romania general transport master plan government of romania ministry of transportation august 2013...

Raport preliminar asupra Master Planului pe termen scurt Mediu si Lung

19-08-2013

Preliminary Report on the Master Plan Short, Long and

Medium Term

19-08- 2013

Transportation

Government of Romania Ministry of Transportation

August 2013

Romania General Transport Master Plan Preliminary Report on the Master Plan Short, Medium and Long Term

Prepared by: ............................................................. Checked by: Andrew Coates Simon Temple Frank Mohan Director Geoff Clarke Craig Bell Brian Vaughan

Approved by: Martin Bright Director Romania General Transport Master Plan Preliminary Report on the Master Plan Short, Medium and Long

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by

Date

1 First Draft for Client Comment SRT MJB 19/08/2013 Colmore Plaza, Colmore Circus Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6AT Telephone: 0121 262 1900 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No: 60268467 Reference: Draft Master Plan Date Created: August 2013 This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.

1 Aims and Objectives of the Master Plan ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Context and Outputs from the Master Plan ............................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Overall Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Function of the Master Plan ................................................................................................................................... 7

2 2020 and 2030 Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Description of Projects, 2020 and 2030 ............................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Overall Analysis of 2020 Scenario ....................................................................................................................... 34 2.4 Economic Summary of 2020 Scenario. ................................................................................................................ 37 2.5 Modal Analysis..................................................................................................................................................... 55 2.6 Funding ................................................................................................................................................................ 84

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 88 3.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 88 3.2 Data ..................................................................................................................................................................... 89 3.3 Analysis: Romanian National Transport Model .................................................................................................... 91 3.4 Modelling Interventions ........................................................................................................................................ 99

4 Overview: Reference Case (2020) ................................................................................................................................ 103 4.1 Projects .............................................................................................................................................................. 103 4.2 Economic, Demographic and Travel Demand Forecasts ................................................................................... 104 4.3 Modal Analysis................................................................................................................................................... 113

5 Modal Analysis: Rail Passenger .................................................................................................................................. 120 5.1 Existing Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 120 5.2 Do-Nothing & Reference Case (2020) ............................................................................................................... 130 5.3 Key Challenges.................................................................................................................................................. 137 5.4 2020 Rail Projects .............................................................................................................................................. 140

6 Modal Analysis: Road Transport ................................................................................................................................. 145 Existing Situation ............................................................................................................................................................. 145 6.2 Reference Case (2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 153 Challenges ...................................................................................................................................................................... 163

7 Modal Analysis: Rail Freight and Intermodal Transport ............................................................................................ 165 7.1 Existing Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 165 7.2 Reference Case (2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 171 7.3 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................................... 173

8 Modal Analysis: Ports and Waterways ........................................................................................................................ 176 8.1 Existing Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 176 8.2 Reference Case (2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 183 8.3 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................................... 185

9 Modal Analysis: Air ....................................................................................................................................................... 187 9.1 Existing Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 187 9.2 Reference Case (2020) ..................................................................................................................................... 192 9.3 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................................... 196

1 Table of Contents

Aims and Objectives of the Master Plan

AECOM Preliminary Report on the Master Plan Short, Medium and Long Term 2

1.1 Context and Outputs from the Master Plan

The General Transport Master Plan is designed to provide a clear strategy for the development of Romania’s transport sector for the next 20 years. To be of value it needs to provide implementable solutions to Romania’s transport problems and challenges.

The Master Plan will identify the projects and policies which will best meet Romania's National transport needs over the next 5-15 years, for all modes of transport, and providing a sound, analytical basis for the choice of those policies and projects.

A Transport Master Plan is not an end in itself. The Master Plan must contribute to Romania’s economic development in a sustainable manner. The high level outcomes that the Master Plan project will produce are:

Outcome 1: A long term plan which will contribute to Romania’s national economy in a sustainable way.

The Plan’s duration will be 15 years, and the whole programme of projects will take longer than that to implement. This is logical since large transport infrastructure projects typically take 5-10 years from inception to implementation, and their impacts last for 50+ years, although convention assumes that the economic life of transport projects is 30 years.1 This approach also implies a consistent approach to transport policy over a long period of time, which transcends political expediencies.

Secondly, the primary purpose of the Plan is to define the projects and policies that will have an impact at a National level, as well as on the European corridors. It may contain a series of smaller projects which form a coherent programme. For example, the rehabilitation of the core railway network contains proposals for remedial works at several hundred locations but the Master Plan “project” in this case would be the whole programme.

Outcome 2: More efficient spending of financial resources on transport.

The key word here is “efficient”. Every country in the EU has a greater perceived need for improved transport investment than the financial resources available to meet that need, and this will not change in the next 15-20 years. Therefore, given the limited financial resources available, the emphasis must be on projects and policies that give a good economic return, and which perform a useful function.

Outcome 3: Improved connections and therefore improved trade with neighbouring countries.

The Plan must recognise not only that Romania is part of the European Union, which at its heart is an Economic Union with free trade and fair competition between its members, but that it also has important markets (relatively undeveloped at the moment) to the Ukraine, Russia and Moldova.

Outcome 4: Higher productivity for Romanian industry and services, and therefore higher economic growth and improved standards of living.

Efficient transport systems reduce costs for industry and individuals. For industry, this means lower costs and increased productivity, less resource tied up in inventories, and more competitive products and larger markets for those products. For transport operators, better transport means lower costs and higher

1 For more details see National Guide for Transport Project Evaluation, Volume 2, Appendix A: Guidance for Economic and Financial Cost Benefit Analysis and Risk Analysis. AECOM.

1 Aims and Objectives of the Master Plan


utilisation of vehicles and staff. For individuals, better transport saves time, and provides wider choice of work, consumer goods, and leisure opportunities.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis captures the majority of these productivity benefits.

Outcome 5: A sustainable transport system.

The word sustainable embraces more than environmental sustainability, although this is the context in which the word is often used. It includes the concepts of economic and operational sustainability as well as environmental sustainability. That said, the Plan must balance economic sustainability with longer term environmental sustainability. The economic evaluation of the Plan and its components rely on current valuations of travel time, fuel consumption and operating costs, and emissions, and the present view of anticipated changes in the valuation of these quantities. But since the Plan looks 15-20 years into the future, and given the long life of transport infrastructure, it must take some account of potential changes in how the citizens of the future may value these things. With our present knowledge, this means giving due weight to the more energy efficient modes of transport such as rail and water transport in project and programme evaluation.2

In summary, the Master Plan will identify the projects and policies which will best meet Romania's National transport needs over the next 5-15 years, for all modes of transport, and providing a sound, analytical basis for the choice of those policies and projects.3

1.2 Overall Objectives

We have reviewed the existing documents which contain references to Romania’s national objectives, as well as EU policy documents. It is also vital that the appraisal process is closely linked with the objectives, so that the projects, and the portfolio of projects that make up the Master Plan, meet the desired objectives.

In Romania, there are several documents which contain Transport Policy Guidance, either implicitly, or explicitly. There is an important distinction to be made between objectives, actions and projects. Objectives describe the desired end-state, while actions are the means of achieving these objectives, and projects (and policies) are specific, detailed, locational actions which contribute to the achievement of the objectives.

The documents which contain references to national transport objectives are as follows:

The objectives in the Terms of Reference for the Master Plan project (ToR)

Mission: Minister Statement in the Forward to the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure 4

EU White Paper on Transport 2011

Romanian Government Statement on Transport Policy Document for 2013-20165

POST 2007 - 20136 This is still relevant at there must be continuity of policy and objectives between successive transport programmes

2 For more details see Romania General Transport Master Plan Volume 1: Appraisal and Prioritisation of Projects for Inclusion in the Master Plan. AECOM July 2013. 3 Ibid Chapter 7 for details of the project and programme appraisal criteria. 4 Assistance to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure to Strengthen Strategic Planning in the Transport Sector Strategic Planning Report Volume 2: Strategic Plan on the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, Final Draft. The World Bank, December 2012 5 http://www.gov.ro/programul-de-guvernare-2012__l1a117011.html 6 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport 2007 – 2013 February 2012. Ministry of Transport


AECOM Existing Conditions Report

National Spatial Plan Section 1 Transport Networks

Core Networks for Road and Rail

Master Plan Terms of Reference

The broad priorities for the Transport Master Plan, as set out in the Terms of Reference, relate to:

Economic Efficiency: that is the transport sector must contribute to the national economy and the economic benefits it generates must exceed its costs;

Sustainability: the transport system should be energy efficient, and leave a legacy for future generations;

Safety: the transport system should be safe;

Economic Development: the transport system should facilitate national economic development;

Financial: the Master Plan should enable increased absorption of EU funds.

Ministry of Transport Mission Statement

The Ministry of Transport’s Mission as set out in the Minister’s Forward to the Draft Strategic Plan for the Ministry emphasises the following points:

Economic Efficiency: a transport system that generates benefits that are greater than its costs;

Equity: the costs and benefits of the transport system should be distributed fairly among citizens, industries and geographic areas;

Safety: the transport infrastructure and services should be provided in a manner that protects people from death and injury;

Integration: the transport system should enable people to travel conveniently and reliably using a combination of different modes of transport, and to minimise the costs of transporting goods;

Environment: the transport system should protect the environment and by so doing should support social and economic development for the benefit of today’s and future generations.

EU 2011 White Paper

The Transport White Paper published in 2011 sets out in Annex I a list of initiatives, under several headings which may be regarded as objectives. These are:

a) An efficient and integrated Mobility System

A single European Transport Area

Promoting quality jobs and working conditions

Secure transport

Service quality and reliability

b) Innovating for the Future: Technology and Behaviour

A European Transport and Research and Innovation Policy

Promoting more sustainable behaviour

Integrated urban mobility


c) Modern Infrastructure and Smart Funding

Transport Infrastructure: territorial cohesion and economic growth

A coherent funding framework

Getting prices right and avoiding distortions

d) The External Dimension: this area refers predominantly to actions at an EU rather than a National level.

2007 – 2013 SOPT

The 2007 – 2013 Sectoral Operational Programme Transport has the following objectives:

Economic: to increase the economic competitiveness of the Romanian economy, economic integration with the EU, development of the internal market;

Sustainability: promotion of sustainable transport and spatial cohesion

Environment: decrease in air pollution and noise, and promotion of less polluting modes such as rail and water transport, which will contribute both to the natural environment and health of the citizens.

AECOM Existing Conditions Report

The AECOM Existing Conditions Report analyses the transport system by mode, but certain common themes emerge across all modes:

Economic: The level of service offered by all modes of transport is generally poor, and this means both freight and passenger transport is slow and inefficient. The topography of Romania means that many main routes cross the Carpathian Mountains, an therefore journey times by road and rail are slow, high capacity roads are few in number, and the rail network has provided progressively slower speeds and greater unreliability on unimproved routes.

Sustainable Modes: intermodal freight transport is very poorly developed, and road-based passenger transport competes with, rather than complements rail transport. Rail freight and passenger travel has declined in recent years so reversing this trend will require a variety of interventions, some involving policy as well infrastructural. The River Danube is a valuable resource for low-energy transport, but the river through Romanian section is not managed and there are many points where the depth frequently fall below the minimum desirable (2.5m) and the fairway is below the desirable width (160m.).

Environment: road transport of both passengers and freight has been increasing in recent years. There is a conflict between desirable transport improvements from an emissions point of view but which have serious environmental impacts. Thus there is often a conflict in Romania between the environmental objective, and the economic objective. An example of this conflict is the River Danube, where the river banks are part of Natura 2000 sites, and dredging operations disturb the hydrology of the river and some fish and other river mammals.

Funding: all transport modes are under-funded, in terms of the infrastructure that the vehicles and services use, and the services and vehicles themselves. This leads to unnecessarily costly operations and a low-level of service to the end-users.

Common Themes

From these various sources, certain common issues recur. These are:


The Economy: the transport system should be economically efficient as far as transport operations and users themselves are concerned. Specifically, the transport system benefits should exceed its costs. In addition, the transport system should be configured to enable economic development both nationally and regionally. The investment should also favour equity as far as Romanian citizens are concerned.

The Environment: the transport system should not impact negatively on the environment. Transport investment should minimise negative impact on the physical environment.

Sustainability: the so-called sustainable modes of transport which are more energy efficient and have lower emissions should be developed as a priority;

Safety: investment in transport should produce a safer transport system; and

Funding: there is a substantial shortfall in funding for transport in Romania. Policies which produce more efficient pricing for transport, such as road-user charging, particularly for HGV, should be examined. At a project level, availability of EU funding from the Structural Funds (CF and ERDF, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)) and PPP will affect “buildability” and therefore the prioritisation of projects.

Master Plan Objectives

Bearing in mind the common themes in the above documents, the following objectives are therefore proposed for the Master Plan projects:

Economic Efficiency: the transport system should be economically efficient as far as transport operations and users themselves are concerned. Specifically, the transport system benefits should exceed its costs. In addition, the transport system should be configured to enable economic development both nationally and regionally. The investment should also favour equity as far as Romanian citizens are concerned.

Environmental Impact: the transport system should not impact negatively on the environment. Transport investment should minimise negative impact on the physical environment.

Sustainability: the so-called sustainable modes of transport which are more energy efficient and have lower emissions should be developed as a priority;

Safety: investment in transport should produce a safer transport system; and

Funding: there is a substantial shortfall in funding for transport in Romania. Policies which produce more efficient pricing for transport, such as road-user charging, particularly for HGV, should be examined. At a project level, availability of EU funding from the Structural Funds (CF and ERDF, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)) and PPP will affect “buildability” and therefore the prioritisation of projects.


1.3 Function of the Master Plan

The Master Plan will identify the projects and policies which will best meet Romania's transport needs over the next 5-15 years, for all modes of transport, and providing a sound, analytical basis for the choice of those policies and projects. The components of the Study, such as the database, the National Transport Model, Appraisal Guidelines and so on must be tailored to serve this purpose.

Our original intent was that the Master Plan Projects would be:

Large infrastructure projects

National Maintenance Programmes

New Rolling Stock and Locomotives

Large Scale Rehabilitation projects

National Policies such as Road User Charges7

Projects were initially sifted on the basis of criteria that are summarised below:

Is the project suitable in scale and nature to form part of a National Transport Master Plan? Will it have a difference Nationally?

Does the project meet National and EU policy objectives?

Is the project on a TEN-T core or comprehensive network, or on a Nationally-recognised network (eg a National road)?

Can projects be combined to form a national programme (eg rail maintenance) or a corridor improvement (eg a series of bypasses or rehabilitation / modernisation)8

However, during the course of discussions with the Ministry of Transport, it has become clear that the Master Plan will serve a wider purpose, and will have to perform several functions. There is the immediate need for the Master Plan to provide projects for the Operational Programme for Infrastructure (Transport), referred to as the POSI (Transport), within the context of a National Plan. There are a very large number of outstanding projects proposed by the CFR, CNADNR, the Naval Authorities and Civil Aviation Authority, which are beyond the scope of the original definition of the Master Plan. Many of these concern projects which do not constitute a major improvement to the National transport system, but which involve what would be considered routine business investment and modernisation such as up-to-date ticketing and passenger information systems, or essential safety projects to comply with international regulations. The concern for the project sponsors was that, if these projects were not specifically included in the Master Plan, they would never be implemented, or even considered for implementation.

There is a serious issue of maintenance and renewals backlogs on the railway system in particular. What would be regarded elsewhere as essential maintenance of track, terminals, rolling stock and management systems has been neglected.

The problem arises in Romania because of the disinvestment in railway maintenance which has occurred over the last 10-15 years. This is not just confined to maintenance of the “hard” assets such as track, stations and rolling stock, but soft investments such as passenger information and control systems, which for modern railway systems are part of normal investment needed to maintain, let alone improve, the

7 AECOM presentation to MTI and EU, 24th April 8 Ibid.


quality of the service offered to passengers. We have attempted to resolve this issue by cliassifying such investments either as “ancillary projects”, or “Business Modernisation” projects.

In our opinion, Romanian Railways are in a “spiral of decline” (see section 5.3). One consequence of the neglect of routine maintenance and renewals is that the cost of the making good the backlog is now much larger than would had been the case with timely maintenance and the passenger and freight volumes much lower (passenger kms have fallen by 39% and freight volumes by 15% since 2007) which weakens the economic case for such investment.

This problem has been adressed in the Draft Master Plan by classifying projects in the following way:

The Master Plan will:

Provide Projects for the 2014 – 2020 Operational Programme – immediate priority

Major projects of National Importance

Major Maintenance and Restoration Programmes

Ancillary Projects to the above

Business Modernisation (eg Passenger Information, Control Systems)

Longer Term projects

Projects requiring further study

2020 and 2030 Scenarios


2.1 Introduction

The Master Plan which is presented here is a Draft for discussion and refinement. A total of four hundred and three projects were submitted for consideration by project sponsors, and the process of refining these projects, testing them with the National Model, and appraising them with using guidelines proposed by AECOM is still ongoing. Discussions with MTI and project sponsors are still ongoing, with project fiches still being submitted until Friday 9th August. In addition, there is still considerable uncertainty with respect to availability of funding from the various sources, particularly with respect to the Cohesion Fund, and National Funds. The issue with National funds is what allocations need to be made to CNADNR and CFR Infrastructure, CFR Marfa, CFR Calatori, and to private operators. All of these issues need resolution before the Master Plan can be finalised.

The Reference Case

The first step is to determine which projects form the Reference Case. This is defined as follows n the Terms of Reference (section 6.2.2.2).

The „Reference scenario” ("Do Minimum") will consider the projects being already in construction or for which is assured the financing.

Thus, Reference Case projects are those which will definitely be implemented, given current circumstances. The Reference Case represents the situation against which the candidate projects for the Master Plan will be assessed. It is important to note that if a project is designated to be in the Reference Case, it is assumed to be fully funded, with all the necessary permissions obtained, and to be implemented before 2015. The projects in the Reference Case have been agreed with the sponsoring authorities, and are set out in the following section.

Next Steps

The next steps in the finalisation of the Master Plan are:

1. Projects for 2020 have to be tested individually and selected for a firm POS-I programme. This will include further analysis of need and alignment of project definition with this analysis.

2. The estimate of available funds has to be more clodely defined and agreed, particularly how much financial support will be made available for the road and rail companies for current expenditure, administration costs for the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Infrastructure, and how much will be available for investment and renewals.

3. Decisions on policy such as road user charging to be made.

4. 2030 Programme to be refined and tested

2 2020 and 2030 Scenarios


2.2 Description of Projects, 2020 and 2030

AECOM received details of over four hundred projects from project sponsors. Table 2.1 below set out the number of project in each sector, by nature of the investment.

Table 2.1. Number of projects by Nature of Investment and Sector

Sector

Nature of investment

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

Freight terminals 3 2 3 8 Information Systems, Ticketing 1 9 1 11 Infrastructure 9 10 4 5 6 4 38 Maintenance / Renewals 19 19 Modernisation 12 30 31 10 3 86 New alignment 1 78 79 Other 3 23 4 30 Passenger Terminals 6 6 Policy 2 2 Rail stations 18 18 Rehabilitation 12 4 23 5 44 Rolling Stock (cars) 7 7 Rolling Stock (dmu) 1 1 Rolling Stock (emu) 1 1 Rolling Stock (Locos) 5 5 Safety 4 2 1 7 Ships 11 11 Signalling & Control 4 16 4 24 Technical Assistance 3 1 2 6 Total 47 12 49 141 119 35 403 Source: AECOM analysis of projects received

The road and rail sectors provided the majority (64%) of the projects. Maintenance and renewals feature strongly for railway and port projects, reflecting the run-down nature of this type of infrastructure, while new alignments are prominent for road projects. Of course numbers do not necessarily reflect costs, and these are discussed in later analyses.

The number of projects by type of project is set out in Table 2.2. These are for the selected projects.


Table 2.2. Selected Projects: Number of projects by Type and Sector

Sector

Type of Project

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

Ancillary Projects 1 7 6 14 Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance 23 10 15 23 22 4 97 Investments in Equipments, eg. Rolling Stocks, vessels 8 12 20 Maintenance & Renewal Existing Resources 2 33 35 National/Provider Policy 1 1 Normal Business Investments 1 19 20 Post 2030 1 1 Projects requiring a further study 3 4 7 Technical Assistance Projects 3 1 2 6 Total 24 10 24 97 22 24 201 Source: AECOM analysis of projects received

Table 2.3. Selected Projects: Cost of Projects by Type and Sector

(costs are in mill EURO, 2012 prices, undiscounted)

Sector

Type of Project

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

Ancillary Projects

16.0 88.9 31.8 136.7 0.2%

Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

1,325.3 138.4 133.9 16,217.8 22,682.3 1,844.8 42,342.4 65.8%

Investments in Equipments, eg. Rolling Stocks, vessels

1,207.0 109.2 1,316.2 2.0%

Maintenance & Renewal Existing Resources

29.6 5,551.6

5,581.2 8.7%

National/Provider Policy

2.5

2.5 0.0%

Normal Business Investments

0.5 590.3

590.8 0.9%

Post 2030

11,000.0

11,000.0 17.1%

Projects requiring a further study

586.1 2,792.6

3,378.7 5.2%


Sector

Type of Project

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

Technical Assistance Projects

14.1 0.2 3.1 17.4 0.0%

Total 1,325.8 138.4 779.6 37,450.9 22,682.3 1,988.8 64,365.8 100.0%

% of total 2.1% 0.2% 1.2% 58.2% 35.2% 3.1% 100.0%

Source: AECOM analysis of projects received

The selected projects amounted to €64.4 bn. We classified projects, accounting for nearly 66% of this total cost, as being major infrastructure projects or programmes of national importance. Rail and road projects accounted for nearly 94% of cost – rail alone accounted for 58% of costs, although nearly 30% of this sum is allocated to high-speed rail, which is a long term (post 2030) project. This is a reflection of the maintenance backlog for railways, and of the high unit costs for rail and road infrastructure in difficult topographical areas. While the project costs are taken in the main from feasibility studies, the high cost emphasises the need to refine the projects further to obtain good value for money.

Table 2.4 gives details of our assessment of the potential sources of funding for the selected projects, for each sector.

Table 2.4. Selected Projects: Cost of Projects by Source of Funding and Sector


Sector

Source of Funding A

ir

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

CEF 95.9 539.7 382.3 1,018.0 1.6% CF 15,102.5 17,089.4 9.0 32,200.9 50.0% ERDF 357.7 42.6 5.0 444.7 404.4 8.1 1,262.6 2.0% National Budget 39.6 9,187.9 950.9 132.4 10,310.8 16.0% Own Funds 968.1 93.6 884.9 76.0 2,022.6 3.1% PPP or Concession 95.7 545.4 11,291.2 4,237.6 1,381.0 17,551.0 27.3% Total 1,325.8 138.4 779.6 37,450.9 22,682.3 1,988.8 64,365.8 100.0%

% of total 2.1% 0.2% 1.2% 58.2% 35.2% 3.1% 100.0%

Source: AECOM analysis of projects received Notes:

1. CEF, CF and ERDF are total costs. For CF and ERDF, the National Budget should contribute 15% of the total cost. 2. PPP or Concession costs exclude financing costs, and implicitly assume off-balance sheet financing will be possible

Table 2.5 gives the Reference Case projects for each of the sponsoring authorities. These have been discussed and agreed with each authority.


Table 2.5. Reference Case Projects


Index Sector Project Title Cost Implementing Authority

024 Air Extension and modernization of the airport surfaces in Oradea Airport

31.7 Civil Aviation Authority

019 Air Modernization of movement areas and beakoning system, control tower and ILS navigation system in Suceava Airport


035 Air Rehabilitation of movement area infrastructure in Craiova Airport


021 Air Rehabilitation of the apron and parkings in Constanta (M. Kogalniceanu) Airport


099 Ports CO-WANDA: Convention for waste management for inland navigation on the Danube

6.3 CN APDM SA

103 Ports DAHAR - Strategic Development Plan for the Danube interior Ports

0.1 CN APDM SA

065 Ports Extension of the breakwater in the Constanta Port 133.3 CN APM SA

066 Ports Extension to the south of the gauge berth in the Port of Constanta

4.7 CN APM SA

104 Ports GIFT- Green Intermodal Freight Transport Corridors in South East Europe

0.2 CN APDM SA

090 Ports Infrastructure works in the Port of Braila - berths 23 and 25 7.8 CN APDM SA 102 Ports Master Plan for the Constanta Port 2.0 CN APM SA

109 Ports Modernizing port infrastructure by providing increasing depths of channels and basins and safety of navigation in Constanta Port

37.5 CN APM SA

084 Ports Rehabilitation and modernization of the infrastructure in Oltenita Port

4.6 CN APDF SA

060 Ports Stationary platform at the entrance of the Danube - Black Sea Channel

14.1 CN ACN SA

142 Rail Current repairs for the public railway infrastructure for 2013-2020

558.0 CNCF CFR SA

236 Rail Detection system for overheated axles and closed brakes (21 locations)

12.7 CNCF CFR SA

120 Rail Developping of the rail infrastructure system in the Constanta Port (the fluvial-maritime sector)

16.9 CN APM SA

200 Rail Developping the strategic noise maps and action plans for the major railways having more than 30,000 train movements per year - Stage I

61.8 CNCF CFR SA

170 Rail Electrification of the Doaga-Tecuci-Barbosi line 57.2 CNCF CFR SA

153 Rail Modernisation of the Border-Curtici-Arad-Simeria line: Section Border-Arad-km 614

282.7 CNCF CFR SA

150 Rail Modernisation of the Coșlariu - Sighișoara line at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

944.8 CNCF CFR SA

217 Rail Modernisation of the Focsani station 2.5 CNCF CFR SA

210 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Bistrita, Zalau

28.4 CNCF CFR SA

211 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Giurgiu Oraş, Slobozia Veche, Călăraşi Sud

18.1 CNCF CFR SA

214 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Piatra 29.4 CNCF CFR SA



Neamţ, Botoşani, Vaslui, Brăila 213 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Pitesti 15.6 CNCF CFR SA

212 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Sfântu Gheorghe, Târgu Mureş

22.3 CNCF CFR SA

209 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Slatina, Râmnicu Vâlcea, Reşiţa Sud

18.5 CNCF CFR SA

151 Rail Modernisation of the Simeria - Coșlariu line at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

663.1 CNCF CFR SA

240 Rail Modernization of Videle interlocking station 9.6 CNCF CFR SA

237 Rail Operational pilot project for a ECTS/ERTMS Level 2 aplication on the line section Buciumeni Junction - Brazi

45.1 CNCF CFR SA

129 Rail Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Brasov

11.2 CNCF CFR SA

133 Rail Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Constanta

2.4 CNCF CFR SA

132 Rail Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Timisoara

8.9 CNCF CFR SA

147 Rail Rehabilitation of the Bucharest-Constanta line 904.4 CNCF CFR SA

134 Rail Rehabilitation works for the Danube bridges at km 152+149 and at km 165+817, railway line Bucharest - Constanta - Regional Branch Constanta

40.6 CNCF CFR SA

144 Rail RK for the 2013-2016 period 73.6 CNCF CFR SA 145 Rail RK for the 2017-2020 period 376.4 CNCF CFR SA

238 Rail Upgrading the electromechanical interlocking systems for 11 stations

36.0 CNCF CFR SA

239 Rail Upgrading the electromechanical interlocking systems for 16 stations

68.0 CNCF CFR SA

338 Road Access Road to Agigea Lock and sea-port Agigea, CDMN, left bank, between km 61 +800 and 63 +500, L = 1.700 m

1.7 CN ACN SA

272 Road Alesd South and Alesd North Bypass 76.7 CNADNR SA 273 Road Alexandria Bypass 41.6 CNADNR SA 274 Road Bacau Motorway Bypass 231.5 CNADNR SA 280 Road Brasov Bypass 85.0 CNADNR SA 252 Road Bridge on DN2E km 57+400, at Clit 0.3 CNADNR SA 253 Road Bridge over Arges river, DN61 km 74+015 at Ionesti 7.0 CNADNR SA

254 Road Bridge over Sai at DN54 km 67+774 and new road alligment for DN54, km 65 +950 - km 70 +600 at Turnu Magurele

5.8 CNADNR SA

268 Road Bridge over the Danube-Black Sea Channel at km 0+540 and the access infrastructure in the Constanta Port; Phase 1 - construction of the bridge

30.9 CN APM SA

269 Road Bridge over the Danube-Black Sea Channel at km 0+540 and the access infrastructure in the Constanta Port; Phase 2 - construction of the road connections

6.0 CN APM SA

355 Road Building the A3 motorway section in Bucharest Municipality 89.0 CNADNR SA 286 Road Caracal Bypass 12.5 CNADNR SA 287 Road Carei Bypass 19.5 CNADNR SA 288 Road Cluj-Napoca East Bypass 132.2 CNADNR SA 342 Road Consolidation works DN29D, km 18 +500 - km 20+816 7.7 CNADNR SA



290 Road Craiova South Bypass 31.8 CNADNR SA 292 Road Deva - Orastie Motorway 296.9 CNADNR SA

343 Road Ease of traffic on DN1 km. 8+100 - km. 17+100 - Phase 7, the bypass ring section DN7-DN1A

44.7 CNADNR SA

302 Road Iasi South Bypass: Phase 2 18.1 CNADNR SA 303 Road Iasi South Bypass: Phase 3 29.7 CNADNR SA 304 Road Iasi South Bypass: Phase 4 24.3 CNADNR SA

255 Road Link road DN66A km 47+600 - km 66+204, Campu lui Neag-Cerna

54.2 CNADNR SA

270 Road Link road to DN39 for the new bridge over the Danube-Black Sea Channel

29.6 CN APM SA

305 Road Lugoj - Deva Motorway 1136.3 CNADNR SA 308 Road Mihailesti Bypass 8.7 CNADNR SA

262 Road Modernisation DN 73 Pitesti - Campulung - Brasov, km 13+800 - km 42+850; km 54+050 - km 128+250

110.3 CNADNR SA

260 Road Modernisation DN29 Suceava - Botosani, section km 0+000 - km 39+071

32.1 CNADNR SA

349 Road Modernisation DN2N km 52+860 - km 60+000 Jitia - Biscoa and new bridge over Ramnicu Sarat river la km 53+300

5.2 CNADNR SA

350 Road Modernisation DN5, section Bucuresti - Adunatii Copaceni 22.4 CNADNR SA

261 Road Modernisation DN71 Baldana - Targoviste - Sinaia, sections km 0+000 - km 44+130 and km 51+041 - km 109+905

69.1 CNADNR SA

263 Road Modernization DN 67B Scoarta - Pitesti km 0 +000 - km 188 +200

153.3 CNADNR SA

264 Road Modernization DN 72 Gaiesti - Ploiesti km 0 +000 - km 76 +180

56.5 CNADNR SA

265 Road Modernization of Bucharest Ring Road between A1 - DN7 and DN2 - A2 (widening to 4 lanes)

121.9 CNADNR SA

309 Road Nadlac-Arad Motorway 307.7 CNADNR SA 311 Road Oradea Bypass 52.9 CNADNR SA 312 Road Orastie - Sibiu Motorway 600.2 CNADNR SA

257 Road Rail overpass on the Arad Bypass (Brad-Curtici rail section and DJ709B)

10.7 CNADNR SA

256 Road Rail overpass on the Arad Bypass (DN7 km 540 +248) 10.6 CNADNR SA 348 Road Rehabilitation DN14 Sibiu-Medias, Medias-Sighisoara 75.8 CNADNR SA 346 Road Rehabilitation DN15 Targu Mures - Reghin 22.1 CNADNR SA 347 Road Rehabilitation DN15A Reghin - Saratel 41.1 CNADNR SA

351 Road Rehabilitation DN18, Baia Mare - Iacobeni, section km 3+522 to km 220 +088

245.3 CNADNR SA

340 Road Rehabilitation DN19 Satu Mare - Orchard, km 134 +950 - km 150 080

9.6 CNADNR SA

360 Road Rehabilitation DN1H Rastoci -Zalau, km 75 +446 - km 128 +823

33.0 CNADNR SA

353 Road Rehabilitation DN1H Zalau - Alesd, km 0+000 - km 69+334 101.7 CNADNR SA

356 Road Rehabilitation DN24 (county limit Galati/Vaslui - Crasna)and DN24B

107.4 CNADNR SA

352 Road Rehabilitation DN24 Crasna-Iasi, km 105 +720 - km 188 +150 69.3 CNADNR SA 354 Road Rehabilitation DN2D Focsani - Ojdula km 0+000 - km 118+893 179.1 CNADNR SA



357 Road Rehabilitation DN6 Alexandria-Craiova 171.3 CNADNR SA

344 Road Rehabilitation DN66 Filiasi - Petrosani, km 0+000 - km 131+000

127.4 CNADNR SA

358 Road Rehabilitation DN66 Filiasi - Petrosani, km 0+000 - km 131+000

127.4 CNADNR SA

345 Road Rehabilitation DN76 Deva-Oradea, km 0+000 - km 184+390 223.5 CNADNR SA

359 Road Rehabilitation of DN56 Craiova - Calafat km 0 +000 - km 87+047

111.7 CNADNR SA

341 Road Rehabiltiation DN1C Baia Mare - Orchard-Halmeu, km 155 +125 - km 216 +630

38.9 CNADNR SA

319 Road Sacuieni Bypass 12.1 CNADNR SA 362 Road Safety measures on DN1 in linear villages and black spots 38.0 CNADNR SA 320 Road Satu Mare Bypass 139.6 CNADNR SA 321 Road Sebes - Turda Motorway 811.1 CNADNR SA 325 Road Stei Bypass 113.6 CNADNR SA 327 Road Suceava Bypass 68.7 CNADNR SA 330 Road Targu Jiu Bypass 88.3 CNADNR SA 331 Road Targu Mures Bypass 72.6 CNADNR SA 333 Road Tecuci Bypass 18.9 CNADNR SA 334 Road Timisoara South Bypass 96.9 CNADNR SA 361 Road Traffic calming measures on 4 lanes national roads 29.0 CNADNR SA

266 Road Widening to 4 lanes between A2 Centura Bucuresti Sud (km 23 +600) and A1 (km 55 +520)

193.0 CNADNR SA

267 Road Widening to 4 lanes DN7 Baldana Titu km 30 +950- km 52 +350

37.0 CNADNR SA

097 Waterways Building an administrative complex in Port of Giurgiu 2.6 RA AFDJ Galati

403 Waterways Improving the navigation conditions on the lower Danube (Calarasi-Braila)

38.7 RA AFDJ Galati

371 Waterways IRIS Europe 3 1.1 RA AFDJ Galati

381 Waterways Monitoring the environmental impact of the works to improve navigation conditions on the Danube between Calarasi and Braila, km 375-km 175-Phase II

1.4 RA AFDJ Galati

098 Waterways Newada Duo Project 0.2 RA AFDJ Galati

384 Waterways Protection for banks at Sulina Channel - Stage I 76.0 RA AFDJ Galati

373 Waterways Stationary platform for barges at the confluence of the Black Sea and Danube waterways Gate Alba Midia Navodari

2.7 CN ACN SA

378 Waterways System for gathering and processing of the ships waste and for pollution intervention on the Danube sector administrated by CN APDF SA Giurgiu

8.6 CN APDF SA

376 Waterways The modernization of the water management system on the navigable channels by installing automatic monitoring stations

3.6 CN ACN SA

377 Waterways Upgrading the locks, equipments and installations for CDMN and CPAMN

175.6 CN ACN SA



Note: Reference case projects have committed funding and implementation programmes

Table 2.6 sets out the projects selected for the 2020 Strategy.

