ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01

7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01

1/38

EuropeAid 2008/155-683

This project is implemented by

TRT Trasporti e Territorio, Alfen Consult GmbH, Dornier Consulting GmbH and PTV AG

Transport dialogue and interoperability between the EU and its

neighbouring countries and Central Asian countries

TRACECA IDEA

TRACECA Route Attractiveness IndeX TRAX

ROAD INDEX CALCULATION METHODOLOGY


2/38


3/38

TRACECA Route Attraciveness indeX - TRAX W W W . T R A C E C A - O R G . O R G

TRANSPORT DIALOGUE AND INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS

NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES AND CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES (IDEA PROJECT)PAGE 3 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED

BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

LIST OF SYMBOLS

INDEX (R) Route INDEX

INDEX (S) Stretch INDEX

INDEX (N) Node INDEX

(R) Route

(S) Stretch

(N) Node

i Number of Stretch, if no any other indication

j Number of Node, if no any other indication

n Total Number of Stretches, if no any other indication

m Total Number of Nodes, if no any other indication

EU European part of the Route

MID Middle (Central) part of the Route

CA Eastern (Central Asian) part of the RouteADJ

Adjusted valueAv

Average value

TrC(S) Transportation cost on stretches

TiC(S) Transportation Time cost on stretches

ReC(S) Transportation Reliability cost on stretches

SeC(S) Risk cost (Safety) cost on stretches

Specific weight

(S)TrC Specific weight of the Transportation cost on stretches

(S)TiC Specific weight of the Transportation Time cost on stretches

(S)ReC Specific weight of the Reliability cost on stretches

(S)SeC Specific weight of the Risk (Safety) cost on stretches

C(N) Total Cost on NodeAv

C(N) Average Total Cost on Node

TiC(N) Time cost on node

ReC(N) Reliability cost on Node

(N)C Specific weight of the Average Total Cost on Node

(N)TiC Specific weight of Time cost on node(N)ReC Specific weight of the Reliability cost on Node

L (S) Length, km

C Costs

Tr Travel

Ti Time

Re Reliability

Se Safety, Security

K(N)w Specific weight of indexes of the utmost western node along the regional

section of the Route

K(N)e Specific weight of indexes of the utmost eastern node along the regional


4/38





section of the Route

C(o) Official Costs, EURO

C(no) Unofficial Cost , EURO

Tmin Minimum Time, in hours

Tmax Maximum Time, in hoursAv

t Average Time, in hours

VOT Travel time cost per hour, (EUR)Av

S(S)i Average speed

FC (S)i Total Fuel Cost on the stretch (EURO)

AFC Average 1 lt. Fuel Cost, (EURO/L)

RiC(S)i Risk Coefficient (SAFETY PENALTY)

CE Average Fuel Consumption adjusted in the standard conditions - 0,3 lt./

100 kmTrT Travel timeST Stop timeT Total travel time


5/38





1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Abstract

This report presents TRACECA methodology for measuring Corridor attractiveness for the

transport industry. In addition, it shows comparable calculations for the attractiveness of the

TRACECA routes through the Caucasus, through Turkey / Iran and the alternative route through

the Russian Federation. TRAX stands for TRACECA Route Attractiveness Index.

The methodology considers the attractiveness of the transport corridor as such for the logistics

chain and not on country by country basis. Based on the World Bank definition, the transport

corridors are defined from a physical perspective, as a collection of stretches constructed from

the transport networks of adjoining countries and bounded by gateways. The gateways are in

many cases multi modal and mainly are the border crossings points.

A corridor such as TRACECA has a primary economic function of promoting inter- and Intra-

trade links of member countries. The rationale behind creating corridors is to ensure quality

improvements along the corridor (Safety / Reliability / Cost / Transit Time of shipment).

The results of TRAX shows that TRACECA corridors require further development and substantial

improvements in all aspects of the logistics of a corridor as indicated above.

1.2. TRAX Rationale

To identify the order of magnitude and benchmark the TRACECA attractiveness as a corridor; It

became imperative to deploy a TRACECA own tool to measure the attractiveness of the

TRACECA routes and benchmarks it with alternative routes. This document illustrates the

methodology adopted to develop a TRACECA Routes Attractiveness Index, which can be

continuously measured to monitor improvements.

TRAX stands for TRACECA Route Attractiveness indeX. The index is an objective and numeric

tool to measure the attractiveness of a transport corridor in terms of its power to attract /

accommodate inter-modal freight traffic.

This document focuses on the methodology of calculating such an index for the roads basedtransport. This methodology will be extended in 2011 to include the inter-modal systems

prevailing on TRACECA and the alternative routes.

TRAX can also be used as a tool to monitor the improvements of the TRACECA routes based

over a time series through periodic re-run of TRAX for example yearly.

Therefore, the methodology was not developed as a theoretical exercise but with the following

operational objectives in mind:

Assess the attractiveness of the TRACECA routes in comparison with the competitive /

alternative routes.


6/38


7/38





The methodology deployed followed a 4 step approach:

Step 1: Data CollectionIRU Nelti Project collected real-life drivers journals from a set of operators running haulage

service between Europe and Central Asian / Caucasus regions. IRU provided the drivers

journals to the TRAX approach as a courtesy.

Obtaining the drivers journals from IRU reflect the real cost and time of the transportation to

/ from the EU Central Asia via alternative routes. The routes names in TRAX (Trans-Russia,

Trans-Caucasus, Trans-Turkey) differ however from those used in NELTI (northern, central and

southern route). TRAX routes have been renamed to reflect the territories it passes. This also

avoids confusion with the TEN-T routes names.

It is important to note, TRAX defines routes in a broader sense as each route may comprisealternative paths. For the index calculation an averaging was built across parallel stretches to

obtain the attractiveness of this particular stretch.

The drivers Journals revealed the following information:

- Identified routes for analysis (Trans-Russia, Trans-Caucasus, Trans-Turkey)

- Time: Minimum and maximum time spent across each route (Stretches / Nodes)

divided by stretched: traveling / waiting / rest time (including the border

procedures)

- Cost: Minimum and Maximum actually money spent along the route (Stretches /

Nodes) including official, unofficial expenditures incurred during the roads, at the

border or at the ports.

Step 2: Interaction with the Industry

In this step, interviews were carried out with representatives of the transport industry and

freight forwarding agents in Europe / Caucasus / Central Asia. This serves to determine the

weight of various criteria. Thee interviews delivered information on the following issues:

- Insight on how the route choice decisions are made

- Judgment of the criteria as transportation cost, time, reliability and security through

the pair-wise judgment of these criteria

- Qualitative indication of safety and security aspects (Risk)

- Identification of other topics of the special importance from the business standpoint

Step 3: Running the Calculation

Each route was divided in number of stretches and nodes along the entire corridor:

Stretches are roads or ferries

Nodes represent boarder points, ports, transshipment points, logistics centers and other

units which presumably do not have physical size


8/38





The route index - INDEX (R) comprises two sub-indexes: stretch sub-index - INDEX (S) and node

sub-index - INDEX (N).

