GOVERNANCE FOR PUBLIC VALUES IN EUROPEAN RAILWAYS A comparative research among European countries to understand how they pursue public values through the governance of their railways

V.A.W. Leussink

November 2015

Governance for Public Values in European Railways

ii Governance for Public Values in European Railways

GOVERNANCE FOR PUBLIC VALUES IN EUROPEAN RAILWAYS A comparative research among European countries to understand how they pursue public values through the governance of their railways

Author V.A.W. Leussink Student number 1510916 Graduation date 30th of November, 2015 Course SPM5910 Master Thesis Project Graduation section Policy, Organisation, Law & Gaming Master Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management Faculty Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft University Delft University of Technology

Graduation committee Chair Prof. mr. dr. E.F. ten Heuvelhof (POLG) First supervisor Dr. W.W. Veeneman (POLG) Second supervisor Dr. ir. J. Baggen (TLO) External supervisor AEF Dr. M. Veraart External supervisor AEF Jane Fain MSc

Commissioned by Andersson Elffers Felix (AEF) Maliebaan 16 3581 CN, Utrecht

iii Governance for Public Values in European Railways

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV LIST OF TABLES ...... VI LIST OF FIGURES ...... VII SUMMARY ...... VIII SAMENVATTING ...... X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... XIII 1. INTRODUCTION ON PUBLIC VALUES IN EUROPEAN RAILWAYS ...... 1 1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 UNCERTAINTIES WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC VALUES IN PUBLIC RAIL TRANSPORT ...... 3 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 4 2. RESEARCH APPROACH ...... 6 2.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 2.2 LARGE SELECTION OF COUNTRIES ...... 8 3. LITERATURE ...... 10 3.1 LITERATURE ON PUBLIC VALUES ...... 10 3.2 LITERATURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ...... 13 4. PUBLIC VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS EUROPEAN RAILWAYS ... 16 4.1 APPROACH PUBLIC VALUES ANALYSIS ...... 16 4.2 PUBLIC VALUES FOR RAILWAYS FORMULATED BY EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS ...... 18 4.3 RESEARCH APPROACH FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ...... 19 4.4 ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS IN EUROPEAN RAILWAY SECTORS ...... 21 4.5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 25 5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EUROPEAN RAILWAYS ...... 28 5.1 KPI METHOD ...... 28 5.2 QUALITY OF SERVICE ...... 39 5.3 CONCLUSIONS ...... 44 6. IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ON PERFORMANCE ...... 46 6.1 HYPOTHESES FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 46 6.2 COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ...... 46 6.3 CONCLUSIONS ...... 52 7. CASE STUDIES ...... 55 7.1 SMALL SELECTION OF COUNTRIES FOR CASE STUDIES ...... 55 7.2 RESEARCH APPROACH CASE STUDIES ...... 55 7.3 RESULTS ...... 57 7.4 CONCLUSIONS ...... 60 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 62 8.1 FINAL CONCLUSIONS ...... 62 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 63

iv Governance for Public Values in European Railways

DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION ...... 66 REFERENCES ...... 68 GLOSSARY ...... 74 APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES ...... 78 APPENDIX A-1: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES ...... 79 APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC VALUES ...... 82 APPENDIX B-1: PUBLIC VALUES PER COUNTRY ...... 83 APPENDIX B-2: DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC VALUES ...... 88 APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ...... 92 APPENDIX C-1: ILLUSTRATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ...... 93 APPENDIX C-2: TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES ...... 104 APPENDIX D: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ...... 108 APPENDIX D-1: OVERVIEW RELATIVE RANKINGS ...... 109 APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS ...... 114 APPENDIX E-1: INTERVIEWEES ...... 115 APPENDIX E-2: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE DUTCH RAILWAYS ...... 116 APPENDIX E-3: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE FRENCH RAILWAYS ...... 118 APPENDIX E-4: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWEDISH RAILWAYS ...... 119 APPENDIX E-5: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWISS RAILWAYS ...... 120

v Governance for Public Values in European Railways

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: EU Railway Policy since 1990s (Knieps and Zenhäusern 2011, Wolff 2011, Aslan 2012, POLIS 2013) ...... 2 Table 2: Overview of the research steps, methods and research questions per chapter ...... 8 Table 3: Overview of the countries selected for this thesis research ...... 9 Table 4: Various definitions of the term ‘public value’ ...... 12 Table 5: Public values mentioned in policy notes ...... 18 Table 6: Additional literature used by Wolff and during second verification ...... 21 Table 7: Categorization on the basis capacity allocation ...... 22 Table 8: Categorization on the basis of award procedure ...... 23 Table 9: Categorization on the basis of supervisors ...... 24 Table 10: Clusters resulting from K-means Cluster Analysis ...... 25 Table 11: Countries per cluster ...... 25 Table 12: KPIs selected on the basis of Wolff (2011) ...... 29 Table 13: KPIs selected on the basis of public value analysis ...... 30 Table 14: KPIs selected for the performance evaluation ...... 30 Table 15: Sources used per indicator ...... 32 Table 16: The contents of a relative ranking table ...... 33 Table 17: Example for a relative ranking table; KPI Effectiveness of Production ...... 34 Table 18: The average relative ranking (ARR) per country for the performance on the KPIs ...... 37 Table 19: Advantages of the KPI method (Wolff 2011) ...... 37 Table 20: Shortcomings of the KPI method (Wolff 2011) ...... 38 Table 21: Quality criteria in EuroNorm 13816 (CEN 2002, Wolff 2011) ...... 41 Table 22: Indicators for measuring Customer Satisfaction by European Commission (2013) ...... 42 Table 23: Satisfaction of Europeans with railways in their country (European Commission 2013) ...... 43 Table 24: Results of ANOVA for Capacity Allocation-categorization ...... 50 Table 25: Results of Independent Samples T-test for Competitive Tendering- categorization ...... 50 Table 26: Differences between scores on KPIs for both categories ...... 51 Table 27: Results of ANOVA for Supervision-categorization ...... 51 Table 28: Performance on the public values identified in the public value analysis . 56 Table 29: "Competition" vs. "separation" ...... 79 Table 30: Interviewees and the interview methods ...... 115

vi Governance for Public Values in European Railways

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The assumed relationship between public values and public rail transport systems (Veeneman 2015) ...... 3 Figure 2: Research approach for this thesis work ...... 7 Figure 3: Methodology for public value analysis ...... 16 Figure 4: "The performance of the rail network" (Van de Velde 2015) ...... 17 Figure 5: Framework 'Authority - Infrastructure - Transport' (Van de Velde and Röntgen 2008) ...... 19 Figure 6: Systematic approach filling in frameworks railway sectors (Wolff 2011) . 20 Figure 7: Methodology for construction of relative ranking tables (Wolff 2011) ...... 33 Figure 8: Service Quality Loop (CEN 2002, Wolff 2011) ...... 40 Figure 9: Customer Satisfaction index of railway stations and travels ...... 44 Figure 10: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Capacity Allocation ...... 47 Figure 11: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Competitive Tendering ...... 48 Figure 12: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Supervisor ...... 49

vii Governance for Public Values in European Railways

SUMMARY Steering of the European railways has until now mainly been done through governance on organizational structures. Governments expect public values to be secured through the efficient and effective delivery of rail services, but the effects of railway governance are in many ways unclear. Research has already been done to get a better understanding of the influence of organizational structures, as in the degree of separation between infrastructure managers and train operating companies, on the performance of railways, especially efficiency. There are, however, many other organizational aspects in the governance of railways that have not been studied well, but could certainly be of influence on the performance of public railways. In addition to that, it seems strange that performance only has been taken into account by looking at efficiency, since it makes more sense to do this from a governmental perspective and take public values into account. For that reason, this research aimed at getting a better understanding of the influence of organizational aspects on the performance of European railways, keeping in mind the relevant public values. To do this, the following research question was answered: How can governmental authorities within Europe properly align the governance, specifically organizational aspects, of the public transport on their main rail networks to the public values they want to realize? To come to an answer to this research question, several analyses were conducted. At first a literature study and two analyses were done to come up with the most common and relevant public values and organizational aspects for public railways in twenty European countries. The three organizational aspects that have been selected for further research are capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. The most common public values taken along in the research are competitiveness, efficiency and safety. The public values found in the public value analysis were used for defining the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the performance evaluation, which took place after the analysis for public values and organizational aspects. Together with relevant existing literature on KPIs for performance evaluation of railway systems, this led to the following list of KPIs: - Competitiveness - Effectiveness of Production - Effectiveness of Resources - Efficiency of Production - Safety The performance evaluation was followed by a quantitative and after that a qualitative comparison between the public values and organizational aspects on the one hand and the performance of the railways on the other hand. First, a comparative analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the three organizational aspects and the performance of railways on the KPIs derived from the relevant public values. These results show that the way in which capacity allocation and supervision are applied do not per definition lead to a different

viii Governance for Public Values in European Railways performance on the KPIs. Railways that use competitive tendering, however, do in general have a higher performance than those who use direct awarding. The qualitative analysis existed out of four case studies for four well performing countries, each regarded as a model for a common combination of the three organizational aspects (so called clusters) and performing relatively well. The case studies were used to discover which success and failure factors best explain the differences between the different performances of the countries in pursuing their public values through public rail transport. The case studies were done for the Dutch, French, Swedish and Swiss railways and showed that the performance of railways on public values is highly dependent on context factors, such as general societal trends, the current conditions of the railway system and a country’s political climate. It can be concluded that this research shows that context factors play a crucial role in the governance of the railways on public values and that it is difficult to come up with one organizational setup that will work for all European railways. The fit between governance and performance of railways is simply to dependent on the political climate, societal trends, current state of the railway sector and other contextual aspects. Therefore it is important that governments are aware of the context when defining governance for the realization of public values through their railways. In general it can be said that, in order to come to a well performing railway system, governments have to be very aware of the context in which the railways have to perform. General societal trends for example can be of great influence on the performance of railways. It is also important to create good generally conditions by not cutting back on maintenance and investments in infrastructure and rolling stock, since good conditions are assumed to lead to better performance. Regarding the organizational aspects it is concluded that governmental authorities should ensure proper application of competitive tendering instead of direct awarding, since this leads to higher overall performance on important performance indicators derived from the public values.

ix Governance for Public Values in European Railways

SAMENVATTING Aansturing van de Europese spoorwegen is tot op heden voornamelijk gericht op het aanpassen van organisatiestructuren. Overheden verwachten publieke waarden te waarborgen door middel van efficiënte en effectieve levering van spoordiensten, de effecten van deze aansturing zijn in veel opzichten onduidelijk. Er is reeds onderzoek gedaan om een beter beeld te krijgen van de invloed van organisatiestructuren, met name de mate van splitsing tussen infrastructuurbeheerders en vervoerders, op de prestaties van spoorwegen, voornamelijk efficiëntie. Er zijn echter vele andere organisatorische aspecten in op het gebied van aansturing van spoorwegen die nog niet goed zijn onderzocht, maar zeker invloed zouden kunnen hebben op de prestaties van spoorwegen. Daarnaast lijkt het vreemd dat de prestaties alleen is onderzocht vanuit het perspectief van efficiëntie, aangezien het voor de hand lijkt te liggen dat er vanuit het perspectief van de overheid gekeken wordt om publieke waarden in het oog te houden. Daarom had dit onderzoek als doel om een beter inzicht te krijgen in de invloed van organisatorische aspecten op de prestaties van spoorwegen met het oog op de relevante publieke waarden. Hiervoor is de volgende onderzoeksvraag beantwoord: Hoe kunnen autoriteiten binnen Europa hun aansturing, specifiek de organisatorische aspecten, voor de hoofdspoorwegen zo invullen dat de publieke waarden worden gerealiseerd? Om deze vraag te beantwoorden zijn er meerdere analyses uitgevoerd. Eerst zijn er een literatuurstudie en twee analyses gedaan om te komen tot een overzicht van de meest voorkomende en relevante publieke waarden en organisatorische aspecten voor spoorwegen van twintig Europese landen. De drie organisatorische aspecten die zijn geselecteerd zijn capaciteitsallocatie, aanbesteding en supervisie. De meest genoemde publieke waarden in relevante beleidsdocumenten die zijn meegenomen in het onderzoek zijn concurrentievermogen, efficiëntie en veiligheid. De publieke waarden die zijn gevonden in de analyse werden gebruikt voor het definiëren van de kritieke prestatie-indicatoren (KPI’s) voor de evaluatie van de prestaties, die na de analyses van de publieke waarden en organisatorische aspecten plaatsvond. Samen met relevante literatuur omtrent KPI’s voor de evaluatie van prestaties van spoorwegen, heeft dit tot de volgende lijst van KPI’s geleid: - Concurrentievermogen - Effectiviteit van Productie - Effectiviteit van Middelen - Efficiëntie van Productie - Veiligheid De evaluatie van de prestaties werd gevolgd door een kwantitatieve en daarna een kwalitatieve vergelijking tussen de publieke waarden tussen de publieke waarden en organisatorische aspecten aan de ene kant en de prestaties van de spoorwegen aan de andere kant. Eerst is de vergelijkende analyse gebruikt om de relatie tussen de drie organisatorische aspecten en de prestaties van spoorwegen op de KPI’s, afkomstig van de relevante publieke waarden, te analyseren. De resultaten hiervan tonen aan

x Governance for Public Values in European Railways dat de manier waarop capaciteitsallocatie en supervisie wordt toegepast niet per definitie leidt tot andere prestatie op de KPI’s. Spoorwegen waarin aanbesteding wordt toegepast in plaats van onderhandse gunning, hebben over het algemeen echter wel betere prestaties. De kwalitatieve analyse bestond uit vier case studies voor vier goed presterende landen, elk model staand voor de meest voorkomende combinaties van de organisatieaspecten (zogeheten clusters). De case studies zijn gebruikt om te achterhalen welke succes- en faalfactoren het beste de verschillen kunnen verklaren tussen de prestaties van verschillende landen in het waarborgen van de publieke waarden via de spoorwegen. De case studies zijn uitgevoerd voor de Franse, Nederlandse, Zweedse en Zwitserse spoorwegen en toonden aan dat de prestaties op publieke waarden erg afhankelijk zijn van context factoren, zoals algemene maatschappelijke trends, de huidige condities van de spoorwegen en het politieke klimaat. Er kan worden geconcludeerd dat dit onderzoek aantoont dat context factoren een cruciale rol spelen in de aansturing van spoorwegen met betrekking tot publieke waarden en dat het moeilijk is om met één organisatiestructuur te komen die voor alle Europese spoorwegen zou leiden tot goede prestaties. De samenhang tussen aansturing en de prestaties van spoorwegen is simpelweg te afhankelijk van het politieke klimaat, maatschappelijke trends, de huidige staat van de spoorwegen en andere contextuele aspecten. Daarom is het van belang dat overheden zich bij aansturing bewust zijn van de specifieke context waarin de spoorwegen dienen te opereren om publieke waarden daadwerkelijk te kunnen waarborgen. In het algemeen kan worden gezegd dat, om tot een goed presterend spoorwegsysteem te komen, overheden zich enorm bewust moeten zijn van de omgeving. Maatschappelijke trends kunnen bijvoorbeeld van grote invloed zijn op de prestaties. Het is daarnaast van belang om goede algemene voorwaarden te creëren door niet te korten op onderhoud en investeringen in infrastructuur en rollend materieel, omdat goede basiscondities leiden tot betere prestaties. Met betrekking tot de organisatorische aspecten kan worden geconcludeerd dat overheden er goed aan doen om de juiste manier van aanbesteding af te dwingen en af te stappen van onderhandse gunning. Dit leidt over het algemeen namelijk tot betere prestaties op de prestatie-indicatoren die zijn afgeleid van de belangrijke publieke waarden.

xi Governance for Public Values in European Railways

xii Governance for Public Values in European Railways

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis report is the result of the graduation research for the course SPM5910 Master Thesis Project and the final work towards the achievement of a MSc title in Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management at the department, Policy and Management of Delft University of Technology. The research is performed in collaboration with Andersson Elffers Felix (AEF) from April 2015 until November 2015. The initial idea for this research came from Maarten Veraart (AEF) and after several consultations with him and Wijnand Veeneman, my first supervisor, the many thoughts on this topic were merged into a final specific idea for this research on the governance of public values in European railways. I am glad to say that I have been content with the choice for this topic throughout the entire process. The complex nature of railways, the possibility dive into a topic that is, in one way or another, relevant for almost everyone and the fact that the past months a lot of issues I was looking at made it into the news kept me motivated until the end of this research. First of all, I would like to thank the interviewees from LET, I&M, VTI, KAU, SBB and HSLU for providing me with valuable information for the case studies. These insights helped me in making an important step in translating the quantitative outcomes of this research into concrete and useful information. Secondly, my thanks go to Didier van de Velde for showing interest in my research and taking time to provide me with some helpful insights even though he was not a member of my graduation committee. Third, I would like to thank AEF for giving me the opportunity to work on such a challenging project and providing me with the opportunity to take a look at their daily activities. A special thanks goes out to Maarten and Jane, who kept an eye on my progress and were always willing to help me out when I was struggling along the process. I hope this work is valuable for AEF, in particular to Maarten, and that AEF also looks back at a successful collaboration. Fourth, I would like to thank the members of my commission, Wijnand, John and Ernst, for providing me with valuable feedback and taking time to help me whenever this was necessary. They were able to detect the things I struggled with and provide me with interesting insights to overcome the difficulties I have faced throughout the process. The fact that they were always positive and aware of the positive aspects of my work kept me going at the times I struggled. Finally, my gratitude goes to my family and friends, who kept me motivated not only during my graduation research, but also during the other years of my study in Delft. Without their support, I would not have been able to come to this point.

For now, I wish you a pleasant read and I hope you enjoy reading this work as much as I did writing it.

Vincent Leussink Delft, November 2015

xiii Governance for Public Values in European Railways

xiv Governance for Public Values in European Railways

1. INTRODUCTION ON PUBLIC VALUES IN EUROPEAN RAILWAYS 1.1 General introduction Public rail transport is very important to the Dutch society. This is indicated by the fact that over 3% of the Dutch travel by train every day and 60% of all inhabitants travel by train at least once a year. In total, the Dutch public rail transport sector contributes to 8% of all kilometers traveled in the Netherlands. When public transport is used to replace private car transport certain negative external effects, such as congestion and environmental pollution, are reduced and public values are pursued more successfully. Keeping these figures in mind, it does not seem strange that the government pays a lot of attention to the railways and that the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment spends approximately 25% of its total budget on the railway sector (Rijksoverheid 2015). In 2001 several reforms took place in the railway sector. The main reason for these reforms was to improve cost efficiency and encourage innovations. The way governments have tried to influence the performance of the European railways is mainly by adjusting their organizational structures. For example by separating the transport operator and the infrastructure manager. The European Railway Packages also contain the believe that organizational reforms can influence the performance of the railway sector (Van de Velde and Röntgen 2009). In the Netherlands the European Railway Packages have led to the development of WP2000, a guideline and set of requirements for the development of efficient and high quality public transport on regional lines, and the Federal Railway Act (“Spoorwegwet”), aimed at separating the responsibility for infrastructure management and transport operations on the main rail network in compliance with European law. The reforms have led to drastic changes in the railway sector, especially in the way operators for public transport are determined. However, the effects on the cost efficiency and innovation of the main rail network have not been as expected. That is the reason that also after 2001 a lot of changes and adjustments have been made over time.

European railway reforms After the Second World War, many governments nationalized the private rail transport operators and turned them into national railway undertakings (Rothengatter 2007). The general trend of railway development of the recent years can be seen in almost every country in Europe. Since the 1950s, costs for rail transport have been increasing and the market share declined, mainly due to a lack of ability to compete with road transport (CER 2011). The economy in Western Europe started to shift from the traditional heavy industry towards a service and retail market and the railway sector, due to its monopolistic structure, was unable to adopt a strategy to cope with this (CER 2005). The result of this were large debts for many railway companies, which became a burden for the governments (Nash 2009). It was clear that action was needed in order to get the

1 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

railways to become profitable again and to increase the market share of rail transport. This awareness eventually led to a large rail reform program. With issuing Council Directive 91/440/EEC the European Union initiated the reform program. The EU member states agreed over the development of a series of ‘Railway Packages’ over the coming years, in which directions, objectives and regulations were provided that should help to ‘liberalize and open up’ the railways markets across Europe (Streichfuss 2010). The main areas of focus in the Railway Packages released up until now can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: EU Railway Policy since 1990s (Knieps and Zenhäusern 2011, Wolff 2011, Aslan 2012, POLIS 2013)

1st Railway Package 2nd Railway Package 3rd Railway Package 4th Railway Package • All rail freight • Cabotage in freight • Common approach to • Institutional separation companies can access transportation certification of train between infrastructure Trans-European freight drivers and rolling stock managers and railway network • Harmonization of safety undertakings standards + clear • Codification of • Separate financial procedures for obtaining passengers’ rights • Opening of the market accounts services / safety certificate for domestic passenger infrastructure • Open access for all transport services by rail • Market access improved international passenger • Establish policy for through interoperability services • Competences for issuing capacity allocation and vehicle authorizations infrastructure charging • Coordination and • Quality standards for rail granted to ERA harmonization by freight sector • Independent regulator European Rail Agency • More protection of workers in case of • EU wide licenses transfer of public service contracts

In the legislation, the EU deliberately provided the member states with the freedom to choose their own organizational structure, one they thought would suit their specific situation. As a result of this, many different organizational structures were implemented, all unique for their specific country. Despite all the efforts, the effects of these changes are in many ways uncertain. One of the reasons for this is the complex nature of the railway sectors, partly caused by the high number of stakeholders within the system (Gelders, Galetzka et al. 2008). More stakeholders increase the chances of conflicting criteria and therefore increase complexity. Also, many people attribute the difficulties of the railway sector to political involvement.

