Effective Reduction of Noise generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union

Transcription

1 MAY 2014 DG MOVE Effective Reduction of Noise generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUPPORT STUDY UNDER THE FRAMEWORK CONTRACT FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORT - MOVE/A3/ FINAL REPORT - APPENDICES PROGTRANS

2

3 ADDRESS COWI A/S Parallelvej Kongens Lyngby Denmark TEL FAX WWW cowi.com MAY 2014 DG MOVE Effective Reduction of Noise generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUPPORT STUDY UNDER THE FRAMEWORK CONTRACT FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORT - MOVE/A3/ FINAL REPORT - APPENDICES "THE STUDIES ARE SUBJECT TO A DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT. THE STUDIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND EXPRESS THE OPINIONS OF THE ORGANISATIONS HAVING UNDERTAKEN THEM. THE VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED OR IN ANY WAY APPROVED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S VIEWS. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE STUDIES, NOR DOES IT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY USE MADE THEREOF. COPYRIGHT IN THESE STUDIES IS HELD BY THE EUROPEAN UNION. PERSONS WISHING TO USE THE CONTENTS OF THESE STUDIES (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THEIR PERSONAL USE ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: EUROPEAN COMMISSION - MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT DG - LIBRARY (DM28, 0/36) - B-1049 BRUSSELS OR BY ELECTRONIC FORM". PROJECT NO. A DOCUMENT NO. 08 VERSION 04 DATE OF ISSUE 13 MAY 2014 PREPARED KORI, SVTJ, LRVI, JEJ, SRS, STHG, JACH, NVBE CHECKED KORI, SVTJ, KPGM APPROVED SVTJ

4

5 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 5 CONTENTS APPENDICES Appendix A Online Questionnaire 7 Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 31 Appendix C Case Studies 39 Appendix D The development of the wagon fleet 95 Appendix E Description of the methodology applied to the assessment of impacts 115 Appendix F Technical aspects of brakes and noise 127 Appendix G EU rail freight industry and transport 131

6 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 6

7 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 7 Appendix A Online Questionnaire Section 1: Information about respondent 1.1 In what capacity are you filling out this questionnaire? 1 As a citizen 2 Local or regional public authority 3 National public authority 4 Association 5 Non-Government Organization/Civil Society Organization 6 Company 7 Academia 8 Other 1.2 (for companies only) Please give the size of the company you work for 1 Micro enterprise (less than 10 employees) 2 Small and medium-sized enterprise-sme (10 to 249 employees) 3 Large enterprise (250 employees or more) 4 Do not know 1.3 (for associations/organisations/authorities) Could you specify what kind of organisation you represent? 1 Association of citizens 2 Association of trade unions 3 Association of industries 4 Association of freight forwarders 5 Association of rail operators 6 Association of wagon owners 7 Association of civil society organizations 8 Association of national authorities 9 Association of regional authorities 10 Other 1.4 (not for citizens) What is the name of the authority/association/company/organization you represent? (mandatory)

8 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire (associations/organisations) How many members does you association or organisation represent? 1.6 (for associations/organisations) Is your association/organization registered in the Transparency Register of the European Commission 1 Yes 2 No 1.7 (in case of yes in question 1.6) Please indicate the identification number 1.8 Please specify your main country of operation or residence? 1.9 Please indicate your contact details (name, and telephone). Please note that the questionnaire will be available for your full contribution only if your name and contact details are provided. You can still opt for your answers to remain anonymous when results are published. (mandatory) 1.10 Do you consent to the publication of your response by the European Commission? Contributions received may be published on the Internet, together with the identity of the contributor unless the contributor objects to publication of the personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm his or her legitimate interests. In this case the contribution could be published in anonymous form. 1 Yes 2 Yes, but anonymously 3 No Section 2: Data sources

9 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 9 If you know of any reports, studies, surveys, or data that are important for this impact assessment, please give a reference. If possible include a direct web link to the source. Section 3: Extent of the problem The Commission notes that freight wagons not conforming to the TSI-Noise limits are the most important sources of rail noise, and that existing measures are insufficient to reduce the level of rail noise quickly and effectively. In this section of the public consultation, the European Commission seeks to solicit your opinion regarding the depth and significance of the problem. 3.1 How do you rate the problem of rail noise in your area of residence or operation? 1 There is no issue of rail noise in my area of residence or operation 2 Not important 3 Of little importance 4 Somewhat important 5 Important 6 Very important 7 Don't know/no view 3.1 In your opinion and in general, what are the negative impacts of rail noise? 3.3 Please rank the following noise sources according to their contribution to noise levels in your area of residence or operation? 1 Freight trains 2 Passenger trains 3 Passenger cars 4 Trucks 5 Airplanes 6 Other 3.4 How would you rate your level of knowledge about issues regarding rail noise or leading to rail noise? 1 Very low 2 Low

10 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 10 3 Medium 4 High 5 Very high 3.5 (only if level of knowledge (3.4) is higher than low) To what extent do you think the below mentioned aspects contribute to the problem of rail noise? Tick not relevant, or from 1 to 5 if appropriate 1 (Very little) (very much) 6 (don't know / no view) Quality of wheels Quality of rails Speed of trains Amount of traffic 3.6 Are there any other aspects contributing to the problem of rail noise? 3.7 (for companies and associations only) Please describe how the rail noise issues affect your business, or the business of those your organisation represents? 3.8 (for citizens only) During which period are you most affected by rail noise? 1. I am not affected by rail noise 2. During the day 3. At night 4. Both at night and during the day (For citizens only) Please describe how exposure to rail noise affects you? 3.9 (for citizens only) Would you consider it more acceptable to live close to train routes if rail noise was reduced noticeably? 1. Yes

11 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION No 3. I am indifferent 3.10 (for companies only) Would you consider it more attractive to establish or relocate a business close to a rail line if noise was reduced noticeably? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I am indifferent / No opinion Section 4: Assessment of existing measures to reduce or limit rail freight noise (Skip section if knowledge is (question 3.4) not higher than low) 4.1 What measures have already been considered/implemented to tackle the problem of rail freight noise in your area/country/region of residence/operation? Please tick relevant measures 1 Noise barriers 2 Insulated windows 3 Measures on the track (dampers, stiff pads, bi-bloc sleepers, rail grinding) 4 Speed reduction 5 Financial incentives for the retrofitting of freight wagons with quieter brakes 6 Noise-differentiated track access charges (i.e. measures for adjusting charges dependent on noise emission) 7 Legal noise emission ceiling 8 Programmes to manage rail roughness/track upgrading/new design 9 Regulation for track condition and design 10 Public funding for noise abatement programmes 11 EU funding for research and development 12 Local funding for tackling specific noise problem 13 Information to stakeholders 14 Voluntary commitment 15 Other; please specify: 16 None 17 I don't know If possible, please describe the most important measures already taken. Please indicate whether certain combinations of measures have been used effectively.

12 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire (only if 4.1 is not answered with option 16 and 17) How effective were the measures taken so far in reducing rail noise? 1 Effective 2 Effective to a certain extent 3 Ineffective 4 I don't know/no view Please provide further comments on your answer about the effectiveness of measures so far. 4.3 (not for citizens) Do the measures implemented at the national/local level restrict mobility of people and/or goods? 1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know (Only if 4.3 is answered 'Yes') In which manner? 4.4 How quickly is the retrofitting of quieter brakes for existing rail freight wagons implemented in your region of residence/operation? 1 There is a substantial progress 2 There is a progress 3 There is very little progress 4 There is no progress 5 I don't know/no view

13 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION To what extent do you think the following objectives are important to be achieved in the future? Not important Of little importance Somewhat important Important Very important No view/ Don't know Business as usual Reducing noise from rail freight traffic Maintaining competitiveness of the rail freight sector Maintaining interoperability of the rail network, i.e. the ability of freight trains and wagons to move across internal EUborders freely Section 5: EU action The urgency of the issue and political pressure has led some countries to propose unilateral measures. The Commission fears that this could result in major perturbations for provision of cross-border rail services and barriers for railway interoperability, with likely distortion of competition and obstacles to trade and provision of services. In this section of the questionnaire, you are invited to weigh in on the need for EU action rather than unilateral actions. 5.1 Are measures currently taken at national/local level sufficient to achieve a reduction of rail freight noise? 1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know/no view

14 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire Do you think that current unilateral measures have acted as barriers to railway interoperability or that future unilateral measures will act as barriers to interoperability? 1 I strongly agree 2 Somehow agree 3 I don't know/no view 4 Somehow disagree 5 Strongly disagree 5.3 Do you think that EU initiatives and policy would contribute to the broader take-up of effective measures across the EU? 1 Strongly agree 2 Somewhat agree 3 No view/ don't know 4 Somewhat disagree 5 Strongly disagree How should the EU action be targeted as to ensure that it would not undermine the subsidiarity principle and would have the highest potential for EU value added? Section 6: Appropriateness (Skip section if level of knowledge (question 3.4) is not higher than low) This section provides a brief description of measures that are implemented or are under consideration by the Commission to combat the problem of rail noise. You are subsequently invited to rate the appropriateness of each measure on a 5 point scale and to provide additional comments where necessary. 6 Business as usual /Status quo/baseline scenario Noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC) approach Subsidy? approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach

15 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION To what extent do you find the subsidy approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know Will subsidies for retrofitting distort competition between operators? 1. Yes 2.No 3. I don't know What type of subsidy do you think is the most effective? (Click your two favourites) 1 Co-financing of retrofitting cost 2 Co-financing of increased operational costs 3 Lump sum payments 4 Miles-based (depending on intensity of use of retrofitted wagons) 5 Other (if option 1 in 6.1.2) What is the minimum level of co-financing of retrofitting costs that would have to be provided to be effective (while still being feasible for public budget)? 10% / 20% / 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100% (if option 2 in 6.1.2) What is the minimum level of co-financing of increased operational costs that would have to be provided to be effective (while still being feasible for public budget)? 10% / 20% / 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100% Do you have further comments on the subsidy approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. the duration of an incentive program, on what money should be spent, and the monitoring aspects of this approach.

16 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire To what extent do you find Noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC) appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view In your opinion what should be the basis for NDTAC (choose up to three)? 1 Number of axles 2 Weight of axles 3 Type of axles 4 Generation of wagons 5 Type of wagons 6 Wagon brake type 7 No view/don t know 8 Other (please specify) What form of NDTAC do you prefer? 1 Bonus (i.e. reducing track charges for TSI-Noise compliant wagons) 2 Bonus-malus (i.e. reducing track charges for TSI-Noise compliant wagons and increasing them for non-compliant wagons) 3 Malus (i.e. increasing track charges for non-compliant wagons) 4 Don't know/no view

17 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION To what extent should the track charges be differentiated for noncompliant and compliant wagons in order to establish a meaningful incentive to retrofit those wagons? 1-3% 4-6% 7-10% 11-15% 16-20% More than 20% Don't know/no view Should there be any differentiation in NDTAC between day and night? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don t know/no view (Only if the answer to is 'Yes') In which manner? Should NDTAC be dependent on the size and density of population exposed to rail freight noise? 1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know/no view Measures such as 'Low emission zones' and 'Congestion charging zones' are partially targeted at bringing about a modal shift from road freight transport to rail freight transport. Do you think that NDTAC will create a modal shift from rail back to road? 1 Yes, to a large degree 2 Yes, to a certain degree 3 Yes, to a slight degree 4 No 5 I don't know Do you think that introduction of the NDTAC schemes by some Member States only (like NL or DE) can have any positive spill-over effects for other Member States? In particular, could it constitute a sufficient incentive which will

18 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 18 bring about the change also in those countries where NDTAC is not yet introduced, or will it encourage the other countries to introduce similar schemes? Do you think that introduction of the NDTAC schemes by some Member States only can have negative effects for other Member States? In particular, could it negatively affect competitiveness of operators from those countries where NDTAC scheme is not introduced? Do you have further comments on the NDTAC approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. what elements should or should not be included in NDTAC, how can it be prevented that NDTAC negatively affects competition between Member States and how can monitoring be done? 6.3 To what extent do you find TSI noise approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view

19 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences Do you have further comments on the TSI-Noise approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. on how monitoring can be done. 6.4 To what extent do you find TEN-T approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

20 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire Do you have further comments on the TEN-T approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. whether the TEN-T lines cover broadly enough, whether it is practically possible to only apply restrictions to limited freight corridors and how monitoring can be done. 6.5 To what extent do you find density approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know Should there be any differentiation in rail traffic restrictions between day and night? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don t know/no view When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

21 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Do you have further comments on the density approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. how monitoring could be done or what the technical barriers are. 6.6 To what extent do you find the maintenance management approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences Do you have further comments on the maintenance management approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation.

22 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire To what extent do you find environmental health approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise? 1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) (very much) 7 Don t know When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach? 1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don t know / No view Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences Do you have further comments on the environmental health approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. how monitoring can be done, what the technical barriers are, and who should carry the costs in this scenario? 6.8 Do you have suggestions for any other policy measures that you would deem appropriate in contributing to substantial reductions of rail freight noise, without decreasing the competitive position of rail transport?