Stretch Index INDEX (S) is calculated as a sum of the main Stretch criteria (Adjusted weights of

Transportation Costs / Time / Reliability / Safety and Security) multiplied by the specific weight

of each these criteria.

Node Index INDEX (N). Is calculated as a sum of the main Node criteria (Average Total costs /

Time and Reliability throughout the node) multiplied by the specific weight of each these

criteria.

As routes have different lengths the final index value has been adjusted to corridor length.

Step 4: TRAX Analysis

In this final step, the outcome of the index has been analyzed and prepared for communication:

Overall comparison of TRAX for the three routes

Assessment of Time and Reliability on Stretch

Assessment of Time and Reliability on Node

Transportation costs on Stretch and Node

Time costs on Stretch and Node

Reliability costs on Stretch and Node

Safety and Security costs on the route

Comparison of routes and regions in terms of Transportation Costs, Time,

Reliability and Risk.

1.5. Results

This chapter reflects the results of the methodology outlined above after deploying the

information collected. It is important to note that the route attractiveness index, reflect the

resistance a route has from the prespective of a freight forwarder. The higher the index, the

less attractive the route will be. As every index, the figures can only be evaluated in comparison

to one another.

Index Comparison for the TRACECA / alternative routes

ROUTE

Total

INDEXTRAVEL COST TIME COST Reliability Safety/Security

TRANS-RUSSIA ROUTE 3114 1685 6767 6373 137

TRANS-TURKEY ROUTE 6646 3408 7776 8839 300

TRANS-CAUCASUS

ROUTE8258 3446 11243 10849 221


9/38





The figures above shows, that the Trans-Russian route compared to the other two routes, is the

most attractive one based on general Index, but also based on each of evaluation criteria:

Travel cost, time cost, reliability and safety/security.

In particular, The Trans-Russia route attractiveness is double of the route going through the

Turkish territories and almost three times ((2,75) as attractive as the Trans-Caucasus route.

Taking a differentiated look at the criteria building up the index, shows that the Travel cost

factor index is almost the same for Trans-Turkey and Trans-Caucasus routes, yet double as highas the Trans-Russian Route.

The time cost factor does look much different. The time cost criteria going thourough Russia or

Thourgh Turkey seem to be almost similar. Yet going through the caucas territories, the

attractiveness drops to almost half of this of trans-Russia and Trans-Turkey.

The reliability criterion reveals also that Trans-Russian route is the most attractive one,

followed by the Trans-Turkey. Again Caucasus segments and nodes rank last in their appeal to

the industry.

Safety/Security criterion shows that going for the Trans-Turkey route is the least attractive

option.

The above analysis is very broad and to understand a closer look much be taken at the reasons

behind this. A separate document will be published on the results and its analysis on the routes

attractiveness.

2. INDEX CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

The starting point of the TRAX methodology is the fundamental assumption that transports

logistics companies minimizes their expected transport cost based on the so-called generalized

cost (cost-based approach). This approach is generally accepted in the current transport

research literature and assumes that time is also an important scarce resource in the transport


10/38


11/38





travel, border crossings, idle time, status of the road and support infrastructure, official fees,

maletolts and other challenges.

The original drivers journals containing all specific data were obtained by TRAX / IDEA experts

upon an agreement between IRU and the TRACECA Permanent Secretariat during a visit to the

IRU Moscow office on January 25, 2010. (Annex 2).

In addition to the drivers journals; a Questionnaire (Annex 3) was developed to ensure

adequate input of the industrys particularly in the weighing of the different criteria. The

Questionnaire also allowed obtaining transport logistics companies views on the routes

concerned. The questionnaire was divided into four parts:

The first part inquired background information on the company and its business

activities in the different countries,

The second part inquired individual paired judgment of the transport criteria: Cost,

Time, Reliability and Security& Safety. The interviewers explained the definition of each of

those criteria,

The third part was dedicated to ask for the individual risk profile of the countries on a

scale ranging from risk-free to high risk,

The fourth part allowed the interviewed person to add some comments and to address

topics of special importance for her/him.

Depending on the results provided by the recipients, the TRACECA experts carried out the

following activities:

Fine-tuning of the methodology

Calculate weight of the criteria for the index calculation.

Calculate risk factors for the countries along the relevant routes. This serve as a basis to

calculate perceived Security and Safety of Cargo for specific Countries.

2.2. Generation of alternative routes for analysis

Based on the drivers journals the paths along the three routes were constructed and plottedon a map.

The routes were divided in stretches inter-linked by the nodes.

Node

1

Node

2

Node

3Stretch 1 Stretch 1


12/38





This allows efficient exploitation of the information obtained. The routes driven within EU

territories were eliminated to avoid bias of the routes. In other works, the alternative routes

started and ended at the EU borders.

The transportation nodes within the TRAX framework represent state border crossing points /

ports.

In several cases a single stretch is served by a number of nodes. Each node (border crossing /

customs point) processes certain types of good. The selection of the crossing point by the

drivers is frequently determined by the cargo type and unofficial contacts enabling the

simplification of the border crossing process. For calculation reasons, these nodes were

combined into a single node.

Based on the Drivers Journals three sets of routes were created as shown in the next figure:

- Trans-- Russia route

- Trans-- Caucasus route

- Trans-- Turkey route

Exploiting Drivers journals

For the above constructed routes, information were extracted from the drivers journals and

incorporated into a specially developed calculation tool based on MS-Exel.

Tables 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 illustrate the input structure of the information for the stretches and

nodes, respectively. Each line of the table reflects the information extracted from one drivers

journal. Cost for fuel was not included into the transportation costs at that stage. They wereadded at a later point of calculation.


13/38


14/38





+ATR C(o) (m))/m C(no) (3)+

C(no) (m))/m

))/m= Av

C(o)+AvC(no)

The average data on stretches and nodes were used for further calculations.

In cases where the drivers journal comprises parallel (alternative) stretches within one

country without nodes (i.e. identical transportation environment), stretches were consolidated

into a single one Stretch with the average values of the total (Table 2.2.3).

