Advisory Report

to the Public Accounts Committee of the Budget Committee of German Parliament

Pursuant to Article 88 (2) Federal Budget

Code

on planning a new Sound link

This report by the German SAI is protected by copyright. The report is published on the web page of the German SAI (www.bundesrechnungshof.de).

Ref.: V 4 - 2016 - 0831 Potsdam, 11 April 2016 2

Contents Page

0 Summary ...... 3 1 Existing Fehmarn Sound Bridge ...... 7 1.1 Description of the structure ...... 7 1.2 Distribution of costs for maintenance and repair ...... 8 1.3 Progressing maintenance backlog ...... 8 1.4 Load carrying capacity verification of the Fehmarn Sound Bridge...... 9 2 Selection of an option ...... 10 3 Assessment made by the German SAI ...... 11 3.1 Maintenance backlog and funding ...... 11 3.2 Selection of an option ...... 12 4 Statements of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and the Deutsche Bahn AG (German Railways) ...... 13 4.1 Maintenance backlog and funding ...... 13 4.2 Selection of an option ...... 14 5 Conclusion ...... 15 5.1 Maintenance backlog and funding ...... 16 5.2 Selection of an option ...... 17

3

0 Summary

The island of Fehmarn in the is connected to the German mainland by a road and rail bridge crossing the Fehmarn Sound. As part of the fixed link project, the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure intends to decommission the existing Fehmarn Sound Bridge and replace it by a new bridge or tunnel. By the end of September 2015, the Ministry reported on this issue to the Public Accounts Committee, a subcommittee of German Parliament’s Budget Committee. The Public Accounts Committee took note of the report and requested the Ministry to provide a justification for selecting a definite option until 30 August 2016. Among many options for new bridges or tunnels, one option focuses on repairing the existing bridge as it stands. Jointly with our field offices in Hamburg and Stuttgart, we looked into the documents on which the Ministry based its selection. The Ministry and the German Railways company were requested to submit their comments. To do so they also submitted new documents. In the present audit report, we have taken their comments into account. The report also informs about the condition of the existing bridge.

0.1 The Ministry’s report as of September 2015 was based on incomplete and little convincing documents, some of which were drafts. Moreover, the final deliberations between the Ministry, German Railways and the road construction authority of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein took place in November 2015 only, i.e. after submission of the report to the Public Accounts Committee. The Ministry’s report refers for the most part to a document that does not comply with the requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance. The Ministry and the German Railways developed supplementing documents only upon our specific request.

We believe that at that current stage of the project the Ministry should not discard any options merely on the basis of the studies the Ministry has conducted so far. The Ministry may make better use of the time left until 30 August 2016 to carry out any supplementary studies needed without delay. (No. 5)

0.2 The Ministry's documents are not very meaningful in view of the following points:

The capital expenditure appraisal is mainly based on a spreadsheet supplemented by some comments and is therefore little transparent. Sources of key input variables have not been cited. In our opinion, the Ministry and German Railways used inappropriate approaches. They included maintenance costs only in such options which, in a first step, provided for retrofitting the existing bridge. However, maintenance work needs to be performed in the short term for all options. 4

The Ministry and German Railways did not adequately document the utility analysis. Nor did they explain the assessment criteria they used. Moreover, such criteria were blurred and ambiguous. We found duplicate assessments since individual requirements such as accessibility to the island during construction were covered by several criteria. Furthermore, the utility analysis does not comply with the requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance. German Railways calculated the utility values of monetary criteria already included in or arrived at in the capital expenditure appraisal. According to the requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance, such values must not be used again in a utility analysis. In an effort to remedy this shortcoming, the Ministry and German Railways submitted modified documents. As the supplement was a mere display of results, the German SAI was not able to derive reliable conclusions from the data provided.

