DOCSLIB.ORG

External Costs of Transport in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
External Costs of Transport in Europe External Costs of Transport in Europe Update Study for 2008 Report Delft, September 2011 Author(s): CE Delft Huib van Essen Arno Schroten Matthijs Otten INFRAS Daniel Sutter Christoph Schreyer Remo Zandonella Markus Maibach Fraunhofer ISI Claus Doll Publication Data Bibliographical data: CE Delft, Infras, Fraunhofer ISI External Costs of Transport in Europe Update Study for 2008 Delft, CE Delft, September 2011 Transport / International / EC / Costs / Accidents / Air pollution / Climate Change / Noise / Congestion FT: External cost Publication code: 11.4215.50 CE-publications are available from www.cedelft.eu Commissioned by: International Union of Railways UIC. Further information on this study can be obtained from the contact person, Huib van Essen. © copyright, CE Delft, Delft CE Delft Committed to the Environment CE Delft is an independent research and consultancy organisation specialised in developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. CE Delft’s solutions are characterised in being politically feasible, technologically sound, economically prudent and socially equitable. 2 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Contents Abstract 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Background 15 1.2 Objective 16 1.3 Structure of the report 16 1.4 Involvement of experts 17 2 General Methodological Framework and Recent Research Results 19 2.1 Geographical scope 19 2.2 Transport modes 20 2.3 Cost categories 20 2.4 Data basis and country allocation 22 2.5 Overview of recent research projects 24 2.6 Overview of recent external transport cost studies with involvement of the authors (CE Delft, INFRAS, ISI) 26 3 Methodology per Cost Category 29 3.1 Accidents 29 3.2 Air pollution 33 3.3 Climate Change 41 3.4 Noise 50 3.5 Congestion 54 3.6 Other external costs 64 4 Results: Total and Average Costs 71 4.1 Overview: Total and average costs 2008 71 4.2 Results 2008 per cost category 87 4.3 Results corridor calculations 95 5 Results: Marginal Costs in Different Traffic Situations 101 5.1 Overview: Aggregated results 101 5.2 Results 2008 per cost category 102 6 Discussion and Conclusions 111 6.1 Discussion of the results 111 6.2 Discussion of methodology and data quality 111 6.3 Policy application 112 Literature 115 3 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Annex A General Input Data 123 Annex B Comparison of Recent European Studies on Transport Costs 155 Annex C Members of the Advisory Board 159 Glossary 161 4 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Abstract Previous UIC studies on external costs of transport (INFRAS/IWW 1995, 2000, 2004) are widely known and cited in the scientific and political area and provide a comprehensive comparison of transport modes in Europe based on their economic impact on society. However, since 2004, various important developments took place such as the publication of the EC Greening Transport Package from 2008, the 2011 EU White Paper, the latest revision of the Eurovignette Directive and various new studies on the external cost of transport. Against this background UIC commissioned CE Delft, INFRAS and ISI to carry out this update study, to obtain a state-of-the-art overview of the total, average and marginal external costs of transport in the EU. This update study shows that the average external costs for road transport are much higher than for rail. Per passenger-km the costs of cars or aviation are about four times those of rail transport. For freight transport we see a similar pattern. The predominant cost categories are accidents and emissions (climate change, air pollution and upstream). When combining the average costs with transport volume data, the sum of all external cost were calculated. The total external costs of transport in the EU plus Norway and Switzerland in 2008 amount to more than € 500 billion, or 4% of the total GDP. About 77% of the costs are caused by passenger transport and 23% by freight. On top of these, the annual congestion cost of road transport delays amount to between € 146 and 243 billion (1 to 2% of the total GDP). Road transport modes have by far the largest share in these costs (93%). This can be explained by the large share of road in the overall transport volume as well as their higher average external costs per passenger-km or tonne-km. Passenger cars have a share of about 61%, followed by trucks (13%), vans (9%), two-wheelers (6%) and buses (4%). From the non-road modes, aviation has the largest share in external costs with about 5%, although only intra-EU flights are included. Rail transport is responsible for less than 2% and inland shipping for only 0.3%. Sea shipping was not included in this study. Apart from average costs, also marginal external costs have been calculated, distinguishing various network types, vehicle technologies and traffic situations. These results show that also the marginal external costs for road are much higher than for rail transport. It also becomes clear that the marginal costs in urban areas are much higher than in non-urban areas. The external costs for road transport are lowest on motorways. The results of this study can be used for various purposes. The total and average cost estimates provide a strong basis for comparing the environmental burden of various transport modes. They could also serve as a basis for transport pricing or be used in cost benefit analysis (CBA) or for general policy development. 