Table 2.2.3 Average Data on Stretch per Country

Average Data on Stretch per Country

AverageDistance

AvL(s)= (L(S)i)/nWhereAv

L(s - Average Distance, km

L(S)i Length of stretch, km

i= 1n, n total number of stretches

Average

travelling

time in the

country,h

(Av

TrT(s))

Average

Stop time

on

stretches in

the

country,h(

AvST(s))

Average

total

traveling

time in the

country,h

(AvT(S))

Average official

costs in the

country, EURO

(Av

C(o) (s))

Average

unofficial

costs in the

country,

EURO

(Av

C(no) (s))

Average total

costs in the

country, EURO

(Av

C (s))

AvTrT(s) =

(Av

TrT(S)i)/n

AvST(s) =

(Av

ST(s) i)/n

AvT(S)=

(Av

T(S)i)/n=

AvTrT(s) +

AvST(s)

AvC(o) =

(Av

C(o) (S)i)/n

AvC(no)=

(Av

C(no)

(S)i)/n

AvC =

(Av

C(S)i )/n=

AvC(o) +

AvC(no)

Where as , i= 1n,

n total number of stretches

In Analogy, the same approach was applied to the node calculations. If there were several

nodes operating in parallel between two countries serving the same stretch, their data were

combined into single node with the average values (Table 2.2.4).

Table 2.2.4. Average Data on nodes between two countries

Average Data on nodes between two countries (ADCN)

Average

node time at

crossing , h(Av

TrT(N))

Average stop

time on nodes

(rest time), h(

AvST(N))

Average total

node time, h

(Av

T(N))

Average official

costs on nodes,

EURO(Av

C(o)(N))

Average

unofficial costs

on nodes,EURO

Average total

node costs,

EURO(Av

C(N))


15/38





(AvC(no) (N))

AvTrT(N)=

AvTrT(N)j/m

AvST(N)=

Av

ST(N)j/m

AvT(N) =

Av

T(N)j /m=Av

TrT(N)+Av

ST(N)

AvC(o)(N)=

AvC(o)(N)j/m

AvC(no) (N) =

AvC(no) (N)j

/m

Av

C(N) =Av

C(N) j/m=Av

C(o)(N)+Av

C(no) (N)Whereas , j= 1m,

m number of nodes between two countries

The average data were used for further calculations.

Consideration of Risk Criteria

Best option to consider the risks of a transport would use the insurance premium. During this

work, insurance companies were not willing to share their experience in transport chain risk //

i.e. safety and security of cargo) rating of TRACECA countries. For this, the freight forwarders

interviewed were asked to rate this risk based on their experience for each country. Risk was

classified in the categories High Rusk, Average Risk, Minor Risk / Low Risk or No Risk.

The risk assessment was done solely for the stretches. According to the freight forwarders, risk

hazards were limited to the rod stretches and did not indicate any risk hazards at nodes.

Section C of the questionnaire / Interviews, the consultant obtained the estimation of the

operators on the risk of cargo transport within a specific country. Despite the fact that the risk

may increases with the value of goods, the judgment was requested for a base type of goods.As an example, Garments was given as a type of good to evaluate. Not all companies evaluated

all countries. Evaluators limited their evaluations to the countries in which they have

operational experience.

Based on the classification, a risk percentage was calculated for every country. The calculation

was based on an exponential function with a base of 1.26. While risk free receives a base

weight value of 1, the High risk receives a weight of 2. Low risk receives a weight of 1.26 and

medium risk a weight of 1.59.

Based on the above, the share of the countries in the risk classes is calculated by the

percentage of the risk class by the class weight. This represents the absolute value for risk. In anext step, the risk of the different countries was referenced to Western Europe as a

benchmark. The risk factor for every country along the comparative routes is calculated by

dividing the absolute value for each country by the benchmark of Western Europe give.

The value of risk is usually expressed in monetary term. To obtain the monetary value for every

stretch, the cost of transport along this stretch is multiplied by Risk Index .

High Medium Low FreeCountry total

votes Risk

Total Relative

value

Risk

index


16/38





marks %mar

ks%

mar

ks% marks %

(W. Europe)

Armenia 8 5 63% 3 38% 0 0% 0 0% 1,85 1,53 1,53 0,5

Azerbaijan 12 6 50% 2 17% 3 25% 1 8% 1,66 1,38 1,38 0,4

Bulgaria 16 0 0% 3 19% 8 50% 5 31% 1,24 1,03 1,03 0,0

Georgia 21 8 38% 9 43% 2 10% 2 10% 1,66 1,38 1,38 0,4

Kazakhstan 20 3 15% 8 40% 4 20% 5 25% 1,44 1,19 1,19 0,2

Kyrgyzstan 12 5 42% 3 25% 3 25% 1 8% 1,63 1,35 1,35 0,4

Moldova 15 1 7% 5 33% 7 47% 2 13% 1,38 1,15 1,15 0,1

Tajikistan 13 6 46% 3 23% 4 31% 0 0% 1,68 1,39 1,39 0,4

Turkey 18 0 0% 5 28% 6 33% 7 39% 1,25 1,04 1,04 0,0

Turkmenistan 12 4 33% 1 8% 6 50% 1 8% 1,51 1,26 1,26 0,3Ukraine 17 1 6% 4 24% 5 29% 7 41% 1,27 1,06 1,06 0,1

Uzbekistan 12 3 25% 2 17% 3 25% 4 33% 1,41 1,17 1,17 0,2

Iran 10 4 40% 1 10% 2 20% 3 30% 1,51 1,25 1,25 0,3

Russian

Federation21 1 5% 8 38% 7 33% 5 24% 1,36 1,13 1,13 0,1

Rumania 10 0 0% 2 20% 6 60% 2 20% 1,27 1,06 1,06 0,1

Belorussia 9 0 0% 5 56% 2 22% 2 22% 1,38 1,15 1,15 0,1

Baltic

Countries6 0 0% 1 17% 2 33% 3 50% 1,18 0,98 1,00 0,0

WesternEurope 7 0 0% 2 29% 1 14% 4 57% 1,21 1,00 1,00 0,0

Eastern

Europe8 0 0% 2 25% 3 38% 3 38% 1,24 1,03 1,03 0,0

China 9 0 0% 0 0% 3 33% 6 67% 1,09 0,90 1,00 0,0

South Korea 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 1,26 1,05 1,05 0,0

India 1 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1,59 1,32 1,32 0,3

2.3. Weighing of the evaluation criteria

As indicated above, the Questionnaire was utilized to obtain the industrys views on the relative

importance of the four evaluation criteria for the route choice. Four different categories could

be choose as shown in the table below.