23 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 23 Section 7: Assessment of impacts of policy measures/options (Skip section if level of knowledge (question 3.4) is not higher than low) In this section you are invited to assess the expected impact of the 8 policy measures described in section 6. Please click this LINK if you want to open a PDFdocument including the description of the options. The policy options are assessed as to their potential direct or indirect impacts compared to the situation today. These include: 1 Competitiveness of the rail freight transport sector 2 Total administrative costs for companies and for the state 3 Working conditions in the railway sector 4 General employment levels in your country 5 Government budgets 6 Exposure of public to rail noise 7 Functioning of the Internal Market 8 Ability of operators from 3 rd countries (e.g. Switzerland and Russia) to maintain business in the EU. 7.1 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the competitiveness of the rail freight transport sector in the EU? Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know

24 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.2 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on total administrative costs for companies and for the state. Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

25 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on working conditions in the railway sector Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.4 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on general employment levels in your country? Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know

26 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 26 TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.5 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on government budgets Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know

27 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.6 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the exposure of the public to rail noise Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

28 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the functioning of the Internal Market? Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.8 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options the ability of operators from 3 rd countries (e.g. Switzerland and Russia) to maintain business in the EU? Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative No view/ Don't know

29 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 29 TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact 7.9 Please identify in the box below any mitigating measures which can be taken to reduce negative impacts of EU rail noise related intervention could have on the competitiveness of rail freight transport vis-à-vis road freight Please identify in the box below any impacts EU level rail noise related intervention could have specifically on SMEs and microenterprises Section 8. Final Comments 8.1 If you have any further observations or comments on how the noise of rail freight could be tackled, please specify these briefly below:

30 APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 30

31 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 31 Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 1 Identification of respondent What is the name of the respondent: What is the respondent s affiliation: 2 The problems of rail noise Do you think noise from rail freight transport is a problem: Why/why not It the problem of rail noise only coming from freight, or does it also come from passenger trains? How many wagons do you assess there is with the different types of brakes? How quickly is the retrofitting process going? When do you think the retrofitting will be completed Is the process considered satisfactory and if not what are the main obstacles Are there any other parameters in affecting noise Are you aware of existing mitigating efforts What are they and what is their impact? More specifically infrastructure measures or measures at source How have NDTAC performed? Do they think that the voluntary measures have worked, if not why? Do they think that existing measures will work within the given timeframe. If not why? Have there been sufficient motivation to promote noise reduction. At EU, national, regional, local level? How do you consider the noise impact to be (health, economy, etc.)? Where/when do they consider the negative effects to be more prominent Would existing measures affect common market (need to rephrase this) Will existing measures affect cost of rail Would measures implemented at national and/or local level restrict mobility of goods and or people Would existing measures or those in the pipeline lead to retrofitting. If not why, what would the obstacles be What is the residual life of the existing wagons Do you feel that the railway sector is reluctant to invest in noise reduction technology because of uncertainty about the coming regulation? If rail noise is a problem: when is it a problem? If rail noise is a problem: where is it a problem? If you are a firm operating in the rail sector: what do you currently do to reduce noise emissions from freight rail transport? How have the noise reduction efforts affected your profitability If you are currently trying to reduce noise emissions: what are the practical difficulties involved (supply of brake blocks, fitting to wagons, approval for use on NDTAC tracks, mix with cast iron brake-wagons, repairs, )?

32 APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 32 Do you experience any reactions from your clients or the general public to you efforts? Is the cost of retrofitting a problem, and why (competitiveness, lack of access to capital, ) 3 Objectives of EU s policy 3.1 EU right to act Are measures taken at local/national level sufficient Given that it is freight transport and that this is international can this problem be addressed at a local level Should this problem be addressed by unilateral or more general measures Are they aware of any co-ordination of measures at local/national level. Have these been successful. Have the measures put in place by the industry so far been sufficient. 3.2 Objectives What do you think would be meaningful objectives for EU s policy on rail noise: It has been proposed that effective reduction, by 2020, of the level of noise of freight wagons in the European Union is achieved when the at least one of the following targets is met: By 2020, the share of population affected by excessive 1 rail noise in the EU in 2013 is lowered by at least 50%; By 2020, the population exposed to excessive noise level benefits from a decrease of at least 8 db. Do you believe these targets are realistic? Which targets do you think are reasonable and realistic? Do you think it makes sense to target efforts at areas with high population density? Does the current situation disrupt completion of single European railway area, if so should the measures in place have as objective to avoid such a disruption? Is the current regulatory framework clear? Does the introduction of voluntary schemes or individual measures increase the administrative complexity? How could this be reduced? 1 Seriously endangering health of the people affected

33 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 33 4 EU s policy options to reduce noise from rail freight transport The European Commission is currently conducting an impact assessment of policies to reduce noise from rail freight transport. The impact assessment is considering the following policy options: Policy options Status quo Subsidies approach Noise Differentiated Track Access Charges NDTAC approach Technical Specification for interoperabilit y TSI Noise approach TEN-T approach How the options deliver on the objectives This is the baseline scenario. The baseline must assess how the future situation is likely to evolve under the current legal framework (TSI Noise applicable to new wagons only, non-mandatory noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC), 20% co-financing of retrofitting under the Connecting Europe Facility), including assessing the effects this will have on the health of citizens and on the competitiveness of railways. Likely future developments are that some progress will be made though fragmented with a possible risk for reverse modal shift. This option foresees additional financial incentives (subsidies) to improve the rate of retrofitting of wagons at EU level with "silent" brake blocks. It is important to estimate the level and exact type of the subsidy that will have the optimal result. A sufficiently high subsidy could deliver in preventing overutilization, increasing quality of life and wellbeing as it could accelerate retrofitting. Still it might not guarantee a common approach or legal clarity. While it could build acceptance, much will depend on the chosen source of funding (EU or national), as, given the current economic environment the allocation of public funds has developed into a sensitive issue. This will be combined with a voluntary NDTAC. This approach examines in detail the effects of the optional introduction of NDTAC on the rate of retrofitting of freight wagons with "silent" brake blocks possible "spill-over-effects" and foresees a comparison with the possible effects of a mandatory NDTAC. Here, the extent to which this option will deliver will depend, as the experience so far has shown, on the actual design of the NDTAC system. A properly designed and technically feasible and cost-effective system could provide a best practice scenario to have positive impacts on the whole of the EU. This option differs from the market-based instruments (subsidies and NDTAC approaches), by introducing a legal limitation on the level of noise produced by the existing wagons for all the lines in the EU. This option might be contested on the grounds of availability of funds, higher costs, technical difficulties, and the possible reduction in rail competitiveness. All these factors will have to be assessed in order to estimate an appropriate date for such an introduction. A number of possible variations concerning transition periods can be envisaged. It is relevant to consider combining this option with the subsidies approach to mitigate some of the negative effects of on the competitiveness of the rail freight sector of forcing firms to invest in noise reduction. This option is limited in its scope of application to the railway TEN-T network. Reduction of rail noise could be achieved by introduction of noise emission ceilings (limiting daily average emissions along the line) or application of other approaches (NDTAC, TSI Noise) to the TEN-T network only. The main differentiating characteristic is the focus on the international dimension of the railways and the intensity of freight volumes. In addition it introduces the risk of reduced competitiveness so long as similar measures are not taken for the competing modes (i.e. road), as well as for the overutilization of old rolling stock which will now be used disproportionately on lower freight volume routes. It might be relevant to consider combining this option with the subsidies approach to mitigate negative effects.

34 APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 34 Policy options Density approach Maintenance management approach Environmental health approach How the options deliver on the objectives This option is similar to the one examined above regarding the ways to achieve the noise reduction goal via noise emission targets. It focuses mainly on the density of population and as such it is expected to have positive results in terms of quality of life and acceptance. It might have limited effects while being costly and complex to implement. Again funding will become an important issue. A number of possible variations concerning definition of the 'densely populated areas' can be envisaged. There will be also difficulties to implement and enforce this option. This option is directed towards the second element in the wheel rail interface - rail. Setting up requirements for the rail roughness on the European Rail Network (or part of it) could lower noise not only for freight wagons but also for passenger trains. The infrastructure manager would play a key role in delivering this option. This option could however be contested on the grounds of the subsidiarity principle. This option could be combined with one or several of the other policy options deliver a substantial contribution. This option assumes an equal treatment of all transport modes, therefore is regarded as "fair" as far as intermodal competition is concerned: it would introduce a general maximum level of transport-related noise exposure in the EU. This could have the highest and equally spread positive impacts and would not disproportionally burden railways. At the same time this option could have the most opposition from stakeholders and Member States, on a number of ground such as the high costs of implementation (which could be disproportionate between modes and countries), as well as technical and operational difficulties. In the following I shall ask you about what you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of each option. What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the status quo option? Who are the winners and losers from this option What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the subsidies approach? Do you think it relates to the objectives? Which form do you think is appropriate (subsidy to retrofitting, subsidy to operational costs, lump sum subsidy, loans, tax breaks) How big a share of the costs should be covered Who should receive the subsidy? Who should finance it? What are your experiences with previous subsidy schemes related to freight rail transport (e.g. ERTMS) Which countries do you think would voluntarily introduce NDTAC? Who are the winners and losers from this option Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits?

35 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 35 What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the NDTAC approach Do you think it relates to the objectives? Do you think a voluntary NDTAC would reduce the interoperability of the EU rail network, if so, how? Do you think that if a few Member States adopt the NDTAC, then others will follow? Do you think there is a great risk that some Member States will choose to deviate from EU s suggested system, and do you think that each Member State ought to have its own system due to fundamental differences in the noise problems? What are your experiences with the existing NDTAC in Europe (does it work in practice, does it cause problems for goods flows, is it really the case that noise wagons pay more, what are the administrative burdens in relation to putting together trains, do firms retrofit back to cast iron brakes )? Who are the winners and losers from this option Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits (e.g. spill overs to other countries)? Do you see a need for EU action? What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the TSI noise approach? Does it relate to the objectives? What are your experiences with the TSI (do firms retrofit back to cast iron brakes, ) Who are the winners and losers from this option? Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? How soon do you think it could/should be introduced? How should compliance be monitored (periodical inspections?) Are there any technical barriers? What are the costs of this option? Who should bear the costs? Do you think it would be effective? Can the composite brake suppliers deliver on time for a noise reduction by 2020? What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the TEN-T approach? How does it relate to the objectives? Who are the winners and losers from this option? Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? How should compliance be monitored What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? What is the cost of this option? Who should bear it? Is the option effective with respect to reaching the objectives? Are the TEN-T lines sufficient, or should the noise limits cover a wider or narrower set of corridors?

36 APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 36 Would it be technically possible to optimize wagon use, so that the silent wagons are used on the TEN-T network, and the noise wagons on the rest of the network? (How many wagons would be necessary to achieve this?) Would it be a problem to shift the noise away from the TEN-T corridors? What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the Population density approach? How does the option relate to the objectives? How soon should/could it be implemented? How should the monitoring be made? What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? Who are the winners and losers from this option Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? Do you think the option would be effective? What should be the density limit? Should there be any differentiation between day and night? Does the option treat citizens equally? What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the Environmental health approach? How does the option relate to the objectives? When could/should it be introduced? How should it be monitored? What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? Who are the winners and losers from this option What is the cost of the option? Who should be the cost? Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? Do you think the option would be effective? Do you think the option would affect transport volumes, transport prices and price levels for consumers? If so, by how much? What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the Maintenance management approach? How does it relate to the objectives? When could/should it be introduced? What are your experiences with the existing track maintenance in Europe (does it work in practice, does it cause problems for goods flows, )? How should monitoring be made? What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? What is the cost of this option? Who should bear it? How will the market split it? Would the option be effective? Should it maybe focus on specific corridors? How should the infrastructure managers be compensated? How should the sector be compensated? Who are the winners and losers from this option Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits?

37 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 37 5 Impacts We will evaluate the options mainly on how effective they are with respect to reducing noise from rail freight transport and maintaining the competitiveness of rail freight transport. Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to rail freight noise reduction Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to maintaining the competitiveness of rail freight transport? Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to maintaining the interoperability of the EU27+Switzerland rail freight system, reduce CO2 emissions, create growth and employment in EU27+Switzerland and keep sustainable public budgets in EU27+Switzerland? 6 Information Are you aware of any data or literature, which you believe would help us assess the impacts?

38 APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 38

39 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 39 Appendix C Case Studies Case study A: Germany Southern part of the upper Rhine valley between Offenburg and Weil a.r. 1.1 Project summary table Table 1: Project summary Case study Region Railway section under investigation Length of railway section under investigation Number of gauges, Vmax (after extension) Number of daily rail freight trains Rail noise affected population >55 db(a) Lden (2005) Rail noise affected population >55 db(a) Lnight (2007) South-western part of Germany, Baden- Württemberg, upper Rhine valley Southern part of the Rheintalbahn, the Rhinevalley railway line between Karlsruhe (DE) and Basel (CH) Offenburg Weil am Rhein (a.r.) Approximately 114 km 2, partly km/h, electrified 160 (2004), appr. 190 (2010) , National rail freight noise legislation and regulation National passenger and rail freight market The German passenger and freight rail market is one of the most important rail markets within Europe. It is dominated by the formerly state owned German Railway (Deutsche Bahn AG), which is the largest railway operator and infrastructure owner in Central Europe and a state owned company under private law. 2 Freight trains at the cross section Basel to / from the Rhine valley

40 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 40 Overall, German railways transport about 2.5 bn passengers per year (2011) including 95 % local traffic. The national passenger rail transport performance accounted for about 85.3 bn passenger-km (pkm) in 2011, from which 58% was performed as local transport. At the same time the German rail transport volume was about million tonnes, the transport performance accounted for bn tonne-km (tkm). [26] The German railway network has a length of approximately km (2011), thereof 81 % are owned by the German Railway (DB AG). From these km, almost 60 % ( km) are electrified. [26] In 2012 (incl. railway bonus cf. explanation railbonus below) the federally owned German railway infrastructure demand to be refurbished regarding noise protection accounted for km. Thereof, approximately km have already been refurbished, which means that km still stand in need of being upgraded or enhanced regarding noise protection. Assuming the elimination of the railbonus, additional km would further need to be refurbished. [7] In , the German Railway (DB AG) owned and operated about rail freight wagons. [26] The overall German rail freight wagons market is estimated to account for about , deployed on German rail network in total National rail freight noise legislation Already in 1974 the federal Act on the Prevention of Harmful Effects on the Environment caused by Air Pollution, Noise, Vibration and Similar Phenomena, shortly called the Federal Immission Control Act - Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (BImSchG) was adopted and came into force in western Germany. Nevertheless, it did not contain any limiting values for noise being generated by traffic or transport. [4] The limiting values concerning noise generated by traffic were then incorporated into the 16 th federal immission control ordinance (16. BImSchG) in 1990, shortly called the traffic noise ordinance, which based on the BImSchG. The traffic noise ordinance is valid for the construction (newly build) or essential amendment (extension) of roads as well as railway lines of railways and trams. It defines an amendment essential ( 1) if: a road or a railway line is constructional extended by one or more lanes for public motor vehicle traffic, respectively extended by one or more railway lines; the fundamental constructional intervention will increase the assessment level of noise of the modified traffic route at least by 3 decibel (db(a)), to 70 db(a) in daytime or to 60 db(a) at night (the limits are not valid within commercially used areas) values estimations [26]