5 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe 6 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Summary Background of the update study Previous UIC studies on external costs of transport (INFRAS/IWW 1995, 2000, 2004) are widely known and cited in the scientific and political area and provide a comprehensive comparison of transport modes in Europe based on their economic impact on society. Since the last update study in 2004 using data for 2000, the relevance of the subject has increased. Internalisation of external costs is one of the main focus points of the EC Greening Transport Package from 2008 and also in the 2011 EU White Paper on Transport. The latest revision of the Eurovignette Directive now allows Member States to calculate tolls based on costs of air pollution and noise of road freight traffic. In addition, the topic of externalities was further developed by different European and national studies. Against this background, UIC commissioned CE Delft, INFRAS and ISI to carry out this update study, to obtain a state-of-the-art overview of the total, average and marginal external costs of transport in the EU. With the EU enlargements of the last decade, the scope of the study was extended to the EU-27 with the exemption of Malta and Cyprus, but also including Norway and Switzerland. Results for total and average external costs Figure 1 and Figure 2 below shows that the average external costs for road transport are much higher than for rail. Per passenger-km the costs of cars or aviation are about four times those of rail transport. For freight transport we see a similar pattern. The predominant cost categories are accidents and emissions (climate change, air pollution and upstream). Note that congestion costs are not included in this graph1. 1 As in the previous external cost studies for UIC, the congestion-externality is presented separately and not added up in terms of total external costs of transport. Delay costs, which we use as the main congestion indicator, are a mainly transport-sector internal and the social efficiency measure addresses different aspects of externalities. While from the transport efficiency perspective the separation of system-internal and system-external cost categories is irrelevant, it matters when comparing transport modes. 7 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Figure 1 Average external costs 2008 for EU-27*: passenger transport (excluding congestion) EUR per 1,000 pkm 70 64.7 65.1 57.1 60 50 Differentiated cost for rail: 33.8 - Rail Electric: 12.0 €/1,000 pkm 40 - Rail Diesel: 34.1 €/1,000 pkm 30 15.3 20 10 0 Car Bus/coach Road Pass. Total Rail Passenger Air Pass. Accidents Air Pollution Noise Other Cost Categories Climate Change (low scenario) Up- & Downstream Processes (low scen.) Climate Change (difference low/high scenario) Up- & Downstream (difference low/high scenario) ©INFRAS/CE/ISI Other cost categories: Costs for nature & landscape, biodiversity losses (due to air pollution), soil and water pollution costs, additional costs in urban areas. Data do not include congestion costs. * Data include the EU-27 with the exemption of Malta and Cyprus, but including Norway and Switzerland. 8 September 2011 4.215.1 - External Costs of Transport in Europe Figure 2 Average external costs 2008 for EU-27*: freight transport (excluding congestion) EUR per 1,000 tkm Up- & Downstream (difference low/high scenario) Climate Change (difference low/high scenario) 14 5 . 6 140 Up- & Downstream Processes Climate Change 120 Other Cost Categories Noise 100 Air Pollution Accidents 80 60 50.5 Differentiated cost for rail: - Rail Electric: 6.6 €/1,000 pkm 34.0 - Rail Diesel: 12.4 €/1,000 pkm 40 20 7.9 11. 2 0 LDV HDV Road Freight Rail Freight Inland Waterways ©INFRAS/CE/ISI Other cost categories: Costs for nature and landscape, biodiversity losses (due to air pollution), soil and water pollution costs, additional costs in urban areas. Data do not include congestion costs. Road Freight Total: The weighted average of all road freight transport modes. * Data include the EU-27 with the exemption of Malta and Cyprus, but including Norway and Switzerland.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Modular System for Road Freight Transport – Experiences and Possibilities
    Report 2007:2 E European Modular System for road freightRapporttitel transport – experiences and possibilities Ingemar Åkerman Rikard Jonsson TFK – TransportForsK AB ISBN 13: 978-91-85665-07-5 KTH, Department of Transportation Strandbergsgatan 12, ISBN 10: 91-85665-07-X and urban economics SE-112 51 STOCKHOLM Teknikringen 72, Tel: 08-652 41 30, Fax: 08-652 54 98 SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM E-post: [email protected] Internet: www.tfk.se European Modular System for road freight transport – experiences and possibilities . Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate Swedish and Finnish hauliers’ experiences of using the European Modular System, EMS, which entails Sweden and Finland the use of longer and heavier vehicle combinations (LHV’s). In short, EMS consists of the longest semi-trailer, with a maximum length of 13,6 m, and the longest load-carrier according to C-class, with a maximum length of 7,82 m, allowed in EU. This results in vehicle combinations of 25,25 m. The maximum length within the rest of Europe is 18,75 m. Thus, by using LHV’s, the volume of three EU combinations can be transported by two EMS combinations. This study indicates that the use of LHV’s according to EMS have positive effect on economy and environment, while not affecting traffic safety negatively. Swedish hauliers have the possibility of using either the traditional 24 m road trains or 25,25 m LHV’s according to EMS for national long distance transports. Experiences of using EMS vehicle combinations are mostly positive. LHV’s according to EMS implies increased load area and flexibility compared to the 24 m road trains.
