European Railway Agency. Impact Assessment Report

Transcription

1 European Railway Agency ERA studies: STUDIES: 1) MERGING OF HS AND CR TSIS AND 2) SPLITTING OF THE TRANSVERSAL TSIS Impact Assessment Report Reference: (filename) Document type: Final report Version : 1.0 Date : 19/11/2010 Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by Name Airy Magnien Gergana Simeonova Airy Magnien Position Economic Evaluation Unit Interoperability Unit Head of Economic Evaluation Unit Date & Signat. (signed, 19/11/2010) (Signed, 19/11/2010) Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 1 / 14

2 AMENDMENT RECORD Ver. Date Section number Modification/description Author 0.1 9/11/2010 All First draft Airy Magnien /11/2010 All First issue, taking into account remarks & corrections by G.S. Airy Magnien Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 2 / 14

3 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION REFERENCE, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Reference Definitions and abbreviations HISTORY Previous impact assessment studies METHODOLOGY Principles Applied methodology Return of Experience SCOPE & DESCRIPTION Impact assessment scope SCENARII Reference Scenario Project Scenario IMPACTS Stakeholders and impacts, categorized Particular impacts on users, for each TSI Common impact : reduction in legislative & administrative work CONCLUSION MONITORING AND EX-POST EVALUATION Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 3 / 14

4 1. INTRODUCTION This report constitutes the impact assessment carried out by the Agency (Economic Evaluation unit), supporting the Agency study (Interoperability unit) regarding merging of high speed and conventional rail TSIs on the one hand, and splitting of transverse TSIs on the other hand Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 4 / 14

5 2. REFERENCE, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2.1 Reference The documents listed below are referred to by numbers in round brackets, e.g. (5). Footnotes use letters, such as: (a). 1. ERA. Applied Methodology Guidelines for Studies: 1) Merging of HS and CR TSIs, and 2) splitting of the transversal TSIs. 15 July STUDIES: 1) MERGING OF HS AND CR TSIS AND 2) SPLITTING OF THE TRANSVERSAL TSIS version 0.4, 5 November STUDIES: 1) MERGING OF HS AND CR TSIs AND 2) SPLITTING OF THE TRANSVERSAL TSIs - ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE version 0.1. Quotations from the above are in italics. 2.2 Definitions and abbreviations Term or abbreviation EC EU IA IM n.a NSA TSI Definition European Community European Union Impact assessment Infrastructure Manager (as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC) Not applicable National Safety Authority Technical Specification for Interoperability Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 5 / 14

6 3. HISTORY 3.1 Previous impact assessment studies The European Commission has taken an initiative to simplify EU law by, among other things, reducing the inventory of documents (Regulations, Decisions, ). Merging and splitting of TSIs would contribute to that initiative. No tangible impact assessment of this initiative is known to the Agency Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 6 / 14

7 4. METHODOLOGY 4.1 Principles The main guidelines for impact assessment come from the General Economic Guidelines drafted by ERA/Economic Evaluation unit, and approved by the RISC committee. 4.2 Applied methodology The author of the present report and the project officer in charge of the study have drafted an applied methodology document at an early stage (1) Questionnaires have been drawn up on the basis of the applied methodology document. Details can be found in the studies report (2). 4.3 Return of Experience Although the study is ERA-internal (based responses to questionnaires), the drafting of the applied methodology was useful to clarify the works between units The applied methodology document focused on usability of TSIs once merged or split. It did not explicitly consider overall effects of reducing the number of legal documents and the overall size of legal documents. Reduction of administrative work had to be considered in each particular case. In other words, the points of view of the Commission (lawmaker), the Agency (preparing the TSIs) and Member States (taking part in the decision-making process) were not considered on equal footing with users points of view, although it was not clear that the latter effects were negligible compared to the former. The present report attempts to fill the gap For the purpose of clarity, the present report considers reduction in administrative work as an independent item, common to all envisaged merging or splitting Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 7 / 14

8 5. SCOPE & DESCRIPTION 5.1 Impact assessment scope The scope of the study, and of the present impact assessment, is the one described in the mandate, i.e. : Merging of CR and HS TSIs : Energy, Infrastructure, Rolling Stock (Locomotives & passenger carriages) ; Splitting of transverse TSIs into other TSIs : Noise, Safety in Railway Tunnels, Accessibility for persons with reduced mobility Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 8 / 14

9 6. SCENARII 6.1 Reference Scenario The reference scenario is the status quo : inventory of TSIs would remain unchanged ; revisions of TSIs would remain unchanged (same legal basis, same actors, same prerogatives); processing of TSIs would remain unchanged (no introduction of requirements management systems is considered) These assumptions are made for the sake of the study. The first one is natural; the last two are doubtful, but changing them would assume initiatives (legal, managerial) that are out of scope here. 6.2 Project Scenario Target, options, migration The studies (2) conclude : TSI Outcome of Agency study Implementation period Infrastructure YES - merge 12/ /2012 Energy YES - merge 12/ /2012 Rolling stock YES - merge 12/ /2012 Noise No split awaiting TSI revision Possibly after revision Safety in Railway Tunnels No split N/A Accessibility for persons with reduced mobility No split awaiting TSI revision Possibly after revision The impact assessment will therefore be limited to the three mergers. Reasons for not splitting (or postponing the decision on splitting) the three transverse TSIs can be found in the study report (2) Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 9 / 14