The results of the capital expenditure appraisal show that option ‘A’ ranks in second place: This option provides for retrofitting the existing bridge with regard to road traffic and constructing a new bridge for rail transport. According to the utility analysis conducted by the Ministry and German Railways, option ‘A’ ranks in fifth place only. Applicable requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance stipulate that detailed justifications are needed in cases where the ranking changes significantly. Such a justification is lacking. (No. 3.2)

0.3 At present, the Fehmarn Sound Bridge is in a bad condition. We believe that German Railways and the Federal Government, represented by the road construction authority of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein, have neglected their duty for proper maintenance for decades. Since 2000, corrosion damage identified on the bridge has not been removed by German Railways. As a result, such damage deteriorated and led to consequential damage. In 2012, German Railways stated that maintenance and repair costs amounted to €21 million (around three quarters of which were needed for protection against corrosion). In our opinion, a large portion of this amount needs to be invested in the short term in order to prevent additional traffic restrictions regarding the Fehmarn Sound Bridge. (No. 3.1)

0.4 The Ministry and German Railways denied that they had neglected their duty for proper maintenance. In addition to that, the Ministry and German Railways wish to invest merely €8 million in maintenance because they are of the opinion that the existing bridge will be replaced by new structures by 2028. In their view, urgent corrosion protection works are to start in 2017, once worn out suspension ropes have been replaced.

The Ministry and German Railways argue that the capital expenditure appraisal may be based on lower maintenance costs. They stated that extensive maintenance work was only needed if the existing bridge was to 5

be strengthened for a continued use. According to the Ministry and German Railways, the comments on the capital expenditure appraisal were concise, but sufficient, since all calculations were disclosed in the spreadsheet.

The Ministry and German Railways confirmed that they had assessed the remaining useful life of the existing bridge to be 30 years. This parameter was included in the static verifications as part of bridge design appraisal and the analyses underlying the selection of a final option in accordance with applicable federal regulations. The Ministry and the German Railways believe that a longer remaining useful life would reduce the efficiency of option ‘A’ compared to the options aiming at a new construction of the bridge, because of the increased need for maintenance work. However, they did not provide any evidence to back their argument.

The Ministry and German Railways underlined that the methods underlying the utility analysis, which were pointed up by the German SAI, had been agreed upon with the federal railway authority and the road construction authority. In particular, German Railways believed that a utility analysis served best to combine both qualitative and quantitative aspects. The Ministry and German Railways further stated that they considered accessibility to the island during construction the key criterion. Since that requirement was not met in option ‘A’, this option could be discarded as planning proceeded. (No. 4)

0.5 We are not convinced by the argumentation of the Ministry and German Railways. They do not use the results of their studies in a way that is compliant with the requirements for capital expenditure appraisals set by the Federal Ministry of Finance. An option is to be selected on the basis of both a utility analysis and capital expenditure appraisal. However, the Ministry and German Railways base their decision exclusively on the results of a utility analysis relying on disputable methods.

German Railways failed to provide evidence that they had made maintenance work a priority in the past few years. The company lacks any incentive to perform long-term maintenance work. While maintenance work is to be funded by the company, a new construction would be funded from the federal budget.

For example, German Railways would have needed to replace damaged bridge components and to renew corrosion protection. This would be the way to ensure that the bridge meets all requirements regarding a safe, proper and reliable operation until 2028. If German Railways starts renewing corrosion protection only in 2017, it might be too late.

We acknowledge that the need for short-term maintenance work depends largely on the subsequent use of the bridge. However, we believe that the amount of €8 million estimated by German Railways is not enough. 6

German Railways holds the view that if the maintenance backlog is not fully addressed in the near future, the Fehmarn Sound Bridge may need to be closed due to structural weaknesses. As a result, there would be no fixed link between the island of Fehmarn and the mainland any more. The island would permanently be cut off from the mainland not only during construction but even prior to that.

