57
Rail Baltica Statyba Transportation October 2014 AECOM Rail Baltica Feasibility Study Amendment – Analysis of Vilnius Extension
Rail Baltica Statyba
Transportation
October 2014
AECOM Rail Baltica Feasibility Study Amendment – Analysis of Vilnius Extension
Prepared by: ............................................................. Checked by: ........................................................................ Daniel Aldridge Craig Bell Associate Director, Transportation Regional Director, Transportation Approved by: ............................................................. Arnis Kakulis Director, Baltic Region
AECOM Rail Baltica Feasibility Study Amendment – Analysis of Vilnius Extension
Rev No Comments Checked by Approved by
Date
1 Final Report v1_DRAFT C. Bell A. Kakulis 29.09.2014
2 Final Report v9_ISSUED TO CLIENT C. Bell A. Kakulis 16.10.2014
Job No: 60328156 Reference: RBaltic - Kaunas Vilnius Date Created: July 2014 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. f:\projects\transport planning - rbaltic - kaunas vilnius\03 execution\08 technical\06 reporting\rail baltica final report vilnius extension - final v9 - issued 16102014.docx
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Data Validation and Verification ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ALIGNMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 CAPEX AND MAINTENANCE COST ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................... 9 2.3 PASSENGER SERVICE FEASIBILITY ............................................................................................................... 15
3 Assessment using Transport Models and CBA ........................................................................................................... 20 3.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.1 AECOM BALTIC STATES TRANSPORT MODEL AND CBA TOOL ................................................................... 21 3.2 APPROACH TO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 22 3.3 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – PASSENGER FLOWS .................................................................................. 25 3.4 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – FREIGHT ...................................................................................................... 27 3.5 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 29
4 Passenger Service Optimisation ................................................................................................................................... 31 4.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 32 4.1 IMPACT ON SERVICE OPERATOR FINANCES ................................................................................................ 34
5 Kaunas Airport – Vilnius Airport Express Connection Impacts .................................................................................. 35 5.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 36 5.1 AIR STUDY ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 5.2 IMPACT ON CBA ................................................................................................................................................ 39
6 Freight Study ................................................................................................................................................................... 41 6.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 42 6.1 FREIGHT VOLUMES IN RAIL BALTICA ............................................................................................................. 42 6.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 44 6.3 FINDINGS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 46 6.4 GREEN AGENDA ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 48 6.5 DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING THE RAIL MARKET ......................................................................................... 49 6.6 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 49
7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 51 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 52
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In May 2011 the Rail Baltica Final report was published outlining the findings from the Feasibility Study undertaken by AECOM
for a Standard Gauge Separate Railway Line within the “Rail Baltica” Corridor through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Since publication of the AECOM report the Lithuanian government has undertaken further feasibility work looking at options for
connecting Vilnius to the Rail Baltica network.
AECOM was approached by the Lithuanian Government to undertake a simple preliminary assessment of the impact of one of
the options for connecting Vilnius using the cost benefit analysis spreadsheet developed as part of the original work done by
AECOM. This was undertaken in May 2014 under Phase 1 – Initial AECOM Rail Baltica Transportation Cost Benefit Analysis
Model Update Calculations. Following from this study AECOM was commissioned to undertake the next phase of work.
At this point AECOM understands that the Lithuanian government would like to use the results of the work to support potential
funding applications for further studies to be undertaken, in particular CEF grants for studies where up to 50% of costs are
eligible. However, at project inception, the guidance for the requirements of CEF grants for studies had not yet been published,
with call for proposals currently scheduled by the EU for September 2014.
The scope of work for the second phase of work has therefore been limited to a reasonable evaluation of the feasibility of the Rail
Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur and its impacts on the whole Rail Baltica scheme and does not include tasks which can only
commence after the requirements of CEF grants for studies have been published. This means that this study has not undertaken
financial or risk analysis of the spur option.
It should also be noted that work during this phase has not re-visited any of the assumptions made during the original AECOM
study (including base passenger and freight demand, economic growth, and demand growth assumptions) but has assessed the
potential for a single spur option as would have been produced if the spur was considered as part of the original whole route
feasibility study.
2 Data Validation and Verification
3
2.0 OVERVIEW
SWECO undertook a feasibility study on behalf of the Lithuanian government exploring options for connecting Vilnius to the Rail
Baltica network. The following options were assessed:
- Alternative A: Rail Baltica North-South line via Kaunas, with a Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
- Sub-alternative 1: new track parallel to the existing Russian gauge line
- Sub-alternative 2a: new track connecting the southern part of Vilnius with the northern part of Kaunas
- Sub-alternative 2b: new track connecting the southern parts for both cities
- Alternative B: Rail Baltica North-South line from borders with Poland to Panavežys via Vilnius
The study concluded that Option 2a should be the preferred strategy for connecting Vilnius to the Rail Baltica network. The
assessment methodology applied focused on construction cost, journey time, and impacts on urban development and wider
integration strategies, landscape and environment protection as well as safeguarding cultural heritage.
Figure 2.1. Study Focus Area
4
AECOM commissioned the translation of the SWECO report into English and organised a meeting with SWECO to clarify
passenger service specifications and capital cost assumptions of the preferred option. The translated document became
available to AECOM in late July 2014 and the meeting with SWECO and Rail Baltica Statyba was held on August the 5th in
Vilnius.
2.1 ALIGNMENT
As a result of the meeting with SWECO and the detailed review of Option 2a, AECOM investigated multiple alternative
alignments that could result in a shorter overall distance as well as provide different approaches to the Kaunas Airport and more
direct approaches to the Vilnius Central Station. Three (3) different variations were studied – version 4, version 5, and version 6:
Table 2.1. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alternative alignments considered
Alternatives Connection
Points Length (m)
Length on Existing Railway
Corridor (m)
Number of Crossings – Main Roads
Number of Crossings
– 1st
/2nd
Class Roads
Alignment 2A_SWECO Kaunas Airport - Vilnius Central 101,900 12,310
4 (A1, A16, A4, A3) 13
Alignment 2A_AECOM_v4 Kaunas Airport - Vilnius Central 99,960 24,960
6 (A1, 2xA16, A4, A19, A3) 13
Alignment 2A_AECOM_v5 Kaunas Airport - Vilnius Central 93,910 15,900
4 (A1, A4, A19, A3) 10
Alignment 2A_AECOM_v6 Kaunas Airport - Vilnius Central 94,280 30,670
4 (A1, A4, A19, A3) 8
Figure 2.2. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alternative alignment AECOM v4
5
Figure 2.3. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alternative alignment AECOM v5
Figure 2.4. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alternative alignment AECOM v6
All alternate versions reduced the overall length of the spur and reduced the number of major road crossings, although unknown
other factors were not able to be thoroughly analyzed (i.e. geometric constraints, environmental issues, etc.). Therefore, it was
decided to proceed with SWECO Option 2A as the preferred alignment for this analysis.
Connecting the airports was considered as the preferred alignment (SWECO Option 2A) passes both airports and connections
can be established. At Kaunas Airport via bus shuttle service and at Vilnius Airport via covered pedestrian connection to the
terminal.
An alignment allowing passengers to access the two airports adds only marginal demand on the spur. By far the largest segment
of the demand using the spur are trips between Vilnius and Kaunas cities (and surrounding areas). These trips would get a
6
greater benefit if the route of the spur was shorter (and quicker); however this alignment would have to be both feasible from an
engineering and planning perspective as well as not add significant additional construction costs if it were to improve the BCR.
Figure 2.5. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alignment adopted for this study
The alignment was also verified for compliance with the requisite TSI specifications for speed and geometries. AECOM
converted the SWECO alignment (basically a line) into a geometrical layout (straight lines and curves, without transition curves)
from Kaunas Airport Station (interchange with Rail Baltic) to Vilnius Central Station (see following table).
Kaunas
Central
– KAU
Intermodal
Terminal
Vilnius Central – VIL
Vilnius Airport – VNO
Kaunas
Airport Kaunas Airport
Station – KUN
Kaunas
Central
Kaunas Airport
Station
Intermodal
Terminal
Vilnius
Central
Panavezys /
Tallinn
Warsaw
Bus Shuttle
to Terminal
Some services could
call at Kaunas
Central, subject to
capacity
Kaunas
Airport
Kaunas Airport
Station
7
Table 2.2. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur alignment geometries
No. Start Station End Station Type Length Radius Direction Delta angle
1 0+000.00m 3+947.71m Line 3947.709m
S53° 19' 36"E
2 3+947.71m 5+777.50m Curve 1829.793m 10000.000m
10.4839 (d)
3 5+777.50m 8+591.62m Line 2814.116m
S42° 50' 33"E
4 8+591.62m 14+225.01m Curve 5633.392m 25000.000m
12.9108 (d)
5 14+225.01m 22+729.78m Line 8504.773m
S55° 45' 12"E
6 22+729.78m 23+298.70m Curve 568.912m 7500.000m
4.3462 (d)
7 23+298.70m 23+969.25m Curve 670.549m 3500.000m
10.9770 (d)
8 23+969.25m 25+128.51m Line 1159.261m
S62° 23' 03"E
9 25+128.51m 26+158.13m Curve 1029.624m 3500.000m
16.8552 (d)
10 26+158.13m 27+434.44m Curve 1276.312m 20000.000m
3.6564 (d)
11 27+434.44m 28+526.51m Curve 1092.070m 3500.000m
17.8774 (d)
12 28+526.51m 29+413.87m Line 887.354m
S23° 59' 43"E
13 29+413.87m 30+284.05m Curve 870.181m 3500.000m
14.2451 (d)
14 30+284.05m 32+877.87m Curve 2593.818m 25000.000m
5.9446 (d)
15 32+877.87m 53+412.05m Line 20534.183m
S44° 11' 06"E
16 53+412.05m 58+924.51m Curve 5512.461m 10000.000m
31.5841 (d)
17 58+924.51m 75+857.65m Line 16933.139m
S75° 46' 08"E
18 75+857.65m 76+119.45m Curve 261.796m 7500.000m
2.0000 (d)
19 76+119.45m 80+387.82m Curve 4268.379m 25000.000m
9.7824 (d)
20 80+387.82m 80+788.37m Curve 400.544m 2000.000m 11.4747 (d)
21 80+788.37m 82+924.98m Line 2136.614m
N84° 58' 26"E
22 82+924.98m 83+554.18m Curve 629.200m 4200.000m
8.5835 (d)
23 83+554.18m 83+952.94m Line 398.756m
S86° 26' 34"E
24 83+952.94m 84+330.09m Curve 377.154m 3500.000m
6.1741 (d)
25 84+330.09m 86+472.21m Line 2142.121m
N87° 22' 59"E
26 86+472.21m 87+348.29m Curve 876.076m 20000.000m
2.5098 (d)
27 87+348.29m 89+049.20m Line 1700.913m
N84° 52' 24"E
28 89+049.20m 89+504.27m Curve 455.072m 350.000m 74.4963 (d)
29 89+504.27m 91+075.65m Line 1571.372m
N10° 22' 38"E
30 91+075.65m 91+800.76m Line 725.114m
N2° 21' 46"E
31 91+800.76m 92+449.61m Curve 648.853m 1500.000m
24.7844 (d)
32 92+449.61m 93+342.12m Curve 892.503m 1300.000m
39.3359 (d)
33 93+342.12m 94+287.70m Line 945.584m
N12° 11' 19"W
34 94+287.70m 95+175.67m Curve 887.967m 2500.000m
20.3507 (d)
8
No. Start Station End Station Type Length Radius Direction Delta angle
35 95+175.67m 96+988.75m Line 1813.079m
N8° 09' 43"E
36 96+988.75m 97+597.39m Curve 608.643m 2000.000m
17.4364 (d)
37 97+597.39m 98+108.11m Curve 510.723m 2000.000m
14.6311 (d)
38 98+108.11m 98+960.24m Curve 852.132m 600.000m
81.3726 (d)
39 98+960.24m 100+017.46m Curve 1057.216m 560.000m
108.1679 (d)
40 100+017.46m 100+292.18m Curve 274.721m 450.000m
34.9785 (d)
41 100+292.18m 100+668.25m Line 376.072m
N67° 07' 50"E
42 100+668.25m 101+265.64m Line 597.387m
N69° 54' 55"E
43 101+265.64m 101+442.15m Curve 176.508m 550.000m
18.3875 (d)
44 101+442.15m 101+810.99m Line 368.843m
N51° 31' 40"E
The alignment is suitable for 240 km/h (all radius are above 3.500 m). One radius of 2000 m was detected (alignment No. 20
V=190-210 km/h), but we believe it could be improved to higher value as apparently there is no major constraints in this area.
