities of each part.  Regional / national bus services o KTEL companies are private associations, 62 in total that serves intercity transportation needs inside Greece. Almost each Prefecture has its own company that operates routes from the Prefecture to other Prefectures and vice versa. Routes and frequencies are decided and organized by decision of the Prefecture. From the other side, the tariffs are decided via Ministerial Decrees according to kilometers coefficients. The respective Company for Thessaloniki KTEL Company of Thessaloniki S.A. This company operates buses on the route Thessaloniki – Athens (and Athens - Thessaloniki) and serves also regional transportation needs. KTEL Companies from other Prefectures operates frequent buses from their area to Thessaloniki and from Thessaloniki to their service area.  Regional / national / international rail services o TRAINOSE S.A., a former OSE (National Railways) subsidiary, is now an independent company (respecting EU directions). Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks monitors TRAINOSE operations. III. Public Transport Partnerships

 KTEL Thessaloniki and OASTH: cooperation scheme for the exploitation of suburban bus services  THEPA, Thessaloniki's Integrated Transport Authority, aims to be transformed in a Metropolitan Integrated PuT Authority.

IV. Future investment focus 26

 Urban integration and interconnectivity among terminals will be improved by: o the construction of the much awaited Thessaloniki metro o the extension of the suburban railway Larissa – Thessaloniki from the Central Railway Station to the Thessaloniki’s Port Passenger Terminal (thus, to the city center) serving also via intermediate stations the Western Side of Thessaloniki open new challenges for Thessaloniki.  Integrated ticketing can be achieved through the development of innovative cooperation schemes among transport providers and through the creation of an Integrated Transport Authority.  Focus on national (backbone and up to Greek borders) rail network improvements.  Reestablishment of international rail services (to Sofia and Skopje) and info provision on those connections will revitalize railway transportation.

2.8 Hub of Trieste Trieste is a city and seaport in northeastern Italy. It is situated towards the end of a narrow strip of land lying between the Adriatic Sea and Italy's border with Slovenia, which lies almost immediately south and east of the city. In 2009, it had a population of about 205,000 and it is the capital of the autonomous region Friuli Venezia Giulia and Trieste province.

Trieste has a peripheral geographic location in its region, being a geographic appendix, which does not allow strong integration with its regional administrated hinterland, limited both by morphological and national borders, where urban and extra urban areas are almost coincident. Despite of this condition Trieste represents a transnational historical socio economic and cultural pole of attraction towards its wider Slovenian-Croatian proximity hinterland, which involves a greater amount of population to be potentially served by an extended and improved PT transport system.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Treiste hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 8: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Trieste hub Trieste Urban Area 84 km2 Urban Population 205.374 Transportation services Buses and regional railway services Information provision Trip planner* Interconnectivity of terminals inside the hub Medium * Urban / Harmonization of timetables Only partially among buses and regional rail services regional level Integrated ticketing No* Integrated Transport Authority No* Transportation services Road (buses), rail and air services* Information provision On Italian Railways Website* National level Harmonization of timetables No* Integrated ticketing No* Transportation services Road (buses), rail and air services* Information provision On Italian Railways Website* International Harmonization of timetables No* level Integrated ticketing No* * Not specified in partner’s report

I. Key profile characteristics

 Only buses serve Trieste hub.  There is only a partial harmonization between road and rail services

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 4 PuT companies cover the 4 provinces of Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG) Region  Regional rail services are operated by Trenitalia  Large financing by Public Budget also in the case of Trieste (as for Venice)  In FVG Region tendering procedure for buses takes place.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Trieste is oriented towards creating only a unique bus company to serve regional transportation needs.  It is also in favor of developing an Integrated Transport Authority to manage transport services provision.

IV. Future investment focus

 Trieste shows a clear orientation towards strengthening international rail connectivity o International rail focus Trieste – Slovenia o Trieste – Koper; development of urban metro system (high speed)

2.9 Hub of Venice Venice is a city in northeast Italy sited on a group of 118 small islands separated by canals and linked by bridges. It is the capital of the Veneto region. In 2009, there were 270,098 people residing in Venice's comune (the population estimate of 272,000 inhabitants includes the population of the whole Comune of Venezia; around 60,000 in the historic city of Venice (Centro storico); 176,000 in Terraferma (the Mainland), mostly in the large frazioni of Mestre and Marghera; 31,000 live on other islands in the lagoon).

The Venice hub is the most interesting case of the area, due to the peculiarity of the water mobility in the historical town, the islands and the lagoon, which creates a real monopoly in the management of passenger mobility: inhabitants, commuters and tourists. On one side this calls for a great amount of money for service production together with a great income, on the other the opportunity to improve service production and technology innovation.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Venice hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 9: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Venice hub Venice Urban Area Venice Urban Population 260.000 Transportation Buses, boats, trams and regional railway services services Future investments Strengthening of rail regional services Information Real time traffic data for boat service, on boat info, I-Mob contactless card both for boats 28

Urban / provision and busses regional level Interconnectivity Currently is considered very good since rail station is served by frequent bus services of terminals Future investments inside the hub New rail connections between airport and regional network New tram connection of the airport Harmonization of No timetables (timetables of bus and boats operated by the same company are harmonized) Integrated No ticketing (integrated ticketing only for the same company that operates buses and boats) Integrated No Transport Authority Transportation Road (buses), Rail and Air services services National level Information On Italian Railways Website provision Harmonization of No timetables Integrated No ticketing Transportation Road (buses), Rail and Air services services International Information On Italian Railways Website level provision Harmonization of No timetables Integrated No ticketing

I. Key profile characteristics

 Buses and boats serve Venice. Low level of innovation and integration is noticed in Venice PuT system.  Service production – ticketing and time tables - is integrated between the Venice mainland and lagoon at company’s level, ACTV. Coordination among different operators is not yet achieved.  International air connections are increasing while international rail connections are decreasing and this poses for Venice a dilemma concerning where to focus on. From the mapping of the ongoing investments, Venice seems to be oriented towards strengthening its status as air hub.  1/3 of Public Budget is spent on subsidies to regional rail.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 ACTV is the biggest PuT operator in Venice. The Region is the Monitoring Authority and the Region and the City set the regulations.  42 PuT companies operate in Venice which shows a big fragmentation (14 public companies that mainly serve urban and regional traffic and the rest are private that provide limited services). Among them, low cooperation exists.  As concerns buses, decision making in the Italian PT procedure is totally attributed to the Regional Councils legislation whose operational branch is attributed to the “Ministry” of transport of the Regional Executive Committee, expressed by the political majority of the Regional Council, which provides to share funds and, in several cases, to tender services. No tendering procedure exists for Veneto Region. 29

 Rail services are totally dependent on Trenitalia, the national public company, which provides to regional service production through its specific regional rail companies, being now funded by Regions but keeping a substantial governance on service time tables, which is a matter of current conflicts with the Regional Authority and of unsatisfaction for customers.  As concerns the national lines a new private High Speed rail company, named NTV, started recently (2012) to operate on the two main national connections (Rome and Milan) in an open competitive way to Trenitalia, the public company.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Plans for the development of Metropolitan City Authority

IV. Future investment focus

 Regional rail metro under development (SFMR)  New rail services are planned to start operating from 2013 to 2014  Focus on regional and national rail improvement - Intermodal connection of Venice Airport to the rail system of Venice – Trieste

2.10 Hub of Vienna Vienna is the capital and the largest city of Austria, and one of the nine states of Austria. Vienna inner city public transport and local and regional train services provide excellent accessibility to national and international long distance services.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and the future changes as regards PuT provision in Vienna’s hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 10: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Vienna’s hub Vienna Urban Area City of Vienna: 415 km2 Greater Vienna Area (area of Verkehrsverbund Ostregion): approx. 9.000 km2 Urban Population City of Vienna: 1,8 Million Greater Vienna Area: approx. 3 Million Transportation services  All urban modes (Underground, Tram, Busses, local/urban rapid trains) Future investments focus Finalization of Vienna Central Station (2015) Numerous improvement measures in the local and regional railway network. Urban / Information provision  Timetable information is given via all available channels (Booklets, Information regional level counters of Wiener Linien in all major Undergroud stations, Web, Smartphone Apps)  Multimodal information provision (anachb)  For Wiener Linien and ÖBB real-time information (including info on delays and operational problems) is available both online and on info screens at many stops. Future investments  Completion of info facilities in stops and onboard (Infoscreens, live-tickers)  Ongoing Projects on e-ticketing (“Smile”) and participation of VOR in the development of a non-operator based, intermodal Public Transport and Traffic