41 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 41 In addition to these basic limit values, which are valid for noise generated by traffic and transport, the ordinance further defines more specific noise limits to preserve the neighbourhood (by noise reconstruction funding) against harmful effects caused by traffic noise. The assessment of legal entitlement is differentiated according to regulations if the railway lines underlie the noise precaution (Lärmvorsorge) or noise reconstruction (Lärmsanierung), which was determined by the adaptation of the BImSchG in [2] Hence, the minimum triggering level for public eligibility of (active / passive) noise protection in Germany is 60 db (a) at night (10 p.m. 06 a.m.) and 70 db (A) by day (06 a.m. 10 p.m.). Table 2: Noise immision limiting values for noise reconstruction levels by day at night Hospitals, schools, cure / retirement home Residential-only and common residential areas, small residential estate areas Central / village / mixed used areas 70 db(a) 60 db(a) 70 db(a) 60 db(a) 72 db(a) 62 db(a) Business / commercial areas 75 db(a) 65 db(a) Remarks: Assessment period of rail noise - assessment level of rail by day 06 a.m. 22 p.m. at night 22-06h; assessment level of rail noise - average level of noise pollution per hour within the assessment period of rail noise (excluding railbonus) [3] Source: [18] In Germany (according to BImSchG ( 41)) the following ranking of noise mitigation measures exists: Priority 1: Spatial separation of railways and residential areas; Priority 2: Prevention of noise emissions according to the technical state-ofthe-art of equipment and infrastructure (improvement of braking systems, rail roughness etc.); Priority 3: Active noise protection (e.g. noise protection walls at track, tunnels, specific monitored rail (BüG)); Priority 4: Passive noise protection (e.g. windows in buildings). In addition, there is also the possibility for compensation if the measures are not sufficient and the exceeding of noise limits is inevitable. [4] Railbonus A peculiarity of the German legislative framework (Appendix 2 of 3 BImSchV) is the railbonus, which is based on a broad public acceptance of railway transport as an environmentally less harmful transport mode, compared to road transport.

42 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 42 The railbonus reduces the noise emission assessment level by 5 db(a); though it is not valid on railway sections which are highly loaded by rail freight. [4] The federal government of Germany intends to scrap the railbonus, which would need a legislative adjustment of the 16. BImSchV, a draft regulation is under reconciliation. [5] National rail freight noise programmes The overall target of the German federal ministry of transport, building and urban development (BMVBS) is to reduce the 2008 noise pollution level of rail transport by 50 % up to There exist several programmes concerning rail (freight) noise, which have been nationally initiated within the last years, the most important: [17] Noise renovation programme at railway lines (1999): On-going programme for the noise renovation of railway lines, which was raised to 100 million /year since 2007; National noise mitigation programme I (2007) & II (2009); Innovation programme Silent freight transport (2007), which aims to modify / upgrade of freight wagons with silent breaking technology [16] Within the DB 2020 strategy, currently freight wagons are refurbished. [36]; Within this innovation programme the project Silent Rhine funds the further development of K (Composite) - and LL- (Low friction / low noise) blocks as well as the introduction of the noise dependent differentiation of line prices at railway lines (LaTPS) [7, 6]. 1.3 Description of case study area and region Geographical and regional classification of case study area The case study area, the southern part of the upper Rhine valley area is located in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg in the south-west of Germany. Overall, the upper Rhine region it is an economically prosperous region, especially in its regional centres Karlsruhe, Stuttgart and the Rhine-Neckar region around Mannheim / Ludwigshafen in the north. These areas are also great economic importance, as they are part of several main European transport corridors, e.g. the rail freight corridor between Rotterdam and Genoa. In comparison, the southern part of the upper Rhine valley, the case study area, is less important in the socioeconomical context, nevertheless plays an important role within the international (rail freight) infrastructure. In 2012, approximately people have been living in 38 municipalities within the boundaries of the case study area (Offenburg Weil a.r.) potentially affected by rail noise. [29]

43 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Relevance of case study area within the national rail network The rhine valley railway is a railroad line located in the south-western part of Germany, Baden-Württemberg and connects Mannheim via Karlsruhe (DE) in the north with Basel (CH) in the south of the upper Rhine valley. It consists of an electrified double-track rail and represents one of the most important railway sections of the whole German network. Accordingly, its upgrade and new construction (3 rd and 4 th rail) is of fundamental importance concerning the national and European rail freight development. It is part of the rail freight corridor 1 (CODE24) between the sea ports of Rotterdam (NL) and Genoa (IT) as the northern part of the NRLA (New Railway Link through the Alps). Figure 1: Overview of the European railway network in 2020, the location of the case study area within the code 24 corridor Rotterdam Genoa and the infrastructure works in progress Source: Deutsche Bahn AG [19] The overall objective is to extend / newly construct the 3 rd and 4 th parallel rail of the Rhine valley railway (exception is the freight bypass at Freiburg; 2 doubletrack at 44km). The aim is to dissolve the rail freight transport from the passenger transport and to increase the capacity respectively the travel- / transport time. E.g. after completion, the travel time for passengers will last 69 min. instead of currently 100 min. [9] The capacity will be then significantly increased accommodating 639 trains. The extended track between Karlsruhe and Basel will have a length about 182 km with a design speed of up to 250 km/h. The daily capacity will be more than 250 trains of (local) rail passenger traffic and rail freight traffic pass the Rhine valley. It is expected and has been projected that, in 2025, the upper Rhine valley railway will have the highest traffic load within the German railway network with a train passing frequency of every 3 minutes. [5] Hence, is without doubt, that the current and the expected traffic load with rail passenger and freight services will generate

44 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 44 much noise which negatively impacts the population and environment, if no additional mitigation measures will be taken. The whole railway section in the upper Rhine region between Karlsruhe and Basel is divided into 9 main sections (PFA) for the planning approval procedure, in Germany so called Planfeststellungverfahren (PFV). At the moment two major parts of the whole track between Karlsruhe and Basel are extended up to 4 lines and in operation as illustrated in Figure 2 (red bar), more precisely: PFA 2-6, between Rastatt South and Offenburg since 2004 [9]; PFA 9.1 between Schliengen and Eimeldingen, including the Katzenbergtunnel with a length of 9.4km in operation since 12/2012 [11]. Figure 2: Map of the Rhibe valley railway and the current state (02/2012) Source: Deutsche Bahn AG [9] Subsequently we will focus our analysis and assessment on the southern section between Offenburg and Weil a.r., which still is at the planning stage. The extension / new construction (PFA ) onto 4 tracks on a length of 114 km between Offenburg and Weil a.r. has been finished for app. 70 km [3] (expected residual costs: 3.66 bn, state 01/2013). [6] According to forecast of the BVWP 2003, assuming the 4 track operation (Vmax partly up to 250km/h) in 2015 there are expected. [11] 138 freight trains per day in north south direction 148 freight trains per day in north south direction Again, we hereby see that the Rhine valley railway line and its expected traffic load including rail freight will have fundamental impacts for the adjacent

45 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 45 population and environment. The negative impacts generated by rail (freight) noise have to be mitigated / reduced as far as possible and feasible. 1.4 Regional rail freight traffic and transport Current and future freight traffic demand Assuming that all railway projects under construction, planned and new priority projects within the BVWP 2003 being realised in 2025 (e.g. Gotthard Base Tunnel, TGV Est Paris-Metz etc.) the forecast between 2004 and 2025 expects that the rail freight transport performance will increase by 65 %. Taking the performance into account as base for the capacity restrictive rail freight traffic assignment, the Rhine valley railway line will face the following future freight train volumes. Table 3: Numbers of rail freight trains for cross section Freiburg - Schallstadt Number of freight trains ** 2015* 2015/ 2004 % / 2004 trains by / // 131 / 139 / day trains by / / 155 / 165 / night trains / day % % Remark: *Results BVWP Day: Night: ; ** ProgTrans AG 2013 Source: BVU/ITP 2008 [25] It is expected that the above mentioned cross section will account for 534 trains per day at a capacity of 639 trains, though this depends on the economic development, the traffic load and capacity of the northern and southern sections. [25] % Conditions of trains and wagons used for rail freight transport According to experts opinion, an audible result of low noise breaking systems (LL- / K-blocks) can initially be reached, if at least 80 % of a rail freight train is equipped with such composite material braking system. [5] In Germany, the most reasonable figures on rail freight wagons and their breaking equipment is provided by DB. [36] The deployment of noisy trains to be fitted with composite breaking blocks accordingly is estimated at Thereof, approximately 60,000 freight wagons are owned each by the DB (DB Schenker Rail), private wagon keepers and foreign railway companies / wagon keepers. [1, 34] DB Schenker Rail targets to retrofit at least 10,000 freight wagons until 2014/2015 and further freight wagons until 2020 to reach their DB strategy 2020 target which aims to reduce the rail

46 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 46 noise by 50 % compared to the 2000 level In addition, also about rail freight wagons of other companies (private wagons keepers and foreign railway companies / wagon keepers) will have to be retrofitted to reach the goal. Furthermore, DB plans to purchase approximately quiet wagons to support their 2020 strategy. [36] Conditions of infrastructure concerning rail freight noise Due to the fact that the planning process of the railway extension between Offenburg and Weil a.r. is on-going (routing / layout) the direct (active) abatement measures to be applied are under discussion. 1.5 Regional rail freight noise volumes and dimensions Current noise levels The EU environmental noise directive ( END, 2002/49/EC) requires establishing so called strategic noise maps, which have to be established every 5 years; the first have been elaborated in The maps are elaborated for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations, in Germany by the federal agency for railways (EBA). They show harmonised noise indicators as L den (day-evening-night equivalent level) and L night (night equivalent level) to assess: the spatial spread of rail noise and the number of people negatively affected by rail noise over the day and at night throughout Europe. [27] Strategic noise maps are prepared and publically published for the rail noise levels (if traffic volume of > trains per year) in the area under investigation (Offenburg Weil a.r.) for the indicators L den and L night.[28] By the exemplary rail noise map (L night ) of Müllheim, a city within case study area, it becomes obvious and indisputable that the overall (and specifically freight) rail traffic is negatively affecting the environment and inhabitants alongside the tracks of the southern Rhine valley railway line. Figure 3 shows the noise emission of railways at night (L night ), its calculated spread across the environment and the intensity of emissions illustrated by colours. The noise bands > 55 db(a), which exceeds the limits of the traffic noise ordinance are coloured orange to purple. Assuming that the congestion of rail freight traffic share compared to passenger traffic during the night is higher than by day, which especially holds for the Rhine valley(estimations for 2015 account 155 at night and 36 by day), the map shows that rail noise db(a) by night (L night : 22-06h) emits e.g. more than m to the west and, for example, almost fully impacts the village of Steinenstadt with a noise level more than 45dB(A) (southern part of the map).. Several residential buildings south-eastern of Steinenstadt and east of the railway line are affected above the L night limiting value of 55 db(a) (including Railbonus).

47 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 47 Figure 3: Strategic noise map (2007) for a rail segment (west of Müllheim) within of the case study area Remark: Strategic noise maps include main railways with a traffic volume > trains / year. Source: Federal railway association (2007): Strategic noise map for federal railways (2007) [28] Amount of people affected by rail freight noise In addition, the END requires that the national authorities (EBA) provide the estimated number of people living outside agglomerations in dwellings that are exposed to assessment specific band of noise values for the noise indicators L den and L night. [27] The subsequent figure shows the estimated number of people affected by rail noise at night (L night ) for the specific bands of noise values in Spatially it covers only the relevant case study area between Offenburg and Weil a.r., based on the available data of the estimated number of inhabitants (approximately inhabitants in 2005) being affected by rail noise in municipalities. [29]

48 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 48 Figure 4: Estimated number of people affected by rail noise for assessment specific noise band values in the case study area in 2007 Remark: Noise band values to be reported differ according to the indicator Source: Own spatial allocation and calculations by ProgTrans AG, based on [28] The figure shows that, in general, the rail noise for the whole day (L den ) affects more people than during the night. In addition, the estimation of affected people for the whole day (estimations starts only above 55 db(a)), accounts for more than people; at the level >75 db(a) even for almost people. Nevertheless the estimation of rail noise affected people during the night within the case study area, which is very important for the implementation / application of noise protection measures, accounts for almost 37,000 inhabitants >55 db(a). As we previously determined, the rail freight traffic plays an important role particularly at night. Due to a significantly higher share of rail freight traffic at night compared to its share by day (2015: 81.2 %, 2025: 79.7 %), it is likely that the majority of more than 102,000 people within the case study area are negatively impacted by rail freight noise >45 db(a) at night. Assuming that the relevant freight trains are at least as noisy as passenger freight trains and the above assumed share of freight train volumes is also valid in 2007, more than 80,000 people were affected by rail freight noise >45 db(a) between 22h and 6h in the case study area. Above 55 db(a), the estimation accounts for almost 30,000 people.