Table 2.6. 2020 Strategy: List of Projects




002 Air Freight Terminal at Timisoara Airport 46.416Civil Aviation Authority

Freight terminals

003 Air Security System at Baia Mare Airport 0.5Civil Aviation Authority

Information Systems, Ticketing

004 Air Consolidation and extension movement areas at Baia Mare Airport

15Civil Aviation Authority

Infrastructure

005 Air Construction of a cargo terminal at Cluj-Napoca Airport

9.57Civil Aviation Authority

Infrastructure

006 Air Construction of movement surfaces in Cluj-Napoca International Airport


Infrastructure

009 Air Development and modernization of Iasi International Airport - Module 4 (plane parking and maintenance hangar)


Infrastructure

010 Air

Taking off and touch down runway of 3,500 m - Phase I (2,100m completed) and Movement Area in Cluj-Napoca International Airport


Infrastructure

011 Air Modernisation of the public area infrastructure in Cluj-Napoca International Airport


Infrastructure

013 Air Development and modernization of Iasi International Airport - Module 1 (runway, boarding-landing platform, lights)


Modernisation

020 Air Rehabilitation and modernisation of PDA1 runway in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Modernisation

025 Air

Building passenger terminal and additional facilities (offices, business and passengers spaces, etc.) in Constanta (M. Kogalniceanu) Airport


Passenger Terminals

026 Air Development and modernization of Iasi International Airport - Module 2 (passenger terminal)


Passenger Terminals

027 Air Expanding the passenger terminal in Baia Mare Airport


Passenger Terminals

029 Air Passenger terminal in Constanta (M. Kogalniceanu) Airport


Passenger Terminals

032 Air Rehabilitation of the Bravo, Alfa, November and Whisky taxiways in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Rehabilitation

033 Air Rehabilitation of Apron/Platform 1 in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Rehabilitation




034 Air Rehabilitation of Apron/ Platform 2 in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Rehabilitation

036 Air Rehabilitation works for CR PAPA and over-widening of the runways intersections in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Rehabilitation

037 Air Rehabilitation of Golf and Oscar taxiways, including an aircraft turntable at PDA2 in Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


Rehabilitation

044 Air Lighting system/Warning lights for movement surfaces in Constanta (M. Kogalniceanu) Airport


Signalling & Control

045 Air Turning facilities for a B747-400 in Constanta (M. Kogalniceanu) Airport



046 Air Construction of Intermodal Terminal at Timisoara Airport


Passenger Terminals

047 InterModal Intermodal Terminal at Galati Port (Bazinul Nou)

12CN APDM SA

Freight terminals

048 InterModal Intermodal Terminal at Galati Port (zona docuri)

12CN APDM SA

Freight terminals

049 Air Development and modernization of Iasi International Airport - Module 3 (freight terminal) Air-Road


Freight terminals

050 InterModal Developing the Danube ports as intermodal freight centers - Port of Drobeta Turnu Severin

8CN APDF SA

Infrastructure

051 InterModal Building a intermodal terminal at Port of Giurgiu

10.63CNCF CFR SA

Infrastructure

053 InterModal Building of an intermodal terminal in the Timisoara area

18.019Private Companies

Infrastructure

057 InterModal Building of an intermodal terminal in the Bucharest area

19.23Private Companies

Infrastructure

061 Ports Building new container terminal in Constanta Port (moles III and IV south)

293.8 CN APM SA Freight terminals

064 Ports New terminal for general goods in Galati Port

5.387CN APDM SA

Infrastructure

071 Ports Modernization of the infrastructure in the Basarabi Port

5.5 CN ACN SA Modernisation

076 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Calafat Port

15.164CN APDF SA

Modernisation

078 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Cernavoda Port

6.895CN APDF SA

Modernisation

079 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Drobeta-Turnu

16.754CN APDF SA

Modernisation




Severin Port

080 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Giurgiu Port

4.203CN APDF SA

Modernisation

081 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Moldova Veche Port

3.642CN APDF SA

Modernisation

082 Ports

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Oltenita Port

5.527CN APDF SA

Modernisation

083 Ports Extension of the infrastructure in Calafat Port and the systematization of its rail network

3.94CN APDF SA

Modernisation

088 Ports Rehabilitation and modernization of the infrastructure in the ports outside the TEN-T network - Corabia Port

4.462CN APDF SA

Modernisation

089 Ports Rehabilitation and modernization of the infrastructure in the ports outside the TEN-T network - Orsova Port

7.755CN APDF SA

Modernisation

091 Ports

Modernisation of ports infrastructure to assure the necessary depths and safety for the Maritime Sector of the Danube River - Stage 1 - Galati Port

6.759CN APDM SA

Modernisation

092 Ports Port infrastructure works - Berth 32 in Galati Port

4.912CN APDM SA

Modernisation

123 Rail Building of the Valcele - Ramnicu Valcea new line

316.081CNCF CFR SA

Infrastructure

125 Rail Re-opening the railway bridge on the Arges river, Bucharest-Giurgiu line, between Vidra and Gradiste stations

58.694CNCF CFR SA

Maintenance / Renewals

148 Rail Modernisation of the Predeal-Brasov line at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

191.991CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation

149 Rail Modernisation of the Brasov-Simeria line, section Brasov-Sighisoara at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

1656.296CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation

152 Rail Modernisation of the km 614-Gurasada and Gurasada-Simeria line at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

1915.602CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation

154 Rail Modernisation of the Caransebes-Timisoara-Arad line for getting to higher speeds

638.276CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation

155 Rail Modernisation of the Caransebes-Drobeta Turnu Severin-Craiova line for getting to higher speeds

1543.295CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation




156 Rail Modernisation of the Craiova-Calafat line at maximum speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains

539.737CNCF CFR SA

Modernisation

193 Rail Regular-Interval Service Pattern 2.5CFR Calatori SA

Other

194 Rail Renewal of rolling stock fleet by providing new diesel single-deck train set for medium and long distance

2.1CFR Calatori SA

Other

197 Rail Repairs and modernization of the fuels and lubricants deposits

12CFR Calatori SA

Other

198 Rail Extending the digital network for 640 km of lines. Stage III

29.813CNCF CFR SA

Other

199 Rail Modernisation of the vehicle fleet and machiney involved in line maintenance and in interventions - 2014-2020

156CNCF CFR SA

Other

215 Rail Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Stage V

154.424CNCF CFR SA

Rail stations

226 Rail New rolling stock (diesel multiple units) and dmu depot

599.5CFR Calatori SA

Rolling Stock (dmu)

227 Rail New rolling stock (electric multiple units) and emu depot

419.5CFR Calatori SA

Rolling Stock (emu)

241 Rail Modernization of Braila electronic interlocking station

5.757CNCF CFR SA


251 Rail Protection for the railway lines by plantation of trees

1.68CNCF CFR SA

Safety

258 Road

Extension to 4 lanes of the link road between Gate 7, the new bridge over the channel and Gate 8 and 9 in Constanta Port

18.583 CN APM SA Modernisation

259 Road Extension to 4 lanes of the link road between Gates 10 and 10bis in Constanta Port

4.103 CN APM SA Modernisation

281 Road Bucharest North Bypass Motorway, km 0 +000 - km 52 770

840.469 CNADNR SA New alignment

282 Road Bucharest South Bypass Motorway km 52+770 - km 100+765

643.937 CNADNR SA New alignment

285 Road Campulung Moldovenesc Bypass 107.271 CNADNR SA New alignment 289 Road Comarnic-Brasov Motorway 797.724 CNADNR SA New alignment 310 Road Craiova - Pitesti Motorway 1995.902 CNADNR SA New alignment 315 Road Radauti Bypass 37.467 CNADNR SA New alignment 323 Road Sighisoara Bypass 43.8 CNADNR SA New alignment 337 Road Vatra Dornei Bypass 76.949 CNADNR SA New alignment 363 Road Sibiu - Pitesti Motorway 2682.79 CNADNR SA New alignment

375 Waterways Improving the navigation conditions on the common Ro-Bg Danube sector

200RA AFDJ Galati

Infrastructure

382 Waterways Protection and enforcement of the high banks on the canal CDMN

178.752 CN ACN SA Rehabilitation

386 Waterways Modernization of the "Perseus" ice breaker 8.13RA AFDJ Galati

Ships




387 Waterways Pruchase of one oil tanker 1.5RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

388 Waterways Purchase of an multifunctional ship 1600 hp 12RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

389 Waterways Purchase of one ship for maritime signaling for the maritime section of the Danube river and Sulina channel

2RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

390 Waterways Purchase of two maritime boats 2RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

391 Waterways Purchase of two river boats 1RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

392 Waterways Purchase of two ships for fluvial signaling for the entire Romanian section of the River Danube

3RA AFDJ Galati

Ships

395 Waterways ANNA - Advanced National Network for the Administrations - Single Electronic Interface

2.806 ANR Technical Assistance

396 Waterways Goniometric system (Radio Direction Finder) for locating ships in distress in the maritime area of responsibility of Romania

3.562CNCR RadioNav SA


400 Waterways

Minimizing the adverse effects of maritime transport on the environment by purchasing a specialized vessel for oil spill response at sea

13 ARSVOM Ships

401 Waterways Improvement of maritime safety by acquiring a specialized vessel for fire-fighting to ships and oil platforms

25 ARSVOM Ships

402 Waterways Improvement of maritime safety by aquisition of a specialized search and rescue vessel

18 ARSVOM Ships



Table 2.7 gives the number of projects in the Draft 2020 Strategy for each sector, and by nature of investment. There are 86 projects out of the 201 selected. Of these, air has the largest number of projects (23), but many of these are quite small in nature. Modernisation projects form the largest project type with 22 out of the 86.

Table 2.7. 2020 Strategy: Number of Projects by Nature of Investment and Sector

Sector

Nature of Investment Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

Freight terminals 2 2 1 5 Information Systems, Ticketing 1 1 Infrastructure 6 4 1 1 1 13 Maintenance / Renewals 1 1 Modernisation 2 12 6 2 22 New alignment 9 9 Other 5 5 Passenger Terminals 5 5 Rail stations 1 1 Rehabilitation 5 1 6 Rolling Stock (dmu) 1 1 Rolling Stock (emu) 1 1 Safety 1 1 Ships 10 10 Signalling & Control 2 1 1 4 Technical Assistance 1 1 Total 23 6 14 18 11 14 86 Source: AECOM analysis of projects received

The total cost, and source of funding, of the projects in the draft 2020 Strategy, is given in Table 2.8.


Table 2.8. 2020 Strategy: Cost of Projects by Source of Funding and Sector


Sector

Source of Funding

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

CEF 90.9 539.7 382.3 1,013.0 6.0% CF 6,004.2 3,545.9 9,550.1 56.6% ERDF 357.7 42.6 154.4 265.5 8.1 828.4 4.9% National Budget 1,537.5 24.3 1,561.8 9.3% Own Funds 89.6 7.4 56.0 153.0 0.9% PPP or Concession 37.2 293.8 3,437.6 3,768.6 22.3% Total 447.3 79.9 384.7 8,243.2 7,249.0 470.8 16,874.8 100.0%

% of total 2.7% 0.5% 2.3% 48.8% 43.0% 2.8% 100.0%


Road and rail projects account for 92% of the total cost, with rail the largest single sector with 48% of costs. Of the potential funding sources, projects eligible for funding by the CF amount to €9.6bn. 15% of this total (€1.4 bn.) would have to be funded by the National Budget, but clearly the CF would not provide this level of funds in the period up to 2020. There are several explanatory factors for high costs at this stage:

The unit costs supplied are very high: for example for Sibiu – Pitesti these are €26.6m/km: the rail re-habilitation projects are between €5.3 – 10.7m/km. Tender costs may well be lower;

Less ambitious variants of the same project may be possible;

New roling stock costs are €1bn: whether better value could be obtained by re-furbishment, or repairs to existing stock needs further investigation;

Reserve projects are required in case of delay to a specific project;

Delays in obtaining approvals may cause projects to slip beyond the 2020 date before implementation.

These issues require further investigation before the 2020 programme can be confirmed. In addition, and very importantly, the projects have not been individually tested with a CBA, and until this is completed we cannot be certain that all of these projects will have passed the CBA criterion.

Table 2.9 shows the cost of projects by sector, and on which networks they are located.


Table 2.9. 2020 Strategy: Cost of Projects by Network and Sector


Sector

Network

Air

Inte

rMo

dal

Po

rts

Rai

l

Ro

ad

Wat

erw

ays

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

National Routes 10.6 17.7 1,383.3 265.5 234.8 1,911.9 11.3% TEN-T Comprehensive 202.3 9.2 316.1 2,793.6 3,321.1 19.7% TEN-T Core 245.0 69.2 357.8 6,543.9 4,189.9 236.0 11,641.8 69.0% Total 447.3 79.9 384.7 8,243.2 7,249.0 470.8 16,874.8 100.0%

% of total 2.7% 0.5% 2.3% 48.8% 43.0% 2.8% 100.0% Source: AECOM analysis of projects received

69% of the expenditure would be on the TEN-T core, with a further 20% on the Comprehensive network. Projects on National routes account for 11% of expenditure.

Table 2.10 shows the cost of the strategy by implementing authority, and source of funds.

Table 2.10. 2020 Strategy: Cost of Projects by Implementing Organisation and Source of Funding


Source of Funding

Implementing Organisation

CE

F

CF

ER

DF

Nat

ion

al B

ud

get

Ow

n F

un

ds

PP

P o

r C

on

cess

ion

To

tal

% o

f to

tal

ANR 2.8 2.8 0.0% ARSVOM 56.0 56.0 0.3% CFR Calatori SA 1,035.6 1,035.6 6.1% Civil Aviation Authority 357.7 89.6 447.3 2.7% CN ACN SA 184.3 184.3 1.1% CN APDF SA 68.3 8.0 76.3 0.5% CN APDM SA 17.1 24.0 41.1 0.2% CN APM SA 22.7 293.8 316.5 1.9% CNADNR SA 3,523.3 265.5 3,437.6 7,226.3 42.8% CNCF CFR SA 539.7 6,004.2 165.1 501.9 7.4 7,218.3 42.8% CNCR RadioNav SA 3.6 3.6 0.0% Private Companies 37.2 37.2 0.2% RA AFDJ Galati 200.0 8.1 21.5 229.6 1.4% Total 1,013.0 9,550.1 828.4 1,561.8 153.0 3,768.6 16,874.8 100.0%

% of total 6.0% 56.6% 4.9% 9.3% 0.9% 22.3% 100.0% Source: AECOM analysis of projects received


CFR Infrastructure and CNADNR would each have responsibility for nearly 43% of the expenditure: these organisations have to ensure that they have the administrative capacity to manage a project implementation programmes of this scale.

Other projects, which have not been considered for the Strategy at the moment, are listed in Table 2.11. The main reasons for classifying these as other projects are that further study is required, for example in the case of the barge terminal at Constanta, while others should be financed as part of normal operations of the businesses concerned.

Table 2.11. 2020 Strategy: Other Projects


Index Sector Classification Project Title Cost Sponsor

095 Ports Ancillary Projects Extension and modernization of water and wastewater infrastructure in the Romanian seaports

16.0 CN APM SA

110 Ports Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

New barge terminal in Port of Constanta- Stage II 38.0 CN APM SA

107 Ports Maintenance & Renewal Existing Resources

Rehabilitation of collecting surface water system and erosion protection + protection against falling stones at Cernavoda Port (CDMN and CPAMN)

14.6 CN ACN SA

108 Ports Maintenance & Renewal Existing Resources

Consolidation for the cliffs and the additional land in the Constanta Port

15.0 CN APM SA

101 Ports Projects requiring a further study

Building a wind park in the Constanta Port 40.6 CN APM SA

100 Ports Technical Assistance Projects

Noise maps and action plans to manage noise and its effects - Port of Braila

9.0 CN APDM SA


Master Plan for analyzing a route for liquefied gas along the Danube river

0.1 CN APDM SA

111 Rail Ancillary Projects Creating a Disaster Recovery Centre 15.0 CFR Calatori SA

179 Rail Ancillary Projects Arrangement warehouse for maintenance and hauling electrical frames -Locomotive Depot Cluj

4.3 CFR Calatori SA

180 Rail Ancillary Projects Arrangement warehouse for maintenance and hauling electrical frames -Locomotive Depot Craiova

4.0 CFR Calatori SA

181 Rail Ancillary Projects Arrangement warehouse for maintenance and hauling electrical frames -Locomotive Depot Galati

2.8 CFR Calatori SA

186 Rail Ancillary Projects Implementation of environmental mitigation at Bucharest Passenger Depot, maintenance of rolling stock unit belonging to CFR Călători

1.5 CFR Calatori SA

248 Rail Ancillary Projects Energy efficient works for the administrative buildings of CFR SA

33.3 CNCF CFR SA

231 Rail Investments in Equipments, eg. Rolling Stocks, vessels

Purchasing of 10 new LDE (diesel) locos 28.0 CFR Marfa SA


Purchasing of 10 new LE (electric) locos 30.0 CFR Marfa SA

118 Rail Maintenance & Renewal Existing

Replacing of the Xsell equipments 24.0 CFR Calatori SA



Resources

119 Rail Maintenance & Renewal Existing Resources

Security system against cyber attacks and optimizing the network architecture

2.0 CFR Calatori SA


Maintenance works for the public railway infrastructure for 2013-2020

958.0 CNCF CFR SA


Railway passengers coaches reconstructed and modernized for long and medium distance trains, including double deck coaches

39.5 CFR Calatori SA


Rehabilitation of 4 TH type passenger coaches for double deck train set by electromagnetic brake and push-pull equipment



Modernization of 12 LDE locos 6.0 CFR Marfa SA


Modernization of 12 LDH locos 6.0 CFR Marfa SA


Modernization of 6 LE locos 5.0 CFR Marfa SA

112 Rail Normal Business Investments

Creating IT infrastructure to sell tickets in rail traffic, developing a common platform for national and private operators



Electronic interconnection systems of issuing (tickets) according to required European standards

4.4 CFR Calatori SA


Extending of the automatic tickets sale system - xSell KIOSK



Extension of pilot information system and electronic sales of tickets in domestic traffic by portable devices on train - iMTk

7.0 CFR Calatori SA


Monitoring and controle system for access to platforms



IT system to implement the management pattern of customer relationship (CRM) through modern electronic services

2.5 CFR Calatori SA


Implementing a Business Intelligence Solution - Implementing data consolidation and integration solution, reporting, complex analysis and prediction

2.0 CFR Calatori SA


Purchase of underground lathe for turning tyres/monobloc wheels to locomotives, railcars, EMUs and coaches - Timisoara Depot

2.1 CFR Calatori SA


Purchasing equipment for tire removal / shunting from / on axle shaft and removal of ring gear - Depot Brasov

0.4 CFR Calatori SA


Passenger coaches and similar newly built for the composition of CFR Calatori trains on the route Bucharest - Budapest - Vienna



Implementing telematic application for the dynamic information of passengers according to provisions of the EC Regulation no. 454/2011 and Regulation no. 1371/2007

1.0 CFR Calatori SA

242 Rail Normal Business Elaboration of an railway GIS system 49.6 CNCF CFR



Investments SA


Implementing a telemetering system power and power factor compensation in traction substations and SCADA

27.8 CNCF CFR SA


Introducing the GSM-R system for the entire CFR network

150.0 CNCF CFR SA


Extending and adapting of the integrated sotfware system at CFR SA according to the managerial and technological needs

11.0 CNCF CFR SA


National Centre for Traffic Management - Stage I 160.0 CNCF CFR SA


LED signalling system 19.3 CNCF CFR SA


Lighting systems in the rail stations 4.3 CNCF CFR SA

121 Rail Projects requiring a further study

Rail infrastructure near Gate 10 in Constanta Port 1.4 CN APM SA

201 Rail Technical Assistance Projects

Developping the strategic noise maps and action plans for the major railways - Stage II

0.2 CNCF CFR SA

374 Waterways

Ancillary Projects Ensuring the migration of sturgeon fish by building a passage at the Bala arm of the Danube at km 346

9.0 RA AFDJ Galati

379 Waterways

Ancillary Projects Changing the destination of the building of Danube Commission in Sulina

12.9 RA AFDJ Galati

393 Waterways

Ancillary Projects

Extension and modernization of the coastal monitoring and floating signaling systemn across the Romanian sector of the Danube from Sulina to Bazias and the additional branches

3.0 RA AFDJ Galati

394 Waterways

Ancillary Projects Implementing a geospatial database (GIS) for monitoring and managing the signaling and coastal hydrological data on Danube

0.9 RA AFDJ Galati

398 Waterways

Ancillary Projects Command and Control Centre for communications and safety for ships

5.0 CNCR RadioNav SA

399 Waterways

Ancillary Projects Center for prevention and intervention in case of accidental pollution on River Danube (Damaris)

1.0 CN APDM SA

397 Waterways


Protection for banks at Sulina Channel - Stage II 85.0 RA AFDJ Galati

380 Waterways

Technical Assistance Projects

Mathematical modeling of hydrological and sedimentological processes along the Romanian sector of the Danube Iron Gates II range between the Black Sea

0.3 RA AFDJ Galati



We have set out a preliminary list of projects to be included in the 2020 to 2030 programme. These are described in Table 2.12 below.

Table 2.12. List of Candidate Projects to be implemented after year 2020


Index Sector Classification Project Title Cost Implementing Authority

012 Air Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

Strategic airport infrastructure development programe of Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport


052 Inter Modal


Building of an intermodal terminal in the Iasi area

18.0 Private Companies

054 Inter Modal


Building of an intermodal terminal in the Suceava area


055 Inter Modal


Building of an intermodal terminal in the Brasov area


059 Inter Modal


Building of passenger and freight intermodal terminal at Cluj-Napoca International Airport

2.0 CNCF CFR SA

074 Ports Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

Rehabilitation of the waiting front Duc D'Albi upstream Basarabi Port

5.0 CN ACN SA


Rehabilitation works for bridges, culverts and tunnels - Stage II

248.2 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railway level crossings - 112 crossings - Stage I

20.1 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railway level crossings - Stage II (154 crossings)

28.1 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railways level crossings - Stage III (786 crossings)

90.0 CNCF CFR SA


Maintenance works for the public railway infrastructure for 2021-2030

1368.0 CNCF CFR SA


Current repairs for the public railway infrastructure for 2021-2030

798.0 CNCF CFR SA


RK for the 2021-2030 period 1369.0 CNCF CFR SA

157 Rail Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

Modernisation of the Timişoara – Stamora Moraviţa - Border line

210.1 CNCF CFR SA

158 Rail Infrastructure Projects/Programme of

Modernisation of the Pascani-Iasi-Cristești Jijia-Border line for higher speeds

904.0 CNCF CFR SA



National Importance


Modernisation of the Bacau-Pascani line for getting to higher speeds

673.9 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Focsani- Bacau line for getting to higher speeds

1087.7 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Ploiesti-Focsani line for getting to higher speeds

928.3 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Bucuresti Nord-Jilava-Giurgiu line for getting to higher speeds

276.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Giurgiu-Videle-Bucuresti line for getting to higher speeds

724.2 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Craiova – Roşiori - Videle line for getting to higher speeds

395.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Border - Vicşani – Suceava – Paşcani line for getting to higher speeds

460.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Dej – Beclean on Someş River – Salva – Vatra Dornei – Suceava line for getting to higher speeds

1700.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Dej – Apahida-Coslariu line for getting to higher speeds

1150.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railways electrical network

50.0 CNCF CFR SA


Electrification and doubling the Cluj-Oradea section

543.6 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railway stations in Romania: Stage VI

99.1 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Miercurea Ciuc, Târgovişte and Târgu Jiu rail stations

51.5 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of 100 Faccs wagons 25.0 CFR Marfa SA


Purchasing of 50 Habbins wagons 3.5 CFR Marfa SA


Electric locomotive equipment with continuously control system of ETCS/ERTMS type traffic train, Stage 2





The implementation of the telematic aplication for real -time monitoring of the train traffic on the existing GIS platform

1.5 CFR Calatori SA

277 Road Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

Bistrita Bypass 138.9 CNADNR SA


Gilău-Nădășelu-Suplacu de Barcău-Borș Motorway

950.0 CNADNR SA


Arad-Oradea Expressway 350.0 CNADNR SA


Sibiu - Brasov Motorway 1028.5 CNADNR SA


Ploiesti - Comarnic Motorway 800.0 CNADNR SA


București - Alexandria - Craiova Motorway 1312.5 CNADNR SA


Craiova - Calafat Motorway 552.5 CNADNR SA


Ploiesti - Buzau -Focșani - Bacău - Suceava - Siret Motorway

4000.0 CNADNR SA


Brasov - Bacau Motorway 1800.0 CNADNR SA


Bacau - Iasi - Ungheni Motorway 0.9 CNADNR SA


Turda - Tg Mures - Iasi - Ungheni Motorway

4500.0 CNADNR SA

372 Watee Infrastructure Projects/Programme of National Importance

Fitting Arges and Dambovita rivers for navigation and other uses (the Danube-Bucharest Channel)

1381.0 CN ACN SA

385 Water Investments in Equipments, eg. Rolling Stocks, vessels

Dredging and maintenance fluvial ship 20.0 RA AFDJ Galati



The “other” projects, to be financed by other programmes or from the operators own funds, are described below. This again is a preliminary list to be confirmed after further testing and appraisal of the individual projects.

Table 2.13. Other Projects to be implemented after year 2020



062 Ports Projects requiring a further study

The development of the "Island" area in the Constanta Port

251.6 CN APM SA


Strategic Development Plan for Galati Port

5.0 CN APDM SA


Construction of Bucharest North - Henri Coanda International Airport railway line

291.2 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Galați

32.0 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Craiova

18.2 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Cluj

26.6 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Bucuresti

17.7 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation of the bridges, culverts and railways tunnels - Sucursala Iasi

9.6 CNCF CFR SA


Rehabilitation works for bridges, culverts and tunnels - Stage III

39.9 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the railways in the Bucharest Area for developping the existing network for passengers transport in the metropolitan area

500.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernisation of the Bucharest railway complex

2000.0 CNCF CFR SA


Electrification centres at Câmpulung Moldovenesc, Dej, Cluj and Miercurea Ciuc

27.0 CNCF CFR SA


Electrification centres at Buzau and Adjud and implementation of SCADA operating system

21.0 CNCF CFR SA


Modernization of electrification centres in Craiova - Videle - Bucuresti and Târgu Jiu – Petroșani - Simeria

21.0 CNCF CFR SA


Electrification centres at Roman, Iaşi, Galați

48.0 CNCF CFR SA



178 Rail Post 2030 HU-RO Border-Bucharest-Constanta high-speed railway line

11000.0 CNCF CFR SA

219 Rail

Investments in Equipments, eg. Rolling Stocks, vessels

Modernization of railway coaches equipped with electropneumatical brake and push – pull


220 Rail Ancillary Projects New passenger cars for day and night trains, including cars for transport of vehicles



National Centre for Traffic Management - Stage II

65.0 CNCF CFR SA



2.3 Overall Analysis of 2020 Scenario

The 2020 Strategy has a number of committed highway schemes which further extend the motorway nework over the reference case by 40% and a considerable investment in rail through improvements in core TEN-T rail corridors from Bucharest to Arad and Timisoara to 160kph operation, rolling stock improvements, and station enhancements. There are also improvements to waterways and ports which affect freight traffic and relatively small scale improvements to airports.

Table 2.14 shows the effect of the strategy on the market share of passenger trips and the proportional change that would be brought about by the strategy. There is forecasted to be a small increase in car passenger trips, 0.6%, with the main abstraction being from bus and rail which decline by just over 2% each. The impact on air is marginal with a small reduction of 0.2%.

The forecasted change in passenger trip mode shares as a result of the strategy are driven by the relative levels of investment in the various modes. The effects can be summarised as:

The considerable investment in rail is insufficient to offset the continuing expansion of the motorway network primarily due to the fact that the expansion of the motroway netwrok leads to parrallel improvements in vehicle speeds on the rest of the road network thereby increasing car and bus competitiveness to local rail services (the rail investment in terms of journey time improvements focuses on two longer distance corridors);

The motorway and long distance rail improvements on the two TEN-T corridors has a marginal effect on air travel as the time savings on road and rail for trips to Budapest for example are cut by over two hours; and

Bus travel is affected by improved competition from rail for longer distance trips and by an increasing expansion of the gap between bus and car speeds as the motorway network expands.

Table 2.14 Passenger Trips by Modal Share 2020

Mode of Travel 2020 Reference 2020 Strategy % change Car 78.2% 78.6% 0.6% Bus 17.2% 16.9% -2.1% Rail 3.6% 3.5% -2.3% Air 1.0% 0.9% -0.2%

Table 2.14 shows the changes in total passenger kms that are projected to take place as a result of the 2020 strategy compared to the 2020 reference case scenario. The most striking thing to note is that there is forecasted to be an increase in car, bus and rail passenger kms, despite the reduction in bus and rail trips. The increase in trip lengths by mode is due to a number of factors of which the most important are:

Significantly increased highway speeds on a number of major corridors due to the 40% increase of the motorway network under the 2020 strategy which leads to increased average trip lengths, mainly for personal and vacation travel due to the major reductions in travel time. This leads to an overall increase in car passenger kms of 15% with the strategy;

Rail passenger kms increase due to the improvements to the TEN-T corridors which makes rail more competitive for movements through these corridors and increase mode share compared to bus and rail. As these effect longer distance movements they more


than offset rail passenger losses in other corridors where road has been improved and the rail investment has been much lower;

Bus passenger kms increase due to the improvements in journey time that are achievable and this encourage greater travel distances for non car available travellers; and

Air trips are reduced due to the rail TEN-T and motorway improvements leading to greater competition. The air improvements in the strategy relate mainly to runway maintainance, extension, and upgrading of terminal facilities. While some estimate of the time savings that would arise from such investments has been made it is not practical in this study to examine the impact that the improvements would have in encouraging operators to invest in running more flights and opening up more routes.

One factor to note is the growth in passenger kms due to the strategy which is consistent with experience and evidence elsewhere in that improving travel times leads to people making longer journeys as a wider set of attractions and opportunities to travel become available. Another important factor is that these figures represent the result of implementing improvements across all modes and hence there are off setting factors in play with the effect of the rail improvements countered by the expansion of the motorway network. If the rail network improvements were assessed in isolation their impact on rail demand would be far more marked.

Table 2.15 Passenger kms by Mode of Travel: 2011-2020

Mode of Travel 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change Car 185,247,646.8 213,074,387.3 15.0% Bus 58,331,666 59,118,456 1.3% Rail 18,876,703 19,145,532 1.4% Air 48,579,415 48,001,075 -1.2% Totals 311,035,432 339,339,450 9.1%

Passengers Passenger Kms

Car 0.6% 15.0%

Bus ‐2.1% 1.3%

Rail ‐2.3% 1.4%

Air ‐0.2% ‐1.2%

Change in Passenger Demand 2020 Strategy


Table 2.15 shows the impact of the strategy on the freight tonnes lifted by each mode. The impact of the improvements to the motorway network on freight moved by mode is far less marked than for passenger traffic due to the legislation that regulates maximum speeds for HGVs. The speed restriction for HGVs means that the time/cost saving for road freight is significantly lower than for cars and as such the competitiveness of road freight compared to the rail and water offer does not change to the same extent. The table shows that road and rail tonnes lifted would reduce slightly, by less than 1%, but that water freight would increase by almost 8%.

The growth in water freight under the strategy, compared to the reference case, is a direct result of considerable investment in improving and maintaining the Danube waterway navigable channel for use at all times, and improvements to port handling facilities.

Table 2.16 Freight Tonnes by Mode: 2020 Strategy v Reference

Mode 2020 Reference 2020 Strategy % change Road 803,905 799,328 -0.6% Rail 198,287 196,531 -0.9% Water 80,517 86,873 7.9% Air 77 77 -0.1% Totals 1,082,786 1,082,809 0.0%

Table 2.16 shows that freight tonne kms would slightly reduce under the strategy even though the total freight tonnes lifted would be the same. This is due to the waterway being a more direct route for the trips that transfer to water from road and rail and this leads to a reduction in overall tonne kms.

Table 2.17 Freight Tonne Kms by Mode 2020 Strategy v Reference

Mode 2020 Reference 2020 Strategy % change Road 157,580,243.6 153,847,679.0 -2.4% Rail 60,533,381.1 58,950,866.6 -2.6% Water 40,189,273.4 43,908,687.7 9.3% Air 3,370.8 3,421.3 1.5% Totals 258,306,269.0 256,710,654.5 -0.6%


2.4 Economic Summary of 2020 Scenario.

2.4.1 Cost Estimates for Projects Included in 2020 Scenario

Cost estimates were sourced from the project fiches. Due to significant variance in the completeness of the data provided, a series of assumptions were made by the consultant as indicated in table below.

Cost estimates were provided in accordance to the provisions of GD 28/2008. They were subsequently converted to reflect the cost types of Table H1 of the EU Grant application form.

A number of individual project fiches were grouped together into a coherent project, as shown in table below.

Tonnes Tonne Kms

Road ‐0.60% ‐2.40%

Rail ‐0.90% ‐2.60%

Water 7.90% 9.30%

Air ‐0.10% 1.50%

Change in Freight Demand 2020 Strategy


Table 2.17 Cost Estimates Assumed in Cost Benefit Appraisal by Project Fiche (Assumed 2012 Prices, Undiscounted)

Project

Fic

he

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Pri

ce B

ase

Pla

nn

ing

/des

ign

fee

s

Lan

d p

urc

has

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Co

nti

ng

enci

es

Tec

hn

ical

as

sis

tan

ce

Pu

blic

ity

Su

per

visi

on

du

rin

g c

on

str

uct

ion

im

ple

men

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce

bas

e p

rovi

de

d)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Timisoara International Airport Freight Terminal Construction F002 2 2012 1,699,738 307,305 42,457,794 1,433,054 111,825 88,426 318,701 46,416,844 39,555,570

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Freight Terminal Construction F005 4 2012 350,459 63,361 8,754,124 295,473 23,057 18,232 65,711 9,570,417 8,155,731

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Surface and Runway Improvements F006 2 2012 811,324 0 22,099,501 725,590 53,377 44,286 152,123 23,886,200 20,355,375

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Surface and Runway Improvements F010 2 2012 1,187,437 54,265 34,695,339 844,018 78,121 53,919 222,644 37,135,743 31,646,388

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Surface and Runway Improvements F011 4 2012 221,978 11,115 6,193,742 176,232 14,604 11,002 41,621 6,670,294 5,684,300

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Runway Improvements F020 2 2012 2,070,086 16,057 42,654,353 1,339,880 136,190 87,422 388,141 46,692,129 39,790,163

Constanta International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction F025 4 2012 105,556 0 1,730,000 66,667 6,944 4,375 19,792 1,933,333 1,647,551

Iasi International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction F026 4 2012 2,399,771 0 39,330,991 1,515,645 157,880 99,464 449,957 43,953,709 37,456,532

Constanta International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction F029 4 2012 1,055,556 0 17,300,000 666,667 69,444 43,750 197,917 19,333,333 16,475,507

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Runway Improvements F032 8 2012 197,717 0 4,443,783 149,497 13,008 9,426 37,072 4,850,503 4,133,508

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Platform Rehabilitation F033 2 2012 760,000 10,000 13,289,163 466,750 50,000 30,838 142,500 14,749,250 12,569,036

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Platform Rehabilitation F034 2 2012 591,141 0 14,139,962 473,011 38,891 29,484 110,839 15,383,328 13,109,386

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Runway Improvements F036 2 2012 44,473 0 999,544 33,627 2,926 2,120 8,339 1,091,028 929,753

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Runway Improvements F037 8 2012 276,804 0 6,221,296 209,296 18,211 13,196 51,901 6,790,704 5,786,912

Timisoara International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction F046 5 2012 3,993,073 721,929 99,743,033 3,366,571 262,702 207,734 748,701 109,043,743 92,925,047

Galati Port Intermoidal Terminal Construction F047 9 2012 475,000 0 11,400,000 0 31,250 4,688 89,063 12,000,000 10,226,176

Galati Port Intermoidal Terminal Construction F048 9 2012 475,000 0 11,400,000 0 31,250 4,688 89,063 12,000,000 10,226,176

Iasi International Airport Freight Terminal Construction F049 2 2012 201,301 0 4,831,209 0 13,243 1,987 37,744 5,085,484 4,333,755

Drobeta-Turnu-Severin Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development

F050 9 2012 316,667 0 7,600,000 0 20,833 3,125 59,375 8,000,000 6,817,451


Project

Fic

he

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Pri

ce B

ase

Pla

nn

ing

/des

ign

fee

s

Lan

d p

urc

has

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Co

nti

ng

enci

es

Tec

hn

ical

as

sis

tan

ce

Pu

blic

ity

Su

per

visi

on

du

rin

g c

on

str

uct

ion

im

ple

men

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce

bas

e p

rovi

de

d)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Giurgiu Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F051 8 2012 498,750 0 10,000,000 0 32,813 4,922 93,516 10,630,000 9,058,688

Timisoara area Intermodal Terminal Construction F053 9 2012 713,252 0 17,118,050 0 46,924 7,039 133,735 18,019,000 15,355,456

Bucharest area Intermodal Terminal Construction F057 8 2012 973,750 0 18,000,000 0 64,063 9,609 182,578 19,230,000 16,387,448

Upgrading the locks, equipments and installations for Danube-Black Sea Channel

F060 1 2012 872,505 0 12,611,419 378,766 57,402 27,549 163,595 14,111,234 12,025,331

Constanta Port South Container Terminal Construction F061 7 2005 0 0 293,800,000 0 0 0 0 293,800,000 432,368,798

Galati Port Intermoidal Terminal Construction F064 1 2012 979,198 20,411 3,426,573 670,197 64,421 43,173 183,600 5,387,572 4,591,189

Constanta Port infrastructure improvements F065 1 2007 3,243,558 0 125,116,152 3,880,422 213,392 226,030 608,167 133,287,721 160,287,952

Constanta Port infrastructure improvements F066 1 2011 239,250 0 4,262,897 94,860 15,740 7,104 44,859 4,664,710 4,271,767

Calafat Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F076 2 2012 729,169 6,646 13,887,245 332,985 47,972 23,845 136,719 15,164,580 12,922,972

Drobeta-Turnu-Severin Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development

F079 2 2012 776,800 4,957 15,383,781 366,550 51,105 25,993 145,650 16,754,835 14,278,158

Giurgiu Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F080 2 2012 370,932 319,248 3,272,006 137,292 24,403 10,525 69,550 4,203,957 3,582,534

Calafat Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F083 2 2012 178,453 0 3,587,899 121,376 11,740 7,830 33,460 3,940,758 3,358,241

Galati Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F091 8 2012 206,244 0 6,264,386 223,087 13,569 13,190 38,671 6,759,146 5,760,018

Galati Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development F092 2 2012 90,793 0 4,711,248 82,175 5,973 5,005 17,024 4,912,217 4,186,100

Giurgiu Port Administrative Complex Construction F097 2 2012 0 0 2,484,571 106,826 0 5,341 0 2,596,738 2,212,891

Constanta Port infrastructure improvements F109 1 2012 1,434,576 0 34,929,671 756,352 94,380 51,975 268,983 37,535,936 31,987,426

Valcele-Ramnicu Valcea New Railway Line F122 4 2012 9,601,751 1,155,725 292,890,631 9,434,717 631,694 566,490

1,800,328

316,081,337 269,358,627

Corridor IV North F147 1 2012 5,832,208 702,000 177,904,963 5,730,750 383,698 344,092

