Good Navigation Status Regional GNS workshop Berlin, 17 October 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Good Navigation Status
Regional GNS workshop
Berlin, 17 October 2016
2
Agenda for today
9:30 Welcome and introduction9:45 Presentation of EMMA project and link to GNS study10:00 Presentation of Good Navigation Status study10:20 Questions & answers10:30 Coffee break10:45 Navigation standards along the East‐West IWT corridor on view on GNS concept11:30 Questions & answers11:45 Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS12:15 Questions, answers and discussion12:45 Lunch13:30 Discussion on selected GNS aspects and indicators for East‐West IWT corridor14:00 Discussion on possible exemption criteria for non‐compliance with Art. 15 § 3.(a) of
the TEN‐T guidelines 14:30 Contributions and discussion on Good Practice Guidelines based on initial overview
of topics15:00 Discussion on implications of GNS assessment: Bottlenecks / Projects15:20 Conclusions and actions, further cooperation15:30 Closing
3
Presentation of Good Navigation Status study
Martin Quispel, GNS Consortium/STC-NESTRA
To substantiate Article 15 §3.(b) of TEN‐T Guidelines (Reg.1315/2013) as regards Good Navigation Status:
Member States shall ensure that on the Comprehensive Network“Rivers, canals and lakes are maintained so as to preserve Good Navigation Status while respecting the applicable environmental law”
Article 38: “For inland navigation infrastructure within the TEN‐T core network, Good Navigation Status has to be achieved (and thereafter preserved) by 31 December 2030.”
4
Background and purpose of GNS study
Entire TEN‐T inland waterway network– Not only core network
corridors– All CEMT ≥IV waterways– Including (isolated) inland
waterways in Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Italy, Portugal and Spain
– Good Practice also of interest for CEMT <IV waterways and non‐EU countries
5
Background and purpose of GNS study
Use of result is “open”:Technical background for the legal interpretation of Article 15 §3.(b): e.g. Input for a Staff Working Document by DG MOVE Basis for project selection criteria by INEA (CEF funding..)
No new targets will be set by the studyProposals, oriented on existing agreements Focus on „how to implement targets“ and „monitorperformance“
6
Implications and possible outcome
Study 1/2016 – 10/2017:
Agreed GNS components and requirements (quant./qual.)
Monitoring and reporting options and requirements
Input to TENtec Database IWW Glossary
Specification of exemption criteria to Art. 15 § 3.(a)
GNS network assessment ‐ GNS parameters and KPIs
Roadmaps for critical GNS sections
Good Practice Guidelines for implementation of GNS
7
Planned Deliverables
Ongoing bilateral expert contacts and discussions
Survey on GNS elements among European Working Group
Input to updated draft TENtec glossary
Draft discussion papers on GNS concept
Presentation, discussion of concept:
EFIP Executive Committee , 7 – 8 April 2016, Vukovar
CCNR Roundtable 2 March 2016, Strasbourg
Pan‐European meeting on 20 June 2016, Rotterdam
Regional workshops Klaipeda, Budapest, Strasbourg, Berlin
8
Status
Purpose: to keep track of work and exchange feedback, discuss intermediate
results
Members: o Experts from river commissions: CCNR, DC, MC, SCo Experts from national and regional waterway managers and
ministries of transport o Experts from the European Commission o Experts from IWT industryo Experts representing other uses/users of rivers, lakes and canals
Method: 3 pan European meetings (2016 – 2017), regional workshops,
dedicated meetings and/or surveys
9
The GNS Working Group
10
Today’s session
Specific focus of discussion with you:
• Overall GNS concept and approach
• GNS components and key performance indicators
• First discussion on exemption criteria: interpretation of TEN‐T minimum requirements for draught and height under bridges and stocktaking on possible criteria
• Focus topics and possible contributions as regards good practices and needed guidelines for achieving GNS
11
Basic outline of GNS concept
Main outcome: Broad range of views – varying between broad andextensive GNS approaches to a very narrow and focused scope. Outcome of 20 June:
GNS concept shall be flexible and take regional conditions anddifferent user segments into account
The focus needs to be laid on how to achieve and maintain GNS rather than setting quantitative targets
GNS elements shall not duplicate relevant existing legal regulations Good practices for supranational cooperation exist, but need to be
extended GNS shall foster the exchange of good practices and benchmarks GNS activities should contribute to the achievement of agreed
standards and implementation of regulations/plans Monitoring shall be a major topic in work on GNS
12
1st Pan‐European Working Group 20/6/2016
13
What is important for Good Navigation Status?– Maximising payload on board, economies of scale– Minimising waiting times– Reliability and predictability of transport– Safety– Sustainability (o.a. fuel consumption, working with nature)
Article 15 b: “Rivers, canals and lakes are maintained so as to preserve good navigation status” key focus physical waterway infrastructure
Background of GNS concept
14
“Good Navigation Status (GNS) means the state of the inland navigation transport network, which enables efficient, reliable and safe navigation for users by ensuring minimum waterway parameter values and levels of service.”