49 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Public and private interests related to regional rail freight noise Company / Producer side (infrastructure managers) The upper Rhine Valley railway infrastructure between Mannheim and Basel is owned by DB Netz AG, a 100% owned subsidiary of the DB and a railway infrastructure provider. Especially within the area under investigation and the context of upgrading the railway infrastructure and its noise relevant impacts, a broad interaction between the various public interest groups (cf. below) and the DB Netz AG was established over the past years. Compared to other infrastructure measures / project, there are various information concerning project status, responsibilities, costs etc. available. [18] Public / Consumer side On the public side several interest groups deployed and established within the case study area. They aim is to emphasize the impacts of the rail infrastructure extension and the expected increase of rail (freight) traffic, its consequences regarding noise emissions and their negative impacts on the environment and especially the residential population. The most important interest group is the IG BOHR, the interest group on rail protest for the upper and high Rhine region (Interessengemeinschaft Bahnprotest an Ober- und Hochrhein), with a membership figure of about ( It is the umbrella association for several other locally organised citizens groups of the upper Rhine region and the high Rhine regions, respectively interest groups. The IG BOHR formulated key requirements according the existing and the future rail traffic on the European line Baden 21 Offenburg Weil a.r. in the so called BADEN 21 thesis, which comprises 6 key requirements to be fulfilled to avoid / reduce the noise pollution and exposure as far as possible: A double track rail freight tunnel in Offenburg; A double track rail freight line parallel of the motorway A5 between Offenburg and Riegel including the optimal noise protection measure; Middle and lower level rail including locally enhanced noise protection measures of the motorway A5 parallel rail freight line between Riegel and Mengen; Partly capped the lower level rail freight line between Mengen and south of Buggingen (citizens` line); Capped lower level long distance rail and rail freight line in Weil Haltingen; Routing to allow the guidance of all rail freight transits through the Katzenbergtunnel leading to a discharge of the municipalities at Isteiner Klotz and which enables to introduce the 30 min local train (Regio S-Bahn) interval between Freiburg and Basel [20, 21]. As a nationwide unique and successful measure, required continuously by the IG BOHR and finally widely supported by local and national politicians (most of them

50 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 50 belonging to the party of Christian Democratic Union (CDU)), is the creation of a high-level project advisory board (Projektbeirat), an informal institution those members meet between two and three times a year. There are four bodies having access to this project advisory board: DB-Netz (as the project manager), the German Ministry of Transport, the State of Baden-Württemberg, official not responsible for the railway infrastructure, and representatives of the Upper Rhein region (politicians, IG BOHR). Established in 2009, the project advisory board discusses line options and noise protection improvements to target a noise reduced and environmental save project execution. Formal approvals to start constructions for new sections of the railway line, released by the federal railway authority (EBA), are subject to prior discussions in and, ideally, a consensus among all parties being members of the advisory board. Measures to protect people from rail noise and exceeding the legal requirements need an agreement and an additional financial support, in the past shared by the Ministry of Transport and the State of Baden-Württemberg (50%/50%). The tunnel in Offenburg and the motorway parallel route alignment between Offenburg and Riegel are further measures to better protect people from rail noise which are not necessarily the most financial advantageous solution seen by DB- Netz. [5] However, the willingness of all stakeholders of the project advisory board to discuss those solutions can be regarded as a broad political agreement to spend more money in railway protection measures than legally required. 1.7 General and case study specific impacts related to rail freight noise Impacts of traffic / rail freight noise It is statistically proved that buyers of single-family houses in Germany in a noisy environment are less wealthy than buyers of estates located in a quiet environment; Negative effects of noise on the value of real estates are already provable at a noise level of above 45 db(a) by day (Lday) [31]; There are also effects on the rental charge: The rental charge reduces by 0,9 % per db(a) [31]; The willingness to pay for noise mitigation measures per private household accounts for 25 db(a) / year [31]; The UBA estimates that the value of a real estates (houses, apartments, property) decrease by 0,5 % per year and db (A) Lden caused by traffic [32]; Traffic noise: Surveys detect that rail noise does not negatively impact the inhabitants not as much as road traffic [33]; A study elaborated by the Swiss agency for environment (BAFU) determines: Own property is much more negatively affected by traffic noise than rental property [30]; Rail traffic noise has a higher negative impact on rental charges than noise of road traffic [30].

51 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 51 Table 4 Impacts of traffic noise on real estate values in 2011 Price reduction per additional db(a) above the limit value Traffic noise by rental property condominium ownership Road -0,19 % -0,59 % Rail -0,26 % -0,47 % Aviation -0,11 % Not assessed Remark: Limit value Lday >50 db(a) Lnight >40 db(a), Source: Bundesamt für Umwelt [30] In addition, a study concerning the evaluation of health effects of rail noise under particular consideration of the railway line between Offenburg and Basel provided by the university hospital Freiburg determines, that rail noise engenders: A health risk, particularly by a disturbance of sleep; Enhancement of costs for medication and disease; Absenteeism or limited working capacity; Impairment of property; Communication difficulties due to noise immissions [37] Impacts of direct rail noise abatement measures The DB expects a reduction of 4-6 db(a) through constructional noise protection measures at the railway line between Karlsruhe and Basel. [24]. The impact of the Swiss noise protection strategy The Swiss parliament demands a higher noise protection impact, due to that the objective of reducing 67 % of residents affected by noise above the noise limit value until 2015 is not expected to be reached. Thus, the Swiss objective is to reduce the number of noisy foreign freight wagons. According to that the introduction of NRTAC has a limited incentive potential, the ban for the usage of domestic and foreign noisy freight wagons (ban of cast iron blocks) in 2020 is the new key measure in the Swiss railway noise abatement strategy (2nd package) until This strategy, expected to be decided by parliament the end of 2013, will also significantly impact the rate of retrofitting German freight wagons and their noise emissions at the Rhine valley, as around 70 % of all foreign wagons in Switzerland are of German origin. [34]

52 APPENDIX C - Case Studies Rail noise abatement measures Current and expected regulations and measures and their estimated impacts effectiveness / efficiency Noise related track access charges (LaTPS / NRTAC) The noise related track access charge system (LaTPS) has been developed within the context of the overall innovation programme Silent freight transport and was introduced in It aims to prevent that all rail freight wagonwagons which exceed the noise limits as defined in the TSI vehicles noise (2011/229/EU) to use the rail network of the DB Netz AG at the end of the LaTPS. It has a duration of 8 years and includes a subsequent regulation for the time after [5] The noise dependent differentiation system advantages / benefits the wagon keepers (after proofed the TSI conformity and retrofitted the wagon with silent breaking blocks)) with 0,5 -Ct. per axle and km. The maximum grant for the retrofitting per axle is 211 (max. 50 % of the added costs for retrofitting), paid by the BMVBS.[18, 23]

53 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 53 Case study B- Poland Southern Region from Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship 1.1 Project summary table Table 5: Project summary Case study Region Railway section under investigation Length of railway section under investigation Number of gauges, Vmax (after extension) Number of daily rail freight trains Rail noise affected population >55 db(a) Lden (2005) Rail noise affected population >45 db(a) Lnight (2005) Southern region form Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship Part of E30 European III Corridor region from Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship Opole Kędzierzyn Koźle Kędzierzyn Koźle Gliwice Gliwice Katowice Katowice Kraków Approximately 183 km Defined separately for each railway line table 6 Defined separately for each railway line table 'Table 6: Number of gauges, v max and daily traffic amount Railway 136 Opole Kędzierzyn Koźle 137 Kędzierzyn Koźle Katowice 134 Katowice Mysłowice 133 Mysłowice - Kraków Passagers v max [km/h] average (minmax) 70 (60-80) 95 (60-120) 90 (80-100) 80 (30-120) Freight v max [km/h] average (minmax) No. of tracks No. of daily rail passenge rs trains No. of daily rail freight trains Sum (30-100) 90 (80-100)

54 APPENDIX C - Case Studies National rail freight noise legislation and regulation National passenger and rail freight market The Polish railway market is dominated by the Polish State Railway Group (Polish: Grupa PKP S.A.) formed after commercialization of the Polish State Railways (Polish: PKP) company in Since then, in the newly created Polish State Railway Group (hereinafter PKP Group) there were established companies rendering services in: Passenger transport like: PKP Intercity S.A., PKP SKM in the Trójmiasto Sp. z o.o.; Freight transport like: PKP CARGO S.A., PKP Linia Hutnicza Szerokotorowa Sp. z o.o.; -railway infrastructure like: PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A., PKP Enegetyka Sp. z o.o., TK Telekom Sp. z o.o., PKP Informatyka Sp. z o.o. Besides the companies from PKP Group there are a number of companies owned by the self-governments or private local and international investors rendering services in passenger transport like: Przewozy Regionalne S.A. ; Koleje Mazowieckie KM Sp. z o.o.; Koleje Dolnośląskie S.A.; Koleje Wielkopolskie Sp. z o.o.; Koleje Śląskie Sp. z.o.o.; Szybka Kolej Miejska Warszawa Sp. z o.o.; Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa Sp. z o.o.; Arriva RP Sp. z o.o.; UBB Polska Sp. z o.o. Furthermore there are a number of companies rendering services in freight transport like: Grupa CTL Logistic Sp. z o.o.; Grupa DB Schenker Rail Polska S.A.; P.U.K. Kolperm Sp. z o.o.; Pol-Miedź Trans Sp. z o.o.; Lotos Kolej Sp. z o.o.; Transoda Sp. z o.o.; Rail Polska Sp. z o.o.; Orlen KolTrans Sp. z o.o.; STK S.A.; KP Kotlarnia S.A.; Freightliner PL Sp. z o.o.; ITL Polska Sp. z o.o.

55 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 55 The Polish railway market is currently the fourth largest railway market in Europe. In 2012, approximately million passengers were serviced, which, in terms of their transport amounted to about 17.9 billion passenger (pkm). Transportation of goods in 2012 amounted to approximately million tons of cargo what placed their transport at the level of around 49 billion tonne-kilometers (tkm). PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. at the end of 2012 governed more than 19 thousand of railway lines, i.e. more than 37 thousand km of tracks. As a result of repair works and maintenance-the technical condition of railway infrastructure has significantly improved. The condition of the railway infrastructure is presented in a Figure 5 below: Figure 5: Condition of the railway infrastructure. Source: Railway lines for which the condition is defined as "good" (Polish: dobra in Figure 1)- i.e. the lines operating with assumed parameters represent 43% of total infrastructure. Railway lines for which the condition is defined as "satisfactory" (Polish: dostateczna) - i.e. lines with reduced operating parameters, requiring the replacement of tracks defective parts represent 30% of the entire infrastructure. Railway lines for which the state is defined as unsatisfactory (Polish: nie satysfakcjonująca) - railway lines with significantly reduced operating parameters, eligible for replacement of superstructure constitute 27% of the total infrastructure. PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. continuously aims at improvement of the condition of the entire infrastructure through gradual upgrading. For the described section of the E30 line comprehensive modernization of the section Katowice - Krakow is under implementation funded from Operation Programme, Infrastructure and Environment (OP IE). There are also preparatory works carried out for the purpose of modernization of the whole section Katowice railway nood including section Kędzierzyn Kozle - Katowice.

56 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 56 Scope of works carried out for modernization of E-30 line on the section Zabrze Katowice Kraków include: Reconstruction of tracks surface and complexity replacement of tracks; Liquidation of dangerous railway crossings for the purpose of double level railway crossings; Reconstruction of engineering structures; Construction of about 60 km of noise barriers; The purpose of modernization is: Reduction of passenger travel time and freight transport; Increasing of safety in the rail and road transport; Improvement of comfort for passengers' service; Reduction of noise and vibrations associated with railway line operation; Increasing of railway transport share on the passenger and freight transport market, in particular intermodal transport National rail freight noise legislation The Polish regulatory framework in the area of noise and its impact on the environment was established in the late 90's. An important turning point in the Polish legislation was the Law on Environmental Protection published in It was the first law covering all aspects in the field of environmental protection. This law implements the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the evaluation and control of environmental noise. Currently the most important implementation regulations referring to noise issues are as follow: Regulation of the Environment Ministry of 16 June 2011 on the requirements for conducting measurements of the levels of substances or energy into the environment by managers of road, railway, tramway line, airport or port ; Regulation of the Environment Ministry of 10 November 2010 on the determination of value for Lden noise factor; Regulation of Environment Ministry of 14 June 2007 on acceptable noise levels in the environment including amending Regulation i.e. Regulation of Environment Ministry of 1 October 2012 amending the Regulation on acceptable noise levels in the environment in terms of values for these levels; These above mentioned regulations define the methods of measurement and determining the impact of such railway lines on the environment and determine the acceptable noise levels in the environment are presented in the following tables:

57 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 57 Table 7: Proof values for environmental noise ratios expressed as LAeqD and LAeqN, which are indicators that are applicable to the establishment and control of use of the environment in respect of day and night time. Proof volume noise levels [db] Roads and railaways 1) No. Area description L Aeq D Time interval referenced to 16h of daytime L Aeq N Time interval referenced to 8h of nighttime 1 a)the protection zone "A" health resort b)hospitals outside the city area 2 a) Single-family housing areas b) Development areas related to the permanent or temporary stay of children and young people 2) c) Areas of social care homes d) Hospitals in city 3 a) Areas of multi-family housing b) Areas of village housing with farm buildings c) Recreational areas 2) d) Residential with service areas Downtown areas of cities with more than citizens 3) Explanations: 1) Noise level proof values according to roads and railways are also according for tramways separated from road area and funicular railway. 2) If area is not in use during nighttime the limits for night time are not valid. 3) According to local law regulations

58 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 58 Table 8: Proof values for environmental noise ratios expressed as LDWN and LN, which are indicators that are applicable to the conduct long-term policy for the protection against noise. Proof volume noise levels [db] Roads and railaways 1) No. Area description L DWN Time interval referenced to all days through the year L N Time interval referenced to all nighttimes t 1 a)the protection zone "A" health resort b)hospitals outside the city area 2 a) Single-family housing areas b) Development areas related to the permanent or temporary stay of children and young people c) Areas of social care homes d) Hospitals in city 3 a) Areas of multi-family housing b) Areas of village housing with farm buildings c) Recreational areas d) Residential with service areas Downtown areas of cities with more than citizens 3) Explanations: 1) Noise proof values according to roads and railways are also according for tramways separated from road area and funicular railway, 2) According to local law regulations Furthermore, in the light of the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC and the Environmental Protection Law administrators of roads and railway lines are obliged to perform acoustic maps and programs to protect the environment against noise. These studies are designed to monitor and to prevent potential threats that exist or may arise from the operation of roads and railway lines National rail freight noise regulations The issue of railway noise was recognized by the General Assembly of the Community of European Railways in Berlin. Across Europe, the works on the limitation of noise emitted by rolling stock were carried out. Unification of efforts in this regard was introduced by the European Commission with the directive on the interoperability of the conventional rail 2001/16/EC. As the result of the research works and to identify the main sources of noise created in 2006, the

59 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 59 Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) of the subsystem rolling stock - noise was elaborated. In practice, this specification defines the conditions for admission (certification) of rolling stock for use in terms of noise. It specifies values for the noise emission of different vehicle types, determine the sources, potential causes, and suggests a method of testing the solution to the problem of noise generated by rolling stock. IN Poland in addition to legislation directly related to the obligations of the manager of the railway line infrastructure, the Polish law also introduces a requirement for owners of rolling stock. These requirements apply to the conditions for approval of vehicles for operation. These requirements are included in the Regulation of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy of 10 August 2012 on the extent of the studies necessary to obtain a certificate of release to service buildings intended for railway traffic, the certificate of release to service a device for operating of railway traffic and a certificate of approval to operate a rail vehicle. 1.3 Description of case study area and region Geographical and regional classification of case study area The III Pan-European Transport Corridor runs from Dresden in Germany through Wrocław - Katowice - Krakow - Medyka - Lviv Kiev in Ukraine to Moscow. The route of the Corridor on the Polish territory is the following: Zgorzelec / Bielawa Dolna - Boleslawiec - Legnica - Wrocław - Opole - Kedzierzyn-Kozle - Zabrze - Katowice - Jaworzno - Trzebinia - Krakow - Tarnow - Rzeszow - Przemysl Medyka, and includes the E30 / CE 30 railway lines. The following case study area covers a part of the III Pan-European Transport Corridor, i.e. section Opole - Katowice - Krakow located in the Southern Poland in Opolskie, Slaskie and Malopolskie voivodeships.the analysed section is one of the most important railway sections of the whole Poland network. On the map below the route of Corridor III on the section from Opole to Kraków is presented. The line E30 Opole Zachodnie Kędzierzyn Koźle Zabrze is marked out in green colour, the railway line C-E 30 Opole Groszowice Pyskowice Gliwice Katowice Muchowiec Mysłowice is marked out in blue and the railway line E 30/C-E 30 Zabrze Katowice Kraków (Podłęże) in red colour. Other important railway lines are marked out in yellow.