To allow objective capture of the criteria, paired judgment approach was pursued. In this

approach every two criteria are judged. Based on this judgment; the rank of the criteria was

calculated. This approach utilized the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) through its structured approach best fits dealing with the complex decisions of

setting the ranking of the criteria based on paired judgment rather than prescribing the

weights. The questionnaire is given in (Annex 1)

Table2.3.1: Setting the relative importance for the criteria


17/38





Transport Cost arecompared

toTransport Time


toTransport Reliability


to

Transport Safety and

Security

Transport Time arecompared

toTransport Reliability

Transport Time arecompared

to


Security

Transport

Reliabilityare

4 More Important

3 Slightly more

Important

2 Equally

Important

1 Slightly less

Important

0 Less Important

compared

to


Security

The judgment scale of 0-4 proves to be practical in the TRAX case. Further distinction will not

affect the final result in a statistically significant way.

Calculation was made for the 4 criteria being compared leading to a total of 6 pair comparisons.

The formula applies herefor is 2 P = (N (N 1) ,

Whereas; P is the number of Paird comparison and N is the number of criteria. The total

number of point is obtained by multiplying the P by the scale of judgment scale (0-4), The total

number of points in the TRAX case is 6 x 4 = 24.Each pair has therefore a weight of 0.16667 (or 16.70 %) in the explanation of how relevant

criteria are. At the same time, the result of each comparison is expressed on a rating scale

(More important, Slightly more important, and Equally important). To keep this into

account, the total weight of each pair has been split between the two criteria as follows:

When one criteria is rated as more important (rate 4) it gets the whole weight (4/24 =

0.16667) while its counterpart gets 0;

When one criteria is rated as slightly more important (rate 3) it gets a weight of 0.125

while its counterpart gets 0.041667;

When one criteria is rated as equally important (rate 2) it gets a weight of 0.08333and also its counterpart gets 0.08333;

When one criteria is rated as slightly less important (rate 1) it gets a weight of 0.041667

while its counterpart gets 0.125;

When one criteria is rated as less important (rate 0) it gets 0 while its counterpart gets

the whole weight 0.16667.

The final score of each criterion has been computed through the average of all the answers

given by different evaluators:

Table 2.3.2 Weight of the criterias


18/38





WEIGHT () FOR

STRETCHES

(S)

FOR NODES

(N)

weight of the Cost (C) 13% 22%

weight of the Transportation Time Costs (TiC) 17% 29%

weight of the Transportation Reliability Costs (ReC) 29% 49%

weight of the Risk costs (Safety) (SeC) 41% -

2.4. Assumptions for the TRAX Calculation

Estimates of Value of Travel Time

To enable numerical calculation of the index an estimation for the Value of Travel Time (VOT)

was required. The Value of Travel Time refers to the cost of time spent on transport, i.e. travel

and waiting times. A desk research was made and the approach chosen is based on the recently

published Monetary Estimates of VOT. This was published by Victoria Transport Policy Institute

(www.vtpi.org) as a study on Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II. Travel Time Costs and

the Study have been presented at the meeting of International Transport Forum in 2009.

This Study use travel surveys to determine the value of travel time for Europe and other

regions.

The study found that travel time has an overall average value of about $10/hour, but that for a

portion of trips (estimated at 10-15% overall and up to 24% during non-working days), traveltime has positive rather than negative value.

The table below summarizes typical values of time used for transport project evaluation in

Europe

For TRAX calculation for road transport the value of 43 EURO has been used as a value of time.

The fuel costs.

The calculation of Index is based on officially published Fuel Prices on the following web sites

International Road Union (www.iru.org), as primary source

www.issa.ru, as secondary source.
http://www.vtpi.org/http://www.iru.org/http://www.issa.ru/http://www.issa.ru/http://www.iru.org/http://www.vtpi.org/


19/38





2.5. Input Data for the Calculations

Input Data for the Calculations for STRETCHES

Data on Stretches obtained from the drivers journals:

1. Length, km (L(S)i )

2. Average Travel Time, hours (Av

t(S)i )

3. Minimum Travel Time on Stretch, hours (Tmin(S)i ) this is the minimum value of time

used by the driver to travel across this stretch

4. Maximum Travel Time on Stretch, hours (Tmax (S)i ) this is the maximum value of

time used by the driver to travel across this stretch

5. Average Official costs on the Route, EURO (Av

C(o) (S)i )

6. Average Unofficial costs on the Route, EURO (Av

C(no) (S)i )

7. Average Total Cost on the Route, EURO - (Av

C(S)i )

For the purposes of a unified approach the following assumptions were used:

1. Travel Time costs per hour, EURO (VOT). The value of this index refers to 43 EURO.

2. Average fuel consumption by the vehicle in the standard conditions 0,3 lt. per 100 km

(CE)

Calculation of the basic input values:1. Average speed (

AvS (S)i )

AvS (S)i = L(S)i /

Avt(S)i

2. Reliability in hours (Re (S)i ) this is a difference between the maximum and minimum

value of the travel time, i.e. how much time may potentially be lost on stretch.

(Re (S)i ) = Tmax(S)i - Tmin (S)i )

3. Level of the Unofficial costs, %. (Cno (S)i ))

Cno (S)i ) =Av

C(no) (S)i /Av

C(S)i *100%

4. Total Fuel Consumption Cost on Stretch, EURO/L, (FC (S)i ))

FC(S)i= AFC*CE* L(S)i = 0,22*0,3* L(S)i )

5. Risk Coefficient (Safety Penalties) (RiC(S)i )) the calculation of this index is given in

Section 2.2 Considiration of Risk criteria.

Calculation of the INDEX criteria for STRETCHES

Based on the exploitation of information from the drivers journal; the set of input data

were used for the calculation of each of the criteria for stretches:

1. Transportation Costs


20/38





2. Risk Costs (Safety)

3. Transportation Time Costs4. Transportation Reliability Costs

Transportation costs for Stretch (i) - (TrC(S)i ) were calculated by addition of all types of costs

incurred throughout the itinerary, including official and unofficial, total cost of fuel being

consumed by the vehicle in the average conditions to travel across this stretch. The value of

any other costs associated with the transportation prime cost (amortization, interest,

drivers salary etc.) was not taken into account.

TrC(S)i = FC (S)i +Av

C(S)i

Risk Costs (Safety) (SeC(S)i ) on stretch (i) were calculated by multiplying the cost of

transportation across this stretch by the risk coefficient of the same stretch. This criterion

enables the assessment of a possible increase in the transportation cost on any stretch in

terms of safety and security level (Risk Premium).

SeC(S)i = TrC(S)i * RiC(S)i

Transportation Time Costs ( TiC(S)i ) were calculated by multiplying the Average Travel Time

on stretch (i) by the Travel Time cost factor / hour (43 EURO).

TiC(S)i =Av

t(S)i )* VOT

Reliability Costs (ReC(S)i) were calculated by multiplying the Transportation Reliability cost /

hour by the Travel Time cost / hour. This criterion reflects the costs of low predictability ofcargo delivery time and final costs.