    [Show full text]
  • View Its System of Classification of European Rail Gauges in the Light of Such Developments
    ReportReport onon thethe CurrentCurrent StateState ofof CombinedCombined TransportTransport inin EuropeEurope EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS TRANSPORT EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATE OF COMBINED TRANSPORT IN EUROPE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT (ECMT) The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) is an inter-governmental organisation established by a Protocol signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953. It is a forum in which Ministers responsible for transport, and more speci®cally the inland transport sector, can co-operate on policy. Within this forum, Ministers can openly discuss current problems and agree upon joint approaches aimed at improving the utilisation and at ensuring the rational development of European transport systems of international importance. At present, the ECMT's role primarily consists of: ± helping to create an integrated transport system throughout the enlarged Europe that is economically and technically ef®cient, meets the highest possible safety and environmental standards and takes full account of the social dimension; ± helping also to build a bridge between the European Union and the rest of the continent at a political level. The Council of the Conference comprises the Ministers of Transport of 39 full Member countries: Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.), Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. There are ®ve Associate member countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States) and three Observer countries (Armenia, Liechtenstein and Morocco).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport That Works: Insights from Germany
    PUBLIC TRANSPORT THAT WORKS: INSIGHTS FROM GERMANY Ralph Buehler, Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA Rutgers Climate Panel 3: Climate Change and Transport in Europe Change Conference Overview Transport, Energy Use, & Climate Change Public Transport Demand in Germany and the USA Policies that Promote Public Transport Summary – Lessons for the USA Energy Use in Passenger Transport 3 Mode of Transport Energy Intensity/Efficiency Fuel Type Amount of Activity (number of trips; miles traveled) 4 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 0 1973 of Consumption Petroleum by End 1974 1975 1976 1977 1973 1978 1979 1980 1981 – 1982 1973) to relative (percent 2007 1983 1984 1985 1986 (Sources: ORNL, Energy 2008) Energy ORNL, Data Book, (Sources: 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 - 2002 Use Sector, 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Electric utilities Residential Industrial Transportation Commercial Relationship between Share of Urban Trips by Transit, Bicycle, and Foot and Per Capita Annual CO2 Emissions from Road and Rail Transport in Australia, Canada, the USA and the EU 2000-08 6.000 USA 5.000 Canada 4.000 Australia Ireland 3.000 Austria Denmark Sweden Spain Annual Tons of CO2 per capita per CO2 of Tons Annual Belgium Norway Emissions per Capita Finland 2 UK 2.000 France Netherlands Germany 1.000 Transport CO Transport Walk, Bike, Transit Share of Trips 0.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 R² = 0.74 Percent of trips by public transport, bicycle, and foot Sources: (Bassett, Pucher, Buehler, Thompson, & Crouter, 2008; BMVBS, 1991-2008; IEA, 2009) USA and Germany: similar trends in car ownership….