Moreover, GNS is to be achieved considering the wider socioeconomic and environmental sustainability of waterway management.
Proposed definition of “Good Navigation Status”
15
1. Quantitative measureable “hard” components related to the output of waterway management addressing the navigability standards for users Dimensions of navigation channels, locks and bridges
and their availability over time
2. Process related and/or qualitative “soft” components Waterway infrastructure management process (e.g.
maintenance), traffic management process (e.g. information to users) and wider scope (e.g. facilities along waterways)
3. Minimum standards of a process to define GNS objectives, implementation,monitoring, application of exemptions and revision of the GNS concept
Proposed elements of the GNS concept
Outline of GNS concept
17
Klaipeda:• Fairway marking regarded as important issue to improve fairway
conditions, in particular as regards lakes• Mixed traffic waterways: Focus of GNS on inland navigation transport
networks, reference could be made to waterways belonging to zones 3 and 4 in regulation on technical requirements of inland navigation vessels (EC 2006/87/EC)
• Approaches on ice handling: Ice class requirements for vessels and either continuity of traffic (SE) or seasonal closure (FI)
• Coordination with third countries is challenge and is seen as barrier for EU funding (e.g. Saimaa canal on land rented from Russia)
• Focus on “soft” components, e.g. traffic management and regulation in SE/FI
• Lock construction required to improve fairway conditions in LT, but legal restrictions prevent such construction
• Question as regards the consideration of river currents
Main findings Klaipeda workshop
18
Budapest:
• A wide stakeholder integration is very important (e.g. environment)• Don’t forget requirements for passenger cruise vessels• Hint for the GNS process: similarities and lessons to be learned fromWFD• Current targets according international agreements already challenging!• Need for clear reference water levels • Make use of existing data(bases) and link/integrate them• Waiting times at borders (KPI) to be addressed, but to be treated seperately
• We are only at the beginning…focus first on ‘need to haves’ (e.g. in guidelines)
Main findings Budapest workshop
19
Strasbourg:• Legal basis and good practices by CCNR (waterway profile, procedures,
additional parameters etc.)• CEMT‐classification based on horizontal dimensions• Strong need for distinction between types of waterways• All‐year availability of draught not realistic for free‐flowing rivers; no general
rules apply because of geography and water supply (e.g. GlW for Rhine)• KPI on seamless transport needs to address complete journey and reliability of
estimated time of arrival (ETA)• High relevance of RIS for Good Navigation and need for service requirements• Exemptions only for a limited number of sections and issues; deviations related
to local conditions without approval; exogenous vs. endogenous factors• Adminsitrative burden of (TENtec) monitoring; focus on critical sections• Consideration of sustainability (“working with nature”, economic feasibility
etc.) important• Objectives of WFD and TEN‐T are not per se contradictory
Main findings Strasbourg workshop
20
Users:• Objective: seamless navigation 24/7 – reliability & predictability• Key focus on hard components and CBA as tool• Differentiation according to characteristics of waterways• In‐advance information and consultation on closures for maintenance and repair
– Replicate good practice 1 year in advance (e.g. Mosel)– Replicate good practice consultation COV – Ideally cross‐border corridor linked to exemption procedure
• Swift communication for incidents through the entire corridor via traffic centres• Forecasting• Climate change impacts to be taken into consideration
– Low Water: forecasting– High Water: anticipate with retention areas
• Lock: problem analysis preceeds corridor mgmt• Mooring places and car‐lift facilities to be included in concept
Main findings user workshop
21
Navigation standards along the East-West IWT corridor on view on GNS concept
MS experts
22
Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS;
part a) the draft GNS Concept
Henrik Armbrecht,GNS Consortium/Planco
23
Implementation of:1. Article 15.3 a) CEMT IV minimum requirements or an exemption in a duly justified case (key issues: 2.5m draught; 5.25m height under bridges)
2. Article 16 b)In promotion of projects of common interests, giving priority to reaching higher standards than class IV where appropriate when modernising existing or creating new waterways
3. Articles 15.3 c) and article 39.2 b) RIS implementation and availability of clean fuels
