Rail Investments in the new Member StatesOverview of the situation

and debriefing on UNIFE activities

Michael Clausecker

UNIFE Director-General

Appendix 4

Rail investments in the new Member States

1. Opportunities

2. Challenges

3. Case studies

4. Objectives

5. UNIFE Strategy and Achievements

1. Opportunities

• The Central and Eastern European Countries: a huge market for our industries

– Historically, high market share of rail transport

– Considerable need for investment in infrastructure and rolling stock

Age of rolling stock in the CEECs, Source: CER, UIC, 2004

1. Opportunities

• Large available funding from the EU: between €40bn and €50 bn will be spent on transport; at least €15bn for rail transport

• 85% EU co-financing rate

• Possibility to finance infrastructure and some rolling stock units

Country Transport (in € bn)

Rail (in € bn)

Poland 18,0 6,0

Hungary 6,3 1,8

Slovakia 3,8 0,9

Czech Rep. 5,4 2,8

Latvia 1,0 0,2

Estonia 6,0 0,2

Romania 4,0 1,9

Bulgaria 1,4 0,8

Slovenia 0,9 0,4

Lithuania 1,6 0,6

TOTAL 48,4 15,6

Estimates according to the Operational Programmes

2. Challenges

• Competition from other modes of transport

Investments in road infrastructure are easier and quicker Modal shift from rail to road and air

Source: CER, 2004

Trend in demand for passenger and freight transport by rail

2. Challenges

• Main variables hindering/facilitating rail investments

– Political stability

– Quality of the public administration (bureaucracy vs. new public management; situation of the IM vs. government)

– Presence/lack of experts

– Legal rules for investments (public procurement, expropriations…)

• Very different national situations in the CEECs, but some common problems

– Preference for line modernisation rather than new lines construction

– Reluctance vis-à-vis high-speed

– Lack of Master Plan

3.1 Case study: Poland

• Biggest beneficiary of EU funds: around € 6 bn for rail investments

• Lagging behind: too limited absorption capacity – very slow investments

– not enough projects developed

– preference for small projects

• Situation improving: – Ambitious master plan almost finalised

– political stabilisation

– Improvements in the legal framework

P ło c k

R y b n ik

G liw ic eK ę d z ie rz yn -K oź le

B ie ls k o -B ia ła

Z a w ie rc ie

ŁódźK a lis z Ł u kó w

S ie d lc e

WarszawaK u tn oK o n in

To ru ń

W łoc ław e kIn o w roc ła w

BiałystokO s tro łę ka

Bydgoszcz

O lsztyn

D z ia łd o w o

E łk

Iła w a

P iła

G d y n ia G dańsk

Tcz e w

S łu p s kE lb lą g

L e sz n oZielona G óra

Te re s po l

Poznań

Szczecin

K o s za lin

G orzów W lkp.

S u w a łk i

Kielce

To m a sz ó w M a z .

C z ę sto ch o w a

W rocław Lublin

Z a m o ść

S k a rż ys k o -K a m .

D ę b lin

R a d om

W a łb rz y c h

L e gn ica

J e le n ia G ó ra

Ż a g ań

W ę g lin ie cC h e łm

K ło d z ko

O pole S ta low a W o la

Ta rn ó wRzeszów

J a s ło P rz e m y ś l

N o w y S ą c z

D ocelow e prędkościna s iec i PK P PLK S .A .

201 - 300 km /h161 - 200 km /h141 - 160 km /h121 - 140 km /h101 - 120 km /h

81 - 100 km /h60 - 80 km /h

Kraków

Katowice

O s tró w W lkp .

3.1 Case study: PolandPolish network in 2030 as

foreseen in the Master Plan

Source: CNTK, 2007

3.2 Case Study: Slovakia

• EU funds allocated to rail transport for 2007-2013: € 872 m

• Objective 2007-2013: – 165 km of modernised railways up to the speed of 160 kph

– Continuation of Priority Project Nr 23 and Realisation of Priority Project Nr 17

• Problems:– The network is obsolete and very dense

– No clear Master Plan, but main priorities in line with TEN-T priority projects. However, this Master Plan needs to be prepared in order to stop the losses in passenger transport and to increase the share of rail freight.

– Main problems regarding rail investments : preparatory work of the projects and tendering procedures.

3.2 Case Study: Slovakia

Source: OP Transport Slovakia 2007-2013, 2007

3.3 Case Study:Czech Republic

• EU funds allocated to rail transport for 2007-2013: € 2.6 bn + € 297 m for urban transport (including urban rail)

• Clear objectives set, massive investment (more for rail than road)

• Main priorities: – Construction and modernisation of TENT-T corridors and its linkages– Construction and modernisation of regional tracks– Construction and modernisation of important transport connections within

Prague– Modernisation of rolling stock (€ 90 m investments in 2007)

• Some problems and limits:– Problems of coordination with Poland regarding corridor VI /priority project

n°23– Modernising infrastructure in the Czech Republic is useless if neighbouring

countries do not invest as well (problems with Austria and Germany);– Problems to get funds to deploy ERTMS on Corridor E.

3.3 Case Study:Czech Republic

Passengers

Freight

Railway network – planned investments – 2015

Source: OP Transport of the Czech Republic, 2007

4. Objectives

• Overall objective: Transform funds in turnover for our industries

• Sub-objectives: Maximum absorption of the funds allocated to the new Member

States Maximum share of rail investments among the modes of transport Increase the size of tenders to make them more attractive for our

members

5. UNIFE Strategy and achievements

1. Gathering information (funds available, spending situation, contacts)

2. Going to the new Member States (meetings with Transport Ministers and local stakeholders): meeting with the Czech Deputy Minister of Transport on 25 October 2007; meeting with the Slovenian Transport Minister on 12 December 2007

3. Events: Seminar on the Implementation of Rail Infrastructure Projects in new EU Member States, 11-12 July 2007; Meeting with all infrastructure managers from the NMS + Rail industry national associations planned for 2008

4. Cooperating with CER/EIM (common actions to develop)

5. Cooperating with DG Regio (exchange of information)

6. Involving UNIFE National Associations Committee + UNIRAILINFRA: discussions inside the committees + setting up of a special working group (1st meeting on 8 November 2007)