Also, the alignment Nº.28 is a radius of 350 m, as it is the connection with Vilnius existing corridor. This radius is only suitable for
a speed of 50 km/h or less, which is not acceptable. This would need to be engineered differently.
For our time table calculations we assumed that the speed in this crossing should be 100 or 120 km/h minimum. From this
crossing to Vilnius, the alignment is in a suburban area, running on the existing corridor therefore, speeds will be limited. If we
assume 100 km/h on the crossing, increasing speed and decreasing before Vilnius station will not be possible. Therefore, in the
suburban area our time table considers a maximum speed of 100-120 km/h.
Additionally, AECOM examined the alignment directly adjacent to the Vilnius airport. Key considerations will need to be
addressed regarding the existing 1520mm alignment and the need to maintain the various commercial railway spurs entering
private manufacturing/logistics facilities. The spur that enters the airport territory could be considered strategic to the Rail Baltica
network for possible air to rail freight flows.
9
Figure 2.6. Vilnius airport alignment constraints
Google Earth AECOM License: [email protected]
2.2 CAPEX AND MAINTENANCE COST ASSUMPTIONS
The costs of implementing and operating Rail Baltica are extremely important inputs to determine the economic costs and
benefits of the project. Given that the project is in the early stage of the planning process and the cost model is subject to various
uncertainties and therefore contingencies have been included to mitigate these uncertainties. All costs represented in the
analysis, do not include VAT. The cost model assumptions and unit cost definitions are taken from the previous feasibility study
methodology (see Feasibility Study Volume 1 – Section 8.6)
The capital costs were calculated on a unit costs basis in relation to various cost elements per segment of the route. The spur
alignment was divided into 11 (KV_1-KV_11) segments of various lengths depending on geographic points/landmarks along the
route. Each section has a specific length based on the alignment for the spur – total length 101.9 km.
10
Table 2.3. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur section breakdown and track infrastructure estimate
Section code Length
(km) Cost per km
(€, 2010) Cost
(€, 2010)
KUN-Airport
KV_1 11.7 4,500,000 52,515,000.0
KV_2 14.6 4,500,000 65,655,000.0
KV_3 11.0 4,000,000 44,000,000.0
KV_4 9.1 4,000,000 36,400,000.0
KV_5 16.5 3,500,000 57,750,000.0
KV_6 4.0 3,500,000 14,000,000.0
KV_7 8.5 4,000,000 34,000,000.0
KV_8 9.0 4,500,000 40,500,000.0
KV_9 5.0 4,500,000 22,500,000.0
KV_10 0.0
0.0
KV_11 12.6 9,000,000 112,977,000.0
Vilnius-Central
TOTAL 101.9 480,297,000.0
The track infrastructure estimate is based on materials (50%), equipment (20%), labor (22%) and other (8%) costs associated
with double railway track, power network, electrification, SCB network, telecommunications, and GSM-R network. In addition,
costs related to topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations, planning and design, author/technical supervision and a 5%
contingency have been added to calculate the total expenditures related to track infrastructure. (See Feasibility Study Volume 1
– Section 8.6 – Table 99).
In addition to the track infrastructure, additional above-grade road crossings and water crossings need to be considered along
the entire alignment since TSI’s dictate grade – separated crossing along the entire route (exceptions in urban areas). A total of
128 road crossings or road diversions were identified that included crossings of main roads, 1st class roads, 2nd class roads and
other roads. Each road crossing or road diversion was assigned a unit cost as defined in the previous feasibility study.
11
Table 2.4. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur road crossings
Section code Length
(km)
Road crossings (bridges)
main roads (А, Е class)
Cost per unit
(€, 2010)
1st class roads
Cost per unit
(€, 2010)
2nd class roads
Cost per unit
(€, 2010)
other roads
Cost per unit
(€, 2010)
KUN-Airport
KV_1 11.7
1 300,000 8 250,000
KV_2 14.6
1 350,000
300,000 17 250,000
KV_3 11.0 1 400,000
2 300,000 18 250,000
KV_4 9.1
1 300,000 15 250,000
KV_5 16.5
1 350,000 1 300,000 20 250,000
KV_6 4.0 1 400,000 1 350,000
2 250,000
KV_7 8.5
1 300,000 6 250,000
KV_8 9.0 1 400,000
1 300,000 7 250,000
KV_9 5.0
1 350,000
12 250,000
KV_10 0.0
KV_11 12.6 1 400,000 2 350,000
6 250,000
Vilnius-Central
TOTAL 101.9 4 6 7 111
In addition to rail infrastructure and bridges, additional costs were included for water crossings, passenger station upgrades /
construction, maintenance facility construction, and cross-over integration.
Table 2.5. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur water crossings
Section code Length
(km)
Water crossings
Rivers Cost per unit
(€, 2010) Reservoirs
Cost per unit (€, 2010)
Lakes (m)
Cost per unit (€, 2010)
KUN-Airport
KV_1 11.7 17 350,000
KV_2 14.6 17 350,000
KV_3 11.0 8 350,000
380.0 35,000
KV_4 9.1 11 350,000
795.0 35,000
KV_5 16.5 3 350,000 1 45,000,000 645.0 35,000
KV_6 4.0 1 350,000
KV_7 8.5 1 350,000
KV_8 9.0 3 350,000
KV_9 5.0 4 350,000
KV_10 0.0
KV_11 12.6
Vilnius-Central
TOTAL 101.9 65 1 1820
12
The water reservoir considered on the preferred alignment (SWECO Option 2A) is shown below. The cost estimate was based
on 600 m elevated long-span section at 75,000 EUR/m.
Figure 2.7. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur water reservoir
Google Earth AECOM License: [email protected]
Costs for land expropriation were established by reviewing current market assessment values (using 2011 market data) for the
various types of land that will be required for implementing the preferred alternative. Various territory types will be required as
referenced in the Land Uses (forest, agricultural and wetlands) and various settlement types will be impacted (towns/cities and
suburbs). It is also assumed that a new alignment will require 100m ROW and an existing alignment will require 50m additional
ROW. (See Feasibility Study Volume 1 – Section 8.6 – Table 103 for land cost assumptions).
13
Table 2.6. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur territory and settlement land costs
Section code
Length (km)
Territory type (km)
Settlements (km)
Fo
res
t
Co
st
(€,
20
10
)
Fie
lds
Co
st
(€,
20
10
)
Sw
am
ps
Co
st
(€,
20
10
)
To
wn
s
Co
st
(€,
20
10
)
Su
bu
rbs
Co
st
(€,
20
10
)
KUN-Airport
KV_1 11.7 11.2 335,100
0.5 75,000
KV_2 14.6 4.3 128,280 10.3 268,164
KV_3 11.0 3.9 117,300 6.7 174,460 0.4 5,700
KV_4 9.1 3.5 104,400 4.8 125,450 0.8 11,925
KV_5 16.5 9.0 269,550 6.9 178,620 0.6 9,675
KV_6 4.0 2.1 63,300 1.9 49,140
KV_7 8.5 4.3 129,750 4.2 108,550
KV_8 9.0 3.4 103,200 5.6 144,560
KV_9 5.0 1.7 50,280 2.6 67,314
0.7 110,250
KV_10 0.0 0.0
KV_11 12.6 0.0
12.6 18,829,500
Vilnius-Central
TOTAL 101.9 43.4 42.9 1.8 12.6 1.2
Land Cost (€, 2010) 21,459,468.00
Costs for Passenger Stations were estimated in a similar scope of magnitude to the initial feasibility study. The Vilnius Station
was considered similar to the estimate prepared for Riga (50,000,000 EUR - scope of works to significantly upgrade the existing
station to accommodate new platforms, redistributed passenger circulation, and reconstruction of the majority of the public
spaces in the station to reconfigure flow and functionality to new industry standards). New stations at Kaunas Airport and Vilnius
Airport would be smaller scale but would have higher per/SQM costs as they would be new construction (each estimated also at
50,000,000 EUR).
14
The total CAPEX estimate for the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur is 866,985,788 EUR
Table 2.7. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur total estimated costs
Section code Length
(km) Cost per km
(€, 2010) Cost
(€, 2010)
KUN-Airport
50,000,000.00
KV_1 11.7 42,000 60,777,600.00
KV_2 14.6 42,000 76,208,360.00
KV_3 11.0
65,600,000.00
KV_4 9.1
72,125,000.00
KV_5 16.5
132,025,000.00
KV_6 4.0
15,600,000.00
KV_7 8.5 42,000 36,153,360.00
KV_8 9.0
44,000,000.00
KV_9 5.0
27,250,000.00
KV_10 0.0 42,000 105,000.00
KV_11 12.6 42,000 165,682,000.00
Vilnius-Central
100,000,000.00
TOTAL 101.9
845,526,320.00
Construction Cost, € 845,526,320.00
Land Cost, € 21,459,468.00
TOTAL CAPEX, € 866,985,788.00
Inclusion of Capital Cost Estimates in the Cost Benefit Analysis
The cost estimates discussed above form a major element of the cost benefit analysis Construction and land costs have been
taken directly from the analysis above; other cost elements have been estimated using same approach as in 2010 feasibility
study (fixed % of construction costs). . The table below summarises the additional costs (on top of those for the north – south
Rail Baltica line identified in the 2010 feasibility study) used in the cost benefit analysis for the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur.
It should be noted that the cost of Palemonas station, which was included in the preferred route in the 2010 feasibility study, is no
longer required and has therefore been subtracted from the costs in the table shown below.
Table 2.8. Additional Construction Costs When Adding Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur into Rail Baltica Project in
Economic Appraisal
Total costs (m€, 2010)
Costs used in CBA
Undiscounted Market Cost
Discounted Economic Cost
(including conversion factors to account for social cost of labour)
Design and Planning 22 16
Land 21 14
Construction Costs 746 372
Project Management 7 5
Site Supervision 1 0
Total Capital Cost 798 407
Residual Value -280 -27
15
2.3 PASSENGER SERVICE FEASIBILITY
This section of the report examines the potential passenger services that could operate on the Rail Baltica Kaunas – Vilnius Spur
based on the key characteristics of the preferred Option identified in Section 2.1 .
Infrastructure Assumptions
The Rail Baltica Kaunas – Vilnius Spur will connect the southern part of Vilnius with the northern part of Kaunas with a European
gauge (1435mm) track. The envisaged route provides stations at:
- Vilnius City Centre (VIL),
- Vilnius Airport (VNO),
- Kaunas Airport (KUN) and
- Kaunas City Centre (KAU),
The interchange with the Rail Baltica North-South line will be located at KUN. However, no detailed design work of the proposed
route exists at this point. It was therefore necessary to make a series of infrastructure assumptions prior to identifying service
pattern potentials. These assumptions are listed below:
1. The spur starts at the existing Vilnius City Centre station (VIL) and follows the existing railway southwards through
the Vilnius Airport station (VNO). No assumption is made on whether this replaces the Russian gauge, runs
alongside it or uses mixed gauge track. Due to curvature and being in an urban area, maximum speeds are assumed
to be 100km/h north of Vilnius Airport station and 120km/h south of this station.