Importance of public values This political involvement is mainly the result of the urge of the authorities to pursue public values through their public railway systems. The large alterations, which took place in the European railways since the 1990s, were mostly focused on the organizational structures. The European railway sectors have been liberalized and competition was introduced by opening up the railways to new competitors. Several organizational setups can be found within the railway sectors in Europe, but it is the influence of these various governance forms on the performance of the sector is unclear. Public values can be seen as the somewhat abstract goals that

2 Governance for Public Values in European Railways indicate the reasons for governmental intervention and they have a large influence on governance in the European railways. Governments expect public values to be secured through the efficient and effective delivery of rail services. As such, rail transport is an important instrument for governmental authorities. Therefore understanding the role of governance in the realization of public values through public rail transport could prove to be valuable for policymakers. 1.2 Uncertainties with regard to public values in public rail transport Since it is of such great importance, a lot of research has already been done on both the topic of public values and the topic of governance in public rail transport (Keeney, Winterfeldt et al. 1990, Bussieck, Winter et al. 1997, Bozeman 2007, Tirachini, Hensher et al. 2010). The combination of public values and public transport, apart from Veeneman, van de Velde et al. (2006), has received little attention. Public transport influences the quality of public values and governance is aimed at the realisation of public values. The effectiveness of the realisation of public values through governance, however, is often difficult to measure and therefore very uncertain. In general, public values sometimes have little to do with the outcomes of projects, even though they act as input for the project (Steenhuisen 2009). This has to do with the many complex steps between defining the public values and the final outcomes of the projects, e.g. the translations from public values, to concessions, to the transport operator management tasks, etc., which can be seen in the simplified diagram in Figure 1 (Veeneman 2015). The three different blocks in this diagram are already very complex on their own, which makes it even more challenging to describe the influence of public values on the actual performance and the relationships between the blocks in general.

Organizational Organizational Orgasntirzuacttiuorneal Orgasntirzuacttiuorneal Public values structure Performance structure

Public rail transport Context system Figure 1: The assumed relationship between public values and public rail transport systems (Veeneman 2015)

Some research has been done within specific countries’ railway sectors looking at the influence of governance on the performance of the railways (e.g. Yvrande-Billon and Ménard (2005) for the UK, Martin (2008) for the UK and Germany & Alexandersson and Hultén (2008) for Sweden). In addition, Wolff (2011) and Van de Velde, Nash et al. (2012) focus their research on the relationship between the organizational structure and the performance of public rail transport systems and made a comparative study between European countries. They do however not specifically pay attention to the role of public values in this sector. Also, it appears to be difficult to determine the exact influence of organizational structure on the performance in practice (Veeneman 2002). Wolff (2011) has shown that no clear relationship exists between the performance of railways and the degree of separation between the infrastructure managers and transport operating companies, in terms of efficiency.

3 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Wolff (2011) and Van de Velde, Nash et al. (2012) study the influence of organizational structures on the performance by looking at efficiency and separation, but when looking from a governmental perspective this might seem strange. Governance after all focuses on more aspects than only the increase of efficiency. The studies led us to a certain point by focusing on performance on several KPIs, but a next step is required to get a better understanding of the governance mechanisms in the railways. The information acquired can be used to enable us to improve the way governance is applied. Governance in the public railways is aimed at securing public values through well performing railway services. This research builds on Wolff (2011) and Van de Velde, Nash et al. (2012) by focusing on cohesion between organizational structures and performance for railways from the perspective of the realization of public values. Also the research does not only focus on the distinction between the different degrees of separation, but also on other organizational aspects, such as capacity allocation and supervision. The relevance of this research, therefore, mainly lies in two aspects. The scientific relevance of this thesis work can be found in adding to existing research by exploring a field of study that has not yet been studied well, in this case the persuasion of public values through governance of public rail transport. The social relevance has already more or less been mentioned. Since public values play such an important role in every layer of the society and governance, it is useful to gain more knowledge about this topic. This could lead to improvements in the governance of public rail transport. 1.3 Research Questions The research done in this thesis report focuses on the governance for public rail transport on European main rail networks in order to pursue public values. In order to get a better view on this topic a comparative research between European countries is done to identify the way in which public values are defined and realized in passenger rail transport systems. This has led to the main research question for this thesis work, which has been formulated as follows:

How can governmental authorities within Europe properly align the governance, specifically organizational aspects, of the public transport on their main rail networks to the public values they want to realize?

In order to answer this question, several sub questions have been composed. Further examination of the following sub questions should contribute to answering the main research questions:

Sub question 1: What are important public values for public rail transport on the main rail networks within Europe?

Sub question 2: How do European authorities attempt to influence public rail transport on the main rail networks by means of organizational aspects in order to aim for specific public values?

4 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Sub question 3: How do the European public transport systems perform on the public values?

Sub question 4: How do organizational aspects of public rail transport systems influence the performance?

Sub question 5: Which success and failure factors best explain the differences in the realization of public values in the European public rail transport systems?

The main goal of this research is to find an answer to these questions, in particular the main research question. To do this several steps are taken along this research. The next chapter provides us with an overview of the various research steps and the methods used.

5 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

2. RESEARCH APPROACH In Chapter 2 the research approach is presented. Paragraph 2.1 contains an overview of the research methodology that is used. The final paragraph (2.2) provides a view on the selection of countries taken along in the research. 2.1 Methodology This paragraph provides us with an overview of the research methodology. A structured research approach is used during the entire research in order to make sure that the research is organized and scientifically correct. This section elaborates on the scientific foundations of this research and the steps taken in the research process. The first part of the research (Chapters 2 - 5) is largely based on the studies of Van de Velde, Nash et al. (2012) and Wolff (2011), but adds to these. Van de Velde, Nash et al. and Wolff focus on the relationship between organizational structures and the performance in terms of efficiency. This research adds to this: 1) More aspects of organizational structures, such as capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. This leads to a more extensive comparative analysis between organizational aspects and performance of European railways. 2) A richer amount of KPIs to measure the performance of passenger rail transport on European main rail networks. From the perspective of a government more public values are relevant than merely efficiency. This qualitative analysis of the public values for railway systems defined by European authorities leads to several changes within the steps of the research with respect to the articles of van de Velde, Nash et al. and Wolff. An example of this is the Performance Evaluation that contains more KPIs, based on the public values analysis, to be taken along in measuring the performance. A schematic overview of the research approach is shown in Figure 2. First, a selection of twenty relevant European countries to be taken along in this research is made. Then an analysis of the public values is done, in order to find out what the important public values are that are pursued through passenger rail transport by governments of the selected countries. The following step is an analysis of the organizational setups of these countries. Not only the structures will be presented, but also an overview will be given of other organizational aspects (capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision). After this, the performance evaluation is done. In this phase the performance of the selected railways is determined on KPIs based on the public values found earlier in the research. The next phase consists out of a comparative analysis that shows whether these organizational setups have an influence on the performance of railways. In other words, do certain organizational setups lead to a better or worse performance? After the comparative analysis the selection of countries is narrowed down to four countries, each with the best performance in the cluster they are categorized in. A

6 Governance for Public Values in European Railways cluster analysis is done to come up with four clusters based on the various combinations of the organizational aspects taken along in the research. For these four countries, a case study is done to find out more about the successful or less successful ways in which these countries pursue public values through their railways. The final step of the research consists out of general conclusions and presenting recommendations. The scope changes from broad (twenty countries) to narrow (four countries) and back to broad (general conclusions). Therefore, the structure is something similar to an hourglass shape.

Selection of countries (#20)

Organizational stOrrugcatunrizeas taionnaalyl sis stOrrugcatunrizeas taionnaalyl sis Public values stOrrugcatunrizeas taionnaalyl sis Performance analysis structures analysis evaluation Wolff (2011) + Van Transport policy Transport de Velde (2012) + notes concessions + Rail databases Desk policy reports research

Comparative analysis; organizational aspects – performance Comparative analysis

Selection of Case studies countries (#4) In-depth analysis

Conclusions Recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

Figure 2: Research approach for this thesis work

Table 2 provides us with an overview of the various steps taken along this research and the corresponding methods used. In addition, it shows in which chapters these

7 Governance for Public Values in European Railways steps can be found and where the answers on the sub questions and the main research questions are presented.

Table 2: Overview of the research steps, methods and research questions per chapter

Chapter Research step s Methods Research questions 1 Introduction Research questions 2 Research approach Selection of relevant countries 3 Preparation for public values - Literature and organizational aspects research analyses 4 Public values analysis Sub question 1 Organizational aspects analysis Sub question 2 5 Performance evaluation - KPI method Sub question 3 - Quality of Service method 6 Analyzing relations between Comparative Sub question 4 organizational aspects and analysis performance 7 Analyzing success and failure Case studies Sub question 5 factors for European railways in pursuing public values through governance 8 Conclusions and Main research recommendations question

But before all of this, a selection of countries is made. These European countries’ railways are taken along in the research. The idea behind this selection is explained in the following paragraph. 2.2 Large selection of countries An important step in the research is the selection of the countries that are included. The selection method is based on two conversations with experts in the field of public rail transport and public values (Van de Velde 2015, Veeneman 2015). To make sure that the countries, taken along in the research, vary in terms of several characteristics, four steps have been taken in the selection. The first step is rather simple, since The Netherlands has been selected. In the second step, the “usual suspects” are selected. This means that the big players in Europe are chosen for the research. The third step consists of a selection based on multiple angles on competition and separation. The information on organizational structures, as presented by Wolff (2011), is used to identify eight different countries, two for each combination possible with regard to “competition vs. no competition” and “separation vs. no separation”. An important notice with this third step is that such categorization will never fully reflect the real situation. Separation means that the tasks of infrastructure management and transport operations are

8 Governance for Public Values in European Railways clearly separated and performed by different companies. This could still mean that the companies are part of the same holding company. In the fourth and final step, the list of countries has been completed, making sure that multiple countries from every part of Europe are included in the list. Therefore a more or less equal number of countries have been selected from Central/Western (6), Northern (5), Eastern (4) and Southern Europe (5). The selection method, as described above, has led to the following selection of countries:

Table 3: Overview of the countries selected for this thesis research

Selected countries (#20) Belgium (BE) Italy (IT) Bulgaria (BG) The Netherlands (NL) Croatia (HR) Norway (NO) Czech Republic (CZ) Poland (PL) Denmark (DK) Portugal (PT) Estonia (EE) Romania (RO) Finland (FI) Spain (ES) France (FR) Sweden (SE) Germany (DE) Switzerland (CH) Greece (GR) The United Kingdom (GB)

The selection process in more detail can be found in APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES.

9 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

3. LITERATURE In this chapter, literature on public values and organizational aspects that matters for public rail transport is presented. Paragraph 3.1 contains the literature on public values and paragraph 3.2 contains the literature on organizational aspects. The aim of this chapter is to operationalize the aspects that are taken into account in this research and to show its legitimacy on the basis of existing literature. This chapter does not contain answers to sub questions, but provided us with definitions and substantiation for the remaining chapters. 3.1 Literature on Public Values Through time many publications have been made on the topic of public values. This has however not led to a single general definition that is used by everyone who broaches this topic. Since public values play such an important role within this research it is important to clarify the meaning of the term ‘public value’ as used in this thesis work. Therefore this paragraph contains an overview of several influential theories in the field of public values and leads to a definition for the term ‘public value’ for the remainder of the research. Many ideas on how public values emerge are already described. According to Charles, de Jong et al. (2011) there are three macro societal forces that lead to the emergence of public values, namely political integration, technological development and economic ideology. Others add to this by stating that public values emerge if the need for a particular service is “widespread and commonly shared among members of society” and “a collectivity must stand to benefit from the protection of that value” (De Bruijn and Dicke 2006). The classical view, also mentioned by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007), looks at the generalized goals that are supported by the government. In this view, it simply means that if the government is sensitive for certain issues, they are put on the agenda and therefore called “public values”. Also, a democratic government is more or less forced to pursue public values when “the public” demands this. An example, introduced by (Veeneman and Koppenjan 2010), goes as follows: “When a train crashes today, the public arena tomorrow will ask for safer train operation.” It is clear that public values play a fundamental role in society that receives, to a certain extent, a lot of attention from people involved in policymaking. The topic is so complicated that, despite this attention, it is still not that well understood. Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) state that this is partly the result of the lack of systematic studies. The difficulties with public values lie in several aspects. Public values depend on aspects such as time and place. A public value in one country may be seen as a private value in another country (De Bruijn and Dicke 2006). This means that public values are subject to peoples’ perspectives. This relative nature leads to another difficulty. Public values may be conflicting. A common example of this is found in the two values quality of service and passenger safety. When pursuing these public values, a trade-off has to be made. When the passenger safety is increased, this normally at the expense of the quality of service. Jones (2008) comes up with another complicating aspect, namely that public values are “surprisingly

10 Governance for Public Values in European Railways long-lasting”. Veeneman, Dicke et al. (2009) add to this by stating “public values change nature when they are actually translated from general principles to operational standards”. This is likely to be the result of the somewhat ambiguous and vague definition of public values. It is important to notice that public values are developed through various processes and stages in decision-making, in which the meaning of the public values changes. Veeneman, Dicke et al. (2009) describe this as the “Cloud of Goodness” and state that in every stage new actors with different orientations have an impact on the achievements of the public values. Within this research the focus is on the political stage, the stage between the minister and the parliament. The advantage of this approach is that public values in this stage are usually recorded in policy documents, which makes it easier to find public values for rail transport that can be concretized and made measurable for all twenty European countries selected for this research. Working with public values means that one has to cope with many difficulties and uncertainties. Therefore it is of great importance that the term ‘public value’ is used correctly during the remainder of this research. In the political debate, the use of the term ‘public value’ is rarely questioned, despite the lack of a uniform definition and the importance of its use (De Bruijn and Dicke 2006). To make sure that this is not the case in this research, several important definitions are presented and based on these the term ‘public values’ is defined for the remainder of this thesis work. Table 4 provides us with some out of many definitions of public values found in existing literature. In order to come up with a definition that is used in the remainder of this thesis work it is valuable to compare these definitions and find similarities between them. Based on the articles in Table 4 there are three types of definitions for the term “public value”. The first one is provided by Charles, de Jong et al. (2011), Meynhardt (2009) and Talbot (2006) and describes the public value as a “wish” or “need” of the citizens. The second type, provided by Bozeman (2007) and Veeneman and Koppenjan (2010), describes the fact that public values must be secured by governments and can to some extent be seen as obligations to society. The third and last type, as described in Moore (1995) and Moore (2013), focuses on the role of public values in setting a bottom line for managerial success. Since all three types can be, in one way or another, relevant to the topic of public rail transport, the aim is to come up with a definition that complies with the “needs”, “obligation” and “managerial success” character of public values.

11 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 4: Various definitions of the term ‘public value’

Author Definition Bozeman (2007) Public values are those providing normative consensus about (1) the rights, benefits and prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not) be entitled; (2) the obligations of citizens to society, the state and one another; and (3) the principles on which governments and policies should be based Charles, de Jong et Public values can be defined as deeply felt needs and wishes al. (2011) that citizens have regarding the delivery of services, such that they are in effect deemed essential. These values can either be provided by the public sector, or by the private sector on behalf of the public sector, with the latter providing the appropriate conditions for their realization. Meynhardt (2009) Public value is value for the public. Value for the public is a result of evaluations about how the basic needs of individuals, groups and the society as a whole are influenced in relationships involving the public. Public value then is also value from the public, i.e., “drawn” from the experience of the public. Moore (1995) The definition that remains equates managerial success in the public sector with initiating and reshaping public sector enterprises in ways that increase their value to the public in both the short and the long run. Moore (2013) Public value seeks to provide public officials with the ability to talk about the net benefit of government actions, while overcoming the limitations inherent in attempting to create a “bottom line” that is analogous to that of the private sector. Talbot (2006) Public value is the combined view of the public about what they regard as valuable. Veeneman and Public value is, in a broad sense, a value that is adopted by Koppenjan (2010) government to be secured.

The following terms are found in multiple definitions and are seen as the most important and relevant aspects of the term “public value” for this research. • Public/citizens/society as a whole • Needs/rights/benefits • Must be secured • Responsibility of the government Based on these findings, the following definition for public values has been drawn for the remainder of this report:

“Public values are the combined needs of the public which the government aims to secure.”

12 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

3.2 Literature on organizational aspects The literature on governance of public transport in general and public railways in particular until now mainly focuses on separation and competition. It is assumed that an increase of competition in railways acts as an incentive for higher efficiency and more focus on innovation (Nash and Preston 1993). The European railway policy, including the Railway Packages, to a large extent is about a change of the organizational structures of railways by separating the tasks of transport operators and infrastructure managers. However, Wolff (2011) and Van de Velde, Nash et al. (2012) show that the degree of separation has little influence on the performance of railways. But this does not necessarily mean that no governmental aspects could be useful to influence the performance of railways. Despite the focus on competition and separation in the governance of railways, there are other alternatives that received less attention until this point. With the help of Yvrande-Billon and Ménard (2005) and expert opinions (Veeneman & Veraart) three additional organizational aspects, interesting for further research, have been selected. These three aspects are capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. These three organizational aspects are interesting for further research, since they could all influence the performance of railways. The capacity allocation has a direct influence on the activities on the rail network, competitive tendering should, in theory at least, lead to a higher performance on certain KPIs (e.g. efficiency) and supervision could act as an incentive for a better performance. In the remainder of this paragraph, these three concepts are explained on the basis of existing literature.

Capacity allocation The way that capacity allocation in railway sectors takes place is determined by the characteristics of the railways. Capacity allocation for railways is a complex task as a result of some key characteristics of the rail capacity, such as interdependency, network effects and complexity, franchise commitments and high transaction costs (Gibson 2003). Generally capacity in the railway sector is sold in the form of contractual access rights, so-called track access agreements (Gibson 2003). These track access agreements exist between the transport operating companies and the authority responsible for the capacity allocation. The various railway systems in Europe however have different authorities responsible for the capacity allocation. For the selected countries three different categories of capacity allocation can be distinguished. Capacity allocation is done by either the Infrastructure Manager (in a separated structure), the Infrastructure Manager (in a holding) or by a governmental agency. The categorization for all countries taken along in this research can be found in paragraph 4.4. The influence of these variations on the actual performance of the railway sectors was not found in existing literature.

Competitive tendering The concept of competitive tendering does not work the same for the railways as it does for many other sectors. Competitive tendering in the railway sector is often called ‘competition for the market’ or ‘competition for the track’. This is because a

13 Governance for Public Values in European Railways tendering procedure leads to a temporary monopoly for the winner of the procedure (Alexandersson 2009). ‘Competition on the track’, in which several transport operators use the same track, is also an option, but in Europe this is mainly used for more deregulated freight services. Not all European countries use competitive tendering in the railways to the same extent. In some railways practically all lines are tendered, where others only have real competition for the regional tracks. An example of the latter is the situation in The Netherlands. Officially there is competition for the main rail network concession, but in practice this turns out to be a direct award to NS, the Dutch railway operator. For the transport rights on the main rail network, many European countries have a similar approach. Since competitive tendering is obliged for European railways, a distinction can only be made between competitive tendering and direct awarding. It is not a matter of “yes” or “no”. The categorization of the selected countries is presented in paragraph 4.4.

Supervision In order to improve the European railway sectors, Member States of the European Union are obliged to have at least two regulatory bodies. Directive 2004/49/EC forced the Member States to set up an authority responsible for the supervision of safety in the railway sector (European Commission 2004). The legal basis for the establishment of a Regulatory Body in the railway sector of every Member State is found in Directive 2001/12/EC. The main task of this Regulatory Body is to “ensure a fair and non-discriminatory access to the rail network and services” (European Commission 2001). The European Union came up with these directives in order to improve the performance of the railways. It is however not yet shown whether these supervising bodies actually improve the performance. By using this theory to make a third categorization, this can be studied in the remainder of this thesis work. For supervision, a distinction between three categories is made. The three categories are: - Safety Regulator and Regulatory Body - Safety Regulator, Regulatory Body and Competition Authority - Safety Regulator, multiple Regulatory Bodies and Competition Authority The degree of supervision differs amongst those three categories. This distinction is made on the basis of the findings during the analysis of the categories. The categorization itself is shown in paragraph 4.4.