Legal Requirements
24
Implementation of:3. Article 15.3 b)“Rivers, canals and lakes shall be maintained so as to preserve good navigation status” proposed hard and soft GNS components
4. Exemptions as defined in article 15.3 a) Elaborated definition, proposed criteria and process
5. Minimum standards of a process for the development, implementation and monitoring of “Good Navigation Status”
Legal Requirements
Outline of GNS concept
26
• Focus physical waterway infrastructure: navigability standards for users (fairway, locks, bridges)
• Applies to the entire TEN‐T waterway network• Subject to TEN‐T or AGN• Experts in the GNS working group confirm high priority• SMART criteria apply: quantitative European parameter
values to measure Good Navigation Status on EU level is possible via KPIs
• Possible to be monitored via the TENtec database of the European Commission ( session 3b)
GNS “hard” components
27
2 proposed KPIs for GNS: Navigation Reliability andWaiting times
• KPI on Navigation Reliability• Link to articles 15.3 (a) and 16.(b) (class IV or higher)• Daily availability of draught, height, width and length per year • TEN – T objective: 365 d/year or reference to local conditions
according to ECMT Resolution 92/2 on classification of waterways?
• KPI on Waiting times• Waiting time at locks
KPIs for GNS “hard” components
28
• Process‐related components which contribute to score of “hard” components– infrastructure management (e.g. maintenance, marking)– traffic management (e.g. information to users)
• Wider scope of inland navigation infrastructure (e.g. facilities along waterways)
• Specific EU regulations already apply (e.g. RIS, clean fuels)• Relevance may be limited to specific regions • No need for quantitative measurable parameters across Europe
on section level• Experts in the GNS working group confirm their relevance
GNS “soft” components
29
• Process ‐ oriented “How to reach GNS”?
• Identifying objectives for “soft” components: Selected benchmarks and guidelines described in Good
Practice Manual on GNS ( session 5) To be defined according to minimum standards of process
for development of GNS (tbd) Monitoring and reporting based on minimum
requirements (checklists)• GNS Concept as regards guidance and checklists for soft
components shall focus first on the key topics and can beexpanded and further elaborated in future
GNS “soft” components
30
Purpose:
• Not only focus on the output of GNS, but on how to reach it• To reach agreements on exemptions for GNS hard components• To reach agreements on „soft“ GNS objectives/benchmarks, if
applicable• To foster implementation and maintenance of GNS• To monitor GNS process
• Study defines minimum standards of the process in order to keep itflexible and applicable to existing, well‐functioning mechanisms
Process to develop GNS
31
Draft minimum standards I:
• Objectives/Measures are developed in a coordinated way between waterway managers (if applicable – (trans‐)nationally/regionally coordinated)
• Systematic consideration of: TEN‐T minimum requirements The transport potential demand and user requirements of a waterway
section (domestic and foreign) The applicable environmental law. Where possible, synergies are
created (“working with nature”) Further uses of a river, canal or lake (cross‐sectoral) Overall socio economic impacts of measures (costs vs benefits) Possibilities of innovation and technological development (ship design,
maintenance technologies..)
Process to develop GNS I
32
Draft minimum standards II:
• Monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of measures Targeting a continuous improvement process and pro‐active
implementation
• Regular implementation of the process, frequency depending on the type of measures and maturity as regards GNS
• Communication and discussion with the involved users by the waterway managers about status and planned measures
Process to develop GNS II
33
• GNS parameters and quantitative KPIs related to the physical waterway infrastructure and its use
• Exemptions as regards CEMT IV 2.5m draught and 5.25m height based on specific criteria
• Minimum standards of process to define exemptions, developand monitor maintenance measures
• Additional “softer” elements, flexible approach using qualitative descriptions, checklists inspired by good practices
• Process to reach GNS, enforcement of objectives, monitoring• Taking into account external factors such as: innovation, market
development, climate change, …• Link to Good Practice Guidelines on how to reach GNS
Summary GNS concept
34
Discussion
• What is your view on the GNS concept and approach as presented? • Do you agree?• Do you have comments and/or suggestions for
modification?