2. South of the built-up area, the line turns westwards, approximately as depicted in Figure 9 of the SWECO report.
This is a gentler curve than depicted on SWECO’s smaller-scale figures and does not significantly constrain the
journey time.
3. The line then follows the route as depicted at small scale in Figure 8 of the SWECO report (dark green option).
Maximum speed of 240km/h is assumed to be possible on this section. Although one curve on this section is shown
in the SWECO report with a smaller radius, this is assumed to be eased out as there is no evident geographical
constraint that prevents this.
4. The Kaunas airport station (KUN) is assumed to be at the convergence of SWECO Opt2a route with the Russian-
gauge route east of the airport. This provides good interchange with the Rail Baltica route without the need to tunnel
under the airport, but would require a shuttle bus connection to the terminal building.
5. The Vilnius-Kaunas service then uses the Rail Baltica route, assumed to follow this Russian-gauge line via
Palemonas
6. Vilnius-Kaunas trains access Kaunas central station (KAU) from the north only, using mixed gauge along or new track
alongside the Russian gauge route via Palemonas and the tunnel. Speeds on this section are also dictated by curve
radii, but with an 85km/h speed restriction through the tunnel.
7. The route is assumed to be double track.
8. No assumption is made on whether the Russian gauge services also serve Kaunas Airport station (KUN).
9. The Kaunas Airport station (KUN) requires four platform tracks for 1435mm gauge trains if they are to pass at this
station as suggested by previous Rail Baltica timetable work. If they do not pass then only three 1435mm gauge
platforms are required, since the Rail Baltica service in each direction connects with a Kaunas-Vilnius train in both
directions.
10. Vilnius and Kaunas stations (VIL, KAU) require only one 1435mm gauge platform each.
11. The possible consequences of changing the service frequency and timetable on the Rail Baltica North – South line
are not considered as part of this study. In particular, it may be possible to operate Rail Baltica services through
Kaunas station (KAU), with appropriate 1435mm gauge infrastructure to the south, but this would increase journey
times and might require extra trains.
16
Train Type and Journey Times
The timetabling exercise has assumed that passenger trains will have a maximum speed of 240km/h, in line with assumptions for
the north – south Rail Baltica service.
A number of currently unknown factors might affect journey time on the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur:
1. No information is available on gradient. Journey times are extended on ascending gradients, and this is not fully
compensated for by shorter journey times on descents.
2. The final alignment may not attain the speeds assumed in this assessment.
3. Timetabling always allows some extra time to allow recovery from minor delays.
To allow for these factors, times are uplifted by about 10% to give the following start-to-stop times in both directions:
- Vilnius to Vilnius Airport (VIL to VNO): 4min
- Vilnius Airport to Kaunas Airport (VNO to KUN): 32min
- Kaunas Airport to Kaunas (KUN to KAU): 10min
The timetable also provides freight paths, which are estimated for a 5000kW electric locomotive hauling 1600 tonnes of trailing
load (wagons plus payload) at a maximum speed of 120km/h. Journey times are similarly uplifted by 10% to give a time of 54min
between Vilnius and a junction into Palemonas yard, assumed to be near the A1 crossing. Freight times are particularly sensitive
to gradient and detailed locomotive performance characteristics, so this time is subject to significant uncertainty but the train
specified approximates to the slowest that can be operated on the Vilnius-Kaunas section between passenger trains running at
30min intervals.
Intermediate station dwell times on Vilnius-Kaunas services are assumed to be 2min, which is considered appropriate for stations
where significant numbers of passengers may have heavy luggage. The Rail Baltica service is assumed to wait for about 8min at
Kaunas Airport to provide time for passenger interchange both ways and because it must share tracks with the Vilnius-Kaunas
train at either end of the station. This also allows time for these longer-distance trains to recover from delays, and is broadly
consistent with previous Rail Baltica timetabling work and therefore no changes to north – south Rail Baltica service travel times
have been made.
In summary the travel time via the Rail Baltica passenger service between Kaunas city centre and Vilnius city centre is expected
to be 50 minutes (36 minutes station-to-station time, 4 minutes total dwell time)
Timetable
The 2011 AECOM report concluded that the optimal frequency on the Rail Baltica North – South line is bihourly (one train every
120 minutes or 0.5tph). With this in mind and taking into consideration the opportunities available for connection at Kaunas
Airport (KUN), the core timetable that has been considered is provided below.
17
Figure 2.8. Rail Baltica North – South line and Vilnius – Kaunas Spur Core Timetable (Option 1)
This timetable takes advantage of the opportunities available for connection at Kaunas Airport. The following direct services are
provided in both directions. The following direct services form Timetable Option 1:
- Vilnius to Kaunas central station every 30min
- Warsaw to Tallinn every 120min, as in previous Rail Baltica studies
Including also journeys involving a change of train at Kaunas Airport, the following frequencies are provided:
- Vilnius to Kaunas central station every 30min.
- Vilnius to Tallinn and Warsaw every 120min each
- Kaunas to Tallinn and Warsaw every 120min each
- Tallinn to Warsaw every 120min
The time table also provides a freight path every 120min between Palemonas and Vilnius (this could be as often as every 30min
if necessary) however, the volume and frequency of freight trains would depend upon the size of the market. The time table also
provides the opportunity for other freight trains to pass through on the north - south Rail Baltica route.
The figure in the following page shows the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur core timetable graphically.
18
Figure 2.9. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur Core Timetable (Option 1)
to Panevezys
Mikainiai Jn
VilniusVilnius AirportVilnius Airport
Mikainiai JnKaunas AirportKaunas Airport
Amaliai JnPortalKaunas
Amaliai Jn
to Bialystok
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
19
Train Requirements
With each train making a return journey every 2 hours, four trains must be operating to provide a Vilnius-Kaunas train every
30min. Depending on demand profile, these might be single train sets or shorter train sets which are coupled together to run in
pairs at busy times. Thus either four or eight train sets are required in service plus at least one spare train to cover for
maintenance. The Vilnius-Kaunas proposal does not significantly affect the number of trains needed to operate the Rail Baltica
North – South service.
The most economical way of providing these trains might be as part of a shared fleet with the north-south Rail Baltica route, since
this would allow maintenance facilities and spare trains to be shared between a larger fleet.
Sensitivity to Assumptions
The assumptions made are considered prudent and broadly achievable. The following comments consider the consequences if
they prove not to be attainable.
- A station near the terminal building at Kaunas Airport would increase costs significantly, since the line towards Kaunas would
have to tunnel under the runway. The extra length and tighter curves on this alignment would slightly increase journey times
on both Vilnius-Kaunas and north-south Rail Baltica services.
- Increased passenger train journey time between Vilnius and Kaunas Airport would still allow a similar timetable to be
operated, although the longer journey would reduce passenger numbers. However extension of the journey time by more
than about 5min would require more trains and a second 1435mm gauge platform at Vilnius.
Timetable options are sensitive to passenger train journey time between Kaunas Airport and Kaunas, since they assume that
trains can make the return journey (including waiting time at Kaunas) in about 30min.
- The proposed timetable can be accommodated with only one 1435mm gauge track through the existing Kaunas tunnel.
- Using single track elsewhere on the route would reduce the possible train service and probably also increase journey times.
3 Assessment using Transport
Models and CBA
21
3.0 INTRODUCTION
As part of the 2010 Rail Baltica feasibility study AECOM developed a Baltic States Transport Model to determine levels of
demand on the new rail line and a complementary cost benefit analysis (CBA) spreadsheet tool to assess the benefits and cost
impacts of the various options tested.
As part of this study AECOM have revised the transport model and CBA Tool to include additional East - West Rail Baltica spur
services. These were then used to calculate Rail Baltica passenger flows on the Vilnius – Kaunas spur and assess the impact on
the economic performance indicators (EIRR, BCR, NPV) of the whole project.
Section 3.1 below describes the Baltic States Transport Model and Rail Baltica CBA Tool developed by AECOM as part of the
original feasibility study. Section 3.2 summarises the approach to cost benefit analysis that we have adopted. Section 3.3 then
outlines the results from the transport model and cost benefit analysis.
3.1 AECOM BALTIC STATES TRANSPORT MODEL AND CBA TOOL
The AECOM Baltic States Transport Model covers the Rail Baltica corridor from Estonia to Poland and includes forecast freight
and passenger demand in the region, by mode, in 2020, 2030 and 2040.
The passenger part of the model includes:
- base year and forecast year passenger demand matrices by road, rail, bus and air; - a multi-modal assignment model to provide indicative travel times by different modes; - a representation of possible Rail Baltica service options with accompanying assignment model; and - a mode choice model to determine changes in mode shift in future years to give the volume of passenger traffic
which will shift to Rail Baltica.
The Freight part of the model includes:
- base year freight movements by road, rail and sea for bulk and non-bulk freight; - a freight forecast model driven by forecast changes in GDP; - trip cost information for movements by existing modes and Rail Baltica, including travel times, mode haul costs
and handling charges; - a mode choice model to determine changes in mode shift in future years to give the volume of freight which will
shift to Rail Baltica; and - An assignment process to determine freight volumes on each section of the Rail Baltica line.
The transport model already contains the base demand; future year demand forecasts; and assignment and demand model
procedures to model the impact of different Rail Baltica route options on freight and passenger movements.
A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) tool accompanies the model. This takes trip data (passenger and freight volumes, times,
distances, costs) from the model and calculates the economic benefits of the scheme being tested. By comparing this against the
cost of the scheme the economic performance is shown in terms of NPV, BCR, and EIRR.
22
3.2 APPROACH TO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Economic cost benefit analysis assesses the value for money of the project from the viewpoint of society as a whole, regardless
to whom the benefits and costs fall.
From a methodological point of view, the process compares the project’s costs (initial investment as well as operation and
maintenance) with the anticipated benefits, such as travellers’ time, accidents and vehicle emissions, after it has attached a
monetary value to the latter.
In the case of the Rail Baltica, a summary of the main costs and benefits, and their treatment in the economic cost-benefit
analysis, is shown in Table below.
Table 3.1. Economic Costs Benefit Analysis
Source of Cost / Benefit
Economic Cost Benefit Analysis Source
Rail Manager
Capital Cost Cost of all elements of infrastructure including design and planning, land, construction, supervision and contingency
Valued net of VAT on materials, and social cost on labour
Maintenance Cost All ongoing costs of maintaining the infrastructure during the appraisal period
Track Access Charges Charge paid by the passenger and freight operators to the manager for use of infrastructure
Based on approach outlined in EC document 2010/0253(COD)
Residual Value of the Project Value of infrastructure at the end of the appraisal period.
Valued at a fraction of the construction cost depending upon the scale of the infrastructure.
Rail Operators
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Costs of operating and maintaining the freight and passenger services, includes an elements to pay track access charge to manager
Valued net of VAT on materials
Revenues Revenues generated over the appraisal period from fares paid by passengers and hauliers
Valued net of VAT
Transport Users
Travellers Time Savings
Valued according to economic cost, by either savings to economy for business journeys, or value assigned by individuals for non business journeys
HEATCO values of time used for each country
External Effects
Accident Savings
Valued according to economic cost, i.e. direct cost of emergency services, loss of the economic value of the lost working time in the case of death or serious injury. An allowance for pain and suffering can also be included
HEATCO values of time used for each country
Benefits From Reduced Emissions
Economic value assigned to the reduction in emissions of both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants..