1,093,539

191,991,250 163,611,367

Corridor IV North F148 1 2012

38,634,142

62,692,450 1,479,912,5

69 61,800,359

2,541,720

3,471,276

7,243,902

1,656,296,417

1,411,464,952

Corridor IV North F151 2 2012

45,448,232

29,188,116 1,773,160,6

92 53,186,039

2,990,015

3,107,804

8,521,544

1,915,602,442

1,632,440,716


Project

Fic

he

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Pri

ce B

ase

Pla

nn

ing

/des

ign

fee

s

Lan

d p

urc

has

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Co

nti

ng

enci

es

Tec

hn

ical

as

sis

tan

ce

Pu

blic

ity

Su

per

visi

on

du

rin

g c

on

str

uct

ion

im

ple

men

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce

bas

e p

rovi

de

d)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Corridor IV South F153 4 2012

19,117,218

19,714,612 569,937,373 23,310,8061,257,71

2 1,354,19

7 3,584,47

8 638,276,396 543,927,255


46,223,721

47,668,168 1,378,057,5

29 56,363,441

3,041,034

3,274,327

8,666,948

1,543,295,168

1,315,167,392


16,165,833

16,671,000 481,948,400 19,712,0001,063,54

2 1,145,13

1 3,031,09

4 539,737,000 459,953,817

Modernisation of rail stations, Stage 5 F214 8 2012 4,625,225 4,769,759 137,890,818 5,639,823 304,291 327,635 867,230 154,424,782 131,597,922

New rolling stock (DMUs and EMUs) F225 2 2012 395,833 0 599,000,000 0 26,042 3,906 74,219 599,500,000 510,882,732

New rolling stock (DMUs and EMUs) F226 2 2012 395,833 0 419,000,000 0 26,042 3,906 74,219 419,500,000 357,490,085

Bucharest-North Bypass Motorway F276 2 2012 2,960,910

113,155,780

709,614,442 13,294,576 194,797 693,948 555,171 840,469,624 716,232,557

Bucharest-South Bypass Motorway F277 3 2012 2,268,542 86,695,847 543,680,801 10,185,821 149,246 531,678 425,352 643,937,287 548,751,360

Campulung Moldovenesc Bypass F280 1 2012 2,063,083 1,571,000 99,507,175 3,416,500 135,729 191,184 386,828 107,271,500 91,414,774

Comarnic-Brasov Motorway F284 1 2012 2,810,323

107,400,863

673,524,618 12,618,436 184,890 658,655 526,936 797,724,720 679,806,146

Craiova-Pitesti Motorway F305 1 2013 7,031,413

268,716,365

1,685,154,870

31,571,256 462,5931,647,95

2 1,318,39

0 1,995,902,8

39 1,582,780,10

6 Radauti Bypass F310 1 2010 1,322,875 4,067,000 30,540,375 1,132,500 87,031 69,680 248,039 37,467,500 37,467,500

Sighisoara Bypass F318 2 2012 501,022 3,176,425 38,428,758 1,488,248 32,962 79,357 93,942 43,800,713 37,326,151

Vatra Dornei Bypass F332 1 2012 918,713 453,253 72,347,572 2,846,225 60,442 151,378 172,259 76,949,841 65,575,221

Sibiu-Pitesti Motorway F358 6 2008

11,662,000

46,364,000 2,492,186,1

00 123,439,00

0 1,486,00

0 403,450

7,249,450

2,682,790,000

2,775,775,747

Upgrading the locks, equipments and installations for Danube-Black Sea Channel

F366 1 2012 162,732 0 2,352,170 70,644 10,706 5,138 30,512 2,631,902 2,242,858

Improving the navigability on the common RO-BG Danube sector F368 2 2012 3,166,667 0 191,800,000 4,000,000 208,333 231,250 593,750 200,000,000 170,436,274

Protection and enforcement of the high banks on the Danube-Black Sea Channel

F370 1 2012 8,909,224 0 159,561,648 4,594,178 586,133 317,6291,670,48

0 175,639,292 149,676,533

Protection and enforcement of the high banks on the Danube-Black Sea Channel

F375 4 2012 9,067,164 0 162,390,301 4,675,622 596,524 323,2601,700,09

3 178,752,964 152,329,946

Acquisition of maintenance ships on the river Danube F379 2 2012 316,667 0 7,730,000 0 20,833 3,125 59,375 8,130,000 6,928,235


Project

Fic

he

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Pri

ce B

ase

Pla

nn

ing

/des

ign

fee

s

Lan

d p

urc

has

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Co

nti

ng

enci

es

Tec

hn

ical

as

sis

tan

ce

Pu

blic

ity

Su

per

visi

on

du

rin

g c

on

str

uct

ion

im

ple

men

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce

bas

e p

rovi

de

d)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Acquisition of maintenance ships on the river Danube F380 2 2012 0 0 975,000 500,000 0 25,000 0 1,500,000 1,278,272

Acquisition of maintenance ships on the river Danube F381 2 2012 0 0 12,000,000 0 0 0 0 12,000,000 10,226,176




Acquisition of maintenance ships on the river Danube F385 9 2012 86,817 0 2,670,944 25,095 5,712 2,111 16,278 2,806,957 2,392,036

Signalling and Location Systems on the river Danube F386 9 2012 86,817 0 2,670,944 25,095 5,712 2,111 16,278 2,806,957 2,392,036

Signalling and Location Systems on the river Danube F389 1 2012 110,198 0 3,390,256 31,853 7,250 2,680 20,662 3,562,899 3,036,236

14,940,057,217

Assumptions index

1. Full cost estimate provided by Project Sponsor in line with GD28/2008 including year cost estimate produced

2. Full cost estimate provided by Project Sponsor in line with GD28/2008 year cost estimate produced NOT provided assumed 2012

3. Total construction cost estimate ONLY provided, including year cost estimate produced. (Consultant estimate of split into GD28/2008 categories)

4. Construction cost estimate ONLY provided, year cost estimate produced NOT provided assumed 2012. (Consultant estimate of split into GD28/2008 categories)

5. Some sources of finance ONLY provided, assumed to reflect the total construction cost, year cost estimate produced NOT provided assumed 2012 (Consultant estimate of split into GD28/2008 categories)

6. Project Fiche NOT provided; cost estimates collated from feasibility study

7. Some GD28/2008 cost categories ONLY provided, assumed to reflect total construction cost, year cost estimate produced provided


8. Some GD28/2008 cost categories ONLY provided, assumed to reflect total construction cost, year cost estimate produced NOT provided assumed 2012

9. Consultant’s estimate

Table 2.18 Cost Estimates Assumed in Cost Benefit Appraisal by Combined Project (Assumed 2012 Prices, Undiscounted)

Project

Pri

ce

Ba

se

Pla

nn

ing

/de

sig

n f

ees

La

nd

pu

rch

as

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

ns

tru

ctio

n

Co

nti

ng

en

cie

s

Te

ch

nic

al a

ss

ista

nc

e

Pu

bli

city

Su

pe

rvis

ion

du

rin

g c

on

str

uc

tio

n

imp

lem

en

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce b

ase

giv

en

)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Timisoara International Airport Freight Terminal Construction 2012 1,699,738 307,305 42,457,794 1,433,054 111,825 88,426 318,701 46,416,844 39,555,570

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Freight Terminal Construction 2012 350,459 63,361 8,754,124 295,473 23,057 18,232 65,711 9,570,417 8,155,731

Cluj-Napoca International Airport Surface and Runway Improvements 2012 2,220,739 65,380 62,988,581 1,745,840 146,101 109,207 416,389 67,692,236 57,686,063

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Runway Improvements 2012 2,589,080 16,057 54,318,975 1,732,300 170,334 112,165 485,452 59,424,364 50,640,336

Constanta International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction 2012 1,161,111 0 19,030,000 733,333 76,389 48,125 217,708 21,266,667 18,123,057

Iasi International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction 2012 2,399,771 0 39,330,991 1,515,645 157,880 99,464 449,957 43,953,709 37,456,532

Henri Coanda Intl Airport Platform Rehabilitation 2012 1,351,141 10,000 27,429,124 939,761 88,891 60,322 253,339 30,132,578 25,678,422

Timisoara International Airport Passenger Terminal Construction 2012 3,993,073 721,929 99,743,033 3,366,571 262,702 207,734 748,701 109,043,743 92,925,047

Galati Port Intermoidal Terminal Construction 2012 1,929,198 20,411 26,226,573 670,197 126,921 52,548 361,725 29,387,572 25,043,542

Iasi International Airport Freight Terminal Construction 2012 201,301 0 4,831,209 0 13,243 1,987 37,744 5,085,484 4,333,755

Drobeta-Turnu-Severin Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development2012 1,093,467 4,957 22,983,781 366,550 71,939 29,118 205,025 24,754,835 21,095,609

Giurgiu Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development 2012 869,682 319,248 13,272,006 137,292 57,216 15,447 163,065 14,833,957 12,641,222

Timisoara area Intermodal Terminal Construction 2012 713,252 0 17,118,050 0 46,924 7,039 133,735 18,019,000 15,355,456

Bucharest area Intermodal Terminal Construction 2012 973,750 0 18,000,000 0 64,063 9,609 182,578 19,230,000 16,387,448


Project

Pri

ce

Ba

se

Pla

nn

ing

/de

sig

n f

ees

La

nd

pu

rch

as

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

ns

tru

ctio

n

Co

nti

ng

en

cie

s

Te

ch

nic

al a

ss

ista

nc

e

Pu

bli

city

Su

pe

rvis

ion

du

rin

g c

on

str

uc

tio

n

imp

lem

en

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce b

ase

giv

en

)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Upgrading the locks, equipments and installations for Danube-Black Sea Channel 2012 1,035,237 0 14,963,589 449,410 68,108 32,687 194,107 16,743,137 14,268,189

Constanta Port South Container Terminal Construction 2005 0 0 293,800,000 0 0 0 0 293,800,000 432,368,798

Constanta Port infrastructure improvements 2012 4,917,384 0 164,308,720 4,731,634 323,512 285,109 922,009 175,488,367 196,547,144

Calafat Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development 2012 907,621 6,646 17,475,144 454,361 59,712 31,675 170,179 19,105,338 16,281,213

Galati Port Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Capacity Development 2012 297,037 0 10,975,633 305,262 19,542 18,194 55,695 11,671,363 9,946,118

Giurgiu Port Administrative Complex Construction 2012 0 0 2,484,571 106,826 0 5,341 0 2,596,738 2,212,891

Valcele-Ramnicu Valcea New Railway Line 2012 9,601,751 1,155,725 292,890,631 9,434,717 631,694 566,490 1,800,328 316,081,337 269,358,627

Corridor IV North 2012 89,914,582 92,582,566 3,430,978,224 120,717,147 5,915,433 6,923,172 16,858,984 3,763,890,109 3,207,517,035

Corridor IV South 2012 81,506,772 84,053,780 2,429,943,303 99,386,246 5,362,288 5,773,655 15,282,520 2,721,308,564 2,319,048,464

Modernisation of rail stations, Stage 5 2012 4,625,225 4,769,759 137,890,818 5,639,823 304,291 327,635 867,230 154,424,782 131,597,922

New rolling stock (DMUs and EMUs) 2012 791,667 0 1,018,000,000 0 52,083 7,813 148,438 1,019,000,000 868,372,818

Bucharest-North Bypass Motorway 2012 2,960,910 113,155,780 709,614,442 13,294,576 194,797 693,948 555,171 840,469,624 716,232,557

Bucharest-South Bypass Motorway 2012 2,268,542 86,695,847 543,680,801 10,185,821 149,246 531,678 425,352 643,937,287 548,751,360

Campulung Moldovenesc Bypass 2012 2,063,083 1,571,000 99,507,175 3,416,500 135,729 191,184 386,828 107,271,500 91,414,774

Comarnic-Brasov Motorway 2013 2,810,323 107,400,863 673,524,618 12,618,436 184,890 658,655 526,936 1,185,000,000 679,806,146

Craiova-Pitesti Motorway 2010 7,031,413 268,716,365 1,685,154,870 31,571,256 462,593 1,647,952 1,318,390 1,995,902,839 1,582,780,106

Radauti Bypass 2012 1,322,875 4,067,000 30,540,375 1,132,500 87,031 69,680 248,039 37,467,500 37,467,500

Sighisoara Bypass 2012 501,022 3,176,425 38,428,758 1,488,248 32,962 79,357 93,942 43,800,713 37,326,151

Vatra Dornei Bypass 2008 918,713 453,253 72,347,572 2,846,225 60,442 151,378 172,259 76,949,841 65,575,221

Sibiu-Pitesti Motorway 2012 11,662,000 46,364,000 2,492,186,100 123,439,000 1,486,000 403,450 7,249,450 2,682,790,000 2,775,775,747


Project

Pri

ce

Ba

se

Pla

nn

ing

/de

sig

n f

ees

La

nd

pu

rch

as

e

Bu

ildin

g a

nd

co

ns

tru

ctio

n

Co

nti

ng

en

cie

s

Te

ch

nic

al a

ss

ista

nc

e

Pu

bli

city

Su

pe

rvis

ion

du

rin

g c

on

str

uc

tio

n

imp

lem

en

tati

on

TO

TA

L

(in

pri

ce b

ase

giv

en

)

TO

TA

L

(201

0 p

rice

s)

Improving the navigability on the common RO-BG Danube sector 2012 3,166,667 0 191,800,000 4,000,000 208,333 231,250 593,750 200,000,000 170,436,274

Protection and enforcement of the high banks on the Danube-Black Sea Channel 2012 17,976,388 0 321,951,948 9,269,800 1,182,657 640,889 3,370,573 354,392,255 302,006,478

Acquisition of maintenance ships on the river Danube 2013 403,484 0 39,375,944 525,095 26,545 30,236 75,653 40,436,957 34,459,621

Signalling and Location Systems on the river Danube 2012 197,015 0 6,061,200 56,948 12,961 4,792 36,940 6,369,856 5,428,272

14,940,057,217


Role and Nature of Socio Economic Appraisal

The main purpose of the economic analysis is to assess whether the project’s benefits exceed its costs and whether it is therefore worthwhile to progress. The analysis is conducted from the view point of the whole of society, not just the project owners.

To capture the range of economic impacts the analysis includes both elements with direct monetary value, such as construction costs and vehicle operating cost savings; as well as elements without direct market value such as time savings, accident reduction and environmental impacts. In order to allow consistent comparison of costs and benefits across a project all impacts have been monetised (i.e. attached a monetary value) and then aggregated to determine the net benefits of the project.

Many of the impacts of the projects are already expressed in monetary terms, for example investment and operating costs. In the economic analysis these costs (expressed in market prices) are converted into accounting prices using appropriate conversion factors when they do not reflect social opportunity costs.

For project impacts that do not have a direct market value (for example time savings, emissions and local pollution changes) it is necessary to convert the benefits and costs into monetary values using a consistent method. This allows impacts of varying natures to be combined and compared using a common unit (Euro) as a welfare metric for the items being appraised

There are cases where conversions of impacts to market price are not available, or very difficult to reliably and accurately define. These include, for example, some environmental impacts such as loss of landscape views, social or health effects and wider economic benefits. Many of these impacts are still important to achieving the project’s objective and therefore, whilst not included explicitly in the quantitative economic analysis, need to be evaluated in the wider appraisal framework.

Once project impacts have been monetised and suitably discounted the total benefits have been compared against the total costs. Simplistically for a project to be viable the project benefits should exceed the project costs, and more specifically, the present value of the project economic benefits (PVB) should exceed the present value of the project economic costs (PVC). In practice this is shown by a positive economic net present value (ENPV = PVB-PVC), a benefit to cost ratio (BCR = PVB/PVC) greater than one and an economic internal rate of return (EIRR) greater than the discount rate used.

In summary, economic analysis includes the following steps:

1. Conversion of market to accounting prices

2. Monetisation of non-market impacts

3. Inclusion of additional indirect effects (if relevant)

4. Discounting of estimated costs and benefits

5. Calculation of the key economic performance indicators

2.4.2 Summary Results of CBA

A scenario containing all projects envisaged to be in place by 2020 has been assessed. In the analysis this scenario has been compared against the situation expected if only the currently committed schemes are implemented (the Reference Case)

For the purpose of the CBA all projects have the construction/implementation timescales outlined in the project fiches, however, for consistency all projects are assumed to open in 2020, with appraisal period of 30 years post opening.

The table below summarises the economic impact of the 2020 strategy as a whole.


Table 2.19 Cost Benefit Analysis Summary.

Cost Unit Value Total Value

(in m€2010, discounted, factor prices)

% of total costs

Investment €'000,000 10,421 102% Maintenance €'000,000 151 1% Operation €'000,000 -318 -3%

Benefit Unit Value Total Value

(in m€2010, discounted, factor prices)

% of total benefits

Time Savings €'000,000 10,617 98% VOC €'000,000 -101.1 -0.9% Accidents €'000,000 2.7 0.025% Air Pollution €'000,000 208.6 1.9% Climate Change €'000,000 87.9 0.8% Noise €'000,000 17.1 0.16% Total Costs (PVC) 10,255.30 Total Benefits (PVB) 10,832.52 Social Discount Rate 5.5% Economic Net Present Value 577.22 EIRR 5.6% Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06

Overall the strategy has a benefit (NPV) of 473 million Euro from a investment (present value of costs) of 10.4 billion Euro. This leads to a benefit to cost ratio of 1.05 and an economic internal rate of return of 5.6%. In summary the 2020 scenario generates €1.05 of benefit for every €1 of investment.

The table below summarises how the costs and benefits are broken down across different modes .

Table 2.20 Cost Benefit Analysis Summary by Mode (€‘000,000, Discounted).

Mode

Ro

ad

Rai

lway

s

Inte

rmo

dal

Air

Po

rts

Wat

erw

ays

Cos

ts Investment 4,462 4,887 47 214 456 355

Maintenance 98 53 0 0 0 0 Operation 0 -318 0 0 0 0

PVC 4,561 4,622 47 214 456 355 % of total 44% 45% 0.5% 2% 4% 3%

Ben

efits

Time Savings 7,430 1,739 7 1,441

VOC -101 0 0 0

Accidents 3 0 0 0 Air Pollution 598 -365 0 -24 Climate Change 9 72 0 7 Noise 17 0 0 0

PVB 7,956 1,445 7 1,424 % of total 73% 13% 0% 13%

Road and rail schemes make up 90% of the total cost of the 2020 scenario. Rail accounts for 45% of the total present value cost, with road accounting for a slightly smaller share (44%). The remaining 10% of cost is accounted for by ports, waterways and air projects.

The vast majority of benefits come from road users, both passengers and freight (73%), with the remaining benefits coming from rail users (13%) and ports and waterways freight (13%). It should be


noted however that the benefits of a project can spread outside the main mode the project addresses, for example, an upgrade to a rail service (a rail mode project) will provide benefits for rail users; however, it is also likely to lead to passenger and freight traffic switching from road, which in turn leads to reduced congestion and results in a benefit to the remaining road users.

The testing of the projects individually may lead to different results: rail projects in particular may perform better without competetion from road projects.

Costs

The majority of project costs are upfront investment costs. There can, however, also be significant additional cost changes during the appraisal period as a result of the project schemes. For example the new infrastructure may result in higher (or lower) maintenance and operating costs.

The main cost areas are discussed below

Investment Costs

The cost estimates for the projects which form the 2020 scenario are discussed in the previous sections. The total cost of all schemes within the 2020 scenario is 14.9 billion euro in market prices. These costs, and the associated spend profiles have been included in the analysis.

In socio economic appraisal it is important to reflect the true social cost of the investment, in imperfect markets this is not always the same as the market value. Appropriate conversion factors have been used to adjust to economic cost values.

The table below summarises the breakdown of the total investment cost, the conversion to social costs and impact of discounting to present value year of 2010.

Table 2.21 Combined cost of all schemes in 2020 scenario

Cost type

Total Investment Cost, All Modes (€ '000,000)

Market prices Social prices Social prices undiscounted undiscounted discounted

Planning/design fees 223.5 223.5 209.8 Land purchase 688.3 688.3 537.7 Building and construction 5,677.9 5,530.3 3,875.2 Plant and machinery 7,839.1 7,839.1 5,456.0 Contingencies 421.0 410.1 285.5 Technical assistance 16.0 16.0 11.2 Publicity 17.3 17.3 12.1 Supervision during construction implementation 48.7 48.7 34.0 Total 14,931.8 14,773.3 10,421.4

Maintenance Costs

The economic analysis considers changes in maintenance cost between the reference case and the 2020 scenario. There are two key areas where this is expected to occur:


Rail maintenance cost changes – The maintenance cost per km of track varies depending upon the track type. Upgrades to some of the rail routes in the 2020 scenario will therefore lead to changes in total maintenance cost. Additionally, it has been assumed that a ‘steady state’ maintenance programme will be adopted for new rail infrastructure. The cost of this level of maintenance is in excess of the current maintenance regime and as such will lead to higher maintenance costs during the appraisal period.

The table below outlines the change in length of track by type in the 2020 scenario and the corresponding changes in annual maintenance cost

Table 2.22 Rail Maintenance Cost Changes

Cost type Rail Track Type

Total Electrified Non-electrified Single track Double track Single track Double track

Change in network length (km)

0.0 -7.8 -10.9 57.8 39.1

Change in network length - maintained at steady state (km)

0.0 228.8 7.7 57.8 294.3

Change in network length - not maintained at steady state (km)

0.0 -236.5 -18.6 0.0 -255.2

Change in Annual Maintenance Cost 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.6 5.9 (€ '000,000) Total rail maintenance cost during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Undiscounted 177.1 Total rail maintenance cost during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Discounted 53.0

In the 2020 scenario there is a small increase in total track length (+39.1km); however there is a significant increase in length of track maintained at steady state level, with a corresponding reduction in track maintained at the current lower rate. This leads to a EURO 5.9 million increase in annual maintenance cost

Road maintenance cost changes – The construction of additional highway infrastructure in the 2020 scenario will lead to an increase in maintenance costs. Maintenance costs typically fall into two main types

o Annual maintenance costs – costs of €12,000 euro per km for motorways and €4,500 euro per km for national roads have been adopted.

o Periodic repair and rehabilitation (R&R) costs – values for motorways of €150,000 euro per km occurring 3 years after opening (after the assumed guarantee period expires) and then every 7 years have been assumed.

The table below summarises the changes in highway network length in the 2020 scenario.


Table 2.23 Road Maintenance Cost Changes

Cost type Motorways National Roads Total

Change in network length (km) 385.3 54.2 439.5

Change in

annual 4.62 0.24 4.87 Annual Maintenance Cost

(€ '000,000)

Change in Starting 3 years after opening and then every 7 years

57.80 0 57.80 Periodic Maintenance Cost

(€ '000,000)

Total road maintenance cost during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Undiscounted 377.23

Total road maintenance cost during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Discounted 98.48

In the 2020 scenario there is an increase in highway km with the majority of this motorway standard. This leads to an increase in annual highway maintenance cost of 4.9 million Euros. There is also a significant rise in periodic maintenance costs averaging 7.7 million per annum over the appraisal period.

Operating Costs

Rail operating costs will change as a result of the 2020 scenario rail schemes. Total rail operating costs will reduce by 35 million Euro per annum throughout the appraisal period.

New services will generate additional train km each year, with associated operating cost increases; however, service upgrades which allow more efficient train types to be used will result in changes to the number of train km by train type. As operating costs for different train types vary this leads to an overall reduction in total annual operating cost.

The table below summarises the changes in train km and associated changes in operating cost by train type

Table 2.24 Rail Operating Cost Changes

Daily train km Annual Operating Cost Saving

Ref Case 2020

Scenario Difference (RON2012 '000,000)

(€2010 '000,000)

Electric Loco 113,931 87,871 -26,060 -23% 374.49 71.70 EMU 6,089 35,419 29,330 482% -273.47 -52.36

Diesel Loco 51,810 43,573 -8,238 -16% 168.34 32.23 DMU 44,373 59,300 14,927 34% -84.93 -16.26 Desiro 22,554 16,846 -5,708 -25% 0.00 0.00

Saving due to Reliability improvements 0.10 0.02 All Trains 238,757 243,008 4,251 2% 184.52 35.37 Total rail maintenance cost change during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Undiscounted -1,061.19 Total rail maintenance cost change during appraisal period (€ '000,000) Discounted -317.52


Benefits

The vast majority of benefits for all modes come from journey time savings (98%), with the remaining 2% of benefits coming from other sources. Each of the different benefit areas are discussed in detail below

Journey Time Savings

The 2020 scenario results in significant reduction in journey times for passengers and freight leading to a positive benefit. This forms 98% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

Journey time savings are generated when the 2020 scenarios provide quicker journey times for users. This can be because travel speeds on existing routes are increased (for example through road upgrades, or train service enhancements; or new routes are provided which significantly reduce travel times and often vehicle kms also).

Journey time savings are given a monetary value through the ‘value of user travel time’. This is the value that the user will pay to save travel time.

The table below summarises the journey time saving benefits by mode during the appraisal period.

Table 2.25 Travel time savings over entire appraisal period

Time saving (calculated

using rule of half)

Time saving benefit (not discounted)

minutes (€’000,000)

Pas

sen

ger

T

rip

s

Car (million vehicle minutes) 136,444 29,397 65%

34,750 Bus (million passenger minutes) 11,134 1,096 2%

Rail (million passenger minutes) 36,777 4,224 9%

Air (million passenger minutes) 100 33 0%

Fre

igh

t T

rip

s

Road (million tonne minutes) 31,666 1,311 3%

10,691 Rail (million tonne minutes) 215,040 3,718 8%

Air (million tonne minutes) 3.4 0 0%

Water (million tonne minutes) 353,262 5,662 12% Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 45,440.8 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (discounted) 10,617.24

Passenger time savings accounts for 76% of total savings, with the majority of savings experienced by road users.

Freight time savings accounts for 24% of total savings, with water freight accounting for half the total freight time savings.

Vehicle Operating Costs

Vehicle operating cost benefits only include savings made by users travelling in their own vehicle (road vehicles), Changes in vehicle operating costs for rail and public transport operators are considered within the cost element of the appraisal.

Vehicle operating costs are composed of two elements, a fuel element and a non-fuel element linked to costs associated with wear-and-tear. Fuel cost is the biggest element of vehicle operating cost.


The 2020 scenario results in changes in the distance and speeds at which light and heavy vehicles travel. Fuel usage is linked not only to the distance travelled, but also the speed. Vehicles travelling at very fast, or very slow speeds use significantly more fuel to travel the same distance as vehicles travelling at their optimum speed.

The table below summarises the vehicle operating cost changes during the appraisal period for road vehicles.

Table 2.26 Vehicle operating cost changes over entire appraisal period

Change in fuel consumption ('000,000 litres)

VOC Benefit (€’000,000)

(not discounted)

Petrol Diesel Fuel

(Value of fuel saved)

Non fuel (Euro saved)

Total

Car 531.26 290.41 -1,285 129.56 -1,156 LGV 539.96 259.63 -737 -1.26 -738 HGV 0.00 -1,850.57 1,920 109.93 2,030 Passenger Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) -1,155.6 Freight Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 1,291.9 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 136.2 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (discounted) -101.1

The 2020 scenario results in an increase in fuel used by cars and light goods vehicles over the appraisal period. This leads to a vehicle operating cost disbenefit for light vehicles. This is primarily due to drivers using the enhanced motorway network travelling at faster speeds where fuel is used less efficiently by their vehicles. Heavy goods vehicles, who have their speed capped are less able to take advantage of the increased speeds on motorways and therefore travel at speeds closer to the optimum fuel efficient speed. As a consequence they experience a significant reduction in fuel usage over the appraisal period, leading to a vehicle operating cost benefit.

At the beginning of the appraisal period car fuel increases outweigh HGV fuel savings leading to total vehicle operating cost disbenefit. However, due to increases in congestion in the reference case in later years the heavy vehicle fuel savings increase and by the end of the appraisal period, outweigh the car fuel increases leading to positive total vehicle operating cost benefits.

The pattern of VOC benefits during the appraisal period mean that whilst the total undiscounted VOC benefit is slightly positive, the discounted total VOC benefit is negative (where benefits in earlier years , which are negative, are given greater weighting than benefits in later years, which are positive).

Total discounted vehicle operating cost benefits are negative and account for -0.9% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

Accident savings

The 2020 scenario results in a slight reduction in accidents leading to a positive benefit. This forms 0.025% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

The number of accidents expected to occur in a given scenario depends mainly upon the volume of trips (passenger or tonne kms). Accidents on road network aullso depend upon the distribution of these trips across different road types. For example, accident rates (expressed as the number of accidents per million vehicle km) are significantly lower on motorways than DN roads, this is due to the higher levels of protection given by separate carriageways and grade separated junctions. This can mean that even in a


scenario with an increase in road vehicle km there can be a reduction in traffic accidents as vehicle have moved from less safe DJ and DN roads to more safe motorways.

The table below summarises, by mode, how the vehicle km and number of accidents changes over the appraisal period as a result of the 2020 scenario schemes.

Table 2.27 Change in number of accidents over entire appraisal period

Change in vehicle km

Change in total

number of accidents

Change in total number of casualties Accident saving benefits

(€’000,000) (not discounted)

Fatalities Serious injuries

Slight injuries

Roa

d

A Roads mvkm 369,628 1,236 31 874 51 -0.265

13.221

DN Roads mvkm -125,872 -10,278 -433 -35,293 -39,748 10.035

DJ Roads mvkm 101 19 26 -230 41 0.009

Local Roads mvkm -1,074 -7,545 -36 -13,640 -4,742 3.442

Rai

l

Traffic mtrainkm -17 -0.02 0 0 0 0.000

0.000Level Crossings

number of level crossings

0 0 0 0 0 0.000

Network number of network km

0 0 0 0 0 0.000

Waterways mshipkm 19 250 18 54 0 -0.045

-0.045

Air mplanekm 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000

Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 13.18

Total Benefit (€’000,000) (discounted) 2.72

The majority of accident benefits come from changes in the pattern of trip making on roads, although there is an overall increase in road vehicle km the accidents saved from the reduction in vehicle using DN, DJ and local roads more than outweighs the slight increase in accidents on the motorway network.

Over the appraisal period the scenario 2020 schemes result in 412 fewer fatalities and nearly 50,000 fewer serious injuries on the road network than in the reference case. The increase in water freight tonne kms leads to an increase in accidents, with 18 additional fatalities and 54 additional serious injuries expected over the appraisal period.

Noise

The 2020 scenario results in a reduction in noise pollution leading to a small positive benefit. This forms 0.16% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

Noise impacts of road and rail have been considered. Increases in vehicle km by these modes results in greater noise impacts. However as noise impacts are much greater per vehicle km in urban areas than in rural areas; and much greater at night than in the day, noise benefits can be generated, even when total vehicle km increase if trips move from urban to rural routes or move from night time to day time travel.

The table below summarises, by mode, how the vehicle km on urban and rural routes changes over the appraisal period as a result of the 2020 scenario schemes.


Table 2.28 Noise reduction benefits over entire appraisal period

Change in Vehicle km

Urban Rural All day, whole network

Day Night Day Night Car -4,674 -448 216,025 30,202 241,105

243,622 Motorcycle -47 -5 2,182 305 2,435 Bus (All) -11 0 2 0 -9 LGV 17 -204 2,484 -1,121 1,177 HGV -2 -304 1,157 -1,937 -1,086 Passenger Train -0.6 0.00 3.1 0.00 2.5

-16 Freight Train 1.2 0.00 -19.2 0.00 -18.0

Noise Benefits (€’000,000 not discounted)

Urban Rural All day, whole network

Day Night Day Night Car 42.7 7.3 -26.1 -7.3 16.6

82.6 Motorcycle 0.9 0.1 -0.5 -0.1 0.2 Bus (All) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 LGV -0.4 16.5 -1.7 1.7 16.2 HGV 0.4 45.0 -1.3 5.0 49.0 Passenger Train 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1

0.3 Freight Train -0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2

Passenger Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 17.4 Freight Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 65.4

Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 82.9


Air Pollution

The 2020 scenario results in a reduction in local air pollution leading to a positive benefit. This forms 1.9% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

Air pollution costs are caused by the emissions of air pollutants with differing impacts. Pollutants considered include particulate matter (PM), NOx, SO2 and VOC; which result impacts which can include health costs, building/material damages, crop losses and costs of damage to the ecosystem (biosphere, soil, water). Health costs (mainly caused by PM, from exhaust emissions or transformation of other pollutants) are by far the most important element.

It does not always follow that an increase in vehicle km (on road, railway or waterway) will result in an increase in local air pollution. The scale of the impact varies depending upon the nature and the location of the projects. The main factor that affects the scale of the impact is the population proximity and density near the emission source. It is therefore likely that projects that move traffic from urban to rural routes will result in significant air pollution savings.

The table below summarises, by mode, how the vehicle km on urban and rural routes changes over the appraisal period as a result of the 2020 scenario schemes.


Table 2.29 Change in vehicle km and local air pollution over entire appraisal period

Change in

million vehicle km Local air pollution benefit (€’000,000 not discounted)

Urban Rural (Interurban) Rural (Motorway)

WholeNetwork

Urban

Rural (Interurban)

Rural (Motorway)

WholeNetwork

Road

Car -5,174 -74,023 321,606 242,409 110.6 763.3 -321.3

2,675.6 Bus -11 -68 70 -9 0.8 3.5 -0.3 LGV -27 -28,462 29,078 590 0.5 501.5 -61.6 HGV -73 -21,145 19,708 -1,510 6.3 1,828.8 -156.6

Rail Passenger -1 3 3 1.3 -7.4

-1,906.4 Freight 209 209 -1,900.3

Air Passenger 0 0 0.0

0.0 Freight 0 0 0.0

Waterway Freight 19 19 -100.5 -100.5 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 668.7 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (discounted) 208.62

The table above shows that in the 2020 Scenario there are pollution benefits for road and disbenefits for rail and waterway. Although there is an overall increase in road vehicle km, the significant increase in rural motorway vehicle km is offset by a reduction in volumes on urban and interurban roads, which leads to reductions in local air pollution. The increase in freight vehicle km on rail and waterways results in an increase in local air pollution, however it is not sufficient to outweigh the benefits generated on road.

Climate Change Emissions

The 2020 scenario results in a reduction in fuel used by road vehicles, which in turn leads to a reduction in climate change emissions (carbon dioxide CO2, nitrous oxide N2O and methane CH4). leading to a positive benefit. This forms 0.8% of the overall 2020 scenario benefits.

The table below summarises how road vehicle km, by vehicle type, and fuel usage changes over the appraisal period as a result of the 2020 scenario schemes.


Table 2.30 Change in vehicle km, fuel usage and climate change emissions benefits over entire appraisal period

Change in

million vehicle km

Change in fuel consumption ('000,000 litres)

Climate Change Emissions’

Benefit (€’000,000)

(not discounted) Petrol Diesel Total

Car 242,409 531 290 -104.8 LGV 590 540 260 -115.6 HGV -1,510 0 -1,851 319.4 Rail - Passenger Trains 3 1.1 Rail - Freight Trains 209 417.1 Air Flights 0 0.0 Water Freight 19 28.6

Passenger Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) -103.7 Freight Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 649.4 Total Benefit (€’000,000) (undiscounted) 545.7


The table shows that in the 2020 scenario car vehicle km and fuel usage increases leading to emission disbenefits, however these are outweighed by the emission benefits associated with fuel (and vehicle km) reductions made by HGVs.

Changes in rail service vehicle types leads to a small emission benefit for passenger service and a more significant benefit for freight services.

2.5 Modal Analysis

2.5.1 Operational Summary - Rail Passengers

2020 Rail Projects - Overview of the 2020 Package

Between the reference case and 2020, a number of rail schemes are proposed which have been incorporated within the 2020 package of transport schemes. These have been agreed with CFR SA and CFR Calitori and comprise of the following improvements:

- Rehabilitation of remaining sections of TEN-T4 North;

- Rehabilitation of TENT-T4 South (Arad – Calafat);

- Rail Station Modernisation (Stage 5);

- New Rail Link between Valcele to Ramnicu Valcea

A diagram showing the locations of these schemes is shown in Figure 2.31 below, with a more detailed description of each scheme within the section below


Figure 2.1 2020 Do-Something Package Rail Schemes

Source: CFR SA/CFR Calatori

Rehabilitation of remaining sections of TEN-T4 Corridor North

Current rehabilitation to date has concentrated on the section of line between Constanta and Predeal which are included within the base model. Also for the Reference Case additional sections of TEN-T4 North corridor are shortly to also be rehabilitated (see section above). Within the 2020 package are the remaining sections of rehabilitation on this corridor and will result in the full route rehabilitation between the Hungarian Border and Constanta (via Brasov & Bucuresti). These include the following sections of route which will be designed to accommodate 160kph passenger trains:

- Fiche 147: Predeal-Brasov line = 24% reduction in journey times

- Fiche 148: Brasov-Simeria line = 45% reduction in journey times

- Fiche 151: 614-Gurasada and Gurasada-Simeria line = 52% reduction in journey times

As with reference case schemes, the full journey time saving is applied to Intercity and InterRegio services, with Regio services receiving a reduced benefit due to additional stopping patterns.