• What is your view on the minimum standards, do you agree, what are your comments/suggestions for modification?
• Your view on process to develop/monitor GNS?• Is it applicable in practice?• Into what extent is the process already `common practice’,
e.g. as regards the minimum standards?• Are there elements missing/redundant?
35
Presentation of current results and approach towards GNS;
part b) KPIs and monitoring
Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium/Planco
36
Waterway parameters• Draught of vessel ( depth of fairway channel)• Beam of vessel (width and curve radius of fairway channel)• Height of vessel ( air clearance under bridges and other infrastructure)• Length of vessel ( curve radius of waterway and size of locks)
KPI: Navigation Reliability of a specific (TENtec) section• Availability of the physical waterway infrastructure:
yearly score on reaching the targeted infrastructure dimensions
KPI: Waiting times• Capacity/use of locks, ship lifts, moveable bridge:
Average waiting time of vessels
GNS “hard” components and proposed KPIs
KPI Navigation Reliability
Navigation reliability of a specific section:
-> Targeted dimensions met in
days/year
Targeted physical dimensions for vessel/convoy at waterwaysection:- Draught/depth navigation channel - Height under bridges- Beam- Length
Availability of physical dimensions:- Available depth/width navigation
channel- Available height under bridges
Closures of waterways >24h- Man-made (announced >12 weeks in advance) and/or natural causes - For waterway links and objects (locks, bridges)
Navigation dimensions of a specific section:
->Targeted Classification
CEM
T cl
ass
IV ta
rget
s
KPI for GNS
Loca
lta
rget
s
Targeted navigation dimensions:Min CEMT class IV (article 15.3(a)): • 2.5m draught/5.25m height under bridges • on 365d/year (or local conditions (92/2 ECMT resolution))?
andLocal target value (higher than CEMT class IV): • 3.2m fairway depth• at the applicable reference water level (e.g. WL Hohnsdorf >=4.3m)
orLocal target value (exemption): • 1.6m fairway depth and 5.57 m height under bridges• at the applicable reference water level (e.g. 345 days/year – ELWL;
355 days/year – BW10)
Examples
38
KPIs ‐ lock
Navigation reliability of a specific lock/ section: -> Targeted dimensions met
in days/year
Targeted physical dimensionsfor vessel/convoy at lock:- Draught/fairway depth- Height- Beam- Length
Closures of locks >24h- Man-made and/or natural causes - For waterway links and objects (locks, bridges)
Navigation dimensions of a specific lock/section:
->Targeted Classification
Availability of locks- capacity and use
Waiting timeat a specific lock/ section
during peak times
CEM
T cl
ass
IV ta
rget
sLo
cal
targ
ets
KPIs for GNS
• Indicator is strongly demanded by Industry• Definition is varying• Data is not available all across Europe
• Accept fuzziness?• Elaborate “waiting times” indicator until 2030?• Find alternative indicators?
• Average chamber utilisation, average operation time, number of vessels waiting, ..
• Apply a model based approach?• Collection of lock and traffic characteristics and simulation with
standardised model? high efforts40
KPI Waiting times at locks
41
Monitoring based on TENtec
• TENtec: Multimodal European database for TEN‐T Network development
• IWW part: parameters on characteristics and performance of waterway links, locks and bridges
• TENtec shall serve as tool to monitor parameters and KPIs on GNS (first data collection is running, additional will follow)
• GNS study provided first input for revised glossary: improved parameters and definitions
• Further contribution by GNS study to achieve meaningful data set for 2016 and the next years to come
• Initial data collection will be base for network assessment
• Focus on GNS hard components
• Total 58 parameters, of which 22 dynamic
• Further data collection planned for 2017
Key Performance Indicators for GNS Address navigability standards (physical infrastructure, “hard” GNS
components) KPI: Navigation reliability of a specific (TENtec) section (availability of
navigation dimensions, closures) KPI: Waiting time at locks, ship lifts, moveable bridge
Definition to be elaborated
to be monitored via TENtec
Targets: CEMT class IV “Local targets” – higher classes or exemptions to be agreed; at
applicable reference water level42
Summary
• Do you agree with the KPIs for GNS?• What is your view on feasibility/data availability?• “Local targets” – your view on measuring fairway depth instead of draught?
Your view on relating it to reference water level?• Reference values for factor draught/depth?