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Rail Freight in Europe: What Regulation Can and Cannot Do
    Development of rail freight in Europe: What regulation can and cannot do Belgium Case Study Professor Eddy Van de Voorde and Professor Thierry Vanelslander (University of Antwerp) Brussels, 11 December 2014 Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) asbl Rue de l’Industrie 42 Box 16 - B-1040 Brussels - Belgium Ph: +32 2 230 83 60 - Fax: +32 2 230 83 70 – [email protected] – www.cerre.eu Table of contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 2. Demand for rail freight transport ..................................................................................... 3 3. Supply on the rail freight market ................................................................................... 10 3.1 Market structure in Belgium .................................................................................. 11 3.2 Market structure in a number of neighbouring European countries ........................ 14 3.3 Xrail: alliance or cartel? ......................................................................................... 17 4. Regulation and competitive strategies ........................................................................... 18 5. Potential scenarios for the Belgian market .................................................................... 22 5.1 Scenario 1: the market structure remains unchanged ............................................. 23 5.2 Scenario 2: a de facto monopoly............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oward Improved Intermodal Freight Transport in Europe and the United States: Next Steps
    Toward Improved Intermodal Freight Transport in Europe and the United States: Next Steps Report of an Eno Transportation Foundation Policy Forum held November 18–20, 1998 Forum Sponsors: European Commission U.S. Department of Transportation Directorate-General VII (Transport) Office of Intermodalism and Federal Highway Administration Table of Contents Participants and Paper Authors ................................................................................... iv Preface ............................................................................................................................ v Forum Proceedings ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Interoperability and Standardization ............................................................... 2 Standardization of Loading Units ............................................................................... 2 Standardization of Intermodal Information Systems ................................................ 3 Intermodal Liability Issues ................................................................................ 4 Current Liability Regimes............................................................................................ 4 Prospects for a New Liability Regime ......................................................................... 5 Liability and the Need for Information .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Putting European Transport on Track for the Future
    Putting European transport on track for the future #MobilityStrategy SUSTAINABLE AND SMART MOBILITY STRATEGY 2 Putting European transport on track for the future 1 OUR VISION 1. Mobility and transport matters to us all. From daily commuting to work, visiting family and friends, tourism, to the proper functioning of global supply chains for the goods in our shops and for our industrial production, mobil- ity is an enabler of our economic and social life. Free movement of people and goods across its internal borders is a fundamental freedom of the European Union (EU) and its single market. Travelling in the EU has led to greater co- hesion and a strengthened European identity. As the second-largest area of expenditure for European households, the transport sector contributes 5% to European GDP and directly employs around 10 million workers. 2. Whilst mobility brings many benefits for its users, it is not without costs for our society. These include greenhouse gas emissions, air, noise and water pollution, but also accidents and road crashes, congestion, and biodiversity loss – all of which affect our health and wellbeing. Past efforts and policy measures have not yet sufficiently addressed these costs. The transport sector’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased over time and represent now as much as a quarter of the EU’s total. 3. By far, the most serious challenge facing the transport sector is to significantly reduce its emis- sions and become more sustainable. At the same time, this transformation offers great opportunities for bet- ter quality of life, and for European industry across the value chains to modernise, create high-quality jobs, develop new products and services, strengthen competitiveness and pursue global leadership as other markets are moving fast towards zero-emission mobility.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Report on Combined Transport in Europe
    2018 Report on Combined Transport in Europe January 2019 2018 REPORT ON COMBINED TRANSPORT IN EUROPE Publication: UIC-ETF Design: Ludovic Wattignies Printer: ACINNOV’ Legal deposit: January 2019 ISBN 978-2-7461-2798-2 Warning No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or distributed by any means whatsoever, including electronic, except for private and individual use, without the express permission of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The same applies for translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any method or procedure whatsoever. The sole exceptions - noting the author’s name and the source -are «analyses and brief quotations justified by the critical, argumentative, educational, scientific or informative nature of the publication into which they are incorporated» (Articles L 122-4 and L122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). © International Union of Railways (UIC) - Paris, 2019. Content Foreword by the UIC Combined Transport Group Chairman ................... 4 1. Rail/road combined transport in Europe at a glance ........................ 5 2. General framework and key elements of combined transport in Europe ............................................................................................ 10 2.1. Rail and intermodal transport in the European freight market ...........................10 2.2. Definition, market structure and key elements of combined transport .............16 3. The European rail/road combined transport market – facts and figures ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Taxes and Charges in Europe an Overview Study of Economic Internalisation Measures Applied in Europe