Rehabilitation of TEN-T 4 Corridor South

The rehabilitation of Corridor TEN-T4 south, includes the line connecting Arad – Timisoara – Craioava – Calafat and will be designed to accommodate trains of up to 160kph. The journey time savings for these sections of route are applied in the same way as Corridor TEN-T4 North with the following journey time savings, and Regio services receiving a reduced level of journey time saving:


- Fiche 153: Caransebes-Timisoara-Arad line = 38% reduction in journey times

- Fiche 154: Caransebes-Drobeta Turnu Severin-Craiova line = 38% reduction in journey times

- Fiche 155: Craiova-Calafat line= 73% reduction in journey times

Station Modernisation Stage 5 (by 2020)

The 2020 Package also includes the modernisation of a number of rail stations to improve the quality of passenger facilities provided. This will include the modernisation of station buildings, improved provision of information, upgrades to platform canopies and improved access for disabled users. The improvements are proposed at a number of locations across Romania and are covered by Fiches 214 and 217. The benefits provided by these improvements will be qualified in terms of improvements to waiting facilities, security, litter, and information provision. The rail stations affected by these improvements are shown below in Table 2.31.

Table 2.31 Proposed Rail Stations to Receive Modernisation

Proposed Station Improvements

Baia Mare Pucioasa Brad Războieni Salina

Satu Mare Târgovişte Sud Episcopia Bihor Suceava Iţcani Adjud

Miecurea Ciuc Roşiori Nord Carei Podu Iloaiei Făurei

Targoviste Caracal Dej Călători Vereşti Mangalia

Targu Jiu Filiaşi Câmpia Turzii Bârlad Neptun

Giurgiu Nord Piatra Olt Beclean pe

Someş Paşcani Neptun H

Videle Govora Salva Gura Costineşti

Buftea Timisoara Nord Făgăraş Vatra Dornei Costineşti H

Ploiesti Vest Petroşani Sibiu Câmpulung Eforie Sud

Câmpina Băile Herculane Băile Ocna

Sibiului Nicolina Eforie Nord

Slănic Orşova Teiuş Tg. Ocna

Source: CFR SA

New rail link between Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea

A key element of the 2020 package is the reopening of the rail link between Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea (Fiche 122) which will include the reinstatement and upgrading of 38.6km of non-electric single track railway. Once completed it is anticipated that the line will accommodate both freight and rail passenger services with design speeds of up to 120km/h.

It is proposed that passenger services using the route will be able to serve five intermediate stations:

- Tutana;

- Ciofrangeni; and,

- Vâlcele (rehabilitated).

- Popesti (new station); and,

- Ramnicu Valcea Est (new station).


In addition to the network improvements, a number of improvements to passenger services are proposed to ensure that the new link is provided with sufficient passenger services to serve the new stations. The proposals identified below were included after discussions and recommendations with CFR Calatori and include:

- Existing Bucuresti – Pitesti InterRegio services (4 trains per day by direction) will be extended to Sibiu, calling at all stations between Vacele and Ramnicu Valcea. Between other stops, Pitesti to Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea to Sibiu, these services will adopt similar stopping patterns to existing InterRegio services serving these corridors;

- No changes to the existing Ramnicu Valcea – Bucuresti services which route via Caracal

It is also assumed that all Inter Regio services will also call at Ramnicu Valcea Main station, which will require a reverse working beyond Ramnicu Valcea. This is because Ramnicu Vlacea is a key centre within the 201 corridor, which would benefit from significantly reduced journey times to Bucuresti.

Sibiu is not currently connected with a direct Intercity service to Bucuresti. The improvements offered by the new line will reduce the distance between the two cities by rail. It is therefore proposed that a 2tpd Intercity Service is introduced between Sibiu and Bucuresti (via Pitesti, which is also currently not served by any Intercity Service). The timing of this service will be to ensure that a daily return journey can be made between the two cites and also to fill any gaps in the timetable. The following stopping pattern is assumed:

- Sibiu - Caineni - Calimanesti - Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti - Bucuresti

It is assumed that there will be no changes to existing Regio services, or the introduction of new Regio services. It is therefore assumed that all new stops on the section between Ramnicu Valcea – Valcele will be served by stopping Inter Regio services.

Introduction of new rollingstock

The package will also be supported by the introduction of new rollingstock in the form of 120 DMUs (Fiche 225) and 120 EMUs (Fiche 226) which will be deployed mainly on InterRegio services, through some Regio services will also benefit from these improvements. CFR Calatori have provided an estimate of which services are expected to utilise the trains.

The presence of new rollingstock will offer a significant improvement in service quality for the experience of passengers boarding these trains. In addition, there are also likely to be reliability improvements which will reduce train average minutes lateness. In addition, are station to station journey time savings in the form of improved acceleration/deceleration and also where rehabilitation has been delivered, it will be possible for these trains to utilise the higher 160km/h design speeds.

Operational Summary – Rail Passengers

The following rail schemes were included in the 2020 Do Something run of the National Transport Model:

Rehabilitation of the TEN-T4 North corridor remaining sections on the line between Predeal and Simeria, and also between Gurasada (Km614) and Simeria;

Rehabilitation of the TEN-T4 South corridor between Arad and Craiova, and also Calafat to Craiova;

Modernisation of a number of rail stations;

Opening of the new rail link between Vacele and Ramnicu Valcea; and


New rollingstock (120dmus, 120emus).

The impact of the above schemes is presented in the Summary of Train Km presented in Table 2.32 below.

Table 2.32 Summary of Do Something Train km

Type

2020 Do Something Average Weekday

Number of Trains Train km Average Train Distance km

Regio 1,751 132,248 76

InterRegio 201 71,896 358

InterCity/ International 81 34,943 431

All Services 2,033 239,086 118

Compared to the 2011 base position, average train km has marginally increased due to a number of minor changes in train routings and introduction of new services due to the Vacele to Ramnicu Valcea rail link.

Table 2.33 below presents the rail passenger demand split by Regio, InterRegio and InterCity. Compared to the base position, the percentage split between each of the sub modes remains quite similar, though the percentage of journeys made by Inter Regio increases.

Table 2.33 Rail Passenger Demand (Average Day 2020)

2020 Do Something

Passenger Journeys

Regio 90,200 74%

InterRegio 29,860 24%

InterCity 2,838 2%

All Services 122,898

Passenger Kilometres

Regio 10,118,556 53%

InterRegio 7,843,315 41%

InterCity 1,183,661 6%

All Services 19,145,532

Passenger Hours

Regio 214,562 60%


InterCity 17,088 5%


Source: Masterplan Model Outputs

Compared to the 2020 reference case, the number of rail passengers has increased marginally on both Regio and InterCity, though a slight reduction in passengers using InterRegio has been modelled. All


service types experience an increase in rail kilometres travelled, yet a reduction in passenger hours. This is likely to be due to rehabilitation which increases the average speed along these corridors, as shown in Table 2.34.

Table 2.34 Headline Passenger Demand Figures for 2020

Average Day Do Nothing

Scenario Reference Case Do Something

2020 2020 2020

Passengers

Regio 88,993 88,793 90,200

InterRegio 29,606 29,986 29,860 InterCity 2,735 2,771 2,838 All Services 121,335 121,551 122,898


Regio 10,037,825 9,986,491 10,118,556

InterRegio 7,752,096 7,731,142 7,843,315 InterCity 1,138,070 1,159,070 1,183,661 All Services 18,927,991 18,876,703 19,145,532

Passenger Hours

Regio 224,575 219,082 214,562

InterRegio 137,580 132,614 122,765 InterCity 19,565 19,284 17,088 All Services 381,720 370,980 354,415

Passenger Average Speed (kph)

Regio 44.7 45.6 47.2

InterRegio 56.3 58.3 63.9 InterCity 58.2 60.1 69.3 All Services 49.6 50.9 54.0


Table 2.35 compares the base year average train km, passenger km passenger hours and average speed. Showing the impacts of the reference case and do something scenario.

Table 2.35 Comparison of other Model Outputs 2011 to 2020

Do Something

Scenario Base

Scenario % Change

2020 2011

Train Kilometres

Regio 132,248 132,387 -0.1% InterRegio 71,896 71,943 -0.1% InterCity 34,943 35,003 -0.2% All Services 239,086 239,333 -4.9%


Do Something

Scenario Base

Scenario % Change

2020 2011


Regio 10,118,556 13,788,910 -26.6% InterRegio 7,843,315 9,287,431 -15.5%

InterCity 1,183,661 1,411,435 -16.1% All Services 19,145,532 24,487,776 -21.8%

Passenger Hours

Regio 214,562 302,074 -29.0% InterRegio 122,765 157,862 -22.2% InterCity 17,088 23,232 -26.4% All Services 354,415 483,168 -26.6%

Average Passenger Speed (kph)

Regio 47.2 45.6 3.5% InterRegio 63.9 58.8 8.7%

InterCity 69.3 60.8 14.0% All Services 54.0 50.7 6.5%


The implied average load per train, split by Regio, InterRegio and Intercity is presented below.

Table 2.36 Implied Average Loads per Train 2011 to 2020

Do Something

Reference Case

Base Scenario

% Change Do Something –

Reference Case

% Change Do Something –

Base Scenario 2020 2020 2011

Regio 77 76 104 +1.2% -36.1%

InterRegio 109 108 129 +1.4% -18.3%

InterCity 34 33 40 +1.8% -19.0%

All Services 80 79 102 +1.3% -27.8%



The impact of the 2020 Do Something Package on the rail passenger network is shown in Figure , which provides an output from the National Transport Model.

Figure 2.2 2020 Difference Plot Do Something Versus Reference Case

The impacts of rehabilitation is clearly indicated in the diagram above, this shows an overall increase in rail passengers travelling on the rehabilitated routes, in particular there is an increased patronage on the Bucuresti to Timisoara route, via Craiova. Also, there some increases on the northern TEN-T4 corridor between Arad and Brasov which has also experienced rehabilitation.

Whilst it is expected that some of this increased demand is likely to have been abstracted from other modes, there has also been a small reduction in rail patronage on other parallel corridors to those which have been rehabilitated. This suggests that for some rail passengers, there is a journey time advantage to using the new rehabilitated route. An example of this is the Cluj to Arad route via Oradea which experiences a small decrease in patronage. Yet the alternative route via the rehabilitated section (via Simeria) shows increased patronage.


In overall terms however the impact on the rail network is relatively small, this is shown in the outputs from the National Transport Model which present total rail passenger demand for the 2020 Reference Case and 2020 do something package scenario (Figures 2.3 and 2.4).

Figure 2.3 2020 Ref Rail Passengers

Figure 2.4 2020 DS – Rail Passengers


2.5.2 Operational Summary – Road Transport

Overview - Roads

The following road schemes were included in the 2020 Do Something run of the National Transport Model:

Extension to 4 lanes of the link road between Gate 7, the new bridge over the channel and Gate 8 and 9 in Constanta Port

Extension to 4 lanes of the link road between Gates 10 and 10bis in Constanta Port

Bucharest North Bypass Motorway, km 0 +000 - km 52 770

Bucharest South Bypass Motorway km 52+770 - km 100+765

Campulung Moldovenesc Bypass

Comarnic-Brasov Motorway

Craiova - Pitesti Motorway

Radauti Bypass

Sighisoara Bypass

Vatra Dornei Bypass

Sibiu - Pitesti Motorway

The impact of these changes in respect of network kilometres by road type is summarised in Table 2.37.

Table 2.37 Length of Model Road Network – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Network Kilometres

Reference 2020

Reference 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 934 1,319 +385 +41.3%

National 15,649 15,703 +54 +0.3%

County 15,510 15,510 0 0

Local 1,270 1,270 0 0

Total 33,362 33,802 +440 +1.3%

As the Reference Case model relates to a forecast year of 2020, growth has been applied to the various trip demand matrices which feed into the modelling process. The following table summarises the trip matrix totals for the 2011 Base case and the 2020 Reference Case.


Table 2.38 Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020 Trip Matrix Totals

Vehicle Type Trip Purpose Trip Matrix Totals

Base 2011 Reference

2020 Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Car Business 385,841 386,656 +815 +0.2% Car Commuting 842,790 843,636 +846 +0.1% Car Private 1,408,174 1,410,632 +2,458 +0.2% Car Vacation 305,835 306,095 +260 +0.1% Car Total 2,942,639 2,947,019 +4,379 +0.1% Goods Total 803,905 799,328 -4,577 -0.6% All Total 3,746,544 3,746,346 -198 -0.0%

This means that the overall demand for road travel has remained largely unchanged.

Operational Summary – Passenger Cars

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for car based trips.

Table 2.39 Vehicle Kilometres (Cars) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres - Cars

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 19,740,358 40,275,664 +20,535,306 +104.0%

National 79,458,326 75,762,800 -3,695,526 -4.7%

County 10,941,172 11,098,598 +157,426 +1.4%

Local 3,010,520 3,010,055 -466 -0.0%

Total 113,150,377 130,147,117 +16,996,740 +15.0%

Table 2.40 Vehicle Hours (Cars) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours - Cars

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 153,419 319,818 +166,398 +108.5%

National 1,229,487 1,175,793 -53,694 -4.4%

County 238,796 241,936 +3,139 +1.3%

Local 96,627 97,145 +517 +0.5%

Total 1,718,330 1,834,691 +116,361 +6.8%


Table 2.41 Average Speed (Cars) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Average Speed - Cars

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 128.7 125.9 -2.7 -2.1%

National 64.6 64.4 -0.2 -0.3%

County 45.8 45.9 +0.1 +0.1%

Local 31.2 31.0 -0.2 -0.5%

Total 65.8 70.9 +5.1 +7.7%

The following chart illustrates the impact of the Do Something, relative to the Reference Case, for cars in 2020 across the indicators discussed earlier.

Figure 2.5 Reference Case to Do Something (2020) – Cars

The additional motorway capacity takes further traffic away from the National network and there is an overall increase in network speed.

Operational Summary – Goods (Road)

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for goods vehicle trips.

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres

Vehicle Hours Average Speed

Motorway +41.3% +104.0% +108.5% -2.1%

National +0.3% -4.7% -4.4% -0.3%

County 0% +1.4% +1.3% +0.1%

Total 1% +15.0% +6.8% +7.7%

Cars - Growth = 0.1%


Table 2.42 Vehicle Kilometres (Goods) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres - Goods

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 5,330,855 7,399,529 +2,068,674 +38.8%

National 29,133,437 26,193,853 -2,939,584 -10.1%

County 3,618,506 3,564,511 -53,995 -1.5%

Local 748,649 740,948 -7,702 -1.0%

Total 38,831,447 37,898,841 -932,606 -2.4%

Table 2.43 Vehicle Hours (Goods) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours - Goods

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 54,111 75,822 +21,711 +40.1%

National 453,551 407,353 -46,199 -10.2%

County 78,400 77,345 -1,055 -1.3%

Local 24,211 23,971 -240 -1.0%

Total 610,273 584,491 -25,782 -4.2%

Table 2.44 Average Speed (Goods) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Average Speed - Goods

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 98.5 97.6 -0.9 -0.9%

National 64.2 64.3 +0.1 +0.1%

County 46.2 46.1 -0.1 -0.1%

Local 30.9 30.9 -0.0 -0.0%

Total 63.6 64.8 +1.2 +1.9%

The following chart illustrates the impact of the Do Something, relative to the Reference Case, for goods vehicles in 2020 across the indicators discussed earlier.


Figure 2.6 Reference Case to Do Something (2020) – Goods

The increase in speed is more modest for goods vehicles, and the impact across the motorway network is fairly consistent in terms of vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours.

Operational Summary – All Road Vehicles

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for all motor vehicles (excluding buses).

Table 2.45 Vehicle Kilometres (All Vehicles) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres – All Vehicles

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 25,071,213 47,675,193 +22,603,980 +90.2%

National 108,591,763 101,956,653 -6,635,110 -6.1%

County 14,559,678 14,663,109 +103,431 +0.7%

Local 3,759,170 3,751,003 -8,167 -0.2%

Total 151,981,824 168,045,958 +16,064,134 +10.6%

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres


Motorway +41.3% +38.8% +40.1% -0.9%

National +0.3% -10.1% -10.2% +0.1%

County 0% -1.5% -1.3% -0.1%

Total 1% -2.4% -4.2% +1.9%

Goods - Growth = -0.6%


Table 2.46 Vehicle Hours (All Vehicles) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours – All Vehicles

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 207,530 395,639 +188,110 +90.6%

National 1,683,039 1,583,146 -99,893 -5.9%

County 317,197 319,281 +2,084 +0.7%

Local 120,838 121,116 +278 +0.2%

Total 2,328,603 2,419,182 +90,579 +3.9%

Table 2.47 Average Speed (All Vehicles) – Reference Case 2020 and Do Something 2020

Road Type Average Speed – All Vehicles

Reference 2020

Do Something 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Motorway 120.8 120.5 -0.3 -0.3%

National 64.5 64.4 -0.1 -0.2%

County 45.9 45.9 +0.0 +0.1%

Local 31.1 31.0 -0.1 -0.4%

Total 65.3 69.5 +4.2 +6.4%

The following chart illustrates the impact of the Do Something, relative to the Reference Case, for all vehicles in 2020 across the indicators discussed earlier.

Figure 2.7 Reference Case to Do Something (2020) – All Vehicles

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres

Vehicle Hours

Average Speed

Motorway +41.3% +90.2% +90.6% -0.3%

National +0.3% -6.1% -5.9% -0.2%

County 0% +0.7% +0.7% +0.1%

Total 1% +10.6% +3.9% +6.4%

All Vehicles - Growth = 0%


2.5.3 Operational Summary – Rail Freight and Intermodal Transport

Rail Freight

The Do Something 2020 scenario demonstrates a slightly lower tonnage of goods is projected to be transported by rail than in the 2020 Reference Case. This is due to the impact of measures associated with other modes, such as road and waterway improvements. In the Do Something scenario the competiveness of rail is lessened slightly in comparison with these modes, due for example to having a more extensive motorway network.

However volumes of goods transported by rail are still significantly higher than in the base scenario and rail freight has been enhanced in the 2020 Do Something by improvements to the rail network.

Table 2.48: Do Something - Reference case 2020 scenario- Rail Freight (annual)

Do Something Scenario

Reference Case % Change

2020 2020

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 14,962,285 15,441,054 -3.1%

Uncontainerised 52,288,679 52,785,724 -0.9%

Containers Loaded

TEU 1,566,731 1,616,864 -3.1%

Tonne Kilometres

Containerised 6,871,783,426 7,219,790,945 -4.8%

Uncontainerised 14,645,282,888 14,874,893,147 -1.5%

Intermodal Transport

There are a number of projects that have been proposed to address the issues identified in relation to the movement of containers around Romania and enhancing the use of rail freight. This section provides a summary of those projects for which funding is secured.

Ports

Sea Ports are a key means of exporting and importing containers. Constanta Port is the principal Black sea port in Romania and the entry and exit point for a significant proportion of containers being imported and exported from Romania. To enable Constanta Port to handle a greater number and proportion of containers improvements are required.

Building new container terminal in Constanta Port (moles III and IV south)

The South Pier which neighbours Constanta Port is due to be developed to create more specialized terminals (Pier IIIS and IVS). The south of Constanta Port offers great development potential, with the main advantage being deeper water, allowing larger vessel berthing capacity.

An additional container terminal in Constanta port will be developed in order to ensure safe handling and storage containers (container terminal). The containers will be loaded and unloaded from ships using equipment such as mobile cranes or STS cranes.


A range of full and empty container handling facilities will be developed in accordance with traffic projections. The first phase will include the container terminal to be designed around one million TEU per year and other stages of development will be developed in accordance with actual market conditions.

River Intermodal facilities

Inland waterways such as the Danube enable containers to be transported via sustainable modes of transport. As discussed modernisation of intermodal infrastructure is required to maximise the potential for containers to be transported by vessels capable of navigating the inland waterway network in Romania.

To facilitate regular feasible container ship movements up Danube we propose to equip ports with modern container handling equipment. These ports have been identified as European Ten-T ports and the intermodal facilities will facilitate the transfer of intermodal boxes between river vessels, road vehicles or rail wagons as dictated by customers. This network of tri-modal terminals will service needs of intermodal industry in the next decade and will provide a suitable terminal within a sensible geographical catchment area.

Intermodal Terminal Port Bazinul Nou and Zona Decuri, Galati

As a gateway to mainland Galati there is a potential connection to the Ponto-Baltic transport system providing access to the North-East and the Black Sea. The intermodal terminal will comprise of a integration of existing and new buildings and will create enhanced road and rail connections to a hinterland of the terminal (Pan-European Corridor IX).

This will enable the to be able to operate trains "single wagon" with direct transhipment from / to vessels.

The terminal will be equipped with RO-RO and facilities for trucks. Logistics services will be provided and will create space for distribution and assembly.

Modernisation and / or construction of an intermodal terminal in the river basin Giurgiu / Olteniţa and Bucharest area.

Giurgiu and Olteniţa are ports on the Danube within the vicinity of Bucharest that offer the opportunity for containers destined for, or being delivered to, Bucharest to be loaded or unloaded from river going vessels.

It is proposed to build at least one terminal in one of six main locations in the river basin Giurgiu / Olteniţa and Bucharest area. This will include modernisation and/or building of an intermodal terminal comprising of at least 6-8 hectares with a minimum usable length of railway lines of 750m, a minimum of two railway lines and a road connection in at least two directions.

Developing the Danube ports as intermodal freight centers - Port of Drobeta Turnu Severin

The Port of Drobeta Turnu Severin is located on the Danube and serves the south west of Romania, close to the border with Serbia. There is scope to transport containers further into Europe and also to key ports such as Constanta for onward shipment.

It is proposed to build an intermodal terminal at the port and extending the quay for another 100-120m to facilitate greater intermodal traffic.

Inland terminals

Inland intermodal terminals allow the transfer of containers from rail to road freight (often the final leg of the journey). If possible, this should occur as close to the destination or origin of associated containers to reduce dependency on road freight for transportation of containers.


The rail system in Romania is split into eight regional areas. The optimum approach is that there is an intermodal terminal within an hours truck driving range time for each region. However, in the medium term it is important to have sufficient infrastructure to support a critical mass in volume. The following projects, which have been included in the Do Something business case aim to encourage intermodal transport throughout Romania.

Building of an intermodal terminal for each of the following areas: Cluj, Iasi, Timisoara, Suceava, Bucharest and Brasov.

As part of the Intermodal Transport Strategy, studies will be carried out on the identification and analysis of new locations for construction and / or modernization of new terminals, medium and long term, at the following locations: Cluj Iasi, Timisoara, Suceava, Bucharest and Brasov.

These projects will be modelled to determine their impact on the transport sector in Romania, and their likely impact on addressing the issues discussed in section 6.5.

As with other intermodal terminals described in this section, facilities at Suceavea, Brasov and Bucharest will include modernisation and/or building of an intermodal terminal comprising of at least 6-8 hectares with a minimum usable length of railway lines of 750 m, a minimum of two railway lines and a road connection in at least two directions.

Proposed facilities at Iasi and Timisoara include developing a storage platform with a maximum floor area of 10 acres, creating a rail terminal connection, connecting utilities and providing the necessary road infrastructure.

Any general improvements in rail infrastructure described in Chapter 2.5 will also naturally benefit rail freight as line speeds and capacity of lines are enhanced and infrastructure is maintained to a higher standard. As discussed CFR Marfă is in the process of being privatised and it is anticipated that the private sector will take over the responsibility of updating rolling stock, maintenance and provision of associated infrastructure.

Table 2.49 demonstrates there is a significant increase in the volume of goods (both bulk and containerised) loaded at intermodal terminals in the Do Something 2020 Scenario. This can be attributed to the introduction and modernisation of intermodal terminals at Bucharest, Iasi and Galati Port, projects which are all scheduled to be completed by 2020. When compared to the Base Scenario the growth rate increases further.

Table 2.49: Do Something - Reference case 2020 scenario- Intermodal (annual)

Do Something Scenario

Reference Case % Change

2020 2020

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 394,283 250,307 57.5%

Uncontainerised 25,717,593 15,981,284 60.9%

Containers Loaded

TEU 41,286 26,210 57.5%


Conclusions

The model outputs demonstrate that intermodal transport and rail freight will play a significant role in the transportation of goods in Romania in 2020 should the investment proposed occur.

Whilst this is due in part to projected economic growth, it has also been demonstrated that anticipated investment in facilities will have the effect of ensuring that rail freight does not lose it’s competiveness in relation to other modes.

The volume of goods loaded at open access intermodal terminals greatly increases in the Do Something scenario, reflective of the significant investment proposed. This investment will not only ensure that facilities are developed to modern standards, it will also encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. This will result in benefits for the economy (through greater efficiencies of intermodal operations) and the environment.

2.5.4 Operational Summary – Ports and Waterways

Description of Do Something Projects

Drobeta Turnu Severin Port

Developing Drobeta Turnu Severin port as an intermodal freight center

Build an intermodal terminal in the commercial port and upstream port facilities where there is the possibility of extending for another 100-120m, up to the quay shipyard at Sector II

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Drobeta-Turnu Severin Port

Work package is to include:

- Upgrading works at quays passenger berths for a total length of 400 m;

- Build pontoon berths and mooring quay for a length of between 100m and 200m with bunkering berths;

- The upgrading of infrastructure piers pears;

- a 600 m front for a marina and recreational piers equipped with peirs, floating landing-stages and accessories necessary soliciting tourist ships or craft;

- Network utilities shore platforms and accessories.

This is currently at a pre-feasibility stage.

Calafat Port

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Calafat Port

The objective of the project is to improve the quality of port infrastructure in the port of Calafat. This is currently at a pre-feasibility stage.

Extension of the infrastructure in Calafat Port and the systematization of its rail network

- Restoration of vertical quay berth 4 per length of 100 m;

- Extension vertical quay at berth 4 by 30 m;

- Construction of berth 5 in length of 130 m;


- Electrical installation and water supply;

The application is being evaluated by the Ministry of Transport.

Giurgiu Port

A new intermodal terminal is proposed at Giurgiu, please refer to the Intermodal chapter for further information.

D.A.N.U.B.E. - Network access Danube - Unlocking movements in Europe through the development of infrastructure in Romania TEN-T ports - Giurgiu Port

The project foresees:

1 - port infrastructure works berths 1 and 2 in the basin link, Length = 350m;

2 - Rearrangement of Veriga Basin upstream input;

3 - port infrastructure works for berths 3 and 4 in the port area, Length = 245m;

4 - Infrastructure Works 9 to 13 berths port on the Danube, in the port area, Length = 650m

This is currently at a pre-feasibility stage.

Galati Port

Intermodal Terminal at Galati Port (Bazinul Nou)

A new intermodal terminal is proposed at Galati (Bazinul Nou), please refer to the Intermodal chapter for further information.

Intermodal Terminal at Galati Port (Zona Docuri)

A new intermodal terminal is proposed at Galati (Zona Docuri), please refer to the Intermodal chapter for further information.

New terminal for general goods in Galati Port

The proposed project aims to modernize the port berths. Due to the ever decreasing water volume, the harbour basin cannot be used without significant costs of dredging. As such reintegration of the entire front port mooring requires upgrading of the lining. The new berths in the port will improve the flows of goods and bulk goods either packed or palletized. A feasibility study has been conducted.

Modernisation of ports infrastructure to assure the necessary depths and safety for the Maritime Sector of the Danube River - Stage 1 - Galati Port

Works calibration channel, performance groynes, piers and harbor basin cleaning.

Port infrastructure works - Berth 32 in Galati Port

Berth 32 provides a 70m mooring quay however it is old and not fit for purpose having been poorly maintained. National Maritime Danube Ports Administration SA Galati commissioned a feasibility study for technical solutions in relation to building economic efficiency related to modernizing quay berth 32. Documents are being prepared for an application to go ahead with the project.

Potential Waterways Projects


River Danube


The European Commission has designated the Danube as a key part of Corridor VII. The EU Danube Region Strategy was adopted by the European Commission in 2010 and seeks to create synergies and coordination between existing policies and initiatives taking place across the Danube region.

Improving the conditions on the River Danube for the Romanian and Bulgarian section

The main objective of the project is to improve navigation conditions on the Danube between 863km and 375km. This would involve flow redistribution between the Danube and the side arms, ensuring minimum clearances on the fairway by dredging, ensuring the river is open for more days throughout the year with little remediation work. This would have the effect of reducing transport costs, increasing traffic safety on the Danube, increased use of inland waterway transport, reduced environmental impact and erosion of the river banks. A feasibility study has been completed.

Upgrading the locks, equipments and installations for CDMN and CPAMN

The project involves:

- Modernization of the technological equipment

- Auxiliary locks and upgrading power plants and electricity distribution

- Safety Modernization objective and navigation

Grant application pending tender validation.

Protection and enforcement of the high banks on the canal CDMN

The works consist mainly of excavations and embankments such as walls of precast concrete. This will result in the protection and consolidation of banks and ensure the stability of slopes in areas with high sides for a length of about 30km (on both sides)

Other Waterways Projects


Purchase of Vessels

The purchase of a number of vessels such as an ice breaker and pilots. The River Danube often freezes during the wintertime which can restrict navigation or at least make it unreliable. The purchase of a dedicated ice breaker will mean that the number of days lost to freezing will be reduced. Additionally the River Danube is not always straightforward to navigate, in particular the Danube Delta poses some difficulties. The purchase of pilot tugs will mean vessels can safely and effectively navigate difficult sections of the Danube.

These projects are at pre-feasibility stage.

Signalling

One project proposes the purchasing of signalling ships and radio direction finders to improve signalling and safety on the Danube. This will improve navigation which will be particularly useful for those not familiar with the river as well as provide up to date information.


Operational Appraisal: Ports

Tonnes lifted at Constanta absolute numbers and compared with Reference Case:

• By commodity, containerised and non-containerised

Constanta

(Tonnes Loaded)

Reference Case 2020

Do Something

2020

Containerised 127,154 181,715

Non-containerised 7,172,360 8,146,654

Total 7,299,514 8,328,369

It can be seen that the by implementing the projects the effect is to, at least in part, increase the tonnage handled at Constanta. The total increase is by 14%. Specifically, containerised traffic increases by 43% and non-containerised traffic increases by 14%. The large increase in containerised traffic can be explained by the focus on intermodal traffic at Danube river ports, which will use Constanta for transhipping those containers from river vessels to maritime vessels (and vice versa).

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

Containerised Non‐containerised

Tonnes

Tonnes Lifted at Constanta

Reference Case 2020 Do Something 2020


Tonnes lifted at all Danube Ports

• By commodity, containerised and non-containerised

All Danube Ports

(Tonnes Loaded)

Reference Case 2020

Do Something

2020

Containerised 86,238 176,144

Non-containerised 5,958,840 14,700,991

Total 6,045,078 14,877,135

The model shows that implementing the projects has the effect of increasing freight the ports on the Danube can expect to receive by 146%. Containerised freight increases by 104% and non-containerised freight increases by 146%.

Containerised

(Tonnes Loaded)

Reference Case 2020

Do Something

2020

Galati 32,476 85,321

Tulcea 496 1,160

Braila 21,330 0

Giurgiu 8,931 42,090

Calarasi 8,993 17,200

Oltenita 5,314 857

Corabia 5,170 5,389

Drobeta Turnu Severin

1,064 20,180

Calafat 2,464 3,946

Orsova 0 0

By implementing the do something projects, Galati port increases its containerised tonnes by 163% over the reference case. Giurgiu port increases by 371%. Other ports such as Calarasi and Drobeta Turnu Severin also witness large increases. These changes way be overstimated, as they assume free choice of freight forwarders to switched ports, for example from Bulgarian and Ukrainian Ports to Romania Ports. The final forecasts may be scaled back, but there preliminary data show the potential for increasing volumes. Oltenita and Braila port see reductions in tonnages.


Non-containerised

(Tonnes Loaded)

Reference Case 2020

Do Something

2020

Galati 2,531,239 6,595,149

Tulcea 642,685 710,651

Braila 513,420 0

Giurgiu 106,411 4,637,471

Calarasi 174,340 216,099

Oltenita 281,035 202,736

Corabia 59,998 73,976

Drobeta Turnu Severin

592,337 881,902

Calafat 1,057,376 1,383,007

Orsova 0 0

Operational Appraisal: Danube Waterway

Tonnes lifted at Constanta absolute numbers and compared with Reference Case:

• Tonnes carried on the Danube by commodity

• Tonne kms carried on the Danube by commodity

Danube

(Tonne-km)

Reference Case 2020

Do Something 2020

Containerised 971,154,566 1,538,061,696

Non-containerised 13,697,930,240 14,488,609,300

Total 14,669,084,806 16,026,670,996


The result of implementing the projects is to increase the number of tonne-km on the Danube by 9%. The increase in tonne-km for containerised freight is 58% and for non-containerised freight the increase is 6%.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

Containerised Non‐containerised

Tonnes

Tonnes Lifted at all Danube Ports

Reference Case 2020 Do Something 2020


2.5.5 Operational Summary – Air Transport

This section lists the projects modelled for the ‘Do Something’ case, grouped alphabetically by each of the six airports where projects were considered. This followed a review of the capacity of the top eight Romanian airports, and is in line with the recommended strategy of providing an airport to serve each of the country’s regions. For five of the airports the key aim is strategic; to encourage a growth of domestic flights and enhance connectivity within Romania. For Constanta’s Airport the aim is instead tactical; as this airport serves the country’s key port. The objective would be that the expansion of an airport here would boost business connections to the port and so encourage inward investment. Figure 8.1 plots the location of Romania’s airfields.

Figure 2.8 – Location of airports in Romania

Baia Mare Airport

The twelfth largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled; almost 40,000 passengers used Baia Mare Airport in 2011. The airport is situated in the north-west of the country, serving the city of Baia Mare. The airport is served by TAROM flights to Bucharest. Two possible improvement projects were considered:

Integrated security system

Extending and modernising the passenger terminal

Bucharest Henri Coanda Airport

The largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled – with over seven million passengers using Henri Coanda in 2011. The airport serves Bucharest, the country’s capital city, and is TAROM’s


main base. The airport also hosts a number of European and international carriers, and plans are already underway to build a second terminal with a maximum envisaged capacity of 20 million passengers per year. Six possible improvement projects at Henri Coanda were considered:

Rehabilitation and modernisation of the PDA1 runway

Rehabilitation of the Bravo, Alfa, November and Whisky taxiways

Rehabilitation works for taxiway Papa, and over-widening of runway intersections

Rehabilitation works for taxiways Golf and Oscar, including an aircraft turning area at PDA2

Rehabilitation of apron 1

Rehabilitation of apron 2

Cluj-Napoca Airport

The third largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled; over 1.2 million passengers used Cluj-Napoca Airport in 2011. The airport is situated in the Transylvania region in the north-west of the country. Wizz Air, the Hungarian LCC, is the airport’s main airline. Four possible improvement projects were considered:

Construction of aircraft movement area

Completion of 3,500m runway and associated aircraft movement area

Modernisation of the public area’s infrastructure

Construction of a cargo terminal

Constanta Airport

The sixth largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled; over 477,000 passengers used Constanta Airport in 2011. The airport is situated on the country’s south-eastern coastline, serving the Black Sea resorts and also the country’s primary port (Constanta itself). The airport is served by seasonal flights from Turkish Airlines and Ryanair. Two possible improvement projects were considered:

Construction of a general and business aviation terminal

Construction of passenger terminal

Iasi Airport

The seventh largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled; 444,800 passengers used Iasi Airport in 2011. The airport serves the city of Iasi in the north-east of the country. TAROM, the national airline, is the main carrier at the airport. Two possible improvement projects were considered (module 1 is instead considered as part of the Reference Case):

Airport development and modernization module 2 - passenger terminal

Airport development and modernization module 3 – air/road freight terminal

Timisoara Airport

The second largest airport in Romania, in terms of passengers handled; over 2.6 million passengers used Timisoara Airport in 2011. The airport serves the city of Timisoara in western Romania. Wizz Air and Carpatair are the main airlines at the airport. Two possible improvement projects were considered:

Intermodal terminal


Freight terminal

Appraisal

This section discusses the model outputs for the 2020 ‘Do Something’ case, and makes suggestions with regard to the projects that would be expected to prove beneficial.

Operational Appraisal

This section compared to the forecast situation in 2020, assuming all projects outlined above are undertaken, compared with the forecasted situation for the reference case. The forecasts are detailed in Tables 2.50 – 2.53 below, and contrasted to the reference case.

Table 2.50 – Total passengers ‘do something’ forecast to 2020

Airport Name 2020 total passengers

From 2020 reference case

Bacau 897,061 -18,520 -2.0% Baia Mare 65,316 -2,145 -3.2% Henri Coanda 9,142,630 +174,178 +1.9% Cluj-Napoca 1,507,508 +96,517 +6.8% Constanta 561,085 -13,326 -2.3% Craiova 368,581 -24,338 -6.2% Iasi 623,446 -464 -0.1% Oradea 183,696 -381 -0.2% Satu Mare 56,623 +256 +0.5% Sibiu 607,105 -151,698 -20.0% Suceava 257,722 -6,397 -2.4% Targu Mures 454,918 +3,394 +0.8% Timisoara 2,918,810 -89,232 -3.0%

Table 2.50 shows that, in the event of all projects outlined earlier in this section being undertaken, total passenger numbers at nine of the 13 airports examined are forecast to decrease when compared to the 2020 reference case. The average growth rate for all airports is -2.3%, with Sibiu seeing the largest forecast decrease in total passenger numbers (-20%), and Cluj-Napoca the largest forecast increase (6.8%). The two airports with the largest forecast increases in total passenger numbers (Bucharest and Cluj-Napoca) are the subjects of the two largest numbers of proposed projects; six at Bucharest, and four at Cluj-Napoca – suggesting that these projects would, overall, have a positive impact on growth in passenger numbers in comparison to the reference case. Improvement projects affecting other transport modes are likely to be the result of the forecast average decrease in total passenger numbers; making road and rail transport more attractive when compared to the reference case.