14 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

15 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

4. PUBLIC VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS EUROPEAN RAILWAYS This chapter focuses on the analysis of the public values and organizational aspect, as mentioned in Chapter 1. In paragraph 4.1 the research approach for the public values analysis is presented. The public values analysis itself can be found in paragraph 4.2. Paragraph 4.3 contains the research approach for the analysis of the organizational aspects. The analysis of the organizational aspects is presented in paragraph 4.4 and the conclusions are shown in paragraph 4.5. These conclusions contain the answer to the first two sub questions on relevant public values and organizational aspects for public railways in Europe. 4.1 Approach public values analysis Public values play a vital role in this research and in order to make sure that the analysis of the public values is scientifically sound and structured, a clear research approach was used. This paragraph elaborates on the important aspects of the public values analysis. The main aim of this research step was to come up with a list of public values that have been defined by the selected countries’ authorities to be pursued through their railways. The approach consists out of the following steps:

Figure 3: Methodology for public value analysis In the first step, sufficient literature must to be found in order to find the public values for every country that has been selected. Therefore, “transport policy notes”, “public transport policy notes” or “railway policy notes” must be found for every country. These have been obtained via www.worldbank.org and the official sites of the authorities that are responsible for the railways. These websites often contain links to the relevant documents. If the relevant documents were not available, another option was to find the public values directly on the website of the relevant authority itself, in text form. After the documents containing the public values were found, they were studied to find the public values included in the policy notes. Only the public values relevant for this study are included in the list. That means that they fit into the right section of the framework developed by Van de Velde (2015) as can be seen in Figure 4. The public values that are relevant in this research are the ones that tell us something about “what to achieve?” rather than “how should the process look?” Therefore some public values, such as “openness” and “transparency” are not included in the list. These public values describe the process, rather than the final goals that must be achieved by the railway sector. The public values that are selected for the research can all be categorized in the last two columns in the scheme of van de Velde, “Achieve/Outcomes” and “Change/Impacts”. As can be derived from Figure 4, the terms in these columns tell

16 Governance for Public Values in European Railways us something about “what to achieve?” This was also validated by Van de Velde (2015).

Figure 4: "The performance of the rail network" (Van de Velde 2015) The formulation of the public values that are included in the final list might, in some cases, differ from the formulation in the policy documents that are studied. The reason for this is that various policy notes might describe certain goals in a different way. Therefore, all public values that have the same meaning have been categorized under one specific definition (e.g. “little accidents”, “few deaths”, “no collisions”, etc. can become “high safety”). An important note with this qualitative approach is that all public values are selected and defined through the interpretation of the researcher. If someone else would read all the documents, this person would probably come up with a (slightly) different list of public values. Therefore the analysis is as much one of interpretation as science. If a country does not mention a certain public value in the policy notes, this does not necessarily mean that this value is not important to that country. It might just mean that its focus is more on other public values. The policy notes should be seen as a “policy prioritization” rather than a complete “policy formulation”. In case a policy note mentions a certain public value, the country scores a “1” on this public value and otherwise it scores a “0”. An important remark with this approach

17 Governance for Public Values in European Railways is that it does not make a difference whether a country mentions a certain public value only once or multiple times, it always counts as “1”. This means that no distinction is made between the importance of a public value, relative to other public values. This might be slightly less valuable information, but the advantage of this approach is that the lists become, to a certain extent, comparable, despite the qualitative nature of the information. After the results of the literature study are processed and a list of relevant public values for every selected country is made up, an overview of the relevant public values is constructed. This list provides us with information about the important public values and the number of countries that have included this public value in its policy note. The overview is important in later phases of the research, especially in the Performance Evaluation and the Correlation Analysis. 4.2 Public Values for Railways formulated by European Governments At first glance it seemed like many countries defined a lot of similar public values. An overview of all countries and their related public values can be found in APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC VALUES. From these separate lists, one main overview has been made, as shown in the simplified projection in Table 5.

Table 5: Public values mentioned in policy notes

Public Values Stated by (# of countries) Safety 18 Environmental sustainability 17 Efficiency 14 Competitiveness 13 Social cohesion 12 Accessibility 9 Quality service 9 Reliability 8 Effectiveness 7 Affordability 5 Mobility 3 Innovativeness 2 Robustness 2 Security 2

As can be derived from Table 5 there are five public values to be found in policy documents more often than others. These five public values (safety, environmental sustainability, efficiency, competitiveness and social cohesion) are included in the policy documents by more than half of the countries selected in this research. For that reason, they are used in the performance evaluation, a later part of the research, during the formulation of the KPIs. A list containing definitions of the public values in Table 5 can be found in APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC VALUES.

18 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

The public values in Table 5 were found in policy documents. The annual reports of infrastructure managers and transport operators have not been taken into account. However, the public values and goals in policy documents and annual reports show many comparisons. It can even be said that annual reports are more detailed. Therefore, analysing the translation of public values in policy documents to goals in annual reports could be an interesting topic for further research in order to find out to what extent the public values are really pursued by the operating companies. 4.3 Research approach for Organizational Aspects In order to get a clear and correct overview of the organizational structures of the railway systems in the twenty European countries, a structured qualitative approach is needed. Wolff (2011) used such an approach and in order to clarify this, the steps in the analysis and the underlying theories will be explained in this section.

Figure 5: Framework 'Authority - Infrastructure - Transport' (Van de Velde and Röntgen 2008) The framework that is used for analysing the organizational structures of the selected countries is ‘Authority – Infrastructure – Transport’. This scheme (Figure 5), developed by Van de Velde and Röntgen (2008), is used to create a schematic overview of the organizational structure in the railway sector per country. With the help of the framework it is possible to compare organizational structures of various countries quickly, since it provides a clear overview of the structure. The framework exists out of three blocks: “Authority”, “Infrastructure” and “Transport”. The idea behind it is that all relevant stakeholders, active in a country’s railway sector, are placed in the block in which they operate. If a stakeholder is

19 Governance for Public Values in European Railways active in more blocks (e.g. Infrastructure and Transport) it can be placed in more than one box at the same time. The relationships between several stakeholders in the scheme can be illustrated by means of an arrow, showing the direction and the meaning of the relationship. In their article, Van de Velde and Röntgen (2008) also showed financial relationships, but these are left out in this research. This is because a detailed financial analysis for these countries requires so much effort, that this could be a study on its own and there is simply a lack of time and access to the relevant data to take this all into account. One addition to the model of Van de Velde and Röntgen (2008), made by Wolff (2011), is the rolling stock maintenance that is taken into account while filling in the framework. In case the operators internally handle the maintenance of their rolling stock, the label ‘R.S. Maintenance Q' is added to the relevant company.

Since Wolff already filled in the framework for all countries that are taken along in this research, this has not been repeated. Therefore, only a check has been done to see whether the organizational structures are still the same as in 2011, during the time of Wolff’s research.

Research process In this section, the main aim is to find out whether Wolff correctly filled in the framework of van de Velde and Röntgen for each specific country, given the fact that this was done in 2011 and some aspects might have recently changed. Wolff (2011) states he used a “systematic and equal approach” for each specific country. This approach is the following:

Figure 6: Systematic approach filling in frameworks railway sectors (Wolff 2011)

This approach has led to filled in frameworks for all selected countries that have been verified by means of multiple relevant references. In Wolff (2011) mainly Network Statements were used, published by Infrastructure Managers, but also some additional data. The additional references used can be found in Table 6. In order to check whether this data is still correct, more up to date Network Statements, obligatory for every Infrastructure Manager in the EU, have been consulted. In addition to that, annual reports of Infrastructure Managers and Train Operating Companies in the selected countries have been used as well.

20 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 6: Additional literature used by Wolff and during second verification

Document Authors Year of publication Sources consulted by Wolff (2011) Public Service Rail Transport in the EU: CER 2005 An Overview Reforming Europe's Railways - Learning CER 2011 from Experience European Railways Administrations, NEA, OGM, University 2005 Institutions and Legislations (Erail) Oxford, TINA, Erasmus University, TIS Liberalization Index 2011 IBM Business Services 2011 & Kirchner Annual Reports Infrastructure Managers Various 2009 – 2011 & Train Operating Companies Sources consulted to re-verify organizational structures Network Statements Various 2015 Annual Reports Infrastructure Managers Various 2012 - 2014 & Train Operating Companies

An overview for the organizational structure of every country selected for this research has been constructed. These schedules can be found in APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES. The organizational structures are to a large extent similar to those in Wolff (2011) with the exception of some small changes. In Poland for example, the responsible ministry is replaced by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development. 4.4 Organizational aspects in European railway sectors The analysis of the twenty countries provides us with an insight in the organizational structures of railways in Europe and their typical aspects. Wolff (2011) already identified three so-called “generic models” to which most European railway sectors in general hold. These are the integration model, holding model and separation model. In the integration model typically a vertically integrated national railway company is responsible for both infrastructure and transport. The separation model is the most liberalized model in European railways and has a clear division between infrastructure management, regulatory tasks and transport operations. The holding model can be described as a “transition model” between the integration and separation model. As noticed in the literature study in paragraph 3.2, there are other organizational aspects that could influence the performance of railways and are interesting for this research. With the help of literature (Yvrande-Billon and Ménard 2005) and expert opinions of Veeneman and Veraart, three additional organizational aspects were selected for further research. These three categories of organizational aspects, capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision, are presented in the remainder of this chapter.

21 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Capacity allocation In order to get a better view on the relation between performance and the choice of a certain authority as the capacity allocator, the different countries in this research have been categorized on the basis of their capacity allocators. The Network Statements of the relevant countries, to be found on the website of RailNetEurope, have been studied in order to come up with a categorization for the capacity allocation. It appears that roughly three categories can be identified. In most railway sectors the Infrastructure Manager is responsible for the capacity allocation, but a difference can be made between the separate Infrastructure Manager and the Infrastructure Manager that is part of the same holding as the transport operating companies. The third category is the Infrastructure Manager that is also a governmental agency. Based on the Network Statements a categorization, to be found in Table 7, is made.

Table 7: Categorization on the basis capacity allocation

IM (Separate) IM (Holding) Agency (IM + Authority) Bulgaria Belgium Finland Czech Republic Croatia Norway Denmark Estonia Sweden Greece France The Netherlands Germany Portugal Italy Romania Poland Spain Switzerland The United Kingdom

As can be derived from Table 7 most capacity allocators are separate Infrastructure Managers, closely followed by the Infrastructure Managers that are in the same holding as the transport operating companies. It is notable that only in three Scandinavian countries the capacity allocation is done by a partly governmental agency.

Competitive tendering Like the responsibility for capacity allocation, the fact whether or not competitive tendering for transporting on the main rail network has taken place is an interesting subject for further research. In order to get more information on this topic, several sources have been consulted, such as Network Statements, policy notes and the article on competitive tendering in Europe’s railways by Alexandersson (2009). An overview of the categorization based on the award procedure can be found in Table 8.

22 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 8: Categorization on the basis of award procedure

Competitive tendering Direct awarding Czech Republic Belgium Denmark Bulgaria Germany Croatia Norway Estonia Sweden Finland Switzerland France The United Kingdom Greece Italy The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain

Supervision Based on relevant literature (European Commission 2001, European Commission 2004, Wolff 2011), three categories have been formulated. The most first category fits best with the existing regulations, since it contains countries that have no more or less than the minimum supervision demanded by the regulation. This means that they have only set up a Safety Regulator and a Regulating Body. The second category contains countries that have “more” supervision. In practice, this means that they also have a Competition Authority that supervises the railway sector. The third category contains countries that have even “more” supervision, since they have set up more than one Regulating Body. An example of the latter is France, which has set up the Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires (ARAF) and Etablissement Public de Securité Ferroviaire (EPSF) as Regulatory Bodies. An overview of the categorization on the basis of supervisors can be found in Table 9.

23 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 9: Categorization on the basis of supervisors

Safety Regulator and Safety Regulator, Safety Regulator, Regulatory Body Regulatory Body and multiple Regulatory Competition Authority Bodies and Competition Authority Bulgaria Belgium France Denmark Croatia Italy Czech Republic Romania Estonia Finland Germany Greece The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland The United Kingdom

With the results of this analysis, a categorization can be made for countries that are to a large extent similar to each other, based on these specific organizational aspects. Chapter 7.1 elaborates further on this the cluster analysis used to categorize the various countries selected for this research.

Clusters The organizational aspects are part of a governance strategy and do not totally stand on their own. Therefore the combination of the various organizational aspects adapted by authorities deserves attention as well as the individual aspects. A cluster analysis is used in order to find out what are the most common combinations of these organizational aspects used in the governance of the European railways. The analysis, done with the help of the software SPSS, is called a K-means Cluster Analysis. This is a common method for cluster analysis, aiming to find clusters for “observations” in the dataset. In this case it means that countries with similar organizational structures for capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision are assigned to the same group. The analysis resulted in four clusters, which are presented in Table 10.

24 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 10: Clusters resulting from K-means Cluster Analysis

Cluster Capacity Allocation Competitive Supervision Tendering 1 Infrastructure No; Direct Medium Manager (Holding) awarding supervision 2 Infrastructure No; Direct Medium Manager awarding supervision 3 Governmental Yes Medium Authority supervision 4 Infrastructure Yes Medium Manager (Holding) supervision An important remark is that not all railways have an organizational setup that suits their cluster exactly. An example is that all clusters have medium supervision while there are countries with more or less intensive supervision. However, there are not many countries with other than medium supervision and therefore, all clusters exist out of medium supervision. The result of this analysis is that all countries are assigned to the cluster that suits their characteristics best. Table 11 provides us with an overview of the clusters and their corresponding countries.

Table 11: Countries per cluster

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Belgium Bulgaria Finland Denmark Croatia Czech Republic Norway Germany Estonia Greece Sweden Switzerland France The Netherlands Italy Portugal Poland Spain Romania The United Kingdom

4.5 Conclusions This chapter focuses on the analysis of public values and organizational aspects in European railways. These two analyses aimed at answering the first two sub questions. The insights gained from the public values analysis are used to answer the first sub question: What are important public values for public rail transport on the main rail networks within Europe? To answer this question, it was important to first come up with a clear definition for the term ‘public value’. The literature review in Chapter 1 has led to the following definition: “Public values are the combined needs of the public which the government aims to secure.” Assuming this is an appropriate definition, the following public definitions are most commonly found in the policy documents for European railways: safety, environmental sustainability, efficiency, competitiveness and social cohesion. What stands out is that the public values that are found in policy documents are very similar for many countries. This indicates that the public values defined for public rail transport are quite “standard”.

25 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

The analysis of the organizational aspects for European railways has led to several insights. These are used to answer the second sub question: How do European authorities attempt to influence public rail transport on the main rail networks by means of organizational aspects in order to aim for specific public values? Based on the information found in the literature three organizational aspects, next to the organizational structures (degree of separation), have been identified that play a role in the governance of European railways. These three organizational aspects are capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. Capacity allocation is in most countries done by the infrastructure managers, but in some cases there are separate agencies (e.g. in Sweden). Despite the fact that competitive tendering is obliged through European law, many countries use direct awarding to award the concessions for the railways. The degree of supervision differs somewhat for the European railways, but in most cases there are three institutions responsible for the supervision, namely a Safety Regulator, a Regulatory Body and a Competition Authority. The cluster analysis done to find out what are the most common combinations of these organizational aspects shows us that a distinction can be made between four categories. An important notice is that supervision does not determine to which cluster a country is assigned, since relatively little variation is found in that category. The four clusters with the most common combinations used by authorities in the governance of the European railways are the following: - Cluster 1: Capacity allocation by IM (Holding); Direct awarding; Medium supervision - Cluster 2: Capacity allocation by IM; Direct awarding; Medium supervision - Cluster 3: Capacity allocation by governmental authority; Competitive tendering; Medium supervision - Cluster 4: Capacity allocation by IM (Holding); Competitive tendering; Medium supervision These clusters show how European authorities combine the organizational aspects in the governance for their railways. The degree of supervision does not influence the cluster to which the countries in this research are assigned. The differences are mainly found in the way capacity allocation and competitive tendering are used. This makes that the majority of the countries is placed in the first two clusters and that the third and fourth cluster only contain Northern and Western European countries.

26 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

27 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

5. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EUROPEAN RAILWAYS Chapter 1 evaluates the performance of the selected railways in two ways. Paragraph 5.1 elaborates on the KPI method, while in paragraph 0 the performances are evaluated based on Quality of Service. The conclusions are presented in paragraph 5.3 and answer the sub question: How do the European public transport systems perform on the public values? 5.1 KPI Method One way of evaluating the performance of the selected railways in this research is by using the KPI method. The selection of KPIs is done based on existing literature (Wolff 2011) and the findings in the public values analysis in Chapter 1. Then the European railways are evaluated on the performance on these KPIs and relative ranking tables are constructed.

KPIs based on existing literature The selection of several KPIs, taken along in this thesis work, is based on existing literature. Wolff (2011) used several theories to come up with KPIs that are useful in measuring the performance of the railways. These theories are the following: - Comprehensive Combined Performance Evaluation Model (Martin 2008) - Performance Measurement of non-storable commodities, applied to the rail sector (Lan and Lin 2006) - Main pillars of performance measurement using KPIs (Roeleveld 2011) These theories all present similar KPIs regarding effectiveness and efficiency, but use a different terminology. Therefore, the findings in the articles have been used to come up KPI terminologies for the KPIs regarding effectiveness and efficiency. A short description of the theories will be presented here in order to show the idea behind the selection of the KPIs done by Wolff.

Comprehensive Combined Performance Evaluation Model This model uses a combination of technological, economical and ecological aspects to make a comparison between railway sectors. Martin (2008) makes uses of the two terms “effectiveness” and “efficiency”. Effectiveness, according to Martin, is the ratio between output and the outcome. According to that, operations can be called effective if the implemented actions lead to the realization of defined goals. Martin’s definition of efficiency is the ratio between the output and the input, so it tells us something about the amount of resources were needed to get a specific result. The KPIs that can be found with the help of Martin’s theory and are useful for this thesis work are the following: - Ratio of used supply and offered supply, Pkm/Train-km P (Technological Effectiveness) - Ratio of used supply and effort, Pkm/Staff P (Economical Effectiveness) - Ratio of supply and effort, Train-km P/Staff P (Economical Efficiency)

28 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Performance Measurement of non-storable commodities, applied to the rail sector In their framework, Lan and Lin (2006) define inputs, outputs and outcomes as main indicators. They use roughly the ratios as Martin (2008), but their terminology is slightly different. The KPIs that can be derived from Lan and Lin’s framework and are useful for this research are the following: - Service Effectiveness, Pkm/Train-km P - Technical Effectiveness, Pkm/Staff P - Technical efficiency, Train-km P/Staff P

Main pillars of performance measurement using KPIs Two useful KPIs that indicate the relative performance of railways and are useful for this research are mentioned by Roeleveld (2011): - Usage of Rail Transport Services, Pkm/Train-km P - Usage of Infrastructure, Train-km P/Network length

KPIs selected for this research Table 12 contains an overview of the KPIs, used in this research, that have been selected taking in mind the research done by Wolff (2011).

Table 12: KPIs selected on the basis of Wolff (2011)

Indicator Ratio Production Process Selected KPI Terminology elements Pkm / Train-km P Outcome / Output Effectiveness of Production Pkm / Staff P Outcome / Input Effectiveness of Resources Train-km P / Staff P Output / Input Efficiency of Production Train-km P / Network Length

KPIs based on Public Value Analysis The KPIs in this research have not only been selected by looking at the research of Wolff, but also on the basis of the public values identified in Chapter 1 of this thesis work (see Table 5 in paragraph 4.2). Several public values that are mentioned the most in the policy reports have been selected for determining the KPIs. But before a performance evaluation could be done based on these public values, they are operationalized. This is done in order to make sure that the performance of the countries regarding a certain public value can be objectively valued and ranked amongst the other countries. Table 13 provides an overview of the KPIs based on the public value analysis is together with their corresponding indicator ratios.