60 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 60 Figure 6: The analysed area of three voivodeships is an economically prosperous region. Source: Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice Kraków. Overall, the analysed area of three voivodeships is an economically prosperous region. Source: Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice Kraków. The three analyzed voivodeships are inhabited by nearly 9 million people in total. Opole, Gliwice, Zabrze, Ruda Śląska, Chorzów, Katowice, Sosnowiec and Kraków are the cities of over 100 thousand inhabitants, and are crossed by the analyzed section E 30 / C-E 30. The most populated city is Kraków: inhabitants and Katowice: inhabitants (the data as of 31 December 2011). The population of the other above-mentioned cities is in the range of thousand inhabitants. The general description of the region through which runs the analysed section of the III Corridor has been presented below, whereas the detailed description of the study area in the following part. General description of the region The Opolskie voivodeship The area of the Opolskie voivodeship equals km ² and it is the smallest voivodeship in Poland. The Opolskie voivodeship is inhabited by approx. 1,010 mln people, which represents about 2.7% of the whole Polish population. The number of people is decreasing as a result of emigration and low birth rate.

61 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 61 The seat of voivodeship authorities is located in Opole and the other big cites are the following: Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Nysa, Brzeg, Kluczbork. There are 35 cities in the Opolskie voivodeship. The analysed voivodeship is located in the south-western part of Poland. It borders with the Czech Republic and other four Polish voivodeships, i.e. Dolnośląskie, Wielkopolskie, Łódzkie and Śląskie. The larger part of the Opolskie voivodeship is occupied by Nizina Śląska (the Silesian Lowland). The highest peak of the voivodeship (Biskupia Kopa ) is situated in its south-western part and is 892 m in height. The main river of the voivodeship is Odra. The largest lakes are artificial reservoirs of which the biggest are: Nyskie, Otmuchowskie and Turawskie Lakes. The Opolskie voivodeship registered about national economy entities. The region employs more than three hundred thousand people, more than 73% of which work in the private sector. Industry gathers 24.1% of employees, construction industry - 7.4%, agriculture % and services below 53%. The Opolskie voivodeship creates 2.14% of the Polish GDP (data for the year 2010). Through the territory of the region runs the A4 highway - the most important highway for the Southern part of the country that belongs to the Berlin-Kiev Trans- European route, and the E 30 / C-E 30 railway line which constitutes a part of the III Corridor and plays an important role in international rail transportation between East and West. On the southern border with the Czech Republic, there are six border crossings for passengers and freight. Opolskie Voivodeship is perceived as one of the best developed areas in terms of road infrastructure the public road network density amounts to 90.9 km per 100 km². The Śląskie voivodeship An area of the Śląskie voivodeship is ,09 km². The voivodeship is placed in the Southern Poland on the area of Nizina Śląska (Silesian Lowland), Wyżyna Śląsko-Krakowska (Silesian-Krakow Highland), Kotlina Oświęcimska (Oświęcim Basin), Pogórze Zachodniobeskidzkie (West-Beskidian Piedmont) and Beskidy Zachodnie. Although the region is upland, the greatest part of it is flat or slightly undulating, which does not causes any significant transport difficulties. The voivodeship s population is mln people, which represents approximately 12% of the Polish population. It is a very strongly urbanized area and its population density of about 374 people per km ² is the largest in Poland. Katowice is the seat of the region authorities. Industry and services are the main branches of the economy in the voivodeship. The smallest group of population works in the agriculture and forestry. An important branch of industry is mining, particularly coal. The Upper Silesian Industrial Region located in the central part of the voivodeship is the most industrialized area in Poland. One of the largest in the Europe railway junction is situated in Tarnowskie Góry in the Śląskie voivodeship. Fast moving form Katowice to the Polish capital (Warsaw) is possible thanks to the Central Main Line, and form Katowice to Gdynia thanks to the Port Line (C-E 65), which handles majority of the freight

62 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 62 from voivodeship s area. It is important to mention that the line that joins Poland and the east, so called the Broad Gauge Metallurgy Line (LHS), has its end in the Śląskie Voivodeship, i.e. in Sławków. The most important road routes of the region include: the A1 (E75) highway, the A4 (E40) highway, the S1 expressway, the S69 expressway, the S86 expressway and some national as well as voivodeship roads. An international airport Katowice-Pyrzowice is situated near the capital of the region (about 30 km). It should be emphasized that about 50% of the national rail freight transport is carried out in the analysed voivodeship. The Małopolskie voivodeship The Małopolskie voivodeship covers an area of km ². In terms of population (3.354 mln people) it is on the 4th place in Poland. The population density is among the highest in the country and equals 221 people / km ², while the national average is 123 people / km ². The Małopolskie voivodeship covers parts of Karpaty Zachodnie (the Western Carpathians) and Wyżyna Małopolska (the Malopolska Upland). The voivodeship s geographical environment is diversified, and its natural topography is definitely highland and upland, as over 50% of the region is located over 500 meters above sea level. The characterized voivodeship is the only one in Poland where deposits of natural coal, crude oil, sulphur, gypsum, zinc and lead, sandstones and lime stones can be found. The Małopolskie voivodeship has 61 cities, including 3 cities with voivodeship status (Kraków, Tarnów and Nowy Sącz). It has a substantial socio-economic potential on a national scale - it produces 7.35% of the GDP (data for 2010). An important branch of the małopolskie voivodeships economy is tourism. The Małopolskie voivodeship is characterized by well-developed transport infrastructure. Through the region run transit routes from east to west (Zgorzelec/Olszyna-Medyka/Korczowa) and from north to south (rail lines and national roads). The Kraków-Balice airport, which is situated 11 km west of Kraków, has connections with many cities of the world and is the second after Warsaw Chopin Airport airport in the country. Getting to the small villages is possible thanks to a dense network of well-maintained local roads. The basic rail network of the Małopolskie voivodeship includes km of lines, most of which are electrified. The historically formed connections system communicates most of the cities in the region. The biggest traffic load occurs on the lines: Katowice - Kraków - Tarnów and Kraków - Warsaw. Relevance of case study area within the national rail network The section Opole Katowice Kraków is a railway line located in the southern part of Poland. The detailed description concerning the route of the analyzed section of railway line has been presented below.

63 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 63 The Opolskie voivodeship The E30 line The length of E 30 railway line within the Opolskie voivodeship amounts to about 56 km. It runs through the area of four cities: Opole, Gogolin, Zdzieszowice, Kędzierzyn Koźle. Moreover, in the close area of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Przywory Opolskie, Górażdże, Jasiona, Rozwadza, Raszowa. The E 30 line runs through the following rural communes: Tarnów Opolski, Gogolin, Zdzieszowice, Leśna, Kędzierzyn Koźle. The C-E 30 line The length of C-E 30 railway line within the Opolskie voivodeship amounts to about 44 km. It runs through the area of two cities: Opole and Strzelce Opolskie. Moreover, in the close area of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Tarnów Opolski, Kamień Śląski, Szymiszów, Warmątowice, Błotnica Strzelecka. The C-E 30 line runs through the following rural communes: Tarnów Opolski, Izbicko, Strzelce Opolskie. The Śląskie voivodeship The E30 line The length of E 30 railway line within the Śląskie voivodeship amounts to about 83 km, about 15 km of which run through rural communes and 68 km through urban communes. The E30 line runs through the areas of six cities with the population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants (Gliwice, Zabrze, Ruda Śląska, Chorzów, Katowice i Sosnowiec). Other major cities through which runs the E30 line are (with the population of more than 50 thousand inhabitants) the following: Świętochłowice, Mysłowice and Jaworzno. Moreover, in the close area of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Rudziniec Gliwicki, Taciszów, Rzeczyce Śląskie. The C-E 30 line The length of C-E 30 railway line within the Śląskie voivodeship amounts to about 89 km. It runs through the areas of the same communes as the E 30 line, but it bypasses the central parts f the cities. In the close area of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Kotulin, Ligota Toszecka, Toszek i Paczyna. It should be emphasized that the largest in the whole country mining area is placed in the Upper Silesian agglomeration. There are 68 coal mines with a total area of 1750 km², grouped mainly in two industrial districts (Upper Silesian Industrial Region and Rybnik Coal Area). Intensive exploitation of the line associated with coal mining causes the so called phenomenon of mining damage, based on often uncontrolled collapse of the ground.

64 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 64 The Małopolskie voivodeship The E 30 line The length of the E 30 railway line within the Małopolskie voivodeship amounts to about 64 km. It runs through the area of the following cites: Kraków, Trzebinia, Krzeszowice, and rural communes: Trzebinia, Krzeszowice, Zabierzów, Wieliczka, Niepołomice. In the immediate vicinity of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Balin, Trzebinia, Młoszowa, Dulowa, Wola Filipowska, Krzeszowice, Pisary, Rudawa, Niegoszowice, Zabierzów, Rząska, Zalesie, Kokotów, Węgrzce Wielkie, Rudzica, Podłęże. The C-E 30 line The length of the C-E 30 railway line within the Małopolskie voivodeship amounts to about 72 km. It runs through the area of the same communes as the E 30 line, but it bypasses the central parts of Kraków. In the close areas of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Balin, Trzebinia, Młoszowa, Dulowa, Wola Filipowska, Krzeszowice, Pisary, Rudawa, Niegoszowice, Zabierzów, Rząska, Podłęże. The analyzed III Rail Corridor section between Opole and Kraków (the E-30 line and the C-E 30 line on Opole - Katowice Kraków section) plays a major role in international rail traffic, both transit - through the Polish territory, and the Polish foreign trade carried out by rail transport. Also in Polish internal rail transport, the analyzed railway lines (E-30 and C-E 30 on the Opole - Katowice Kraków section) have an extremely important role, contributing as a key element linking the major economic centres of the southern Poland, including the Upper Silesia, which is the main basin of raw materials in the country and an important center of industry and services. In the Upper Silesia, the E 30 and the C-E 30 railway lines are connected with lines which run towards the central and northern part of Poland, within the VI Pan-European Transport Corridor. In the directions to Warsaw, Łódź and sea ports, the E 65 / C-E 65 railway lines and the line No 1 Katowice - Czestochowa Warsaw are particularly important. These connections are crucial for the efficient functioning of the entire Polish rail freight system. The following table presents the basic technical - operational parameters of the analysed railway lines.