ReC(S)i = Re(S)i* VOT

The results of calculations of the criteria, main indexes and basic data were brought

together in a single Table for each stretch (Table 2.5.1).


21/38


TRANSPORT DIALOGUE AND INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES AND CENTRAL ASIAN

COUNTRIES (IDEAPROJECT)PAGE 21 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

Table 2.5.1 Standardized table with the Stretch estimated data

Number

ofStretch

ShortDescription

TypeofInfrastructure

Countries

Transpor

tationcost

Riskcos

t(safety)

Transportat

ionTimecost

TransportationReliability

cost

Lengthofthe

stretch

(km)

AverageTotalTravelTime

(ho

urs)

Minimum

TravelTime

Maximum

TravelTime

Reliabilityinhours

Averag

espeed

AverageTotalcosts,EURO

AverageOfficialcosts,EURO

AverageUn

officialcosts,

EU

RO

LevelofUno

fficialcosts,%

TotalFuelCostonStretch

(EU

RO)

Average1

lt.

FuelCost

Traveltime

costperhour

(E

UR)

RiskCoeffic

ient(SAFETY

PEN

ALTY)

TrC(S)i SeC(S)i TiC(S)i ReC(S)i L(S)iAvt(S)i Tmin

(S)i

Tmax

(S)i

Re(S)iAvS(S)i

AvC(S)iAvC(o)

(S)i

AvC(no)

(S)i

Cno

(S)i

FC (S)i AFC VOT RiC(S)i(Si) Name

of

Stretc

h

Road/

ferry

Name

AFC(S)i+Av

C (S)i

TrC(S)i )

* RiC(S)i

Avt(S)i *

VOT

Re(S)i *

VOT

Source: Drivers Journals Tmax

(S)i -

Tmin

(S)i

L(S)i/

At(S)i

Source: Drivers

Journals

AvC(no) (S)

/Av

C (S)i*100%

AFC*

CE*

L(S)i

0,22 43 Source:Intervie

ws and

calculat

ions


22/38





Input Data for the Calculations for NODES

Data on Nodes obtained from the drivers journals are:

1. Average Total Costs on Node, EURO (Av

C (N)j)

2. Average Official Costs on Node, EURO (Av

C(o) (N)j )

3. Average Unofficial Costs on Node, EURO, (Av

C(no) (N)j )

4. Minimum Waiting Time on Node in hours , (Tmin (N)j )

5. Maximum Waiting Time on Node in hours, (Tmax (N)j )

6. Average Waiting Time on Node in hours (Av

t (N)j)

For the purposes of a unified approach the following assumptions were used:1. Travel Time cost per hour, EURO (VOT). The value of this index refers to 43 EURO.

Calculation of the basic input values:

1. Reliability in hours (Re (N)j) this is a difference between the maximum and

minimum value of the travel time, i.e. how much time may potentially be lost on a

node.

Re (N)j= Tmax (N)j - Tmin (N)j

2. Level of Unofficial costs, %. (Cno (N)j)

Cno (N)j= AvC(no) (N)j/ AvC (N)j*100%

Calculation of INDEX criteria for NODES

Based on the exploitation of information from the drivers journal; the set of input data

were used for the calculation of each of the criteria for nodes:

1. Average Total Costs on Node

2. Time Cost on Node

3. Reliability Costs on Node

Average Total Costs on Node, EURO (

Av

C(N)j), as already stated, have been obtained from thedrivers journals and include all types of costs incurred within the node, be it official or

unofficial. The value of any other costs associated with the transportation prime cost

(amortization, interest, drivers salary etc.) was not taken into account.

Time Costs on node (TiC(N)j)were calculated by multiplying the Average Total time on node

(j) by the Travel time cost factor / hour (43 EURO).

TiC(N)j=Av

t(N)j* VOT

Reliability Costs on Node (ReC(N)j) were calculated by multiplying the node Reliability cost /

hour by the Travel time cost / hour. This criterion reflects any possible losses or gains that

could occur on this node in the favorable or unfavorable circumstances resulting to anydelays in transit.


23/38





ReC(N)j= Re(N)j* VOT

The results of calculations of the criteria, main indexes and basic data were brought together ina single table for each node (Table 2.5.2).


24/38


TRANSPORT DIALOGUE AND INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES AND CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES

(IDEA PROJECT)PAGE 24 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

Table 2.5.2 Standardized table with the Node estimated data

NumberofNode

ShortDescription

TypeofBorder

Countries

Average

Total

Costs

on

Node(EUR)

Timecostonnode

Reliabilitycosto

nNode

AverageO

fficial

costson

Node,

EURO

LevelofUnofficialcosts,%.

AverageUnoffic

icalcostson

Node,

EURO

Minimum

WaitingTimeon

Nodeinhours

AveragetotalW

aitingTime

onNodeinhours

Maximum

WaitingTimeon

Nodeinhours

Reliabilityinhou

rs

Traveltimecost

perhour,

(EUR)

AvC (N)j TiC(N)j ReC(N)j

AvC(o) (N)j C(no) (N)j

AvC(no)

(N)j

Tmin

(N)j

Avt (N)j Tmax

(N)j

Re (N)j) VOT(N) Nameof

node

Road

/ Sea

Name

AvC(o) (N)j +

AvC(no) (N)j

Avt (N)j *

VOT

Re (N)j* VOT

Source:DriversJournals

AvC(no)

(N)j /Av

C

(N)j

*100%

Source: Drivers Journals Tmax

(N)j -

Tmin

(N)j

43


25/38





2.6. Segmentation of the Routes

The calculation of the index TRAX was made by adding the values along stretches and nodes asdescribed above. To enable comparison and improvements monitoring, an intermediate step

was introduced by creating regional sub index (R-TRAX). Each route was appropriately divided

in three sections:

- European section,

- Middle/ Central section

- Central Asia

Consequently, the data on any route section comprise all data on nodes and stretches within

this region of the route.The spatial distinction for the regions is given below:

Trans Russia route Trans Caucasus route Trans Turkey route

European section Belorussia Ukraine

Rumania

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Turkey

Middle (Central)

section

Russia Black Sea Ferry,

Georgia, Caspian Ferry,

Azerbaijan

Iran

Eastern section

(Central Asia)

Kazakhstan/ Uzbekistan/

Kyrgyzstan/

Kazakhstan

Uzbekistan

Kyrgyzstan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kyrgyzstan

2.7. Regional adjustment of values for Stretches

As stated above, the criteria for the Stretch index calculation were as follows:

1. Transportation Costs (TrC(s))

2. Risk Costs (Safety) (SeC(s))

3. Transportation Time Costs (TiC(S))

4. Transportation Reliability Costs (ReC(s))

The data on these criteria derived from the calculations described above were adjusted to

fit the the regional approach as follows:

European section Middle (Central)

section

Eastern section

(Central Asia)


26/38





Transportation costs

TrC(s)

TrC(s)EU = TrC(S)i TrC(s)MID = TrC(S)i TrC(s)CA = TrC(S)i

Risk costs (Safety)

SeC(s)

SeC(s)EU = SeC(S)i SeC(s)MID = SeC(S)i SeC(s)CA = SeC(S)i

Transportation Time

costs TiC(s)

TiC(s)EU = TiC(S)i TiC(s)MID = TiC(S)i TiC(s)CA = TiC(S)i

Transportation

Reliability costs ReC(s)

ReC(s)EU =ReC(s)i ReC(s)MID=ReC(s)i ReC(s)CA=ReC(s)i

Length of the regional

section, km L(S)

L(S)EU= L(s)i L(S)MID= L(s)i L(S)CA= L(s)i

i=1n,

n- number of

stretches on the

European section

of the route

i=1m,

m- number of

stretches on the

Middle (Central)

section of the route

i=1k,

k- number of

stretches on the

Eastern section of

the route (Central

Asia)

It is important to mention that the adjustment of the total index value to the length (for

comparison reason as mentioned above) was made at the regional level and not for theenture corridor. This does not only ensure the comparability of the total index TRAX but

also for the regional index R-TRAX. There was no adjustment made for the Node data.

Furthermore, for the data adjustment purposes, the average length, km (Av

L(S)) was

specified. The average length of the route is calculated as an average value of all integrated

regional sections of this route.

AvL(s)=( L(s)i)/N, i=1.N (N number of the regional parts)

The adjustment was applied to the following main values of each regional section of the

route:

European section Middle (Central)section

Eastern section(Central Asia)

Adjusted

Transportation costs

(ADJ

TrC(S))

ADJTrC(S)EU =

TrC(S)EU / L(S)EU *Av

L (S)

ADJTrC(S)MID =

TrC(S)MID / L(S)MID*Av

L (S)

ADJTrC(S)CA = TrC(S)CA /

L(S)CA*Av

L (S)

Adjusted Risk (Safety)

costs SeCADJ

s

SeCADJ

s(EU)= SeCEU

s

/ L(S)EU *Av

L (S)

SeCADJ

s(MID)= SeCMID

s

/ L(S)MID*Av

L (S)

SeCADJ

s(CA)= SeCCA

s /

L(S)CA*Av

L (S)

Adjusted

Transportation Time

costs ADJTiC(S)

ADJTiC(S)EU = TiC(S)EU

/ L(S)EU *Av

L (S)

ADJTiC(S)MID =

TiC(S)MID / L(S)MID*AvL (S)

ADJTiC(S)CA = TiC(S)CA /

L(S)CA*Av

L (S)

Adjusted ReliabilityADJ

ReC(S)EU =ADJ

ReC(S)MID =ADJ

ReC(S)CA =ReC(S)CA/


27/38





costs ReC(S) ReC(S)EU / L(S)EU *Av

L (S)

ReC(S)MID / L(S)MID*Av

L (S)

L(S)CA*Av

L (S)

2.8. Regional approach for Nodes

In analogy to the regional approach for stretches, nodes representing the border crossing

points and ports were also classified in accordance with the regional principle described

above. For nodes at the borders between two regions, it was necessary to divide the node

data into two sub-nodes. The division of the cost, time and the reliability values of a node

were calculated by dividing them according to the length of the stretch they are connected

to. For example for the Node (N) that accommodates two stretches, aone is European (Sw)

and one Eastern (Se). The lengths of the both stretches are known (L(S)w, L(S)e ), then one

might assume that the node accommodates the route with the following magnitude: (L(S)w+ L(S)e). However Sw and Se refer to the different regional sections of the route, and the

node (N) accommodates two regional stretches. Now therefore:

1) Specific Node (N) weight (KN) for the Stretch (Sw) will be equal to:

K(N)w = L(S)w / (L(S)w + L(S)e)

2) Specific Node (N) weight (KN) for the Stretch (Se) will be equal to:

K(N)e = L(S)e / (L(S)w + L(S)e).

As stated above, the node index calculation is based on the following three main criteria:

1. Average Total Costs on Node, EURO (AvC(N)j) ,

2. Time Costs on Node (TiC(N) j)

3. Reliability Costs on Node (ReC(N) j)

Therefore the specific weight value has been calculated with the use of the indicated criteria:

Node European section Middle (Central)

section

Eastern section

(Central Asia)

Average Total Costs on

node, EURO (Av

C(N))

AvC(N)EU=

K(N)w*

Av

C(N)jw +AvC(N)j+ K(N)e*Av

C(N)je

AvC(N)MID=

KNw* AC N(jw)+ACN(j)+ KNe*

ACN(je)

AvC(N)CA=

KNw* ACN(jw) +ACN(j)+KNe* ACN(je)

Time Costs on node

(TiC(N))

TiC(N)EU=

K(N)w* TiC(N) jw +

TiC(N)j+ K(N)e* TiC(N)je

TiC(N)MID=

K(N)w* TiC(N) jw +


TiC(N)CA=

K(N)w* TiC(N) jw +


Reliability Costs on

node (ReC(N))

ReC(N)EU =

K(N)w* ReC(N)jw +

ReC(N)j+ K(N)e*

ReC(N)je

ReC(N)MID =

K(N)w* ReC(N)jw +

ReC(N)j+ K(N)e*

ReC(N)je

ReC(N)CA =

K(N)w* ReC(N)jw +

ReC(N)j+ K(N)e* ReC(N)je


28/38





Definitions j=1n, n number

of nodes on the

European section,

jw- utmost Western

node on the

European section

je utmost Eastern

node on the

European section

j=1n, n number

of nodes on the

Middle section,

jw- utmost Western

node on the Middle

section

je utmost Eastern

node on the Middle

section

j=1n, n number of

nodes on the Eastern

section

jw- utmost Western

node on the Eastern

section

je utmost Eastern

node on the Eastern

section

The results of calculations have been consolidated in the summary table for each route sectionshown below.