29 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 13: KPIs selected on the basis of public value analysis

Indicator Ratio Selected KPI Terminology % (Modal split for passenger Competitiveness transport) Train-km P / Staff P; Efficiency Train-km P / Network length Kg CO2 / Train-km Environmental sustainability Train-km P / Accidents; Safety Train-km P / Deaths + Injuries Social cohesion

Since Efficiency was already mentioned and operationalized in the previous paragraph, the table contains two indicator ratios for this KPI. For Safety there are also two indicator ratios, since both accidents and deaths/injuries are suitable indicators for measuring safety. Environmental sustainability and social cohesion are not taken along in the remainder of the thesis report. For environmental sustainability it is very difficult to get suitable data, since the data that has been found does not make a distinction between passenger and freight transport. Social cohesion is not taken along, since it is unclear how this should be operationalized. This is such a complex indicator that it could be the subject of a study itself. There is simply not enough time available within this research to take this indicator into account. Table 14 contains an overview of the final list of KPIs studied in this thesis work.

Table 14: KPIs selected for the performance evaluation

KPI # Selected KPI Terminology Indicator Ratio 1 Effectiveness of Production Pkm / Train-km P 2 Effectiveness of Resources Pkm / Staff P 3 Efficiency of Production Train-km P / Staff P Train-km P / Network Length 4 Competitiveness % 5 Safety Train-km P / Accidents Train-km P / Deaths + Injuries

Selected KPIs and data sources After the final list of the KPIs (Table 14) that will be used in the performance evaluation is determined, data is collected. The collection of data for railways is a complex task that costs a lot of time and effort. Various datasets can sometimes show large differences in the data on certain indicators. Also not all data is available, especially not when looking for confidential information. The sources used in this thesis work are selected by looking at the research of Wolff (2011) and adding several sources relevant for the chosen indicators.

30 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

To get reliable indicator data for the performance evaluation, the following data sources were used:

Railisa database The Railisa database is managed by the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC), an organization that represents around 200 railway companies and infrastructure managers from all around the world. The database contains only data that has been directly supplied by the members of the UIC. The database contains information about various aspects of the railway companies and infrastructure managers, such as transport performance and volumes of staff, rolling stock and infrastructure.

Since the database contains only data from members and many railway companies, in particular private companies, are no members of the UIC, data is assumed to be less reliable when many non-member private parties play a role in the national market. In case a member party is responsible for almost all operations, data from the Railisa database is expected to be very reliable.

Eurostat The role of Eurostat, the European Statistics Office, is to collect and provide statistics on a variety of topics for the member states of the European Union. Most of the data from Eurostat is obtained through the national statistical offices in the EU Member States. The downside of this approach is that these national statistical offices do not always provide all data, which leads to incomplete datasets. The data of Eurostat is based on all relevant companies in a country, which makes it especially useful for this research.

European Commission The European Commission (2014) published a report on the overall developments of the rail sector in the European Union. This report contains all sorts of data about the European railways. For this research, the data on Pkm, Train-km P, Staff P and Network Length has been used.

OECD Statistics The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) is an international forum in which governments from all over the world promote policies in order to improve the well being of people all around the world, both economically and socially. For this research the Pkm data provided by the OECD Statistics Database is useful. This data is collected by peer reviews with governments and contact with national statistical offices.

ERA The European Railway Agency (ERA) is an agency of the European Union set up to create an integrated railway area by reinforcing safety and interoperability. On top of that, the ERA also acts as the system authority for the ERTMS project. The ERA (2014) published a report on the railway safety performance in the European Union.

31 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

The data in this report mainly focuses on safety, but there are also some more general datasets to be found.

Table 15: Sources used per indicator

Source Railisa Eurostat European OECD ERA Indicator Commission Pkm X X X X X Train-km P X X X X Staff P X X X Network Length X X X X Modal Split X Annual victims X X Annual accidents X X

Table 15 contains an overview of the data sources used together with their corresponding indicators.

Methodology Performance Evaluation After collecting the data it has to be processed in order to be able to rate countries based on their performances on the KPIs. This is done with a structured approach, based on the approach of Wolff (2011). The data obtained from a source is always kept together for all countries taken along in the research. By doing this, the indicators can be seen as “non mixed indicators”, based on one of the sources that have been consulted. In case a particular data set does not contain a value for a certain country, N/A is filled in. The non-mixed indicators are divided by other non-mixed indicators in order to create multiple “mixed KPI subsets”. The amount of mixed subsets is called N and this number depends on the number of non-mixed subsets available for a certain indicator. After the mixed subsets have been created, the median value of the subsets was taken. This is done in order to exclude the outliers in the data. The median value is used to rank the countries in relative ranking tables. In addition, the values of the most complete dataset are also presented. An overview of this approach can be found in Figure 7. This methodology is chosen in order to mitigate outlying data from the various sources by using the median values. Another reason for this methodology is the possibility to fill in gaps for missing data in datasets. Following this approach leads to relative ranking tables for all KPIs, including all countries selected for this research.

32 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Figure 7: Methodology for construction of relative ranking tables (Wolff 2011)

Results The result of the performance evaluation is a relative ranking table with all twenty selected countries for every KPI in Table 14. An example is shown in Table 16.

Table 16: The contents of a relative ranking table

Effectiveness of Production (Pkm / Train-km P) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (OECD/ERA) Country Value N (max. 20) Base Year(s) Country Value Base Year(s) 1 France 0,1937 15 2011-2013 1 France 0,2185 2012-2013 2 Italy 0,1711 12 2011-2013 2 Italy 0,1903 2012-2013 3 Greece 0,1631 3 2012-2013 3 Denmark 0,1572 2012-2013

The first column contains the relative ranking of the countries, which is between 1 and 20, and for every number in this column there is a corresponding country in the second column. The relative ranking of the countries is based on the median value of the KPIs examined. This value is found in the third column. In case no value was found for a specific country in the most complete dataset, “N/A” was filled in for the missing value. The column “N” shows the number of mixed KPI subsets that could be constructed and tells us something about the availability of the data for individual countries in the databases. The last column shows the years from which data is used in order to come up with a value for the mixed KPI of every country.

33 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 17: Example for a relative ranking table; KPI Effectiveness of Production

Effectiveness of Production (Pkm / Train-km P) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (OECD/ERA) Country Value N (max. Base Country Value Base 20) Year(s) Year(s) 1 France 0,1937 15 2011-2013 1 France 0,2185 2012-2013 2 Italy 0,1711 12 2011-2013 2 Italy 0,1903 2012-2013 3 Greece 0,1631 3 2012-2013 3 Denmark 0,1572 2012-2013 4 Denmark 0,1475 5 2012-2013 4 Spain 0,1478 2012-2013 5 The Netherlands 0,1247 6 2011-2013 5 The Netherlands 0,1280 2012-2013 6 Spain 0,1177 20 2011-2013 6 Portugal 0,1258 2012-2013 7 Sweden 0,1169 12 2011-2013 7 The United Kingdom 0,1188 2012-2013 8 The United Kingdom 0,1144 8 2011-2013 8 Sweden 0,1184 2012-2013 9 Portugal 0,1140 12 2011-2013 9 Poland 0,1183 2012-2013 10 Switzerland 0,1140 6 2012-2013 10 Finland 0,1126 2012-2013 11 Belgium 0,1117 9 2011-2013 11 Germany 0,1108 2012-2013 12 Finland 0,1116 20 2011-2013 12 Norway 0,0931 2012-2013 13 Poland 0,1016 20 2011-2013 13 Bulgaria 0,0913 2012-2013 14 Norway 0,0896 12 2011-2013 14 Estonia 0,0750 2012-2013 15 Germany 0,0893 20 2011-2013 15 Czech Republic 0,0608 2012-2013 16 Bulgaria 0,0857 20 2011-2013 16 Romania 0,0551 2012-2013 17 Estonia 0,0709 12 2011-2013 17 Croatia 0,0477 2012-2013 18 Romania 0,0586 20 2011-2013 18 Belgium N/A 2012-2013 19 Czech Republic 0,0579 20 2011-2013 19 Greece N/A 2012-2013 20 Croatia 0,0527 12 2012-2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2012-2013

Table 17 shows the relative ranking table for the KPI Effectiveness of Production. The left half of the table shows the median values found with the help of mixed KPI subsets and the right half of the table contains the median values for the most complete dataset. For this specific KPI, values for Belgium, Greece and Switzerland are not available in the most complete dataset. The table shows that for both the mixed KPI subset and the most complete dataset France has the highest effectiveness of production. An overview of all relative ranking tables constructed can be found in APPENDIX D: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

Results of the KPI Performance Evaluation It is difficult to draw a conclusion for the overall performance of countries just by looking at the relative ranking tables. In order to come up with some conclusions about the relative ranking tables, the outcomes of these tables are separately discussed in the following section. This is followed by an overview of the average relative rankings (ARR) per country, as can be seen in Table 18.

Effectiveness of Production – Pkm / Train-km P It seems that Eastern European countries in general have a lower Effectiveness of Production. It is difficult to find another pattern in this relative ranking table, since there are no clear distinctions between countries from other parts of Europe. A remarkable aspect about this relative ranking table is the position of Germany. The German railways are one of the largest in Europe and are by many regarded as one of the top quality railways. This however does not mean that its Effectiveness of Production is also high compared to other European railways.

34 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

The relative ranking table based on the most complete dataset (OECD and ERA) does not show any noticeable differences with the table based on the mixed KPI subset.

Effectiveness of Resources – Pkm / Staff P Based on the relative ranking table for Effectiveness of Resources it seems that, like with Effectiveness of Production, the Eastern European countries in general have a lower score. Also, other patterns are hard to discover. The Netherlands (0.949) is ranked first on this KPI and it is remarkable that the difference with the second country (Sweden; 0.801) is relatively large compared to the other countries. For the relative ranking table based on the most complete dataset (OECD and Railisa), there are some differences. The score of Sweden is drastically higher than with the mixed KPI subsets and the same counts for the Netherlands. Also, the difference between Sweden and The Netherlands and other countries is much larger. It is remarkable that Germany is only ranked 13th in this table, while it is ranked 6th in the mixed KPI subset table.

Efficiency of Production – Train-km P / Staff P Again the Eastern European countries are outperformed by the rest of Europe, with the exception of Czech Republic, which is ranked 12th. The differences between the four best performing countries on Efficiency of Production and the worst performing countries are relatively large. Sweden produces almost eight times more passenger train-km per staff member than Bulgaria. France is only ranked 13th and for such a big player this seems low. French railways thus use relatively many staff members to produce passenger train-km. Belgium and France railways perform relatively bad compared to other Western European railways. In the table based on the most complete dataset (ERA and Railisa) the values for Sweden and the Netherlands are very high (24.390; 11.500) compared to the values in the mixed KPI subset table (8.248; 7.691). This seems to have occurred by the fact that the values for their Staff P in this dataset are lower than in other datasets.

Usage of Infrastructure – Train-km P / Network Length In general Western European railways seem to outperform other railways in Europe when it comes to Usage of Infrastructure. Again the performance of the Eastern European railways is somewhat worse than in other parts of Europe. The Netherlands is by far the best performing country when it comes to Usage of Infrastructure. This does not come as a surprise, since it is generally assumed that the Netherlands have one of the most dense rail networks in the world. This result is in line with this assumption. The relative ranking table based on the most complete dataset does not show many differences with the table based on the mixed KPI subset. Only Switzerland is replaced by Portugal and this is because there was no data available for Switzerland in the most complete dataset.

35 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Competitiveness The competitiveness is expressed in railways modal share of passenger transport. Since these values are based on one research only, no mixed KPI subsets have been constructed. Switzerland’s railways have a remarkable high modal share of passenger transport (17.1%) while Greece is outperformed by more than 17 times (0.9%). Keeping in mind that Greece aims for competitiveness, according to the public values analysis, this is a very low score. Safety 1 In general it seems that Eastern European railways score low on safety, looking at the number of victims, while Northern and Western European railways have high scores. Based on the relative rankings table it can be stated that the United Kingdom (10007.8) scores much better than the other countries, since the number two, Norway (7080.9), is already far behind the United Kingdom. There are no noticeable differences between the relative ranking table based on the most complete dataset and the relative ranking table based on the mixed KPI subset.

Safety 2 The same as for the previous KPI can be stated for the KPI safety, based on the number of accidents. The Northern and Western European railways seem to outperform the rest of Europe and the opposite can be said for the Eastern European railways. A remarkable difference with the relative ranking tables of Safety 1 is the position of Spain. For the previous KPI this ranking was 12th, but for Safety 2 Spain’s ranking is 3rd. An explanation for this could be that not many accidents happen, but the disastrous accident in 2013, with almost 80 deaths drastically increased the value in the previous KPI. There are no noticeable differences between the relative ranking table for the mixed KPI subset and the relative ranking table for the most complete dataset.

Overview of the countries’ average relative rankings Table 18 provides us with an overview of the average relative ranking per country. It indicates the performance per railway, since it shows how it scores on the KPIs compared to other railways. It is remarkable that the Eastern European railways seem to perform relatively bad, while the Northern and Western European railways are ranked relatively high. Some countries only have a very small difference in their ARR. Since the ARR is based on relative rankings and not on differences in individual scores on KPIs, countries with such similar scores should not be seen as better or worse performing compared to each other. This means that Denmark, France, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and maybe even Spain can be regarded as rather equally performing countries on the KPIs. This does not mean however that these results cannot be used for an objective selection for the case studies later in this research.

36 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 18: The average relative ranking (ARR) per country for the performance on the KPIs

# Country ARR # Country ARR 1 The Netherlands 2,3 11 Finland 10,7 2 The United Kingdom 4,0 Norway 10,7 3 Denmark 6,4 13 Portugal 11,6 4 France 6,6 14 Czech 12,6 Republic Sweden 6,6 15 Poland 15,4 6 Germany 6,7 16 Greece 16,1 Switzerland 6,7 17 Estonia 16,4 8 Spain 7,0 18 Croatia 17,4 9 Italy 7,6 19 Bulgaria 17,6 10 Belgium 10,0 Romania 17,6

Validity of the results Doing a performance evaluation with the use of the KPI method is an abstract and high-level way of benchmarking. Therefore it is important to look critically at the validity of the results of this method. Wolff (2011) already mentioned a number of advantages and shortcomings of the KPI method and provided us with ways to work around these shortcomings. It is best to describe KPI method as a high-level estimation of the performance of the railways in the selected countries. Data is mostly easy to obtain from multiple sources, since there are little availability restrictions on this abstract data. However, data for Switzerland and Greece turned out to be slightly more difficult to obtain than for the other countries. The KPI method has both advantages and shortcomings. First the advantages are presented (Table 19).

Table 19: Advantages of the KPI method (Wolff 2011)

Advantages of the KPI method The data is available for all countries selected The high-level data is relatively easy to obtain Data can be obtained from public sources Data is available in multiple sources, which leads to more reliable results KPIs are easy to calculate The KPI method helps getting a better insight in the relative performance of railways

There are however also some shortcomings, which are presented in Table 20.

37 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 20: Shortcomings of the KPI method (Wolff 2011)

Shortcomings of the KPI method It is difficult to compare the data of different countries because of the aggregated nature of the data (e.g. variety in base year, different measurement methods of data) The relative KPI ranking on ratios is based on the theory that a linear dependency exists between input and output, but this is often not the case. Measuring ‘offered supply’ by means of seat kilometres would be the most accurate way, since it would provide insight in the differences in capacities of trains. However, this data is unavailable for many of the European railways. There is little information available about the internal processes in railway companies. Therefore this research relies on generic information about performances. Customer satisfaction is only indirectly taken into account in the KPI method.

In order to cope with these shortcomings and to prevent them from influencing the research in a negative way, several workarounds have been applied. - The data used in the KPI performance evaluation is no older than 2011. This is done to make sure that it is reasonable to expect a connection between the data and the current situation.

- The supply is measured in Train-km instead of seat kilometres. The Train-km data is available for all countries selected for this research. It has to be noted that this variable leads to a simplification, since the data does not take the length of trains into account.

- Customer satisfaction has been separately used to do a performance evaluation. This evaluation, based on the customer satisfaction, can be found in paragraph 0. The KPI method does not allow for all shortcomings to be dealt with. This is a result of the possibilities and impossibilities of the KPI method. Therefore, another performance evaluation method based on the customer satisfaction is used as well.

Conclusions Based on the literate found in Chapter 1 and the use of the KPI method for measuring the performance of the European railways, five KPIs have been defined for the Performance Evaluation. - Effectiveness of Production - Effectiveness of Resources - Efficiency of Production - Competitiveness - Safety With the help of these KPIs the performances of the European railways are compared without bias. The data used for the performance evaluation is obtained from multiple databases for the same reason.

38 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

In general the Eastern European countries’ railways have a relatively low performance, while the Western and Northern European countries’ performances are relatively high. Based on the average relative ranking on the KPIs, the best performing railways in Europe is that of the Netherlands. The second best performing are the UK railways, followed by a group of mostly Western European railways, such as Denmark, France, Germany and Switzerland. The worst performing railways are mostly found in Eastern Europe, for example Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. 5.2 Quality of Service In the previous chapter, containing a performance evaluation for the European railways on the basis of the KPI method, the focus was on the relationship between the inputs and outputs or outcome in railway sectors. Another important aspect of the railways that has to be taken into account in the performance evaluation is the quality of the service delivered by the railways. Abate, Lijesen et al. (2009) state that quality attributes should be added to performance evaluation in order to make sure that companies that deliver low quality are judged on the quality and not only on whether they are efficient or effective. Since Customer Satisfaction, an important topic within performance evaluation, is only indirectly taken into account in the performance evaluation based on the KPI method, this chapter contains a performance evaluation based upon quality aspects and customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction indicators are necessary in order to be able to judge railways on the quality of the service they deliver. The evaluation of railway services based on Customer Satisfaction is a very extensive and difficult task and it is not possible to include such a study in the scope of this thesis work with limited time available. Therefore, the Customer Service evaluation is based on an article of the European Commission (2013) which includes a study of the Customer Satisfaction in European railways and is based on the opinions of more than 28.000 respondents. The following section in this thesis report elaborates on ways to evaluate the performances of railways on quality service aspects. The performance data is obtained from the study of the European Commission (2013). To perform an evaluation of the service quality, the same steps are used as in Wolff (2011), but a more recent study is used to evaluate the European railways.

European Standards on quality measurement The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has published many Euronorms and two of these are particularly relevant for the quality measurement of public transport systems. These two Euronorms are EN13816 (“Transportation – Logistics and services – Public passenger transport – Service quality definition, targeting and measurement”) and EN15140 (“Public passenger transport – Basic requirements and recommendations for systems that measure delivered service quality”).

39 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

EuroNorm13816 EuroNorm13816 acts as a guidance for operators and authorities to create ‘viable, measurable and manageable quality parameters’ out of customer expectations (CEN 2002). The norm specifies the ‘requirement to define, target and measure quality of service in public passenger transport’ and ‘provides guidance for the selection of related measurement methods.’ The main theory behind EuroNorm 13816 is the ‘Service Quality Loop’ (Figure 8). The Service Quality Loop provides an overview of the relevant aspects for service quality in public transport systems. It shows the demands and experience for service quality from both the customers’ and the service providers’ view.

Figure 8: Service Quality Loop (CEN 2002, Wolff 2011)

According to EuroNorm13816 there are eight categories of quality criteria in performance of public transport. These categories are presented in Table 21. The list of quality criteria contains criteria that can be measured objectively and criteria that have to be measured in a subjective manner. The idea behind this is that the mix of objective and subjective quality criteria in the end leads to a balanced evaluation of the performance of the railway companies.

EuroNorm 15140 EuroNorm 15140, in addition to EuroNorm 13816, contains the basic requirements for systems that are supposed to measure the delivered service quality of public transport systems (CEN 2006). It provides us with requirements for the process of collecting and processing of data and measurement processes. Besides this, the content of EuroNorm 15140 is in many ways similar to the content of 13816.