In their utility analysis, the Ministry and German Railways did not describe the concept of “accessibility to the island during construction” in more detail. Nevertheless, this criterion is key to them. In their report to the Public Accounts Committee they give this criterion overriding priority as if it was the only argument decisive for selecting an option. In the utility analysis that criterion was also very important to the two bodies. However, the criterion was only one among a total of ten criteria. Since, the German Railways company currently plans to cut off Fehmarn from the railway system for a period of four years, retrofitting work might possibly be performed without closing the bridge for traffic as often as still expected in early 2015. It is not clear if this aspect was also given significant weight in the utility analysis.

It seems that the Ministry and German Railways already decided in early 2015 not to strengthen the existing bridge but to build new structures. However, we hold that it was too early for a final decision, since the studies submitted by the Ministry and German Railways do in no way permit drawing final conclusions (No. 5). 7

1 Existing Fehmarn Sound Bridge

1.1 Description of the structure

The 963-metre-long Fehmarn Sound Bridge connects the German island of Fehmarn in the Baltic Sea with the German mainland. Since 1963, the Bridge has carried road via a two-lane roadway and rail via a non- electrified single rail track over the Fehmarn Sound. Responsibility for construction and maintenance is shared by the German Railways company Deutsche Bahn AG and the Federal Government represented by the road construction authority of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein. Maritime climate conditions prevail and the Bridge is exposed to wind and seawater. Since 1999, the Bridge has been protected as cultural heritage and become a landmark of both Fehmarn and Schleswig-Holstein.

Photo: Fehmarn Sound Bridge, view from northeast [March 2015]

Source: photo taken by the German SAI

An administrative agreement of 1969 stipulates that German Railways is responsible for maintaining the Bridge except for the road area. Both German Railways and the road construction authority regularly inspect, analyse and document the condition of the components for which they are responsible every three and six years, respectively. 8

1.2 Share of costs for maintenance and repair

The costs incurred for operating, maintaining and repairing the Fehmarn Sound Bridge are to be shared by the two entities responsible for construction and maintenance, German Railways and the road construction authority, at a ratio of 47 to 53. German Railways needs to fund its share of the maintenance from its own resources. The Federal Government, however, would need to pay for a new structure. In case of maintenance or a new structure, the Federal Government would need to cover all the costs related to the roads. Administrative costs for design and oversight would be borne by the state of Schleswig-Holstein.

1.3 Progressing maintenance backlog

Already in 1997, German Railways stated that an amount of €1.1 million would be required to repair the damage and to maintain the condition of the Bridge. As the company had only carried out minor repairs, the required amount for maintenance work had increased to €4.5 million by 2000. In 2012, German Railways and the road construction authorities recorded in their status reports that old damage had not been repaired and thus the damage had deteriorated. German Railways estimated the required amount for maintenance work to be €21 million by now.

In particular, corrosion protection is damaged. This protection of the suspension ropes dates back to 1984. Already in 2000, German Railways found that the ropes rusted. In 2012, this damage increased. At year-end 2014, the load carrying capacity of one rope was reduced in such a way that the rope was to be replaced. As the replacement was delayed, the road traffic authority of the district of East Holstein imposed in summer 2015 that the permissible maximum speed for lorries be reduced to 50 km/h on the Bridge. By now, other ropes also need to be replaced. Thus, the required amount for maintenance work further increased according to German Railways.

9

Figure 2: Suspension rope in 2000 (on the left), the same rope in 2012 (on the right)

Source: German Railways Network (DB Netz AG)

1.4 Load carrying capacity verification of the Fehmarn Sound Bridge

In connection with the projected construction of the fixed link across the Fehmarn Belt between Fehmarn and the Kingdom of , the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure forecasts considerably increasing traffic volumes. Furthermore, the Ministry expects heavier and longer freight trains than is currently the case. Against this background, the Ministry commissioned German Railways to have the load carrying capacity of the existing Bridge verified (bridge design appraisal). At year- end 2012, German Railways concluded that the traffic volume projections considered individually would only require a slight reinforcement. Still, such a strengthening of a bridge would need to be replaced after 30 years. The projected increase in rail transport, however, would require a comprehensive reinforcement so that the effort would not be worthwhile for German Railways. As a result, the Ministry intended not to pursue reinforcing the existing bridge, because of the high consequential costs and the shorter remaining useful life as compared to options of new structures.