10 7. IMPACTS 7.1 Stakeholders and impacts, categorized From all concerned stakeholders, only NSAs, Notified Bodies and Representative Bodies (sector organisations) were formally consulted (see (2), 7.1) through a questionnaire derived from the Applied Methodology (1). This was due to time and workload constraints, also considering that these bodies are the main users of published TSIs and therefore more likely to be significantly affected by merging and splitting. These users are also significantly involved in the errorcorrection and revision process of TSIs Member States, the European Commission and the Agency, all being involved in the update of TSIs, may also be affected by the changed administrative workload. An rough, semi-quantitative estimate of the changed workload for these stakeholders has been provided (mainly resting on a telephonic interview). 7.2 Particular impacts on users, for each TSI Summary table The qualitative assessment criteria are those from the applied methodology (1). economic effect The summary responses can be found in (3). The following only picks the expected economic impact of each HS + CR TSI merger. Figures express % of respondents sharing each opinion. Not a single negative opinion was provided, but some concerns were expressed and will need to be addressed in the course of the TSI revision process. reference positive neutral negative HS+CR RST TSI merger 56% 44% 0% question B1.3 HS+CR ENE TSI merger 54% 46% 0% question B2.1 HS+CR INF TSI merger 56% 44% 0% question B Locomotives & Passenger Carriages The existence of separate TSIs was generally considered as leading to difficulties, and very few respondents saw an advantage in keeping separate TSIs. Defining the borderline between High Speed Rail and Conventional Rail rolling stock was subject to different interpretations Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 10 / 14

11 7.2.3 Energy While most respondents were satisfied that effects of the merger would be positive, few respondents expressed concerns about increased complexity of the conformity assessment processes. These concerns should be addressed when the TSIs are actually merged and revised Infrastructure A majority (58%) of respondents expect a big improvement in the consistency of the TSIs. No significant concerns were expressed. 7.3 Common impact : reduction in legislative & administrative work Initial investment vs. ongoing savings All proposed merging or splitting will induce some additional (editorial) effort for actually performing the merging or splitting. This editorial effort is a one-off task performed in the course of otherwise necessary revisions. Therefore it is not considered a significant burden. This impact is not considered Once a particular merge or split is done, the legal document count is reduced by one, and all future revisions will apply to one less document TSI revision cycle We may assume TSI a revision cycle of about 5 years (3 years revision, 2 years latency at least), plus correction of deficiences a, over the lifetime of assets placed into service before the TSIs were first published (25 to 100 years) Of course revisions may become less and less heavy, as technical harmonization progresses and specific cases get removed Relevant, qualitative responses Respondents generally underlined that the merging of the considered TSIs will simplify the revision process. Figures (in % of respondents sharing this favourable opinion) is about 70%. The question by how much was not part of the questionnaire, and is supplemented by the following: a Error-corrections may not be a negligible task after a TSI has been released for the first time but, again, this is a one-off buckle in the workload Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 11 / 14

12 7.3.4 Semi-quantitative evaluation By semi-quantitative, we designate an quantitative evaluation where the orders of magnitude are hopefully right. In other words, we do not open the debate about the value of the first digit of each figure we just hope that it is in the right place Steps to turn a draft TSI into a Commission decision are, roughly: Linguistic verification of the original and translation into 2 additional languages Upload of TSI drafts Consultation process Drafting the Commission decision Interservice consultation RISC Committee: presentation and vote Translation into all foreseen EU languages Regulatory procedure with scrutiny Commission meeting decision under agenda point A Publication in Official journal Of course this list is not even exhaustive: each Commission decision will generate consequences in all Member States, with NSAs, NoBos, we consider these aspects have been dealt with through the answers to the questionnaire; see section A very coarse lower boundary of the benefits of having two TSIs merged into one is 450 k (on first release). In the present case, the Agency recommends to merge three pairs of TSIs (CR+HS ENE, INF, RST). The initial saving would represent at least about 1.3 M. This saving will be repeated in ca. 5 years intervals (revision cycle), to some extent (depending on closure of open points, removal of specific cases, etc.) The merging may also lead to some efficiency gains within the Agency, which are not counted here, and (even if counted) would not change the above order of magnitude of savings Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 12 / 14

13 8. CONCLUSION The merging of High Speed and Conventional Rail TSIs for ENE, INF and RST, recommended by the Agency study, is supported by the present impact assessment because: Stakeholders did not mention adverse economic effects, but considered them either economically neutral or favourable in the long run; The legal and administrative process of turning a draft TSI into a Commission decision has a significant cost (about half a million per TSI), and the envisaged mergers would result in a net cost saving of at least 1.3 k, followed by further savings along with the TSI revision cycle For the remaining TSIs (Noise, SRT, PRM), the Agency recommends not to split them across structural TSIs for the time being. The reasons are well established in the study report (2), and do not need to be complemented here. Since the Agency recommendation does not alter the current situation, the impact of the recommendation made by the study would be nil Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 13 / 14

14 9. MONITORING AND EX-POST EVALUATION No monitoring or ex-post evaluation seems useful here, except for the risks possibly evoked in the responses to the questionnaires Merging Splitting IA report 1.0.docx Page 14 / 14