Table 2.51 – Domestic passengers ‘do something’ forecast to 2020

Airport Name 2020 domestic passengers


Bacau 405,384 -3,767 -0.9% Baia Mare 65,316 -2,145 -3.2% Henri Coanda 3,186,581 +153,515 +5.1% Cluj-Napoca 714,327 +101,963 +16.7%


Airport Name 2020 domestic passengers


Constanta 560,921 -13,323 -2.3% Craiova 368,581 -24,338 -6.2% Iasi 571,397 +767 +0.1% Oradea 183,696 -381 -0.2% Satu Mare 56,623 +256 +0.5% Sibiu 424,502 -61,919 -12.7% Suceava 257,722 -6,397 -2.4% Targu Mures 121,671 +16,986 +16.2% Timisoara 2,548,346 -100,944 -3.8%

Table 2.51 shows that, if all proposed projects are undertaken, growth in domestic passengers is forecast at five of the airports considered. The average growth rate is 0.5%, with the highest growth rate forecast at Cluj-Napoca (16.7%), and the most significant rate of decrease forecast at Sibiu (-12.7%). If considering only those airports more than around a four hour-drive from Bucharest, the average growth rate forecast is 1.8%; showing that for these more outlying destinations, demand for air travel would continue to increase despite improvements in other transport modes – but for those destinations closer to Bucharest, road and rail would prove increasingly attractive with the improvement projects considered in the 2020 scenario.

Conclusions

A key conclusion is the growth of domestic air transport; both in the reference case and also when comparing this to the forecasted situation with all proposed projects undertaken. In the reference case, domestic air passenger numbers are forecast to increase – across the country – by an average of 60% by 2020. If all proposed projects are undertaken, then this figure is forecast to increase by a further 0.5%. These increases – primarily at those airports over a four hour-drive from Bucharest – show the necessity of air transport as a mode of domestic transport in Romania. The forecast growth may also be a result of the entry of LCCs into the domestic market; historically the domain of TAROM, the national airline, increased competition (resulting in lower fares) would be expected to boost domestic passenger numbers.


2.6 Funding

Part of identifying the funding sources for the candidate projects included in the 2020 Do-Something Scenario, the following criteria have been considered:

The pre-identification based on sector, nature of investment and network

The estimated available funds from the National Budget

The estimated available funds from Cohesion Fund, ERDF and CEF for the next programming period of 2014-2020

As part of the assesstment of the candidate projects, assumptions were made on the estimated funding source per each project. The following main criteria have been considered:

Eligibility for EU funds (Cohesion Fund, ERDF, CEF), based on type of investment and Implementing Authorities and also based on Ten-T Regulations

The eligibility for PPP or concessions investments

The maintenance and renewal projects will be funded from the National Budget

The ancillary projects and also the normal businnes investments will be funded from own funds or National Budget.

The principles applied are described in the below table.

Table 2.52. Assumptions made on sources of funding per sector and nature of investment

Sector Nature of investment

CE

F

CF

ER

DF

Nat

ion

al B

ud

get

Ow

n F

un

ds

PP

P o

r C

on

cess

ion

Air

Rehabilitation of the existing freight and passenger terminals √ Information Systems, Ticketing √ New freight and passenger terminals √ √ Improvements for the runways √ √ Signalling, Control and other Air Safety Measures √

Intermodal New intermodal terminals √ Rehabilitation of the existing intermodal terminals √

Ports Rehabilitation works and capacity improvements √ √ New terminals √ √

Rail

Information Systems, Ticketing √ √ Normal business investments √ Policy Measures √ Modernisations of Ten-T Core sections √ Maintenance and Renewals √ New alignment √ √ Rail stations improvements √ √ New Rolling Stock √ √


Sector Nature of investment

CE

F

CF

ER

DF

Nat

ion

al B

ud

get

Ow

n F

un

ds

PP

P o

r C

on

cess

ion

Safety, signalling and control systems √ √

Road New alignments on Ten-T Network √ Rehabilitation works and capacity improvements √ √ √ Maintenance and Renewals √

Waterways/ River Danube

Dredging works on River Danube √ New allignments √ Rehabilitations and Modernisations √ √ Safety, signalling and control systems √ √ Acquisition of maintenance ships √ √

Part of dealing with the ex-ante conditionalities defined by EU, there is a commitment from the Romanian Government regarding the annual allocation of 2% from GDP to the infrastructure domain. Based on this assumption and on the forecast scenario defined for GDP (the central scenario), the estimated funding allocations from National Budget can be estimated, as per in the next table

Table 2.53. Estimated funds allocation for transport, from the National Budget (values are in EURO, 2010 nominal prices)

Year GDP Estimated

allocation for transport

2010 124,371,845,257 2011 127,108,836,492 2012 127,363,140,386 2013 129,401,649,890 2,588,032,9982014 132,249,552,419 2,644,991,0482015 135,954,085,689 2,719,081,7142016 140,034,632,394 2,800,692,6482017 144,935,844,528 2,898,716,8912018 150,008,599,086 3,000,171,9822019 155,258,900,054 3,105,178,0012020 160,692,961,556 3,213,859,2312021 166,317,215,211 3,326,344,3042022 172,138,317,743 3,442,766,3552023 178,163,158,864 3,563,263,1772024 184,398,869,424 3,687,977,3882025 190,852,829,854 3,817,056,5972026 197,532,678,899 3,950,653,5782027 204,446,322,661 4,088,926,4532028 211,601,943,954 4,232,038,8792029 219,008,011,992 4,380,160,2402030 226,673,292,412 4,533,465,848

Source: AECOM Model Development Report, Chapter 10 Forecasted Methology and Reference Development Scenarios


For the next programming period, 2013-2020, these estimations show an average annual value of 2.87 bn EURO to be available for transport and a total value of 22.97 bn EURO for the entire period.

For the 2021-2030 period, the overall estimated funding allocations are 39.02 bn EURO, that means an average annual value of 3.9 bn EURO.

It is to be noted that the allocations from the National Budget are also covering, apart from the costs regarding building new infrastructure, rehabilitation, modernisation and maintenance of the current transport networks, administrative cost for the National State-owned Companies, like CFR Călători, CFR SA, CNADNR, ports and Danube administrations and also subsidiaries transfered to various companies.

On the available funds in the next programming period 2014-2020, it is known that the total Cohesion Funds to be available for Romania are of 6.9 bn EURO for the transport, energy and environmental sectors (source: Ministry of European Funds). There is still to be decided the available funds for the transport operational programme.

Also, part of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) there are estimated a total ammount of funds available only for Romania of 1.2 bn EURO. Another 10 bn EURO will be available for all the EU countries part of a competition process.

The entire scenario regarding funding will be revised during the elaboration of Strategy for the National Transportation System Development

Methodology


3.1 Overview

The Master Plan does not consist just of a list of projects. It is also a process of setting objectives, collecting relevant, accurate data, analysing these data, assessing need, testing projects against defined criteria, and appraisal and evaluation processes to prioritise projects. The data, and methods of analysis are therefore of vital importance in establishing the credibility of the Master Plan.

The key steps in the process are shown below:

1. The Database for the Master Plan consists of two basic types:

Network data consisting of capacities, and characteristics of each modal networks; and

Demand data concerning passenger travel and freight tonnage movements.

The sources of these data are:

existing data held by the MTI, CNADNR, CESTRIN, CFR, Port and Naval Authorities, the INS, and external agencies;

new data collected specifically for the Study.

2. Analyse demand and capacity of networks: the primary data were analysed and converted into suitable formats for the National Model where appropriate, and other data;

3. Develop National Transport Model: A national transport model was developed from the analysed data. The national model is the analytical basis for testing and evaluating (major) projects for inclusion in the Master Plan;

3 Methodology


4. Evaluate projects: CBA, EU and National Policies, Environment and Sustainability using the Model: projects are tested with the model to assess demand, produce costs, and other data for the Cost-Benefit Analysis.

5. Produce a recommended strategy: financial resources, policies, readiness of projects: projects which pass the CBA test are appraised against wider criteria in order to prioritise them.

These procedures are described in more detail in the following sections.

3.2 Data

The development of a national model for country the size of Romania is a significant undertaking and one that requires a large and complex database of information on how and where, passengers and goods are carried across the transport system. The model specification demands a model that can represent many interactions between modes and different types of interventions on the networks, services, fares and tariffs, quality of rolling stock, improvements at passenger and freight terminals, and policy initiatives such as road pricing and fuel taxes.

In parallel with the information on travel demand there is an equally extensive requirement for data on the composition of the transport system so that it can be represented within the model’s supply side modules.

The data required to support the development of the NTM covers several areas:

1. Travel patterns by mode and commodity, comprising:

Roadside interview data from existing CESTRIN data and new travel surveys;

Rail ticket sale data to establish overall station to station demands (from 2011 data), and ticket sales by service (from 2012 data);

Bus ticket sales data where available and where not new user demand data surveys to establish pattern of movements;

Rail and bus passenger interviews to establish trip characteristics and to enable ticket sales data to be disaggregated by purpose and socio-economic status;

Air passenger movements in terms of point of origin/destination within Romania and the external country of origin or destination;

Commodity movements by LGV and HGV vehicles, by type, and in tonnes moved;

Rail freight movements by commodity

Constanta port freight demand by commodity;

Danube ports freight demand by commodity

2. Network travel demands by mode;

Classified traffic counts across the national and county road network;

Permanent automatic traffic counts for determination of seasonal trends providing coverage of a representative sample of the national and county roads;

Bus loading counts at on cordons around the main cities;


Air passenger movements through all airports in Romania;

Rail station boarding counts, or loading counts by train, to obtain daily hourly profiles of demand and for model validation purposes

3. Demographic information at the level of cities, towns and communes;

Population;

Active population;

Employment places by sector;

Household type and composition

4. Socio-economic data;

Car ownership;

Income and values of time by type of traveller;

GDP by sector and region, at least to county level

5. Transport system attributes;

GIS information system containing administrative boundaries, highway and public transport physical links, nd geometric characteristics;

Road network classification and condition;

Rail service route/timetables and operating speeds;

Bus service route/timetables;

Air service route/timetables;

Ferry service route/timetables;

Fare systems by mode

6. Accident data;

five year accident data for calibration of accident unit rates by category of road

7. Travel time/speed data on a cross section of routes for verification of speed flow relationships;

Spot speed data linked to travel flows will be used to calibrate sped flow relationships by road category which will be defined based on geometric characteristics;

Travel times along routes will be used to validate the model outputs; and

8. Travel behaviour characteristics based on stated preference surveys.

New Surveys

The detailed review of existing data sources revealed gaps in the existing database of travel information that required the commissioning of new traffic surveys. The information that was collected included:

1. Roadside interview surveys with drivers of passenger and commercial vehicles to collect information on trip purpose, origin-destination, occupancy, and commodity carried. The interview surveys would be supported by traffic counts;


2. Rail passenger interview surveys at the main stations in several cities across Romania to collect information on trip purpose, access modes, and car availability;

3. Inter urban bus passenger interview surveys at the main bus stations in several cities across Romania to collect information on trip purpose, access modes, and car availability;

4. Air passenger interview surveys at Henri Coanda, Timisoara, and Cluj-Napoca airports to collect information on trip purpose, origin and destination, and access modes;

5. Driver interview surveys at Constanta Port to determine origin/destination within Romania and the type of commodity carried;

6. Journey time surveys along specified routes across Romania; and

7. Behavioural surveys with travelers to better understand their travel choices.

A summary of the origin – destination data collected by AECOM is given below.

Table 3.1 Summary of New Origin – Destination Data Collected by AECOM.

City Roadside Interviews

Bus Interviews

Rail Interviews

Air Interviews

Port Interviews

Bucharest 16010 4107 1492 1364 Constanta 6065 1185 444 6669 Brasov 10026 2148 435 Braila 7681 2081 285 Iasi 9313 1620 603 Cluj-Napoca 7407 1497 541 372 Sibiu 7318 1418 422 Craiova 11104 2001 600 Timisoara 12337 1622 720 604 Oradea 6975 1412 350 Totals 94236 19091 5892 2340

Source: AECOM

3.3 Analysis: Romanian National Transport Model

3.3.1 Specification of the Model

The first stage in the specification of the model methodology required a review of the Terms of Reference to establish the primary requirements for the model from the perspective of the client and the wider application of the model. The development and then application of a robust transport model was an essential part of the study. The Terms of Reference stipulated that the demand modelling includes:

Journeys made wholly within Romania, mainly inter-urban movements. It was not the aim of the study to examine urban travel patterns and demands in detail and the data collection and model development has been structured accordingly ;

International journeys with either an origin or destination in Romania; and

International journeys with both their origin and destination outside Romania

A key requirement was to understand the inter-urban and international travel patterns, recognising at the same time that local travel congestion affects parts of the strategic network. Therefore, the study needed good quality data for inter-urban travel, with local data for journeys made entirely within travel urban areas


being less important. These requirements applied equally to the passenger transport and freight markets. However, it is important to recognise that there are important differences between them, particularly in relation to the choice of transport modes.

The forecasting model was to provide a modelling tool to test various options, transport interventions, and policies, whilst at the same time being sufficiently detailed to provide robust data input to other study activities such as the base year and future travel analyses, and scheme appraisal and prioritisation.

Specific interventions that the model is capable of modelling include:

Changes in economic parameters (GDP, income, car ownership etc.) and demographic parametrs (population levels and distribution) factors;

Infrastructure changes;

New PT services;

Policy measures including:

o Differential pricing for rail and air

o Internalisation of external transport costs

o Climate change policies (subsidy of low emission modes)

Implementation of road tax;

Car ownership and its linkage to level of taxation

The modelled transport demands are responsive to changes in costs and time for all aspects of travel including costs of car ownership through registration/tax measures. For example increased fuel taxes will lead to higher fuel prices and this will result in shorter distance car trips, transfer to other modes, or suppression of some trips altogether.

It is essential to calibrate any model on robust and up to date information on travel patterns in Romania today, and on international travel that already passes through Romania, or other international travel with routing that could be influenced by changes in the highway and public transport infrastructure in Romania. This provides a firm basis for predicting future changes. In examining the situation that may exist in 2015, 2020 and 2030, we considered all the main behavioural responses that are relevant to the study, including changes in:

The role of car ownership regulation and taxation on car ownership and usage;

The number of trips made (frequency of inter urban travel);

The distribution of origins and destinations;

Choice of travel mode; and

Route choice.

The model structure, Figure 3.2, contains the following main modules:

Highway and public transport network definitions:

Road (on which cars, buses, and freight vehicles operate);

Interurban bus and minibus services;

Rail network, intermodal terminals (passenger and freight), and rail services;


Waterways; and

Air.

Domestic passenger demand model

Car ownership model as a function of income growth and car ownership costs;

Trip generation/attraction growth based on demographic (population and employment) and socio-economic changes (GDP);

Distribution – calibrated functions by trip purpose including responsiveness to cost changes ;

Mode choice

International passenger demand model

Direct demand model based on GDP, population and car ownership changes;

Distribution based on changes in trip ends and generalised costs; and

Mode choice.

Freight model for international and domestic freight demand by commodity in tonnes and vehicle movements

Growth factors based on GDP for international and for domestic combination of GDP and population changes;

Distribution;

Mode choice and intermodal modelling; and

Conversion from tonnes to vehicles for highway assignment (LGV/HGV).

Network assignment models and generalised cost derivation

Demand split into four time periods (AM peak, Off-peak, PM Peak, night time);

Generalised costs combined across time periods, modes and destinations for use in demand models

The Base Year for the Model is 2011. This year was chosen because:

There is complete rail passenger and rail freight data for 2011, including station to station data for passengers.

We have data for freight moved on the River Danube for 2011;

The most recent National Census was carried out in 2011. This means that the most accurate data for communes, and therefore the Base Year Transport Model, corresponds to 2011. Secondly, population forecasts from the National Institute of Statistics will be based to the 2011 Census Data, that is any increases or decreases will be referenced to 2011. If the model has any other base year than 2011, official population forecasts will be unuseable, and there will be a discrepancy between the Model and the official population forecasts.


Highway Network

PT Network & Services

Planning Data

GDPIncome

Tolls / Charges

Policy InputsTaxationRegulation

Airport Passenger Projections

External Private Trips Base Year

Initial Assignments

Initial Highway & PT Cost Skims

Car Ownership Model

CA / NCAHouseholds

Growth Factors

Int‐Ext – GDP(R) / Pop / CO

Ext‐Int – GDP(NR)Ext‐Ext – GDP(NR)

Distribution

Int‐Ext – Population

Ext‐Int – Population Ext‐Ext – Furness

Mode Choice Car / Bus / Rail / Air /

Water

Growth Factors

Int‐Ext : Exports GDP(R)

Ext‐Int : Imports GDP(NR)Ext‐Ext : GDP(NR)Port Projections

Distribution

InternationalFreight Mode Choice

Road / Rail / Air

Internal Base Year LGV / HGV

Generation/AttractionGDP(Rom by Region)

Distribution

External Freight Demands by Commodity

Road Tonnes Converted to 24 hr Freight Vehicle Trips

LGV HGV ( 2 Categories?)

Trip Attraction Model

Trip Generation Model

ProductionsCA / NCA HBWHBOHBVEB

AttractionsCA / NCAHBWHBOHBVEB

DistributionCA / NCA

Purpose / Regions

Domestic 24 hr Trip matrices

Mode Choice(Distance Banded/Occupancy Effects)

Car / Bus / Rail / Air / Water

PT AssignmentPeak Period

PT AssignmentOP Period

PT AssignmentNT Period

Time Period Factors24 hr – Period

Peak Highway0600 ‐1000 / 1600 ‐ 1900

OP Highway1000 – 1600

NT Highway1900 ‐ 0600

HW Composite Cost

Mode Choice

CA Composite Cost

Distribution

PT Composite Costs

Mode Choice

NCA Composite Cost

Distribution

Convergence Tests

Economic & Financial

Assessment

Trip RateFrequency

Highway Network

PT Network & Services

Initial Highway& PT Cost Skims

Port Projections

Romanian GTMP Model Structure

Composite costs by Mode and Zone For Mode Choice / Distribution

Composite costs by Mode and Zone For Mode Choice / Distribution

Composite costs for Trip Rate Frequency

DomesticFreight Mode ChoiceRoad / Rail / Water

Domestic PassengerInternational Passenger

Domestic Freight

International Freight

Assignments and Composite Costs

Freight Tonnage

Rail / Air / Water

Bus Vehicle Preloads

Freight Unit RatesRoad BasedAir Cargo

Rail FreightWater Bourne

Passenger PurposesHBW – Home Based WorkHBO – Home Based OtherHBV – Home Based VacationEB – Employers Business(NB. Consistent with TRANS‐TOOLS purposes)

GDP(R) – GDP Romania by Sector/RegionGDP(NR) – GDP Non‐Romanian by Sector

NOTES

Freight Non‐Road

Assignment

Freight Assignment24 Hour Tonnes

Freight Non RoadCosts

Mode Choice

Freight RoadCosts

Mode Choice

AccessibilityModel

Reports / Outputs

EmissionsAccident Statistics

Figure 3.2 Structure of the Romania General Transport Masterplan Model


3.3.2 Zoning Principles

The fundamental approach to developing a zoning structure was to concentrate on a level of spatial detail that meets the objectives of the national model. The principles adopted in developing the zone system were to ensure that:

Adequate spatial detail was provided in terms of access to the extensive rail system;

Zones contained no more than one main town as far as was practicable;

Zones outside of the main cities and towns were restricted in area so that large zones were avoided, except in the sparsely populated mountainous areas;

zones followed natural boundaries;

zonal boundaries were aggregations of administrative boundaries so that compatibility with planning inputs, and socio-economic datasets could be guaranteed;

access to the highway network was properly represented in terms of loading points on key roads;

account was taken of special land uses such as Constanta Port; and

the zonal structure took account of future development proposals.

The zone system is consistent with both the county and commune/town/municipality boundaries. This was done by combining together communes/towns/municipalities within counties that have common socio-economic characteristics to form a number of zones per county. This approach allowed aggregation of commune/town/municipality data to zone level, and disaggregation of county level data to zone level in a simple manner. This was particularly important for the determination of base demand where origin to destination travel demand may be synthesized from zone characteristics and forecasting where trip growth rates change in response to socio-economic changes at a zonal level.

3.3.3 Transport Networks

The Romania National Transport Model includes representations of the following transport networks for carriage of passengers and freight:

Highway network – passenger cars, passenger bus services, light and heavy goods vehicles;

Rail network – rail passenger services (region, interregio and intercity) and rail freight services;

Air network – air passenger services and air freight services;

Waterway network – freight; and

Intermodal Transport connections

Each modelled network contains a level of detail appropriate for a strategic national model covering the existing Romanian transport network in some detail. This network connects to a progressively less-detailed modelled network covering neighbouring countries and the rest of Europe. The model network includes all motorways, national roads and the majority of county roads together with those local roads representing the key links to centres of population, stations, ports, airports or other significant points within the network. The modelled rail network includes a representation of all of the operating rail lines in Romania. The air network uses the 2011 timetable of air services between Romanian airports and international airports. The waterway network includes all the Danube and maritime ports / loading and unloading points where freight movements existed in 2011.


The highway network connects to the model zone system at appropriate locations to represent the average connection time from each zone to the network. The highway network connects in turn to the rail, air and waterway networks at appropriate nodes (representing stations, airports and ports) to allow for passenger journeys or freight movements which use more than one mode.

Figure 3.3 contains an overview of the modelled highway network of Romania.

Figure 3.3 Modelled Romanian Highway Network


Figure 3.4 NTM Rail Network and Stations

Figure 3.5 NTM Water Network and Ports


The international networks in the model include:

All the European Roads in the EU states;

The main international rail connections from Romania to the remainder of the EU states ensuring that the potential routing alternatives through Serbia are adequately covered and that there is full connectivity from Romania to all external zones so that accurate rail times and costs can be derived;

All international air services covering passenger and freight services; and

Full representation of the European waterway transport system connected to the River Danube, so that the role of Constanta port can be fully represented.

3.3.4 Demand Matrix Development

Base year demand matrices have been constructed for passengers and freight according to the best source of origin – destination and volume information available. A summary of the matrices created is provided below:

Highway Passenger: o passengers by trip purpose (EB, HBW, HBO, HBV); o LGV and HGV vehicle matrices;

Rail Passenger: o passengers by car availability, train type (R, IR, IC) and trip purpose;

Bus Passenger: o passengers by car availability and trip purpose;

Air Passenger: o passengers by car availability and trip purpose;

Highway, Rail, Air and Waterway Freight: o tonnes by commodity (16 commodities) for each mode.


3.4 Modelling Interventions

This section summarises the transport operations and interventions that the model is capable of representing, Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Model Capabilities

Intervention Comments

A. Passenger Transport: Infrastructure and Services

A1. Road Improvements

New infrastructure Impacts on other modes, principally rail, are taken into account by the model.

Change in speed limits Impacts on other modes, principally rail, are taken into account by the model.

Heavy vehicle restrictions Impacts on other modes, principally rail, are taken into account by the model.

Road user charges Impacts on other modes, principally rail, are taken into account by the model.

Road closures Impacts on other modes, principally rail, are taken into account by the model.

Rehabilitation

If there were a substantial programme of conversion from dirt to surfaced roads in the MP, then separate treatment of operating on a limited part of the network, rather than across the whole network would take place.

A2. Railway Projects

New lines , conventional and high speed

The calculation of operating costs for High Speed Trains would take place externally to the model.

Electrification Electrification results in reduced journey times due to better acceleration/ deceleration, and greater reliability.

Rehabilitation of existing lines Reconstruction will either restore the line speeds to their original design speeds or improve the line speeds.

New services, for example higher frequencies and new connections between cities

Modelled by including in revisions and additions to the representation of the train services operating on the network.

Changes in fares Are modelled directly through changes to the fare rates by mode of travel

New rolling stock (carriages) There is a parameter in the mode choice model that reflects passenger comfort.

New rolling stock (locomotives)

If new locomotives / emu / dmu results in better operating characteristics, and greater reliability, these impacts are modelled by changes to reliability parameters. Reduced operating costs will be in the CBA.



Rehabilitation of bridges and tunnels

If rehabilitation of bridges and tunnels results in the lifting of speed restrictions these effects can be included in the modelling. It would be too time-consuming to model individual repairs, but testing of a complete programme of repairs is possible.

A3. Improvements to Inter-City Bus Services

Improvements to roads which affect existing services

New roads and improvements to existing roads will reduce journey times.


Modelled by including in revisions and additions to the representation of the bus services operating on the network.

Changes in fares Are modelled directly through changes to the fare rates by mode of travel

New buses There is a parameter in the mode choice model that reflects passenger comfort.

New bus stations The impact of new stations that were more conveniently located and better connected to other bus and rail services are modelled through improved access times.

Integration of bus and rail services

If there was rationalisation of long distance bus and rail services, the model can show the benefits to the rail network, savings in operating costs, and benefits to passengers (if any).

A4. Air Transport


The model will also show the impact on competing rail, car passenger and buses passengers.

Changes in Fares Are modelled directly through changes to the fare rates by mode of travel

Integration of internal air and rail services

If there was rationalisation of internal air and rail services, the model can show the benefits to the rail network, savings in operating costs, and benefits to passengers (if any).

B. Freight Transport

The physical improvement of existing roads, and the construction of new roads.

The model will also show the impact on competing rail, and waterways transport

Changes in Rates, including infrastructure charges on CFR

Modelled by adjusting the haulage rates

Road User Charges for HGV Included as toll s for use of selected sections of road. Restrictions on HGV movements, e.g. at weekends, or weight limits

Incorporated by banning sections of road for use by HGV’s in the highway network description

Constanta Port Development plans and projections for future throughput will be included in the forecasting model parameters.

Improvements to the River Danube and Channels

Improvement of the navigable channel on the Danube to a consistent depth all the year round will enable more efficient operations of tugs and barges, and lengthy without diversions. The impact of



improvements on rail and road freight transport is reflected in the model.

Modernisation of Danube ports

Provided these interventions result in a quantifiable increase in level of service for transport of goods. Replacement of life expired equipment which is replacement is a commercial decision by Port operators

Introduction of Logistics Centres The model can assist in identifying the optimal locations for such facilities.

C. Intermodal Transport

C.1 Freight Intermodal Transport

New or improved intermodal terminals, including logistics centres (if rail connected)

Modelled by adding new nodes into the rail network and linkages to road and water networks. Transit times for container traffic are set at much lower values than other points in the network as are loading/unloading times and wait times for onward transhipment of goods.

New container services by rail Modelled by extending network and facilities that are able to handle containers.

C.2 Passenger Intermodal Transport

New or improved rail stations

The impact of new stations that were more conveniently located and better connected to other bus and rail services are modelled through improved access times. Also includes element of enhanced passenger perception of facilities translated into monetary value.

New or improved bus stations

The impact of new stations that were more conveniently located and better connected to other bus and rail services are modelled through improved access times. Also includes element of enhanced passenger perception of facilities translated into monetary value.

Integration of bus and rail services

Leads to reduction in interchange times and distances as services are either co-located or the timetable are integrated.

Integration of airports with Metro/Rail and road transport facilities

Leads to reduction in interchange times and distances as services are either co-located or the timetable are integrated

Overview: Reference Case (2020)


4.1 Projects

As part of the work to prepare for the development of the Master Plan and of the strategy, the transport model has been used to analyse future transport conditions, alongside identifying committed projects. This will create a future year base line, referred in the Terms of Reference as the “Reference Scenario”. The existing and future base line will form the starting point for the development of the strategy.

The results of appraising the Reference Case Scenario will be used as a benchmark for assessing alternative development cases, defined as Do-Something Scenarios.

Projects included in the Reference Case are already under construction or part of a firm programme to be constructed and there is a clear commitment on being funded.

Extensive discussions were held with the main project sponsors for identyfing the Master Plan projects to be included in the Reference Case, according to the above definition. The list of these sponsors is shown below.

Table 4.1.Project Sponsors Consulted during the definition of the Reference Scenario

Project Sponsor Description

ANR State Authority in the field of civil navigation concerning the safety of navigation

ARSVOM Technical specialised body the human lifes search and salvage activity at sea and interventions in case of pollution

CFR Călători SA Company that deals with the rail passengers transport on internal and international services

CFR Marfă SA Company that deals with the rail freight transport

Civil Aviation Authority Company that deals with the application and enforcement of the national aviation regulations

CN ACN SA Constanța The Administration of the Danube - Black Sea and Poarta Albă – Midia Năvodari channels and of the ports along the interior channels

CN APDF SA Galați Port Authority within the ports situated on the Danube between Cernavodă and Baziaș, except Ports of Zimnicea and Turnu Măgurele

CN APDM SA Giurgiu Port Authority within the ports situated on the Danube between Sulina and Hârșova, except Port of Sulina

CN APM SA Constanța Port Auhority of the Romanian maritime ports (Constanța, Midia and Mangalia)

CNADNR SA Company within the DPIIS that deals with the administration of national roads and motorway

CNCF CFR SA National Company that manages and maintains the rail infrastructure (public or private)

CNCR RadioNav SA Provides maritime radio communications and technical support activities for ships, in accordance with international regulations and requirements

RA AFDJ Galați The Authority for the Romanian Danube sector and the secondary Danube’s branches

The complete list of reference case projects is shown in Chapter 2.2.

4 Overview: Reference Case (2020)


4.2 Economic, Demographic and Travel Demand Forecasts

Future traffic demand is calculated, from the application of growth factors to the calibrated base year matrices, internally within the National Transport Model in the form of future year demand matrices. Changes in socio-economic variables such as GDP and car ownership, and demographic changes in population are the main drivers of trip growth.

Socio-economic Drivers of Growth

Changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the trip-making population are the primary drivers of changes in travel demand. These include indicators related to the size of the potential trip-making group, for example, changes in the economically-active population dictates the number of commuting trips, and changes in the level of economic activity, given by GDP, impact on the volume of freight tonnage moved. Indicators related to the wealth of the trip makers, such as GDP/head, increase rates of trip making as people have greater disposable income, and higher rates of car ownership.

The model uses a series of economic factors for Romania and other key countries and regions to determine the growth in traffic demand between base and future years. The table below provides a summary of the economic factors used by the model.

Table 4.2. Economic and Demographic Factors Used in NTM Growth Model

Factor / Geography

Romania

(at regional level)9

Other key countries & regions

(at national level)10

GDP growth

GDP by Economic Activity growth

Total Population growth

Economically Active Population growth

Employment growth

Car Ownership growth

The future year values of the factors identified in the table above have been extracted from published sources, with the exception of car ownership, which is derived from changes in GDP through a car ownership model calibrated to fit historic ownership trends in Romania. Further details are provided in Chapter 10 of the Model Development Report.

4.2.1 Relationship between Socio-economic Growth and Trip Making

The primary drivers of trip growth are changes in the socio-economic indicators of the population making the trips. Typically, different socio-economic indicators are the drivers for trips made for different purposes, and in order to accommodate these differences individual parameters vary by trip purpose.

International passenger growth for private and vacation purpose trips (car mode only) are linked to changes in population, car ownership and GDP. Car business purpose trips, and trips of all purposes for


other modes are linked to population and GDP. It should be noted that there are only relatively small numbers of international commuting trips.

Domestic passenger trip growth is created by deriving future year trip production and attraction totals to which demand matrices are factored. Future year trips totals are given by:

Production trip end totals

PFi = PBi * a * (mo(cars) b) * (mo(pop)c) * (mo(gdp)d) * (mo(apop)e) * (mo(job)f)

Attraction trip end totals

AFj = ABj * g * (mo(cars)h) * (mo(pop)i) * (mo(gdp)j) * (mo(apop)k) * (mo(job)l)

Where:

PBi = base year total production person trips by purpose

ABj = base year total attraction person trips by purpose

a, b, c, d, e, f,g,h,i,j,k,l and beta are model parameters (will be different by purpose)

mo(gdp) = growth in GDP at trip origin

mo(cars) = growth in car ownership at trip origin

mo(pop) = growth in total population at trip origin

mo(apop) = growth in economically active population at trip origin

mo(job) = growth in employment at trip origin

Future freight trip production trip ends and attraction trip ends are created from base trip end totals and are based on GDP growth by commodity. Future Constanta port production and attractions by commodity are calculated from relationships linking historic port throughput with historic GDP growth.

4.2.2 Data Sources and Derivation of Forecasting Parameters

The NTM forecast uses GDP, GDP by Economic Activity, Total Population, Economically Active Population and Employment. In order to derive changes in these parameters, historic data were utilised, together with forecasts from Romanian organisations such as INS and CNP and external sources, including:

EC – European Economic Forecast (Autumn 2012): GDP and employment forecasts by country GDP up to 2014

EC – Eurostat (continuous): Projection of member states national population at 5-year intervals from 2010 to 2060

IMF – World Economic Outlook (Oct 2012): GDP and population forecasts by country for 2013 and 2017

IMF – Country Report Romania (Oct 2012): GDP and population forecasts up to 2017

CNP – Projection of Macroeconomic Indicators (Feb 2013): Medium-term forecast (2013 – 2016) for a range of socio-economic factors (GDP, GDP per capita, average employed population, unemployment levels, number of employees, average net monthly earnings) at a national and regional level.

EIU – Country Forecast Romania (Jun 2012): Long-term outlook for labour force, GDP and sectoral trends up until 2030.

EIU – Country Forecast Romania (Feb 2013): Updated data summary and medium-term forecast (up to 2017) for growth in GDP, employment and sectoral trends


United Nations, Population Division – World Urbanization Prospects (2012): Population estimates for non-EU and non-European countries up to 2050.

GDP Forecasts

A number of GDP forecasts are available for Romania (Table 4.3). The country suffered in the economic crisis of 2008-09, having to accept a combined International Monetary Fund, EU and World Bank bailout leading its economy from a positive economic growth of 7.4% in 2008 to a 6.6% contraction in 2009. Although the economy has returned to economic growth in 2011, forecasted growth in 2012 is less than 1%.

Forecasts for 2013 onwards by the IMF, EC, EIU and CNP predict significant growth levels, fuelled by accelerated demand in the large domestic market and the ease of access to neighbouring EU countries. IMF and EC forecasts are more optimistic expecting growth in 2013 to exceed the 2% threshold, while the EIU predict that the Romanian economy will return to strong economic growth as of 2014, citing considerable scope for catch-up as the main reason.

Table 4.3. Real GDP growth forecasts, National Level, 2008-2030

Source 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2020

2021-2030

EC

-6.6% -1.6% 2.5% 0.8% 2.2% 2.7%

IMF

2.5% 0.9% 2.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%

EIU 7.4% -6.6% -1.7% 2.5% 0.2% 1.0% 3.8% 4.3% 4.2% 4.4% 2.7% 3.5%

CNP

-6.6% -1.1% 2.2% 0.2% 1.6% 2.2% 2.8% 3.0%

Source: as indicated in the table

Up to 2016 the National GDP forecast has been taken from the CNP short-term forecast (Spring 2013), after this the forecast has been taken from EIU long-term forecasts.

Regional GDP Forecast

The regional GDP forecast used real GDP per capita by region as forecast by CNP for years up to 2016. Using historic INS population data up to 2010 and EIU population projection data after 2010, GDP by region was estimated between 2008 and 2016.

Summation of the GDP across all regions yields the national GDP estimate. Subsequently, annual average regional GDP growth rates for each region between 2012 and 2016 were calculated and expressed as a function of the annual average national GDP growth.

Finally, the National GDP growth forecast provides a control for the regional GDP growth forecasts. This approach replicates CNP regional GDP forecasts up to 2016, whilst providing a consistent basis for defining longer term regional growth forecasts beyond 2016 from the EIU national GDP forecast.

Other Countries and Regions

IMF medium term (2010 to 2017) GDP growth forecasts provide an estimate of average annual GDP growth rate for each country, which was applied to the years 2018 to 2030.

Growth in GDP by Sector


The EIU provides medium-term (2013-2017) forecasts for GDP origin by sector at the national level. Table 4.4 shows the initial data rebased to add up to 100%. They suggest an annual contraction of the agriculture sector of 2.1%, a growth in the industrial sector by 0.8% annual and a slight decline in services (0.13% per year). Note that these changes are on top of real growth in total GDP.

Table 4.4. GDP origins (%share), National Level, 2013-2017

Sector NUTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Agriculture RO0 12.82% 12.82% 12.62% 12.93% 12.34%

Industry RO0 38.36% 39.53% 40.02% 40.35% 40.65%

Services RO0 48.83% 47.65% 47.36% 46.72% 47.01%

All Sectors RO0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: EIU, rebased

EIU medium-term forecasts formed the basis of the analysis. Forecasts beyond 2017 take the average annual growth for each sector between 2013 and 2017. Forecasts (Table *.*) indicate a gradual growth of the industrial sector, possibly because of manufacturers in Western Europe shifting non-core activities to lower-cost countries such as Romania.

Table 4.5. GDP origins, National Level, 2010-2017

Sector NUTS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Agriculture RO0 11.91% 12.93% 11.00% 9.84% 8.79%

Industry RO0 36.62% 40.35% 41.82% 43.43% 45.01%

Services RO0 51.47% 46.72% 47.18% 46.73% 46.20%

All Sectors RO0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: EIU and AECOM analysis


4.2.3 Population Forecasts

The base population forecasts took EIU estimates. The EIU forecasts a 0.3% annual reduction in population from 2012 to 2030, split into 0.2% per annum in the first half of the period (until 2020) and 0.4% per annum in the second (after 2020). Eurostat and EIU suggest a similar pattern for change in future population in Romania, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Source: as indicated by colour coding

Figure 4.1. Population Projection, National Level, 2011-2030 (2011=100)

Population growth forecasts for each zone flow from the county level forecasts by comparing the growth in population in each zone and the growth in population at a county level between 2002 and 2011. The availability of census data, collected in these years, allowed detailed population within each zone to be determined, and therefore an accurate calculation of relative regional growth rates within each county to be determined. The relative differences in population growth within zones in each county remain constant into the future.