The remaining useful life of 30 years mentioned above was not actually assessed but was an input variable determined by German Railways for a comparison of options. It is lower than the useful life theoretically remaining as stipulated in applicable federal regulations. The lifespan of the Bridge depends on the traffic volume and on the extent to which it has been maintained and repaired or reinforced over the operating period.

10

2 Selection of an option

In winter 2014/2015, German Railways studied on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure what structural solutions meet the needs of the projected traffic volumes. German Railways compared new structures such as a tunnel, the construction of a combined road and railway bridge and the construction of a separate road bridge and a separate railway bridge. Furthermore, German Railways studied an option where a new bridge would only be built for the rail services for the time being. For the road traffic, the existing bridge would be reinforced and not be replaced by a new structure until the end of the remaining useful life (“option A”). In addition, German Railways studied an option according to which the existing bridge would be reinforced for the rail services in the first place.

On the basis of a cost comparison, the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure intended to discard option ‘A’ from the future planning process at year-end 2014. This decision was made to save planning costs for German Railways and the road construction authority. Even though an expert opinion attested that it was technically feasible to retrofit the Fehmarn Sound Bridge, the Ministry narrowed down the options to those for new structures (bridges or tunnels).

In spring 2015, we pointed out to the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure that the cost comparison could not replace a capital expenditure appraisal. Finally, at the end of 2015, the Ministry provided a capital expenditure appraisal to support its choice. Furthermore, the Ministry prepared a utility analysis for taking non-monetary aspects into account. The Ministry coordinated the results with German Railways and the road construction authority on 5 November 2015. However, the Ministry had already reported to the Public Accounts Committee on 30 September 2015 that according to the results of the utility analysis strengthening the bridge was no option. For this reason, the Ministry would shortlist solely options of new structures for the next stage of planning. The Ministry expected the new Fehmarn Sound link to be operational in 2028. The Public Accounts Committee took note of the report and requested the Ministry to provide a justification for selecting a definite option until 30 August 2016.

In the capital expenditure appraisal for the Ministry, German Railways assessed the monetary aspects of the different options, essentially construction and life-cycle costs. In doing so, German Railways did not explain many calculation steps. Furthermore, the sources for some cost estimates were not disclosed and cost rates were not plausible. Particularly striking is the fact that costs for repairing the existing bridge are budgeted exclusively in case of those options providing for strengthening the old 11

bridge. According to the amount of the capitalised total costs, option ‘A’ ranks in second place.

The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure had non- monetary aspects such as environmental protection studied in a utility analysis conducted by German Railways. In accordance with an administrative regulation of the Federal Ministry of Finance, a utility analysis needs to encompass all qualitative aspects relevant to the decision-making process as assessment criteria. The individual criteria need to be clearly defined, unambiguous, transparent and measurable. They are to be weighted according to their significance. The weighted total needs to be 100 per cent. If the result of the utility analysis deviates from the result of the capital expenditure appraisal, a proposal for a decision is to be based on a sound justification. A trade-off between monetary values and the results of the utility analysis is not permitted.

The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways used ten criteria in their utility analysis and weighted them according to their significance. The key criterion is the accessibility to the island during construction. However, the two entities did neither describe the criteria nor differentiated them from each other. Furthermore, they used the results of the capital expenditure appraisal as a trade-off for the assessment criteria in the utility analysis. The weighted total is about 70 per cent. The result of the utility analysis considerably changes the ranking of the capital expenditure assessment. Option ‘A’ ranks in fifth place only. Nevertheless, the Ministry did not justify its decision to abandon the reinforcement option.

3 Conclusions developed by the German SAI

3.1 Maintenance backlog and funding

Assisted by the field offices in Hamburg and Stuttgart, we reviewed the plan of a new Fehmarn Sound link. In our opinion, German Railways has a strong economic interest in minimising the maintenance costs of the old bridge since it needs to pay them from its own resources. We hold that especially German Railways but also the road construction authority neglect the maintenance of the Bridge and limit work to what is absolutely needed. German Railways lacks any incentive to carry out long-term maintenance work since the Federal Government would fund a new structure from the federal budget.