65 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 65 Table 9: Basic technical operational parameters of the analyzed railway lines C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name of the line Electrified/ Not electrified Num-ber of tracks The maximum speed of passenger trains [km/h] The maximum speed of freight trains [km/h] X Opole Wschodnie Opole Groszowice X 277 Opole Groszowice Wrocław Muchobór Opole Groszowice 132 Bytom Strzelce Opolskie Wrocław Główny E E X Strzelce Opolskie Toszek Paczyna 132 Bytom Wrocław Główny E X Paczyna Pyskowice 132 Bytom Wrocław Główny E X Pyskowice Gliwice Łabędy X Gliwice Łabędy Gliwice 135 Gliwice Łabędy Pyskowice 168 Gliwice Gliwice Łabędy E E X Gliwice Gliwice Sośnica 141 Katowice Ligota Gliwice E X Gliwice Sośnica 141 Katowice Zabrze Makoszowy Ligota Gliwice Kopalnia E X X Zabrze Makoszowy Kopalnia Zabrze Makoszowy 141 Katowice Ligota Gliwice Zabrze Makoszowy 141 Katowice Ruda Bielszowice Ligota Gliwice E E X Ruda Bielszowice 141 Katowice Ruda Kochłowice Ligota Gliwice Radoszowy E X Radoszowy Panewnik 141 Katowice Ligota Gliwice E X Panewnik Katowice Muchowiec X Katowice Muchowiec Stawiska X Stawiska Stawiska SK1 R3 171 Dąbrowa Górnicza Towarowa Panewnik 171 Dąbrowa Górnicza Towarowa Panewnik 655 Mysłowice MWB Katowice Muchowiec KMA E E E Stawiska X SK1 R3 Mysłowice MWB 655 Mysłowice MWB Katowice Muchowiec KMA E 1

66 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 66 C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name of the line Electrified/ Not electrified Num-ber of tracks The maximum speed of passenger trains [km/h] The maximum speed of freight trains [km/h] X X Mysłowice MWB - Mysłowice 138 Oświęcim Katowice E X X Mysłowice Jęzor 134 Jaworzno Szczakowa Mysłowice X X Jęzor Długoszyn 134 Jaworzno Szczakowa Mysłowice X X Długoszyn Jaworzno Szczakowa X X Jaworzno Szczakowa Pieczyska X X Pieczyska - Trzebinia X X Trzebinia Krzeszowice Kraków Mydlniki X Kraków Mydlniki Kraków Batowice 134 Jaworzno Szczakowa Mysłowice 133 Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice Kraków Główny Osobowy 133 Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice Kraków Główny Osobowy 133 Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice Kraków Główny Osobowy 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże E E E E E E E X Kraków Batowice Dłubnia 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże E X Dłubnia Kraków Nowa Huta 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże E X Kraków Kościelniki 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże E X Kraków Kościelniki Podgrabie X Podgrabie Podłęże 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże 95 Kraków Mydlniki Podłęże E E X Opole Zachodnie Opole Główne 132 Bytom Wrocław Główny E X Opole Główne Opole Groszowice X Opole Groszowice Raszowa X Raszowa Kłodnica 280 Opole Groszowice Opole Główne 136 Kędzierzyn Koźle Opole Groszowice 136 Kędzierzyn Koźle Opole Groszowice E E E

67 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 67 C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name of the line Electrified/ Not electrified Num-ber of tracks The maximum speed of passenger trains [km/h] The maximum speed of freight trains [km/h] X Kłodnica Kędzierzyn Koźle 136 Kędzierzyn Koźle Opole Groszowice E X Kędzierzyn Koźle Nowa Wieś 137 Katowice Legnica X Nowa Wieś 137 Katowice Rudziniec Gliwicki Legnica X Rudziniec Gliwicki Gliwice Łabędy 137 Katowice Legnica E E E X Gliwice Łabędy Szobiszowice X Szobiszowice Gliwice X Gliwice Chorzów Batory X Chorzów Batory Katowice X Katowice Katowice Zawodzie X X Katowice Zawodzie Katowice Szopienice Południowe Katowice Szopienice Południowe Szabelnia X Szabelnia Mysłowice MWB X Kraków Mydlniki Kraków Główny Osobowy X Kraków Główny Osobowy Kraków Płaszów X Kraków Płaszów Kraków Bieżanów 137 Katowice Legnica 137 Katowice Legnica 137 Katowice Legnica 137 Katowice Legnica 1 Warszawa Centralna Katowice 1 Warszawa Centralna Katowice 138 Oświęcim Katowice 138 Oświęcim Katowice 133 Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice Kraków Główny Osobowy 91 Kraków Główny Osobowy Medyka 91 Kraków Główny Osobowy Medyka E E E E E E E E E E E X Kraków Bieżanów Gaj 91 Kraków Główny Osobowy Medyka E X Gaj Rudzice 91 Kraków Główny Osobowy Medyka E X Rudzice Podłęże 91 Kraków Główny Osobowy Medyka E Source: own elaboration based on the Network Statement - Regulations concerning allocation and use of train paths on available railway lines by licensed railway undertakings within timetable 2013/2014.

68 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 68 As it results from the data in the table 5 above, the E-30 / C-E 30 Opole - Katowice - Krakow section is electrified and the technical condition of many of the sections needs to be improved. Therefore, modernization works are planned or currently being performed. At the moment, the modernization works are planned or already carried out on the Katowice Kraków and the Błotnica Strzelecka Opole Groszowice sections. Overall modernization of the line between Opole and Krakow is essential and will ensure the efficient functioning of national and international rail network. The following table 10 presents information about ongoing and planned investments on the E 30/C-E 30 railway line between Opole and Kraków. Table 10: Information about ongoing and planned investments The name of the project The estimated cost of the investment (PLN) Vmax after project implementation The period of project execution Improvement of transport services quality by improving the technical condition of the 132 Bytom Wrocław Główny railway Line on the Błotnica Strzelecka Opole Groszowice section mln PLN 120 km/h for passenger trains and 70 km/h for freight trains Modernization of the 133 railway line on the Kraków Jaworzno Szczakowa section 2,484 mln PLN 160 km/h 2015 Modernization of the 134 railway line on the Jaworzno Szczakowa Mysłowice section Modernization of the 138 railway line on the Mysłowice Katowice section Source: own elaboration on the basis of "Wieloletni Program Inwestycji Kolejowych do roku 2013" (eng. Longterm plan for Railway Investments up to 2013) and PKP PLK Joint-Stock Co. s data 1.4 Regional rail freight traffic and transport Current and future freight traffic demand The exploitation work on the PKP PLK S.A. railway network in gross tonnekilometres on the analysed section amounted to 4,329,031, in the year Assuming that all railway projects under construction and planned will be realised we can expect that future volume of transport will achieve the values presented in the table 11 below.

69 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 69 Table 11: Forecasted volume of freight transport (th. tons) on the section E 30 /C-E 30 Opole Katowice Kraków Year Forecast Minimum 88,079 91,610 Maximum 97, ,040 Source: own elaboration Conditions of trains and wagons used for rail freight transport PKP CARGO Joint-Stock Co. is the largest freight operator operating on the Polish railway market. The total number of wagons in Poland amounted to 101,511 wagons, of which 65,453 were owned by PKP CARGO Joint-Stock Co., which accounted for approximately 64.5% of the total freight wagons in Poland [2]. 1.5 Regional rail freight noise volumes and dimensions Current noise levels Following the EU Directive 2002/49/EC the Environmental Protection Law introduced the requirement of monitoring and planning in the field of noise for both the cities, main roads and railway lines. In 2007, at the request of PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. acoustic map for railway line with the volume of more than trains per year was elaborated. It was the first significant document in terms of addressing noise originating from railway lines. In years , there were prepared updates of the noise maps including areas of railway lines for the cities over 100,000 inhabitants. At the same time, PKP PLK has started development of new noise maps, this time for railway lines with the traffic volume of more than 30, 000 trains per year. The study aims accessing of acoustic climate in the railway lines vicinity. It is a result of conducted measurements and executed analyses and describes the impact of the railway line and its consequences. The scopes of emission of individual railway lines as well as the locations of places with breaches of admissible proof values are presented as imission maps in Figures 7 to 16. Below there are presented excerpts from noise maps for the upgraded railway lines, where the noise levels are in compliance with the Regulation of the Minister of

70 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 70 Environment, dated October 1, 2012 with regards to the new noise proof values the above noise maps have been updated, inclusive the case study comprising four lines (Line 136, 137, 134, 133). The result of the noise maps update in the case study line is presented in the Figures below. Legend for maps of imission for all Figure 7 to Figure 16 below: Figure 7: Imission map for L DEN index for railway no. 136 Figure 8: Imission map for L N index for railway no. 136

71 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 71 Figure 9: Imission map for L DEN index for railway no. 137 Figure 10: Imission map for L N index for railway no. 137 Figure 11: Imission map for L DEN index for railway no. 134 Figure 12 : Imission map for L N index for railway no. 134

72 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 72 Figure 13: Imission map for L DEN index for railway no. 133 Figure 14: Imission map for L N index for railway no. 133 Figure 15: Imission map for L DEN index for railway no. 133 Figure 16: Imission map for L N index for railway no. 133

73 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 73 Based on these updated maps it is possible to specify the ranges of noise in accordance with the long-term factors for a full day - L DEN and for the night time - L N.. Table 12: Railway Range of noise impact Range of noise impact for L DEN indicator [m] Range of noise impact for L N indicator [m] 136 Opole Kędzierzyn Koźle 137 Kędzierzyn Koźle - Katowice 134 Katowice Mysłowice 133 Mysłowice - Kraków 55dB 60dB 65dB 70dB 75dB 50dB 55dB 60dB 65dB 70dB Source: own elaboration based on noise maps. Enclosed maps show the data referring to range of impact for described section of E-30 line. Range of impacts presented in the table below refers generally to the enclosed acoustic maps. Detailed data included in the report are the basis for further assessments and future comparison of environmental acoustic conditions. Presented above data relate to three voivodeships (provinces), and the 4 lines passing through the cities with the population of more than 100 thousand. For these cities in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC there are elaborated noise maps, for which the results are presented below for comparison. Graphical parts of maps refer to described section of the railway line and represent the ranges of impact for E-30 line in individual sections running through the cities. Opole Opolskie voivodeship Maps on imission from E-30 presented in Figures 17-38

74 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 74 Figure 17: Imission for L DEN at Opole Railway no. 136 part of E 30 at Opole Imission for L DEN :

75 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 75 Figure 18: Imission for LD at Opole Railway no. 136 part of E 30 at Opole Imission for L N :

76 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 76 Figure 19 Affected areas for daytime (left) and nighgt time (right) Maps of areas which are affected of noise impact for day- and nighttime Under limits 0-10dB 10-20dB Over 20 db Zabrze Śląskie voivodeship Maps of imission from E-30 Figure 20 Imission for L DEN over 80 db

77 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 77 Figure 21 Imission for L Night In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Zabrze map of affected aresas don t show any places in Zabrze which were affected from this railway. Ruda Śląska Śląskie voivodeship Maps of imission from E-30 Figure 22 Imission for L DEN Imision of L DEN

78 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 78 Figure 23 Imission for L Night Imision of L N In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Ruda Śląska map of affected areas don t show any places in Ruda Śląska which were affected from this railway. Chorzów Śląskie voivodeship Imission maps for E-30 Figure 24 Imission forl DEN over 80 db

79 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 79 Figure 25 Imission for L N over 80 db Map of areas which are affected of noise impact for day-evening-night level Figure 26 Affected areas for day-evening-night time over 80 db

80 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 80 Map of areas which are affected of noise impact for nighttime Figure 27 Affected areas for nighttime over 80 db Katowice Śląskie voivodeship Imission maps for E-30 Figure 28 Imission for L DEN

81 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 81 Figure 29 Imission for L N Exceeding for E-30 Figure 30 Exceeding for L DEN

82 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 82 Figure 31 Exceeding for L N Sosnowiec Śląskie voivodeship Imission maps for E-30 Figure 32 Imission for L DEN

83 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 83 Figure 33 Imission for L N In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Sosnowiec map of affected areas don t show any places in Sosnowiec which were affected from this railway. Kraków Małopolskie voivodeship Imission maps for E-30 Figure 34 Imission for L DEN

84 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 84 Figure 35 Imission for L N Exceeding maps for E-30 Figure 36 Exceeding for L DEN

85 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 85 Figure 37 Exceeding for L N Amount of people affected by rail freight noise In connection to the data presented on the acoustic maps prepared for the rail lines for more than 30,000 trains per year, the table below reflects the number of people influenced by negative noise impact. Table 13: Number of people affected by rail noise Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on noise values for L DEN 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB 70-75dB > 75dB Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on noise values for L N 50-55dB 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB > 70dB Source: data from acoustic map for railway line with the volume of more than trains per year The amount of people affected by rail noise in table above shows the range of impact but it s not exactly shows amount of people affected by rail noise regarding to Polish law regulations. As it is mentioned in table 12 the lower limits for L DEN is about 64-68dB and for L N is 59dB (for housing areas). In fact of that limits the amount of people which, regarding to Polish law regulations, are affected by overlimit noise for presented parts of E-30 railway is about 800 for whole day and

86 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 86 about 560 for night time. That's why it seems that the problem of noise impact from railways is not most important in Poland. The table below presents the number of people affected by noise coming not only from 4 E30 lines but all railway lines within the cities. Table 14: City Number of people affected by rail noise Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on noise values for L DEN 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB 70-75dB > 75dB Opole Gliwice Zabrze Ruda Śląska Chorzów Katowice Data not available Mysłowice (since October 2012) Sosnowiec Kraków City Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on noise values for L N 50-55dB 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB > 70dB Opole Gliwice Zabrze Ruda Śląska Chorzów Katowice Data not available Mysłowice (since October 2012) Sosnowiec Kraków Source: Data from acoustic maps for cities over citizens.

87 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Public and private interests related to regional rail freight noise Company / Producer side (infrastructure managers) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. is responsible for railway infrastructure, its maintenance and offering to the railway operators. Moreover, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. under the Polish law is also responsible for the protection of the environment including noise. Therefore, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe takes a number of steps to improve the infrastructure. For the present the E-30 in the past 3 years PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe has made many modernization projects aiming at improvement of technical parameters but also aiming at reduction of the impact of the railway on the environment. List of conducted and planned investments is available on the PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. official website Public / Consumer side In Poland the problem of noise originating from railways is much less important than noise originating from road or air traffic due to the nature of this mean of transport. In addition, the road network has developed significantly while rail network even shrinking. This is due to less emphasis on modernization of railway lines versus development of road networks. Railway lines which have not been modernized so far are closed in the result of deteriorating technical condition. Furthermore development of automotive market, increasing of vehicles availability and also improving of society financial situation made the railway transport no longer competitive. In addition for the routes linking bigger cities vehicle road transport - coach buses - is much cheaper and cost-effective than railway transport. For example: Travelling on the section Wrocław - Kraków when going by coach bus is cheaper half at price and almost 2 times faster than the train; Travelling on the section Wrocław Warszawa when going by coach bus may be even three times cheaper than in case of railway transport at comparable travel time; Travelling on the section Warszawa Gdańsk when going by coach bus is quicker by about 2, 5h at a comparable price of both modes of transport; Travelling on the section Warszawa- Kraków at a comparable travel time may be even 2 times cheaper in case of road transport. [Data presented above were compiled based on own consultant researches as well as reviewing of price lists and timetables available for different rail and road operators].