IMPACT recommended value for CO2 emissions and HEATCO recommended value for air pollution emissions used
23
Note: The economic cost-benefit analysis is concerned with the resource value of goods, and it therefore excludes “transfer”
payments, such as VAT and social payments, which are money payments transferred from one group in society to another, and
do not represent the real consumption of resources.
In accordance with the EC Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects the methodology employed
- considers the resource cost of goods, excluding transfer payments such as VAT.
- uses EU recommended appraisal parameters; appraisal period of 30 years and discount rate of 5.5%
- is based on the incremental method, calculating the difference in the value of the economic parameters of the ‘without project’
and ‘with project’ alternatives.
In the case of the evaluation of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur, the ‘without project’ or ‘Business as usual’ scenario
consists of the proposed Rail Baltica red route option 1 service providing a higher speed rail link along the Warsaw to Tallinn
corridor as described in the 2010 AECOM study along with other existing and upgraded transport infrastructure.
The ‘with project’ is identical to the ‘Business as usual’ scenario in all respects with the exception of including the Rail Baltica
Vilnius – Kaunas Spur as described in Chapter 2, along with its impact on the Rail Baltica North – South line in the Kaunas
region.
Investment Costs
Details on the capital costs and the spend profile associated with the construction of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur are
provided in chapter 2.
As part of the economic cost benefit analysis, transfer payments such as VAT as well as payment involving salaries and other
taxes (e.g. fuel tax) should be excluded from the initial investment costs, by removing VAT and applying coefficients to remove
social taxes. Moreover, the principle of cost benefit analysis is based on the measurement of the social opportunity costs (rather
than observed market prices, which are subject to market distortions). To correct for this, suitable conversion factors are applied.
As part of the CBA for the spur the same conversion factors as in the original Rail Baltica 2011 AECOM study have been applied.
Infrastructure Manager Costs and Benefits
The infrastructure manager incurs the cost of maintaining the track. Track access charges (reservation charges levied by the
infrastructure manager from operators in exchange for specific train paths) are to some extend offsetting this cost. For the
different elements comprising the maintenance cost as well as the principles of track access charging please consult the 2011
AECOM study.
Rail Operator Costs and Benefits
Rail operators have to incur operating and train maintenance costs in order to provide a service. These costs include the cost of
using the network, paid to the infrastructure manager in the form of track access charges. At the same time, they generate
revenue from charges made to customers of both the passenger and freight services.
Both revenue and costs forecasts are based on the same assumptions used in the 2011 AECOM study for the Rail Baltica North
– South line.
Social Costs and Benefits
On top of the above benefits which are directly observed in monetary terms, the economic cost benefit analysis allocates
monetary values to the non market impacts of the scheme. This is because such impacts are valued by the society but no
functioning market (hence a price) exists for them. The list of impacts includes:
- Savings in travel time
- Prevention of road fatalities and accidents from diverting traffic to the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
- Reductions in road air pollution emissions from diverting traffic to the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
24
- Reductions in green house gas emissions from diverting traffic to the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
The theoretical underpinnings of the monetisation of these impacts is discussed in detail in the 2011 AECOM study for the Rail
Baltica North – South line.
Economic Performance Indicators
The project brings economic benefits such as, reducing travel time, generating revenue whilst improving traffic safety and road
emissions. The Economic Cost Benefit uses discounted cash flow techniques to take account of the fact that benefits and costs
that occur further into the future are valued less highly than those that occur in the short term. The positive impact of the project
is measured by the economic indicators of the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project, which is the sum of the net benefits of the
project discounted using the given rate to base year (2010) values, and in terms of the Economic Rate of Return (EIRR), which is
the discount rate which gives a Net Present Value of zero.
National Governments and international bodies such as the European Union set certain standards for the EIRR of transport
infrastructure projects: as a benchmark the EIRR of rail projects sponsored by the EU during the previous programming period
was 11.6%.
The 2010 feasibility study showed that, under the assumptions made for the project at the time, the key indicators for the Rail
Baltica project were positive. With a discount rate of 5.5%, there is a positive NPV of €1,368m, at 2010 prices, and a benefit cost
ratio of 1.75. The corresponding EIRR is 9.3%.
25
3.3 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – PASSENGER FLOWS
Passenger Flows on Rail Baltica Services
The table below shows flows on key links of the Rail Baltica network in Lithuania. It compares the findings of the 2011 AECOM
study for the Rail Baltica North – South line (‘with N-S service only’ scenario) to the demand as a result of the base case
timetable and alignment described in Chapter 2 (‘with N-S service and Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur service, Opt1’ scenario
Table 3.2. AADT with and without the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
2020
2-way Daily Passenger Trips
North – South Service only
(Preferred option from 2010 AECOM
feasibility study)
North – South Service and Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
(Opt1)
Daily trips % change
Rail
Baltic
a
Nort
h –
So
uth
Se
rvic
e Riga - Panavežys 2,610 2,628 0.7%
Panavežys - Kaunas Airport 4,656 4,662 0.1%
Kaunas Airport - Warsaw 1,090 1,041 -4.5%
Rail
Baltic
a
Viln
ius –
Ka
un
as S
pu
r
Vilnius - Vilnius Airport 0 10,662 -
Vilnius Airport - Kaunas Airport 0 10,662 -
Kaunas Airport - Kaunas 0 9,485 -
The comparison results suggest significant daily flows on the spur with over 10,000 passengers a day predicted in 2020.
The results also show a small increase in flows on the North – South Rail Baltica line north of Kaunas and a small reduction in
passengers on the line south of Kaunas. The spur only attracts a small number of additional passengers to the north-south Rail
Baltica service due to several factors:
- Wait times are not reduced – The spur would provide a more frequent service between both Kaunas and Vilnius city centres
and the Kaunas airport station where north-south Rail Baltica services would stop than the existing rail service. However, as
the frequency of the north-south Rail Baltica service is unchanged from previous analysis (one train every 2 hours) the
increased frequency of the spur services does not impact on the average wait time of users travelling to destinations on the
North - South Rail Baltica line.
- There is not a direct service from Kaunas or Vilnius cities to Rail Baltica North - South line stations - the core spur service
pattern (Opt1) does not provide direct Rail Baltica services from Vilnius or Kaunas cities to north (Riga/Tallinn) or south
(Warsaw).
- Interchange experience is only slightly improved – the core spur service pattern (Opt1) does not provide direct Rail Baltica
services and it was assumed in the original study that existing east-west services would be scheduled to complement the N-S
Rail Baltica arrival and departure times and minimize interchange waits times.
- Time savings on spur relative to existing rail are large for shorter distance trips between Vilnius and Kaunas but are relatively
small relative to total travel time of the longer distance trips to Rail Baltica north-south line stations.
26
The table below shows the component parts of the 2020 spur passenger flows.
Table 3.3. Demand segments within Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
2020 Daily 2-way flow
Vilnius to/from stations on North – South Rail Baltica line 2,778 26%
Vilnius City to Kaunas City
from car 2,393 22%
from bus 1,716 16%
from rail 1,991 19%
newly generated 1,487 14%
Other ODs using spur 297 3%
Total Spur 10,662 100%
26% of trips using the spur are accessing north – south Rail Baltica services at Kaunas airport interchange. 71% of
passengers are travelling between Kaunas and Vilnius city regions. Only 3% of passengers are using the spur as
part of a longer distance east-west journey.
Change in Demand Using Competing Modes
The majority of trips on the spur (7,587, 71%) are travelling between Kaunas city and Vilnius city regions. The table
below shows demand on this movement by mode in base and how it changes with and without the Rail Baltica
scheme (‘with N-S service and Kaunas-Vilnius Spur service) in 2020.
Table 3.4. Kaunas City to/from Vilnius City Demand Mode Splits
Mode 2009
observed 2009
base model
2020 ‘without Rail Baltica
scheme’
2020 ‘with N-S
service and Kaunas-
Vilnius Spur service’ (Opt1)
Car 12,517 73% 12,185 69% 13,769 67% 11,376 51%
Bus 2,360 14% 2,853 16% 3,175 15% 1,459 7%
Rail 2,239 13% 2,610 15% 3,684 18% 1,693 8%
Rail Baltica 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7,587 34%
Total 17,116 17,648 20,628 22,115 Note: the observed data and base year model were developed during the previous study from data made available at the time.
- Car demand based on AADT data on A1 between Kaunas and Vilnius and A1 west of Kaunas
- Bus demand based on number of timetabled services and estimated average occupancy
- Rail Demand based on 2009 passenger data supplied by Lithuanian Railways.
27
The Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas spur captures demand from all competing modes. The impact on bus and rail is
most significant with mode shares reducing by over 50%.
3.4 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – FREIGHT
The freight model developed as part of the original feasibility study includes an estimate of the freight market within
the Baltic States in 2008 and the share that may shift, in future, to a Rail Baltica freight service depending upon
service levels.
The table below shows the size of the 2008 market for movements which could make use of a freight service along
the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur and an estimate of the share of this market that could be captured by a Rail
Baltica freight service using the spur. If the estimates are achieved it is possible to prevent the emission of 1034
tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere each year.
It should be noted when considering capture of freight market by rail that rail freight is subject to the effects of
economies of scale. Generally, rail freight is most beneficial over medium to long transit distances. The additional
time and cost implications of the loading and unloading process are cancelled out over greater transit distances for
larger loads compared to other modes. As Vilnius and Kaunas are only ~100km apart, it is unlikely that rail freight
operations between the two cities would be operationally or financially advantageous as the loading and unloading
processes would represent a significant proportion of both time and cost. This is reflected in the analysis in the
tables below.
Table 3.5. Bulk freight market in-scope of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
Movement Size of Bulk
Market
2008 ‘000 tonnes
% of Market Captured by Rail Baltica Freight
Service Comments
From To with N-S
service only with N-S and Spur service
From Vilnius
Kaunas 1439 0 0 Short distance, unlikely to have rail market share
Panavežys 542 0 0 Serviced by existing Russian gauge line
Riga (Region and city)
40 5% 10% Serviced by existing Russian gauge line Some possibility – medium distance ~ 350km
Tallinn 44 10% 20% Possible ~ 700km distance
Warsaw (Poland) 165 10% 20% Possible ~ 500km distance
To Vilnius
Kaunas 1194 0 0 Short distance, unlikely to have rail market share
Panavežys 555 0 0 Serviced by existing Russian gauge line
Riga (Region and city)
27 5% 10% Serviced by existing Russian gauge line Some possibility – medium distance ~ 350km
Tallinn 20 10% 20% Possible ~ 700km distance
Warsaw (Poland) 108 10% 20% Possible ~ 500km distance
28
Table 3.6. 2008 Non-Bulk freight market in-scope of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
Movement Size of
Non-Bulk Market
2008 ‘000 tonnes
% of Market Captured by Rail Baltica Freight
Service Comments
From To with N-S
service only with N-S and Spur service
From Vilnius
Kaunas 1136 0 0 Short distance, unlikely to have rail market share
Panavežys 428 0 0 Serviced by existing Russian gauge line
Riga (Region and city)
25 5% 10% Serviced by existing Russian gauge line Some possibility – medium distance 350km
Tallinn 33 10% 20% Possible – 700km distance
Warsaw (Poland) 114 10% 20% Possible - 500km distance
To Vilnius
Kaunas 943 0 0 Short distance, unlikely to have rail market share
Panavežys 438 0 0 Serviced by existing Russian gauge line
Riga (Region and city)
13 5% 10% Serviced by existing Russian gauge line Some possibility – medium distance 350km
Tallinn 15 10% 20% Possible – 700km distance
Warsaw (Poland) 71 10% 20% Possible - 500km distance
The market analysis above has been used, along with growth forecasts developed in the original feasibility study to calculate the
volume of freight that would use a freight service on the spur in 2020 and the corresponding number freight train services
required. These are shown below in the table below.