The results from the 2011 census showed a lower population in 2011 than expected from the INS population estimates. We have therefore taken 2011 census populations and applied our growth estimates to produce estimates of absolute future year population. The table below shows forecast population size in future years.


Table 4.6. Population Projection, Romania (National Level), (2011-2030)

Year Total Population

2011 19,043,767

2015 18,891,873

2020 18,703,709

2025 18,332,615

2030 17,968,884

Source: INS and AECOM

Note: Values pivoted from 2011 census population

We are aware that since the population forecasts were made, the INS has revised its estimate of population 2011. However, the model forecasts rely on growth rates rather than absolute change in population, so the forecasts are not invalidated by the re-basing of 2011 population.

4.2.4 Other Countries and Regions

For other EU countries, the EUROSTAT population projections up to 2060 were used. For non-EU countries, the population projection estimates produced by the UN Population Division up to 2050were used.

4.2.5 Active / Working-age Population Forecasts

The EIU forecasts a 0.3% decrease per annum in working-age population in the years 2012-2020 and a 0.5% decrease from 2021 to 2030.

The NTM forecast of active population uses EIU national working-age population growth forecasts. No regional data on working-age population growth were available. Therefore, the forecasting approach was based on total population growth data, assuming that regional differences in total population are indicative of regional differences in working-age population, scaling them to meet EIU national working-age population growth forecasts.

Table 4.7. Working-age population growth forecasts (scenario analysis), National Level, 2010-2030

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Central 100.00 98.49 97.02 94.62 92.28

Source: EIU

4.2.6 Employment Growth Forecasts

Both EIU and CNP have produced forecasts of employment (% change from previous year), shown in Table . An initial comparison between the two forecasts implies that EIU perceives the labour market to be more rigid, while CNP more flexible and responsive to economic climate (Table 4.9).


Table 4.8. Employment (% change from previous year), National Level, 2008-2017

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Employment

(% change)

0.6% -2.9% -1% 2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Employment

(% change)

1.6% -3.4% -3.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.6%

Source: as indicated by colour coding (EIU, CNP)

Source: as indicated in figure

Figure 4.2. Employment and GDP growth forecasts comparison, National Level, 2012-2017

Regional Data

The EIU forecasts were used as the basis for the employment change, leading to the following estimates:

Table 4.9. Employment growth forecasts (scenario analysis), National Level, 2010-2030

Scenario NUTS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Central RO0 100.00 103.23 103.95 104.65 105.35

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Employment (% change): EIU Employment (% change): CNP GDP: AECOM


4.2.7 Growth in Traffic at Constanta Port

Analysis of traffic through Constanta port, over the period 1993 to 2007 (avoiding the exceptional changes which took place between 2008 and 2011), suggested that the throughput corresponded well with the maritime part of the INS dataset. The analysis found that throughput was strongly correlated with Romanian GDP.

Table 4.10 shows the projected growth rates in volumes handled by Constanta port by commodity type.

Table 4.10. Growth rates in volumes handled, Constanta Port

Commodity Type Growth Rate

Agricultural Products as GDP

Crude Oil & Petroleum Products -3.4% annually

Manufactured Goods as GDP

Metal Products, Ores, Metal Waste as GDP

Solid Mineral Fuel as GDP

Other Goods as GDP

4.2.8 Passenger and Freight Demands, 2020 Reference Case

Table 4.12 shows the changes in passenger demands by trip purpose between 2011 and 2020 arising from the application of the forecasting model using the forecasting parameters described in the preceding section.

Table 4.11 Passenger Demands: 2011-2020

Trip Purpose 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Business 359,318 443,573 23.4%

Commuting 974,850 976,906 0.2%

Personal 1,683,076 2,001,929 18.9%

Vacation 276,436 341,235 23.4%

Totals 3,293,680 3,763,644 14.3%

Note: Trips per day.

The total increase in daily passenger trips is projected to be 14.3% by 2020 in the reference case. Business travel is forecast to increase by 23.4% which is similar to the projected level of GDP growth


over the period. Commuting travel will, however, exhibit minimal growth over the period due to the projected reduction in population and a relatively low level of increase in employment.

Personal and vacation travel will both increase at greater rates than commuting trips, as these are driven by a combination of increasing car ownership, and increased disposable incomes that will lead to more discretionary travel. Therefore, despite the projected fall in the population the level of personal travel will undergo significant increases.

Table 4.12 shows the forecast changes in freight demand by commodity between 2011 and 2020. This shows an overall increase in freight tonnage of 32% to 2020. There are different growth rates by commodity, which reflects the difference in primary drivers of demand. For example, commodity types that are heavily linked to internal population changes and the size of the consumer market, such as foodstuffs and agricultural products, have a lower growth rate than those which are linked more closely to GDP and international trade in the future.

Table 4.12 Freight Demands by Commodity: 2011-2020

Commodity 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Agricultural Products 49,889 57,057 14.4%

Foodstuffs 67,224 75,789 12.7%

Solid Mineral Fuels 91,989 129,981 41.3%

Crude Oil 5,564 7,087 27.4%

Ores, Metal Waste 41,122 49,683 20.8%

Metal Products 44,019 61,440 39.6%

Building Minerals & Materials 222,197 307,709 38.5%

Fertilisers 28,140 31,479 11.9%

Chemicals 35,964 51,202 42.4%

Machinery & Heavy Manufacturing 34,111 48,836 43.2%

Petroleum Products 32,535 44,318 36.2%

Mail & Parcels 3,099 3,806 22.8%

Manufactured Goods 98,151 139,228 41.9%

Domestic & Industrial Waste 6,850 9,770 42.6%

Forestry Products 39,027 43,266 10.9%

Livestock 20,225 22,133 9.4%

Totals 820,105 1,082,786 32.0%

Source: National Traffic Model Note: Tonnes per day.


4.3 Modal Analysis

4.3.1 Passenger Travel

Table 4.13 shows the changes in passengers mode of travel between 2011 and the 2020 Reference Case, taken from a preliniary forecast of the National transport Model. There are two important factors that need to be considered with regard to changes in mode demand to 2020. These are the impact of increasing levels of car ownership and the assumptions with regard to investment in the respective modal networks.

In the situation where population levels are forecasted to decline the effect of car ownership increases on the levels of public transort usage can be very marked in terms of total trips. As car ownership rises, the proportion of the population that is in the public transport ‘captive’ market declines. This change in the ‘captive’ market changes the dynamics of the public transport sector, with an ever increasing need to compete strongly in the car available market in order to first maintain, and then increase rail patronage in particular. To attract people away from car to rail, as more people acquire cars, means that rail has to offer better journey times than the car and improved levels of service at all points in the rail journey from access to stations, to station facilities, the travel time by rail and the quality of the rolling stock.

The 2020 Reference Case has a number of committed highway schemes included in it but relatively little investment in rail in comparison. This, and the car ownership changes, has an effect on the way in which the changes in the table should be interpreted. The 16.4% reduction in rail trips is mainly driven by the transfer of a substantial proportion of travellers from having no car available to having a car available which then opens up their travel alternatives. There is also a secondary effect in that the highway network is improved for some important movements and this makes car, and bus travel, more attractive and hence contributes further to the decline in rail use.

Bus trips increase by 9.9% and is driven by increased incomes leading to a greater propensity for more personal and vacation travel as people gradually have more disposable income available for discretionary travel. In parrallel the bus travel times for inter-urban travel in the corridors where road improvements take place are improved and hence the bus offer remains competitive.

Car trips increase by 17.2% as more people own cars, the highway network is improved, and there is transfer away from the rail network in areas where further decline in the rail system exists.

Table 4.13 Passenger Trips by Mode of Travel: 2011-2020

Mode of Travel 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Car 2,510,925 2,942,639 17.2%

Bus 590,436 648,973 9.9%

Rail 163,037 136,237 -16.4%

Air 29,282 35,794 22.2%

Totals 3,293,680 3,763,644 14.3%

Source: National Transport Model, Preliminary Forecast.


Table 4.14 shows the changes in total passenger kms that are projected to take place between 2011 and 2020. The most striking thing to note is that there is forecasted to be a much greater increase in car and bus passenger kms than there is in trips with increasing average trip lengths in 2020. The increase in trip lengths is due to a number of factors of which the most important are:

Significantly increased highway speeds on a number of major corridors due to the almost doubling of the motorway network by 2020 (from 550 kms to 993kms) which encourages greater interaction between the major cities and leads to increased long distance trips;

Increasing levels of income and reductions in car operating costs in real terms which also leads to increasing travel distances;

Greater economic development in the various regions which leads to increased longer distance business activities; and

That due to the reduction in population by 2020 the majority of the growth in car trips is for business, personal and vacation purposes which all have longer average journey lengths compared to the commuting market.

Rail and air passenger kms are more closely aligned to the change in actual trips made which reflects the fact that in the Reference Case there are relatively few changes in the rail and air infrastructure. The rail passenger kms reduces at a greater rate than the number of rail trips as there is a direct effect on longer distance trips with car becoming more competitive due to the expansion of the motorway network. The re were no changes made to air services in the Reference Case since we are not aware of any committed change in air services by the airlines. Thus, the forecast for air passengers reflects the existing service patterns.

Table 4.14 Passenger kms by Mode of Travel: 2011-2020

Mode of Travel 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Car 121,287,496 185,247,647 52.7%

Bus 42,333,910 55,057,918 30.1%

Rail 24,487,776 18,876,703 -22.9%

Air 40,327,903 48,579,415 20.5%

Totals 228,437,085 307,761,683 34.7%




4.3.2 Freight Transport

Table 4.15 shows that overall freight tonnes lifted increases by 32% by 2020 but with differential rates by mode. The primary driver for freight tonnage is changes in the economy in terms of the total GDP growth and the changes in proportion of that by commodity. In terms of how each mode performs in 2020 the critical factors are:

What is the growth in the individual commodities that are the dominant element of demand for travel by the different modes. For example, a large proportion of the total rail tonnage is transfer of fossil fuels to power stations and this is a market that is essentially captive to rail and grows in line with GDP activity; and

How each mode changes in the period in terms of its competitiveness. In this respect in the Reference Case there are minor changes to rail and water freight facilities but an increase in motorway network.

The impact of the improvements to the motorway network on freight moved by mode is far less marked than for passenger traffic due to the legislation that regulates maximum speeds for HGV. The speed restriction for HGV means that the time and cost saving for road freight is significantly lower than for cars and as such the competitiveness of road freight compared to the rail and water offer does not change to the same extent.

The lower growth in water-borne freight is because some of the major commodities carried by water at the present time are forecasted to grow at lower rates than freight overall, and hence there is not as great an underlying growth in demand for water-borne freight.

Table 4.15 Freight Tonnes by Mode: 2011-2020

Passengers Passenger kms

Car 17.2% 52.7%

Bus 9.9% 30.1%

Rail ‐16.4% ‐22.9%

Air 22.2% 20.5%

Total 14.3% 34.7%

Change in Passenger Demand 2011 ‐ 2020


Mode 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Road 606,165 803,905 32.6%

Rail 142,136 198,287 39.5%

Water 71,728 80,517 12.3%

Air 76 77 1.3%

Totals 820,105 1,082,786 32.0%


Table 4.16 shows that the increase in freight tonne kms is more closely aligned with the change in tonnes carried than was observed for passenger growth. This is due to the fact that simply reducing the time and cost of freight transport will not lead to decisions to travel further to undertake ones activity, as is the case for personal and vacation travel in the passenger market. The average distance that freight is moved is dictated by changes in the distribution of economic growth by region, which in itself can generate the need for longer distance freight haulage, and a smaller element of improved travel opening up markets that are further away and making them more attractive to target as haulage costs decrease.

Table 4.16 Freight Tonne Kms by Mode: 2011-2020

Mode 2011 Base 2020 Reference % change

Road 105,527,192 157,580,244 49.3%

Rail 39,928,298 60,533,381 51.6%

Water 34,867,528 40,189,273 15.3%

Air 3,312 3,374 1.9%

Totals 180,326,330 258,306,273 43.2%




Table 4.17 shows that there are minor changes in mode share of freight to 2020. Water freight declines from a 19.3% share to a 15.6% share and road and rail increase. As previously discussed these are driven by changes in the growth of the main commodity markets that dominate demand for water and rail freight. A more detailed analysis the model issues is presented in the follwoing sections.

Table 4.17 Freight Tonne Kms Market Shares: 2011-2020

Mode 2011 Base Shares 2020 Reference

Shares

Road 58.5% 61.0%

Rail 22.1% 23.4%

Water 19.3% 15.6%

Air * *


Note: *Air is less than 0.1% of total freight tonnes moved

Tonnes Tonne Kms

Road 32.6% 49.3%

Rail 39.5% 51.6%

Water 12.3% 15.3%

Air 1.3% 1.9%

Totals 32.0% 43.2%

Change in Freight Demand 2011 ‐ 2020


4.3.3 Passenger and Freight Demands 2020 Strategy Case

The passenger and freight demands are forecasted to remain relatively stable in terms of number of trips and tonnes lifted between the 2020 Strategy and the 2020 reference case. There are forecasted changes in the passenger and freight kms and these are described in the following section that discusses modal changes resulting from the tested 2020 strategy.

Modal Analysis: Rail Passenger


5.1 Existing Situation

5.1.1 Overview

Romania’s public railway infrastructure covers a network totalling 10,818 routes kms, is state-owned and managed by the national railway infrastructure manager CFR SA. Just under 40% of the network is electrified and just over 70% of the network is single track. Passenger rail services are operated by the state-owned CFR Călători, but there is an increasing use of private sector passenger rail operators, particularly on those lines now designated as ‘non-interoperable’. These lines (which today constitute approximately 25% of the network routes km) are low traffic volume lines, dedicated to local traffic and where the intention is to lease their operation to the private sector operators who then enjoy exclusive rights to operate on that line, with responsibility for maintenance.

The Existing Conditions Report (ECR) produced by AECOM in April 2013 offers a comprehensive description of the existing rail operations and demand across Romania in 2011. This remains the first point of reference for detailed information regarding the existing situation.

5.1.2 Rail Passenger Service Provision

Within Romania, there is an extensive network of passenger services which are operated by both state owned railway operator (CFR Călători) and a series of private operators. CFR Calatori operates the majority of these services within Romania (around 85% of passenger train km), with private operators mainly operating on branch lines with a few exceptions.

All services are divided into three categories depending on type of service. These are Intercity, InterRegio and Regio. This categorisation of service is based on the length and stopping pattern of the service and will be operated by different rolling stock. The railway timetable is largely a series of individual trains that cross the country and whilst efforts have been made to introduce regular interval timetables on certain corridors, this has not proved easy to implement due to the continuing worsening of the infrastructure coupled with the high proportion of single track operation.

Figures 5.1 to 5.4 provide an overview showing the distribution of rail services operating on a typical weekday in October, including all services by each passenger operator, including direct international services to and from Romania. Figure 5.1 is the total number of services, whilst Figure 5.2 is for Intercity services (including all international services), Figure 5.3 for InterRegio services and Figure 5.4 for Regio services. Note that the number of services in all these figures is the number of services by direction.

5 Modal Analysis: Rail Passenger


Figure 5.1 Total Services on an Average October Weekday (All Operators)

Source: CFR SA Working Timetables

Figure 5.2 Total Intercity & International Services on an Average October Weekday (All Operators)



Figure 5.3 Total InterRegio Services on an Average October Weekday (All Operators)


Figure 5.4 Total Regio Services on an Average October Weekday (All Operators)



Table 5.1 summarises the split in train services, train kilometres by train type and also presents the average distances travelled by each of the three train types. In total there are approximately 2,000 trains a day being operated, the vast majority being Regio services (over 85%). However, Regio services make up less than 60% of the overall train km, reflecting their shorter average distances covered.

Table 5.1 Summary of Train km

Base Scenario

2011 Average Weekday

Number of Trains

Train km Average Train Distance km

Regio 1,751 132,387 76

InterRegio 201 71,943 358

InterCity/ International

81 35,003 432

All Services 2,033 239,333 118


5.1.3 Passenger Service Operations

Over recent years the journey times experienced by rail passengers have increased considerably, due mainly to continued underinvestment in ongoing maintenance and renewal of life expired infrastructure. This in turn has lead to the appearance of numerous speed restrictions across the network. The delays associated with these impacts are often a few minutes over short sections, however for long distance cross country services, this can sum up to significant additional journey time making up a significant proportion of the overall journey time (up to 20%). The ECR presents a more detailed analysis of speeds and journey times and impacts on train reliability. The position in 2011 is summarised below.

Average Train Speeds

The average speeds determined from the Working Timetables supplied by CFR Calatori are:

InterCity and International services: 54 kmh (separate analysis in the ECR indicates that for purely InterCity designated services the average train speed is 67 kmh);

InterRegio services: 55 kmh;

Regio services: 39 kmh;

All services: 45 kmh.

Analysis has been undertaken comparing the 2001 timetable against the 2011 timetable and, on average, journey times have increased by 0.44% per annum. This means that over the last 10 years journey times have, on average, increased by 4.5%. Clearly there is a lot of variation around these figures, for example the analysis shows that journey times between Arad and Brasov have increased by over 17% in the same time period. Equally, journey times between Bucharest and Brasov have decreased by circa 10% over the same time period. The latter reflects the infrastructure rehabilitation that has occurred between Bucharest and Predeal.


Reliability

The amount of time that trains are delayed has been steadily increasing over recent years as illustrated in Figure 5.5. CFR Călători provided disaggregate performance data for 2005 to 2010 from the FOCUS model. This records the accumulated minutes delay associated with each service (as recorded by CFR staff at stations), with apportionment to the cause of that delay. Figure 4.5 provides a summary of the total delay minutes between 2005 and 2010. In 2010 there was nearly 3 million minutes of delay to passenger services operating on the network. Total minutes delay has been sitting around 2 million (2005 to 2008), but has increased to nearer 3million in 2009/2010.

Figure 5.5 Total Annual Delay to Passenger Services

Source: CFR Călători

This translates into an average minutes delay per train and Table 5.2 shows that the average delay per train in 2011 was just under 4 minutes. Whilst over the longer term that is a worsening trend of over +2% per annum, there has actually been an improvement in reliability between 2010 and 2011. CFR Calatori advised that to a large extent this was due to a significant increase in the proportion of train km running on rehabilitated infrastructure, coupled with additional time built into the timetable to allow for rehabilitation works and speed restrictions.

Table 5.2 Average Delay per Train (minutes)

Total Infrastructure Related

Non Infrastructure Related

2005 3.3 1.4 1.9

2010 6.3 3.6 2.7

2011 3.8 2.1 1.8

% trend 2005 to 2010 per annum +13.4% +20.7% +6.7%

% trend 2005 to 2011 per annum +2.4% +6.9% -1.7%

Source: CFR Călători


5.1.4 Rail Passenger Demand

The base 2011 rail demand input to the Masterplan model has been developed from data supplied by CFR Calatori. There is no national ticket sales database covering all rail demand/services across Romania. However, CFR Călători maintains an electronic ticket sales system (XSELL), which covers the majority of their ticket sales, but manual ticket sales at some smaller stations still occur. Private operators maintain their own ticket systems. We have therefore had to construct a base rail demand based on the core CFR Calatori data, enhanced by a number of uplift factors to represent further elements of rail travel such as staff travel and journeys made on services operated by private operators. To this end, use has been made of the findings from market research conducted during 2012.

The ECR set out the headline rail demand figures for 2011, including a more detailed breakdown of the component elements of demand.

At the aggregate level there were 64m journeys made by rail in 2010, where 90% were made on CFR Călători services (58m journeys) and 10% on private operator services (7m journeys). The total numbers for 2011 are 61m journeys – down 5.1% on 2010. Figure 4.6 summarises the overall picture of steady decline in the number of rail journeys being made in Romania - equating to an average 6.7% decline in journeys per annum between 2004 and 2011.

Figure 5.6 Rail Passenger Journeys Per Annum

Source: Eurostats

Rail’s modal share has also declined over the same period. According to Eurostat, in 2004, rail had 11.4% of all passenger kilometres within Romania, but this had declined to just 5.9% by 2010.

Table 5.3 summarises the model outputs for the Base Year (average day). The number of passenger journeys equates to circa 60m journeys once annualised. The number of passenger km equates to between 8,000m and 9,000m once annualised. This is higher than the amount of passenger km reported in the ECR and officially by the National Statistics for Romania (4,406m passenger km, not including staff travel or travel on private operators). The modelled data has been built up from station-to-station data supplied by CFR Calatori and therefore represents distances as represented in the model. Following


checks of the network we are confident that the passenger km figures produced by the model represent the distances being travelled by rail passengers.

Table 5.3 Rail Passenger Demand (Average Day 2011)

Base Scenario

2011

Passenger Journeys

Regio 117,957 75%


InterCity 3,397 2%



Regio 13,788,910 56%

InterRegio 9,287,431 38%

InterCity 1,411,435 6%

All Services 24,487,776

Passenger Hours

Regio 302,074 63%


InterCity 23,232 5%



Three in four rail passenger journeys are being made on Regio services, but these are only representing just over 50% of the passenger km, thus reflecting the shorter distance nature of the journeys made on Regio services (average journey distance is 54km11). InterRegio passenger km makes up nearly 40% of all passenger km, but only 20% of passenger journeys, reflecting the role that InterRegio services play in the longer distance market (average journey distance is 136 km). Overall average journey length is 75km.

An analysis of average passenger journey speeds in relation to average train speeds (Table 5.4) shows that passenger speeds are greater than train speeds. This seems sensible as it reflects a greater concentration of passenger use on those services that are offering quicker journey times.

11 It should be noted that average journey distance by train type can not be determined directly from the data presented in Table 4.3. These are average journey distances made on that particular train type, where journeys could use more than one train type.


Table 5.4 Average Passenger and Train Speeds

kmh Average Passenger Speeds Average Train Speeds

Regio 45.6 38.9

InterRegio 58.8 55.1

InterCity 60.8 54.2

All Services 50.7 44.7


Figure 5.7 presents the distribution of demand across all rail services, whilst Figures 5.8 to 5.10 illustrate the distribution of demand by the three train types. They show that rail demand is concentrated on the main corridors across the Country, with some secondary corridors also experiencing reasonable levels of demand such as to Sibiu, Galati, Baia Mare, Pitesti and through Targu Jiu.

Figure 5.7 Total Rail Demand on an Average October Weekday in 2011 (All Operators)



Figure 5.8 Total Intercity & International Rail Demand on an Average October Weekday in 2011 (All Operators)


Figure 5.9 Total InterRegio Rail Demand on an Average October Weekday in 2011 (All Operators)



Figure 5.10 Total Regio Rail Demand on an Average October Weekday in 2011 (All Operators)


The evidence above, supported by direct dialogue with key rail industry stakeholders such as the MTI Rail Directorate, CFR SA, CFR Călători, AFER and private rail operators and organisations, suggests that the single largest issue with regard to rail passenger operation in Romania in 2011 relates to lengthening journey times and worsening reliability. There are two main causes of this; continued lack of investment in routine maintenance and planned renewals across the network and the presence of the infrastructure rehabilitation programme, which imposes short term detrimental impacts on the operation of rail services whilst the work takes place. These impacts are some of the major reasons why passenger numbers continue to fall.

In addition there are issues relating to the quality of the rolling stock (reflecting the continuing increase in the average age) and the quality of the stations – particularly in terms of passenger accessibility.


5.2 Do-Nothing & Reference Case (2020)

5.2.1 Definition of Do-Nothing 2020

The following has been assumed going forward from 2011 to 2020:

In the absence of any increases in maintenance and renewals spend, the assumption is that journey times continue to worsen. Analysis has indicated that journey times are slowing by 0.44% per annum on average and this has been applied to all services. This results in a 4% increase in journey times by 2020;

Again, in the absence of any increases in maintenance and renewals spend, the assumption is that the average minutes delay per train continues to worsen based on the trend implied between 2005 and 2011. Analysis indicates therefore that the average delay per train would increase from 3.8 minutes in 2011 to 8.3 minutes by 2020;

That rail fares continue to rise in real terms based on the observed trend since 2001. On average rail fares have increased in real terms by 1.9% per annum since 2001.

5.2.2 Definition of Reference Case 2020

The Reference Case in 2020 includes certain schemes that have been identified as committed and funded. These were identified based on information supplied by CFR SA and CFR Calatori. The Reference Case builds on the Do-Nothing assumptions above as follows:

Rehabilitation of TEN-T Corridor IV North between Sighisoara and Simeria and between km614 and the Hungarian Border. CFR SA supplied specific journey time savings to be applied on these sections as follows:

o all links between Hungarian Border and km614 = 48% reduction in journey times

o all links between Simeria and Coslariu = 29% reduction in journey times

o all links between Coslariu and Sighisoara = 31% reduction in journey times

These reductions are applied to InterCity and InterRegio services. Regio services are assumed to have a reduced benefit due to the fact that they stop more often at all stations. It is also assumed that these sections, once rehabilitated, would be maintained at the steady state level and therefore would not suffer from increases in journey time thereafter12. Reliability would also be improved for train services using these sections and this has been reflected in the calculation of average minutes delay per train13. Also note that Simeria - Coslariu rehabilitation will add 1.2km to the route and Coslariu - Sighisoara will reduce by 7.4km;

Rehabilitation of railway infrastructure - bridges/tunnels/culverts. We have received data (project fiches) from CFR SA regarding 97 specific schemes. Details on fiches suggest most are repairs to bridges, culverts in terms of addressing corrosion, water-proofing, new decking, etc. Typical lengths of work are less than 0.4km - there are only two schemes over 1km (one of these is the rehabilitation of the Danube bridges between Constanta and Bucharest and the other is located between Adjud and Siculeni). However, no details were received regarding potential impacts to journey times (ie:

12 Note that we are not applying this assumption to the sectin of track between Predeal and Constanta via Bucharest that is already rehabilitated. This is because we are aware that these sections of track are experiencing speed restrictions since rehabilitation. 13 Based on a sliding scale of impacts depending on the proportion that a train travels on rehabilitated track. For example, a train that operates for 23% of its journey on rehabilitated track, then the average minutes delay by 2020 would be 6.3 minutes (as opposed to 8.3 minutes).


removal of speed restrictions) and therefore we have assumed an average 1 minute journey time benefit for each scheme (and 2 minutes for those over 1 km);

Opening of Calafat-Vidin bridge over the Danube into Bulgaria and associated access infrastructure. CFR SA advised that there are currently no plans for new passenger services to use this bridge. It will only be used by freight trains;

o diversion of international trains to/from Bulgaria back to this route (they currently travel via Videle) – with appropriate change to service timings.

o extension of existing Regio services north from Giurgiu to Bucharest over re-opened bridge.

Modernisation of 16 railway stations as illustrated in Figure 5.11 (blue and red labels).

Figure 5.11 Stations to be Modernised

Source: CFR SA

5.2.3 2020 Rail Passenger Demand Headline Results

Table 5.5 sets out the headline results for 2020. By 2020, the number of rail passenger journeys is estimated to be just over 120,000 on an average weekday. This translates into between 40m and 45m journeys per annum by 2020. The Reference Case slightly improves the number of journeys made by rail compared to the Do-Nothing – up by 1%. Passenger km and passenger hours are slightly lower in the Reference Case, reflecting the faster speeds on the rehabilitated track.


Table 5.5 Headline Passenger Demand Figures for 2020

Average Day Do Nothing Scenario Reference Case

2020 2020

Passengers

Regio 88,993 88,793

InterRegio 29,606 29,986

InterCity 2,735 2,771

All Services 121,335 121,551


Regio 10,037,825 9,986,491

InterRegio 7,752,096 7,731,142

InterCity 1,138,070 1,159,070

All Services 18,927,991 18,876,703

Passenger Hours

Regio 224,575 219,082

InterRegio 137,580 132,614

InterCity 19,565 19,284

All Services 381,720 370,980

Passenger Average Speed (kph)

Regio 44.7 45.6

InterRegio 56.3 58.3

InterCity 58.2 60.1

All Services 49.6 50.9


Figure 5.12 presents the overall demand flows across Romania and all operators for the 2020 Reference Case.


Figure 5.12 Total Rail Demand on an Average October Weekday 2020 Reference Case (All Operators)


5.2.4 Comparison of 2020 Reference Case to 2011 Base

Figure 5.13 shows how the number of passenger journeys has reduced from 156,000 to 121,000 by 2020, an overall reduction of 22%. This reflects a number of factors that include the continued erosion of rail’s relative competitive position (times and costs) versus other modes, plus the increases in car ownership levels expected across Romania.

The reduction in demand is felt most on the Regio services (a 25% reduction), whereas the reduction on InterCity and InterRegio is slightly balanced by the rehabilitation that is programmed to occur on TEN-T Corridor IV North. As a result, the proportion of rail journeys made on Regio services drops from 75% to 73%, whilst the proportion on InterRegio services increases to 25%.


Figure 5.13 Change in Passenger Demand 2011 to 2020


Figure 5.14 is a difference plot produced from the Masterplan Model that illustrates where the changes in demand are estimated to occur across the network between 2011 and 2020 (Reference Case) in absolute terms. Clearly those corridors with the higher demand flows will experience the larger reductions in flows in absolute terms, that is those corridors into Bucharest from Ploiesti and Craiova.

Figure 5.15 is the same difference plot but in percentage terms. This indicates that there are certain corridors experiencing significant reductions in demand to 2020. In particular on the main lines it is the Craiova-Bucharest corridor and the Brasov-Baia Mare corridor that stand out as recording reductions in demand of over 30%. The TEN-T Corridor IV North is recording very small reductions in demand as the rehabilitation work is helping to maintain demand levels. TEN-T Corridor IX records reductions in demand in line with the average across the network – circa 20%. There are a considerable number of branch lines that are recording reductions in demand greater than 50%.


Figure 5.14: Differences in Demand Across the Network in Absolute Terms 2011 to 2020


Figure 5.15: Differences in Demand Across the Network in Percentage Terms 2011 to 2020



A comparison of other key model outputs is presented in Table 5.6. Passenger km and passenger hours both reduce in a similar way to demand.

There are only very marginal changes in the passenger speeds between 2011 and 2020. A greater concentration of a smaller number of passengers on the faster parts of the network is probably maintaining these overall average speeds over time.

Table 5.6 Comparison of other Model Outputs 2011 to 2020

Reference Case Base Scenario

% Change 2020 2011

Train Kilometres

Regio 132,103 132,387 -0.2%

InterRegio 71,896 71,943 -0.1%

InterCity 34,858 35,003 -0.4%

All Services 238,857 239,333 -0.2%


Regio 9,986,491 13,788,910 -27.6%

InterRegio 7,731,142 9,287,431 -16.8%

InterCity 1,159,070 1,411,435 -17.9%

All Services 18,876,703 24,487,776 -22.9%

Passenger Hours

Regio 219,082 302,074 -27.5%

InterRegio 132,614 157,862 -16.0%

InterCity 19,284 23,232 -17.0%

All Services 370,980 483,168 -23.2%

Average Passenger Speed (kph)

Regio 45.6 45.6 -0.1%

InterRegio 58.3 58.8 -0.9%

InterCity 60.1 60.8 -1.1%

All Services 50.9 50.7 0.4%


Average journey length increases from 75km to 80km between 2011 and 2020. There might be a number of reasons for this, some specific to rail schemes in the Reference Case (further rehabilitation of TEN-T Corridors are probably more likely to impact proportionally more on longer distance journeys being made by rail), and some reflecting a wider increase in mobility and likelihood to make longer journeys as the wealth of the nation increases.

Therefore, with declining rail passenger demand into the future of over 20% by 2020, it will be the case that trains will be carrying less loads on average. Unless there is a response by CFR Calatori (and the private operators) to reduce the number of trains to match the reduction in demand, then average loads will reduce considerably, as illustrated in Table 5.7. However, further reductions in service frequency themselves will lead to further reductions in demand – a spiral of decline.

Table 5.7 Implied Average Loads per Train 2011 to 2020


Reference Case Base Scenario % Change

2020 2011

Implied Average Load per Train

Regio 76 104 -37.8%

InterRegio 108 129 -20.1%

InterCity 33 40 -21.3%

All Services 79 102 -29.5%


5.3 Key Challenges

5.3.1 Introduction

The Romanian rail network is currently experiencing a ‘spiral of decline’ whereby the lack of investment in ongoing maintenance and renewals is a major factor in making the rail services less competitive in relation to other modes of transport. As a result, demand continues to fall, revenues fall and there is less money to cover costs and therefore more reliance on public subsidy. However a constrained budget means that the increased subsidy cannot be guaranteed and therefore the infrastructure continues to worsen and the service provision/quality continues to worsen.

Therefore some key challenges moving forward relate to how this spiral of decline can be addressed, leading to increasing demand and cost efficiencies.

5.3.2 Maintenance & Renewals

There are various sources that state that rail maintenance has been insufficient to keep the rail network in a satisfactory condition over a number of years. The MTI’s SOPT 2007-2013 (Final Version 2007) stated that “the railway system suffers from a chronic lack of maintenance that has been evidenced for many years...”. Analysis outlined in the previous sections has identified that:

In the absence of any increases in maintenance and renewals spend, the assumption is that journey times continue to worsen. Analysis has indicated that journey times are slowing by 0.44% per annum on average and this has been applied to all services. This results in a 4% increase in journey times by 2020;


Again, in the absence of any increases in maintenance and renewals spend, the assumption is that the average minutes delay per train continues to worsen based on the trend implied between 2005 and 2011. Analysis indicates therefore that the average delay per train would increase from 3.8 minutes in 2011 to 8.3 minutes by 2020.

Ideally maintenance is undertaken to steady state levels and renewals are undertaken when infrastructure becomes life expired. Under these ongoing circumstances then repair costs are removed (as repair costs are required to address where maintenance and/or renewals have not been undertaken to the required levels).

The main reason for the lack of maintenance and renewals has been insufficient funding. Based on CFR SA accounts supplied to AECOM for 2011 total maintenance spend for that year was estimated to be in the region of €135m14, which works out at €9,200 per track km.

AECOM has determined a steady state level of annual maintenance spend for Romania based on the UIC recommended benchmark spend to maintain steady state infrastructure of €37,500 per electrified track km. This has been converted to allow for lower Romanian wages (assume 40% of costs are wages / assume Romania wages circa 20% of average EU wages – agreed with CFR SA) to become €25,500 per electrified track km. We then agreed a number of coefficients with CFR SA to produce an equivalent cost for diesel and single track. The respective values were applied to the proportions of track type across Romania to arrive at a value of €267m per annum for the total Romanian rail network (or €18,200 per electrified track km). This implies that maintenance would need to essentially double to achieve steady state levels (and thus avoid repair costs).

In terms of renewals, CFR SA has supplied information as to the status of their infrastructure as at 1/1/2013. This is summarised in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8 Proportion of Life Expired Infrastructure

Infrastructure Item Unit Total Life Expired Proportion Life Expired

Current and direct lines Km 12,661 8,260 65%

Bridges Number 4,836 3,114 64%

Culverts Number 13,244 9,220 70%

Embankments Metres 12,370,680 7,381,222 60%

Tunnels Number 202 64 32%

14 This figure is a mid-range value based on different sources of information to confirm a precise figure. A translation of the accounts produced a figure of €189m, whilst CFR SA has in other correspondence confirmed a figure of €90m for 2011.


Switches Number 20,887 16,567 79%

Electric overhead contact km 10,286 8,808 86%

Electric substations number 77 47 61%

Source: CFR SA

It is clear that a substantial amount of the rail infrastructure in Romania is passed its designated life expectancy.

Based on UIC benchmarking it is estimated that a sustainable level of renewals spending would be 1.25 times the level of spending on maintenance. This would imply that a sustainable level of spending on renewals would amount to a spend of €334m per annum on renewals, based on the steady-state maintenance figure quoted above.

We have identified likely annual costs required to achieve a scenario whereby infrastructure performs to its designed standard, ensuring that speed restrictions do not start to materialise again and trains can continue to operate at the maximum operating speeds (and thus the requirement for repair costs is largely removed). Clearly in the first instance, due to the current state of the infrastructure, repairs are necessary to address the existing situation and bring the standard up to the necessary levels again.

5.3.3 Network Usage

The Romanian rail network has a total network length of 10,818 km. In terms of the density of the network, Table 5.9 compares Romania to some other European and neighbouring countries.

Table 5.9 Rail Network Density

Romania is above the average in terms of density per population (but not as high as in neighbouring countries), but marginally lower than average in terms of spatial density. This might imply at one level that there is an overprovision of rail infrastructure compared to the population, relative to that which is provided elsewhere in the EU. Clearly it is not as simple as that when other variables are taken into consideration such as population distribution and level of service provided using that infrastructure. However, the rail network in Romania is characterised by a considerable number of rural lines serving sparsely populated areas of the country, served by an infrequent service.

In an environment where there are financial and resource constraints imposed, it may become necessary to contemplate what constitutes the best use of scare resources. It is therefore a valid exercise to attempt to identify how well certain rail corridors are performing relative to others. This can then focus attention on

CountryKm of railway per

1000km2Km of railway per million population

EU27 50.0 430.8UK 65.3 256.2Germany 105.5 460.6Hungary 79.5 738.0Bulgaria 36.9 541.8ROMANIA 45.4 504.1

source: Eurostats


what becomes the best use of resources and where cost savings and efficiencies might be the best practical outcome.

