Definition of the Award Criteria for the different actions

Similar documents
Measure 43: Intermodal Loading Units and freight integrators First page:

Intermodal connections and networks the challenge and opportunity for Latin American A railroads

Inter-modality in the ports and sustainability of the EU freight transport

DG TREN Making Co-Modality work BESTUFSII 24-25TH May John Berry - European Commission DG TREN

Green ports policies, coastal shipping and inland waterways November, 2013 Incheon

GRAIN LNG Challenges & benefits for the deployment of LNG in ports. October 2017 BPA Conference, Poole, UK

North Adriatic Intelligent Transport System Technical seminar

THE BALTIC SEA MOTORWAY - RECENT DEVELOPMENT AND OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE

Go with the flow - instead of being stuck in a jam. The way to the future is multimodal

Short Sea Promotion Centre Spain

WHITE PAPER Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION. Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan {SEC(2007) 1320} {SEC(2007) 1321}

Logistical and environmental considerations for the Far East to Europe corridor

2015 CEF Transport Calls

Supply and Demand Analysis

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Paul Kyprianou. GLD Lines

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Financing Opportunities

SHORT SEA SHIPPING IN CANADA: LESSONS LEARNED AND RESEARCH MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SERVICES Marc-André Roy, CPCS 1 Peter Harrison, CPCS

Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation (GIFT) 2009 Rochester Institute of Technology

Motorways of the Sea Forum

Port of Hamburg: Heading into the future with smartport

Short Sea Shipping: the full potential yet to be unleashed

Vassilis DEMETRIADES Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport

Logistikkonferenz COMBINED TRANSPORT THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES. Peter PLEWA CEO, Polzug

European Commission. Trans-European transport network policy. December Information - Communication 1

The MAGALOG Project LNG-fueled shipping in the Baltic Sea

25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5 % Share rail, inland waterways and oil pipelines 0 %

D 3.2 Targets and application of benchmarking in intermodal freight transport

05 MAY 2011 PERSPECTIVES ON PORT PERFORMANCE Logistics perspective

FREIGHT CORRIDORS AND GATEWAYS: DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND EVALUATION CRITERIA COMPARISON IN NORTH AMERICA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Ecobonus and Ferrobonus Experiences and their contribution to the TEN-T Networks

AMSbarge: Daily service between your company and the deepsea, shortsea and hinterland services in the Amsterdam seaport and airport region

DISCUSSION PAPER ON ACCESS TO SERVICE FACILITIES AND RAIL RELATED SERVICES

EIB actions for Energy Efficiency in the Urban Sector

The relevance of MoS in the EU transportation system and TEN-T

Use of ITS technologies for multimodal transport operations River Information Services (RIS) transport logistics services

INTERMODAL TRANSPORT IN THE POLICY DOCUMENTS CONTEXT

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Bogdan Ołdakowski, Secretary General, Baltic Ports Organization. Final Conference December 2015, Trelleborg, Sweden

Training Course Barcelona Genoa Barcelona 10 th -12 th October, 2014

Internalisation of external costs

NORWAY (NO) The tables work in the following way: Dear TEN-TaNS partner.

English - Or. French EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT COUNCIL OF MINISTERS SYNTHESIS REPORT AND POLITICAL DECISIONS REQUIRED

Intermed Ports /The role of Mediterranean ports

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 29 May /1/07 REV 1

Intermodal transport performance quality standards. prof. Ramunas Palsaitis Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Lithuania

Ralf-Charley Schultze

Benefits from Increased Transit Traffic Through Ukraine. Cost-Benefit Analysis Case Study: Container Block Train Poti-Baku

Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Federation of NZ Inc., Singapore Airlines Cargo PTE LTD. Leadership Management Australasia

CASE STUDY 5. Extension of the Adriatic-Ionian ferry corridor from Peloponnese to Crete" University of the Aegean Dpt. Shipping, Trade & Transport

Development of China-EU Intermodal Transport and Exchange of Electronic Data

30 Water Transportation - Ports and Services

EUROPEAN SEA PORTS ORGANISATION ASBL/VZW ORGANISATION DES PORTS MARITIMES EUROPEENS ASBL/VZW

Summary version. PRIORITY AXIS 1 Promoting Mediterranean innovation capacity to develop smart and sustainable growth

Challenges Facing Transforming Inland Ports into Integrated Transportation Centers

Pre-proposal Submission Form

PORT INLAND DISTRIBUTION NETWORK SOUTH JERSEY SITE EVALUATION AND FEASIBILITY DEVELOPMENT STUDY. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY July 2003