40 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 21: Quality criteria in EuroNorm 13816 (CEN 2002, Wolff 2011)

Level 1 Level 2 1. Availability 1.1 Modes 1.2 Network 1.3 Operation 1.4 Suitability 1.5 Dependability 2. Accessibility 2.1 External interface (e.g. accessibility cyclists/car users) 2.2. Internal interface (e.g. accessibility platforms/other PT modes) 2.3 Ticketing availability 3. Information 3.1 General information 3.2 Travel information normal conditions 3.3 Travel information abnormal conditions 4. Time 4.1 Length of trip time 4.2 Adherence to schedule 5. Customer care 5.1 Commitment 5.2 Customer interface (e.g. ease of filing complaints) 5.3 Staff 5.4 Assistance 5.5 Ticketing options 6. Comfort 6.1 Usability of passenger facilities 6.2 Seating and personal space 6.3 Ride comfort 6.4 Ambient conditions 6.5 Complementary facilities 6.6 Ergonomics 7. Security 7.1 Freedom of crime 7.2 Freedom from accidents 7.3 Emergency management 8. Environmental 8.1 Pollution impact 8.2 Natural resources 8.3 Infrastructure

Performance Service Provider & Customer Satisfaction The Service Quality Loop in Figure 8 contains an element called “measurement of performance” for the service provider. Measurement of performance refers to the targeted service quality of the service provider and the extent to which this is actually realized. In the rail transport sector, this targeted service quality is often defined by means of objective specifications. Examples of these specifications are given by Nathanail (2008): - Itinerary accuracy - System safety - Cleanness - Passenger comfort - Servicing - Passenger information In the case of Nathanail (2008), these specifications have been based on knowledge obtained from similar projects, a literature review and interviews parties related to

41 Governance for Public Values in European Railways the Hellenic Railways. In general, development of these specifications will be done with the support of authorities that grant transport concessions or with the relevant railway companies. There are large differences in the targeted service quality of the various European railways. An example of this is the measurement of punctuality, which is a very complex task. Despite international guidelines, there is still a lack on norms for the measurement of punctuality (Salkonen and Paavilainen 2010). Because of this, European countries choose (within the existing norms) their own way of measuring punctuality, often in such a way that their performance is overestimated in the results. This is not only the case for the measurement for punctuality, but for many other aspects of the service quality as well. These differences in measurement of service quality aspects makes it hard to make a fair comparison between the service quality performance of the European railways. A way to cope with this issue is the standardization of the service quality measurement norms. Another important element in the Service Quality Loop in Figure 8 is “measurement of satisfaction” for the customers. An extensive research into the customer satisfaction in the European railways has been done by the European Commission (2013), based on interviews with more than 28.000 respondents. This section of the thesis report contains an overview of the results of this study in the form of the overall customer satisfaction in the European railways. In the research of the European Commission (2013) various indicators for measuring Customer Satisfaction have been used. These indicators can be found in Table 22. When looking at this table, it immediately becomes clear that the indicators used by the European Commission (2013) are quite similar to the quality criteria of CEN (2002) in Table 21, either directly or indirectly.

Table 22: Indicators for measuring Customer Satisfaction by European Commission (2013)

Information on Ease of buying Complaints timetables tickets mechanisms Cleanliness and Frequency of trains Punctuality and maintenance reliability Availability of Provision of Availability of staff through-tickets information Cleanliness and Bicycle access to the maintenance trains

In the study of the European Commission (2013) ranking tables are presented for all of the indicators in Table 22, including all EU countries. With the exception of Norway and Switzerland, all countries selected for this thesis work are taken along in the study. The overall ranking table for Customer Satisfaction in the study is presented in Figure 9. The rankings of the European countries selected, in this thesis research, for the overall Customer Satisfaction in their railway sectors, according to the study of the European Commission (2013), are presented in Table 23.

42 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Table 23: Satisfaction of Europeans with railways in their country (European Commission 2013)

Rank Country Score (%) Rank Country Score 1 Finland 80 10 Sweden 59 2 The United Kingdom 78 11 Germany 51 3 Belgium 74 12 Greece 44 4 France 74 13 Croatia 43 5 Spain 71 14 Romania 40 6 The Netherlands 67 15 Poland 39 7 Czech Republic 66 16 Italy 39 8 Portugal 63 17 Bulgaria 34 9 Denmark 61 18 Estonia 30

Looking at the overall Customer Satisfaction it seems remarkable that several countries with extensive rail networks and generally high rankings in the KPI method (e.g. Sweden and Germany) score relatively low on Customer Satisfaction. It seems that the Eastern European countries, like in the KPI performance evaluation, also score relatively low on Customer Satisfaction. The study of the European Commission (2013) provides a good insight in the Customer Satisfaction in various European railways, but it is important to elaborate on the strong and weak aspects of this study with regard to the relevance for this thesis work. - When looking at Figure 9 it becomes clear that the degree of Customer Satisfaction is divided into four categories. The category “low” represents respondents who think the railway quality is low, but also respondents who do not have an (outspoken) opinion. This being said, the 57% “low” score of Estonia does not actually have to mean that 57 out of 100 customers actually think the quality of the Estonian railways is bad. Another reason for this 57% score on “low” could be that relatively little people in the country are familiar with the railways.

- Another effect of the division in four categories is the fact that satisfied customers are seen as respondents in the categories “high” and “good”. This could lead to shifts in rankings. An example of this is the fact that Spain (71%) scores lower than Belgium and France (74%), while the percentage of “highly satisfied” customers in Spain (38%) is much higher than for Belgium and France (33%).

- No weight is added to the indicators to measure Customer Satisfaction. This means that all indicators are considered equally important, but in practice this is probably not the case. The advantage of this approach is that the study is less biased, since adding weights is quite a subjective task. There are some weaknesses to the study, at least when the results are used for this thesis work. The study of the European Commission (2013) however is quite a good first indicator for the Customer Satisfaction for European railways. Getting more detailed and useful information on Customer Satisfaction would require a very extensive study and doing such a study is not feasible within the scope of this thesis

43 Governance for Public Values in European Railways research. Therefore the results of the study of the European Commission (2013) are considered valuable and sufficient for this research.

Figure 9: Customer Satisfaction index of railway stations and travels

5.3 Conclusions The aim of this chapter on the performance of European railways was to come up with an answer to the following sub question: How do the European public transport systems perform on the public values? This question is answered based on the results of the Performance Evaluation on the KPI method and Quality of Service. Based on the analysis of public values and organizational aspects in governance of European railways in Chapter 1, five KPIs have been defined for the Performance Evaluation. These five KPIs are: - Effectiveness of Production - Effectiveness of Resources - Efficiency of Production

44 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

- Competitiveness - Safety With the help of these KPIs the performance of the European railways can be measured without bias. The data used for the performance evaluation is obtained from multiple databases for the same reason. The KPI method is not the only method used to evaluate the performance of the European railways. Another part of the performance evaluation is based on the quality of service perceived by customers. Based on the information gathered by using the two methods, it can be concluded that there are clear differences between the performances of the European railways. In general, the Eastern European countries’ have a relatively low performance compared to the other European countries. On the other hand, the Northern and Western European countries perform relatively well. This is supported by the fact that the Dutch and UK railways have an average relative ranking of 2,3 and 4,0 on the KPIs, while for both Bulgaria and Romania this is 17,6. One would expect that better performance on the KPIs would lead to higher customer satisfaction, but for many railways this is not the case. This is illustrated by the fact that the best performing railways on the KPIs, the Dutch railways, are only in place ten on the customer satisfaction index. A similar trend is visible for some other countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Italy.

45 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

6. IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS ON PERFORMANCE In Chapter 6 the relationship between the organizational aspects and performance of the selected European railways is examined. In paragraph 6.1 the hypotheses, defined for the comparative analysis, are presented. The comparative analysis itself is found in paragraph 6.2 and conclusions are drawn in paragraph 6.3. These conclusions provide an answer on the following sub question: How do organizational aspects of public rail transport systems influence the performance? 6.1 Hypotheses for comparative analysis The analysis of the possible relationship between the organizational aspects as presented in paragraph 4.4 and the performance of the selected European railways requires the formulation of a number of hypotheses. With the use of the data collected in the previous chapters, it is possible to accept or reject these hypotheses and draw some conclusions on the dependencies between organizational aspects and performance in railway sectors. The hypotheses used in this chapter are the following: 1. Different capacity allocators lead to different performances in railway sectors.

2. Competitive tendering leads to a higher performance in railway sectors.

3. A higher degree of supervision on the railway sector leads to higher performance. The hypotheses cover the three organizational categories as presented in paragraph 4.4 (Capacity Allocation, Competitive Tendering and Supervision). The aim of the analysis was to find out whether the choice for certain organizational structure aspects (within these categories) leads to differences in the performance of railways. In the remainder of this chapter, a visualization of the relative rankings of countries railways for is presented for every category. This is followed by the quantitative analysis of the relations between the organizational aspects and the performance of the European railways by using the Independent Samples Test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), suitable for testing these hypotheses (De Vocht 2008). The chapter ends with conclusions on the analysis. 6.2 Comparison of performance for organizational aspects This chapter elaborates on the relationships between several organizational aspects of railways and their influence on the performance. In order to get a better understanding of this influence, first a graphical examination for every category is provided. After that, the quantitative analysis is done with the help of an Independent Samples Test and ANOVA.

46 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Graphical Analysis The graphical analysis of the influence of the categories in organizational aspects of railways on the performance is based on the relative rankings as presented in Chapter 1. The aim of this approach is to do an initial check to find out whether railways with specific organizational aspects have different relative rankings compared to railways with other organizational aspects. If differences seem to appear in the graphical analysis, this does not necessarily mean that these differences can also be assumed. Therefore, the graphical analysis is followed by a more quantitative approach.

Capacity Allocation Based on Figure 10, containing the relative rankings on the KPIs versus the categories of Capacity Allocation, no obvious cohesion between these factors can be found. The scatter points are wide spread along the graph for every category, indicating that there is no relation between the choice for a certain capacity allocator and performance of the railways.

Capacity Allocation (0=IM, 1=IM (Holding), 2=Agency 0 1 2 1

3 EFFECTprod

5 EFFECTres EFFICprod 7 USAGEinfr 9 COMP

11 SAF1 SAF2 13 Relative Ranking CS 15

17

19

Figure 10: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Capacity Allocation

Competitive Tendering The relationship between the relative rankings on the KPIs and the categorization for Competitive Tendering is presented in the graph in Figure 11. Unlike in the graph for Capacity Allocation, it seems that there might be a difference in relative

47 Governance for Public Values in European Railways rankings for both categories. The scatter points in the category of “no tender” seem to concentrate more around the bottom ranks, while the scatter points for the category “tender” seem to concentrate more around the higher ranks. The figure however does not show whether this is actually true and the differences are significant. The answer to those questions is presented in a later part of this chapter.

Competitive Tendering (0=No, 1=Yes) 0 1 1

3 EFFECTprod

5 EFFECTres EFFICprod 7 USAGEinfr 9 COMP

11 SAF1 SAF2 13 Relative Ranking CS 15

17

19

Figure 11: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Competitive Tendering Supervision When categorizing using the different categories for supervision, no real differences in performance show (Figure 12). It might look like the categories differ somewhat, but this is largely because of the difference in the number of railways for the different categories. Although “category 0” (Safety Regulator + Regulatory Body) and “category 2” (Safety Regulator + multiple Regulatory Bodies + Competition Authority) count fewer railways, the scatter points are quite evenly distributed among the relative rankings.

48 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Supervisor (0=SR+RB, 1=SR+RB+CA, 2=SR+RB(2x)+CA 0 1 2 1

3 EFFECTprod

5 EFFECTres EFFICprod 7 USAGEinfr 9 COMP

11 SAF1 SAF2 13 Relative Ranking CS 15

17

19

Figure 12: Overview of relative rankings with categorization for Supervisor

Quantitative Analysis The visualizations shown in the previous section of this chapter gave an indication of what to expect for the influence of the organizational aspects on the performance of railways, but in order to accept or reject the hypotheses as formulated in the beginning of this chapter a more thorough analysis is done. Since the three categorizations have different characteristics, two different methods are used. The categorizations for Capacity Allocation and Supervision exist out of three categories and therefore Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) has been used for analysing these categorizations. For Competitive Tendering only two categories are used and because of this the analysis is done with an Independent Samples T-test. For both analyses holds that significance below 0.05 means that performance on the KPIs of the various categories differs with a 95% certainty. In contrast to the graphical analysis in the previous section, the actual values for the KPIs, as obtained in the previous chapter, are used instead of the relative rankings. Therefore the differences between scores for various railways influenced the results of the outcome.

Capacity Allocation Looking at the results of the ANOVA for the Capacity Allocation-categorization in Table 24, it becomes clear that none of the scores has significance between 0.05. This means that the analysis shows no differences between the performances on

49 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

KPIs for the various categories based on Capacity Allocation. Hypothesis 1, as presented in the first paragraph of this chapter, can thus be rejected.

Table 24: Results of ANOVA for Capacity Allocation-categorization

ANOVA Significance Difference between categories Effectiveness of .961 No Production Effectiveness of Resources .635 No Efficiency of Production .152 No Usage of Infrastructure .627 No Competitiveness .800 No Safety 1 .346 No Safety 2 .938 No Customer Satisfaction .310 No

Competitive Tendering The results of the Independent Samples T-test done for the categorization of Competitive Tendering, as presented in Table 25, show that there are several KPIs for which the significance is below 0.05. This means that railways in one category in general perform better on those KPIs than railways in the other category.

Table 25: Results of Independent Samples T-test for Competitive Tendering-categorization

Independent Samples Test Significance Difference between categories Effectiveness of .741 No Production Effectiveness of Resources .026 Yes Efficiency of Production .002 Yes Usage of Infrastructure .005 Yes Competitiveness .002 Yes Safety 1 .007 Yes Safety 2 .039 Yes Customer Satisfaction .184 No

The scores for the KPIs Effectiveness of Production and Customer Satisfaction do not significantly differ for railways with and without Competitive Tendering, but the scores for the other six KPIs do. For these KPIs, the score of the railways categorized in “Yes”, so with Competitive Tendering, is generally higher. This means that railways categorized in “yes” perform better. The differences between the scores on the KPIs for both categories are presented in Table 26. The second column of the table contains the actual difference between the values of the KPIs for both categories. As said before, the railways with Competitive Tendering have a higher score on these KPIs. For example: if average Railway X (without Competitive Tendering) has an Effectiveness of Resources of 1.000.000 Pkm / Staff P, then average Railway Z (with

50 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Competitive Tendering) has an Effectiveness of Resources of 1.265.400 Pkm / Staff P. It is unclear why there is no significant relationship found for Effectiveness of Production and Customer Satisfaction while it is found for the other KPIs compared to Competitive Tendering.

Table 26: Differences between scores on KPIs for both categories

KPI Difference between means Indicator Ratio (value for “Yes” compared to “No”) Effectiveness of Resources 0,2654 * 106 Pkm / Staff P Efficiency of Production 2,7214 * 106 Train-km P / Staff P Usage of Infrastructure 13,4525 * 106 Train-km P / Network Length Competitiveness 4,8458 % Safety 1 2882,2083 * 106 Train-km P / Accidents Safety 2 1380,8125 * 106 Train-km P / Deaths + Injuries

Supervision Like with Capacity Allocation, the categorization for Supervision shows no differences for the scores of railways on the KPIs. The outcomes of the analysis showing this are presented in Table 27.

Table 27: Results of ANOVA for Supervision-categorization

ANOVA Significance Difference between categories Effectiveness of .290 No Production Effectiveness of Resources .834 No Efficiency of Production .444 No Usage of Infrastructure .733 No Competitiveness .997 No Safety 1 .783 No Safety 2 .882 No Customer Satisfaction .576 No

Performance per cluster In paragraph 4.4 the four clusters for governance on the three organizational aspects in this research are presented. Since these organizational aspects cannot be used individually, their influence on the performance should also be compared to the various combinations found in the clusters. The clusters’ performance is assessed based on the average relative rankings of the countries that are categorized in the specific cluster. This leads to the following outcomes: - Cluster 1; 12,86 (ARR) - Cluster 2; 9,91 (ARR)

51 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

- Cluster 3; 9,07 (ARR) - Cluster 4; 7,07 (ARR) This shows that the countries in cluster 4 score best according to the average relative rankings, followed by cluster 3, then cluster 2 and finally cluster 1. An important remark with this information however is that the sample of twenty countries divided over four clusters is too small to be conclusive. It is merely an indication based on the analyses done in this research. 6.3 Conclusions The aim of this analysis is to answer the following sub question: How do organizational aspects of public rail transport systems influence the performance? This question is answered by comparing the performance of railways on the KPIs to the organizational aspects capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. The analysis shows that the way capacity allocation and supervision are organized does not seem to influence the performance of railways, but the extent to which competitive tendering is applied, so competitive tendering or direct awarding, does seem to influence the performance. Based on the results found in paragraph 6.2, the hypotheses are accepted or rejected. 1. Different capacity allocators lead to different performances in railway sectors. NOT ACCEPTED This hypothesis is rejected. The results show that there is no significant relation between which institution is responsible for capacity allocation and the performance of railways.

2. Competitive tendering leads to a higher performance in railway sectors. ACCEPTED This hypothesis is accepted. The results show that there is a significant relationship between whether competitive tendering or direct awarding is used and the performance of European railways. It has to be noticed however that this relationship does not count for the performance on Effectiveness of Production and Customer Satisfaction.

3. A higher degree of supervision on the railway sector leads to higher performance. NOT ACCEPTED This hypothesis is rejected. The results show that there is no significant relation between the degree of supervision in European railways and their performance. So, the main conclusion from this comparative analysis is that changes in the organizational setups of European railways do not necessarily lead to different performance, but for some aspects, such as competitive tendering, this could be the case. This is supported by the fact that cluster 3 and 4, containing the countries that use competitive tendering in governing their railways, have a higher average relative ranking on the KPIs.

52 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

These outcomes indicate that governance of railways might not be as effective as suggested in common theories, but that the efforts of governments are not at all pointless. A possible explanation of the improved performance as a result of competitive tendering could be that it leads to a more competitive urge for the stakeholders in the railways. The concessions for railways that really apply competitive tendering might contain sharper goals than the concessions that result from direct awarding. This could be the case since the presence of multiple candidates requires a more competitive attitude in order to win the tendering procedure.

53 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

54 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

7. CASE STUDIES Paragraph 7.1 presents the selection made for the in depth analysis on the success and failure factors of pursuing public values through railways. Paragraph 7.2 elaborates on the research approach for the case studies. In paragraph 7.3, the results of the case studies are presented and paragraph 7.4 contains conclusions in which the following sub question is answered: Which success and failure factors best explain the differences in the realization of public values in the European public rail transport systems?

In this chapter, a more in depth qualitative analysis is presented for four well performing railways: the French, Dutch, Swedish and Swiss railways. The main objective of these case studies is to get more insight in the reason why certain countries succeed or fail to ensure high performance on public values they pursue through the governance of their railways and to what extent context factors play a significant role in this. 7.1 Small selection of countries for case studies Due to time constraints, it is not possible to do extensive in depth analysis for all countries selected for this research. Therefore, a smaller selection is necessary to come to useful results. In order to narrow down the initial group of countries, a cluster analysis is done. The aim of this analysis is that four clusters can be made in which countries are categorized in a group with countries which railways have a somewhat similar organizational setup, based on the three organizational aspects mentioned in Chapter 1 (CA, CT and SV). In order to make sure that the four countries selected for the in depth analysis are relatively easy and relevant to compare, the best performing railways per cluster are chosen. This is done by selecting the countries with the highest average relative ranking on all KPIs used for the Performance Evaluation in Chapter 1. By doing this, the following selection is made: - Cluster 1: France (ARR = 6,3) - Cluster 2: The Netherlands (ARR = 2,8) - Cluster 3: Sweden (ARR = 7,0) - Cluster 4: Switzerland (ARR = 6,7) The in depth study for these four countries is specifically aimed at finding out why the public values formulated by the governments are successfully or less successfully pursued through governance of their railways. 7.2 Research approach case studies The in depth analysis is mainly built upon interviews with experts from France, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland who are active in or close to the railway sectors in these countries. Before the questionnaires for the interviews (APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS) have been constructed, the performance on the important public values per country have been reviewed. The relative ranking for a certain KPI has been compared to the average

55 Governance for Public Values in European Railways relative ranking (ARR) of that countries’ railway. In case the performance on that KPI is relatively good or bad compared to the ARR, this is translated to a question in the interview. The results of this approach are presented in Table 28. As you can see, France has a high relative ranking for the performance on safety (4) compared to the ARR (6,3). It is interesting to find out why France successfully pursued this public value through their railways and therefore a question has been formulated in the questionnaire. This has been done for all performances captured in Table 28. Table 28: Performance on the public values identified in the public value analysis

Country (ARR) Important PVs Relative ranking France (6,3) Safety 4 The Netherlands (2,8) Competitiveness 2 Efficiency 1,5 Quality of Service 6 Sweden (7,0) Safety 9 Switzerland (6,7) Competitiveness 1 Efficiency 4 Safety 10,5

Next to the questions on performance on KPIs, more questions have been formulated to validate the earlier findings in this research. These questions were not specifically formulated for one country, but for all four countries selected. These more general questions are also used as a bit of a warm up for the experts, to get to know what information this research is about. The general questions are the following: 1. What public goals are, according to you, of importance to the [COUNTRY’S] railway sector? 2. How would you describe the organizational setup of the [COUNTRY’S] railways based on the following aspects: - Capacity allocation; done by Infrastructure Manager / done by separate Agency - Competitive tendering; Competitive tendering / Direct awarding - Supervision; Safety Regulator(s), Regulatory Body (Bodies) and/or Competition Authority (Authorities) 3. What is your opinion on the performance of the [COUNTRY’S] railways in general? 4. What do you think in general is going well or not so well in the [COUNTRY’S] railways with respect to the realization of public goals? These general questions together with the more country specific questions on the performance on KPIs following the public values were used to develop specific questionnaires for each country selected (APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS). In order to find suitable interviewees, several people in the four selected countries have been contacted, working for relevant ministries, educational institutions or railway companies. In some cases, these people were experts themselves and in other cases they referred to colleagues or other people in their networks. Interviews were conducted in several ways. The preferred option was to have a conversation in

56 Governance for Public Values in European Railways person, but since it was not feasible to travel to France, Sweden and Switzerland, other interviews were conducted telephonically or in written form. The interviewees are mentioned in APPENDIX E-1: INTERVIEWEES. 7.3 Results With the help of expert knowledge and additional literature a better view on the mechanisms behind the realization of public values through railways is obtained. The results are presented per country and after that general conclusions are drawn.