In order to better understand how rail services are performing in terms of carrying passengers across the network, we have undertaken an analysis on the 2020 Reference Case whereby we have plotted implied average load factors per train on each link. Those rail links with the higher passenger usage across all trains operating on that link will record higher values15.

Figure 5.16 presents the analysis. The diagram clearly indicates those corridors where the average load per train is poor. These tend to be the branch lines, but there are certain through routes such as Caracal to Podu Olt (south-east of Sibiu) that are also recording poor loadings per train. More analysis is required of individual lines and their specific circumstances, but there is the potential for rationalisation.

Figure 5.16 Average Loads per Train by Link (2020 Reference Case)


5.4 2020 Rail Projects

5.4.1 Overview of the 2020 Package

Between the reference case and 2020, a number of rail schemes are proposed which have been incorporated within the 2020 package of transport schemes. These have been agreed with CFR SA and CFR Calitori and comprise of the following improvements:

15 It is acknowledged that a well used branch line train, which operates once a day, will generate a high value. The index is intended to identify across the network the level of usage of trains and it is recognised that the level of demand in absolute terms should also be analysed (as we have presented and discussed in the previous section for the 2020 Reference Case).


Rehabilitation of remaining sections of TEN-T4 North;

Rehabilitation of TENT-T4 South (Arad – Calafat);

Rail Station Modernisation (Stage 5);

New Rail Link between Valcele to Ramnicu Valcea

Arges River Bridge to be re-instated

A diagram showing the locations of these schemes is shown in Figure 5.17 below, with a more detailed description of each scheme within the section below

Figure 5.17 2020 Do-Something Package Rail Schemes

Source: AECOM

5.4.2 Rehabilitation of remaining sections of TEN-T4 Corridor North

Current rehabilitation to date has concentrated on the section of line between Contstanta and Predeal (via Bucharest) which are included within the base model. Also for the Reference Case additional sections of TEN-T4 North corridor are shortly to also be rehabilitated (see section above). Within the 2020 package are the remaining sections of rehabilitation on this corridor and will result in the full route rehabilitation between the Hungarian Border and Constanta (via Brasov & Bucuresti). These include the following sections of route which will be designed to accommodate 160kph passenger trains:

Fiche 147: Predeal-Brasov line = 24% reduction in journey times

Fiche 148: Brasov-Simeria line = 45% reduction in journey times


Fiche 151: 614-Gurasada and Gurasada-Simeria line = 52% reduction in journey times

As with reference case schemes, the full journey time saving is applied to Intercity and InterRegio services, with Regio services receiving a reduced benefit due to additional stopping patterns.

5.4.3 Rehabilitation of TEN-T IV Corridor South

The rehabilitation of Corridor TEN-TIV south, includes the line connecting Arad – Timisoara – Craioava – Calafat and will be designed to accommodate trains of up to 160kph. The journey time savings for these sections of route are applied in the same way as Corridor TEN-T4 North with the following journey time savings, and Regio services receiving a reduced level of journey time saving:

Fiche 153: Caransebes-Timisoara-Arad line = 38% reduction in journey times

Fiche 154: Caransebes-Drobeta Turnu Severin-Craiova line = 38% reduction in journey times

Fiche 155: Craiova-Calafat line= 73% reduction in journey times

5.4.4 Station Modernisation Stage 5 (by 2020)

The 2020 Package also includes the modernisation of a number of rail stations to improve the quality of passenger facilities provided. This will include the modernisation of station buildings, improved provision of information, upgrades to platform canopies and improved access for disabled users. The improvements are proposed at a number of locations across Romania and are covered by Fiches 214 and 217. The benefits provided by these improvements will be quantified in terms of improvements to waiting facilities, security, litter, and information provision. The rail stations affected by these improvements are shown below in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10 Proposed Rail Stations to Receive Modernisation

Proposed Station Improvements

Baia Mare Pucioasa Brad Războieni Salina

Satu Mare Târgovişte Sud Episcopia Bihor Suceava Iţcani Adjud

Miecurea Ciuc Roşiori Nord Carei Podu Iloaiei Făurei

Targoviste Caracal Dej Călători Vereşti Mangalia

Targu Jiu Filiaşi Câmpia Turzii Bârlad Neptun

Giurgiu Nord Piatra Olt Beclean pe Someş Paşcani Neptun H

Videle Govora Salva Gura Costineşti

Buftea Timisoara Nord Făgăraş Vatra Dornei Costineşti H

Ploiesti Vest Petroşani Sibiu Câmpulung Eforie Sud

Câmpina Băile Herculane Băile Ocna Sibiului Nicolina Eforie Nord

Slănic Orşova Teiuş Tg. Ocna

Source: AECOM/CFR SA

5.4.5 New rail link between Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea

A key element of the 2020 package is the reopening of the rail link between Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea (Fiche 122) which will include the reinstatement and upgrading of 38.6km of non-electric single track railway. Once completed it is anticipated that the line will accommodate both freight and rail passenger services with design speeds of up to 120km/h.

It is proposed that passenger services using the route will be able to serve five intermediate stations:

Tutana;


Ciofrangeni; and,

Vâlcele (rehabilitated).

Popesti (new station); and,

Ramnicu Valcea Est (new station).

In addition to the network improvements, a number of improvements to passenger services are proposed to ensure that the new link is provided with sufficient passenger services to serve the new stations. The proposals identified below were included after discussions and recommendations with CFR Calatori and include:

Existing Bucuresti – Pitesti InterRegio services (four trains per day by direction) will be extended to Sibiu, calling at all stations between Vacele and Ramnicu Valcea. Between other stops, Pitesti to Valcele and Ramnicu Valcea to Sibiu, these services will adopt similar stopping patterns to existing InterRegio services serving these corridors;

No changes to the existing Ramnicu Valcea – Bucuresti services which route via Caracal

It is also assumed that all Inter Regio services will also call at Ramnicu Valcea Main station, which will require a reverse working beyond Ramnicu Valcea. This is because Ramnicu Vlacea is a key centre within the 201 corridor, which would benefit from significantly reduced journey times to Bucuresti.

Sibiu is not currently connected with a direct Intercity service to Bucuresti. The improvements offered by the new line will reduce the distance between the two cities by rail. It is therefore proposed that a 2 trains per day Intercity Service is introduced between Sibiu and Bucuresti (via Pitesti, which is also currently not served by any Intercity Service). The timing of this service will be to ensure that a daily return journey can be made between the two cites and also to fill any gaps in the timetable. The following stopping pattern is assumed:

Sibiu - Caineni - Calimanesti - Ramnicu Valcea – Pitesti - Bucuresti

It is assumed that there will be no changes to existing Regio services, or the introduction of new Regio services. It is therefore assumed that all new stops on the section between Ramnicu Valcea – Valcele will be served by stopping Inter Regio services.

5.4.6 Introduction of new rolling stock

The package will also be supported by the introduction of new rollingstock in the form of 120 DMUs (Fiche 225) and 120 EMUs (Fiche 226) which will be deployed mainly on InterRegio services, through some Regio services will also benefit from these improvements. CFR Calatori have provided an estimate of which services are expected to utilise the trains.

The presence of new rolling stock will offer a significant improvement in service quality for the experience of passengers boarding these trains. In addition, there are also likely to be reliability improvements which will reduce train average minutes lateness. In addition, are station to station journey time savings in the form of improved acceleration/deceleration and also where rehabilitation has been delivered, it will be possible for these trains to utilise the higher 160km/h design speeds.

Modal Analysis: Road Transport


Existing Situation

Road is the most significant mode of transport for both passengers and freight in Romania, responsible for almost 75% of all passenger trips16 and just under 49% of all freight movements17.

Figure 6.1 Proportion of Trip Kilometres by Mode (2011)

Source: National Institute of Statistics (INS, 2011 Data)

The interurban road network is relatively underdeveloped with a low proportion of motorway standard routes in comparison with the majority of other European countries. Further details on this are provided in the “Existing Conditions Report” (Road Sector).

In summary, motorways account for less than 0.5% of the current (2011) network as shown in Table 5.1. The Motorways and National roads carry a high percentage of the longer distance, inter-urban traffic which contribute to the movement of goods and people round the country. The National Traffic Model, which includes inter-urban traffic between, but not within, towns and cities, does not include all of the local and County roads which carry local traffic. Table 6.1 also shows the extent of model network on which subsequent analysis in this chapter is based.

Table 6.1 Length of Actual and Model Road Network by Type

Road Type Actual Network Model Network

Kilometres Proportion Kilometres Proportion

Motorway 350 0.4% 501 1.5%

National 16,340 19.5% 15,479 47.2%

County 35,374 42.3% 15,510 47.3%

16 Measured in terms of passenger kms 17 Measured in terms of tonne kms.

75.31%

24.60%0.09%

Passengers

Drumuri Căi ferate Căi navigabile interne

48.32%

23.10%

26.73%

1.86%

Goods

Road Rail Inland Waterway Pipeline

6 Modal Analysis: Road Transport


Local 31,639 37.8% 1,270 3.9%

Total 83,703 - 32,761 -

Source: National Institute of Statistics (INS), 2011 data and National Model outputs

The Model Network contains more motorway network kilometres than the INS published statistics due to the inclusion of the following schemes which were completed during 2011:

- A3 Bucharest Ploiesti;

- A2 Bucharest – Constanta; and

- A1 Arad – Timisoara.

We understand that the INS statistics refer to a snapshot at the start of the year and hence these were not included there but it is appropriate that they are included.

The vast majority of the National network has been included except for some instances within large cities where individual links were not required for traffic assignment purposes. Just under 50% of the County roads have been included plus some Local roads where necessary to provide sufficient connectivity within the assignment process.

The road network as represented within the National Transport Model is illustrated in Figure 6.1. For clarity, the image only shows Motorway, National and County class roads.

Figure 6.1 National Transport Model – Base Year (2011) Road Network


The National Road network (including motorways), is the responsibility of CNADNR and is the most relevant for the purposes of the National Transport Masterplan given that it will carry the bulk of longer distance and strategic road traffic.

The quality of that network has been assessed by CESTRIN and is summarised in Table 6.2 by surface type.

Table 6.2 National Road Network – Condition by Surface Type

Asphalt Concrete Paved Light

Bituminous Pavement

Stone Earth Total

Good 49.4% 2.3% 0.1% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 52.9%

Average 25.8% 2.2% 0.1% 2.3% 0.4% 0.0% 30.8%

Poor 10.5% 1.8% 0.1% 2.7% 1.1% 0.1% 16.3%

Total 85.7% 6.3% 0.2% 6.0% 1.6% 0.1% 100.0%

Source: CESTRIN, as at 01/01/2012

Thus, only 53% of the road network can be classified as being in good condition.

6.1.1 Passenger Cars

The base year model has been interrogated to provide travel time and distance information for cars in 2011, broken down by road type. The following table summarises total vehicle kilometres travelled in an average day, total vehicle hours in an average day and average daily speed by road classification.

Table 6.3 Average Daily Statistics by Road Type - Cars

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres Vehicle Hours Average

Speed (kph) Number Proportion Number Proportion

Motorway 5,724,098 7.7% 44,960 3.8% 127.3

National 57,032,766 77.0% 863,116 73.3% 66.1

County 8,852,023 11.9% 192,887 16.4% 45.9

Local 2,471,591 3.3% 76,122 6.5% 32.5

Total 74,080,477 - 1,177,085 - 62.9


3.8%

73.3%

16.4%6.5%

Vehicle Hours

A roads DN Roads

DJ Roads Local Roads

7.7%

77.0%

11.9% 3.3%

Vehicle Kilometres

A roads DN Roads

DJ Roads Local Roads

Therefore, the motorway network is carrying a significant proportion of vehicle kilometres, relative to its coverage, reflecting the longer distance trips which would characterise this element of the network.

The National Road network accounts for just under 50% of all network kms within the model but carries almost 85% of all traffic. This emphasises the critical importance of the National Road network to transport operations in Romania.

In considering the average speed results, these should be seen in the context of the prevailing speed limits for cars, namely:

- 130 kph for motorways;

- 90 to 100 kph for other roads outside urban areas; and

- 50 kph for urban areas.

This would suggest that the motorway network is relatively free-flowing but that the national network is providing a much lower level of service. The issue for Romanian roads is one of extended journey times as much as lack of capacity. The level of service offered by the road network is low, largely because most of the roads are single carriageway, and partly because of the hilly terrain in some areas.

Improvements to motorway standards will bring considerable benefits to road users because of decreased journey times.

6.1.2 Goods Vehicles

Similar information has also been extracted for goods vehicles, that is Light Goods vehicles (LGV) and heavy Goods vehicles (HGV). The data is summarised below in the same format as for cars.

Table 6.4 Average Daily Statistics by Road Type – Goods Vehicles



Motorway 1,741,068 6.7% 18,525 4.5% 94.0

National 20,760,601 80.4% 316,692 76.8% 65.6


6.7%

80.4%

10.5% 2.4%

Vehicle Kilometres

Motorway National County Local

4.5%

76.8%

14.1%4.6%

Vehicle Hours


County 2,707,765 10.5% 58,204 14.1% 46.5

Local 611,620 2.4% 18,968 4.6% 32.2

Total 25,821,055 - 412,388 - 62.6

The results are similar to that observed for cars, with the motorway network carrying proportionately more longer distance traffic. The importance of the national network for freight traffic is even more marked than was the case for cars. Thus the road network performs an important economic function of Romania.

6.1.3 Buses

The model also provides information on bus usage. The following table provides an overview of the scale of bus travel in the base model.

Table 6.5 Average Daily Statistics – Bus Travel

Bus Travel

Entire Network 763,008

Bus Passenger Kilometres 42,333,905

Bus Passenger Hours 1,105,387

The implication from these statistics is that average speed for bus travel is just under 40kph in the base year. Although relatively slow, this seems in keeping with expectations given the operational requirements of this mode. All bus services have to access bus stations in city centres, where road speeds are low, stop en route for meals and passenger needs, and therefore overall point to point times are relatively low.


7.5%

77.9%

11.6% 3.1%

Vehicle Kilometres


4.0%

74.2%

15.8%6.0%

Vehicle Hours


6.1.4 All Vehicles (excluding buses)

Finally, for all cars, vans and goods vehicles combined, the base year (2011) situation as represented within the National Model is shown in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Average Daily Statistics by Road Type – All Vehicles (exc. buses)



Motorway 7,465,166 7.5% 63,485 4.0% 117.5

National 77,793,367 77.9% 1,179,808 74.2% 65.9

County 11,559,788 11.6% 251,091 15.8% 46.0

Local 3,083,211 3.1% 95,090 6.0% 32.4

Total 99,901,532 - 1,589,473 - 62.8

The key points to take from these outputs are:

- Motorways account for 1.5% of the model network kilometres but carry 7.5% of all traffic; and

- National Roads (exc. Motorways) account for 47.2% of the network but carry 77.9% of all traffic.

Another important aspect is the length of trips typically undertaken on the road network. This provides an insight into the likelihood of other modes providing a realistic alternative. It also helps set the context for major schemes in terms of quantifying how many trips are strategic in nature.

For the base year model, the overall average trip length is 48.3 kms.

The following figures illustrate the average speeds by road type as output by the National Transport Model for the base year of 2011. For illustrative purposes, the speeds have been grouped into bands, as described in the legends.


Figure 6.2 National Transport Model – Base Year (2011) Average Road Speeds (Motorways and National Roads)

Figure 6.3 National Transport Model – Base Year (2011) Average Road Speeds (County and Local Roads)


The model has also been used to identify the extent to which the road network is operating satisfactorily and where there are areas of excess demand. The measure that has been used is the volume / capacity ratio or V/C. This compares the level traffic assigned by the model to each individual road link to the corresponding theoretical capacity of that link.

The following figure illustrates those links which fall into the following bands:

- V/C less than 0.8 (i.e. operating within the admissible level of service);

- V/C between 0.8 and 1 (i.e. demand is close to available capacity);

- V/C between 1 and 1.2 (i.e. demand exceeds available capacity); and

- V/C greater than 1.2 (i.e. demand significantly exceeds available capacity).

Figure 6.4 National Transport Model – Base Year (2011) V/C Ratios (Motorways and National Roads)

The plot indicates the critical sections to be adressed by road investments in the future like, among others:

DN7 Sibiu-Râmnicu Vâlcea-Pitești

DN65 Pitești-Craiova

DN6 Lugoj-Timișoara


DN1 Comarnic-Brașov

DN1/DN7 Sibiu-Sebeș and DN7 Sebeș-Deva

For a part of the bottlenecks suggested by the model results there are projects under implementation that have been included in the Reference Case (see the next Chapter). For example, the sections included in the completion of Corridor IV Motorway, section Sibiu-Nădlac.

Reference Case (2020)

6.2.1 Overview

The following road schemes were included in the 2020 Reference Case run of the National Transport Model:

- Alesd South and Alesd North Bypass;

- Alexandria Bypass;

- Bacau Motorway Bypass;

- Brasov Bypass;

- Bucharest Ring Road to Petricani Access Road;

- Caracal Bypass;

- Craiova South Bypass;

- Deva to Orastie Motorway;

- Gilau to Nadaselu Motorway

- Lugoj to Deva Motorway;

- Lugoj to Timisoara Motorway;

- Mihailesti Bypass;

- Nadlac-Arad Motorway;

- Orastie - Sibiu Motorway;

- Sacuieni Bypass;

- Satu Mare Bypass;

- Sebes to Turda Motorway;

- Stei Bypass;

- Targu Jiu Bypass;

- Targu Mures Bypass; and

- Tecuci Bypass.


The locations of these schemes are illustrated in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5 2020 Reference Case Road Schemes

The impact of these changes in respect of network kilometres by road type is summarised in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Length of Model Road Network – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Network Kilometres

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 501 934 +433 +86.3%

National 15,479 15,649 +169 +1.1%

County 15,510 15,510 0 0

Local 1,270 1,270 0 0

Total 32,761 33,362 +602 +1.8%


As the Reference Case model relates to a forecast year of 2020, growth has been applied to the various trip demand matrices which feed into the modelling process. The following table summarises the trip matrix totals for the 2011 Base case and the 2020 Reference Case.

Table 6.8 Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020 Trip Matrix Totals

Vehicle Type Trip Purpose Trip Matrix Totals

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Car Business 310,629 385,841 +75,212 +24.2%

Car Commuting 838,666 842,790 +4,124 +0.5%

Car Private 1,117,999 1,408,174 +290,175 +26.0%

Car Vacation 243,632 305,835 +62,203 +25.5%

Car Total 2,510,925 2,942,639 +431,714 +17.2%

Goods Total 606,165 803,905 +197,740 +32.6%

All Total 3,117,090 3,746,544 +629,454 +20.2%

This means that the overall demand for road travel has increased by 20%. In absolute terms, the growth in car trips is more significant but there is a proportionately higher growth in road freight.

Within the following sections, we present the results of the Reference Case model run with reference to the 2011 Base Year equivalent.

6.2.2 Passenger Cars

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for car based trips.

Table 6.9 Vehicle Kilometres (Cars) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres - Cars

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 5,724,342 19,740,358 +14,016,017 +244.8%

National 57,042,238 79,458,326 +22,416,088 +39.3%

County 8,849,173 10,941,172 +2,091,999 +23.6%

Local 2,467,379 3,010,520 +543,141 +22.0%

Total 74,083,132 113,150,377 +39,067,245 +52.7%


Table 6.10 Vehicle Hours (Cars) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours - Cars

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 45,003 153,419 +108,416 +240.9%

National 863,476 1,229,487 +366,011 +42.4%

County 192,824 238,796 +45,972 +23.8%

Local 76,022 96,627 +20,606 +27.1%

Total 1,177,325 1,718,330 +541,005 +46.0%

Table 6.11 Average Speed (Cars) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Average Speed - Cars

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 127.2 128.7 +1.5 +1.2%

National 66.1 64.6 -1.4 -2.2%

County 45.9 45.8 -0.1 -0.2%

Local 32.5 31.2 -1.3 -4.0%

Total 62.9 65.8 +2.9 +4.6%

The following chart illustrates the impact of the reference case, relative to the base year for cars across the indicators discussed earlier.


Figure 6.6 Base Year to Reference Case (2020) – Cars

The chart highlights the significant growth in the provision of motorway standard links (83%) as a consequence of the Reference Case schemes. This translates into an even more significant growth in vehicle kilometres on motorways than would be expected just from the growth in car demand (17%). The increase in the provision of National is more modest but the traffic growth (39%) is still high. Clearly the road network, and motorways in particular, are becoming a much more attractive mode as a consequence of the Reference Case schemes.

Even with the additional traffic that the road network is attracting, the increased provision means that average speeds overall still exceed that experienced in the Base Year.

Goods

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for all goods vehicle trips.

Table 6.12 Vehicle Kilometres (Goods) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres - Goods

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 1,740,657 5,330,855 +3,590,198 +206.3%

National 20,762,795 29,133,437 +8,370,642 +40.3%

County 2,707,929 3,618,506 +910,577 +33.6%

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres


Motorway +86.3% +244.8% +240.9% +1.2%

National +1.1% +39.3% +42.4% -2.2%

County 0% +23.6% +23.8% -0.2%

Total 2% +52.7% +46.0% +4.6%

Cars - Growth = 17.2%


Local 611,628 748,649 +137,021 +22.4%

Total 25,823,009 38,831,447 +13,008,438 +50.4%

Table 6.13 Vehicle Hours (Goods) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours – Goods

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 18,524 54,111 +35,587 +192.1%

National 316,770 453,551 +136,781 +43.2%

County 58,213 78,400 +20,188 +34.7%

Local 18,970 24,211 +5,240 +27.6%

Total 412,477 610,273 +197,796 +48.0%

Table 6.14 Average Speed (Goods) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Average Speed – Goods

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 94.0 98.5 +4.5 +4.8%

National 65.5 64.2 -1.3 -2.0%

County 46.5 46.2 -0.4 -0.8%

Local 32.2 30.9 -1.3 -4.1%

Total 62.6 63.6 +1.0 +1.6%

Figure 6.7 illustrates the impact of the reference case, relative to the base year for goods vehicles across the same indicators used for cars.


Figure 6.7 Base Year to Reference Case (2020) – Goods

The growth in goods traffic is greater than that for cars, (33% compared to 17%) but the overall pattern of impacts is similar to that reported on for cars.

There is a significant growth in vehicle kilometres on motorways (206%) and a more modest traffic growth (40%) on the National network. As with cars, the road network, and motorways in particular, are becoming a much more attractive mode as a consequence of the Reference Case schemes.

Average speeds overall still exceed that experienced in the base case, albeit to a lower extent than cars, with the increase on motorways more significant.

6.2.3 Buses

The starting growth in demand for buses is 9.9% between the Base Year and 2020. The outputs from the model following, the introduction of the Reference Case schemes, is shown in Table 6.15.

Table 6.15 Buses – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Base Year

2011 Reference Case 2020

Absolute Change

Percentage Change

Entire Network 762,984 912,744 +149,760.0 +19.6%

Bus Passenger Kilometres 42,333,910 58,331,666 +15,997,756.8 +37.8%

Bus Passenger Hours 1,105,390 1,497,530 +392,140.8 +35.5%

Clearly the improvements to the road network are also bringing benefits in terms of the attractiveness of bus as a mode of travel, given that there are no actual improvements to bus service provision allowed for in the Reference case schemes.

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres


Motorway +86.3% +206.3% +192.1% +4.8%

National +1.1% +40.3% +43.2% -2.0%

County 0% +33.6% +34.7% -0.8%

Total 2% +50.4% +48.0% +1.6%

Goods - Growth = 32.6%


All Vehicles

The following tables show the changes forecast by the model in terms of vehicle kilometres, vehicle hours and average speed for all vehicle trips (excluding buses) combined.

Table 6.16 Vehicle Kilometres (All Vehicles) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Kilometres – All Vehicles

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 7,464,999 25,071,213 +17,606,214 +235.9%

National 77,805,033 108,591,763 +30,786,730 +39.6%

County 11,557,102 14,559,678 +3,002,576 +26.0%

Local 3,079,007 3,759,170 +680,162 +22.1%

Total 99,906,141 151,981,824 +52,075,683 +52.1%

Table 6.17 Vehicle Hours (All Vehicles) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Vehicle Hours – All Vehicles

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 63,527 207,530 +144,003 +226.7%

National 1,180,246 1,683,039 +502,793 +42.6%

County 251,037 317,197 +66,160 +26.4%

Local 94,992 120,838 +25,846 +27.2%

Total 1,589,802 2,328,603 +738,801 +46.5%


Table 6.18 Average Speed (All Vehicles) – Base 2011 and Reference Case 2020

Road Type Average Speed – All Vehicles

Base 2011 Reference


Percentage Change

Motorway 117.5 120.8 +3.3 +2.8%

National 65.9 64.5 -1.4 -2.1%

County 46.0 45.9 -0.1 -0.3%

Local 32.4 31.1 -1.3 -4.0%

Total 62.8 65.3 +2.4 +3.9%

Figure 6.8 presents the equivalent model outputs but for all motor vehicles combined (excluding buses). The findings at this level of aggregation are similar and may be summarised as follows:

- the growth in vehicle kilometres (52%) exceeds the growth in demand (20%) by a significant margin reflecting the increased attractiveness of road as a mode of travel; and

- Average speeds across the network exceed that experienced in the Base Year meaning operational improvements are evident even with all of this additional demand.

Figure 6.8 Base Year to Reference Case (2020) – All Vehicles

Network Kilometres

Vehicle Kilometres


Motorway +86.3% +235.9% +226.7% +2.8%

National +1.1% +39.6% +42.6% -2.1%

County 0% +26.0% +26.4% -0.3%

Total 2% +52.1% +46.5% +3.9%

All Traffic - Growth = 20.2%


The model has also been used to identify the changes to operating characteristics of the road network at an individual link level. As for the base year reported earlier, the measure that has been used is the volume / capacity ratio or V/C. This compares the level traffic assigned by the model to each individual road link to the corresponding theoretical capacity of that link.

- V/C less than 0.8 (i.e. operating within the admissible level of service);

- V/C between 0.8 and 1 (i.e. demand is close to available capacity);

- V/C between 1 and 1.2 (i.e. demand exceeds available capacity); and

- V/C greater than 1.2 (i.e. demand significantly exceeds available capacity).

Figure 6.9 National Transport Model – Reference Case (2020) V/C Ratios (Motorways and National Roads)

The main critical sections that need capacity improvements are:

DN1 Comarnic-Brașov

DN7 Sibiu-Râmnicu Vâlcea-Pitești

DN65 Pitești-Craiova

DNCB Bucharest Southern Ring Road

The schemes defines as part of the 2020 Do-Something Scenario will concentrate of these corridors.

Also, the model outputs suggest the need for capacity increases for other corridors, that will need to be adressed during the definition of future projects to be completed after year 2020, like:


Brașov-Sighișoara (DN13)

Brașov-Sibiu (DN1)

Bucharest-Alexandria (DN6) (Note. This section will partly benefit from the implementing of Pitești-Craiova future motorway)

Buzău-Râmnicu Sărat-Focșani-Tișita (DN2)

Ploiești-Buzău (DN1B)

Turda-Târgu Mureș (DN15)

Bucharest-Pitești Motorway (A1)

Brăila-Galați (DN25)

Challenges

The road network is already, by a considerable margin, the most important mode for passenger and freight movements in Romania. Whilst there have been a number of significant road improvement schemes completed in recent years, there is some evidence that both the design standards and maintenance regimes are not sufficient to keep the network condition at an acceptable level.

In addition, the forecast growth in road traffic is considerable as is the planned expansion of the strategic network including motorways. There must therefore be a concern that this new expanded network will be designed, and maybe more importantly, maintained to an acceptable level. This is an organisational as well as engineering issue.

Analysis from the National Transport model suggests that the strategic network is, to a large extent, able to cope with the forecast increase in traffic from a theoretic capacity perspective (using V/C as an indicator). But there are operational issues which a strategic model will not be able to reflect. Most notably, the volume of large vehicle freight movements that characterise a large country like Romania, and one which is on a ‘transit route’ between Europe and the East, is considerable. If this is to be accommodated safely then there is an operational need to effectively set aside a lane for trucks and have at least one lane for everything else. There is therefore likely to be a minimum requirement for a dual carriageway standard (minimum two lanes in either direction) for the interurban network enhanced as required in closer proximity to the urban centres.


Modal Analysis: Rail Freight and Intermodal Transport



This section has been developed to detail the impact of projects which have been identified to improve both rail freight and facilities for intermodal transport. It looks to identify the current position, the projects identified to address those issues and their likely impact on Romania’s economy and transport sector.

Rail freight historically transports bulk goods such as raw materials (e.g. coal) however increasingly it is being used to transport containers and is now an intrinsic element of intermodal transport in Europe.

There is a European vision for the creation and development of national and international transport corridors on which to operate freight in a sustainable way. Corridors suitable for intermodal freight flows associated with Romania include Corridor IV (South), Corridor IV (Central), Corridor VII (River Danube) and Corridor IX (linking Bulgaria to Northern Europe). In order to encourage sustainable transport on these routes a network of internal terminals is required. The impact of these terminals has been modelled to assess how they will affect freight flows by mode across the country.

The development of intermodal terminals aids the transfer of freight between all modes of transport. This factor will be discussed both in the rail freight and intermodal sections of this chapter.

7.1.1 Rail Freight

Romania is relatively large and hence is suited to rail. Although it is not universally the case, goods that have to be transported large distances can be transported more economically by rail due to the better economies of scale that rail offers over road.

However, Romania’s rail freight sector is in a long term decline due to insufficient investment, resulting in a low level of productivity in the rail freight market despite operators willingness to improve their performance.

Despite this, rail has a comparatively high total market share (in terms of transported commodities) of 19% in 2011 (in comparison to other countries). This is split 11.5%-7.5% between CFR Marfă, the former state operator, and private rail freight operators respectively.

The emerging private rail freight sector has been successful in bringing innovation and new working practices and has gained significant market share due to competitive pricing and good service levels. However there is much more to be done and the rail infrastructure improvements discussed in Chapter 4 will help the rail freight sector to be competitive with other modes of transport.

Rail freight will play a vital role in accommodating growth in the economy both in the movement of bulk freight as well as containers in Romania.

7.1.2 Intermodal transport –Rail Freight

Rail freight is a key means of transporting containers and as such has been included in this section. It is estimated that 32% of container tonnage is transported by rail but that containerisation is not as widespread when compared against more developed freight markets. In addition, there is an imbalance between the number of boxes being imported and moving inland by rail and those being exported from the country, with more loaded containers moving by rail for export than moving inbound.

7 Modal Analysis: Rail Freight and Intermodal Transport


Figure 7.1 demonstrates that the busiest rail freight routes for laden containers in Romania are from the north and west (key areas of production) to Constanta Port.

Figure 7.1: Busiest Rail Freight Routes for laden containers

In 2012 the first scheduled intra-EU train with intermodal wagons arrived from Germany and Austria. The first train that arrived was destined for import customers in the south east of Romania, primarily Bucharest and Ploiesti. The new service initially comprised two trains a week in each direction. This provides clear evidence of the potential market for international intermodal rail transport. Figure 7.2 demonstrates the extent of intermodal operations in Romania and in surrounding territories.


Figure 7.2 Intermodal Operations in Romania and Beyond

Romania has a number of established private rail freight operators who offer customers a choice in service levels. Choice leads to competition which leads to lower prices for the end user. CFR Marfă, the former state operator, is in the process of being sold in July 2013 to a private operator GFR, giving the private sector effective control over rail freight in Romania.

Despite this there has been an overall negative trend in rail freight tonnage in Romania over the last decade as many traditional heavy industrial sectors have declined, causing a drop in volume. Also road hauliers have been competing with the traditional rail offer although competition from private rail operators is helping to stabilise this trend as operators continue to improve their logistics offer.

Table 7.1 demonstrates the Base Scenario for volumes of goods transported by rail which are both containerised and uncontainerised. It shows that almost two-thirds of tonnes loaded onto rail in 2011 were uncontainerised, reflecting rails reliance on the traditional bulk industries and the lack of modern facilities required to encourage containerization in Romania.


Table 7.1: Base situation - Rail Freight (annual)

Base Scenario (2011)

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 12,540,741

Uncontainerised 32,748,461

Containers Loaded

TEU 1,313,167

Tonne Kilometres

Containerised 5,911,295,681

Uncontainerised 8,662,532,999

Of the 14 commodity groups transported by private rail freight operators in Romania, the most likely to be transported by container are ‘Foodstuffs’, ‘Machinery and Heavy Manufacturing’, and ‘Manufactured Goods’. Any efforts to encourage containerisation of these commodity groups are likely to result in a greater increase in the overall number of containers used in freight.

7.1.3 Intermodal transport –Water Freight

The movement of containers in Romania as a proportion of overall freight volumes is relatively low for a developed country. This can be attributed in part to a lack of modern equipment.

Ports

The Port of Constanta is home to the largest container port in the Black Sea and is strategically situated at the mouth of the Danube Black Sea Canal which feeds freight into the heartland of Central and Eastern Europe. Constanta South Terminal which opened in 2004 is run by DP World, well equipped with modern facilities and 85 percent of the total container turn-over of Romania's biggest port happens at this one terminal. Table 7.2 demonstrates that the number and capacity of containers handled at Constanta port has reduced significantly since the recession in 2008, however the downward trend reversed slightly between 2010 and 2011.

Table 7.2 Constanta Port tonnages

Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Containers (number)

493,214 672,443 912,509 894,876 375,293 353,711 414,096

Containers (TEUs)

768,099 1,037,077 1,411,414 1,380,935 594,299 556,694 662,796

Romania is in strong competition with many countries in South and Eastern Europe to become a preferred location for feeding goods into the European hinterland, due to its relative proximity to the Suez Canal in sailing time. Also, Romania is well placed to attract inward investment, particularly for the


manufacturing assembly and related logistics activities due to relatively low labour rates and being located on the east-west trade route.

. The Base scenario for intermodal transport states that annually 15,675 TEUs of containers were loaded each day at open access intermodal terminals. Note this does not include goods loaded at single operator, non-open access sites and as such volumes do not exceed the total tonnage transported by rail freight.

As with rail freight, the proportion of goods loaded at public access intermodal terminals is low, at approximately 1% of all goods loaded. Again, this is reflective of a lack of modern intermodal facilities throughout Romania restricting container movements.

Table 7.3: Base situation – Intermodal Transport (annual)

Base Scenario (2011)

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 149,694

Uncontainerised 13,149,116

Containers Loaded

TEU 15,675

Rivers

In respect to river traffic the number of containers moving on the Danube is relatively low at around 2% of the number of containers handled at Constanta, but there is potential for growth. Containers can be handled at most river ports using a traditional crane however this is not a very fast or efficient means of handling containers

The port of Giurgiu handles some containers that then can go north by road or rail. The flow of TEUs (twenty foot equivalent unit containers) on the Romanian section of the Danube that start or end at Constanta is listed below. The average tonnage per TEU in 2010 was 10.8 tonnes. These are handled by Romanian carriers.

Table 7.4 – TEUs on Danube River18

2008 2009 2010

TEUs 10,753 8,550 10,057

Tonnes 106,919 80,344 108,783

Ave. Tonnes per TEU 9.9 9.4 10.8

18 Source – Constantza port handbook


Table 7.4 demonstrates that road freight transports the highest proportion of containers in Romania. The challenge for the freight sector in Romania is to ensure that sustainable modes of transport are competitive in relation to road freight and increase market share.

Table 7.5 Container market share

Mode Tonnes Market Share

Rail - CFR Marfă 1,484,118 28%

River 108,783 2%

Road 2,332,200 45%

Rail – Private 225,000 4%

Transit 1,072,899 21%

Total 5,223,000 100%

Fundamentally, there are a number of drivers that result in an organisation choosing to transport goods by a particular mode of transport. The two key considerations for those looking to transport freight are:

- Cost – If a particular mode of transport is too expensive then this will result in it being less competitive in comparison with competing modes. Containerisation can create a more efficient freight operation and as such can be competitive on price

- Journey times – Goods need to be received in a timely manner, particularly time sensitive goods such as foodstuffs or high end electrical items. Slow journey times can also have the impact of increasing costs along the supply chain

Influencing factors on the above include:

- Availability of terminals – Waiting for terminals to become available before goods can be loaded or unloaded can increase overall journey times

- Proximity of terminals – Disparate infrastructure can increase the length of time it takes to get to an intermodal terminal and as such has an impact on journey times

- Charges for terminals and port charges – Charges at terminals and ports can have a significant impact on the overall costs of a freight journey and may result in a particular mode being less favoured in comparison with road freight

- Shipping line demand in returning empty boxes (restitution) – the imbalance of containers discussed results in a requirement for empty containers to be returned. This is inefficient and has an impact on costs

The projects identified in the Do Something scenario have been developed to reduce costs and journey times of transporting goods in containers by sustainable modes of transport.


7.2 Reference Case (2020)

7.2.1 Reference Case Projects

There are no reference case projects for intermodal transport. All related projects have been included in the Do Something scenario.

Rail freight will benefit from the general improvements to rail described in the passenger rail section of this report, including improvements to line speeds and capacity. However, the competiveness of rail in the reference case is affected by the inclusion of projects related to other modes, such as road modernisation works, bridges and improvements to the Port of Constanta.

7.2.2 Reference Case Statistics, Rail Freight

Table 7.6 demonstrates that under the rail freight reference case, whilst the number, tonne kilometres travelled and tonnage of containers is forecast to rise, the proportion of containers used decreases.. Growth in containers transported by rail is approximately one-third of that of uncontainerised goods for the period 2011-2020. Growth in overall tonnages transported can be attributed to an anticipated growth in the economy and those improvements described in 7.