information system (“VAO” – Verkehrsauskunft Österreich) Interconnectivity of  With the beginning of Vienna Central station operation in 2015 excellent terminals inside the interconnectivity between Westbahn, Südbahn und Ostbahn hub  Rapid Train Services (CAT) and local train Services to Vienna International Airport (VIE); additional Rapid Bus services to VIE from different locations in Vienna  Additional (private) bus services to Bratislava international Airport (no ticket integration) Future investments  The underground railway station of Vienna’s International Airport will be completely expanded to offer space for long-distance trains. With the completion of the Central Station in 2015, the airport will also get connected from there. It will allow long-distance trains and perhaps a new S-Bahn line to reach the airport, so that the frequency of S-Bahn trains becomes higher than the current 30 minutes. Harmonization of  Yes, where possible, timetables with regular intervals exist. timetables Future investments  Investments foreseen on major axes to shorten service intervals (e.g. services of regional tram “Badenerbahn” from Vienna Centre (Opera) to Baden (approx. 30 km south of Vienna) Integrated ticketing  Exists for short and medium distance transport (Tickets of Verkehrsverbund Ostregion for local and regional traffic)  Ongoing discussions on e-ticketing Integrated Transport  Yes, exists for urban, local and regional services (Verkehrsverbund Ostgregion) Authority Transportation services Rail, Road (Buses), Air Information provision Railway: Booklets, Web-Based info Service by OBB PV AG (“Scotty”), Smart Phone Apps. National level Busses and Regional / Urban modes: Partly integrated into the Scotty Database. A new, INTERMODAL, traffic information will go online 2013 (“VAO” – Verkehrsauskunft Österreich) Harmonization of Yes, where possible. timetables Future investments Currently, plans are to realise Austrian-wide integrated regular scheduled services in the near future Integrated ticketing Partially; long distance tickets are only valid for urban / local services on request (extra payment) Transportation services Rail, Road (Buses), Air Future investments International Major ongoing infrastructural improvements on Südbahn with the construction of level Semmeringbasistunnel (will cut travel time to Graz and Klagenfurt by approx. 30 Minutes) and Koralmbahn (additional reduction of travel time Graz-Klagenfurt by approx.120 minutes, from currently 3 hours to 1 hour) Information provision Same as on National Level Harmonization of Partly timetables Integrated ticketing Yes, for International Rail Transport: ticket purchased in Vienna from ÖBB PV AG is valid for complete journey

I. Key profile characteristics

 Vienna is strategically located in the “borders” of SEE and Central Europe.  A multimodal system operates in Vienna; underground, trams, busses and trains serve the area.

 It is a highly integrated hub in terms of infrastructures and services (also integrated ticketing). Terminals’ interconnectivity is considered as very good.  Vienna’s hub present a very strong profile as regards information provision to passengers (AnachB, OBB) – donor of experience for RAIL4SEE project.  There is, however, a need for improvement in Vienna – Bratislava connections in order to make this connection even more attractive. Lack of trains to Italy is also observed and unattractive services to Ljubljana and Zagreb, connections that must be upgraded.

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 Urban / regional level o Main Operators at urban level are: Wiener Linien (Underground, Tram, Busses), ÖBB Personenverkehr (Austrian federal railways, Passenger Transport plc), numerous of other private bus operators, Badener Bahn (operating Local/Regional Tram line, Busses) and others operate at urban level. o Verkehrsverbund Ostregion is in charge of integrated planning of services, conclusion of service contracts (only for services not covered by rail services since financed by the Ministry of Transport via SCHIG) o Services financing is made via Public Service Contracts.  National level o Railway: Services are primarily provided by ÖBB PV AG. The Private Operator “Westbahn” operatates trains between Vienna and Freilassing (Bavaria) via Linz and Salzburg o Busses: Bus routes are served by different operators from Vienna to Graz and Klagenfurt and to areas not covered by the railway network.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 Integrated Transport Authority exists for short and medium distance transport and seems a good opportunity for future enhancement of city integration.

IV. Future investment focus

 Finalization of Vienna’s Central Rail Station (2015) that will improve rail in passengers’ perception  Improvements on local and regional rail network also for commuters traveling between Vienna and Bratislava  Ongoing projects on e-ticketing  A non-operator based, intermodal Public Transport and Traffic information system supporting seamless transportation in Vienna is under development.  Strong international rail improvement focus – better integration to rail TENT (Danube axis to Western Europe) that will solve the current unattractive services to Bratislava, Ljubljana and Zagreb.

2.11 Hub of Zagreb Zagreb is the capital and the largest city of the Republic of Croatia. It is located in the northwest of the country, along the Sava river, at the southern slopes of the Medvednica Mountain. Zagreb lies at an elevation of approximately 122 m (400 ft) above sea level. In the last official census of 2011, the population of the settlement of Zagreb was 792,875. The

wider Zagreb metropolitan area includes the City of Zagreb and the separate Zagreb County bringing the total metropolitan area population up to 1,219,899. It is the only metropolitan area in Croatia with a population of over one million.

The following table summarizes basic points of the current status and future investments as regards PuT provision in Zagreb hub at the three under examination levels (urban/regional, national and international level) and in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilots.

Table 11: Sum up of key characteristics and interventions in Zagreb’s hub Zagreb Urban Area 162,22 km Urban Population 685,568 Transportation services Buses and tram (+ funicular) serve Zagreb Information provision General information are available at websites of both Rail and Bus/tram operators Future investments Improving of rail services Urban / Better information provision (real time information on stations) regional level Interconnectivity of Currently Zagreb presents very good interconnectivity between rail and bus terminals inside the hub services. The urban bus terminal and the tram station is close to the Main Rail Station of Zagreb. Harmonization of No timetables (not among different operators) Integrated ticketing No Integrated Transport No Authority Transportation services Road (buses), rail and air services

National level Information provision Information on relevant websites Harmonization of No timetables Integrated ticketing No Transportation services Road (buses), rail and air services Information provision Information on relevant websites International Harmonization of No level timetables Integrated ticketing No I. Key profile characteristics

 Buses and tram are the main PuT modes serving the hub of Zagreb  Zagreb is an important rail hub located in the crossroad of European rail axis  It entered in a new era after 2007 and after the development of Zagreb Holding (Zagreb Holding deals with all relevant to public city transport and parking issues)  Since 2007 e ticketing exists in Zagreb.  Timetable of ZET and HŽ Passenger Transport are partly harmonized but not on all routes and not in all cases  Ticketing service in Zagreb Main Station aren’t adjusted with ICT, the international tickets are issued by hand. In general, low level of information provision to passengers is observed in Zagreb.  Zagreb has invested much the last years the purchase of environmental friendly buses  There is an urgent need for better cooperation among the different PuT providers

II. Governance schemes and financing of services

 City Zagreb is responsible for the main bus and tram operator named ZET which provides services on the first zone (inside the City), and also on the second and third zone (outside the city – regional trips).  HŽ Passenger Transport provides passengers with rail services in local, regional and international routes  The State is in governance of HŽ Passenger Transport and gives financial funds for services and all that is necessary for business activities of Operator. HŽ Passenger Transport also must consult with Ministry of Transport regarding all the investments and future projects.

III. Public Transport Partnerships

 There is a need for long term PSO contracts on offering services on routes with low traffic density and also long term contracts on difference between incomes and expenditures of railway transport (subventions)

IV. Future investment focus

 Modernization of existing rail lines and construction of new ones – focus at national level  Information provision is Zagreb’s priority, real time arrival information is in progress  Modernization and digitalization of ticketing system is in progress. By the end of 2014 complete implementation of electronic ticketing for rail is planned and also implementation of new sale channels.  Road improvements at urban and regional level are under development.  Zagreb seems to be air oriented (a promising Master Plan – long term development plan up to year 2030)

3 Analyzing the hubs

Clustering of hubs of the SEE is performed in the context of the project for two main reasons: (a) defining categories of hubs with similar characteristics that can substantiate the ability for following similar approaches for interventions in achieving green seamless accessibility and (b) for defining priority hubs in which the implementation of measures related with the four intervention pillars of the project (i.e. ICT, harmonization of timetables, harmonized ticketing, governance schemes) could lead to the competitiveness of rail for transnational connections. In these way hubs clustering could support the formulation of project proposals that can be easily migrated to other hubs, are realistically articulated in time and will be detailed in scope according to priorities for direct effect accomplishment in strengthening the rail transport use in SEE.

Based on the information captured within activity 3.1 (on data provided by partners) and in other project activities, this chapter presents first the results of hubs comparative analysis on the basis of a series of criteria and then uses these results for concluding conjunctive proposal for hubs clustering. A separate analysis based on information collected by different sources and analysis performed by CERTH, assesses hubs potential for achieving competitiveness of rail in connections among the hubs and identifies hubs in priority for synergies development with the same objective.