Name of Route

Region European Central

(Middle)

Eastern

(Central

Asia)

Country Names Names Names

Total

Transportation Costs TrC(S)EU TrC(S)MID TrC(S)CA TrC(S)= TrC(S)EU +

TrC(S)MID + TrC(S)CA

Adjusted Transportation

Costs

ADJTrC(S)EU

ADJTrC(S)MID

ADJTrC(S)CA

ADJTrC(S)=

ADJTrC(S)EU +

ADJTrC(S)MID +

ADJTrC(S)CA

Transportation Time

Costs

TiC(S)EU TiC(S)MID TiC(S)CA TiC(S)= TiC(S)EU +

TiC(S)MID + TiC(S)CA


Time Costs

ADJTiC(S)EU

ADJTiC(S)MID

ADJTiC(S)CA

ADJTiC(S)=

ADJTiC(S)EU +

ADJTiC

(S)MID+

ADJTiC(S)CA

Transportation

Reliability cost

ReC(S)EU ReC(S)MID ReC(S)CA ReC(S)= ReC(S)EU +

ReC(S)MID +

ReC(S)CA

STR

ETCHDATA


Reliability Costs

ADJReC(S)EU

ADJReC(S)MI

D

ADJReC(S)CA

ADJReC(S)=

ADJReC(S)EU +

ADJReC(S)MID +

ADJReC(S)CA


29/38





Risk (Safety) Costs SeC(S)EU SeC(S)MID SeC(S)CA SeC(S) = SeC(S)EU +

SeC(S)MID + SeC(S)CA

Adjusted Risk (Safety)

Costs

ADJSeC(S)EU

ADJSeC(S)MI

D

ADJSeC(S)CA

ADJSeC(S)=

ADJSeC(S)EU

+ADJ

SeC(S)MID +ADJ

SeC(S)CA

Length, km L(S)EU L(S)MID L(S)CA L (S)= L(S)EU +L(S)MID+L(S)CA

Average Length, kmAv

L (S)

Average Total Costs on

Node

AvC(N) EU

AvC(N)MID

AvC(N)CA

AvC(N) =

AvC(N) EU+

AvC(N)MID+

AvC(N)CA

Time Cost on Node TiC(N)EU TiC(N)MID TiC(N)CA TiC(N)= TiC(N)EU +

TiC(N)MID +TiC(N)CA

Reliability Costs on Node ReC(N)EU ReC(N)MID ReC(N)CA ReC(N)= ReC(N)EU +

ReC(N)MID+ReC(N)CA

NODEDATA

NODES Names Names Names Names

2.9. INDEX Calculation

As noted above, the Route Index consists of two sub-indexes: stretch sub-index and nod sub-

index.

TRAX - Roads INDEX (R)= INDEX (S) + INDEX (N)

Stretch INDEX (S)

The INDEX (S) for stretchs is calculated as a sum of stretchess criteria (Adjusted Transportation

Costs, Adjusted Time Costs, Adjusted Reliability Costs, and Adjusted Safety Costs) multiplied by

the specific weight of each criterion specified in Section 1.4. The adjustment relates to the

length of each stretch. The following formula applies for the calculation of INDEX (S):

INDEX (S) = (ADJ

TrC(S) * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S) * (S)TiC +ADJ

ReC(S) * (S)ReC +ADJ

SeC(S) * (S)SeC ),

However; this index was first calculated on the basis of the regional approach indicated above

region (section) of the route, while the specific weights of criteria remained unchanged:

INDEX (S)EU = (ADJ

TrC(S)EU* (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S)EU* (S)TiC +ADJ

ReC(S)EU * (S)ReC +ADJ

SeC(S)EU * (S)SeC )

INDEX (S)MID = (ADJ

TrC(S)MID * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S)MID * (S)TiC +ADJ

ReC(S)MID * (S)ReC +ADJSeC(S)MID * (S)SeC )


30/38





INDEX (S)CA = (ADJ

TrC(S)CA * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S)CA * (S)TiC +ADJ

ReC(S)CA * (S)ReC +ADJ

SeC(S)CA* (S)SeC )

The total index can also be calculated by adding up the regional index. The following formula is

valid.

INDEX (S) = INDEX (S)EU +INDEX (S)MID+ INDEX (S)CA =

= (ADJ

TrC(S) * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S) * (S)TiC +ADJ

ReC(S) * (S)ReC +ADJ

SeC(S) * (S)SeC )

Node INDEX

The INDEX (N) for Nodes is calculated as a sum of the nodess criteria (Average Total Costs on

Node, Time Costs on Node and Reliability Costs on Node) multiplied by the specific weight of

each node criteria specified in Section 2.3. Therefore:

INDEX (N) = (Av

C(N) * (N)C + TiC(N)* (N)TiC + ReC(N)* (N)ReC),

However, this index was first calculated on the basis of the regional approach indicated above

for each region (section) of the route, while the specific weights of criteria remained

unchanged:

INDEX (N)EU = (Av

C (N)EU* (N)C + TiC(N)EU * (N)TiC + ReC(N)EU * (N)ReC)

INDEX (N)MID = (Av

C (N)MID * (N)C + TiC(N)MID * (N)TiC + ReC(N)MID * (N)ReC)

INDEX (N)C = (Av

C (N)CA* (N)C + TiC(N)CA * (N)TiC + ReC(N)CA * (N)ReC)

The total index can also be calculated by adding up the regional index. The following formula is

valid.

INDEX (N) = INDEX (N)EU +INDEX (N)MID+ INDEX (N)CA =

= (Av

C(N) * (N)C + TiC(N)* (N)TiC + ReC(N)* (N)ReC)

The results of index calculations were calculated separately for each route on the basis of the

regional approach and further combined in the summary table.


31/38


TRANSPORT DIALOGUE AND INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES AND CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES

(IDEA PROJECT)PAGE 31 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION

ROUTE TRANS - RUSSIA

TRANS - CAUCASUS

TRANS - TURKEYRegion Europe Middle (Central) Part East part (Central Asia)

Countries Names Names Names Total

Total INDEX INDEX(R)EU =

INDEX (S) EU + INDEX (N) EU

INDEX(R)MID =

INDEX(S) MID + INDEX(N) MID

INDEX(R)CA =

INDEX(S)CA + INDEX(N) CA

INDEX (R)=

INDEX (S) + INDEX (N)=

INDEX(R)EU +INDEX(R)MID+INDEX(R)CA

Stretch

INDEX

INDEX (S)EU =

(ADJ

TrC(S)EU* (S)TrC +ADJTiC(S)EU* (S)TiC +

ADJReC(S)EU* (S)ReC +

ADJSeC(S)EU * (S)SeC )

INDEX (S)MID =

(ADJ

TrC(S)MID * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S)MID* (S)TiC +

ADJReC(S)MID * (S)ReC +ADJSeC(S)MID * (S)SeC )

INDEX (S)CA =

(ADJ

TrC(S)CA * (S)TrC +ADJ

TiC(S)CA *

(S)TiC +

ADJReC(S)CA * (S)ReC +

ADJSeC(S)CA *

(S)SeC )

INDEX (S) =

INDEX (S)EU +INDEX (S)MID+INDEX

(S)CA= (ADJTrC(S) * (S)TrC +

ADJTiC(S)* (S)TiC +

ADJReC(S) * (S)ReC +ADJ

SeC(S) * (S)SeC )