Recommended ratio fairway depth/draught : 1.4 (e.g. Dutch Waterway Guidelines, PIANC) ; Danube / Rhine: required depth ≈ draught + 0.2 ‐ 0.3m; Reasonable for Elbe, Oder, Mittelweser etc.?
• Waterway closures only >24 hrs, or more detail?• When are man‐made closures considered as ‘planned’? Announcement to users
12 weeks in advance sufficient?• Which significant developments expected towards 2030 as regards data
availability (technological innovation..) that may facilitate GNS assessment/ monitoring?
43
Questions for discussion
44
First proposal of exemption criteria for non-compliance with Art. 15.3(a)by GNS
consortium, discussion on possible criteria and examples
Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium,
Planco
45
Article 15.3 (a):rivers, canals and lakes comply with the minimum requirements for class IV waterways as laid down in the new classification of inland waterways established by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and that there is continuous bridge clearance, without prejudice to Articles 35 and 36 of this Regulation.At the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, exemptions shall be granted by the Commission from the minimum requirements on draught (less than 2,50 m) and on minimum height under bridges (less than 5,25 m);
Understanding of Article 15.3 (a)
46
Definition minimum criteria
Study objectives: • Catalogue of feasible exemption criteria• Outline of process enabling acceptance of exemptions
What is the reference of 2.5 metre & 5.25 metre?• 365 days?• “ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland
Waterways” including the footnotes and how to interpretethese?
• Local reference: 345 days (GlW20) / 343 days (RNW)
47
ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland Waterways
48
ECMT Resolution 92/2 on New Classification of Inland Waterways ‐ footnotes
Relevant footnotes ECMT Resolution 92/2:1. The class of a waterway is determined by the horizontal dimensions of the vessels or pushed units, especially by their width.2. The draught of a inland waterway must be specified with reference to local conditions.…4. Takes into account a security clearance of 30 cm between the highest point of the vessel or its load and the height under the bridge.…6. Adapted for container transport:‐‐ 5.25 metres for vessels carrying two layers of containers;‐‐ 7.00 metres for vessels carrying three layers of containers;‐‐ 9.10 metres for vessels carrying four layers of containers;50 per cent of the containers may be empty, otherwise ballast must be used.7. The first figure relates to existing situations and the second to future developments or, in some cases, also existing situations.…
49
Definition – Rhine profile
How to see the Rhine profile in relation to exemptions for 2.5 draught?
Width and depth guaranteed at reference low water values : on the Rhine distributaries the reference is the equivalent low water level (ELWL), a level that is not exceeded on 20 days on which the temperature is above zero, and thus occurs approximately 5% of the time.
Height under bridge at highest navigable water level (HNWL) (1% of time exceeded in past 10 yrs)
50
Proposed topics for exemption criteria:– local conditions (hydrology, hydro‐morphology, further uses of a river..)
– extreme weather events (floods,…)– environmental requirements (e.g. WFD) – benefit/cost ratio less than 1– cultural heritage– Other?
For each topic, criteria need to be specified
Exemption criteria
51
Exemption criteria
ELWL value reachedon 345 days in the current year
Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions
CASE 1:
1.6 m fairway depth available on345 days in the current year: Local target met
No further exemption applicable
Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria):1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )
52
Exemption criteria
ELWL value NOT reachedon 345 days in the current year, but on 274 days
Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions
CASE 2:
Exemption applicable –availability target reduced
1.6 m fairway depth available on 274 days in thecurrent year: Reduced exemption target met
Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria):1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )
53
Exemption criteria
ELWL value NOT reachedon 345 days in the current year, but on 274 days
Example: Extreme weather events, hydrological conditions
CASE 2:
1.6 m fairway depth only available on 182 days in thecurrent year: Exemption target not met
Exemption applicable –availability target reduced
Local target value (exemption to GNS core and availability dimension criteria):1.6m fairway depth at ELWL (345 days per year )
54
Local targets as the basic reference? What are the argumentsfor justification?
How to deal with temporary limitations (e.g. sedimentationsafter floods)
Are proposed topics for exemption criteria sufficient?
Feedback on proposal for weather events?
Possible further definitions for exemptions available?
Questions
55
Contributions and discussion on Good Practice Guidelines based on initial overview
of topics
Karin De Schepper, GNS Consortium/ Inland Navigation Europe
56
Guidelines: Background and Purpose
Need for guidelines and good practice examples on how to develop GNSconfirmed by expert group
Need for common understanding of key principles (vocabulary, fairway depth vs. water levels, requirements of different regulations etc.)