3.1 Comparative analysis of Hubs Hubs are compared (in terms of provided transportation services, maturity in relevance to RAIL4SEE pillars and pilots’ objectives) for each one of the three desired features of hubs operation, recognized by the RAI4SEE project i.e urban- metropolitan integration, National-regional accessibility and transnational connectivity and for two cases i.e. the current situation and the future (after implementation of planed investments) situation.

In each level & case and in accordance to their individual performance against the applied criteria, the hubs are assigned in three main categories;

 “high speed” hubs: hubs that are already well developed, presenting a strong intermodal profile and serving passengers in the most efficient way. Furthermore, in order a hub to be characterized as “high speed” one, it must present extended rail system at all three levels, urban, national and international, offering upgraded services to passengers which include harmonized timetables, ticketing integration and advanced information provision systems. This category applies also to city – hubs that present innovative governance and financing schemes for PuT (including the existence of Integrated PuT Authorities, PTPs). Finally, in order to classify a hub in this category, the future investments in those cases should be oriented towards strengthening the already powerful intermodal rail based system and should not show a shift to other modes of transport.

 “medium speed” hubs: hubs that already offer or after the mapped investments will offer rail services to passengers at all of the three levels (urban, national and international). Seamless intermodality in these hubs is at an early stage of achievement and a number of improvements are required in order to reach the “high speed” hubs level. Investments are also needed for the improvement of their status in relevance to RAIL4SEE pillars (services projecting & management, governance in hubs development, financing of services and PTPs) and RAIL4SEE pilot activities (integrated ticketing, timetables harmonization and info provision). These hubs must necessarily present significant investments in railway improvement.

 “low speed” hubs are hubs characterized by limited rail services. Implementation of interventions foreseen by RAIL4SEE pillars and pilots, are in a very preliminary step and many investments have to be done in order to upgrade hub’s status in this regards. Furthermore, also after the investments, in these cases, PuT seamless intermodality and the rail use is estimated to remain in a low level.

The comparative analysis, as mentioned above, is made at each level of examination (urban, national, and transnational). Three tables are presented at each level;

 The first table refers to the current situation and summarizes hubs’ status as regards the core issues examined in RAIL4SEE project (accessibility - connectivity, information provision, timetables harmonization, ticket integration)

 The second one presents the ongoing investments as mapped in the table by the partners (Annex B) in a more concrete categorization.

 Based on the investments presented in the second table and after matching the potential effects of mapped investments to the changes brought in each criterion of the first table, a third one is developed that depicts the future status of hubs, after the completion of the investments.

The analysis is presented below.

3.1.1 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs regarding urban/ regional level integration

Methodology

The aspects examined so as to compare the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at urban/regional level are:  The available modes of transport inside each hub.  The interconnectivity among modal terminals inside city hub. A qualitative ranking for this criterion is applied ; o High interconnectivity: operation/existence of intermodal terminals, seamless mode exchange for all modes of PuT, existence of Urban Railway service connecting main terminals, dedicated PuT service for terminals connection. o Good interconnectivity: existence of at least one modal transport service connecting different modal terminals, terminals accessibility by frequent PT lines (usually bus). o Medium interconnectivity: Modal Terminals operate at good level and are connected by surface PuT services, however more frequent services (e.g. bus services) or dedicated services for terminals interconnectivity are considered necessary. o Low interconnectivity: Modal terminals not connected, there is not a single PuT service connecting terminals among them, very low frequencies of bus services which could be used for terminal to terminal transportation and these services are not operating during the whole day.  The maturity of the hub as regards information and added value services provision for strengthening intermodality and use of rail transport. For this aspect on-off criteria were used like, existence of integrated ticketing or not, implementation of harmonization of timetables among operators or not. Taking into account that information provision to passengers is supported to all hubs by different means a qualitative ranking was applied as following: o High degree of information provision: existence of relevant services via web and mobile applications for PuT routing, intermodal trip planning, environmental awareness during route choice and real time

traffic data provision, operation of Mobility Centers and integrated platforms for one-stop-shop passengers information provision. o Good degree of information provision: hubs that offer passengers with information for modal trips (pre- trip and on-trip), existence of websites offering PuT routing services, Mobility Centers for intermodal trip planning o Medium degree of information provision: basic information on operators’ websites, information provision by call centers o Low degree of information provision: paper information provision, low level of information provision on operators’ websites, routing information provision by websites with no dedicated info and services for the hubs.  The existence of Integrated Transport Authority that coordinates the service providers at the level of PuT system planning, operation & management.  The existence of other innovative schemes implemented in the hubs

All the criteria involved at the urban level assessment are considered as equivalent (the highest score a hub can get is 6, each criterion receives as maximum score 1. The relation between qualitative rating and quantitative score is indicated in the following table.

Table 12: Criteria and rating, urban / regional level Criteria Qualitative rating Quantitative rating Existing modes of PuT The existence of all types of PuT (metro, 1 buses, tram, trolleys) The existence of services except Urban 0.5 Railway Interconnectivity and information High 1 provision Good 0.75 Medium 0.5 Low 0.25 Timetables harmonization, Integrating  1 ticketing, Integrated Transport ~ 0.5 Authority  0 n/a 0

The overall synthetic categorization of the hubs in the three main profiles (i.e. “hubs’ speed”) is made in accordance to the following thresholds:

 “High speed” hubs are considered those that receives score >4  “Medium speed” hubs are those that receive score 2-4  “Low speed” hubs are those that present score ≤2

Finally it should be underlined that for assessing future hubs interconnectivity the ongoing and planned investments were taken into account. From the set of investments reported by the hubs the following investments were considered as influencing the hub future interconnectivity level: new rail & bus PuT services, rail network operation & infrastructure improvements, improvements of Railway Stations, road infrastructure improvements from accessing the metropolitan area,.

3.1.1.1 Current situation analysis, urban/regional level

The current status in each of the 11 hubs is depicted in the following table:

Table 13: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, urban / regional level

Sofia

Venice

Trieste Zagreb

Vienna

Bologna

Ljubljana

Budapest

Bratislava

Bucharest

Thessaloniki

Existing modes buses buses, all all all Buses, all buses buses buses, buses, of PuT trolley tram, boats tram trolley Terminals good good high high medium medium high good medium good good interconnectivity Timetables  ~ n/a  ~ ~  ~ n/a ~ ~ harmonization Integrating   n/a  ~    n/a ~  ticketing Integrated            Transport Authority Information good good good good good low high medium good low low provision Notes: : does not exist : exists ~: exists in some cases, not in the whole hub

Of special interest is the following governance and harmonized ticketing initiatives already taken in some hubs, which were considered for final categorization of hubs in the three main profiles:

 Vienna invested much on city integration (infrastructure, services) and on passengers’ information provision (both single mode information and multimodal information – web based, pre trip and mobile, on trip – are available). Furthermore, PSO implementation in Austria is in line with EU Regulations;

o Direct award with order of trains, defined with the line served, schedule and stops.

o Compensation based on the net price, generally: (costs of services ordered [EUR] – ticket revenues [EUR]) + profit [%]

o Compensation per km operating output

o Contract defines all parameters that influence costs of the services, like i. e. - how many trains and operating train kilometers - which railcars serve on which train - if a conductor serves on the train - which service level is required (i. e. restaurant car) - general rule to join the transport consortiums for a common ticketing („Verkehrsverbünde“) and accept those tickets - Information obligation

o Actual service provided is measured automatically (24 hrs/day)

 Thessaloniki; The Intercity Buses Company of the Prefecture (KTEL Thessaloniki) and the Urban Buses Operator (OASTH) have come into an agreement for the joint exploitation of suburban lines.

 Budapest is in search of new governance schemes since has recognized that previous models failed.

 Electronic card urbana valid for all urban lines is a good step for Ljubljana’s hub. Also the fact that all private transport companies operate under a state concession agreement is included among the positive characteristics of Ljubljana.

 ZET Value Card, e-ticketing applies in ZET buses and trains in Zagreb since 2007.

Taking all the above mentioned data into account we can conclude in the following categorization as regards the current situation at urban/regional level in each hub.

Figure 3: Hubs’ categorization, current situation at urban/regional level

3.1.1.2 After investments assessment, urban/regional level Based on the data provided by the partners as regards the ongoing and planned investments in the short term horizon (up to 5 years), CERTH/HIT tried to concentrate on the following table the key categories of investments per hub.

Table 14: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, urban/regional level Ongoing Investments Thessaloniki Vienna Bologna Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia Venice Trieste Zagreb New rail services      5/11 New road PuT Urban / services  1/11 regional Rail network level improvements     4/11 Road network    3/11 39

improvements Improvement of Railway Stations     4/11 Information & services provision         8/11 Harmonization of timetables  1/11 Integrated ticketing   2/11 Integrated Transport Authority   2/11

As can be easily seen, eight out of the eleven hubs have a strong agenda as regards the improvement of ICT and non ICT info provision and other relevant services provision (e.g. e-ticketing).