Node INDEX INDEX (N)EU =

(Av

C (N)EU* (N)C + TiC(N)EU *

(N)TiC + ReC(N)EU * (N)ReC)

INDEX (N)MID =

(Av

C (N)MID * (N)C + TiC(N)MID *

(N)TiC + ReC(N)MID * (N)ReC)

INDEX (N)CA =

(Av

C (N)CA* (N)C + TiC(N)CA * (N)TiC+ ReC(N)CA * (N)ReC)

INDEX (N) =

INDEX (N)EU +INDEX (N)MID+

INDEX (N)CA=

(Av C(N) * (N)C + TiC(N)* (N)TiC +

ReC(N)* (N)ReC)


32/38





3. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF TRAX

TRAX methodology for road transport and calculations results shall be published on the

TRACECA web site illustrating the reference year 2010. Regular update shall be made for TRAX

to show the improvement in the TRACECA route attractiveness compared to alternative routes.

In this regard and in the course of 2011, TRAX will be further development to Intermodal Index

TRAX by including the railway born transport links along the TRACECA routes and the Trans-

Russian routes.

For intermodal index calculating will be applied a single methodological approach for all its

constituent parts: road and rail transport indexes.

In such a way the TRAX for rail transport will be calculated by analogy with TRAX for road

transport, illustrates the attractiveness indications of a route chosen by a transport operator

such as time, cost, reliability of transportation and safety. The weighing of the criteria must also

reflect the priorities and weights considered by the transport operators.

Data collection, definition of criteria weights, formation and segmentation of the route will be

made in cooperation with transport companies and operators by questionnaires and

interviews.

Planned integrated approach to data collection at the national and international level:

1) Questionnaire survey and Interviews with the national railway administrations /

companies - to provide national data on individual countries on route lines, tariff scale,

costs of transportation on stretches and processing in the nodes, indicative time of the

transportation through the route (stretch) and carry out the necessary operations in the

nodes.

2) Questionnaire survey and Interviews with operators / companies / freight forwarders,

providing services of rail transportation - to receive data at the national level for

individual countries about the time and cost of transportation by rail on a particular

route (stretch/node)

3) Questionnaire survey and Interviews with operators / companies / freight forwarders,

providing services of international rail transportation - to receive data at the

international level about the time and cost of transportation by rail on particular route

(stretch/node) in terms of non-resident.

Thus, each stretch or node gets three types of assessment on time and cost of transportation:

- In terms of national railway administration

- In terms of national rail transport operator / freight forwarders

- In terms of international rail transport operator / freight forwarders.


33/38





Further, the calculation of the reliability of railway transportation, average cost and time will be

carried out in the same way as in the above described methodology.

The selection / weighing of the criteria have been based on several interviews with

transportation operators in the TRACECA region and in Western Europe. The criteria meet the

state-of-the-art experience in transport research

Intermodal index Trucks will calculate based on value (specific gravity) of road and rail traffic for

each route.


34/38





4. REFERENCES1. NEW EURASIAN LAND TRANSPORT INITIATIVE, Final report , Analysis of monitoring data collected on

NELTI Project Routes in 2008 2009

2. Becker, G.S. (1965) A theory of the allocation of time, in: Economic Journal, Vol. 75 (3), Pages 493-

517

1. Bruzelius, N. (1979) The value of travel time, 1st edition, Croom Helm, London

2. De Serpa, A.J. (1973) A theory of the economics of time, in: Economic Journal, Volume 81, Pages

825-841

3. Evans, A.W. (1972) On the theory of the valuation and allocation of time, in: Scottish Journal of

Political Economy, Volume 19, Pages 1-17

4. Goodwin, P.B. (1981) The usefulness of travel budgets, in: Transportation Research, Volume 15 A,

Pages 97-106

5. EURASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2009) The EURASEC Transport Corridors Sector Report

6. UNITED NATIONS (2008) Joint study on developing Euro-Asian Transport Linkages

7. SSATP (2008) Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy Program, Lessons of Corridor Performance

Management- Discussion Paper No. 7, Regional Integration and Transport

8. Arvis, J.F., Raballand, G. and Marteau, J.F. (2007) The cost of being landlocked: logistics costs and

supply chain reliability, WP 4258, The World Bank Group

9. The World Bank Group (2005) Best Practices in Corridor Management

10. 11. EUCAM (2009) Optimization of Central Asian and Eurasian Trans-Continental Land Transport

Corridors, working paper 09

11. NELTI (New Eurasian Land Transport Initiative Final Report-2008

12. Catalany, M. (2009) Transport competition on a multimodal corridor by elasticity evaluation,

University of Naples/Italy

13. NCHRP Report No 431,(2009) National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Valuation of Travel

Time Savings and Predictability in Congested Conditions for Highway Use Cost Estimations

14. The World Bank Group and Turku School of Economics (2007) Connecting to Compete- TradeLogistics in the Global Economy-The Logistics Performance Index and its Indicators, accessible on

online World Bank resources

15. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (2004) Freight Transportation

Improvements and the Economy

5. ANNEX 1. TRACECA TRAX QUESTIONNAIRE

The team of the Project IDEA Transport Interoperability and Dialogue between the EU,

Caucasus and Asian is supporting the initiative to improve the attractiveness of the TRACECA


35/38





Transport Corridor. Within this framework, this questionnaire serves obtaining feedback from

the TRACECA stakeholders towards prioritizing the main features for development. Your

answers will be the base for identification of the existing bottlenecks and fine tuning of the

priority ranking of future transport investments in the TRACECA Corridor.

Please fill in this questionnaire and return it to the IDEA team

Part A. General questions on companys scope of activity

Name of the

Company:

Company address

Contact Partner /

Phone number

Business field

Number of staff

Number of

trucked

containers per

year

Client locations

in TRACECA

countries:

Yes No Under Planning

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

Tajikistan

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Romania

Islamic Republic of

Iran

Client locations

in other

Yes No Planning


36/38


37/38





equally important

slightly more importantmore important

less important

slightly less important

equally important

slightly more important

Transport Time

more important

Tracking and Safety

less important

slightly less important

equally important

slightly more important

Transport Reliability

more important

Tracking and Safety

To finish this questionnaire, please tell us about the risk-profile of carrying through (transit)

and in-between the above listed countries.

Country High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Risk-FreeArmenia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Georgia

Islamic Republic of Iran

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

Peoples Republic of China

Russian Federation

Tajikistan

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Romania

Please address more topics in the next field you might find of importance


38/38


Thank you very much for your time spent to answer our questions.

The IDEA-Project TEAM

Date post:	02-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	georgescala
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01

Documents