Rail Baltica Global Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. 24 April 2017

RoRo & Ferry Sector. February 2012

Road Rail Inland shipping Road Rail ... I/NP/AP/C/CC/A/ N/SWP I/NP/AP/C/CC/A/ N/SWP

Economic and Social Council

EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 22 November 2013 (OR. en) 2011/0294 (COD) PE-CONS 42/13 TRANS 316 ECOFIN 533 ENV 546 RECH 265 CODEC 1403

Key Speech: Programme character towards real projects

Overview of SmartRivers 2006 Report

Experiences of the freight transportation planning especially in relation to the ports of Bremen

CEF Transport Info day 2016 Greece

Abstract. I. Introduction

Subregional Meeting on Rail-based Intermodal Transport in Northeast and Central Asia

LOGISTICS & DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT

The Mediterranean corridor From a road corridor to a multimodal corridor A success story for the regional economy

Promotion of SSS in Europe Roberto Martinoli, Chairman & CEO GNV ESN Chair and Chair of SSS committee of CONFITARMA. September 29, 2015

MULTIMODALES PLATEFORMS OF TRANSPORT AND SERVICES

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT OPERATION USING TOWED TRAILER BETWEEN KOREA AND CHINA AND RESULTING ECONOMIC EFFECTS

ITS Action Plan- Internet Consultation

DIGITALISATION AND THE EU SINGLE TRANSPORT AREA : LEGAL PERSPECTIVES

The Vessel for the Future Is it autonomous?

Chapter 2 Performance Measures

Bangladesh Regional Waterway Transport Project. Charles Kunaka Senior Trade Specialist Global Product Specialist - Connectivity

UNECE Workshop Role of freight forwarders and logistics in intermodal transport chains

International Supply Chain Management Programs

From Valletta to Tallinn: Statement of the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) to mark the Maritime Year of the European Union

Transport, Forwarding and Logistics in Poland. K e y n o t e s

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSELS BOUND FOR OR LEAVING PORTS OF THE BALTIC SEA STATES AND CARRYING DANGEROUS OR POLLUTING GOODS

Realisierungskonzept zur Etablierung eines Offshore-Shuttles SH 1. Feasibility study: Establishment of an offshore-shuttle Schleswig-Holstein

PhD. Cand. Ioannis Dagkinis

WebShipCost - Quantifying Risk in Intermodal Transportation

The EU funding emphasises the importance of bayernhafen Regensburg as a logistics hub in Europe

Factors Affecting Transportation Decisions. Transportation in a Supply Chain. Transportation Modes. Road freight transport Europe

STATE OF INTERMODAL TRANSPORT IN CROATIA AND SERBIA

Logistics needs and challenges of Finnish forest industry. Outi Nietola, Finnish Forest Industry

Brunsbüttel Ports GmbH

European Perspectives

EU ADVANCE CARGO DECLARATION REGIME. A basic explanatory note

Maritime Energy Transport Regulatory Overview and Status

Concept of Sustainable Transport: Planning and Designing for Sustainable and Inclusive Transportation Systems UNESCAP Transport Division

The EC introduces the SPIN Thematic Network

%HUOLQ%UDQGHQEXUJ,QWHJUDWHG*RRGV7UDIILF6WUDWHJ\

LOGISMED Euro-Mediterranean network of logistics platforms

Transcription:

APPENDIX 4 Definition of the Award Criteria for the different actions The ranking of the proposals will be based on the total score obtained, and in case of equality the criterion of credibility & viability will be used for differentiation. Proposals must achieve a total score of at least 60 points and must have reached a minimum threshold for each criterion. 1. Modal shift actions The following evaluation criteria and thresholds apply to Modal shift actions: (a) Quantity of freight shifted off the road 1 0 to 25 points 15 (b) Environmental and other external costs savings 2 0 to 25 points* 15 (c) Credibility & viability of action 3 0 to 50 points** 30 * As explained in section 4.3 of the main text of this call: 1 2 3 The score for this criterion will take into account the relative merit of each proposal in terms of declared modal shift as one element of the evaluation. However other elements will also be considered such as the likelihood of achieving the declared modal shift figures and the extent of their justification The score for this criterion will take into account the relative merits of each proposal in terms of environmental and other external costs savings as one element of the evaluation. However other elements will also be considered such as the likelihood of achieving the environmental and other external costs savings and the extent of their justification. A credible and viable proposal should address amongst others the following points (non-exhaustive list): availability of the necessary resources (human, financial, equipment and infrastructure), reliable, detailed and credible market research including recent letters of intent/commitment from potential customers (preferably including expected volumes, and stating also that their cargo was previously transported by road), viability of the service after the end of the subsidy period, description of the freight market (type of goods transported), availability of the transport medium (for example train slots, timetables, transport operators data, technical parameters of the vessel,, permits and authorizations, etc.), foreseen problems/risks related to the proposed transport media and ways to solve them, development of the service in terms of frequency, load factor, return cargo description, transit times, comparison of costs and transport times with road transport, transhipment operations, expected reliability, etc. Appendix 4 Page 1