Taking in mind the current status of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs and adding “bonus” on each of them accordingly to the investments, future profile of the hubs at urban/regional level change as follows:

Table 15: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, future changes at urban/regional level

Thessaloniki Bologna Sofia Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Vienna Ljubliana Trieste Venice Zagreb buses, buses, buses, trolley, various PuT services metro trolley, metro all all all tram all buses buses buses, boats buses, tram interconnectivity high high high high good good high high medium good good timetables harmonization     ~ ~  ~  ~ ~ integrating ticketing     ~     ~  Integrated Transport Authority            information provision high high high good high good high good good low medium Notes: : does not exist : exists ~: exists in some cases, not in the whole hub

Figure 4: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at urban / regional level

The investments and mainly the completion of Thessaloniki’s metro and Bologna’s SFM and the intention to create Integrated Transport Authorities that could centrally coordinate the provided services catalytically contributes to the reshape and improvement of cities profiles.

3.1.2 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at national level

Methodology

The aspects (criteria) examined so as to compare the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at national level refer to the level of accessibility provided for the hub by the national railway services and the maturity of the hub regarding:  Information and ticketing services provision to long distance traveling passengers,  Harmonization of timetables among long and short distance services operators, and  Integrating ticketing at national regional level

Regarding information provision and since all the hubs provide a reasonable level of information to long distance travelers; this criterion receives a qualitative rating as following: o High degree of information provision: operators’ websites that provide information on timetables, tickets, guidance for travelers that facilitate their trip organization, information concerning delays, e- ticketing, provision of intermodal trip information at all terminals. o Good degree of information provision: operators’ websites that provide information on timetables, tickets, guidance for travelers that facilitate their trip organization, information concerning delays, e- ticketing o Medium degree of information provision: basic information on operators’ websites and at main intermodal terminals

o Low degree of information provision: paper information provision, information by call centers, low level of information provision on operators’ websites

As regards the criterion “Timetables harmonization”, it refers either to the existence of harmonized timetables among national and regional rail services or to harmonized timetables among national rail services and other urban PuT services timetables.

All the criteria involved at the national level assessment are considered as equivalent (the highest score a hub can get is 3, each criterion receives as maximum score 1). The relation between qualitative rating and quantitative score is indicated in the following table.

Table 16: Criteria and rating, national level Criteria Qualitative rating Quantitative rating Information provision High 1 Good 0.75 Medium 0.5 Low 0.25 Timetables harmonization and  1 Integrating ticketing ~ 0.5  0 n/a 0

The categorization on the axis of “hubs’ speed” is made according to:

 High speed hubs are considered those that receives score ≥2  Medium speed hubs are those that receive score 1-2  Low speed hubs are those that present score <1

The categories of investments presented in the second table that refers to RAIL4SEE pilots were used for the development of the third table.

3.1.2.1 Current situation analysis, national level At national level, information regarding rail transportation (through different channels; paper info, published timetables, on line on web site pre-trip and real time information on mobile phones) is provided at almost all RAIL4SEE countries. The websites of TRAINOSE (www.trainose.gr), the Greek railway operator, and of OBB, (http://www.oebb.at), Austrian Railways, are very interesting since they provide travelers not only with pre-trip and on –trip information but also with the opportunity to on line purchase and gain their tickets. Trenitalia’s site (http://www.trenitalia.com) also offers the passengers with the opportunity to buy tickets up to 60 days in advance and reserve spaces on Freccia (Arrow) trains using a credit card. MÁV-START, the Hungarian Railways, provide also with Online Railway Ticket purchase system; some domestic tickets and surcharges can even be printed at home while tickets, passes, surcharges and international railway tickets purchased through the Internet can be collected from the Internet E-ticket machines settled at stations against the reference number passenger receives when buying his ticket (https://jegyvasarlas.mav-start.hu/eTicketV2).

Summarizing the current status of the 11 RAIl4SEE hubs as regards services at national level (always based on information provided by partners’ reports), the following table is produced:

Table 17: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, national level Thessaloniki Vienna Bologna Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia Veni Tries Zagr ce te eb

Information good high good medium good good medium medium good good good provision

Timetables no where in rail no partly no partly no no no no Harmonization possibl (national LPP and e and Slovenia local) n Railways

Integrated no under no no no no no no no no no ticketing special circums tances

Vienna can be also considered at national level as a “high speed” hub since:

 It provides information to passengers for rail and partly for buses and there is an ongoing project for intermodal transport info provision  Timetables are harmonized where possible  With extra payment and on request, long distance tickets are valid for urban and local services

Integrated ticketing except the limited implementation inside Austria is not applied in any other RAIL4SEE country.

Bologna, Budapest, Bucharest, Bratislava and Ljubljana seem to be hubs that try to catch up with the continuously increasing passengers’ requirements & demand, each one on its own way:

 Travelers from Bologna can be informed for rail schedules and timetables and buy their ticket. Furthermore, national and local timetables are integrated since they are both responsibility of RFI (Rete Ferroviaria Italiana).  National rail timetables are partly harmonized also in Budapest  Timetables of LPP (Ljubljana Passenger Transport) and Slovenian railways are partially harmonized.  The implementation of Telematics Applications for Passenger Services Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TAP TSI) in Bucharest will contribute to passengers’ better information provision and will deal with ticket issues as well.  National and international railway timetables harmonization is among the future changes scheduled for Bratislava

Other interesting notes concerning Italian hubs are:

 High speed trains cover the backbone of Italy, traversing among them Bologna (Milan – Bologna – Florence - Rome). 43

 Bologna, Venice; as concerns national lines a new private HS rail company, named NTV, started recently (2012) operating two main national connections (Rome and Milan) in an open competitive way with Trenitalia, the public company.

Taking into account all the abovementioned data we can conclude in the following categorization.

Figure 5: Hubs’ clustering, current situation at national level

3.1.2.2 After investments assessment, national level The following table summarizes the ongoing investments categories per each RAIL4SEE hub.

Table 18: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, national level Ongoing Investments Thessaloniki Vienna Bologna Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia Venice Trieste Zagreb New rail 2/11 services   New road PuT 1/11 services  0/11 New air services Road network National 2/11 improvements   level Rail network 8/11 improvements         Airport accessibility and 4/11 infra     Information 5/11 provision     

Harmonization 0/11 of timetables  Integrated 1/11 ticketing 

One interesting conclusion from the above table is that four hubs invest considerably in air transport for serving their objective of transnational connectivity. These hubs are Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia & Venice. Also only one hub declares investments towards timetables harmonization at national level and another one towards integrated ticketing. Taking into account changes brought by the completion of ongoing and mapped investments we can conclude that the hubs that present a more active behavior towards strengthening their national connectivity are Vienna, Bologna, Budapest, Bucharest and Ljubljana. Therefore, the clustering after the realization of ongoing projects is the following;

Figure 6: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at national level

3.1.3 Comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs at transnational level

Methodology

The methodology used for the comparative analysis at translational level follows the same steps with the national level.

As regards the criterion called “Timetables harmonization”, it refers to the existence of harmonized timetables among the rail operators of different countries. From the other side, the integrated ticketing can either refer to international rail transport and tickets purchased in a hub that are valid for complete journey in SEE or to combined train tickets and local transport passes.

Finally, as regards information provision and since all the hubs provide more or less information to travelers; this criterion receives a qualitative rating:

o High degree of information provision: rail operators’ websites provide information (in some cases also for alternatives international bus services) on timetables, trip duration and waiting times for specific hub international connections, one-stop-shop information provision for all international connections of all hubs in SEE. o Good degree of information provision: rail operators’ websites provide detailed information only for specific hub international connections o Medium degree of information provision: rail operators’ websites do not provide direct access to international connections info but allow hyperlink connection to websites of other railway operators that provide more detailed information o Low degree of information provision: inexistence of information regarding international connections on rail operators’ websites

3.1.3.1 Current situation analysis, transnational level The current hubs’ profile in terms of information provision, integrated ticketing and harmonized timetables is depicted in the following table.

Table 19: Hubs’ characteristics in relevance to RAIL4SEE pilot activities, transnational level

Thessaloniki Vienna Bologna Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia Venice Trieste Zagreb

Information medium high good medium good medium medium medium good good good provision

Harmonization of no partly no no no no partly no no no no timetables

Integrated ticketing no yes - no no very few no no no no no no complete examples rail journey

It is thus obvious that Vienna is the most mature hub compared to the other RAIL4SEE hubs;

 SCOTTY (http://www.oebb.at), a product of Austrian Federal Railways OEBB is a web based application that offers pre-trip info. It is also available as mobile application since 2009. It has the most updated database and other National Railways Websites are directly linked to SCOTTY if travelers seek information for international rail trips.