    Transport taxes and charges in Europe An overview study of economic internalisation measures applied in Europe BY: Arno Schroten (CE Delft), Peter Scholten (CE Delft), Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft), Huib van Essen (CE Delft), Marco Brambilla (TRT), Marco Gatto (TRT), Silvia Maffii (TRT), Frank Trosky (Planco), Holger Kramer (ISL), Reinhard Monden (ISL), Damaris Bertschmann (INFRAS), Maura Killer (INFRAS), Anne Greinus (INFRAS), Vitalie Lambla (PMR), Kareen El Beyrouty (Ricardo), Sofia Amaral (Ricardo), Tom Nokes (Ricardo), Ancelin Coulon (Ricardo) March - 2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Directorate A — Policy Coordination Unit A3 — Economic analysis and better regulation Contact: Rolf Diemer E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels 1 4.K83 - Transport taxes and charges in Europe - March 2019 EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you) LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN 978-92-79-99561-3 doi: 10.2832/416737
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Report on Combined Transport (CT)
    2020 Report on Combined Transport (CT) Press conference © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co. & GmbH Consultants Transportation BSL © Brussels, 28 October 2020 1 Schedule Top Time Topic Responsible 1 14:30 – 14:33 Introduction Majorie van Leijen 2 14:33 – 14:38 Why UIC supports Combined Transport? Sandra Géhénot 3 14:38 – 15:08 Insides of the current CT market Mathias Lahrmann 4 15:08 – 15:13 Political dimension and the need to develop CT Ralf-Charley Schultze 5 15:13 – 15:18 CT's contribution to achieving the transport objectives Eric Lambert 6 15:18 – 15:30 Q&A, summary Majorie van Leijen © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co. & GmbH Consultants Transportation BSL © 2 Please follow the rules below for the web-based press conference ◼ If you are not the speaker, your device’s mic and camera’s will be turned off during the entire session. ◼ The Q&A chat room will be opened during the entire session. Please keep your messages short and to the point and only for topics relevant to the session. ◼ The host will follow the Q&A chat room during the session and will forward the questions of general interest to the moderator. All remaining questions will be answered later on. ◼ Please stay focused, avoid multitasking. ◼ Please consider that the session will be recorded. The record will only be used by the host and will not be distributed or published in any way or form. THANK YOU AND ENJOY THE PRESS CONFERENCE! © BSL Transportation Consultants GmbH & Co. KG 2020 KG Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Iii. Experiences of Iwt Multimodal Transport in Europe and the United States
    III. EXPERIENCES OF IWT MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES A. Europe Multimodal container transport has grown tremendously in Europe over recent years. Thanks to an adapted infrastructure and adequate facilitation, traffic has been able to grow, often at a two-digit rate, throughout the last two decades. 1. Infrastructure To permit this growth, a number of infrastructure elements have been created. (a) Numerous container terminals The first batch of container gantries was installed on the Rhine as far back as 1968, only two years after the first fully cellular ship arrived in Europe. However, in this new trade, which seemed to be vying for speed, it took some time for the deep-sea operators to consider the IWT option, which was purported to be slow. A number of container lines failed for lack of response by the market. However, in the early 1980s, the cost savings brought about by fully dedicated river containerships was recognized, and local interests started building new container terminals, the farthest inland at Basel, Switzerland, 870 km from the sea. Today, there are some 40 container terminals along the banks of the Rhine. They serve the container transport on the Rhine and its seaports in the delta, mainly Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Antwerp in Belgium. Similarly, on the Rhone and Seine rivers in France, services started in the 1990s, with eight inland terminals. In Germany also, some terminals were built in other river basins, such as the Danube, Elbe and Weser. Each of these smaller basins serves a large seaport, such as Le Havre, Dunkirk and Marseille in France, and Hamburg and Bremen in Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable European Transport System in a 100% Renewable Economy
    sustainability Article Sustainable European Transport System in a 100% Renewable Economy Antonio García-Olivares 1,*, Jordi Solé 1,2 , Roger Samsó 1,3 and Joaquim Ballabrera-Poy 1 1 Institute of Marine Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Ps. Marítim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (J.B.-P.) 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Campus Sescelades, Av. Països Catalans 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain 3 Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF), Campus UAB, Edifici C, Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 26 May 2020; Accepted: 17 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020 Abstract: Europe must move towards a 100% renewable transportation system for climate, energy and sustainability reasons. We estimate the capital and energy required for building and operating a renewable transportation system providing similar services as the EU-28 transport system of 2016. It could be based on: biogas or fuel cell vessels; liquid biogas powered aircrafts; electric railways and fuel cell or electric vehicles between major cities; and car sharing, electric buses and electric two- and three-wheelers, for short journeys. A system of charging posts on the streets and roads for passenger and commercial e-vehicles is studied. Alternatively, a Tracked Electric Vehicle system of continuous power on European roads would improve energy efficiency and the saving of scarce metals (Ni, Li), at a lower cost, if only national roads were electrified. The investment for the construction of the whole system would be 2.3–2.7% of the EU’s GDP per year for 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberalisation of Passenger Rail Services
    Liberalisation of passenger rail services Case Study - France Professor Yves Crozet (University of Lyon) 6 December 2016 Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) asbl Rue de l’Industrie 42 Box 16 - B-1040 Brussels - Belgium Ph: +32 2 230 83 60 - Fax: +32 2 230 83 70 – [email protected] – www.cerre.eu Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 2. Regional and intercity trains: how can PSOs move from monopoly to competition? ............. 6 2.1 General overview ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 The obstacles to overcome ............................................................................................ 10 2.3 Tendering process: the coming experiments ................................................................. 13 3. High-speed services and ‘on-track’ competition: numerous barriers to entry ...................... 17 3.1 General overview ........................................................................................................... 18 3.2 The rail access charges issue .......................................................................................... 21 3.3 Capacity shortages and sharing out the proceeds of profitable HSR services? ............. 23 4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 25 References .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]