a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a proposal achieving qualitative environmental and other external costs savings by avoiding nature protection or sensitive areas and/or areas with heavily congested roads reduce polluting emissions of maritime transport, namely the use of low sulphur fuels 4 (projects which will implement fuel with lower percentage of sulphur 2. Catalyst actions The following evaluation criteria and thresholds apply to Catalyst actions: (a) (b) Innovative approach to overcome structural market barriers including dissemination plan Environmental and other external costs savings 5 and quantity of freight shifted off the road 6 0 to 20 points* 12 0 to 30 points** 18 (c) Credibility & viability of action 7 0 to 50 points 30 * As stated in section 4.6 of the main text of this call, a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a complex, tri-modal proposal integrating in individual logistic chains jointly both rail and maritime/inland waterway modes of transport. ** As explained in section 4.3 of the main text of this call: 4 5 6 7 bunker oil on board ships is 1,5% for the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) and 4,5% for other areas. See footnote 1 Appendix 4 Page 2

a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a proposal achieving qualitative environmental and other external costs savings by avoiding nature protection or sensitive areas and/or areas with heavily congested roads reduce polluting emissions of maritime transport, namely the use of low sulphur fuels 8 (projects which will implement fuel with lower percentage of sulphur 3. Motorways of the sea actions The following evaluation criteria and thresholds apply to Motorways of the sea actions: (a) Quantity of freight shifted off the road 9 0 to 20 points 12 (b) Environmental and other external costs savings 10 0 to 20 points* 12 (c) Innovative approach, dissemination plan and degree of intermodal integration 0 to 10 points** 6 (d) Credibility & viability of action 11 0 to 50 points 30 * As explained in section 4.3 of the main text of this call: a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a proposal achieving qualitative environmental and other external costs savings by avoiding nature protection or sensitive areas and/or areas with heavily congested roads 8 9 10 11 bunker oil on board ships is 1,5% for the Sulphur Emission Control Areas(SECA) and 4,5% for other areas. See footnote 1 Appendix 4 Page 3

reduce polluting emissions of maritime transport, such as the use of low sulphur fuels 12 (projects which will implement fuel with lower percentage of sulphur ** As stated in section 4.6 of the main text of this call, a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a complex, tri-modal proposal integrating in individual logistic chains jointly both rail and maritime/inland waterway modes of transport. 4. Traffic avoidance actions The following evaluation criteria and thresholds apply to Traffic avoidance actions: (a) Quantity of road freight transport avoided 13 0 to 20 points 12 (b) Environmental and other external costs savings 14 0 to 20 points* 12 (c) Innovative approach & dissemination plan 0 to 10 points 6 (d) Credibility & viability of action 15 0 to 50 points 30 * As explained in section 4.3 of the main text of this call a maximum of two extra points will be awarded to a proposal achieving qualitative environmental and other external costs savings by avoiding nature protection or sensitive areas and/or areas with heavily congested roads 12 13 14 15 bunker oil on board ships is 1,5% for the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) and 4,5% for other areas. The score for this criterion will take into account the relative merit of each proposal in terms of declared traffic avoidance as one element of the evaluation. However other elements will also be considered such as the likelihood of achieving the declared traffic avoidance figures and the extent their justification. Appendix 4 Page 4

5. Common learning actions The following evaluation criteria and thresholds apply to Common learning actions: (a) European added value: Improvement of co-operation, sharing of know-how and training including environmental and other external costs savings and reduction of road congestion 0 to 35 points 21 (b) Credibility of action 0 to 40 points 24 (c) Innovative approach 0 to 10 points 6 (d) Dissemination plan 0 to 15 points 9 Though sustainability of operation beyond duration of EU grant (i.e. viability) is not an essential requirement for common learning actions, it will be taken as a positive element under evaluation criterion (b). Appendix 4 Page 5