 Timetables at international level are partly harmonized.

As regards international rail transport a ticket purchased in Vienna from OBB PV AG is valid for a complete journey indecently of the connections and the type of services used.

Figure 7: Hubs’ categorization at transnational level, current situation

3.1.3.2 After investments assessment, transnational level As it is obvious from the following table, 5 out of the eleven hubs are investing in international rail network improvement, fact that is very auspicious for increasing rail use in SEE. However, improvements only in infrastructures are not able to attract users. Investments on RAIL4SEE pilots’ content are necessary in order to change travelers’ perspective. From the table below we can see that Thessaloniki, Bologna, Bucharest, Bratislava, Sofia and Zagreb will invest on better information provision while none of the hubs seems to be aware (or willing to invest) of the benefits deriving from international timetables harmonization and integrated ticketing possibilities. This lack on investments at timetables harmonization and integrated ticketing can also be attributed to the difficulty in implementing such issues and the strong international partnerships that need to be concluded in order to support this efforts.

Table 20: Ongoing investments in RAIL4SEE hubs, transnational level Ongoing Investments Thessaloniki Vienna Bologna Bucharest Budapest Bratislava Ljubljana Sofia Venice Trieste Zagreb New rail 3/11 services    New road PuT 1/11 services  New air services  1/11 International Road network improvements   2/11 level Rail network improvements      5/11 Information provision       6/11 Harmonization of timetables 0/11 47

Integrated ticketing 0/11 Therefore, the clustering after the realization of ongoing projects is the following;

Figure 8: Hubs’ categorization, future situation at transnational level

3.1.4 Conclusion of hubs comparative analysis

The following conclusions derived from the analysis of the current situation and future status in each hub that will be established after the completion of the ongoing investments.

 URBAN & REGIONAL LEVEL

According to the comparative analysis of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs

 Bologna is a hub that presents a remarkable dynamic. Today is served by buses and trolleys, however, within the next years its urban railway services will also be available to passengers. The current modal terminals interconnectivity is considered very good since an efficient bus system connects them (The4 bus terminal and the Central Railway Station is closely located). The planned improvements of Stations and the completion of the urban railway stations will enhance hub’s interconnectivity. As regards the other pillars of RAIL4SEE, examples of harmonized timetables exist (among suburban railway and regional buses), however, it is not a common practice. Bologna seems very willing to invest on timetables harmonization and is an issue that will be further examined in the framework of RAIL4SEE project. As regards integrated tariffs, STIMER- Mi muovo project has

resulted in the implementation of integrated ticketing in the urban area, a measure that has facilitated much the passengers. Finally, the development of an Integrated Transport Authority (ITA,) which is among Bologna’s plans, in view of the completion of Urban Railway will contribute in the better coordination of the provided PuT services.

 Bratislava seems to have a large infrastructure agenda. Terminals’ interconnectivity will be enhanced through the completion of Intermodal Terminals and the railway connection of its Airport. Integrated ticketing is an issue that also after the completion of ongoing investments will not be implemented. The investments foreseen seem that upgrade current status.

 Bucharest will invest on information provision to passengers and on integrated tariffs, however seems that timetables harmonization at urban/regional level and among different operators will not take place.

 Budapest seems a very active hub in SEE. After the completion of mapped investments almost at all RAIL4SEE pillars will present improvement. City hub interconnectivity will be upgraded by operating more frequent bus lines serving and connecting Budapest’s Terminals. As also mentioned by Hungarian partners new governance models are already under examination.

 Thessaloniki intents to develop an Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) which in view of the completion of Metropolitan Railway, will coordinate PuT services and can contribute more efficiently in the implementation of the issues dealt in the framework of RAIL4SEE project (ticket integration and timetables harmonization). Furthermore, at urban/regional level, the development of an integrated information platform that would combine data from the existing individual platforms will provide passengers with an advanced service, capable to make PuT more attractive to them.

 Vienna is a “high speed” hub that has invested in all RAI4SEE sectors of examination. As regards information provision is the most advanced hub in the study area (multimodal information, e-ticketing, intermodal PuT and Traffic information system).Terminals interconnectivity is excellent while integrated ticketing applies for short and medium travels. Finally, due to regular services, timetables are considered as harmonized, while on major axis more frequent intervals will be realized in the near future.

 Trieste shows a slight dynamic at urban/regional level and interventions are necessary to be made so as to catch up with the rest “medium speed” hubs.

 Ljubljana, Venice and Zagreb although improving their status after the investments, they seem not to be able to implement integrated tariffs for passengers facilitation. Integrated Transport Authorities do not seem besides their plans also. As for Venice, the hub seems to lag in information provision.

 Sofia presents very good interconnectivity of modal terminals that will be further enhanced with the completion of the underground session and a good information provision system at urban/regional level ((interactive virtual schedules are available for individual travel planning).

It is very crucial to focus on new governance schemes and innovative partnerships that will guarantee long term sustainability and efficient operation of PuT. For all RAIL4SEE hubs the improvement of national rail network and the

provision of competitive (in terms of cost and travel time) services is the most significant prerequisite in order to attract passengers.

 NATIONAL LEVEL

 Vienna seems to be (and will continue after the investments) the most dynamic hub in the study area also as regards national level. Information provision on stakeholders’ platforms facilitates travelers in organizing their trip. The only sector that needs further attention is the implementation of integrated ticketing at national level; no investments are foreseen for the total implementation of this measure.

 Bologna seems to be a hub oriented towards becoming a strong national hub. High speed trains cross Bologna and links it with major Italian cities. Furthermore, the rail connection of its Airport (the 7th busiest in Italy) can distribute air passengers to other Italian areas.

 Harmonization of timetables (except Vienna only Bologna, Budapest and Ljubljana present limited scale investments) and ticket integration (except Vienna, Bucharest seems to present a small progress) at national level seem not to be a common practice at SEE countries.

 INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

 Thessaloniki seems to be oriented towards making its “opening” to Balkans and to the rest SEE since by the spring of 2013 it would have reestablished the passenger rail connections to Skopje and Sofia. Furthermore, the e-ticket implementation for those connections planned by TRAINOSE is though as a service that will facilitate users and will act as a positive clue on travellers’ perception.

 Bucharest does not refer to any investment that can facilitate transnational connectivity.

 Vienna is a hub already well developed and also presents a rail gate to Central Europe. It is a pioneer hub inside study area as regards progress on RAIL4SEE pillars. Its national rail operator website is the most advanced from all other sites, it provides infrornation on rail connections all along over SEE and provides also information is some cases for existing international bus services. Links of othe national rail operators websites to OBB website is common. Furthermore, tickets purchased in Vienna from OBB PV AG are valid for complete journeys while harmonized timetables exist where possible among national and international rail connections. Better connections to Slovenia and Italy are necessary as also stated by Austrian partners.

 Bologna is considered as a boundary of SEE while its position is stronger when it comes to passage to the rest Europe.

 Bratislava intents to upgrade passengers information provision, however, no progress is made on ticket integration and timetables harmonization at international level. The latter “black spot” (inexistence of bilateral/multilateral cooperations for integrated ticketing and harmonized timetables at transnational level) 50

applies also in the majority of RAIL4SEE hubs (Sofia, Venice, Trieste, Zagreb, Bucharest, Bologna and Thessaloniki).

3.2 Hubs clustering for synergies in serving rail demand In order to identify the synergetic groups of hubs for serving the rail demand in SEE, international connections of each each hub were studied. The following table summarizes all the existing connections among the 11 hubs. The connections presented below consist the shortest in terms of total travel duration (actual travel time + waiting time)option for traveling by rail from one hub to the other . Information was collected by railway operators sites publishing relevant data and options were further examined and compaired by CERTH.

Table 21: Rail connections among RAIL4SEE hubs (shortest in terms of time), [ÖBB Fahrplan]

Analyzing the table below, we can conclude that:

 Budapest and Vienna seem to be the most important hubs in SEE. Budapest presents direct connections with Bratislava, Bucharest, Vienna and Zagreb while Vienna with Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, ZAgreb and through Austrian borders (Villach) with Venice. Taking in mind only the strong role of those hubs inside SEE rail network we can conclude that are hubs that need to present frequent connections to the other RAIL4SEE hubs. A strong passengers’ information system in Vienna’s and Budapest’s Railway Stations and well developed e-platforms providing all necessary pre-trip and on-trip data are also prerequisites for those hubs. Vienna – Budapest rail connection is very competitive to road and air alternatives (see annex C)

 Zagreb is also a very important hub in SEE presenting direct connections with many other hubs. Similarly, it has to continue those services and offer high level of integrated information provision to passengers.