The growth in tonne kilometres for containers is slightly less than that of tonnes loaded, suggesting containers are being transported shorter distances. In contrast uncontainerised goods experienced a growth in associated tonne kilometres in excess of overall tonnages. This suggests that associated goods are being transported further.

Part of the reason for this is historical in that intermodal trains traditionally travelled much further than bulk trains.

This can be attributed to a lack of investment in intermodal infrastructure and continued degradation of existing facilities. It may also be reflective of an upsurge in demand for bulk goods such as coal, mineral, ores and agricultural products, which are not typically transported by container.

Table 7.6: Reference case - Rail Freight (annual)

Reference Case

Base Scenario %

Change 2020 2011

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 15,441,054 12,540,741 23.1%


Containers Loaded

TEU 1,616,864 1,313,167 23.1%

Tonne Kilometres

ContainerisedA 7,219,790,945 5,911,295,681 22.1%

Uncontainerised 14,874,893,147 8,662,532,999 71.7%


7.2.3 Reference Case - Intermodal Transport

Table 7.7 demonstrates that as with rail freight, the number and tonnage of containers transported by intermodal transport has increased in the 2020 reference case from the base scenario, reflective of anticipated GDP growth and increased demand However, the proportion of containerised and uncontainerised goods being transported remains largely unchanged.

Table 7.7: Reference case - Intermodal (annual)

Reference Case Base

Scenario % Change

2020 2011

Tonnes Loaded

Containerised 250,307 149,694 67.2%


Containers Loaded

TEU 26,210 15,675 67.2%


7.3 Challenges

As discussed there are a number of key challenges relating to rail freight and intermodal freight movements in Romania. There has been a negative trend in rail freight tonnage in Romania over the past 5 years. Although the economic recession has had an effect, there is concern that this could become an established trend and the lack of maintenance and investment in the rail infrastructure has further undermined the service offer.

Additionally the rail network itself has many pinch points due to safety concerns and there are 1,800 such danger points with associated speed restrictions. The 80kph maximum speed for freight trains and 20 tonne axle weight limit is less than in many other EU countries. Intermodal trains in many European countries travel at 120kph, 50% more than the maximum speed permitted in Romania.

This results in a loss of competiveness for Romanian rail freight in comparison with road. The low maximum speeds impact on rail freight companies’ ability to compete, causing delays, and the axle weight limit can result in international rail journeys being inefficiently loaded.

In addition, the terrain of Romania can be mountainous meaning these routes will need a second locomotive to get navigate associated inclines. This slows journey times with a resultant impact on cost.

Old rolling stock will invariably require more maintenance at shorter intervals, be less reliable and result in greater costs by requiring unscheduled maintenance and spare parts becoming scarcer. Most of the inland rail terminals which are still open are over 30 years old, have obsolete equipment and are not designed for modern operational practice.

Intermodal flows rely quite heavily on the success of Constanta in providing volume for inland movements. If the port is no longer a key port and route of choice then this will limit opportunities to grow river traffic. Other countries may invest in their inland intermodal facilities which will affect Romania’s competitiveness as equivalent infrastructure is outdated and the River Danube is susceptible to weather conditions such as icing up or drought, which can prevent movements or result in inefficient working.

Constanta’s reduction in container traffic (now approximately 60% of container volumes in 2008) is much greater than GDP reduction during the same time period. Consultation associated with this study suggested that shippers are losing interest in Constanta because of high rates charged by the Port and that there is a trend towards transhipment onto feeder vessels outside the Black Sea. Therefore it is likely that Constanta will be serviced by such vessels in the future, which would represent a diminution of its role to serve a purely Romanian market.

The disparity between imports and exports of containers is also a challenge. Figure 7.3 demonstrates that the busiest rail routes for empty containers are generally from Constanta Port back to areas of manufacturing and production. These empty loads are costly and inefficient. There is a clear imbalance in the flow of loaded containers by rail with more loaded with finished products going for export than for import goods. This necessitates the movement of empty boxes inland to key factory sites.


Figure 7.3: Busiest Rail Freight Routes for Empty Containers

The projects identified in both the reference case and Master plan have been proposed to address the challenges and issues described in this section. They aim to ensure rail freight and intermodal freight transport are competitive against less sustainable modes of transport with associated positive impacts on the environment, congestion and the economy. These are discussed further in section 2.5.3.


Modal Analysis: Ports and Waterways



Figure 8.1 illustrates the port and inland waterway network in Romania.

Figure 8.1 – Ports and Inland Waterways in Romania, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Constanta is the dominant maritime port in Romania and handled 83% of Romania’s maritime freight in 201119. Constanta is served by two satellite ports at Capu Midia and Agigea. Constanta is the main port of entry into Romania and also has a large hinterland which includes some landlocked countries such as Austria and Hungary.

There are other maritime ports at Sulina, Tulcea, Galati and Braila. These ports are all located on the River Danube that is deep enough for maritime vessels as far as Braila. Galati port also serves Moldova which is a short distance away.

19 Eurostat, 2013

8 Modal Analysis: Ports and Waterways


The River Danube is the second longest river in Europe and runs for 1,075km throughout Romania. There are over 15 river ports on the Romanian section and as such the Danube is part of the EU’s TEN-T corridor VII. 12 of these river ports are recognised in the TEN-T strategy. These are:

- Calafat;

- Cernavoda;

- Giurgiu;

- Braila;

- Galati;

- Drobeta Turnu Severin

- Oltenita

- Calarasi

- Tulcea

- Sulina

- Moldova Veche; and

- Medgidia (Constanta).

Constanta port is also a TEN-T port.

The Danube-Black Sea Canal links the port of Constanta with the Danube and bypasses the Danube delta. The Danube delta can be difficult to navigate.

In the model there are 3033.7 km of water network – this includes the Danube Tulcea to Regensburg, Danube Delta and the two canals between Constanta and the Danube and Navodari and Medgidia.


8.1.1 Constanta Port and Danube ports

Tonnes lifted at Constanta:

In 2011 Constanta handled 46.0 million tonnes. This was a slight decrease from 2010 however it is well down on the volumes handled before 2009.

Figure 8.2 – Total tonnes handled at Constanta, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Over half of the tonnes handled at Constanta are Dry Bulk such as cereals, ores and building materials. Liquid bulk is nearly a quarter of all tonnes handled and oil plays a large part in this.

Figure 8.3 – Tonnes handled by Constanta Split by Commodity, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

14% of all tonnes handled at Constanta in 2011 are containerised.

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total tonnes handled at Constanta

Liquid bulk23%

Dry bulk54%

General Cargo9%

Containers (Gross Weight)14%

Tonnes Handled by Constanta Split by Commodity


Figure 8.4 – Containers at Constanta, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Much like the total tonnes handled, the containerised tonnes dropped in 2009 but for containers the year on year change in 2011 has seen growth. The figure above shows the percentage share of container traffic at Constanta. Whilst it was 14% in 2011, it has been as high as 22% in 2007. This shows that Constanta has a lot of latent container capacity available.


Romania has a number of inland river ports and these almost exclusively lie on the River Danube. There are 30 river ports which include 11 TEN-T ports on the Danube (as well as Medgidia on the Danube-Black Sea Canal and Constanta port) and approximately 10 ports that currently handle very little freight but could be upgraded if required.

The river ports are well spaced along the length of Danube to serve the needs of the local communities and industries.

The current list of river ports in Romania is featured below. As noted above, they are administrated by one of:

- APDM Galati

- ACN ;

- APDF Giurgiu; and

- Local Municipality.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Tonnes

Containers at Constanta

Gross Tonnes

Share of all Constanta Freight


Table 8.1 – Danube Port and Freight Tonnes Handled, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Port Tonnage

(2011) Comments

Moldova Veche 21,505 TEN-T, not significant traffic

Drencova Not available

Tisovita Not available

Orsova 187,752

Drobeta Turnu Severin 490,112 TEN-T, container terminal

Gruia Not available

Cetate Not available

Calafat 139,105 TEN-T corridor IV meets VII

Bechet Not available

Corabia 22,613

Turnu Magurele Not available Chemicals

Zimnicea Not available

Giurgiu 256,288 TEN-T

Oltenita 508,407 TEN-T

Calarasi Not available TEN-T

Cernavoda 131,833 TEN-T

Medgidia Not available TEN-T, construction, cement

Basarabi Not available Construction, cement

Ovidiu Not available

Luminita Not available

Harsova Not available

Macin Not available Grain

Braila 499,810 TEN-T, grain

Galati 3,539,384 TEN-T, iron, steel

Isaccea Not available

Tulcea 1,523,103 TEN-T, aluminium, passengers, fish

Mahmudia Not available Construction

Chilia Veche Not available

Sulina TEN-T

Little traffic at the Danube Ports is containerised with only some 46,221 tonnes in 2011 (less than 2% of the total handled by Danube Ports). Giurgiu port handled 96% of the container traffic with Drobeta Turnu Severin handling the remaining 4%.


Figure 8.5 – Top 5 Commodities Handled by Romanian River Ports in 2011, AFDJ Giurgiu

The river ports are mainly handling low value, non-time sensitive bulk commodities such as minerals and cereals.

Figure 8.6 – Total tonnes handled by Romanian River Ports, AFDJ Giurgiu

The river ports have not handled as many tonnes 2009-2011 as they have 2007-2008. This shows that they currently remain underutilised and have scope to handle more freight.

Ores, metal waste54%

Agricultural Products14%

Petroleum products14%

Foodstuffs5%

Fertilisers4%

Other9%

Top 5 Commodities Handled by Romanian River Ports in 2011

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Tonnes

Total Tonnes Handled by Romanian River Ports


8.1.2 Danube waterway

• Tonne kms carried on the Danube by commodity

Figure 8.7 – Total tonne-km on the River Danube, Master Plan Model, AECOM

Much of the tonne-km on the Danube is uncontainerised freight. This includes freight that is handled by Romanian river ports as well other countries’ river ports such as those on the Bulgarian side of the Danube.

8.1.3 Danube Black Sea Canal

The Danube-Black Sea Canal provides a shorter link to the Black Sea from the Danube. The canal bifurcates with the main canal going south towards the port of Constanta at Agigea. The north canal reaches the Black Sea at Midia port.

The Danube-Black Sea Canal can facilitate the transit of convoys comprising as much as 6 towed barges, of up to 18,000 tonnes per convoy. Ships of up to 5,000 tonnes can pass through the canal.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

Containerised Uncontainerised

Tonne‐km

Tonne‐km on the Danube

Ores, metal waste38%

Agricultural Products36%

Solid mineral fuels11%

Foodstuffs6%

Petroleum products

4%

Other5%

Top 5 Commodities Transported on the Danube‐Black Sea Canal


Figure 8.8 – Top 5 Commodities Transport on the Danube-Black Sea Canal, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Much like the river ports, the Danube-Black Sea Canal is mainly handling low value, non-time sensitive bulk commodities such as minerals and cereals.

Figure 8.9 – Total tonnes handled at Danube Ports, Existing Conditions Report, AECOM

Total tonnes transported in 2010 on the Danube-Black Sea Canal have almost recovered to volumes handled 2006-2008. There was a drop in 2009.


The following projects are all in the reference case as they have already been committed to.

8.2.1 Constanta Port and Danube ports

Constanta Port

Constanta port is the largest port in Romania. Its strategic location on the Black Sea and access to the Danube thanks to the Danube-Black Sea canal means that some river ports on the Danube are reliant on volumes handled by Constanta.

Extension of the breakwater in the Constanta Port

The project concerns the extension of the North Pier in Constanta by 1,050m from 4,850m to 5,900m.

Extension to the south of the gauge berth in the Port of Constanta

The project provides for a 10,900m2 additional territory land area, which will allow for the development of superstructure works which in turn will lead to an increase in port traffic, increasing revenue by renting newly created facilities as well as the extra traffic. Also planned is extending the current quay by creating a new front landing of 170m.

Modernizing port infrastructure by providing increased depths of channels and basins and improving the safety of navigation in Constanta Port

This would include the following:

- Dredging work to bring the river and the projected rate of channels from Constanta

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Tonnes

Tonnes Handled on the Danube‐Black Sea Canal


- Deepening the "working harbour" fairway and access to from Constanta Sud (working harbour basin is currently a depth of 7m and ideally 9m is desired), this also includes protection works for the piers.

Building new container terminal in Constanta Port (moles III and IV south)

A new container terminal is proposed at Constanta, please refer to the Intermodal chapter for further information.

Constanta

(Tonnes Loaded)

Base Case 2011

Reference Case 2020

Containerised 90,197 127,154 Non-containerised 6,563,138 7,172,360 Total 6,653,335 7,299,514


All Danube Ports

(Tonnes Loaded)

Base Case 2011

Reference Case 2020

Containerised 32,226 71,525 Non-containerised 4,726,396 5,837,299

8.2.2 Danube waterway

Tonnes lifted at Constanta absolute numbers and compared with base (2011):

Danube

(Tonne-km)

Base Case 2011

Reference Case 2020

Containerised 557,365,813 971,154,566 Non-containerised 12,169,281,770 13,697,930,240

Danube-Black Sea Canal

Access dock at the entrance of the Danube-Black Sea Canal

The specific objective is to develop a consolidation area for convoys at the entrances of the Danube-Black Sea channel. This will apply to both arms of the canal.

8.2.3 Other Waterway Reference Cases

Signalling

Another project proposes an administration building at which will manage signalling for floating and coastal navigation, topographic measurements, maintenance fairway collaboration with the Bulgarian and developing electronic map navigation on the Danube. The project is in progress since May 2009 and has full funding from the state budget.


8.3 Challenges

There a number of challenges facing the ports and waterways sector in Romania.

There is some outdated and inefficient infrastructure in place at Constanta Port. Modern container ports have to have up to date infrastructure. Older equipment and practises leads to inefficiencies which can open Constanta to competition from other ports in the region. Direct competitors to Constanta are:

- Varna, Bulgaria;

- Burgas, Bulgaria;

- Odessa, Ukraine;

- Istanbul, Turkey;

- Thessaloniki, Greece;

- Illichivish, Ukraine; and

- Giurgiulesti, Moldova,

Illichivish in particular has plans to increase its container offer which could take market share away from Constanta.

The River Danube is a major and strategic asset for Romania however it can present a number of challenges, particularly for the transportation of goods. The climate has a major effect on the Danube and too little water can make sections unnavigable as can too much water. In the winter temperatures can drop low enough for the Danube to freeze. However the poor maintenance regime means that even when the water level is sufficient for successful navigation the fairway, which is the navigable width of the Danube, is not always as it should be. Dredging to maintain the fairway should maximise the number of days that there is adequate depth and width for optimum freight operations.

There are 30 river ports on the Danube and some of these ports are quite small operations either in the size of the infrastructure or the amount of freight handled (quite often both of these apply). Whilst these ports may have some local use it is clear that these ports should not form a major part of Romania’s masterplan. A restricting factor for these ports is the facilities (or lack of) that they currently offer which in turn limits their ability to handle freight.

More often than not a freight journey will not finish at a port, the final destination will be in the hinterland or the freight will originate away from the port. This transhipment movement to and from the port will be undertaken by another mode of transport. Many of these ports have some rail connection however it is often poor and not well used.


Modal Analysis: Air



This chapter discusses the aviation sector in Romania, considering the country’s airports and aircraft operators. The existing situation in the country is described, model outputs are presented, a number of future challenges are discussed, the modelled projects are described, and finally conclusions are drawn.

9.1.1 Airports

13 of Romania’s airports currently have scheduled flight operations – see Table 8.1 for a complete list. In some cases these scheduled services may not be year-round, but seasonal. Three of the airports are operated by the Romanian government (Henri Coanda – the airport for Bucharest, Timisoara, and Constanta), with all other airports being operated by the local counties – with the exception of Bacau, which is operated by Blue Air (the airport’s main airline). The situation of Aurel Vlaicu airport – Bucharest’s second airport (alongside Henri Coanda) – should be briefly mentioned; historically the country’s second busiest airport in terms of passengers carried, occupied by low-cost carriers, in 2012 all traffic was moved to Henri Coanda. Aurel Vlaicu is now open exclusively for business aviation – all commercial flights destined for Bucharest now operate solely at Henri Coanda. In 2011, a total of 14.314 million passengers travelled through all Romanian airfields. Of this total, over 50% travelled through Bucharest’s Henri Coanda airport – showing the strongly capital-centric nature of the country’s air transport system.

A total of 21 airfields are listed in Romania’s AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication), and so eight of the country’s airports are not currently served by scheduled flights. The development of the Romanian air transport infrastructure aims to provide regional centres with a means of fast transport to Bucharest, the capital, along with other regional centres. Air transport is also relied upon to provide international connectivity. As the country’s highway network remains in development, and even the fastest sections of the rail network (currently between Bucharest and Constanta) are subject to speed restrictions due to a spate of thefts of lineside equipment, air travel is a preferred choice for domestic transport where fast journey times are a critical factor. Despite some market penetration by low-cost carriers (LCCs) – primarily the Hungarian carrier Wizz Air, and also the Romanian carrier Blue Air – on international routes, the domestic market has predominantly remained in the hands of TAROM, the national airline. As a result, while domestic air travel proves by far the fastest mode of transport within Romania, it remains predominantly the mode of choice for business – rather than leisure – trips, owing to its relatively high cost.

9.1.2 Technical Characteristics

Detailed in Table 9.1 are the populations of the cities and counties directly served by each airport. Also detailed are the dimensions of the longest runway at each airport (length and width), and the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) reference code. This code is calculated by examining the airport’s runway length (forming the number), as well as the maximum wing span and outer main gear wheel span of aircraft that the airfield can safely accommodate (forming the letter). Table 9.2 details the precise technical characteristics taken into account in this calculation.

9 Modal Analysis: Air


Table 9.1 – Romanian airports with scheduled air services

Airport Name 2011

passengers % int’l

2011 city population

2011 county population

Longest runway – L

x W (m)

ICAO ref.

code

Bacau 748,323 53.5 144,307 710,926 2,500 x 80 4D

Baia Mare 39,912 0.0 123,738 508,773 1,790 x 30 3C

Henri Coanda 7,223,679 74.3 1,883,425 2,264,865 3,500 x 45 4D

Cluj-Napoca 1,225,736 55.5 324,576 692,819 2,100 x 30 4C

Constanta 477,259 0.0 283,872 724,746 3,500 x 45 4D

Craiova 326,749 0.0 269,506 696,774 2,500 x 45 4D

Iasi 444,774 9.7 290,422 835,045 1,800 x 45 4D

Oradea 86,476 0.0 196,367 592,046 1,800 x 30 4C

Satu Mare 21,660 0.0 102,441 362,536 2,500 x 45 4D

Sibiu 597,542 39.0 147,245 426,181 2,630 x 45 4D

Suceava 119,472 0.0 86,282 708,764 1,800 x 30 4C

Targu Mures 360,918 86.9 134,290 578,578 2,000 x 45 4D

Timisoara 2,641,717 39.0 319,279 680,042 3,500 x 45 4D

Table 9.2 – Calculating an airfield’s ICAO reference code

Code number Reference field length (m)

Code letter Wing span (m) Outer main gear wheel span (m)

1 < 800 A <15 <4.5

2 800 <1,200 B 15 <24 4.5 <6

3 1,200 <1,800 C 24 <36 6 <9

4 >1,799 D 36 <52 9 <14

E 52 <65 9 <14

F 65 <80 14 <16


Table 9.3 – Airfield requirements of popular commercial aircraft. Italics indicate a type currently operated by TAROM

While the ICAO reference code is able to offer a straightforward insight as to whether a particular aircraft would be able to operate at a particular airfield (by comparing the airfield’s reference code with the aircraft’s reference code), there are also further operational aspects which must be considered. Table 9.3 details the airfield requirements of a number of popular commercial aircraft.

In Table 9.3, the ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting) category refers to the level of firefighting cover an airfield must provide in order to permit a given aircraft to safely operate there. The category is calculated by examining an aircraft’s fuselage length and diameter; for example, a category 6 aircraft would have a fuselage between 28 and 39 metres in length, and under 5m in diameter. The airfield itself will also be categorised (see Table 9.4), based on the level of firefighting provision available (for example the number of appliances and quantity of firefighting foam); if this is equal to or greater than that required

Aircraft ARFF

category

ACN ICAO ref.

code Min. runway

requirement (m) A B C D

A310-300 8 40-47 48-56 57-66 65-75 4D 2,608

A318 6 31 34 36 38 3C 2,082

ATR42-500 4 10 11 12 12 3C 1,327

ATR72-500 5 13 14 14 15 3C 1,518

737-300 6 40 42 44 46 4C 2,619

737-700 6 43 46 48 50 4C 1,822

737-800 7 51 53 55 57 4C 2,733

A320 6 19-46 23-49 27-51 31-53 4C 2,380

A321 7 47-56 50-59 52-62 54-64 4C 2,915

757-200 7 32 38 45 52 4D 3,315

A330-200 8 48-53 56-61 66-73 78-85 4E 3,872

A330-300 9 46-54 54-62 64-74 75-86 4E 3,758

767-300ER 8 40 47 57 66 4D 2,881

777-200ER 9 50 63 82 101 4E 3,849

747-400 9 53 62 74 85 4E 3,644

747-8 10 64 71 89 112 4F 3,749

A380-800 10 55 64-67 76-88 88-110 4F 3,132


by a particular aircraft then operations may proceed. Some airfields may offer a higher category of fire cover with advance notice, and this is indicated in Table 9.4 by parentheses.

Table 9.4 – Technical characteristics of Romanian airfields

DVOR/DME – Doppler VHF Omni-directional Range NDB – Non-directional Beacon ALS – Approach Lighting System ILS – Instrument Landing System ALSF – Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights

PCN (Pavement Classification Number) refers to the strength of a particular runway, taxiway, or apron. This is expressed by means of a five-part code (see Table 9.4), with the first, numerical, value representing the load-carrying capacity of that section of pavement. The second indicates whether the pavement is rigid (R) or flexible (F); in this case all 13 airfields have rigid pavement. The third part, a letter from A-D, expresses the strength of the material under the pavement’s surface; A being the strongest and D being the weakest. When considering the load an aircraft will place on the pavement, this letter is used to select the appropriate ACN (Aircraft Classification Number) value and so judge whether the pavement can accommodate that aircraft. A range may be provided if a particular model of aircraft is available in a variety of landing gear or weight configurations. The fourth part of the code indicates the maximum tyre pressure the pavement can accommodate; W meaning that any tyre pressure can be used. The final section of the code describes how the load-carrying capacity was derived; T meaning through technical evaluation (rather than physical testing).

Finally, the maximum runway requirement shown in Table 9.3 is an indication of the maximum length of runway that would be required for that aircraft type to take-off at MTOW (maximum take-off weight) under realistic conditions (so with some accounting for elevation, temperature, and longitudinal slope).

The navigational aids present at an airfield, as shown in Table 9.4, may allow flights to continue operating in conditions of poor visibility. For example, an airfield with a Category III ILS (the highest specification system currently in operation) – such as Henri Coanda – may allow aircraft to continue landing even if the runway is visible only 50m in advance of touchdown. Such a system does require a suitably-equipped aircraft and a qualified crew. In combination with an ILS, a certain specification of approach lighting may also be required.

Airport Name Highest PCN Navigational aids Approach lighting

ARFF category

Bacau 19 R/C/W/T DVOR/DME, NDB Cat. I 6

Baia Mare 22 R/D/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. II Cat. II 5 (6)

Henri Coanda 78 R/D/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. III Cat. I, ALSF-II 9

Cluj-Napoca 36 R/D/W/T DVOR/DME, ILS Cat. I Cat. 1 8

Constanta 62 R/D/W/T VOR/DME, NDB, ILS Cat. II ALS II 7 (8)

Craiova 29 R/A/W/T DVOR/DME, ILS Cat. I Cat. I 7

Iasi 24 R/D/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. II Cat. I 5 (6)

Oradea 14 R/D/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. II Cat. I 6

Satu Mare 61 R/C/W/T DVOR/DME, ILS Cat. II Cat. I 5 (7)

Sibiu 56 R/D/W/T DVOR/DME, NDB, ILS Cat. II ALS II 7 (8)

Suceava 14 R/D/W/T DVOR/DME Cat. I 5

Targu Mures 45 R/D/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. II Cat. III 7

Timisoara 42 R/B/W/T NDB, DME, ILS Cat. III Cat. I, ALSF-II 8


The largest aircraft currently operated by a Romanian carrier is TAROM’s widebody A310-300 (classed as an ICAO code 4D aircraft as per Table 9.3). Of the 13 airfields detailed above, this aircraft would be likely to be able to operate from only one; Henri Coanda in Bucharest. This restriction is primarily due to the relatively low PCN of the airfields – primarily as 9 of the 13 are rated ‘D,’ the lowest possible, in terms of the strength of the material underlying the pavement. Of the remaining five airfields, three are rated ‘C,’ one ‘B’ and one further ‘A,’ the strongest. This does mean that it may be possible for the A310 to be operated at a greater number of airfields if weight restrictions were imposed (for example, if the payload or fuel weight was reduced), but this may also mean a commercial penalty for the operator. This example suggests that one of the key operational issues airlines may face would be the relatively weak pavement at Romanian airfields; restricting the aircraft that may operate. A similar situation appears when considering the 737-800 (an ICAO 4C aircraft); also in TAROM’s fleet and a popular narrowbody aircraft amongst LCCs such as Ryanair. This aircraft would be restricted to operating from just two of the airfields (Henri Coanda and Constanta); again primarily due to the relatively low PCN values seen. As with the A310, it may prove possible to operate the 737 from further airfields at less than MTOW, but again this would be likely to involve a commercial penalty. Operating an aircraft with such a penalty would not follow the business model of low-cost carriers – reliant upon operating aircraft with high load factors, and using revenue management techniques to maximize fare income.

The smallest aircraft in TAROM’s fleet is the ATR42-500 (classed as an ICAO code 3C aircraft as per Table 9.3). This would be able to operate from any of the 13 airfields, as the runway length, PCN, and ARFF category available at any would prove sufficient.

Medium-sized, medium-range aircraft, such as the Boeing 737-800 or Airbus A319/A320, prove popular with LCCs as – when configured with high-density all-economy class seating – they prove highly economical in terms of per-seat operating costs. Accordingly, these aircraft (seating around 150-190 passengers) can mean that certain routes become commercially viable; where they would not be if a more costly is used (or if a weight penalty is imposed) due to operational restrictions at the airfield in question – as would currently be the case in Romania. These more economical aircraft types also offer airlines the ability to market lower fares, increasing the affordability of an air service to the local population and boosting potential passenger numbers (although with these higher passenger numbers further developments such as increases in passenger terminal capacity may prove necessary). Due to these factors, the current technical characteristics of many of Romania’s airfields would be expected to prove unappealing to LCCs, as they are likely to be unable to operate their aircraft in the most commercially attractive manner.

In terms of long-haul services, large twin-engine aircraft such as the Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 767-300 typically prove popular amongst airlines, due to their long range and relatively low per-seat costs. Due to runway length limitations, the A330-300 would not be able to operate at MTOW from any Romanian airfield, while the 767-300 would only be able to operate from Henri Coanda in Bucharest. Like the A310-300, this restriction is primarily due to the relatively low PCN of the country’s airfields. Again, these operational restrictions on aircraft may make certain routes commercially unviable.

Geographical Situation

Of the 13 Romanian airports with scheduled services, a number are geographically close. For example, Baia Mare is 75km from Satu Mare, and Targu Mures is 106km from Cluj-Napoca.

The geographical proximity of a number of the country’s airports suggests that some level of consolidation may be possible, although as most Romanian airports are operated by local councils, local politics may make this problematic. A similar situation has been observed in France, where smaller


airports are typically owned by the local chamber of commerce – who have historically resisted moves towards privatisation.

Based Operators

A number of aircraft operators are based in Romania; full-service airlines, LCCs, and business aviation/private charter companies. Table 9.5 details those currently operating aircraft.

Table 9.5 – Aircraft operators based in Romania

Operator Aircraft in fleet Headquarters Type

TAROM 23 Bucharest Full-service airline

Carpatair 13 Timisoara Regional airline

Blue Air 9 (5 on order) Bucharest Low-cost carrier

Jetran Air 7 Bucharest Charter airline

Tiriac Air 5 Bucharest Business aviation

Alfa Air Services 3 Bucharest Business aviation

Air Bucharest 1 Bucharest Charter airline

TAROM has long been Romania’s national airline, and remains in state ownership. The carrier operates flights at 10 of the 13 Romanian airports seeing scheduled services; using aircraft from the ATR42-500 turboprop to the A310-300 widebody jet (see Table 9.3 for fleet details). Carpatair and Blue Air are the only other Romanian operators offering scheduled services, although a number of other operators – notably the Hungarian LCC Wizz Air – do offer service to a wide variety of destinations from a number of Romanian airfields.

Air Freight

In 2011, only three Romanian airfields handled a notable amount of air freight; Henri Coanda (24,210 tonnes), Timisoara (2,629 tonnes), and Cluj-Napoca (1,011 tonnes). Henri Coanda in Bucharest remains the only airport with a dedicated freight terminal, seeing regular operations from DHL Aviation, TNT Airways, and UPS Airlines (the latter operated by Farnair Switzerland) - feeding into their respective European air freight hubs and so offering worldwide connectivity.


Using the 2011 data presented above, models were developed to forecast the expected situation in 2020, following the reference case; so assuming the projects outlined below are completed. It should be noted that, at Henri Coanda, plans are already underway to build a second terminal with a maximum envisaged capacity of 20 million passengers per year:

Baia Mare Airport

Consolidation and extension of apron

Constanta Airport

Rehabilitation of the apron


Craiova Airport

Rehabilitation of the runway

Iasi Airport

Development and modernization module 1 – taxiways, apron and related facilities

Oradea Airport

Widening and modernization of airport surfaces

Suceava Airport

Modernization of apron, runway lighting system, control tower, and preparation for installation of ILS (Instrument Landing System)

Reference case forecasts are detailed in Tables 9.6 – 9.9 below, and contrasted to the existing situation.

Table 9.6 – Total passengers reference case forecast to 2020

Airport Name 2020 total

passengers From 2011 base

Bacau 915,581 +167,258 +22.4%

Baia Mare 67,461 +27,549 +69.0%

Henri Coanda 8,968,452 +1,744,773 +24.2%

Cluj-Napoca 1,410,991 +185,256 +15.1%

Constanta 574,411 +97,152 +20.4%

Craiova 392,919 +66,170 +20.3%

Iasi 623,909 +179,135 +40.3%

Oradea 184,077 +97,601 +112.9%

Sibiu 758,802 +161,261 +27.0%

Suceava 264,119 +144,647 +121.1%

Targu Mures 451,523 +90,605 +25.1%

Timisoara 3,008,042 +366,325 +13.9%

Table 9.6 shows, in the reference case, that all airports are forecast to see significant growth in total passenger numbers from the 2011 base. The airport with the lowest forecast growth rate (of 13.9%) is Timisoara, and Suceava is forecast to see the highest growth rate (of 121.1%). The average growth rate across all 13 airports is 51.7%. These were imposed by nine EU member states following the country’s accession in 2007, with the restrictions coming to an end by the start of 2014. The country is also expected to join the Euro before 2020, and so this may prove a further boost to air travel, especially if combined with a return to pre-2009 levels of economic growth in Romania; in 2008 the country’s economy


grew by over three times the EU average rate. Such economic growth would be likely to have an impact on both international and domestic traffic; increased wealth and disposable income would be expected to increase Romanians’ propensity to travel both domestically and internationally by air, and increased economic activity, international trade, and inward investment would increase demand for international travel – primarily by air – to Romania. An increased level of market penetration by LCCs, especially in the domestic market, may also mean that the affordability of air travel has increased.

The highest rates of growth are generally seen at airports further than around a four hour-drive from Bucharest; if Bacau, Bucharest, Constanta, Craiova, and Sibiu airports are excluded then the average growth rate proves to be 64.5%. This is likely to be a result of road and rail improvements included in the reference case – meaning that for those destinations closer to Bucharest, these modes of ground transport are likely to be preferred in terms of overall journey time and hence this constrains the rapid growth of air travel.

Table 9.7 – Domestic passengers reference case forecast to 2020

Airport Name 2020 domestic

passengers From 2011 base

Bacau 409,150 +61,539 +17.7%

Baia Mare 67,461 +27,549 +69.0%

Henri Coanda 3,033,066 +770,752 +34.1%

Cluj-Napoca 612,364 +66,992 +12.3%

Constanta 574,244 +97,167 +20.4%

Craiova 392,919 +66,170 +20.3%

Iasi 570,630 +168,823 +42.0%

Oradea 184,077 +97,601 +112.9%

Sibiu 486,421 +121,923 +33.4%

Suceava 264,119 +144,647 +121.1%

Targu Mures 104,685 +57,212 +120.5%

Timisoara 2,649,290 +374,570 +16.5%

Table 9.7 shows that, in the reference case, strong growth in domestic air travel is expected when compared to the 2011 base. Cluj-Napoca is forecast to see the lowest growth rate (12.3%), and again Suceava the highest rate (121.1% - all traffic here is domestic). The average rate of growth expected for domestic passengers is in excess of the forecast growth in total passenger numbers; being 60%. Again, if considering only those airports more than around a four hour-drive from Bucharest, the average forecast rate of growth increases to 77.4%; showing the attractiveness of air transport for longer domestic journeys. The penetration of the domestic market by LCCs, providing competition for TAROM’s typical


dominance in this sector – and so lowering fares – may prove a factor in increasing numbers of domestic air passengers by making this mode of transport more affordable for journeys within Romania.

Table 9.8 shows forecast growth in international passenger numbers, from the 2011 base to the 2020 reference case. Disregarding those airports with no international services, and also Constanta with its negligible amount of international traffic, the average rate of growth forecast in the reference case is 18.8%. Targu Mures is forecast to have the lowest rate of growth in international traffic (10.6%), and Bacau the highest (26.4%). The more limited growth forecasts for international traffic, in comparison to domestic predictions, may reflect the fact that Romania’s international air transport market, in the 2011 base, was already relatively well-developed. The country had, by this point, been an EU member state for four years, and had seen some LCC market penetration on international routes (particularly by Wizz Air). Accordingly, the forecast growth may be related to the ending of transitional provisions on the rights of Romanians to work in the rest of the EU by the start of 2014, and also forecast improvements in the economic situation.

Table 9.8 – International passengers reference case forecast to 2020

Airport Name 2020

international passengers

From 2011 base

Bacau 506,427 +105,719 +26.4%

Baia Mare 0 0 0%

Henri Coanda 8,002,114 +1,444,999 +22.0%

Cluj-Napoca 798,810 +118,278 +17.4%

Constanta 166 -14 -8.0%

Craiova 0 0 0%

Iasi 53,279 +10,312 +24.0%

Oradea 0 0 0%

Sibiu 272,383 +39,338 +16.9%

Suceava 0 0 0%

Targu Mures 347,238 +33,420 +10.6%

Timisoara 1,656,023 +203,002 +14.0%


9.3 Challenges

Any expansion of air transport will raise concerns of encouraging what is widely seen as an unsustainable transport mode. In environmental terms air transport is consistently hailed as among the most polluting and damaging of any mode; with strong climatic impacts, and effects in terms of local air pollution and noise pollution. Travelling by air is also highly energy intensive. By these environmental and sustainability measures, air transport does not prove appealing. Nevertheless, Romania is a relatively large country (the ninth largest in the EU in terms of area), and has a poorly-developed land transport infrastructure – both in terms of road transport, with only a limited number of motorway-standard roads, and also in terms of rail transport; although the country’s rail network is extensive (the fourth largest in Europe by track length), speeds are generally low and so rail does not typically prove attractive for long journeys between regional centres. With a high-quality and effective transport infrastructure widely seen as essential for a country’s economic development – allowing straightforward transportation between a country’s regional centres – air transport is perhaps the mode best placed to facilitate this. In this way, while air transport’s environmental sustainability is perhaps questionable, its potential contribution, at least in the short-term, to the country’s economic sustainability is rather less in doubt.

An exception to the country’s poorly-developed road and rail infrastructure is the corridor between Bucharest and Constanta. Between these two cities runs what is currently the country’s fastest rail line; with speeds up 140km/h permitted, and plans to increase the maximum line speed to 160km/h. The current fastest scheduled rail journey time between the two cities is around 160 minutes, although recent occurrences of the theft of lineside equipment have meant that speed restrictions are in place on this line. The A2 motorway also follows the same route (with a statutory speed limit of 130km/h). With these transport links, investment in Constanta airport may be less essential to the national business and transportation requirements than at certain other airports – although Constanta is the only airport close to Romania’s tourist beaches. Should the Romanian rail network be further modernised, with journey times between other regional centres being reduced, long-distance rail transport may come to compete with air on a national basis.

The closure of Aurel Vlaicu Airport to scheduled services in 2012, and the subsequent transfer of its (predominantly LCC) flights to Henri Coanda Airport, had the effect of increasing the number of passengers handled by the latter airfield by 40% in 2012. Although the airport’s terminal was recently expanded to reach an annual capacity of six million passengers, further expansion is likely to be required; and there are plans underway to build a second terminal at Henri Coanda, with a maximum envisaged capacity of 20 million passengers per year. The Romanian government has declared that there will be only one publicly-funded airport serving Bucharest, and so private sector initiatives such as a low-cost airport proposed by Blue Air to the south of the city may assist with catering for a growth in demand for air transport.