88 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 88 These examples clearly show the increased interest of society in particular the younger generation who want to be more mobile, with other modes of transport and significant need of railway lines modernization in order to increase their competitiveness. This situation also refers to freight transport. Nowadays with a smaller volume of transported goods it is much faster and much quicker with using of road transport despite the legal restrictions for truck drivers.i.e. limit of working hours. Such situation causes decreasing of the profitability of railway lines what results also in some lines closure. It is the consultant judgment that the social attitude reflected as a habit to the existing railway lines is also noticeable. Unfortunately in many cases of noise measurements and subsequent design and introduction of noise abatement measures people reflect rather negative attitude to introduction of noise barriers which reduce landscape perspective rather than appreciation of noise reduction barriers. This is the case particularly for the lines with the less traffic volume i.e. 50 trips per day. In this regard it is clear that problem of the noise originating from railway lines very rarely result in complaints and protests of society. Moreover, these actions have usually local range. Therefore in the interest of local public, two state institutions deal with the noise issues originating from existing and the newly planned railway lines. These State institutions are: 1) The General Directorate for Environmental Protection and 2) The General Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. These State institutions are the main 2 ones responsible for permitting and monitoring and checking of the investment in the railway infrastructure from the environmental protection point of view. The first of these institutions is responsible for monitoring and granting of environmental consent for construction works while the second one is responsible for check of implementation of investment in compliance with the environmental consent. 1.7 General and case study specific impacts related to rail freight noise Impacts of traffic / rail freight noise There is no statistical data on the effect of the location of a building from railway lines or even roads on property prices. For the real estate market, definitely more important aspect is the location versus the urbanised districts and availability of public transportation means than potential noise impact. It is very likely that with the planned significant increase in the volume of freight traffic (2 or even 3 times

89 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 89 the current volumes) in the coming future the noise impact will affect the real estate prices in the immediate vicinity of the railway lines Impacts of direct rail noise abatement measures As the result of the environmental protection regulatory framework imposing an obligation to monitor impact of rail lines on acoustic environment the PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. prepared noise maps for the following railway lines: In 2006 for railway lines with volume of traffic more than 60,000 trains per year; In 2011 (with update in 2013) for rail lines with volume of traffic more than 30,000 trains per year. Based on the noise maps PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe will prepare the Programms for Protection of Environment against Noise. The objective of these Programmes is to define specific actions aiming at protection of environment against noise. These actions will be reflected in the investment plans for modernisation of the railway infrastructure. In order to define the relevance and scope of these actions for individual investment projects the necessary reference noise measurements are made. Based on these measurements the necessary noise direct rail noise abatement measures are designed like for instance noise barriers or reduction of noise at a source. The designed and applied direct rail noise abatement measures reduce the noise impact to the proof values improving the acoustic environment for the local inhabitants Impacts of indirect rail noise abatement measures The designed indirect rail noise abatement measures like exchange of windows, doors are seldom applied but also reduce the noise impact to the proof values improving the acoustic environment for the local inhabitants. 1.8 Rail noise abatement measures Current and expected regulations and measures and their estimated impacts effectiveness / efficiency The current environmental protection framework with regards to noise and introduced abatement measures will result in the first run in reduction of noise to the proof values on railways lines with more than 60,000 and 30,000 trains per year. The railway lines administrators are obliged to execute the noise maps in the 5-year periods so next maps would have to be elaborated in As these future actions will include assessment of the results for applied means of protection against

90 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 90 excessive noise resulting from documents developed for current maps significant improvement for implementation of railway investments of legal regulation with regards to railway noise is expected. It will lead to the improvement of the current state with regard to noise impact Costs and benefits for operators / infrastructure managers and public The costs related to introduction of rail noise abatement measures are primarily the expense of the railway infrastructure manager i.e. PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A: responsible of the negative noise impact of railway traffic. However, the operators are also forced by the technical regulations to invest in rolling stock in terms of reduction of generated noise. The benefits coming from the introduction of noise abatement measures for the infrastructure manager i.e. PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. is that their operations will be in compliance with the environmental protection legislation and be perceived the environmental friendly company. The issue of additional noise protection applying within E -30 line may be illustrated by the designed and construction works currently carried out on the Sosnowiec Trzebinia section, with the length of about 20,1 km. Current technical state allows for the travelling with the speed of 30 km/h. This is the line with an intensity of about 160 train passages per day. Noise measurements carried out in 5 points before the design works commencing show the meaningful exceeding of accessible proof values both for day and night time - respectively 3dB for day time and 7dB for night time. Modernization for described line assumes increasing of capacity to approximately 200 trains per day with the maximal speed of 160 km/h for passengers' trains and 120 km/h for freight trains. Increase of capacity and speed will lead to growth of negative line impact with regard to noise. In order to protect the described section of the line with assumed parameters the adoption of 7, 6 km of acoustic barriers is planned. The average cost of the investment is PLN 9 million. These preventive measures will allow for complete protection against the negative noise impact for planned increase of line parameters. The effect of planned modernization is increasing of line capacity including significant improvement of technical parameters with reducing of negative impact to the environment in the same time. The actual result of works will be possible to assess after completion of construction works.

91 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 91 Case Study Sources GERMAN CASE STUDY Sources [1] DB Konzern (2013): Presseinformation Güterzüge werden leiser, available at: [2] IG BOHR (2013), available at [3] IGEL e.v. (2013), available at [4] Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (BImSchG) [5] Bundestag Drucksache 17/7751 (2011): Lärmschutz an der Rheintalbahn. [6] Bundestag Drucksache 17/12143 (2013): Stand der Planungen zur Rheintalbahn. [7] Bundestag Drucksache 17/13360 (2013): Umsetzung von Massnahmen im Kampf gegen Schienenverkehrslärm. [8] Bundestag Drucksache 17/11652 (2012): Projektbeiratsbeschluss bei der Rheintalbahn umsetzen. [9] Deutsche Bahn AG (2013): Informationen zur Ausbau-/Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe-Basel, available at [10] DB Projektbau GmbH Regionalbereich Südwest (2012): Informationsbroschüre zur Aus-/Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe Basel [11] Bundestag Drucksache 16/5037 (2007): Rheintalbahn. [12] Wikipedia 2013: Ausbau- Und Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe Basel, available at Karlsruhe%E2%80%93Basel [13] Umweltbundesamt UBA (2013): Informationen zur Umgebungslärmrichtlinie, available at: [14] Landesamt für Umwelt, Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg (2013): Lärmkarten 2007, available at: [15, 28] Eisenbahn Bundesamt EBA (2013): Ergebnisse der Umgebungslärmkartierung bundeseigener Schienenstrecken, available at: tierung/ergebnisse/ergebnisse node.html? nnn=true

92 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 92 [16] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2013): Verkehrslärmschutz, available at [17] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2009): Nationales Verkehrslärmschutzpaket II [18, 23] Deutsche Bahn AG (2013): Themendienst - Halbierung des Schienenverkehrslärms bis Deutsche Bahn als Umwelt-Vorreiter; available at: aerm_auf_der_spur.html?start=0&itemsperpage=15 [19] Deutsch Bahn AG (2013): Trassenpreis Bonussystem, available at: npreis_bonus.html [20] Landkreis Lörrach (2011): Projektbeirat Rheintalbahn ( ), available at: [21] Landkreis Lörrach (2011): 8. Sitzung Projektbeirat Rheintalbahn ( ), available at: [22] Umweltbundesamt (UBA) available at [24] DB Netze (2012): Die Ausbau- und Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe Basel. Verkehrsachse für Europa. Frankfurt, Februar 2012, available at: [25] BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr und Umwelt GmbH / Intraplan Consult GmbH (2008): Prognose der Verkehrsnachfrage und der Zugzahlen auf der Oberrheinstrecke 2025 Schlussbericht. January 2008, available at [26] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2013): Verkehr in Zahlen 2012/13. [27] European Commission (2002): Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, available at: [29] Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg (2013): Struktur- und Regionaldatenbank. Stuttgart, available at A&A=&R=GE [30] Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU (2013): Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen von Lärm. Available at:

93 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 93 [31] Popp, Christian (20??): Lärmbelastung, ökonomische Folgen und Handlungsoptionen im Verkehr [32] Schuemer, R., Schreckenberg, D., Felscher-Suhr, U. (2003): Wirkungen von Schienen- und Straβenverkehrslärm, ZEUS GmbH, Bochum [33] Hellwig, M., Kopetzki, C., Spohr, G. (20??): Auswirkungen von Verkehrslärm auf die Siedlungsentwicklung, Kassel [34] Sperlich, R. (2013): Freight noise reduction: The Swiss ban on cast iron blocks, Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Federal Office of Transport [35] ZBF Zentrum für Bodenschutz und Flächenhaushaltspolitik FH Trier Giering, K., Augustin, S.(2012): Forschungsprojekt Mittelrheintal-Bahnlärmindex Abschlussbericht [36] Deutsche Bahn AG, Projekt Lärm Management TXL, Jahnel, I. (2013): Halbierung des Schienenverkehrslärms bis 2020 Präsentation. Berlin. [37] Regionalverband südlicher Oberrhein (2010): Macht Schienenlärm krank? Studie des Universitätsklinikums Freiburg zur Evaluierung der gesundheitlichen Wirkungen bei Exposition gegenüber Schienenlärm unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der DB-Trasse Basel-Offenburg (und der Haltbarkeit des Schienenbonus), available at: POLISH CASE STUDY Sources 7 Transport. Activity results in 2012, The Central Statistical Office, Warsaw Transport. Activity results in 2012, The Central Statistical Office, Warsaw Polish Railway Market in 2011, UTK, Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice Kraków 11 The Network Statement - Regulations concerning allocation and use of train paths on available railway lines by licensed railway undertakings within timetable 2013/2014

94 APPENDIX C - Case Studies 94 Abbreviations BImSchG BImSchV BüG CDU db(a) DB EBA END IG BOHR LaTPS / NRTAC NRLA pkm PKP PLK S.A. tkm Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (= Federal Immission Control Act) Bundesimmissionsschutzverordnung (= Regulation of traffic noise protection) Besonders überwachtes Gleis (= Specially monitored rail) Party of the Christian Democratic Union Decibel - Sound pressure level Deutsche Bahn (German Railway) Eisenbahn Bundesamt (= Federal Railway authority) EU Environmental Noise Directive Interessengemeinschaft Bahnprotest an Ober- und Hochrhein (= Interest group railway protest at upper and high Rhine) Lärmabhängiges Trassenpreissystem (= Noise related track access charges) New Railway Link through the Alps passenger kilometre PKP Polish Railway Lines JSC. railway infrastructure manager, company of the PKP Group, responsible for maintenance of rail tracks, scheduling train timetables and management of railway land tonne kilometre

95 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 95 Facts about the total number of wagons Publicly available data on wagon fleet Appendix D The development of the wagon fleet In this subsection we estimate the development in the total wagon fleet , and we estimate how many wagons are using cast iron brake blocks ( old noisy wagons ) in the different years. We have identified three publicly accessible sources of information on the EU28+CH wagon fleets: Eurostat s table [rail_eq_wagon_n] International Union of Railways (Railisa database) A set of studies in the literature, including PwC (2007) and KCW et al (2009). Other sources of data on wagon fleet Description of Eurostat s wagon data Description of UIC s wagon data We have, in addition, obtained data from the European Railway Agency (ERA), collected by the agency as part of its preparation for the impact assessment study: DG MOVE (2012): Revision of the wagon TSI impact assessment report. We are aware that the UIP has a wagon database. We have queried for access to data from that database, but without result. We are aware of the Virtual Vehicle Database of the ERA, and the ERA has been helpful in providing us with results based on this database. Eurostat s data covers all Member States of the EU28 (excluding Malta and Cyprus 4 ) and includes Switzerland. The data covers the period There are gaps in the official data, in particular for the period For the purpose of this analysis, it is important that the data for France and Germany is missing for the period This means that an analysis based on the raw official Eurostat data would miss information about approx. a third of the wagon fleet. Therefore, we choose not to base the analysis on the raw official Eurostat wagon fleet data. The International Union of Railways (UIC) has wagon data in the Railisa database, which can be accessed from the organization s webpage. The organization s data covers 25 EU28 Member States and Switzerland. The missing Member States are Croatia, Cyprus, and Malta. The data covers the period There is also gaps in the UIC data, but continuous time series exist for most countries. In comparison with the official Eurostat data, there appears to be significant differences. Some of the differences which can be observed between the Eurostat and the UIC data may be explained by the UIC having an incomplete coverage of private wagon keepers. For example, there is no information on the number of wagons of the German private wagon owner AAE is available after The gaps in the UIC data means that we will not proceed with using this data either. 4 Malta and Cyprus are not important for this study, as no railway gods traffic between these islands and intercontinental Europe.