 Beograd even not being among RAIL4SEE hubs, is a very focal point of rail network in SEE since it connects the Eastern and Southeastern side with the rest study area.

 Thessaloniki is a hub that should be examined separately since it is located at the edge of SEE and the only exits to the rest RAIL4SEE countries is through Sofia and Skopje. Special focus must be paid on those connections, namely Thessaloniki – Sofia and Thessaloniki – Skopje. Harmonized timetables with the lines departing from Skopje and Sofia are necessary in order for the rail transportation to become competitive to other modes. Also from the comparative analysis based on cost and trip duration among air- rail – road modes, the rail connection Thessaloniki – Sofia seems to have big opportunities to “hit” the rest modes.

 Italy, located in the western edge of SEE, should invest on frequent connections, integrating ticketing, harmonized timetables among Bologna – Venice and Venice – Trieste, setting Venice in the center for passing to Vienna’s hub. Rail connections among those three hubs are also competitive to road transportation (see annex C).

 Sofia, Bucharest, Ljubljana and Bratislava are hubs that have to invest much on timetables harmonization with their key gates to the other SEE hubs. Namely, the following connections have to present harmonized timetables and also ticket integration with the connections beginning from the gates (supported also form the comparative analysis - see annex C)

 Venice – Vienna; Vienna’s connection to Italian cities should be strengthened and this a statement supported not only from the current data but also from the comparative analysis (see annex C) and from Vienna’s individual report where hub’s aspirations are mentioned.

Combining all the above mentioned data, we can conclude in the following clustering:

Figure 9: Hubs’ clustering in relevance to their role in serving rail demand in SEE

It is to be noted that although terminology for hubs categorisation is kept similar with the levels of analysis presened in previous paragraphs in this particular case the categories of hubs also represents groups of hubs that currenlty serve similar role in serving the rail demand in SEE. Figure 11 demonstrates that based on the current rail connections a hub and spoke system is opperated in SEE for rail transport :

 Vienn, Budapest, Zagreb and Beogrand currenlty act as main hubs of this system offering direct rail connections among them today

 Bratislava, Bucharest, Venice, Lubljiana & Sofia are the perpheral hubs to the main hubs of the “hub & spoke” system each one of them showing important level of connectivity with specific main hubs

 Trieste Bologna and Thessaloniki are further lower in their current transational interconnectivity while Bologna & Thessaloniki being a very importnant National hub for rail transport.

The hubs allignement in a “hub & spoke”system for SEE, as presented above, may constitute the basis for defining the future operatioal profile of the hubs under examination for achiving the future seamless and hight accessibility offering rail network in the area .

3.3 Hub’s clustering regarding rail competitiveness achievement Assessing in the current situation the competiveness of rail, compared to other modes, for efficiently serving connections among the hubs is performed in order to create the basis for future scenarios building and prioritization of interventions proposal to be made by RAIL4SEE in the context of the forthcoming project activities for strengthening rail use in the SEE area.

For executing the specific analysis information collected in the context of W4 for “as is” situation mapping was used and further analyzed. The conclusions drawn by the results presented in the charts below are highlighting the opportunities and weaknesses of the rail transport in comparison to the other modes in terms of travel time and cost in major connections among hubs. In more detail, by combining data depicted in Figures presented separately for each hub in this chapter, the optimal points for intervening for enhancing rail services can be identified, as connections’ alternatives whose cost and travel time values are close, can become easier attractive.

3.3.1 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bologna As seen in Chart 1, the cost of air trips between Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs is on average higher than that of other modes. In detail, the air connection to Ljubljana shows the maximum cost among all others (approx. 600€). On the contrary, connections between Bologna and Bucharest, Budapest, Sofia and Vienna respectively, are in a very close range.

Chart 1: Costs of trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

The later fact is also depicted in Chart 2, where the monetary cost is expressed in percentages compared to the most expensive modal connection. Thus, Bucharest is the only case where the rail connection cost exceeds that of air. Rail connections are also quite competitive in terms of cost compared to that of road in the case of Bratislava, Sofia, Thessaloniki and Vienna.

Chart 2: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Concerning travel time needed for all connections between Bologna and the Rail4SEE hubs (Chart 3), the hubs of Trieste and Venice are reached on an average at the same duration with all modes, rendering rail competitive both to air and road connection (approx. 3,5 hours and 2,5 hours respectively). Despite being on an average higher in terms of travel time than other connections, the rail connections between Bologna and Bratislava, Ljubljana and Vienna, are quite close compared to the respective road connections (Chart 4). A probable enhancement of these rail services through ICT, Harmonization of Timetables or Integrated Ticketing, could make these connections more attractive.

Chart 3: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 4: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bologna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.2 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bratislava Bratislava air connections both in terms of cost and travel time duration to all Rail4SEE hubs are not depicted in the following charts, as where available, they are either extremely costly (>2000€), or last over 24hours. Thus, Bratislava is

a case where rail can become significantly more attractive compared to road, as due to its central location, it is connected to the other hubs both economically (Chart 5, Chart 6) and fast (Chart 7, Chart 8).

Chart 5: Costs of trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 6: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Especially concerning travel time duration, rail connections to Budapest and Vienna offer the best alternatives for attracting trips from road transport (Chart 7). The latter is also observed in the cases of Bucharest and Venice (Chart 8).

Chart 7: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 8: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bratislava and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.3 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Bucharest Air connections between Bucharest and all Rail4SEE hubs have the highest costs, except the case of Vienna and Venice (Chart 9). Rail connections are very attractive in terms of cost, and they compete to those of road connections in all cases (Chart 10).

Chart 9: Costs of trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 10: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Travel time duration however is significantly lower for all air connections due to Bucharest’s location compared to all other hubs (Chart 11). As shown in Chart 12, rail is only competitive to road as a mode, in particular in the connection between Bucharest and Vienna and Budapest.

Chart 11: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 12: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Bucharest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.4 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Budapest The cost of connecting Budapest with all Rail4SEE hubs is higher in the case of air connections (Chart 13).

Chart 13: Costs of trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

As seen in Chart 14, rail connections are quite competitive in the cases of Ljubljana, Venice against the ones of air and road, and also quite attractive versus road connections in the cases of Bucharest, Bologna, Sofia, Bratislava, Thessaloniki and Vienna.

Chart 14: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

In regard to travel time needed for all modal connections between Budapest and all Rail4SEE hubs, this is on an average higher when observing the rail connections (Chart 15). The later applies to all cases besides that of Vienna, where the rail’s connection duration is lower than that of air (and quite close to that of road).

Chart 15: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

As seen in Chart 16, connections with Bratislava, Bucharest and Vienna could become more attractive and thus competitive to the ones of road if enhanced.

Chart 16: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Budapest and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.5 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Ljubljana Ljubljana’s case also offers a series of possibilities in rendering rail the most attractive mode for connecting the hub with all Rail4SEE hubs. Chart 18 depicts the monetary cost in percentages (%). As observed, Sofia, Thessaloniki, Trieste, Venice and Bologna are quite close in terms of trip costs, in regard to rail and road connections.

Chart 17: Costs of trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 18: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Combining the latter with the travel time duration for all modal connections of Ljubljana, depicted in Chart 19, and the respective percentages depicted in Chart 20, it is concluded that Trieste, Zagreb and possibly Vienna are destinations to which rail mode could become dominant.

Chart 19: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 20: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Ljubljana and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.6 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Sofia Sofia, located at the southeastern district of Europe, is connected in an similar way in terms of money needed, in regard to rail and road transport. Air connections are as expected higher in costs for most cases (besides Vienna). Possibilities for attracting passengers to rail transport are observed in all cases besides the connection between Sofia and Zagreb (Chart 21, Chart 22).

Chart 21: Costs of trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 22: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

However, travel time duration, depicted in hours (Chart 23) and percentages (Chart 24), show that only the connection between Sofia and Thessaloniki could in fact attract passengers to rail transport through enhancement of specific rail services, as in all other cases, air transport, is dominant.

Chart 23: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 24: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Sofia and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.7 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Thessaloniki Chart 25 shows the cost (€) of the trips between Thessaloniki and the Rail4SEE hubs for all modes. It can be observed that the air is the most expensive mode in general, while the prices of rail and road are similar. Rail trips’ costs range between 100 and 200 € (except for Bucharest and Sofia the cost of which is significantly lower), while road trips’ costs range between 150 and 250 € (except for Bucharest and Sofia the cost of which is significantly lower). Air trips’ costs are similar (between 200 and 400 €) (except for Bratislava and Ljubljana).

Chart 25: Costs of trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

As presented in Chart 26, rail is the cheapest alternative, 33% and 66% less than road and air respectively.

