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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
2/38
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
4/38
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 4 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
5/38
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 5 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
6/38
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
7/38
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 7 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
8/38
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 8 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
9/38
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 9 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
10/38
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
11/38
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 11 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
12/38
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 12 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
13/38
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
14/38
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 14 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
+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))
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
15/38
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 15 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
(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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
16/38
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 16 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
17/38
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 17 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
Transport Cost arecompared
toTransport Time
Transport Cost arecompared
toTransport Reliability
Transport Cost arecompared
to
Transport Safety and
Security
Transport Time arecompared
toTransport Reliability
Transport Time arecompared
to
Transport Safety and
Security
Transport
Reliabilityare
4 More Important
3 Slightly more
Important
2 Equally
Important
1 Slightly less
Important
0 Less Important
compared
to
Transport Safety and
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
18/38
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 18 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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/7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
19/38
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 19 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
20/38
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 20 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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).
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
21/38
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 (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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
22/38
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 22 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
23/38
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 23 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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).
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
24/38
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 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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
25/38
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 25 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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)
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
26/38
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 26 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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/
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
27/38
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 27 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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)j+ K(N)e* TiC(N)je
TiC(N)CA=
K(N)w* TiC(N) jw +
TiC(N)j+ K(N)e* TiC(N)je
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
28/38
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 28 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
Adjusted Transportation
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
Adjusted Transportation
Reliability Costs
ADJReC(S)EU
ADJReC(S)MI
D
ADJReC(S)CA
ADJReC(S)=
ADJReC(S)EU +
ADJReC(S)MID +
ADJReC(S)CA
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
29/38
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 29 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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 )
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
30/38
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 30 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
31/38
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 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)
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
32/38
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 32 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
33/38
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 33 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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.
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
34/38
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 34 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
35/38
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 35 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
36/38
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
37/38
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 37 IDEAPROJECT IS FUNDED
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
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
7/27/2019 ROADS Trax Methodology ENG 01
38/38
TRACECA Route Attraciveness indeX - TRAX W W W . T R A C E C A - O R G . O R G
Thank you very much for your time spent to answer our questions.
The IDEA-Project TEAM