We hold that there is an urgent need to address the maintenance backlog at short notice. Regardless of the option finally selected, a new Fehmarn Sound link will not be operational before 2028. In order to ensure that the 12

existing bridge is proper, reliable and safe for traffic until then and in order to prevent traffic restrictions, the amount of €21 million projected by German Railways in 2012 is the minimum amount required, regardless of the final option. German Railways also states that otherwise a closure of the Fehmarn Sound Bridge cannot be excluded. As a result, Fehmarn would no longer have a fixed link to the mainland. As more than four years have already passed since the last projection of the amount needed for maintenance work, the auditors and German Railways assume the amount required to have exceeded €21 million by now.

3.2 Selection of an option

As early as in spring 2015, we had pointed out to the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure that a mere cost comparison was no reliable basis for discarding technically feasible and cost-effective options in the future planning process. Nor did the studies (capital expenditure appraisal and utility analysis) subsequently carried out by the Ministry provide a reliable basis. The studies apparently contain methodological weaknesses, lack transparency and exhaustiveness. Against the background of an arbitrarily fixed remaining useful life at 30 years and seen from a value for money perspective, there is a strong point against the option of retrofitting the existing Bridge and converting it for the exclusive use of road vehicles.

The high level of reconstruction costs for this option stems from the fact that the in the study, maintenance costs (due in the short term) have been taken into account while maintenance duties have been neglected by German Railways and the road construction authority for at least two decades. The Bridge needs to be repaired soon. The cost of repair is incurred irrespective of the option selected for the new Fehmarn Sound link. It is therefore not permitted in the capital expenditure appraisal to only take into account the maintenance costs in the options providing for a reinforcement of the Bridge. Without these costs, these options would provide better value for money.

The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure did not comply with the requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance when carrying out its utility analysis. Therefore, the analysis relies on disputable methods. Criteria were not clearly separated from one another so that they might have been counted twice. It cannot be excluded that key criteria are lacking. Furthermore, the Ministry did not study the results of the monetary assessment independently of the results of the utility analysis. The Ministry improperly derived the utility value from monetary values instead. Thus, the utility analysis is no suitable basis for decision- making. 13

The studies carried out by the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure so far are flawed and still do not justify narrowing down options in the future planning process. We hold that especially option ‘A’ can thus still offer the prospect of value for money investment in accordance with Article 7 of the Federal Budget Code.

4 Comments received from the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways

4.1 Maintenance backlog and funding

In the comment, the German Railways explained the reason why it only considered necessary €8 million for maintaining the Bridge against the amount of €21 million determined in 2012. According to German Railways, it determined the amount of €21 million after a regular inspection of the Bridge in 2012 based on the assumption that the Bridge needed to serve for another 30 years (remaining useful life). The major part of the costs (€17 million) was budgeted for corrosion protection (according to the statement of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, these costs amounted to €14 million). The verification (No. 1.4) and the subsequent option study (No. 2) had shown that the Fehmarn Sound Bridge needed to be replaced by new structures. In 2014, German Railways reduced the original funding from €21 million to €8 million and apportioned these funds over the years until the date of the proposed completion of a new structure. The road construction authority had not been able to verify these comments up to then. The authority referred to the administrative agreement with German Railways and the responsibility of the latter.

Both the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways stated that in principle the corrosion protection of the suspension ropes had needed to be renewed in 2009. At that time, however, German Railways had considered renewing corrosion protection to be an inefficient solution since ropes would have had to be replaced in the short term. As a consequence, German Railways and the road construction authority agreed on appraising at first whether additional ropes would need to be replaced. According to the Ministry, the ropes had not been replaced. The Ministry stated that renewing the complete corrosion protection would constitute “stranded costs”.