Chart 26: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Various particularities can be observed in the above charts:

 The cost of road and air transport from Thessaloniki to Vienna is the same  The cost of road and air transport from Thessaloniki to Bucharest is almost the same 69

 The cost of road and rail transport from Thessaloniki to Trieste is the same

Chart 27: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

The trip duration from Thessaloniki to all Rail4SEEhubs is 4 -6 hours by air; the respective rail trip duration is between 25 and 35 hours (except for Bucharest and Sofia), while road trip duration is between 12 and 16 hours (except for Bucharest and Sofia).

Chart 28: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Thessaloniki and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

It can be concluded that the duration of the rail trips is almost double compared to the one of road trips in almost all cases, while the respective relation to air is on average close to 800%. All modal connections between Sofia and Thessaloniki are similar in terms of travel time but differ in terms of cost. By enhancing rail services in this specific connection through ICT, timetable harmonization (between terminals within the catchment area of Thessaloniki) or ticketing (integrated ticket to travel from any origin point within the catchment area to the final destination), rail could become even more attractive, being chosen by passengers from other modes that are currently traveling to Sofia by road or air.

3.3.8 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Trieste Trieste’s case is quite similar to that of Ljubljana due to the close location of the two hubs. In regard to monetary cost (Chart 29), Bucharest, Sofia, Zagreb and Bologna offer the best possibilities for rendering rail transport even more attractive, as connections to the above mentioned destinations are similarly expensive (Chart 30).

Chart 29: Costs of trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 30: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Travel time duration for rail connections is on average higher for most cases, with the exception of Venice and Bologna. Thus, these are the two hubs towards which any rail services’ improvement could prove to be decisive, in an effort to attract passengers from road and air transport (Chart 31, Chart 32).

Chart 31: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 32: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Trieste and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.9 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Venice Venice’s connections to all Rail4SEE hubs in terms of monetary costs are lowest on average in regard to rail transport, a fact which can help attract passengers from road and air transport (Chart 33, Chart 34). In detail, connections between

Venice and Thessaloniki, Bologna, Bratislava, Bucharest, Budapest, Sofia, Trieste, Zagreb and Vienna offer the trip at a similar or lower cost with rail than with any other mode.

Chart 33: Costs of trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 34: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

However, travel time duration differences (Chart 35) show that the list of hubs, whose rail connections could indeed be favored against other modal connections, includes Trieste, Vienna, Bologna and Bratislava, as travel times are significantly close (Chart 36). A probable minimization of travel time duration in these connections, through ICT, 74

Harmonization of Timetables or Integrated Ticketing, could indeed render rail transport significantly more competitive than at the current time.

Chart 35: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 36: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Venice and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.10 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Vienna Vienna’s air connections to all Rail4SEE hubs are costlier in the majority of cases except Sofia and Bucharest (Chart 37). As seen in Chart 38, rail connection possibilities arise in the case of Thessaloniki, Zagreb, Venice, Bucharest, Bologna and Budapest compared to that of road, as costs are quite similar.

Chart 37: Costs of trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 38: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

By combining the latter and observing travel time duration expressed in hour units and percentages in Chart 39 and Chart 40 respectively, the rail connections of Vienna to Bologna, Budapest, Trieste and Venice, could attract passengers both from road and air transport.

Chart 39: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 40: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Vienna and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.11 Rail competitiveness assessment for Hub of Zagreb Zagreb’s connections to all Rail4SEE hubs in terms of costs are as in most hubs higher in regard to the air mode (Chart 41). Rail connections are quite competitive to the ones of road for almost all connections (Chart 42), except the connection between Zagreb and Bratislava, where rail is significantly more expensive.

Chart 41: Costs of trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 42: Monetary cost in % for the trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Travel time duration for all connections depicted in Chart 43 is on average higher for all rail connections. However, as observed in Chart 44, the connection with Ljubljana offers possibilities for attracting passengers from road and air transport, while at all other cases, rail connections are significantly higher in travel time.

Chart 43: Travel time duration for the trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

Chart 44: Travel time in % for trips between the hub of Zagreb and Rail4SEE hubs for all modes

3.3.12 Priority clusters of Hubs for rail competitiveness achievement. According hubs’ analysis regarding competitiveness of rail transnational connections, rail seems to be competitive in the connections presented in the following table.

Table 22: Connections that can rail can be competitive

FROM TO Thessaloniki Sofia Vienna Bologna Vienna Trieste Vienna Venice Bologna Bratislava Bologna Ljubljana Bucharest Budapest Bucharest Vienna Budapest Bratislava Budapest Vienna Bratislava Bucharest Bratislava Venice Bratislava Vienna Ljubljana Trieste Ljubljana Zagreb Ljubljana Vienna Venice Trieste Bologna Venice Trieste Bologna Zagreb Ljubljana

The above presetned connections consitute possible clusters of hubs for which interventions whould be performed by priority for harmonizing time tables, creatign new services, improve quality of current services of international connections in order to have direct impact in the use of rail in the SEE area .

4 Key suggestions for necessary developments in RAIL4SEE hubs

The current report aims to become a useful tool that can reveal the real needs of the 11 RAIL4SEE hubs in order to be transformed inn powerful links of a strong rail network in SEE that serve passengers in the most efficient way. The following remarks can show the areas towards which the hubs could be oriented and can therefore feed hubs’ pilot activities content.

 Urban / metropolitan level

The following chart is indicative for the needs of each hub at urban and metropolitan level;

Chart 45: Urban population and percentage of urban in metropolitan population

 Hubs that present low urban population and relatively low percentage of urban population in total metropolitan population should invest in better connecting suburban areas to city center (e.g. Bologna, Venice).

 Hubs with high urban population and high percentage of urban population in the total metropolitan population should pay attention in better hubs’ integration and in services of high quality (e.g. Sofia, Bucharest).

 Hubs presenting a medium-scale population along with a medium percentage of urban population in the total metropolitan population should invest on better city – hub accessibility.

 Transnational level

Evaluating the results of “Hubs clustering for synergies in serving rail demand” (chap. 3.2) and of “Hub’s clustering regarding rail competitiveness achievement” (chap. 3.3), CERTH/HIT concluded in the following messages as regards:

 Thessaloniki presents limited connections that rail can be competitive due to its geografic location (SEE bound). Thessaloniki – Sofia rail connection is the only one that seems competitive to the alternatives (road and air).

 Bucharest – Budapest rail connection seems very attractive and aslo competitive and as a result investing on frequent and harmonized timetables and ticket integration could increase rail use.

 Venice could act as the international passage of Italy to the rest SEE and connections with Vienna should be carefully considered.

 Bologna could play the role of the National gateway nodal point to Europe. Bologna is considered as a boundary of SEE while its position is stronger when it comes to passage to the rest Europe. As regards SEE, Bologna has to present high rail connectivity with Venice, need that is already taken in mind by the hub; fast interconnection to Venice is under development.

 Ljubliana could invest on better rail connections with Vienna, Zagreb and Trieste.

 Bratislava is a good example of a hub that by investing in rail will easily upgrade its status as rail node since air connections are missing. Especially Bratislava – Vienna rail connection that is very competitive must be improved since daily commuters form Bratislava travel to Vienna and vice versa.

 Vienna is a hub already well developed and also presents a rail gate to Central Europe. As regards SEE, better connections to Slovenia and Italy are necessary.

 Zagreb seems to be a very strong rail node with direct connections to many other hubs. It is prerequisite to continue those connections in order to keep its strong position inside SEE.

 Sofia seems to pay much attention to intermodal transport corridors (PAN EUROPEAN). The investment in Calafat bribge that would make Bulgary – Romania connection easiest is of special interest. Sofia should keep and reinforce through appropriate measures (frequent and harmonized timetables, good level of information provision and ticket integration) its connections to Beograd and Bucharest.

 Budapest seems to be along with Vienna the most important hubs in SEE. Better connection among the two strong hubs is appreciated.

Furthermore, the following table is indicative of EU expectations for the future development of rail network in SEE.

Table 23: Potential clusters of RAIL4SEE involved hubs according to TEN-T projects

Priority Project 1: Railway axis Berlin – Verona/Milan Bologna seems to be an important hub in the rail TEN-T axis that – Bologna – Naples – Messina - Palermo connects Germany, Austria and Italy. As a result good connection of SEE to Bologna’s hub provides entrance to Central Europe which is (or will be, based on other TEN-T projects) efficiently served by rail.

Priority Project 6: Railway axis Lyon – Trieste – Venice, Trieste, Ljubljana, Budapest seems to figure one cluster Divaca/Koper – Divaca – Ljubljana - Budapest – through which connection to France is provided. Ukrainian borders

Priority Project 17: Railway axis Paris – Strasbourg – Vienna and Bratislava seems to figure another cluster through Stuttgart – Vienna – Bratislava which connection to France and Germany is provided.