In order to calculate the daily train movements it has been assumed that there would be 338 operational days per year, the same
value used in the original study. The same payload capacity figures as adopted in the original feasibility study were also used (a
bulk train will have a maximum payload capacity of 3,600 tonnes and a non-bulk train will have a maximum payload capacity of
900 tonnes). Also it has been assumed that a point to point service will operate rather than a pick up service.
Table 3.7. 2020 Freight Demand on Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
Movement Freight Demand
From To
Annual 2020 volume Trains per day
(‘000 tonnes)
Bulk Non-Bulk Bulk Non-Bulk
Vilnius
Riga (Region and city) 4.2 2.6 0.003 0.009
Tallinn 9.2 6.9 0.008 0.023
Warsaw (Poland) 34.6 23.9 0.028 0.079
Total from Vilnius 48.0 33.4 0.149
Riga (Region and city)
Vilnius
2.8 1.4 0.002 0.004
Tallinn 4.2 3.1 0.003 0.010
Warsaw (Poland) 22.6 14.9 0.019 0.049
Total to Vilnius 29.7 19.4 0.088
29
None of the individual movements has sufficient demand to justify a dedicated freight train each day. Combining destinations
would require a minimum of 1 train every 6 days from Vilnius along the spur and 1 train every 11 days to Vilnius along the spur.
At these frequencies it is unlikely that the capture rates envisaged in the market analysis would be achieved. We have therefore
assumed that one freight service per day would travel in each direction along the spur. This is more than sufficient to meet
predicted demand, but as a result would run below capacity.
3.5 BASE CASE (OPT1) RESULTS – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The Cost Benefit Analysis Tool compares the capital, maintenance and operating costs associated with a Rail Baltica option with
the benefits that the option generates to operators (in terms of revenue), users (both passengers and freight) and wider society
(in terms of emissions, air pollution and accident changes).
The additional capital and maintenance costs associated with the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas spur (described in section 2.2),
together with the passenger and freight demand forecasts for the base case (Opt1) produced by the AECOM Baltic States
Transport Model have been entered into the tool.
Table overleaf shows how the cost and benefits of the ‘with N-S service and Kaunas-Vilnius spur service’ scenario compare to
the values for the ‘with N-S service only’ scenario (the preferred option presented in the original feasibility study).
In summary:
- All capital and maintenance cost increases occur within Lithuania, the costs associated with the spur result in a 21% increase in discounted costs across the whole project and a 59% increase in discounted costs for the Lithuanian section of the project.
- The vast majority of the benefits generated by the spur occur in Lithuania, increasing benefits with Lithuania by 76%:
o Large increase in passenger revenue, and corresponding operating cost from spur passengers.
o Small increase in freight revenue and corresponding operating cost from freight using spur to access the north - south Rail Baltica line.
o Significant passenger journey time savings for people who have switched from other modes the spur for trips between Kaunas and Vilnius
o Accident, air pollution and climate change savings from reduction in car trips between Vilnius and Kaunas as a result of passengers switching to the spur service.
- Within Lithuania the increase in benefits (76%) is greater than increase in costs (59%) leading to an increase in BCR of 10% from 1.44 in the original feasibility study to 1.59 when the spur is included.
- Small increases in passenger flows on the line north of Kaunas result in small increases in passenger revenues, passenger time savings, accident, climate change and air pollution benefits in Latvia and marginal increases in benefits in Estonia.
- Similarly small increases in freight flows on the line north of Kaunas result in small increases in freight revenues and operating costs; and freight time savings.
- Marginal increase in benefits in Latvia and Estonia results in small increases in country BCRs, 04% increase in Estonia and 1.3% increase in Latvia.
- Across the whole project costs increase by 21% and benefits increase by 23% leading to a small (1.7%) increase in BCR from 1.75 in the original feasibility study to 1.78 when the spur is included.
30
Table 3.8. Economic Cost Benefit Analysis Results
Economic Impact
Cost or Benefit (discounted)
% change ‘with N-S service only ‘ (Preferred option from 2010
AECOM feasibility study)
‘with N-S servicer and Kaunas-Vilnius Spur
service’ (Base case, Opt1)
Wh
ole
Pro
jec
t
Esto
nia
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Wh
ole
Pro
jec
t
Esto
nia
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Wh
ole
Pro
jec
t
Esto
nia
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Cost to Infrastructure Manager/Government
Capital / Investment Costs 1,886 565 648 674 2,293 565 648 1,081 22% 0% 0% 60%
Residual Value -117 -34 -43 -41 -144 -34 -43 -68 23% 0% 0% 64%
Maintenance and Operation Costs
61 19 20 22 69 19 20 31 14% 0% 0% 39%
Benefit to Manager
Track access charges 521 108 111 125 604 109 112 205 16% 0.6% 0.6% 64%
Passenger 170 35 36 41 247 35 36 118 45% 0% 0% 188%
Freight 351 73 75 84 357 74 76 88 2% 0.9% 0.9% 4%
Benefit to Operator
Passenger Operator
Operating costs (including track access charges)
-372 -77 -79 -89 -540 -77 -79 -257 45% 0% 0% 188%
Revenues 605 129 160 215 1,079 129 163 690 78% 0.5% 2.4% 222%
Freight Operator
Operating costs (including track access charges)
-685 -142 -146 -164 -696 -144 -147 -171 2% 0.9% 0.9% 4%
Revenues 1,142 353 339 322 1,160 353 340 332 2% 0.2% 0.3% 3%
Benefit to Users
Value of Time Savings
Passenger 340 135 88 71 504 137 92 224 48% 1.5% 4.4% 216%
Freight 818 262 252 213 830 263 253 219 1% 0.3% 0.3% 3%
External Impacts
On Safety (Accidents) 338 116 105 89 348 116 106 97 3% 0% 1% 9%
Air Pollution 148 35 29 77 303 35 31 230 105% 0% 6% 198%
Climate Change 342 117 108 85 350 117 109 92 3% 0% 0% 8%
Total Costs 1,829 550 625 654 2,218 550 625 1,043 21% 0% 0% 59%
Total Benefits 3,198 1,034 967 944 3,943 1,038 979 1,660 23% 0.4% 1.3% 76%
Net Present Value (NPV) 1,368 484 342 289 1,725 487 355 617 26% 0.8% 3.6% 113%
EIRR 9.28% 9.70% 8.35% 7.95% 9.38% 9.72% 8.44% 8.59% 1.1% 0.3% 1.1% 8.0%
Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.75 1.88 1.55 1.44 1.78 1.89 1.57 1.59 1.7% 0.4% 1.3% 10.3%
4 Passenger Service Optimisation
32
4.0 INTRODUCTION
Sensitivity tests specification
Timetable Option 1, as identified in Section Error! Reference source not found., represents the most comprehensive service
attern that can be considered for the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur. Using this as a base case, a number of sensitivity tests
were run, in order to identify the optimum level of service provision. The service patterns for the tests were derived by removing
or rearranging services on the spur, resulting in timetables with lower service frequencies. An additional test with increased
frequency was run to check the sensitivity of the model in enhanced services and the underlying impact on demand, however this
cannot be considered as a viable timetable option as improvements to the provision of infrastructure would be required. In all
tests, the bihourly service frequency on the Rail Baltica North – South line remained unchanged, in line with the 2010 AECOM
study conclusions. The table below provides a summary of the scenarios tested.
Table 4.1. Timetable Sensitivity Tests Specification
Timetable Options
Services
Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
Rail Baltica North – South Service
Base Case
Option 1 2tph 0.5tph
Sensitivity Tests
Reduced Frequencies
Option 2 1tph 0.5tph
Option 3 0.5tph 0.5tph
Enhanced Frequencies
Option 4 3tph 0.5tph
Modelling approach
Changes in frequencies are represented in the transport model by changes in passengers’ wait time. It is accepted that if
passengers arrive randomly at a station for a service, the average wait time is half the service headway. Although this is true
when services are frequent enough for passengers to randomly arrive at a station, a less frequent service provision is more likely
to result in passengers coordinating their activities with the timetable to minimise wait time. As a modelling principle however,
changes in average wait time are widely used to model the impact of changes in frequency on attractiveness of a service option.
The table below provides a summary of the wait times used in the transport model for each sensitivity test.
33
Table 4.2. Headway and Average Wait Time
Timetable Options
Headway Wait Time
Rail Baltica Vilnius –
Kaunas Spur
Rail Baltica North – South
Service
Rail Baltica Vilnius –
Kaunas Spur
Rail Baltica North – South
Service
Base Case
Option 1 30 120 15 60
Sensitivity Tests
Reduced Frequencies
Option 2 60 120 30 60
Option 3 120 120 60 60
Enhanced Frequencies
Option 4 20 120 10 60
The frequency on the North-South Rail Baltica service remains unchanged in every scenario, this means the changes in the
frequency of services on the spur are only expected to impact demand on the spur (VIL through to KAU).
Demand Impact
UK experience suggests that the marginal elasticity of demand with respect to frequency is positive but diminishing as provision
tends to the optimal level. This suggests that including more services in the timetable is expected to attract more demand, albeit
at an ever smaller rate.
The key findings of the sensitivity tests conducted for the spur are summarised in the table and figure below. They clearly show
the positive relationship between frequency and demand, and the tendency of demand to reach a natural saturation level as
frequency is enhanced.
Table 4.3. Sensitivity Test Results (Demand on main stretch of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur)
Timetable Options Service
Demand
VNO-KUN 2way flow
% change from Base
Base Case
Option 1 2tph 10,662 0%
Sensitivity Tests
Reduced Frequencies
Option 2 1tph 8,436 -21%
Option 3 0.5tph 4,588 -57%
Enhanced Frequencies
Option 4 3tph 11,466 8%
34
Figure 4.1. Sensitivity Test Results (Demand on main stretch of the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur)
4.1 IMPACT ON SERVICE OPERATOR FINANCES
The table below shows the operating revenue and costs of the rail company providing passenger services on the Rail Baltica
Vilnius – Kaunas Spur. Option 1 is the preferred timetable specification from the perspective of the operator as it maximises
profitability. Reduced frequency options result in greater decrease of revenue than operating expenditure while increase
frequency options result in greater increase of operating expenditure than revenue.
Table 4.4. Sensitivity Test Results (Operator Finances)
Discounted Value cover appraisal period
Red Route in original AECOM Study
Opt1 Opt2 Opt3 Opt4
(m€, 2010) 2 tph 1 tph 0.5 tph 3 tph
Benefit to Operator
Passenger Operator
Operating costs (including track access charges) -372 -540 -456 -414 -625
Revenues 605 1,079 982 840 1,116
Change in opex from Opt1 -84 -126 84
Change in revenue from Opt1 -98 -240 36
Change in passenger operator account from Opt1 -14 -114 -48
4,588
8,436
10,662 11,466
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Dem
an
d o
n m
ain
str
etc
h
Trains per Hour
5 Kaunas Airport – Vilnius Airport
Express Connection Impacts
36
5.0 INTRODUCTION
This part of the report focuses on the connection of Vilnius and Kaunas airports via the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur and its
impact on patronage of Rail Baltica Services.
5.1 AIR STUDY
Vilnius airport
Vilnius airport serves the Lithuanian capital and is located 6km south of the city centre. In 2013, it handled more than 2.6 million
passengers, serving both flag carriers and low cost airlines. The airport throughput is expected to grow to 4.8 million passengers
by 2035, not including the growth as a result of the European Commission through the air route development fund.