France The main public goal for the French railways is safety. Further research confirms that safety indeed has high priority, as indicated by the fact that it is included in the LOTI (1982). According to the expert views, the French railways indeed perform well on safety. This view is supported by the European Commission in the statistical pocketbook on EU Transport (European Commission 2014). Safety is not only mentioned in the public policy notes, but also receives a lot of attention from ARAF, the Autorité de Regulation des Activités Ferroviaires, responsible for the regulation of rail transport in France (ARAF 2015). It appears that the focus on safety is rooted throughout many organizations that are active in the French railway sector. But focus on safety does not automatically mean that high performance on safety is achieved as well. Focus is an important first step, but more than just focus on safety is required. Since the French railway sector is such a large and complex system, it is difficult to point out what is the exact reason for high performance on safety. However, the fact that the French railways are in general of high quality means high standards are set on many aspects. The network and service operations are of high quality and the resources are available to perform well on points that get, or at least require, attention. The combination of the high standards, available resources and broad focus on safety are assumed to lead to the high performance of the French railways on safety.

The Netherlands The three main public goals for the Dutch railways found in the earlier analyses in this research are competitiveness, efficiency and quality of service. The first remark on the public goals of the Netherlands is that competitiveness is no longer a goal in itself. It has been a goal for many years, but nowadays it is seen as an indicator for performance rather than an objective. This means it is still relevant and can therefore lead to relevant insights for this research. As in many railways, the incentives for the Dutch railways are captured in concessions. The operator pays for this concession and makes profit with their services. These incentives and the fact that profit has to be made are likely to contribute to the performances and a relatively high market share. The high performance on efficiency can be viewed from two perspectives. The efficient usage of the infrastructure is probably the result of economical motivations. The infrastructure of the Dutch railways is already of high quality and therefore relatively few investments are done. The investments in the Dutch railways are to a

57 Governance for Public Values in European Railways large extent done in specific projects, such as HSL Zuid or the Betuweroute, a double track railway from Rotterdam to Germany. The extensive network also requires creative usage, which is currently reaching its limits. The efficiency regarding the input of staff is the result of the commercial purposes for NS. NS is not a governmental organization, although the government is the only shareholder, and strives for high profit. This means that the costs, also for personnel, have to be low. The quality of service perceived by the passengers in the Dutch railways is relatively low. Objectively speaking, the performances of both NS (transport operator) and ProRail (infrastructure manager) are high. The reason that the customers do not agree to this could have multiple explanations. One of these explanations could be psychological. The national character of the Dutch is one of high standards and has a tendency to be fairly negative. Also, a research done by NS shows that the customers’ expectations on the performance of the Dutch railway system are unrealistic and too much is expected in terms of performance. Some even say that this low score on perceived quality should be, to a certain extent, taken as a compliment and that high expectations indicate that customers take good operations for granted. Another explanation could be the discrepancy between the perceptions of performance. An example of this is how punctuality is measured. NS measures punctuality with a five-minute margin. The customers, however, may have a different view, since for them it is important that they arrive in time for their connecting train, bus, etc. or their planned meeting. So when NS talks about high punctuality, the customers may not perceive this in the same way. A way to cope with the negative image of the Dutch railway system could be to use the media to improve the customers’ view. Since the railways are of such importance to society, incidents are often elaborately discussed because of their large impact. It could prove valuable to use the media for improving the image in case of successes. This should however not be exaggerated, since it could make customers even more skeptical.

Sweden Within the Swedish railways safety has high priority. It is unsure why the performance on this aspect is relatively low, but it is likely that it has something to do with a larger problem in the Swedish railways. In recent years maintenance has been to a large extent neglected and a lot of time and money is needed to compensate for that. The neglected maintenance and a lack of capacity, combined with an increase of traffic on the rail network, have led to problems with punctuality as well. The underlying problem to all of these issues is the fact that regulation has made the Swedish railways into a fragmented sector. This is very problematic for railways, since these are usually fairly integrated systems. The general view in Sweden therefore is that there is a need for inter-organizational cooperation. There are rising concerns that the problems of the infrastructure, in particular the insufficient maintenance, will eventually pose a threat to the safety in the Swedish railways. Also, the fragmentation and commercialization of the sector have been recognized as a safety problem.

58 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Despite these issues, the Swedish railways perform well compared to most European railways. But, in order to improve the safety of the sector, it might be necessary to stimulate the coordination between the relevant stakeholders in the Swedish railways.

Switzerland Three public values that achieve a lot of attention in the Swiss railways are competitiveness, efficiency and safety. For competitiveness and efficiency, the performance of the Swiss railways is relatively high, but for safety this is not the case. It seems that the high performance on competitiveness can be attributed to several things. The first one is wealth. The high wealth in Switzerland means that many resources are available and there is a high demand for rail transport. Next to that, Swiss people historically have a high identification with railway companies as a result of the historical successes and the direct democracy enables them to have direct influence on public transport policy, which counts as an incentive for better performance in the railway sector. In addition to that, system integration has a high priority in Switzerland. Important factors, such as real estate, infrastructure, availability of financial resources, etc., are taken into account integrally. A last reason for the high performance on competitiveness could be that public transport in Switzerland heavily relies on subsidies. This means that TOCs barely have any financial incentives and can fully focus on other aspects, such as quality and image. The high performance on efficiency is a result of the large network that is used up to its capacity limits. This is partly due to democratic pressure, which is also an incentive for competition that led to higher cost efficiency. The most important success factor, according to the Swiss, is the long-term and farsighted coordination between infrastructure planning, service level planning and land use planning. Another thing that underlies this all is the so called ‘planning pentagon’ with the vertices ‘rolling stock’, ‘finances’, ‘infrastructure’, ‘timetable’ and ‘real estate’. In practice this leads to a situation in which the rolling stock and infrastructure in fact are designed for the purpose of a specific timetable. This means that the usage of infrastructure is as high as possible. The first important note on safety is that not all safety incidents can be attributed to the railways, for example suicides. Without suicides, the safety performance of Swiss railways is already a bit higher. A general societal trend in Switzerland leads to quite high numbers for suicide and this could have an effect on the safety performance numbers. A critical point that could be made is that in recent years relatively many accidents happened under similar circumstances. This mainly counts for the lines with less intensive traffic at stations and overtaking points, where in some cases group exit signs are used. These signs lead to higher risks, but with limited traffic this is often seen as ‘acceptable’. As a result of increasing traffic intensity, also on the smaller lines, the risk of accidents has significantly increased with this signaling construction. Stakeholders in the Swiss railways are aware of this and safety has the highest priority, but solving such issues takes a lot of time.

59 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

7.4 Conclusions The aim of this chapter is to come up with an answer to the following sub question: Which success and failure factors best explain the differences in the realization of public values in the European public rail transport systems? To find this answer case studies were done for the Dutch, French, Swedish and Swiss railways in order to look for success and failure factors in governing the railway sectors and pursuing public values through them. It turns out that the performance of the railways on public values is highly dependent on the context of the railways. Many external aspects can influence the performance of the railways. One aspect that is referred to many times is the general societal trend. General societal trends are things that are embedded in society and part of a countries’ culture. Therefore these trends are, in case they are relevant to this sector, also visible in the railways. An example is the high amount of suicides in Switzerland. The relatively low score on safety could probably partly be explained by the fact that the suicide rates in Switzerland are relatively high. Good overall conditions for the rail sector, such as a high quality infrastructure network that is already available, in general lead to better chances of high performance on specific goals. It makes sense that high standards and sufficient availability of resources will enable railways to reach their goals more easily. In general this means that investments in infrastructure, rolling stock and maintenance are crucial for high performance in railways and that it is not wise to cut down on these aspects. A countries’ political climate can also influence the performance on public values. An example of this is the direct influence of citizens on the governance of the Swiss railways through direct democracy. These effects are not necessarily positive or negative, but they are certainly influential. A government’s political choices can also lead to or prevent competing goals. An example of prevention is found in the Swiss railways. The fact that there are barely any financial incentives for the Swiss railways means that the performance on competitiveness is very high compared to other European railways. The case studies in this chapter show that there are many contextual aspects that can influence the performance of the railways on the realization of public values through governance. But despite much information is gathered on the influence of certain context factors on the total performance, it remains difficult to discover links between specific context factors and specific public values. There are of course many possible links that seem logical, but it is difficult to prove that these relations really exist. What can be said is that, when aiming for high performance, the relevant stakeholders should not cut down on investments in infrastructure and rolling stock and on maintenance. This seems to play a crucial role in creating good conditions for the railways in order to perform well on pursuing public values.

60 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

61 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 1 contains the final conclusion with an answer to the main research question in paragraph 8.1 and the recommendations drawn from this research in paragraph 8.2. 8.1 Final conclusions Steering of the European railways has until now mainly been done through governance on organizational structures. Governments expect public values to be secured through the efficient and effective delivery of rail services, but the effects of railway governance are in many ways unclear. For that reason, this research aimed at getting a better understanding of the influence of organizational aspects on the performance of European railways, keeping in mind the relevant public values. The main research question is formulated as follows: How can governmental authorities within Europe properly align the organizational set-ups of the public transport on their main rail networks to the public values they want to realize? Based on the results of the analyses done in this research, a final answer to this question can be given in these conclusions. Public values can be described as ‘the combined needs of the public which the government aims to secure’. The public values that are pursued most through governance of the railways by the European governments are safety, environmental sustainability, efficiency, competitiveness and social cohesion. It is remarkable that there seems to be little difference in which public values are pursued through governance of the railways. Three aspects that play a role in the governance of railways are capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. The most common combinations chosen for the governance of the European railways are presented in four clusters for which the main differences are found in the responsibility for capacity allocation and the tender procedure. Based on the performance evaluation, it can be concluded that there are clear differences between the performances of the European railways. In general, the Eastern European countries’ have a relatively low performance compared to the other European countries. On the other hand, the Northern and Western European countries perform relatively well. This is supported by the fact that the Dutch and UK railways are the two best performing countries, while Bulgaria and Romania are the worst performing countries based on the performance evaluation. One would expect that better performance on the KPIs would lead to higher customer satisfaction, but for many railways this is not the case. There is no clear relationship found between the way capacity allocation and supervision are done and the performance of the European railways on public values. This indicates that governance of railways might not be as effective as suggested in common theories, but the efforts of governments are not pointless. This is because competitive tendering does lead to higher performance when it is applied correctly. One could say that competitive tendering “works”. A logical

62 Governance for Public Values in European Railways explanation for this is that competitive tendering leads to more competitive urge for the relevant stakeholders. Case studies in the Dutch, French, Swedish and Swiss railways indicate that context factors play a crucial role in the governance of the railways on public values and that it is difficult to come up with one organizational setup that will work for all European railways. The fit between governance and performance of railways is simply to dependent on the political climate, societal trends, current state of the railway sector and other contextual aspects. In general it can be said that, in order to come to a well performing railway system, governments have to be very aware of the context in which the railways have to perform. General societal trends for example can be of great influence on the performance of railways. It is also important to create good generally conditions by not cutting back on maintenance and investments in infrastructure and rolling stock, since good conditions are assumed to lead to better performance. Regarding the organizational aspects it is concluded that governmental authorities should ensure proper application of competitive tendering instead of direct awarding, since this leads to higher overall performance on important performance indicators derived from the public values. 8.2 Recommendations The insights gained from this research have led to several recommendations: - This research focuses on the influence of three organizational aspects for the governance of railways: capacity allocation, competitive tendering and supervision. There are many more governance aspects that might have an influence on the railways’ performance on public values and it might be valuable to policymakers to find out which other organizational aspects could be used in order to improve performance of railways. Therefore, analysing more organizational aspects could lead to valuable new insights on how to influence the performance through governance of public railways. - In this research only several important public values were used in order to come to KPIs for the performance evaluation of the railways. There are several other KPIs that were mentioned fewer times, but could still lead to KPIs that would fit well in the research and lead to new insights on how public values could influence the performance on certain aspects. Therefore, adding more KPIs based on the public values defined by governmental authorities could lead to valuable insights for policymakers as well. - The focus of this research is only on the main rail networks within Europe. However, the international and regional lines require governance as well and are also used to pursue public values, be it on a different level. Performing a similar research while focusing international and/or regional lines could lead to more information on this topic. - This research focuses on European countries only, but taking along railways from other parts of the world could have led to other, also valuable, insights. There is a risk that the European railways are in some ways more similar to each other than to railways from other continents. The fact that only European countries were taken along in the research could mean that

63 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

valuable information was not taken into account. If one wants to be sure that the conclusions drawn in this study can be applied to railways outside Europe, it is recommended to do a similar study and take railways from outside Europe into account. - The influence of a countries wealth did not really receive much attention in the case studies, since all of the countries in these studies are relatively wealthy. It could however be argued whether a wealth is an important context factor that has influence on the governance and overall performance of the railways. In order to be sure whether this matters, it is recommended to do more research on whether health is an important context factor for the governance and performance of public railways.

64 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

65 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION The reflections in this chapter are looking to explain what is the added value of this research compared to the existing literature in this area of expertise. In addition to that it reflects on the methods used during the research, the value of the results and personal experiences through conducting the research. The subject of this research touches various fields of expertise such as engineering and policymaking. This led to a research that is very interesting and relevant and that really suits the multidisciplinary master program Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management.

Limitations of selection of organizational aspects The analysis on public values that are relevant for the European railways was based on relevant literature and the scheme of Van de Velde (2015). This provided a sound foundation for the public values analysis, but it has to be kept in mind that it is very difficult to concretize the term public values and to come up with a standard for this analysis. Several steps in the research have been taken in order to make sure that this analysis is done as objective and scientifically sound as possible. An example of this is the level on which the public values were searched, the level of policy documents. This all had to fit within the time schedule, since there was limited time available. The public values analysis however has the potential to be a study on its own and more thorough analysis could lead to new insights on the role of public values in the governance of public railways.

Limitations of public values analysis For the performance evaluation it is somewhat similar to the public values analysis. The KPIs are defined with care, but it was impossible to cover all performance aspects for railways in this analysis. To cope with this, the KPIs were based on the most common public values obtained from the public values analysis. However, not all public values could be translated into KPIs and that means that not all relevant public values have been taken along in the performance evaluation.

Limitations of selecting countries For the quantitative part of the research a selection of twenty countries was used. Ideally, all these countries would have been taken along in the case studies, since this would have led to more extensive insights in the success and failure factors of governance for public values in public railways. The selection of countries for the case studies was based on a cluster analysis and four clusters have been composed. The results may have differed when more clusters were composed or when more countries per cluster would have been selected for the case studies. The number of four case studies was defined in order to make sure that enough time was available to do a thorough analysis for all selected cases. Another remark to this step in the analysis is that the top performing countries for every cluster have been selected. If average or worse performing countries would

66 Governance for Public Values in European Railways have been selected, the results of the case studies might have been different. Looking back on this step of the research, it might have been better to take more time for this step and approach more interviewees per case. This would have probably led to different insights if the interviewees were active other sections of the relevant railways. A final remark on the interviews is that they might have provided more valuable information if the conversations with the interviewees might have been a little bit more structured based on the early interviews. The interviews were prepared beforehand and interviews were quite free to discuss the topic based on how they thought about the subject according to the initial structure of the interviews. Therefore, lots of different kinds of information was gathered from the interviews and it was quite difficult to handle all this information and filter what was in the end relevant for the case studies and come up with four structured cases that answered the same question for every single case. Overall, the information and conclusions from the case studies are satisfying, but they could have been a somewhat more structured.

67 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

REFERENCES

Abate, M., et al. (2009). Estimating efficiency of reliable railroad companies.

Alexandersson, G. (2009). "Rail Privatization and Competitive Tendering in Europe." Built Environment 35(1): 43-58.

Alexandersson, G. (2013). Swedish Railway Policy in the EU Environment. Stockholm, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications Sweden.

Alexandersson, G. and S. Hultén (2008). "The Swedish Railway Deregulation Path." Review of Network Economics 7(1): 18-36.

ARAF (2015). "Passenger transport." Retrieved August 30, 2015.

Aslan, Ö. (2012). European Railway Reform: A study for Britain, Germany, France and the case of Turkey. Leeds, University of Leeds.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism, Georgetown University Press.

Bundesministerium für Verkehr - Bau und Stadtentwicklung (2013). The Mobility and Fuels Strategy of the German Government (MFS) - New pathways for energy. Berlin, Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung.

Bussieck, M. R., et al. (1997). "Discrete optimization in public rail transport." Mathematical Programming 79(1-3): 415-444.

CEN (2002). EuroNorm 13816.

CEN (2006). EuroNorm 15140.

CER (2005). Public Service Rail Transport in the EU: An Overview. Brussels, CER.

CER (2011). Reforming Europe's Railways - Learning from Experience. Brussels, CER.

Charles, M. B., et al. (2011). "Public Values in Western Europe: A Temporal Perspective." The American Review of Public Administration 41(1): 75-91.

Croatian Parliament (2008). "National Programme Railway Infrastructure for the Period 2008 to 2012." Retrieved May 4th, 2015.

68 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

De Bruijn, H. and W. Dicke (2006). "Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors." Public Administration 84(3): 717-735.

De Vocht, A. (2008). Basishandboek SPSS 16 voor Windows. Utrecht, Bijleveld Press.

Department for Transport (2010). "2010 to 2015 government policy: rail network." Retrieved May 3th, 2015.

Department for Transport (2012). Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First. London, Ministry of Transport of The United Kingdom.

DETEC (n.d.). "DETEC Departmental Strategy 2012: Summary." Retrieved May 5th, 2015.

ERA (2014). Railway Safety Performance in the European Union. Valenciennes, European Railway Agency.

European Commission (2001). "Regulatory bodies." Retrieved June 23th, 2015.

European Commission (2004). "Railway safety." Retrieved June 23th, 2015.

European Commission (2013). Europeans' Satisfaction with Rail Services. Brussels, European Commission.

European Commission (2014). EU Transport in figures, European Commission.

European Commission (2014). Fourth report on monitoring development in the rail market. Brussels, European Commission.

Ferrovie dello stato Italiane (n.d.). "The Holding FSItaliane." Retrieved June 10th, 2015.

FOD Belgium (2015). "Strategische doelstellingen - Spoorvervoer." Retrieved May 4th, 2015.

Gelders, D., et al. (2008). "Showing results? An analysis of the perceptions of internal and external stakeholders of the public performance communication by the Belgian and Dutch Railways." Government Information Quarterly 25: 221-238.

Gibson, S. (2003). "Allocation of capacity in the rail industry." Utilities Policy 11: 39- 42.

Jones, D. N. (2008). "A grand design, or the best we can expect?" Public Money & Management 28: 136-138.

69 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Jørgensen, T. B. and B. Bozeman (2007). "Public Values: An Inventory." Administration & Society 39(3): 354-381.

Keeney, R. L., et al. (1990). "Eliciting Public Values for Complex Policy Decisions." Management Science 36(9): 1011-1030.

Knieps, G. and P. Zenhäusern (2011). The Reform process of the railway sector in Europe: A disaggregated regulatory approach. Fourth Annual Conference on Competition and Regulation in Network Industries. Brussels.

Lan, L. W. and E. T. J. Lin (2006). "Performance Measurement for Railway Transport: Stochastic Distance Functions with Inefficiency and Ineffectiveness Effects." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 40: 383-408.

Martin, U. (2008). Performance Evaluation. In I. Hansen & J. Pachl. Railway Timetable & Traffic. Hamburg, Eurail Press. 1: 192-208.

Meynhardt, T. (2009). "Public Value Inside: What is Public Value Creation?" International Journal of Administration 32(3-4): 192-219.

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (2013). Lange Termijn Spooragenda. Den Haag, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu (2014). Vervoersconcessie 2015-2025. Den Haag, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Ministério da Economia (2014). Plano Estratégico dos Transportes e Infraestruturas. Lisbon, Ministério da Economia - Governo de Portugal.

Ministerio de Fomento (n.d.). Plan Estratégico del Ministerio de Fomento 2012- 2015. Madrid, Ministerio de Fomento.

Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Transporti (2013). "Program Agreement - FCe RC." Retrieved June 10th, 2015.

Ministry of Ecology - Sustainable Development and Energy (2015). "Railway Sector." Retrieved May 5th, 2015.