Priority Project 17: Railway axis Athens – Thessaloniki and Sofia can be seen as a cluster based on their (Thessaloniki) – Sofia – Budapest – Vienna – Prague geographical position located on the South-eastern edge of – Nurnberg/Dresden Balkans.

Sofia, Budapest, Vienna can also be seen as another cluster, a type of corridor leading to Germany.

Priority Project 23: Railway axis Gdansk – Warszawa Vienna and Bratislava seems to figure cluster also for connection – Brno/Bratislava – Vienna of SEE to Poland.

Priority Project 29: Railway axis of the Ionian / Greece and particularly the passing from Thessaloniki which is Adriatic intermodal corridor. the sole gateway to Balkans is specially examined in the 29th Priority Project. Connections between the rail networks of southeastern Europe (Greece, FYROM, Bulgaria and Turkey) will become easier and more efficient.

Since the EU policy and existing intitiatives in main transport coridord development creates some “policy” clusters that has to be respected or equaly considered as enabling factors for achieving synergies of hubs for stregthening rail use in SEE, the main TEN-T projects, focusing on connections improvement by rail as already planned among SEE hubs, are mentioned in the above table.

ANNEX A: Definition of terms

CITY –HUB:

CITY – HUB, hereinafter referred as hub, is a location were different levels of services (transnational/national/regional – local) of the same or different transport modes are interfaced for serving intra or inter hub territory passenger transport demand.

Modal hubs (terminals):

Depending on the special characteristics of each city hub, one or more modal hubs – terminals (e.g. railway, airport, port, bus terminals) exist inside a city hub. In the framework of Rail4See project, the modal hubs are examined at three levels (transnational, national, regional/local) in relation to their catchment area.

(Multilayer) Catchment Areas (C.A.)/Service Areas:

The catchment area of a Modal Hub is divided in three subareas, 3 levels – local/regional, national, and transnational, depending on the distance and on the special characteristics of the hub (e.g. population served, transportation network, current infrastructures). For each of the 3 subareas the level of connectivity is described in the following

 Local/Regional C.A.

Modal Hub’s integration: The term hub’s integration in the framework of Rail4See project will hereinafter refers to “inside the city” connectivity of the hub with the basic transport terminals (urban bus stations, intercity bus stations, ports, airports, suburban railway, metro terminal). It also refers to the level of cooperation between the various transport operators of the city as regards integrated ticketing, coordinated timetables, exploitation of common ICT systems, exploitation of non ICT information promoting actions etc.

 National C.A.

Modal Hub’s accessibility: The term implies the easiness and seamlessness transit from the hinterland1 through national transport network to the city hub. Coordinated timetables, ICT systems facilitating the passenger in its trip and ticket integration are basic components of the term CITY HUB accessibility.

 Transnational C.A.

Modal Hub’s interconnectivity:

1 The term implies the area from which passengers are attracted by the hub. At the framework of Rail4See, the coverage area of the 11 hubs could vary substantially according to its own characteristics and the level of development. 85

The term city hub interconnectivity refers to the international connectivity of the 11 Rail4See city hubs. Issues such as integrated ticketing and exploitation of ICT systems that facilitate the total trip are of major importance so as to characterize a hub as highly interconnected with the rest transnational rail network. The level of interconnectivity of transport hubs is highly correlated to the level of interconnectivity of hubs that serve competitive modes.

Figure 10: Clustering of hubs according to their characteristics

Interventions:

When referring to interventions in the framework of Rail4See project we do not only mean “hard” measures as development of new infrastructures and implementation of customized services but we refer also to “virtual” interventions as the exploitation of ICT systems able to enhance, upgrade and facilitate hub’s operations. We refer also to “soft” interventions such as policy making actions (e.g. cooperation among transport operators in the promotion of rail, coordinated timetables, governance schemes etc).

ANNEX B: Action 3.1 - Template for the individual reports

Introduction

This is an introductory part of the report. Please indicate among others, the following:

 The main scope of the current report

 The actors contacted and interviews conducted in order to collect all necessary information

 The expected results

Description of transportation services provided in the hub

Please provide a brief description of the transportation services provided in their hub. The description should contain data that clarify and create a clear picture of city’s hub interconnectivity, accessibility, integration according to the methodological document provided by CERTH (e.g. rail services connecting the hub with other cities in national and transnational level..., metro and busses for urban transportation covering all hub or a part of it, air connection with other hubs in country and international connections ..., intercity buses connecting with ... etc).

Description of the legal background of the organizations involved in transport provision

Refer to the legal background of the organizations involved in transport issues (policy makers, operators, managers, transport associations etc) as regards their hub (description of all existing and potential future stakeholders). Legal & Financial Framework (definition of the legal basis of current rail services, long distance and feeder lines, funding etc.) of currently provided services has to be presented (according to the methodological document provided by CERTH).

For each actor / body involved in the transport field at regional, national and international level, its legal status (public body, private company, private entity, PTPs) and the respective Authorities that monitor their operation or participate in the subsidiary schemes should be described. A chart clarifying these relations would be very helpful for the better understanding of the mechanisms and the relations among them.

Mapping of ongoing and planned investments

The main part of the deliverable concerns the completion of the table provided in the methodological document provided by CERTH for Action 3.1. This part requires also the identification of the reasons that led to the realization of the investments presented.

Investments category Terminal Ongoing and planned Investment Description* (in relation to the pillars) Start End Estimated cost Estimated (investments that contribute to the improvement Service projecting & Governance (e.g. timetables Financing of Public Transport Other date date (infrastructure, effect on of) management (e.g. harmonization, ticketing services Partnerships (PTPs) management, the information systems…) integration…) operation) demand

Transnational City Hub Rail level INTERCONNECTIVITY network

Air network

Road network (buses) National level City Hub Rail ACCESSIBILITY network

Air network

Road network (buses) Regional / City Hub Rail Local level INTEGRATION network

Air network

Road network (buses)

More specifically, some investments – actions are presented below as characteristic examples in every pillar:

Service projecting & management

In this category all the investments in services that influence the management and the projecting of the transportation system are included. The main examples are:

1. Development of systems for information provision regarding the international or national/regional connections via:  Internet site  Phone center  Mobile service

The information can be provided in different ways, namely verbal, written, sound or/and visual info and may concern timetables, ticket prices, travel conditions e.t.c. The following table summarizes the main types of information, the possible places and the timing of provision and the ways it is obtained.

2. Development of systems for real time information provision regarding the existing position of a vehicle (train, bus, etc), events –emengency situations and the alternatives when a route is cancelled due to emergency situations via  Internet site  Mobile service 3. Development of systems for real time traffic or vehicle management via:  Traffic management center  Fleet management center  ……………………………………….. 4. Development of systems for facilitating the mobility procedures such as:  Crossbording procedures

 Ticketing (purchase, reservation by phone, e-mail, at stations and on board etc)  Luggage handling  Assistance to disabled persons 5. ….

Governance

In this category all the investments in services that influence the governance of the transportation system are included. The main examples are:

1. Development of systems for national and international railway timetables harmonization 2. Development of systems for intermodal timetables harmonization 3. Development of systems for ticket integration (national with international railway tickets) 4. Development of systems for intermodal ticket integration 5. ….

Financing of services

The national or European source that will finance the specific investment and the type of the financing (in accordance with the following figure1).

Other

(For example new connections, new terminals etc)

Figure 11: Type of financing for every investment

Public Transport Partnerships (PTPs)

In this category all the investments that influence the development of PTPs are included. The main examples are:

1. Development of partnerships between national and international rail operators 2. Development of partnerships between different national modes’ operators 3. Development of partnerships between different international modes’ operators

4. ….……………………

Conclusions

Among other key messages derived from Action 3.1, please:

 Indicate which of the abovementioned investments serve RAIL4SEE objectives and the way in which are connected to the hub’s pilots that will be implemented in the framework of RAIL4SEE project

 conclude to whether the ongoing and planned projects for each modal hub will improve or harm the competitiveness of rail inside the SEE

 combine the ongoing and planned investments with the future improvements brought out at regional, national and transnational level as regards the transportation system of each hub

 indicate which level of rail connectivity (regional, national, transnational) is of high priority for the cities for increasing use of rail in the future

 indicate which pillars of RAIL4SEE are expected to have major interventions in long, medium, short term through the realization of the investments mapped

 refer to whether future plans are in line with the cities individual expectations for the future

ANNEX C – ANNEX L: Individual partners reports

In alphabetical order:

c) Hub of Bologna

d) Hub of Bratislava

e) Hub of Bucharest

f) Hub of Budapest

g) Hub of Ljubljana

h) Hub of Sofia

i) Hub of Thessaloniki

j) Hubs of Trieste and Venice

k) Hub of Vienna

l) Hub of Zagreb