Figure 4.1. Forecasted Passenger Traffic at Vilnius Airport (excluding air route development fund)
The airport currently serves both flag carriers and low cost airlines. Wizzair uses it as a hub and Ryanair as a focus city; the two
of them combined accounting for more than 1 million passengers in 2013. However, as the option of expanding the airport is not
available due to the proximity to the city centre, the airport authority is set to significantly increase charges to both low cost
airlines in 2016, in an attempt to direct them towards using Kaunas airport. It should be noted that both Vilnius and Kaunas
Airports are run by the same authority.
In terms of accessibility, the airport has a dedicated train stop, some 300 meters from the terminal which can be accessed on
foot. From there, a shuttle service runs to Vilnius Rail Station in the city centre and the adjacent bus station. The trip takes seven
minutes and is run every 50 minutes. However, demand is relatively low, with only 6% of the airport passengers using it.
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
37
Kaunas airport
Kaunas airport is the second largest airport in Lithuania and is located 14km north east of the city centre. Pessimistic forecasts
suggest that the current airport throughput of just under 0.7 million passengers in 2013 could grow to 1.01 million by 2030. There
are also plans to enhance the airport’s throughput both passengers and freight. The location allows for physical expansion of the
infrastructure to facilitate further growth, and funding from the European Commission through the air route development fund is
also available. Current plans envisage a new cargo warehouse to be built on the south side of the terminal.
Figure 4.2. Forecasted Passenger Traffic at Kaunas Airport (excluding air route development fund)
Despite the relative proximity to Kaunas city centre, average journey time by car is approximately 45 minutes due to significant
congestion around the airport. A regular bus service to the city centre is also available at a cost of 2Lt but journey times are not
available. An express bus from Minsk to Kaunas Airport via Vilnius Airport is provided 2-3 times per day, with a journey time of
five hours, while a train service from Minsk to Kaunas city centre via Vilnius city centre takes about 7 hours and costs 87Lt..
Unfortunately, further information on surface access mode shares is not available.
International Experience
To enhance our understanding of surface access to the main airports in Lithuania, we considered necessary to compare against
similar cases in other countries. London Luton Airport was the one that was preferred, as it represents both a similar
geographical and surface model to the two Lithuanian airports as well as forecasted growth.
Luton is the sixth busiest passenger airport in the UK, following Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Stansted and Edinburgh, and
home to some of the largest low cost airlines including EasyJet, Monarch, Thomson Airways and Ryanair. It served just under 9.7
million passengers in 2013 and under the optimistic forecast scenario it is expected to reach 17 million by 2030.
Luton Parkway Rail Station is located approximately 2km from the airport and provides strong links into London and the wider
region. A designated shuttle bus is operated between the station and the terminal, running every 10 minutes with a journey time
of 6 minutes. In 2010, around 17% (1,548,000) of all airport passengers accessed the airport by train and it can be assumed that
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
38
the majority of them used the shuttle bus. The service costs £1.60 (6.88 Lt) for a single or £2.70 (11.62 Lt) for an open day return
ticket and there is also the option of buying integrated rail tickets that include the bus ride to the terminal.
Assumptions and Forecasts
As part of the air route development fund, the authority managing Vilnius and Kaunas Airports has a number of routes planned.
Detailed schedule for the launch of these services does not exist. Given that the fund is expected to be launched in 2015, we
have assumed 2015 to be the starting year for all planned routes. We have also assumed that ¾ of the planned routes will be out
of Kaunas Airport and ¼ out of Vilnius. The growth as a result of the fund launch is expected until 2018. From 2018 onwards we
have used an average annual growth equal to 3%, in accordance with the European Commission forecasts for Lithuania. The
table below provides a summary of the passenger number forecasts, including the impact of the air route development fund
Table 5.1. Forecasted Passenger Traffic (including air route development fund)
Airport 2020 2025 2035
Vilnius 3,345,625 3,878,496 5,212,375
Kaunas 1,231,405 1,427,536 1,918,489
Figure 4.3. Forecasted Passenger Traffic
Note: solid line includes air route development fund.
Furthermore, we have assumed that
- 40% of all Kaunas airport passengers will be from Kaunas, including some from Poland (and will not use the rail link)
- 35% of all Kaunas airport passengers will be from Vilnius (of which 15% will use the proposed rail link) - 15% of all Kaunas airport passengers will be from Belarus (of which 5% will use the proposed rail link) - 10% of all Kaunas airport passengers will be from Latvia (of which 3% will use the proposed rail link) - 65% of all Vilnius airport passengers will be from Vilnius (of which 6% will use the proposed rail link) - 35% of all Vilnius airport passengers will be from Kaunas (of which 15% will use the proposed rail link).
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
VNO
KUN
39
The above are summarised into the tables below for Vilnius and Kaunas Airport Passengers, including their expected impact on
daily demand for the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur.
Table 5.2. Expected Rail Baltica Capture of Vilnius Airport Passengers
Passenger Capture Daily RB patronage
Origin Share RB capture 2020 2030 2040
Kaunas 35% 15% 481 647 846
Vilnius 65% 6% 357 480 628
Total 839 1,127 1,474
Table 5.3. Expected Rail Baltica Capture of Kaunas Airport Passengers
Passenger Capture Daily RB patronage
Origin Share RB capture 2020 2030 2040
Kaunas 40% 0% 0 0 0
Vilnius 35% 15% 177 238 311
Belarus 15% 5% 25 34 44
Latvia 10% 3% 10 14 18
Total 213 286 374
It should be noted that achieving the expected passenger volumes on the spur is subject to both Vilnius and Kaunas airports
growing according to the forecasts and Rail Baltica achieving the assumed capture rate.
5.2 IMPACT ON CBA
Revenue
One important aspect of the additional passengers captured by the spur is their impact on operating revenue. To identify this, all
origin and destination pairs above were linked to the corresponding links as these were coded in the transport model.
Subsequently, the forecasted volumes of airport passengers using the spur were added to the model outputs. The marginal
impact on revenue is provided in the table below.
Table 5.4. Marginal Change in Passenger Revenue over the Appraisal Period (in m€, discounted)
Rail Baltica Total EE LV LT
Without Airport Passengers 1079 129 163 690
With Airport Passengers 1158 129 164 768
Change in Revenue 78.8 0.0 1.0 77.6
It should be noted that the revenue impact is based on the optimised fare strategy for the Rail Baltica North-South service.
40
Value of Time
In assessing the value of time benefits by the addition of the airport passengers expecting to use the Rail Baltica Vilnius –
Kaunas spur we have considered the following:
- The uniqueness of travelling to airports when compared to non-airport travelling. UK experience shows that when travelling to
airports interchange penalties are much higher and services with relatively longer journey times but less interchanges are
generally preferred. This is most likely due to the personal baggage that is usually involved in air travelling.
- The number of air passengers captured by the spur is relatively low when compared to the overall demand as forecasted by
the transport model.
- We are expecting that the vast majority of the captured air passengers is already using other means of public transport,
inherent to which is a lower value of time.
Based on this, we have discounted the option of including additional value of time benefits in the CBA, as they are expected to be
negligible.
External Benefits
Calculations for external benefits (safety, climate change and local air pollution benefits) are driven by the number of vehicle
kilometres saved. We are assuming these benefits to be zero (or negligible) because we are expecting only marginal changes in
the number of vehicles kilometres (both for PSV and private cars) as a result of the additional airport passengers attracted by the
spur.
Summary table
The table below summarises the impact of including the additional air passengers on the key economic indicators of the project.
As expected, Lithuania is the country mostly affected by an increase in the BCR of 0.08, which results in an increase of the
overall scheme BCR by 0.03.
Table 5.5. Airport Passenger Capture Impact on key Economic Indicators
Rail Baltica Total EE LV LT
Without Airport Passengers
Total Revenue (m€, discounted) 2,240 483 504 1,022
Total Operating cost (m€, discounted) 1,237 221 227 428
Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.78 1.89 1.57 1.59
EIRR 9.38% 9.72% 8.44% 8.59%
With Airport Passengers
Total Revenue (m€, discounted) 2,319 483 505 1,099
Total Operating cost (m€, discounted) 1,237 221 227 428
Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.81 1.89 1.57 1.67
EIRR 9.53% 9.72% 8.45% 8.92%
It should be noted that potential for improvement of the BCR for Lithuania, depending on whether it is decided to discontinue the
rail shuttle service currently connecting Vilnius City Centre with Vilnius airport, which will result in savings in operating costs. This
will however have no effect on the overall scheme BCR.
41
6 Freight Study
42
6.0 INTRODUCTION
This part of the report relates to the reporting of Task 5 of the study which was the undertaking of the freight benefit study along
the proposed Rail Baltica Kaunas – Vilnius spur.
The AECOM freight team was tasked with undertaking a qualitative assessment of the potential for the capture and generation of
additional freight movements along the spur from Vilnius to Kaunas and vice versa as part of the wider Rail Baltica network. We
engaged with relevant trade organisations, rail operators, key exporters and a number of non-Lithuanian based companies to
gather information on their current and potential use of rail to and from Lithuania. But before learning whether a new 1435mm
gauge spur would be of interest to companies for the movement of freight it was important to understand the current market for
rail freight in Lithuania.
6.1 FREIGHT VOLUMES IN RAIL BALTICA
Rail Freight is most cost effective where there are large flows of goods between small numbers of fixed points and where there
are large centres of population or major individual centres of production or extraction of raw materials.
Although Lithuania operates a mixed railway, 82% of revenue from train operation comes from freight trains. Rail freight volumes
in Lithuania are strong for a country of its size and although traffic dipped due to the onset of the recession in 2009 they have
since rebounded and remained at around 50m tonnes per annum.
Figure 6.1. Total Rail Freight (2009-13)
Source: Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai Annual Report 2013
The overall performance of Lithuanian freight trains in terms of goods lifted was 48 million tonnes and goods moved was 25,733
million gross tkm in 2013, a decline of 5.6% from 2012. The average gross weight of a freight train in 2013 was 2859 tonnes. The
average daily distance travelled by freight locomotives was 546kms and on average 65 freight locomotives were used on a daily
basis out of a pool of about 150. There were around 54 freight trains operating on the busiest middle section of track (Lentvaris-
Kaišiadorys) between Vilnius and Kaunus on a daily basis, showing the importance of this east-west route.
42.7 48.1
52.3 49.4 48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
43
As can be seen the table below, according to AB Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai (2013) 68% of Lithuanian rail freight is international in
nature, and 25% of rail freight is transit traffic passing through to / from neighbouring states. The majority of this transit freight is
composed of Russian cargo transported to Kaliningrad including grain, foods, mineral fuels and ferrous metals.
Table 6.1. Rail Freight (2013)
Rail Freight Traffic (2013) (Million tonnes) %
Local 15 32
International 33 68
Import 16 33
Export 5 10
Transit 12 25
Total 48 100
Source: Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai Annual Report 2013
The main commodities transported by Lithuanian railways are oil products and chemical/mineral fertilisers which account for 33%
(16million tonnes) and 24% (11million tonnes) of all rail freight respectively. Import rail traffic exceeds exports in a ratio of 3:1.
Mineral Fertilisers account for 46% of all imported freight into Lithuania, with crude oil/petroleum 20% and minerals14%.
As in many countries it is essential to have good rail links to and from the key ports. Klaipeda port is an important, well located,
ice free port and is the origin/destination for much rail freight in Lithuania handling 23% of all imports and 67% of all exports.
Recent improvements to rail junctions near the port have increased potential rail freight capacity from 10 to 25 million tonnes.