German Railways did not admit having neglected maintenance of the Bridge for years due to own financial interests in order to expedite plans for building a new structure. German Railways did not explain why the maintenance costs could accumulate to €21 million until 2012. Nor did the German Railways provide any evidence what repairs were carried out 14

between 2000 and 2012 in order to stop the deterioration of the Bridge. The road construction authority also objected to having neglected its duties. The authority stated that it had not known of the required amount for maintenance work of €21 million until May 2013. According to the authority, German Railways was responsible for maintenance. The authority had performed all of its tasks.

German Railways attached a maintenance plan to its comments. This plan lists the projected bridge works and the cost volume until 2020. According to this plan, corrosion protection work has not been scheduled until 2017. German Railways made the point that German Railways and the road construction authority would share the costs, an effort which required some coordination. To put the funds to sustainable use, German Railways stated that it needed to carefully consider the case and take into account potential use restrictions such until a definite decision was taken on whether or not to old bridge or replaced.

Both the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways confirmed that the “target date for the verification appraisal” was set at some 30 years after opening the Fehmarn Belt link. According to them, this was a minimum value that needed to be ensured as remaining useful life. This period had been chosen as the basis for the additional monetary assessments and studies to select an option. They confirmed that we were right to highlight that these 30 years meant reducing the theoretically remaining useful life. Extending the useful life would have resulted in additional reinforcement work and higher costs. The Ministry and German Railways did not provide any evidence for their statements.

4.2 Selection of an option

In their comments, the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways described the reappraisal procedure in in detail. They stated that the Bridge could not carry the projected load. Since reinforcing the Bridge was a technical challenge and residual risks could not be ruled out, the parties concerned had already considered a new construction at that point of time. The Ministry and German Railways stressed that reinforcements would mean completely closing the Bridge for rail and road traffic at night for years. They cited the fact that the island could not be reached for a construction period of several years was a decisive factor for a new structure. Nevertheless, the German Railways’ construction stage plan provided for no rail traffic on the Fehmarn Sound Bridge between 2021 and 2025 as the railway line of the hinterland connection to the between Neustadt and was to be expanded. Should the decision on a further permanent use of the Bridge be made by then, this period would provide 15

the opportunity to use maintenance funds to fully overhaul the bridge making sustainable and preventive repair.

Both the Ministry and German Railways do not understand our concern that many calculation steps are not transparent in the capital expenditure appraisal. According to them, an excel file which was openly available within the remit of the Ministry was used for the capital expenditure appraisal. Thus, all formula and calculation steps had been prescribed and no further explanations were required. From the Ministry’s point of view, the input data was concise but transparent and sufficiently explained. Furthermore, the Ministry and German Railways emphasised that the framework used for the calculation required that the decision between maintenance and new construction always be based on the current state of a structure. Therefore did not accept our objection, because costs for full corrosion protection to reinforce the Bridge needed to be included in the capital expenditure appraisal.

As to the utility analysis, the Ministry and German Railways stated that they had agreed the approach for determining and weighing the criteria with the road construction authority and the federal railway authority. According to German Railways, the purpose of a utility analysis is the joint appraisal of quantitative and qualitative criteria. German Railways did not admit having made major methodological errors. The Ministry did not comment in detail on this issue but still generally considered the selected method to be appropriate and plausible. Furthermore, the Ministry referred to another utility analysis of German Railways where no quantitative criteria had been taken into account but the result had still been the same. However, the documents submitted did not contain any calculations but only a display of results by means of tables.

5 Conclusions

The comments provided by the Ministry and German Railways are not convincing. They did not substantiate their statement that the utility analysis provided reliable results in contrast to our view. Considered individually, the arguments against the reinforcement options may be plausible, but seen from a macroeconomic perspective, they do not serve to discard option ‘A’. The utility analysis which reveals methodological flaws is not suitable to provide evidence for option ‘A’ to be no cost- effective solution. The Ministry and German Railways did not meet with applicable federal requirements and chose to apply their own criteria instead.