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (n.d.). "Development Plan for 2014-2017." Retrieved May 4th, 2015.

Ministry of Infrastructure - Transport and Networks (n.d.). "The Ministry." Retrieved May 4th, 2015.

Ministry of Transport (2006). Transport Policy of the Czech Republic for 2005 - 2013. Prague, Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic.

70 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Ministry of Transport (2012). Danish Infrastructure Investments. Kopenhagen, Ministry of Transport.

Ministry of Transport (2013). Sectoral Operational Programme Transport 2007- 2013. Bucharest, Ministry of Transport - Government of Romania.

Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland (2007). Transport 2030 - Major challenges, new directions. Helsinki, Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland.

Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value - Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Moore, M. (2013). Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Nash, C. (2009). European Rail Reform - The Next Steps. Leeds, University of Leeds.

Nash, C. and J. M. Preston (1993). Competition in Rail Transport: A New Opportunity in Railways? Leeds, Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds.

Nathanail, E. (2008). "Measuring the quality of rail service for passengers on the Hellenic railways." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42(1): 48- 66.

Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications (2013). National Transport Plan 2014-2023. Oslo, Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications.

POLIS (2013). Fourth Railway Package - Summary Note. Brussels, POLIS.

Pomoc Techniczna (2012). National Development Strategy 2020. Warsaw.

Rijksoverheid (2015). Rijksbegroting 2016 - XII Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. The Hague, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Roeleveld, A. (2011). Interview. J. W. Wolff.

Rothengatter, P. D. (2007). Integration or Disintegration of Infrastructure and Transport Companies in the European Railway Sector - The Pro's and Con's. 11th World Conference on Transport Research. CA, World Conference on Transport Research Society.

Salkonen, R. and J. Paavilainen (2010). Measuring railway traffic punctuality from the passenger's perspective. 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon.

71 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Steenhuisen, B. (2009). Competing Public Values. Delft, Delft University of Technology.

Streichfuss, M. (2010). Railway Transformation. Hamburg, Eurailpress.

Talbot, C. (2006). Paradoxes and prospects of 'Public Value'. Tenth International Research Symposium on Public Management. Glasgow.

Tirachini, A., et al. (2010). "Comparing operator and users costs of light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid transit over a radial public transport network." Research in Transportation Economics 29(1): 231-242.

Van de Velde, D. (2015). Discussing selection method for countries taken along in research. V. Leussink.

Van de Velde, D. (2015). The performance of the rail network, In: Solid Infrastructure financing for an efficient rail system. Issue paper presented at the high-level lunch-debate on rail infrastructure financing organised on 3 March 2015, Brussels, SNCF.

Van de Velde, D., et al. (2012). EVES-Rail. Amsterdam, InnoV.

Van de Velde, D. and E. Röntgen (2008). Landoverzicht Spoorordening. Amsterdam, Inno-V.

Van de Velde, D. and E. Röntgen (2009). Railway separation - European diversity. Delft.

Veeneman, W. (2002). Mind the gap: Bridging theories and practice for the organisation of metropolitan public transport. Delft, Delft University of Technology.

Veeneman, W. (2015). Discussing graduation. V. Leussink. Delft.

Veeneman, W. (2015). Discussing selection method for countries taken along in research. V. Leussink.

Veeneman, W., et al. (2009). "From clouds to hailstorms: A policy and administrative science perspective on safeguarding public values in networked infrastructures." International Journal of Public Policy 4: 226-246.

Veeneman, W. and J. Koppenjan (2010). "Securing public values in public transport projects: Four Dutch cases on innovation." Research in Transportation Economics 29: 224-230.

Veeneman, W., et al. (2006). The value of bus and train. Delft, Association for European Transport and contributors 2006.

72 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Wolff, J. W. (2011). Organizational Structures & Performance Evaluation of Railways. Delft, Delft University of Technology.

World Bank (2009). Bulgaria Railways Policy Note.

World Bank (2011). Poland Transport Policy Note - Towards a Sustainable Land Transport Sector, World Bank.

Yvrande-Billon, A. and C. Ménard (2005). "Institutional constraints and organizational changes: the case of the British rail reform." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 56: 675-699.

73 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

GLOSSARY

AEF Andersson Elffers Felix ARR Average Relative Ranking; A railways’ average ranking in the relative ranking tables constructed for the Performance Evaluation. BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CA Capacity Allocation; An organizational aspect used to distinguish organizational setups of countries’ railways on the basis of which institution is responsible for the capacity allocation in the railway system. CAt Competition Authority; An institution responsible for monitoring the competition in the railway sector, aiming for fair competition. CH Switzerland CT Competitive tendering; An organizational aspect used to distinguish organizational setups of countries’ railways by looking how the tendering procedure is really applied. Competitiveness Indicator used in Performance Evaluation to indicate the market share of a specific transport mode. CZ Czech Republic DE Germany DK Denmark EE Estonia Effectiveness of Outcome/Output (Pkm/Train-km P); Used in Performance Production Evaluation Effectiveness of Outcome/Input (Pkm/Staff P); Used in Performance Resources Evaluation Efficiency of Output/Input (Train-km/Staff P; Train-km/Network Length); Production Used in Performance Evaluation ERA The European Railway Agency; Agency of the European Union set up to create an integrated railway area by reinforcing safety and interoperability. ES Spain Eurostat The European Statistics Office; Collects and provides statistics on a variety of topics for the Member States of the European Union. FI Finland FR France GB The United Kingdom GR Greece HR Croatia

74 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

HSLU Hochschule Luzern; Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts I&M The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands IT Italy KPI Key Performance Indicator: A ratio of indicators that can be used to measure the performance of a company, relative to the performance of somewhat similar companies. LOTI Loi d’orientation des transports intérieurs; The basic law of organization of public services of transport in France. Main rail The national rail network, used for rail transport across a network country. High Speed Lines are not included. NL The Netherlands NO Norway NS Nederlandse Spoorwegen, the Dutch railway operator. OECD The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development; International forum in which governments from all over the world promote policies to improve global well-being. Organizational See “Organizational structure” set-up Organizational The complete structure of organizations, formal and informal structure relationships and interfaces in a national railway sector. PE Performance Evaluation; The analysis done to describe the performances of the railways selected in this research. PL Poland PT Portugal Pkm Passenger-km; A kilometer travelled on a rail network by a single passenger. Public values Public values are the combined needs of the public which the government aims to secure. Railway sector Description of the total number of actors that are part of a national railway system. Railway system Technical description of the rail transport system visible for the environment (infrastructure, rolling stock and staff). RB Regulatory Body; An institution with a regulatory task in a countries’ railway system. RO Romania Safety Indicator used in Performance Evaluation to describe how safe it is to travel with a certain railway; Train-km P/Accidents; Train-km P/Deaths+Injuries. SBB Swiss Federal Railways SE Sweden SR Safety Regulator; A body that supervises the safety in a countries’ railway system.

75 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

SV Supervision; An organizational aspect used to distinguish organizational setups of countries’ railways on the basis of which institutions are responsible for the supervision of the railway system. Staff P Staff of railways employed for passenger transport purposes TOC Train Operating Company Train-km P A kilometer driven on a rail network by a passenger train VTI The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute; An independent research institute in the Swedish transport sector.

76 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

77 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES

APPENDIX A-1: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES

78 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX A-1: SELECTION OF COUNTRIES

1) The Netherlands

2) “Big players” • The United Kingdom • Germany • France

3) Multiple angles on separation and competition

Table 29: "Competition" vs. "separation"

Separation No separation Competition The United Kingdom Germany Sweden Italy No competition The Netherlands France Bulgaria Poland

4) Multiple countries from various parts of Europe

Central/Western Europe (6) - The Netherlands - The United Kingdom - Germany - France - Switzerland - Belgium

Northern Europe (5) - Sweden - Denmark - Norway - Estonia - Finland

Eastern Europe (4) - Bulgaria - Poland - Czech Republic - Romania

Southern Europe (5) - Italy - Croatia

79 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

- Spain - Greece - Portugal

80 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

81 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC VALUES

APPENDIX B-1: PUBLIC VALUES PER COUNTRY APPENDIX B-2: DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC VALUES

82 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX B-1: PUBLIC VALUES PER COUNTRY

Belgium - Accessibility - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Safety - Security

(FOD Belgium 2015)

Bulgaria - Affordability - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Quality service - Safety

(World Bank 2009)

Croatia - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Safety - Social cohesion

(Croatian Parliament 2008)

Czech Republic - Accessibility - Competitiveness - Environmental sustainability - Safety - Social cohesion

(Ministry of Transport 2006)

83 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Denmark - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Reliability - Safety

(Ministry of Transport 2012)

Estonia - Effectiveness - Environmental sustainability - Mobility - Safety

(Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications n.d.)

Finland - Accessibility - Competitiveness - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Innovativeness - Reliability - Safety - Social cohesion

(Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland 2007)

France - Environmental sustainability - Safety - Security

(Ministry of Ecology - Sustainable Development and Energy 2015)

Germany - Affordability - Competitiveness - Environmental sustainability - Reliability

84 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

- Safety - Social cohesion

(Bundesministerium für Verkehr - Bau und Stadtentwicklung 2013)

Greece - Competitiveness - Quality service - Safety

(Ministry of Infrastructure - Transport and Networks n.d.)

Italy - Accessibility - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Mobility - Quality service - Safety - Social cohesion

(Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Transporti 2013, Ferrovie dello stato Italiane n.d.)

The Netherlands - Accessibility - Affordability - Competitiveness - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Quality service - Reliability - Safety - Social cohesion

(Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu 2013, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu 2014)

Norway - Accessibility

85 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

- Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Reliability - Safety - Social inclusion

(Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications 2013) Poland - Accessibility - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Quality service - Reliability - Robustness - Safety

(World Bank 2011, Pomoc Techniczna 2012)

Portugal - Accessibility - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Mobility - Quality service - Social cohesion

(Ministério da Economia 2014)

Romania - Competitiveness - Effectiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Quality service - Safety - Social cohesion

(Ministry of Transport 2013)

86 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Spain - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Quality service - Social cohesion

(Ministerio de Fomento n.d.)

Sweden - Accessibility - Safety - Environmental sustainability - Social inclusion

(Alexandersson 2013)

Switzerland - Affordability - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Innovativeness - Reliability - Robustness - Safety

(DETEC n.d.)

The United Kingdom - Affordability - Competitiveness - Efficiency - Environmental sustainability - Quality service - Reliability - Safety - Social cohesion

(Department for Transport 2010, Department for Transport 2012)

87 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX B-2: DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC VALUES

Affordability

Affordability refers to the costs of traveling by train. The lower the price for a trip by train, the better the affordability.

Accessibility

Accessibility indicates how difficult it is to reach the train station and the train. The easier it is to reach the train, the higher the accessibility.

Competitiveness

High competitiveness means that traveling by train “competes” with other ways of transport. The market share of rail in that case is relatively large compared to other transport modes.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness can be expressed in many ways, but the theory behind it says that the rate of effectiveness shows the capability of producing a desired result. It shows the extent to which the outcome is desired and expected.

Efficiency

Efficiency is somewhat similar to effectiveness, but efficiency shows the ratio between input and output. The extent to which goals are met is not of importance for this term.

Environmental sustainability

Environmental sustainability indicates environmental friendliness. The lower the negative effects for the environment, the higher the environmental sustainability of a system.

88 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Innovativeness

Innovativeness shows the extent to which a system is made up out of new technologies and ideas.

Mobility

Mobility is the ability of people to move over short or long distances by car, bike, public transport, etcetera.

Quality of service

Quality of service is the service level as experienced by the users of the system, in this case the rail passengers. The common idea is that better facilities and services are provided by transport operators are equal to higher quality of service.

Reliability

This is an indicator for how reliable the railway system is. It indicates the chance that a journey planned by a passenger actually goes through as planned. Less disturbances on the railways leads to higher reliability.

Robustness

Robustness is closely related to reliability. It indicates how little the chances are that disturbances occur and how easy it is to fix disturbances in the railway systems.

Safety

Safety is a term that is used to describe how safe the railway system is. The fewer the injuries and deaths caused by the railway system, the higher the safety.

89 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Security

The term security describes how safe passengers feel when they are at train stations, in trains or in other areas within the railway system. Security workers at the stations could for example increase this.

Social cohesion

Social cohesion is seen as the extent to which people in the society are able to be part of the society. The idea behind this is that good public transport provides citizens with chances to actively be a part of the society. Therefore a good functioning train system can improve the social cohesion.

90 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

91 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX C: OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

APPENDIX C-1: ILLUSTRATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES APPENDIX C-2: TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

92 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX C-1: ILLUSTRATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

The following overviews of organizational structures have been constructed by Wolff (2011) and updated with the help of more recent information in order to fit them for this report.

93 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

94 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

95 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

96 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

97 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

98 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

99 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

100 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

101 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

102 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

103 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX C-2: TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Belgium The NMBS/SNCB is a holding built up out of Infrabel, NMBS/SNCB Logistics and NMBS/SNCB. The latter one is divided into NMBS/SNCB Mobility (domestic passenger transport), NMBS/SNCB Europe (international passenger transport) and NMBS/SNCB Technics (rolling stock maintenance). The Federal Governmental Agency Mobility and Transport is responsible for regulatory tasks.

Bulgaria The National Railway Infrastructure Company in Bulgaria is entirely separated from the State Railways Holding, the organisation responsible for passenger transport and maintenance of rolling stock. Next to these institutions, there are also private maintenance companies that are part of the railway market in Bulgaria. The Executive Agency Railway Administration executes the regulatory tasks in the Bulgarian railways and is also responsible for the provision of licences. Several departments in the Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications are responsible for accident investigation and national transport policy planning.

Croatia There are four subsidiaries in the HŽ Holding responsible for infrastructure management, passenger operations and rolling stock maintenance. The safety certification and licensing is taken care of by the Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure together with the Railway Safety Agency.

Czech Republic In the Czech Republic railways there is a separate infrastructure manager, SŽDC, which contracts the national operator, Česke Dráhy, for the execution of rail traffic management and infrastructure maintenance. For the construction of infrastructure, separate companies are contracted. Beside Česke Dráhy other (private) passenger operators and maintenance companies are active on the market. There is a separate public rail authority responsible for regulatory issues. The Ministry of Transport takes care of the strategic planning for the railway system.

Denmark In the Danish railways, there is a separate infrastructure manager called Banedanmark. Railway company DSB is responsible for passenger transport and rolling stock maintenance. There are also private passenger transport operators and maintenance companies on the Danish market. Trafikstyrelsen is responsible for licensing and safety issues, while a there are also regulatory roles for a separate Accident Investigation Board and the Ministry of Transport.

104 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Estonia Edelaraudtee is the large railway company in Estonia responsible for passenger transport. EVR is a holding company with a subsidiary that is responsible for infrastructure management. Edelaraudtee is somewhere in between an integrated and a holding company. The infrastructure management is done by one of its subsidiaries, while passenger transport is performed by internal departments. The railway division of the Estionian Technical Surveillance Autohrity (TJA) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications are responsible for the regulatory tasks in the Estonian railway system.

Finland The Finnish Transport Agency is the institution that is responsible for rail infrastructure management in Finland. VR Group, in between an integrated and holding company, is the transport operator. The passenger transport is performed by its internal departments, while rolling stock maintenance is performed by the external Junakalusto . Trafi, the Finnish Transport Safety Agency, issues safety certificates and operator licences are issued by the Ministry of Transport Communications, which also contains the accident investigation board.

France France has separated infrastructure management and transport operations, but in practice these are still very strongly connected to each other. RFF, the infrastructure manager, directly awards all the infrastructure tasks to the SNCF infrastructure department. SNCF therefore can be seen as an integrated railway company, despite the institutional separated structure. Regulatory tasks are appointed to three parties; Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires (ARAF), Etablissement Public de Securité Ferroviaire (EPSF) and Mission de Controle des Activités Ferroviaires.

Germany Deutsche Bahn (DB), the German State Railways, are organized as a holding structure with several subsidiaries. DB Mobility Logistics AG (DB ML) is responsible for the transport operations and maintenance of rolling stock. DB Netze Fahrweg AG is the infrastructure manager and provides infrastructure for transport operations. Operating companies, other that DB ML, are also active on the German railways. The regulatory issues are not only on the account of the Ministry, but also for several separate institutions and regional governments.

Greece The Hellenic Railways Organization (OSE) is responsible for infrastructure and rolling stock management in Greece through its three subsidiaries. The transport operating company is called TrainOSE. This company is separated from OSE, but the two are closely connected.

105 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Regulatory tasks are in the hands of the Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks.

Italy Gruppo Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) is 100% state owned and organized as a holding company. Its subsidiaries are responsible for infrastructure management, transport operations and maintenance. There are also private operators active on the Italian railways. The National Agency for Railway Safety performs regulatory tasks, together with the Office of Rail Regulation of Railway Services, a department of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation. Concessions for operation of regional lines are issued by regional governments.

The Netherlands In the Netherlands, ProRail is responsible for the infrastructure management by Governmental appointment. NS, the Dutch State Railways, are separated from the infrastructure manager and responsible for station development, passenger transport operations and rolling stock maintenance. Regulatory tasks are in hands of the Transport Inspectorate, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and by a separate Accident Investigation Unit.

Norway The infrastructure manager in Norway, Jernbaneverket, is a governmental agency. In addition to infrastructure management, Jernbaneverket is also responsible for capacity allocation. The national transport operator is called NSB and organized as a holding company. Its subsidiaries provide passenger transport and rolling stock maintenance. The Norwegian Railway Inspectorate (Statens Jernbanetilsyn) carries the responsibility for licenses and safety standards. The long term policy planning for the Norwegian railway sector is in hands of the Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Poland Grupa PKP is a holding that consists out of several public subsidiaries. PKP SA is responsible for infrastructures management and passenger transport via several subsidiaries. Regulatory tasks are in the hands of the Office for Railway Transport and several departments within the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.

Portugal Infrastructure management in Portugal’s railways is done by Refer EPE. The national transport operator Comboios de Portugal is responsible for a part of the passenger transport, together with Fertagus Ltd, which is active on a specific line. The regulatory issues, licensing and competition regulation in the rail sector are in the hands of Instituto da Mobilidade e dos Transportes Terrestres. The Ministry of

106 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

Public Works, Transport and Communications contains an accident investigation unit.

Romania In Romania infrastructure management and passenger transport operations are separated. The infrastructure management is a task of CFR SA, which is 100% state owned. The passenger transport is done by CFR Calatory SA, also a 100% state owned company. The regulatory tasks are performed by the Romanian Railway Authority, part of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure.

Spain The Spanish railways have a manager for the national rail network called ADIF. The passenger services on this network are delivered by Renfe Operadora, which is separate from ADIF. The Ministry of Development has a big influence on the regulatory tasks. One of its responsibilities for example is licensing.

Sweden The infrastructure manager in Sweden, Trafikverket, takes care of infrastructure management, long term planning and maintenance. Jernhusen is a company that takes care of the management of large stations. SJ AB is responsible for the passenger transport, together with several private operating companies. The Swedish Transport Agency, called Transport Styrelsen, is responsible for licensing and issuing of safety standards, while the Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications takes care of the long term rail transport planning.

Switzerland Switzerland has a clear separation between regulatory authorities and railway companies. Infrastructure management and transport operations are in the hands of the state owned SBB. The European rail regulations are not directly of effect on the Swiss railways, since Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. The regulatory issues in the Swiss railway sector are performed by several authorities, such as SKV and UUS.

The United Kingdom The United Kingdom railways consist out of a pure separation structure. Network Rail Ltd, the infrastructure manager, contracts private construction companies to execute maintenance and renewal operations on the rail network. The passenger transport operations are executed by a number of private operators. This is based on concessions, which are typically tendered every ten to fifteen years. Regulatory tasks are divided among several institutions. The Office of Rail Regulation, Rail Safety and Standards Board, Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Department for Transport are the main institutions responsible for these tasks.