Table 6.2. Rail Freight Exports (2013)
Destination Country Exports by rail in 2013
Total, 1000 t 5,093
Belarus BY 1,008
Czech Republic CZ 31
Estonia EE 634
Kazakhstan KZ 264
Latvia LV 1,132
Poland PL 214
Russia RU 596
Tajikistan TJ 82
Ukraine UA 887
Uzbekistan UZ 75
Hungary HU 9
Germany DE 11
Other countries 150
Source: Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai Annual Report 2013
As can be seen in the table above around 5 million tonnes of rail freight involved exports with 2.7 million tonnes going to four
traditional trading nations Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The preferred border crossing to Belarus from Lithuania is
44
via Kena, as it is fully modernized and equipped with state-of-art technologies. 1.6 million tonnes went north to Latvia and Estonia
and just 214,000 tonnes went south to Poland with very little freight moved by rail to other European Union Countries such as
Germany, Hungary or Czech Republic.
Currently a delay in international rail freight to/from the south occurs due to a necessary change between Russian/European
gauges which is done in Šeštokai. Passenger train changes take about 15 minutes, but the freight train change is about 4 hours
(depending on the goods transported, quantity, etc.) which clearly delays rail freight significantly. After the Rail Baltica
implementation the change will be made in Palemonas (Kaunas) or potentially at Vilnius if the spur is built.
Rail freight market share is affected by a number of issues including type and volume of commodities, access to terminals,
company policy, cost, service, reliability, efficiency, competitiveness of alternative modes of transport, distance and journey time.
Overall journey time is affected by a number of factors including availability of train paths, quality of the infrastructure including
track and signalling, motive power and commercial decisions on train priority. Passenger trains in Lithuania get priority over
freight trains, but since their time is scheduled properly, it does not cause significant delays for freight traffic. The maximum
speed limit for freight on several routes is 80/90km/hour and is similar to the maximum speed allowed for Heavy Goods Vehicles
in Europe. In 2013, the operating speed for freight trains was 46.8 km/hour. A technical project for the Vilnius-Kaunas route
modernization is being prepared and includes upgrade to 160km/h for passenger trains and this could allow certain freight trains
to go faster too. The current journey times for rail freight between Vilnius (Vaidotai) - Kaunas (Palemonas) is 1 hour 50 minutes
and for journeys between Kaunas (Palemonas) and Riga via Radviliškis and Jelgava is about 6 hours.
The building of new infrastructure with Rail Baltica will help bring journey times down but the unknown is whether this will make
rail sufficiently competitive with road freight especially for time sensitive goods.
6.2 METHODOLOGY
This section provides an explanation of the methodology which was carried out by AECOM. The methodology used to conduct
this task consisted of a number of stages aimed to understand the existing nature of freight activity between Vilnius and key city
regions across the Baltic States. Having analysed previous data from the 2010 model discussed earlier in this report, we
conducted new data collection by engaging with companies that might use or operate rail services across Lithuania and Europe.
It is recognised that the current 1520mm rail network is serving the domestic market well and key flows on the East – West
corridor and that it is unlikely and probably undesirable to transfer existing rail flows to Rail Baltica. Based on this it was assumed
that the addressable market for Rail Baltica will be drawn from the following:
- Transit Flows - Imports - Exports
2014 Sample Survey
This section analyses the responses from the sample survey which was initially distributed to companies that import and export in
Lithuania and later extended to include Rail Freight Operating Companies and companies based outside of Lithuania. The main
objective of this survey was to identify businesses which have significant flows of goods along the Rail Baltica corridor and
especially assess if a standard European gauge track (1435mm) spur to Vilnius would potentially generate additional interested
in using Rail Baltica.
The survey work covered companies of three different types:
- Importers / Exporters - Rail Freight Operating Companies - Companies based outside of Lithuania
For the 2014 analysis, AECOM collected information about the top 50 importers and exporters in Lithuania (see figure 1.2 for
company locations), details were provided by Invest Lithuania and a number of other additional companies were provided by the
Commercial Attaché based at the Lithuanian Embassy in London.
45
Figure 6.2.Top importers and exporters Lithuania
Source: AECOM (2014)
AECOM distributed an electronic questionnaire out to a total of 41 companies located in Lithuania. The electronic questionnaire
sent via email had a deadline for completion of the 26th of August 2014. As is typical of this type of electronic survey the
response rate was relatively low and subsequent follow up calls were made, contacting the companies by telephone and this was
completed by the 12th September 2014. It should be noted that some companies were approached several times but still did not
respond which indicates that they did not wish to participate.
In addition, as the main survey focused on companies based in Lithuania including those based in Vilnius, it was necessary for
AECOM to contact other companies outside Lithuania, in particular some companies which included rail operators in Poland and
Estonia which are potential rail freight users to / from Lithuania. These companies were contacted directly by phone, and where
necessary a subsequent follow up email was sent with the relevant information. Responses were received from Baltic Rail, DB
Schenker, Freightliner (Poland & UK) and Biedronka (Poland’s largest supermarket).
Questionnaire responses
The questionnaire responses from both the electronic survey and telephone calls are shown in figure 1.3. AECOM received a
total of 24 (44%) responses, and this included 22% who were not interested in taking part in the survey.
22% of companies responded to the survey with a number of companies expressing their interest in Rail Baltica particularly the
North to South line, with the spur receiving a little support albeit unquantifiable.
AECOM is awaiting responses from 17% of companies. 39% of the top importing and exporting company names provided were
not appropriate for the purposes of exploring the relevance of the spur as they were not located anywhere near Vilnius.
46
Figure 6.3. Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur questionnaire responses
Source: AECOM (2014)
6.3 FINDINGS AND RESULTS
2014 sample survey
As detailed in the previous section responses were collected from different companies. This task was mainly concerned with
assessing company interest in the use of a standard European gauge between Kaunas and Poland as well as Vilnius
Companies were asked if they use rail freight and of the companies that answered this question, 5 companies indicated that they
use rail freight, with 4 companies stating that they currently do not use rail freight. In addition to this companies were asked the
types of commodities that they moved, and this included fertilisers, chemical products, diesel fuel, plastic bottles, reagents, dairy
products and animal feed.
AECOM collected data of the amount of tonnes companies import and export using the potential Rail Baltica corridor to Central
and Western Europe. Although few companies were able to provide relevant quantifiable details there some who were able to
provide some information and they included: two companies who handle fertiliser and chemicals, one company exports 100,000
tonnes, with the other stating they export 60,000 tonnes to Central Europe. Key markets for fertiliser that could use Rail Baltica
include the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Southern Germany. A dairy company indicated it exports 20,000 tonnes. In
addition a company that handles resin imports 15,000 and exports 30,000 to Central Europe. Another company that handles
diesel exports 30,000 tonnes to central Europe. Another company that handles petrochemicals stated that they imported 42,400
tonnes of diesel fuel, another exported 50,000 tonnes of plastic bottles, while another company stated they imported 204,000
tonnes of chemicals a year and exported 240,000 tonnes a year. The total volume of these amounts to 792,400 tonnes per year.
All of this volume is a potential market for Rail Baltica from Kaunus rather than Vilnius.
Companies were asked whether they were looking to expand their trade with Central and Western Europe, the majority of
companies indicated that they were, with one company being more specific stating their plans for major expansion into Poland.
In relation to the gauge across Lithuania, the main network of Lithuanian railways is integrated into the 1520 mm gauge
international railway network and is connected to railway networks of Latvia, Belarus and Russia (Kaliningrad Region).
Companies were questioned on whether connecting a standard European gauge with Russian gauge 1520mm at Kaunas or
Vilnius would be beneficial to them, a number of companies especially those near the port expressed more interest in having a
1435 mm European Gauge connection between Klaipeda and Kaunas (to access Rail Baltica). There were mixed views with a
number of companies responding positively, stating that the cost of gauge change is currently an issue which suggests that a
1435 mm European gauge would be of use to them.
22%
22%
17%
39%
Responded Not interested Awaiting response Companies not based in Vilnius
47
There were a number of companies which were not interested in Rail Baltica or standard rail at all because of the cost of using
rail freight, and companies that transported commodities such as cheese and butter were more reluctant to use rail freight due to
the lack of suitable competitively priced fast, reliable temperature controlled service.
On the positive side according to a potential terminal operator and rail Freight Company the markets interested in using the rail
spur would be for imports serving the city of Vilnius and for consolidation of exports to Russia and the east, as this would bring
significant benefits to its customers. There was limited quantifiable interest in the Vilnius rail spur as the majority of major
manufacturers and exporters spoken to would access Rail Baltica through a more central terminal such as near Kaunas.
Summary responses from the companies are set out in the following section:
Market responses and comments
Positive market responses in Rail Baltica North – South line and Vilnius – Kaunas Spur
Vilnius Chamber of Commerce
- Positive response – Subsequently they offered to survey their local members which is currently taking place using the same short questionnaire as previously circulated to the sample companies.
Terminal Operator / Rail Freight Operator
Vilnius Logistics Park
- New terminal being built with space to install a European gauge siding - New spur would offer significant benefits to the site, helping to concentrate potential customers and their demand
to send goods from western and central Europe without transhipment to/from Russian gauge.
DB Schenker
- A European gauge railway to Vilnius would be great to serve imports mainly from Germany. - There could be potential for this company to build a terminal alongside the European gauge track. - No tonnage indicated however thoughts on the spur are positive as it could serve the warehouses and export
transit sheds in the Vilnius area
Market interest in Rail Baltica North – South line but not the Vilnius – Kaunas Spur (Petrochemicals / Fertilizers)
Lifosa
- 95% of cargo moves by rail, there is a significant interest in the use of Rail Baltica to Poland, Hungary and other Central European Countries as it avoids transhipment, potential addressable market of 60,000 tonnes per year
Indorama Group
- Positive interest in the use of European gauge railway to import and export to Central and Western Europe, however a link to Port of Klaipeda would also be required
Achema
- There is a potential addressable market over Rail Baltica to South Germany, south Poland and Czech Republic of 100,000 tonnes per year
Biedronka (Poland)
- Interested in future use of rail for importation but is not currently sourcing any products from Lithuania / Latvia / Estonia or Finland – which if sourcing from these countries would be potential source of rail freight demand for Rail Baltica.
Mixed responses on Rail Baltica North – South line and the Vilnius – Kaunas Spur (Dairy / Food Manufacturing)
Rokiskio Suris
- There is not a gauge issue but the lack of a suitable competitively priced reliable service offering is an issue (temperature control)
Viciunai Group
- This is not a gauge issue but the lack of a suitable competitively priced reliable service (temperature controlled) offering which is the issue
48
Kauno Grudai
- New spur and line from Kaunas would assist in servicing Italian market for food products, however price would need to be competitive
Mixed responses on Rail Baltica North – South line and the Vilnius – Kaunas Spur (Raw Materials / Packaging)
Imlitex (Raw Materials)
- European gauge route to Poland is of interest to serve Central European Customers.
Non Lithuanian Rail Operators
Baltic Rail
- Possible market over the spur line include exports of furniture manufactured in the Vilnius area, exports of fruit, vegetables and timber.
- Doesn’t envisage large market size and movement from Vilnius. Would be sensitive to price (terminal handling fees etc) as very close (100km) to Kaunas.
- Demand for European gauge rail freight is dependent on final destination influenced by short sea shipping routes via Klaipeda to other Northern European coastal ports.
- Impact of Port developments in Gdansk and coastal feeder routes are affecting modal decisions for shippers.
Freightliner (Poland)
- Have not investigated potential of Rail Baltica but see little demand for rail transportation between Poland and Lithuania.
- Do not see Rail Baltica as materially changing the situation. - View Baltic Sea feeders as likely to be more competitive to capture this market. - Additionally their view is that there is no substantial volume of bulk moving from the Baltic Countries to Poland.