Although initially German Railways called our findings as not being plausible, they subsequently submitted a utility analysis without assessing 16

monetary aspects. However, as the document submitted is a mere illustration of results, the reasoning cannot be ascertained since no underlying documents have been presented. The Ministry and German Railways base their final assessment of options exclusively on the results of this utility analysis and ignore the capital expenditure appraisal. However, the two studies need to be equally included in the decision- making process.

We uphold our previous assessment (see No. 3, pages 11 ff.). Furthermore, we have duly considered the comments provided by the Ministry and German Railways and have developed the following findings.

5.1 Maintenance backlog and funding

German Railways stated in its comment that it had not known until 2015 that the old bridge was to be replaced by new structures. As a result, it reduced maintenance work, especially corrosion protection. However, the corrosion protection had already been poor when the Bridge was inspected by German Railways in 2012. The Ministry and German Railways even confirmed that corrosion protection had needed renewal at regular intervals as from 2009. The pictures of a suspension rope (see photo, page 9) illustrate that corrosion protection was already damaged in 2000. As in 2012 nor before that date, German Railways could not proceed from the assumption that a new bridge was to be built, they would have had the duty to properly maintain the Bridge and renew corrosion protection in a timely manner. German Railways chose not do so and thus neglected its maintenance duties.

We acknowledge that it is not efficient to apply corrosion protection to ropes that are now in such a poor condition that they need to be replaced. However, a proper corrosion protection would have prevented this. In addition to the ropes the entire steel construction of the Bridge urgently needs a new corrosion protection. We hold that most of the work projected to cost €21 million in 2012 needs to be carried out immediately in order to prevent the Bridge from further deterioration. The intention of German Railways not to start with corrosion protection works until 2017 offers no expedient solution to the problem stated.

We take note of the reasoning used by the Ministry and German Railways for decreasing the projected useful life of 30 years and consider them as a minimum value. We hold that an actual remaining useful life of more than 30 years is possible for the Fehmarn Sound Bridge. The condition is that the Bridge be properly maintained in the future after eliminating the maintenance backlog and strengthening the Bridge. So far both the Ministry and German Railways have failed to submit comparative bridge design appraisals of the existing structure and supplementary studies of 17

options supporting an extended useful life. Nor did they provide evidence supporting their statement that a longer remaining useful life necessarily results in further reinforcement needs and related costs. Proceeding from the parameter of an extended useful life, we hold that a bridge properly maintained may even be a more efficient option than new structures.

5.2 Selection of an option

We consider the results of the Ministry’s and German Railways’ utility analysis to be questionable in terms of methodology and thus not reliable because they do not meet the requirements set by the Federal Ministry of Finance.

The objective of “accessibility to the island during construction” is not defined as a criterion in the utility analysis. However, it constitutes a top priority of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure and German Railways. In their report to the Public Accounts Committee they give this criterion such overriding priority as if they based their decision solely on accessibility. Accessibility was very important to them in the utility analysis but it was only one among a total of ten criteria. On the one hand, the Ministry and German Railways defined accessibility to the island as a key criterion for selecting an option, but on the other hand German Railways now states in its construction stage plan that the island may likely be not accessible by train for four years. It remains unclear if this aspect has been of any importance in the utility analysis.

The fact that during the reconstruction stage rail traffic that impacts much more on the load bearing capacity of the Bridge than road traffic will be absent, facilitates the structural reinforcement of the Bridge. Thus, the times in which the Bridge needs to be closed during the nights might be significantly reduced compared to the projections of spring 2015. This especially applies in the case where the Fehmarn Sound Bridge is only to be redesigned for road traffic since rail traffic load is almost twice as high as road traffic load. Train braking forces are up to six times higher than those of road traffic. If the Fehmarn Sound Bridge is properly maintained after eliminating the maintenance backlog and strengthening the Bridge, the Bridge may still have a remaining useful life of more than 30 years. We found this approach to be lacking in the studies submitted so far.

Ahrendt Rahm Hacker 18