96 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 96 Description of wagon data in the literature Regarding the PwC (2007) study, the data used covered 18 countries (EU28 except Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain and UK). The data used comes from UIC and covers 2000 and 2005, on the basis of which the fleet evolution for has been estimated. Data on the age distribution of the fleets and the predicted evolution of the fleets have been included using the UIC reports of the years 2000, 2005, Information on the status of noise abatement in the European countries is presented with the use of "Status report, noise abatement on European Infrastructure" (Noise Reduction in European Railway Infrastructure, International Union of Railways, Community of European Railway, 2007). The data used in PwC (2007) is, however, relatively old, and we choose to look for more updated data sources. Regarding KCW (2010) study, the data covered EU25 with respect to the wagon fleet forecasts. The forecasts covered the period up to Most of the tables and graphs concerning the methodology have been made with the use of information by KCW (2010). Data on Swiss Freight Wagon Fleet Evolution collected from Bundesamt für Verkehr Lärmsanierung der Eisenbahnen, Standbericht 2008 and stakeholder consultation. For the age distribution of the fleet in 2005, the PwC report "Impact Assessment Study on Rail Noise Abatement Measure addressing the Existing Fleet" (TREN/A1/ ) was used. The KCW (2010) is basically the PwC (2007) data, which is relatively old. Therefore we look for a more updated data source. Description of the Virtual Vehicle Register Description of ERA s wagon data The ERA s virtual vehicle register is a collection of data from the national vehicle registers. Each wagon must be registered in the national vehicle register. When it is registered, it will obtain a registration number, which is required to run in Europe. Hence, this should be a strong data source. However, presently only a few countries have reported data to this register, and it is currently incomplete and not optimal to use for counting the total number of wagons. The wagon fleet data of the ERA covers all EU28 and Switzerland. The data covers the period with forecasts to The data is constructed from a combination of the following sources: Eurostat wagon data UIC wagon data National vehicle registry data Railway undertaking annual reports and accounts The construction of the data is documented in the impact assessment report, European Railway Agency (2012): Revision of the wagon TSI Impact assessment report. The ERA data is the most complete data set we have found, and the data set where the greatest effort has been made to remedy the gaps in the data from Eurostat and UIC, and they have been provided free of charge. Therefore we choose to use these data. The wagon fleet for is shown in Table 1 below, based on the ERA data. The data for is based on forecasts by the ERA. The forecasts have been developed on the basis of the trend development from

97 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 97 Table 1: Existing wagon fleet, number of wagons Year BE 18,790 20,087 21,318 20,101 18,782 17,375 15,544 15,730 15,854 19,231 19,276 19,321 19,366 19,412 BG 29,720 17,573 16,936 17,259 16,382 16,511 17,111 12,417 11,812 12,395 11,672 10,992 10,351 9,747 CZ 58,524 48,638 44,583 45,506 44,805 44,545 42,762 32,809 41,259 38,050 36,719 35,435 34,195 32,999 DK 2,236 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,210 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,196 2,193 2,189 2,186 DE 189, , , , , , ,468 95, , , , , ,444 96,417 EE 19,854 17,030 16,480 17,436 20,352 18,971 17,109 17,289 16,568 16,534 16,257 15,985 15,718 15,455 IE 1,856 1,856 1,856 1, , EL 3, ,473 3,497 3,491 3,166 3, ,944 5,131 5,326 5,528 ES 26,452 25,566 23,938 25,426 25,542 23,842 15,031 15,524 14,881 14,338 13,682 13,055 12,457 11,887 FR 94,789 93,057 85, ,833 99,372 95,738 91,816 88, , , , , , ,877 IT 70,115 74,232 55,917 56,175 54,598 45,730 46,450 41,477 41,406 30,815 29,087 27,457 25,918 24,465 LV 9,146 7,720 6,920 7,952 8,706 8,871 8,848 8,900 8,853 10,233 10,355 10,478 10,602 10,729 LT 13,155 12,173 12,217 12,144 13,134 13,192 13,393 13,534 13,765 13,641 13,692 13,742 13,793 13,844 LU 2,626 2,878 3,092 3,328 3,206 3,222 3,456 3,526 3,836 3,836 4,013 4,198 4,391 4,593 HU 23,528 22,789 21,819 22,178 19,783 19,130 13,824 11,719 11,766 11,766 11,178 10,619 10,088 9,584 NL 4,700 3,331 2,099 1,807 1,700 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,494 1,396 1,304 1,218 AT 23,970 24,988 24,089 22,655 22,262 22,655 16,891 20,787 18,873 30,465 31,291 32,139 33,010 33,904 PL 130, , , , , , , , ,528 99,232 96,876 94,577 92,332 90,140 PT 4,162 4,180 4,084 3,979 3,544 3,495 3,197 2,953 3,043 3,043 2,961 2,882 2,804 2,729 RO 117,982 96, ,824 75,478 64,299 66,175 65,916 53,616 54,713 54,713 51,779 49,002 46,374 43,888 SI 6,258 5,981 5,774 4,770 4,627 4,465 4,508 3,979 3, ,758 3,617 3,481 3,350 SK 26,975 24,587 24,549 23,973 24,856 25,515 25,989 27,538 20,820 20,820 20,345 19,881 19,427 18,984 FI 12,630 12,259 11,842 11,627 11,738 11,216 11,024 10,790 10, ,349 10,176 10,006 9,839 SE 17,596 17,600 17,674 16,909 16,832 16,637 16,407 15,896 15,623 15,623 15,448 15,275 15,103 14,934 UK 41,134 36,868 36,997 35,351 34,870 33,819 32,210 31,794 31,174 29,906 29,090 28,296 27,523 26,772 CH 10,430 11,530 11,530 11,530 11,530 11,530 12,350 13,370 13,370 13,370 13,747 14,134 14,533 14,942 TOTAL 959, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,713 Note: Malta, Cyprus 48 and Croatia 1 have not been included due to lack of data Source: ERA data used for Revision of the wagon5 TSI impact assessment report.

98 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 98 Table 1 presents information on the wagon fleet from 2000 to 2013 for EU member countries and Switzerland, provided by the DG Move report "Revision of the wagon TSI impact assessment report" (2012). The data from are estimations of ERA. The countries with the largest wagon fleets are Germany, Poland and France. There are few countries which experience a significant increase in their wagon fleet over the time period, these are France, Austria and Switzerland. The table also shows that the total number of rail freight wagons in EU28 is decreasing. In 2000, the total number of wagons was approx. 960,000, while it was ca. 673,000 in This trend is expected to be continued until 2013, where the wagon fleet has decreasedto 636,713. Among the large rail transport countries, the largest declineshappen in Italy (58% decline) and Germany (32% decline),the largest increases take place in France (19% increase) and Switzerland (16%). For the EU28+CH as a total, the wagon fleet decreases by 30% from 2000 to Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia will be excluded from the total, as these Member States either use different track gauge than the continental European standard gauge of 1,435 millimetres (EE, FI, LV, LT, IE, ES and PT). The United Kingdom will be excludes because they operate under different technical requirements (UK). Table 2 shows the existing wagon fleet in those eight countries, as well as the total after deducting the number of wagons of those countries. For example, in 2013 there are in total 636,713 wagons in EU28+CH 5. 91,545 of these wagons are operating in Member States which either use nonstandard track gauge or are disjoint from the continental European network. These wagons do not run on the continental European network, and they cannot be considered part of the European rail noise problem. If noise from these wagons is a problem, it will rather be the problems for the individual Member States. When the 91,545 wagons are deducted from the total, it results in an estimate of 545,168 wagons in 2013, cf. Table 2, which operate on the continental European network, and which may operate cross-border. For the purpose of this report, we define the abbreviation IA19, as the remaining countries, with wagons running on continental Europes tracks with 1,435 mm track gauge. These countries include Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland. 5 No wagon data is available on Croatia.

99 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 99 Table 2: Total number of wagons excluding EE,IE, ES, LV, LT, PT, UK EE 19,854 17,030 16,480 17,436 20,352 18,971 17,109 17,289 16,568 16,534 16,257 15,985 15,718 15,455 IE 1,856 1,856 1,856 1, , ES 26,452 25,566 23,938 25,426 25,542 23,842 15,031 15,524 14,881 14,338 13,682 13,055 12,457 11,887 FI 12,630 12,259 11,842 11,627 11,738 11,216 11,024 10,790 10, ,349 10,176 10,006 9,839 LV 9,146 7,720 6,920 7,952 8,706 8,871 8,848 8,900 8,853 10,233 10,355 10,478 10,602 10,729 LT 13,155 12,173 12,217 12,144 13,134 13,192 13,393 13,534 13,765 13,641 13,692 13,742 13,793 13,844 PT 4,162 4,180 4,084 3,979 3,544 3,495 3,197 2,953 3,043 3,043 2,961 2,882 2,804 2,729 UK 41,134 36,868 36,997 35,351 34,870 33,819 32,210 31,794 31,174 29,906 29,090 28,296 27,523 26,772 Total, all of the above countries Total, all countires (table 1) Total excluding the above countries (IA19) 128, , , , , , , ,676 99,637 98,622 96,756 94,956 93,219 91, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,169 Source: ERA data used for Revision of the wagon TSI impact assessment report.

100 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 100 The wagon fleet estimates in the table above are in the same size of magnitude as the estimates in PwC (2007) and KCW (2010). However, the increase of the number of German wagons from approx. 176,000 to approx. 237,000 from 2003 to 2004 is difficult to explain, and does not appear in the Eurostat and UIC data. We have not been able to resolve this data point. However, the data point does not affect the basis for the assessment, which is the 2009 fleet and the forecasts. Facts about currently retrofitted wagons Not all of the 545,169 wagons from IA19 in Table 2 need to be retrofitted. Some wagons have already been retrofitted, and some wagons are new, already fitted with K-block brakes. Switzerland has been in a process of retrofitting its wagon fleet with K-blocks for some years. The progress of the program until 2013 is shown in Table 3, which is based on information from the Swiss Federal Office of Transport. Table 3: Number of wagoons retrofitted in Switzerland form Switzerland 5,211 6,948 7,915 8,091 8,355 Source: Swiss Federal Office of Transport. The number is increasing, and plans exist for retrofitting 100% of the Swiss wagon fleet in The retrofitted wagons are deducted from the total IA19 wagon fleet to arrive at a need for retrofitting of wagons, taking into account the Swiss retrofitting efforts. Table 4 shows that in 2013, an estimated 533,847 wagons need to be retrofitted, when it is taken into account that Switzerland has retrofitted parts of its wagon fleet, and that some countries do not use standard European track gauge or are disjoint from the European network. The table also shows the development of the total wagon fleet in Europe, which can operate cross-border. Table 4: Total number of wagons in IA19 Total number of wagons Retrofitted wagons , , , , ,169 5,211 6,948 7,915 8,091 8,355 Difference 562, , , , ,814 Source: Own calculations based on ERA and Swiss Federal Office of Transport

101 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 101 Replacement of old wagons by new, silent ones In addition to the retrofitting which has been done on the existing fleet, some of the existing wagons are new wagons fitted with K-blocks. ERA has recorded the new wagon registrations in the period , and the numbers are shown in Table 5. Table 5: New wagons registered per year , and total new wagons in the period Year Wagons resitred , , , , , , ,320 Total 21,286 Source: ERA Report on Vehicle Authorization and ERA Bi-annual Interoperability report. The above table shows the number of new wagons that have already been fitted with K-blocks. The table has been produced by the ERA, by combining the Report on Vehicle Authorization (ROVA) and Bi-annual Interoperability report (BAIR) data. In 2012, 21,286 new wagons are fitted with K-block brakes. Data for 2013 is not yet available. This number of new wagons fitted with K-blocks is not part of the noise problem arising from European rail freight transport. Therefore, from the 554,704 in 2012 that is the total number of IA19 wagons, 21,286 new wagons fitted with K-blocks will be deducted. Accounting for the Swiss retrofitted wagons as well, the number of wagons in need of retrofitting is 525,327 in 2012.

102 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 102 Table 6: Total number of wagons in 2012, new wagons fitted with K-blocks in 2012, retrofitted wagons in 2012, and the remaining number of wagon running with steel brake blocks in Total number of wagons (IA19), excluding new and retrofitted wagons 525,327 Wagons (new) fitted with K-blocks 21,286 Retrofitted wagons 8,091 Total number of wagons IA19 554,704 Source: ROVA 2010, BAIR In summary, our assessment is that in 2012, 515,527 wagons were fitted with cast iron brakes and could circulate on the continental European rail network. Facts about the age structure of wagon fleet If the 525,327 wagons with cast iron brakes should all be retrofitted immediately, it would constitute a significant task for the wagon keepers, and to the workshops who are to do the retrofitting. In the future, some of the wagons will be retired, due to old age and wear. Some of them will be replaced by wagons with silent brakes, probably K-blocks, while others will be removed from the fleet. This indicates that the magnitude of the noise pollution from rail freight will decrease, even without any further action taken by the EU Commission. The extent of the replacement and retirement of the old wagons depends on the age distribution of the wagon fleet. The more old wagons there are, the more old wagons will be retired or replaced without EU taking any action to ensure the retrofitting of the wagons. We have had access to two sources of information of the age structure of the European wagon fleet. The first is the ERA Virtual Vehicle Register, described above. The second is the information in the PwC (2007) report. Compared to the ERA data, the PwC data are relatively older, dating from However, the information contained in the PwC report covers all the EU countries, whereas the ERA data consists of information provided by 7 European countries. Figure 1 shows the age distribution based on the data from the Virtual Vehicle Register. It can be seen that the age distribution of all the wagons in the register is heavily influenced by the presence of many old French wagons. It should be noted that there are wagons which were taken into operation before 1960, but we assume that these wagons do not run much and do not constitute a significant proportion of the fleet.

103 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 103 Figure 1: Birth year of European wagons Source: ERA, based on the Virtual Vehicle Register. Retirement age of European wagons For the purpose of assessing the number of wagons which will be retired or replaced in the near future, we assume that wagons are being retired or replaced when they are 40 years old. In practice, wagons are being replaced, when their economic lifetime has come to an end, which is when the maintenance costs become so large that it is more profitable to replace or retire the wagon than to keep it in service if the wagon keepers can fund the replacement. Experience is, according to COWI experts, that freight wagons live for years if they are used intensively, but that they can live up to 45 years if they are well maintained and used less intensively. A lifespan of 20 to 50 years covers the majority of wagons, with the average being 35 years. This assessment corresponds to the assessment made in PwC (2007), that wagons live on average for 35 years. Considering the current financial situation of the rail freight sector, where many railway undertakings are losing money, we think it is realistic to assume an average lifetime of 40 years for a wagon. This is because many railway undertakings lack the funding to invest in new wagons, even though it may be economically optimal to replace wagons, and because most wagons are owned by railway undertakings. For analytical purposes, we assume that all wagons are replaced or retired once they reach the age of 40. Implications of the age distribution and the retirement age Comparing the age distribution from the Virtual Vehicle Register and from PwC (2007), the following conclusion is drawn: For ERA data, the percentage of the wagon fleet older than 40 years in 2013 is approx. 34% when France is included, and approx. 11% of the EU28+CH wagon fleet respectively. The same percentage for the PwC (2007) is approx. 26%.

104 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 104 To assess the development in the need for retrofitting, while taking into account that old wagons will be phased out, the following table shows how the 2013 wagon fleet will gradually be phased out, assuming that wagons have a lifetime of 40 years. In 2013, 34.2% of the existing wagons have one year left in operation. This means that in 2014, 34.2%, or 185,590 wagons, will be phased out. The same year the remaining wagon fleet will be 65.8% of the initial fleet in 2013.

105 PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 105 Table 7: Development of the current wagon fleet, showing the decrease in the current wagons due to retirement. This table does not take into account new wagons in the wagon fleet.

106 APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet Table 7 continued. Source: Own calculations based on data from the Virtual Vehicle Register and data from ERA.