Exchange on European level has proven fruitful in past activities, additional to PLATINA I and II Good Practice Manuals as well as further key documents
Especially for “soft” GNS components, checklists, benchmarks (good practices) need to be identified vs. need to focus
First version can not be exhaustive because of limited resources availablein this study: need to focus on most important issues
57
GNS Good Practice Manual ‐ Content
Proposed chapters:I. Introduction and reference to further manualsII. Basic information on fairway parameters and navigabilityIII. Definition of GNS and implicationsIV. Minimum standards of a process on GNS developmentV. Selected Good Practices:
– manuals and guidance documents– maintenance and rehabilitation– user involvement process
VI. Checklists for selected soft componentsVII. Further topics in need of discussion
– Waterway/infrastructure management– Traffic management– Wider scope and facilities along waterway
58
II. Fairway parameters and navigability
Key vocabulary and definitions Reference water levels Water levels and fairway depth Fairway depth and draught …
Sou
rce:
Xav
ax
59
IV. Minimum standards of a process on GNS development
Minimum requirements set out (trans)nationally TRANSPORT DIMENSION
• Transport potential demand and user requirements• Possibilities of innovation and technological development (e.g. ship design, maintenance
technologies)• Cost and benefits of measures from a broad socio‐economic perspective
CROSS‐SECTOR DIMENSION• Further uses of a river, lake or canal ‐ application of a cross‐sectoral approach• Local conditions related to hydrology, hydro‐morphology, extreme weather events• Applicable environmental law and where possible creating synergies (“working with nature”)
linking to for example the Water Framework Directive
EXEMPTION CRITERIA• underlying factors• any remediation measures if appropriate• proof of justification (ex‐ante / ex‐post)
MONITORING COMMUNICATION and CONSULTATION
• involving waterways users (timing, process)
….[your input please!]
60
VI. Checklist for soft components
Process related components: infrastructure and traffic management• Providing further information to users• Traffic regulations• Incident management• Administrative processes• Emergency response
Wider range of topics• mooring places• internet access• waste reception facilities
….[your input please!]
61
V. Good practices
Manuals and Guidance Reports:• PLATINA I and II Good Practice manuals on sustainable waterway planning and
management• PIANC Reports • Dutch Waterway Guidelines • Beheersplan Rijkswateren• European Commission ‐ Guidance documents on inland waterway transport and
environmental legislation• Germany ‐ „Rahmenkonzept Unterhaltung”• „Joint Statement on Guiding Principles on the Development of Inland Navigation
and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin“ and its follow‐up process
• ….[your input please!]
62
V. Good practices
Waterway infrastructure maintenance and management• Fairway Masterplan for the Danube region• Coordination of maintenance works on the Rhine • Lock maintenance in Flanders • Seine‐Scheldt example lock management • Rhine example lock management• ….[your input please!]
User involvement processes• COV • VBW process• ….[your input please!]
63
Discussion
Do you agree with the focus topics for the guidelines? Do you have further good practice examples for the focus
topics in mind? Are there specific requests towards the form/methodology
of the guidelines? ….
64
Presentation of GNS ‐ study
Discussion on implications of GNS assessment: Bottlenecks / Projects
Henrik Armbrecht, GNS Consortium/ Planco
65
• Application of GNS concept to assess network• Identification of bottlenecks• Evaluation of deficits
• Projection of network assessment for 2030• Development of network conditions and navigation status• Stocktaking of upgrading projects planned to be completed by 2030
• Roadmap to achieve GNS• Collection of measures to address bottlenecks• Project outline including cost estimation• Feasibility• Timeline
Questions:• Bottlenecks?• Projects are under implementation? Scheduled until 2030? Planned?• Additional measures needed to address bottlenecks?
GNS assessment
Closing
• Summary of main findings• Next steps
66
Presentation of GNS ‐ study
Ongoing bilateral expert contacts and discussions
Updated papers on GNS concept
Presentation, discussion of concept:
Meeting with Core Network Coordinator Mathieu Grosch, 27th of October, Brussels (and other coordinators)
Discussion of links to AGN with UN‐ECE, 2 November, Geneva
Pan‐European meeting to validate GNS concept, Q1 2017
Corridor meetings: IWT and ports
Network assessment using TENtec parameter values
Roadmaps
Good Practice guidelines
Exemption criteria67
Next steps
Thank you for your contributions.
Related Documents