6.4 GREEN AGENDA ISSUES
This task considered the green agenda issues, particularly the impact on greenhouse gas emissions including the relevant
quantity of CO2 Tonnes saved by using rail transport over road. It is well documented that one train replaces a significant
number of lorries on the road. This varies depending on commodities and quantities.
The calculation takes the tonnages that consultees have given us and as these are generally assumed to be using Rail Baltica
from Kaunus to Warsaw we have calculated the current volume of CO2 incurred as this traffic currently goes by road and
contrasts this to reduced emissions if this freight moves by rail. In this case we have made some assumptions including the
distance of 408kms is the same by road or rail. The net saving in greenhouse gas if this identified volume transferred from road
to rail would be 17080 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year.
Table 6.3. 2014 Green House Gas
From/To Potential Volume Mode CO2e Total (tonnes)
Kaunas - Warsaw (Poland)
792,400 tonnes Road 26,232.5
Rail 9,152.6
Difference 17,079.9 Assumptions Truck Equivalents assume a 40 tonne gross weight with 22 payload and 75% load factor
Train Equivalents assume 3600 payload and 75% load factor
2014 Additional volume assumed to be bulk
CO2 calculations based on 0.08114 kg per tonne KM for HGV Artic 50% load - DCF 2014 Carbon Factors
0.02831 kg per tonne KM for rail
49
6.5 DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING THE RAIL MARKET
Apart from the answers to the survey it is important to recognize developments and projects that will have a bearing on rail freight
in and through Lithuania.
Rail Baltica
The first phase of project “Rail Baltica” (RB1) is being implemented and preparations for the second phase are underway. More
than 50% of all RB1 construction works are already finished. It is expected that the Polish border – Kaunas section will be
finished by 2015. RB2 is underway and the strategic environmental impact assessment for the Kaunas – Latvia border section is
finished and public procurement procedures have started.
Port Developments at Klaipeda
42% of Klaipeda's volume is transit traffic mainly from Belarus. The port is investing in new cereal handling facilities and a
container port with capacity planned to handle 1m teu (twenty feet equivalent boxes). So the port will need additional
infrastructure to meet the requirement for extra intermodal traffic and grainflow wagons.
Intermodal and Logistics
Lithuania Railways is becoming more active in the global logistics market, noticing and responding to the growth of intermodal
services across Europe and Asia. It has been actively involved in the following projects; the Viking shuttle train, Saulė (Sun),
Mercury, Šeštokai Express were further developed as well as new ones such as Baltijos Vėjas (Baltic Wind).
Intermodal Terminals
Apart from a facility at Klaipeda, two intermodal terminals serving Kaunas and Vilnius are currently under development. The
Kaunas terminal is having facilities serving both rail gauges and the Vilnius terminal is reserving a route for a European gauge
siding in the future.
ROLA Trains to Belarus (lorry semi-trailers on a train)
This type of service is where an articulated lorry including trailer drives on to a train and the trunk haul movement is done while
the lorry driver can rest. The brand name used is Nemunas and initially services are connecting Lithuania and Belarus although
other destinations will follow.
Cargo Beamer – The rail freight trailer service from Rotterdam/Germany to Lithuania
This is the movement of unaccompanied semi-trailers by train on purpose built rail wagons that swivel to allow ease of loading.
Cargo Beamer is now constructing their semitrailer trans-shipment terminal on a Lithuania-Poland border. However the terminal
will only be connected to 1435 mm gauge network. 1520 mm gauge Cargo Beamer wagons are still under development in
cooperation with Lithuanian railways. As far as it is known, terminals in Rotterdam at the moment are not being constructed.
Most of the terminals are still within Germany.
6.6 SUMMARY
Overall, based on the earlier work and the 2014 qualitative analysis of a sample of companies, operators and trade organisations
there is significant interest in Rail Baltica, but most companies are mainly interested in the North to South Line. There was limited
quantifiable interest in the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur for freight as the majority of major manufacturers and exporters
interviewed would access Rail Baltica through a more central terminal such as Kaunus. Although out of scope it is interesting to
report that some companies, especially those with plants near the port, expressed interest in having a direct European Gauge
connection between Klaipeda and Kaunus.
However there are a small number of companies saying there is the basis for a limited demand for the movement of freight by
means of a European gauge railway over the spur. The target market for the spur is likely to be for companies based in Vilnius
and its hinterland in exporting to / importing from destinations in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Southern Germany and other
Central European countries. The analysis identified Poland as the strongest market for European gauge freight. Among the bulk
50
markets, chemicals, fertiliser and timber were potential candidates for consideration and in the non-bulk markets; furniture / food /
dairy were seen as potential target traffic for the spur.
Detracting from the addressable market of the proposed spur are factors such as already established competitive service offers
on alternative routes. The impact of the rail operator ‘offer’ in terms of destination, journey time, and tariff will affect modal choice
decision-making over the use of this spur and the alternative transport choices including use of the existing 1520mm network and
short sea shipping routing via Klaipeda. For example there is strong competition to/from mid and northern Germany by the use
of 1520mm rail network combined with the use of the northern Baltic ports and coastal shipping. Rail is having to compete with
door-to-door movements by road. It is understood from information provided by the Lithuanian Road Administration that the
annual growth in the flow of HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) on the A1 between Kaunas and Vilnius has been growing at up to
25% per annum as against an underlying growth in traffic of 3.5%. This shows the competitive nature of the road haulage sector
and there are some very effective hauliers in this market introducing new technology which customers like.
The current development of a public “open user” intermodal terminal in Vilnius will have provision for installing a European gauge
siding to directly connect to the Rail Baltica line and as a result would provide an interchange for local demand and an additional
location within the country for transferring from the European 1435mm gauge to 1520mm gauge.
During the course of this work, we noted the role and importance of the current 1520 mm gauge intermodal rail offering to / from
Lithuania as part of the ‘Viking’ Offer, and the ‘East – West pan-European Corridor’. It is considered that this growing intermodal
offer could include a 1435 mm gauge international service to various destinations to satisfy increasing demand.
It is important to add as part of this analysis that the use of Rail Baltica and in particular the spur will provide additional strategic
network resilience for the Vilnius City Region area to access Rail Baltica / EU Freight corridor ‘no 8’ to Germany / Belgium /
Netherlands, the Baltica – Adriatic Corridor and indeed a service via Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria to Greece and Turkey. In so
doing this will enhance the prospects of Vilnius City Region to position its industrial base to access wider possible markets using
both the existing current 1520 mm network and the 1435mm networks.
7 Conclusion
52
7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study has assessed the feasibility of including an east-west spur between Kaunas city centre and Vilnius city centre in the
Rail Baltica scheme.
This study has built upon the spur feasibility study undertaken by SWECO and following detailed review of their preferred route
(Option 2a) and investigation of multiple alternative alignments that could result in a shorter overall distance as well as provide
different approaches to the Kaunas Airport and more direct approaches to the Vilnius Central Station, this study has adopted the
alignment proposed by SWECO.
The spur alignment will have stations at Vilnius City Centre, Vilnius Airport, Kaunas Airport interchange and Kaunas City Centre.
Passengers will be able to interchange at Kaunas Airport station to access north-south Rail Baltica services as well as Kaunas
Airport (via a shuttle bus)
As part of this study a detailed capital cost estimate was made for the spur alignment. The approach adopted was consistent
with methods and unit rates used in the 2010 AECOM feasibility study for the north-south Rail Baltica route. The total
construction cost for the spur has been estimated to be €845,526,320 with land costs estimated to be €21,459,468.
The passenger service using the spur needs to be well coordinated with the north-south Rail Baltica service if it is to provide a
viable option for international trips from Kaunas and Vilnius city centres. A passenger service feasibility analysis, including
timetabling exercise was undertaken to determine a viable core service pattern. The core service pattern (Opt1) comprises two
trains per hour between Kaunas and Vilnius city centres, coordinated to meet with the once every two hour north-south Rail
Baltica service identified as the optimum north-south service frequency in the AECOM feasibility study. The timetabling exercise
used detailed alignment data to calculate station-to-station travel times and dwell times for the spur service. The timetabled
travel time via Rail Baltica service between Kaunas city centre and Vilnius city centre is expected to be 50 minutes.
The study has used the same analytical framework (transport model and cost benefit analysis tool) as developed in the 2010
AECOM feasibility study for the north-south Rail Baltica route to determine the passenger and freight demand that will use the
spur and the additional economic costs and benefits generated by the extension of the Rail Baltica project to include the spur
between Vilnius and Kaunas..
The spur (between Kaunas and Vilnius airports) is predicted to attract 10,662 passengers per day in 2020. The majority of these
passengers (71%) are travelling between Kaunas and Vilnius city regions.
The spur is forecasts to only attract a modest volume of freight traffic with demand forecast for 2020 sufficient to fill only one
train every six days from Vilnius and one train every 11 days to Vilnius along the spur. The core service has, however, assumed
one freight service per day would travel in each direction along the spur to ensure that the Rail Baltica spur offers a viable freight
service to operators.
The spur with the core passenger and freight service (Opt1) has been shown to increase the BCR of the whole Rail Baltica
scheme (now including the spur) both across all countries and in Lithuania compared to the analysis of the preferred option in the
2010 AECOM feasibility study. The BCR for the whole project has increased by 1.7% (from 1.75 in the original feasibility study to
1.78 when the spur is included) with the BCR in Lithuania increasing by 10% (from 1.44 in the original feasibility study to 1.59
when the spur is included). The marginal increase in benefits in Latvia and Estonia caused by the spur results in small
increases in country BCRs, 0.4% increase in Estonia and 1.3% increase in Latvia.
The study has also investigated how operating costs, passenger demand and consequentially passenger revenue vary as the
frequency of the east-west Rail Baltica spur service changes. Reduced and enhanced frequencies were tested and it has been
show that the core passenger service (two trains per hour between Vilnius and Kaunas city centres) provides the optimum
performance in terms of the balance between changes in passenger revenue and service operating costs.
The proposed alignment for the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas spur offers a high speed connection to the airports of both cities. As
part of the study the potential impact of this improved connectivity was further investigated, using the growth strategies of both
airports and findings from international experience in airports, similarly accessible by rail. The study has concluded that there is a
potential of growing the volume of passengers leading to a marginal increase in the BCR of the overall project by 0.03 to 1.81.
This depends on both airports growing according to their forecasts and the services on the spur being able to achieve the
assumed market capture rates.
53
As part of the study, AECOM has also undertaken a qualitative assessment of the potential for the capture and generation of
additional freight movements along the spur from Vilnius to Kaunas and vice versa as part of the wider Rail Baltica network. We
engaged with relevant trade organisations, rail operators, key exporters and a number of non-Lithuanian based companies to
gather information on their current and potential future use of rail to and from Lithuania.
Analysis of responses from a sample of companies, operators and trade organisations showed there is significant interest in Rail
Baltica, however, the majority of companies are predominantly interested in services along the North to South Rail Baltica line.
There was limited quantifiable interest in the Rail Baltica Vilnius – Kaunas Spur for freight as the majority of major manufacturers
and exporters interviewed would access Rail Baltica through a more central terminal such as Kaunas. There are, however, a
small number of companies indicating there is the basis for a limited demand for the movement of freight by means of a
European gauge railway over the spur. The target market for the spur is likely to be for companies based in Vilnius and its
hinterland in exporting to / importing from destinations in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Southern Germany and other Central
European countries. The analysis identified Poland as the strongest market for European gauge freight. Among the bulk
markets, chemicals, fertiliser and timber were potential candidates for consideration and in the non-bulk markets; furniture / food /
dairy were seen as potential target traffic for the spur