107 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX D: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

APPENDIX D-1: OVERVIEW RELATIVE RANKINGS

108 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX D-1: OVERVIEW RELATIVE RANKINGS

Effectiveness of Production (Pkm / Train-km P) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (OECD/ERA) Country Value N (max. Base Country Value Base 20) Year(s) Year(s) 1 France 0,1937 15 2011-2013 1 France 0,2185 2012-2013 2 Italy 0,1711 12 2011-2013 2 Italy 0,1903 2012-2013 3 Greece 0,1631 3 2012-2013 3 Denmark 0,1572 2012-2013 4 Denmark 0,1475 5 2012-2013 4 Spain 0,1478 2012-2013 5 The Netherlands 0,1247 6 2011-2013 5 The Netherlands 0,1280 2012-2013 6 Spain 0,1177 20 2011-2013 6 Portugal 0,1258 2012-2013 7 Sweden 0,1169 12 2011-2013 7 The United Kingdom 0,1188 2012-2013 8 The United Kingdom 0,1144 8 2011-2013 8 Sweden 0,1184 2012-2013 9 Portugal 0,1140 12 2011-2013 9 Poland 0,1183 2012-2013 10 Switzerland 0,1140 6 2012-2013 10 Finland 0,1126 2012-2013 11 Belgium 0,1117 9 2011-2013 11 Germany 0,1108 2012-2013 12 Finland 0,1116 20 2011-2013 12 Norway 0,0931 2012-2013 13 Poland 0,1016 20 2011-2013 13 Bulgaria 0,0913 2012-2013 14 Norway 0,0896 12 2011-2013 14 Estonia 0,0750 2012-2013 15 Germany 0,0893 20 2011-2013 15 Czech Republic 0,0608 2012-2013 16 Bulgaria 0,0857 20 2011-2013 16 Romania 0,0551 2012-2013 17 Estonia 0,0709 12 2011-2013 17 Croatia 0,0477 2012-2013 18 Romania 0,0586 20 2011-2013 18 Belgium N/A 2012-2013 19 Czech Republic 0,0579 20 2011-2013 19 Greece N/A 2012-2013 20 Croatia 0,0527 12 2012-2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2012-2013

Effectiveness of Resources (Pkm / Staff P) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (OECD/Railisa) Country Value N (max. 15) Base Year(s) Country Value Base Year(s) 1 The Netherlands 0,949 6 2012-2013 1 Sweden 2,888 2013 2 Sweden 0,801 12 2012-2013 2 The Netherlands 1,472 2013 3 Spain 0,737 15 2012-2013 3 Denmark 0,786 2013 4 The United Kingdom 0,704 12 2012-2013 4 Italy 0,713 2013 5 Italy 0,653 12 2012-2013 5 The United Kingdom 0,704 2013 6 Germany 0,612 15 2012-2013 6 Switzerland 0,614 2013 7 Switzerland 0,593 6 2012-2013 7 Portugal 0,608 2013 8 Denmark 0,582 10 2012-2013 8 France 0,607 2013 9 Portugal 0,561 12 2012-2013 9 Spain 0,566 2013 10 France 0,545 15 2012-2013 10 Finland 0,500 2013 11 Finland 0,459 15 2012-2013 11 Norway 0,466 2013 12 Norway 0,401 12 2012-2013 12 Greece 0,378 2013 13 Greece 0,255 9 2012-2013 13 Germany 0,295 2013 14 Belgium 0,245 9 2012-2013 14 Czech Republic 0,185 2013 15 Poland 0,167 15 2012-2013 15 Bulgaria 0,183 2013 16 Czech Republic 0,165 15 2012-2013 16 Poland 0,181 2013 17 Estonia 0,124 8 2012-2013 17 Croatia 0,123 2013 18 Romania 0,106 15 2012-2013 18 Romania 0,123 2013 19 Croatia 0,096 8 2012-2013 19 Estonia 0,113 2013

109 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

20 Bulgaria 0,078 15 2012-2013 20 Belgium N/A 2013

Efficiency of Production (Train-km P / Staff P) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (ERA/Railisa) Country Value N (max. Base Country Value Base 12) Year(s) Year(s) 1 Sweden 8,248 9 2011-2013 1 Sweden 24,390 2012-2013 2 The Netherlands 7,691 4 2011-2013 2 The Netherlands 11,500 2012-2013 3 The United Kingdom 6,517 6 2011-2013 3 The United Kingdom 5,929 2012-2013 4 Spain 5,851 12 2011-2013 4 Denmark 5,000 2012-2013 5 Germany 4,982 12 2011-2013 5 Norway 5,000 2012-2013 6 Switzerland 4,477 4 2012-2013 6 Portugal 4,833 2012-2013 7 Portugal 4,455 9 2011-2013 7 Finland 4,444 2012-2013 8 Norway 4,454 9 2011-2013 8 Spain 3,833 2012-2013 9 Denmark 4,389 2 2012 9 Italy 3,748 2012-2013 10 Finland 4,233 12 2011-2013 10 Czech Republic 3,049 2012-2013 11 Italy 3,809 9 2011-2013 11 France 2,776 2012-2013 12 Czech Republic 2,900 12 2011-2013 12 Germany 2,663 2012-2013 13 France 2,776 9 2011-2013 13 Croatia 2,571 2012-2013 14 Belgium 2,361 9 2011-2013 14 Belgium 2,361 2012-2013 15 Estonia 1,758 6 2011-2013 15 Romania 2,222 2012-2013 16 Romania 1,745 12 2011-2013 16 Bulgaria 2,000 2012-2013 17 Croatia 1,691 6 2012-2013 17 Poland 1,527 2012-2013 18 Greece 1,565 3 2012-2013 18 Estonia 1,500 2012-2013 19 Poland 1,548 12 2011-2013 19 Greece N/A 2012-2013 20 Bulgaria 1,038 12 2011-2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2012-2013

Usage of Infrastructure (Train-km P / Network Length) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (ERA/Railisa) Country Value N (max. Base Country Value Base Year(s) 16) Year(s) 1 The Netherlands 45,51 8 2011-2012 1 The Netherlands 45,76 2011-2012 2 Switzerland 33,07 4 2011-2013 2 The United Kingdom 30,35 2011-2012 3 The United Kingdom 31,03 8 2011-2012 3 Belgium 23,76 2011-2012 4 Germany 23,36 16 2011-2013 4 Germany 23,32 2011-2012 5 Belgium 22,63 12 2011-2013 5 Denmark 21,12 2011-2012 6 Italy 16,38 12 2011-2012 6 Italy 16,07 2011-2012 7 Denmark 16,22 4 2011-2012 7 Czech Republic 13,20 2011-2012 8 Czech Republic 13,17 16 2011-2013 8 France 12,22 2011-2012 9 Spain 12,74 16 2011-2013 9 Portugal 10,38 2011-2012 10 France 12,30 12 2011-2012 10 Spain 10,27 2011-2012 11 Portugal 11,79 12 2011-2013 11 Sweden 9,99 2011-2012 12 Norway 10,13 12 2011-2012 12 Norway 8,43 2011-2012 13 Sweden 9,83 12 2011-2013 13 Romania 7,42 2011-2012 14 Poland 7,16 16 2011-2013 14 Poland 7,20 2011-2012 15 Croatia 6,61 9 2011-2013 15 Croatia 6,61 2011-2012

110 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

16 Finland 6,07 16 2011-2013 16 Finland 6,06 2011-2012 17 Romania 5,68 16 2011-2013 17 Bulgaria 5,07 2011-2012 18 Bulgaria 5,07 16 2011-2013 18 Estonia 3,79 2011-2012 19 Estonia 3,62 12 2011-2012 19 Greece N/A 2011-2012 20 Greece 2,00 3 2011-2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2011-2012

Competitiveness (% of passenger transport) Country Value Base Year(s) 1 Switzerland 17,1 2012-2013 2 The Netherlands 10,5 2012-2013 3 Denmark 10,2 2012-2013 4 France 9,4 2012-2013 5 Sweden 9,3 2012-2013 6 Czech Republic 8,5 2012-2013 7 Germany 8,5 2012-2013 8 The United Kingdom 8,4 2012-2013 9 Belgium 7,4 2012-2013 10 Italy 6,3 2012-2013 11 Poland 6,2 2012-2013 12 Spain 6,1 2012-2013 13 Finland 5,3 2012-2013 14 Norway 4,8 2012-2013 15 Romania 4,5 2012-2013 16 Portugal 4 2012-2013 17 Croatia 3,1 2012-2013 18 Bulgaria 2,9 2012-2013 19 Estonia 1,7 2012-2013 20 Greece 0,9 2012-2013

Safety 1 (Train-km P / # victims) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (ERA/Eurostat) Country Value N (max. Base Country Value Base 8) Year(s) Year(s) 1 The United 10007,8 4 2011-2013 1 The United 10826,1 2012-2013 Kingdom Kingdom 2 Norway 7080,9 6 2011-2013 2 The Netherlands 7263,2 2012-2013 3 The Netherlands 4714,8 4 2011-2013 3 Norway 4375,0 2012-2013 4 France 3543,1 6 2011-2013 4 Finland 4000,0 2012-2013 5 Germany 3266,4 8 2011-2013 5 France 3065,2 2012-2013 6 Finland 3207,9 8 2011-2013 6 Denmark 2812,5 2012-2013 7 Sweden 2904,0 6 2011-2013 7 Sweden 2777,8 2012-2013 8 Denmark 2590,5 2 2012 8 Germany 2700,0 2012-2013 9 Belgium 2578,1 6 2011-2013 9 Belgium 2656,3 2012-2013 10 Italy 2470,3 6 2011-2013 10 Italy 2403,5 2012-2013 11 Switzerland 2220,7 2 2013 11 Czech Republic 1644,7 2012-2013

111 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

12 Spain 1991,9 8 2011-2013 12 Portugal 707,3 2012-2013 13 Czech Republic 1507,5 8 2011-2013 13 Bulgaria 606,1 2012-2013 14 Portugal 716,2 6 2011-2013 14 Spain 589,7 2012-2013 15 Bulgaria 552,2 8 2011-2013 15 Estonia 428,6 2012-2013 16 Estonia 440,1 6 2011-2013 16 Poland 420,1 2012-2013 17 Croatia 361,8 6 2012-2013 17 Croatia 409,1 2012-2013 18 Poland 343,9 8 2011-2013 18 Romania 349,3 2012-2013 19 Greece 340,0 1 2013 19 Greece N/A 2012-2013 20 Romania 306,9 8 2011-2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2012-2013

Safety 2 (Train-km P / # accidents) Median Values Subsets Most Complete Dataset (ERA/Eurostat) Country Value N (max. Base Year(s) Country Value Base Year(s) 8) 1 The United Kingdom 6366,5 4 2011-2013 1 The United Kingdom 5413,0 2012-2013 2 The Netherlands 4077,6 4 2011-2013 2 The Netherlands 3538,5 2012-2013 3 Spain 3290,6 8 2011-2013 3 Finland 3272,7 2012-2013 4 France 3003,8 6 2011-2013 4 Denmark 3214,3 2012-2013 5 Germany 2684,0 8 2011-2013 5 Estonia 3000,0 2012-2013 6 Denmark 2678,6 2 2012 6 France 2897,3 2012-2013 7 Finland 2575,8 8 2011-2013 7 Spain 2728,8 2012-2013 8 Belgium 2465,5 6 2011-2013 8 Belgium 2575,8 2012-2013 9 Italy 2376,4 6 2011-2013 9 Italy 2192,0 2012-2013 10 Switzerland 2290,1 2 2013 10 Sweden 2173,9 2012-2013 11 Sweden 2150,8 6 2011-2013 11 Germany 2088,0 2012-2013 12 Estonia 1684,3 6 2011-2013 12 Czech Republic 1373,6 2012-2013 13 Norway 1619,3 6 2011-2013 13 Norway 1129,0 2012-2013 14 Czech Republic 1336,6 8 2011-2013 14 Bulgaria 606,1 2012-2013 15 Portugal 694,7 6 2011-2013 15 Portugal 591,8 2012-2013 16 Bulgaria 544,2 8 2011-2013 16 Croatia 545,5 2012-2013 17 Croatia 430,8 6 2012-2013 17 Romania 444,4 2012-2013 18 Poland 426,6 8 2011-2013 18 Poland 415,2 2012-2013 19 Romania 378,5 8 2011-2013 19 Greece N/A 2012-2013 20 Greece 364,3 1 2013 20 Switzerland N/A 2012-2013

112 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

113 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX E-1: INTERVIEWEES APPENDIX E-2: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE DUTCH RAILWAYS APPENDIX E-3: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE FRENCH RAILWAYS APPENDIX E-4: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWEDISH RAILWAYS APPENDIX E-5: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWISS RAILWAYS

114 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E-1: INTERVIEWEES

The following experts were interviewed in order to get more insight on the influence of the context on performance of railways on public values: Table 30: Interviewees and the interview methods

Country Interviewees from Method France Laboratoire d’Economie des Written form Transports (LET) The Netherlands Dutch Ministry of Conversation on location Infrastructure and the Conversation on location Environment (I&M) Sweden Swedish National Road Written form Transport Research Institute Written form (VTI) Karlstads Universitet (KAU) Switzerland Schweizerische Bundesbahnen Written form (SBB) Written form Hochschule Luzern (HSLU)

115 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E-2: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE DUTCH RAILWAYS

Within this research, the focus is on the passenger transport on the Dutch main rail network. Also the focus is on the performance of the railway system as a whole, rather than on just one aspect (such as “transportation” or “infrastructure”). Cross border rail services and very small regional lines are not included in the research scope.

The first part of the questionnaire is mainly used for the validation of the initial parts of the research and to get a general idea of your view on the Dutch railway system. In case you do not have an answer to one of the questions, do not bother to spend hours in order to find the “right” answer.

PART 1 1. What public goals are, according to you, of importance to the Dutch railway sector? 2. How would you describe the organizational setup of the Dutch railways, based on the following aspects: - Capacity allocation; done by Infrastructure Manager / done by separate Agency - Competitive tendering; Competitive tendering / Direct awarding - Supervision; Safety Regulator(s), Regulatory Body (Bodies) and/or Competition Authority (Authorities) * Example: In Finland the capacity allocation, so allocating time slots to transport companies, is done by a special transport agency. The concession for the main rail network is granted via direct awarding rather than competitive tendering. The railways are supervised by three instances: a competition authority, an accident investigation board and a transport safety agency. 3. What is your opinion on the performance of the Dutch railways in general? 4. What do you think in general is going well or not so well in the Dutch railways with respect to the realization of public goals?

The second part of the questionnaire is important for the in depth study in the research and focuses on the remarkable results of the initial analysis, which led to more questions.

During the initial analysis in this research, it became clear that competitiveness, efficiency and quality of service are important public goals to be pursued in the Dutch railway sector. Competitiveness is the share of passenger transport by rail for the total passenger transport in The Netherlands. Efficiency, in this case, is the use of staff members and the use of the rail infrastructure, so the amount of train kilometers as a share of the number of staff members and as a share of the total track length in The Netherlands**. Quality of service can be described as the perceived level of service by the passengers that use the Dutch railways. ** (Train-km / # Staff Members) & (Train-km / Network Length); There are multiple ways to measure efficiency and several have been used in the initial analysis. These ones however are chosen for the questionnaire because of the high performance on these specific kinds of efficiency.

116 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

PART 2 5. According to the initial analysis in this research, the performance of the Dutch railways on competitiveness is relatively high. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What do the various instances involved do to come to this high performance? 6. According to the initial analysis in this research, the performance of the Dutch railways on efficiency** is relatively high. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What do the various instances involved do to come to this high performance? 7. Despite the focus on quality of service, the Dutch railways score relatively low on this aspect according to the initial analysis in this research. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What are the instances involved doing to actively improve the performance and what has already been done?

117 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E-3: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE FRENCH RAILWAYS

Within this research, the focus is on the passenger transport on the French main rail network. Also the focus is on the performance of the railway system as a whole, rather than on just one aspect (such as “transportation” or “infrastructure”). Cross border rail services and very small regional lines are not included in the research scope.

The first part of the questionnaire is mainly used for the validation of the initial parts of the research and to get a general idea of your view on the French railway system. In case you do not have an answer to one of the questions, do not bother to spend a lot of time in order to find the “right” answer.

PART 1 1. What public goals are, according to you, of importance to the French railway sector? 2. How would you describe the organizational setup of the French railways, based on the following aspects: - Capacity allocation; done by Infrastructure Manager / done by separate Agency - Competitive tendering; Competitive tendering / Direct awarding - Supervision; Safety Regulator(s), Regulatory Body (Bodies) and/or Competition Authority (Authorities) * Example: In Finland the capacity allocation, so allocating time slots to transport companies, is done by a special transport agency. The concession for the main rail network is granted via direct awarding rather than competitive tendering. The railways are supervised by three instances: a competition authority, an accident investigation board and a transport safety agency. 3. What is your opinion on the performance of the French railways in general? 4. What do you think in general is going well or not so well in the French railways with respect to the realization of public goals?

The second part of the questionnaire is important for the in depth study in the research and focuses on the remarkable results of the initial analysis, which led to more questions.

During the initial analysis in this research, it became clear that safety is an important public goal to be pursued in the French railway sector. Safety, in this case, can be described as the probability that passenger trains on the French railways will not cause any injuries for passengers or people in the surrounding environments.

PART 2 5. According to the initial analysis in this research, the performance of the French railways on safety is relatively high. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What do the various instances involved do to come to this high performance?

118 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E-4: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWEDISH RAILWAYS

Within this research, the focus is on the passenger transport on the Swedish main rail network. Also the focus is on the performance of the railway system as a whole, rather than on just one aspect (such as “transportation” or “infrastructure”). Cross border rail services and very small regional lines are not included in the research scope.

The first part of the questionnaire is mainly used for the validation of the initial parts of the research and to get a general idea of your view on the Swedish railway system. In case you do not have an answer to one of the questions, do not bother to spend hours in order to find the “right” answer.

PART 1 1. What public goals are, according to you, of importance to the Swedish railway sector? 2. How would you describe the organizational setup of the Swedish railways, based on the following aspects: - Capacity allocation; done by Infrastructure Manager / done by separate Agency - Competitive tendering; Competitive tendering / Direct awarding - Supervision; Safety Regulator(s), Regulatory Body (Bodies) and/or Competition Authority (Authorities) * Example: In Finland the capacity allocation, so allocating time slots to transport companies, is done by a special transport agency. The concession for the main rail network is granted via direct awarding rather than competitive tendering. The railways are supervised by three instances: a competition authority, an accident investigation board and a transport safety agency. 3. What is your opinion on the performance of the Swedish railways in general? 4. What do you think in general is going well or not so well in the Swedish railways with respect to the realization of public goals?

The second part of the questionnaire is important for the in depth study in the research and focuses on the remarkable results of the initial analysis, which led to more questions.

During the initial analysis in this research, it became clear that safety is an important public goal to be pursued in the Swedish railway sector. Safety, in this case, can be described as the probability that a trip by train will not cause any injuries for passengers or people in the surrounding environments.

PART 2 5. Despite the focus on safety, the Swedish railways score relatively low on this aspect according to the initial analysis in this research. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What are the instances involved doing to actively improve the performance and what has already been done?

119 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

APPENDIX E-5: INTERVIEW STRUCTURE SWISS RAILWAYS

Within this research, the focus is on the passenger transport on the Swiss main rail network. Also the focus is on the performance of the railway system as a whole, rather than on just one aspect (such as “transportation” or “infrastructure”). Cross border rail services and very small regional lines are not included in the research scope.

The first part of the questionnaire is mainly used for the validation of the initial parts of the research and to get a general idea of your view on the Swiss railway system. In case you do not have an answer to one of the questions, do not bother to spend hours in order to find the “right” answer.

PART 1 1. What public goals are, according to you, of importance to the Swiss railway sector? 2. How would you describe the organizational setup of the Swiss railways, based on the following aspects: - Capacity allocation; done by Infrastructure Manager / done by separate Agency - Competitive tendering; Competitive tendering / Direct awarding - Supervision; Safety Regulator(s), Regulatory Body (Bodies) and/or Competition Authority (Authorities) * Example: In Finland the capacity allocation, so allocating time slots to transport companies, is done by a special transport agency. The concession for the main rail network is granted via direct awarding rather than competitive tendering. The railways are supervised by three instances: a competition authority, an accident investigation board and a transport safety agency. 3. What is your opinion on the performance of the Swiss railways in general? 4. What do you think in general is going well or not so well in the Swiss railways with respect to the realization of public goals?

The second part of the questionnaire is important for the in depth study in the research and focuses on the remarkable results of the initial analysis, which led to more questions.

During the initial analysis in this research, it became clear that competitiveness, efficiency and safety are important public goals to be pursued in the Swiss railway sector. Competitiveness is the share of passenger transport by rail for the total passenger transport in Switzerland. Efficiency, in this case, is the use of the rail infrastructure, so the amount of train kilometers as a share of the total track length in Switzerland**. Safety can be described as the probability that a trip by train will not cause any injuries for passengers or people in the surrounding environments. ** (Train-km / Network Length); There are multiple ways to measure efficiency and several have been used in the initial analysis. This one however is chosen for the questionnaire because of the high performance on this specific kind of efficiency.

120 Governance for Public Values in European Railways

PART 2 5. According to the initial analysis in this research, the performance of the Swiss railways on competitiveness is relatively high. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What do the various instances involved do to come to this high performance? 6. According to the initial analysis in this research, the performance of the Swiss railways on efficiency** is relatively high. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What do the various instances involved do to come to this high performance? 7. Despite the focus on safety, the Swiss railways score relatively low on this aspect according to the initial analysis in this research. Do you agree with this? And if so, why do you think this is the case? What are the instances involved doing to actively improve the performance and what has already been done?

121