FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A WATERWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (WMMS) FOR THE DANUBE

Transcription

1 NETWORK OF DANUBE WATERWAY ADMINISTRATIONS data & user orientation SOUTH EAST EUROPE TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION PROGRAMME FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A WATERWAY MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (WMMS) FOR THE DANUBE FINAL REPORT Document ID O Activity Act. 6.4 Author/organisation Markus Hoffmann, Katrin Haselbauer, Ronald Blab / TU Vienna Version/date V0.4 / Thomas Hartl / via donau V0.5 / Markus Hoffmann / TU Vienna V1.0 /

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. LIST OF FIGURES... 5 II. LIST OF TABLES... 8 III. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... 9 IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BASIC CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE GENERAL SITUATION OF TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORT POLICY IN EUROPE Goods transport in Europe Passenger transport and inland navigation in Europe TEN-T framework in Europe Introduction of new infrastructure policy Rhine-Danube Corridor and the transversal waterway axis General characterization of European inland waterways GENERAL SITUATION OF INLAND NAVIGATION ON THE DANUBE General situation regarding the economy in the Danube region Historic development, riparian countries and ports on the river Danube General characterization of freight transport on the river Danube Goods transport on the Danube major good types General situation structural bottlenecks on the waterway General situation organization, resources and responsibility framework General situation shippers and navigation companies General situation - inland navigation and the environment SWOT analysis and summary waterway Danube WATERWAY ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Overview of current approaches on fairway maintenance management Overview of new asset management structure and tasks Overview of new waterway asset management approach Basic fairway and river section model Fairway parameters and availability Existing international recommendations and agreements New availability approach Availability calculation on the Danube Measures and their impact on fairway availability Operational measures and their impact on fairway availability Maintenance measures and their impact on fairway availability Measure costs Duration of measure impact Example for the preparation, planning and optimization of dredging measures Fairway availability and resulting transport costs on the Danube Traffic volume, composition and utilization of cargo fleet Draught loaded and squat Potentials and risks related to fairway conditions Studies on road, rail and waterway transport costs Transport cost model for the Danube corridor Optimization approaches for measure selection, timing and fairway parameters NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 2

3 Measure optimization for entire river stretches - the principle of continuity Measure program and budget for target parameters General optimization approaches in waterway asset management Optimization of an overall system resulting costs and fairway parameters REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL WMMS VS COMMON MINIMUM LOS Common minimum LOS in maintenance and management on the river Danube Comparison of full WMMS and defined common minimum LoS NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF BASIC DATA & MEASURES Survey for a WMMS feasibility study National assessment of basic data, riverbed survey & processing capability in terms of a common minimum level of service as well as WMMS SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: via donau (Austria) SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: SVP (Slovakia) SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: OVF (Hungary) SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: Plovput (Serbia) SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: EAEMDR (Bulgaria) SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: AFDJ (Romania) National assessment of fairway marking in terms of a common minimum LOS as well as WMMS SWOT fairway marking at via donau (Austria) SWOT fairway marking at SVP (Slovakia) SWOT fairway marking at OVF/VIZIGs (Hungary) SWOT fairway marking at Plovput (Serbia) SWOT fairway marking at EAEMDR (Bulgaria) SWOT fairway marking at AFDJ (Romania) National assessment of implemented measures and monitoring of impact SWOT measure implementation and assessment: via donau (Austria) SWOT measure implementation and assessment: SVP (Slovakia) SWOT measure implementation and assessment: OVF (Hungary) SWOT measure implementation and assessment: Plovput (Serbia) SWOT measure implementation and assessment: EAEMDR (Bulgaria) SWOT measure implementation and assessment: AFDJ (Romania) General assessment of budgets and investment policies COST ESTIMATIONS AND POSSIBLE BENEFITS Stated investment needs to provide a common minimum LOS Estimation of investment needs for a WMMS Investment needs and running costs for fairway surveys Investment needs for water level gauging stations and data transmission Investment needs for data harmonization, software and processing Investment needs for marking vessels and buoys Investment needs for dredging measures and equipment Summary of investment options, needs and possible benefits of a WMMS STRATEGIC POLICY GOALS AND ORGANIZATION OPTIONS One single waterway: main goals and related strategic policy goals for the Danube Option 1: Continue with "status quo" Option 2: Task force WMMS with common fairway maintenance strategy NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 3

4 8.4. Option 3: International Danube waterway agency SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK Selected conclusions regarding the current situation Necessary steps towards one single waterway Feasibility, needs and benefits of a holistic WMMS REFERENCES NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 4

5 I. LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: DEVELOPMENT OF GDP VS TRANSPORT SUPPLY (HIGHWAY NETWORK) AND DEMAND (PASSENGERS AND GOODS) FROM 1995 TO 2010 IN THE EU27 [HOFFMANN ET AL. 2012] 12 FIGURE 2: EU BASELINE PREDICTION OF GDP AT CONSTANT PRICES AS WELL AS GOODS AND PASSENGER TRANSPORT FORECASTS FROM 1995 TO 2030 [HOFFMANN ET AL. 2012] 12 FIGURE 3: MULTI-MODAL ACCESSIBILITY AND GDP PER CAPITA BASED ON NUTS3 LEVEL (EU15 = 100) [LINDNER 2005; HOFFMANN 2013] 13 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORT NETWORK DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AS PROPORTION OF MAXIMUM EXTENT [GARRISON ET AL. 2006] 14 FIGURE 5: DEVELOPMENT OF GOODS TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE [BILLION TKM] AND MODAL SPLIT [%] FROM 1995 TO 2012 IN THE EU-28 [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014A; HOFFMANN 2013] 15 FIGURE 6: DEVELOPMENT OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE [BILLION PKM] AND MODAL SPLIT [%] FROM 1995 TO 2012 IN THE EU-28 [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014A; HOFFMANN 2013] 16 FIGURE 7: TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK WITH TEN-T CORE NETWORK CORRIDORS FROM JUNE 2013 [ 17 FIGURE 8: TEN-T PRIORITY PROJECT 18 WATERWAY AXIS RHINE/MEUSE-MAIN-DANUBE [PEIJS 2013] 19 FIGURE 9: EU BASELINE PREDICTION OF GDP PER CAPITA FROM 1995 TO 2013 FOR DANUBE RIPARIAN COUNTRIES; CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS OF GDP PER CAPITA FOR CEE COUNTRIES COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EU-28 [BASED ON DATA FROM EUROSTAT 03/2014]. 21 FIGURE 10: DEVELOPMENT OF POPULATION FROM 1995 TO 2013 FOR DANUBE RIPARIAN COUNTRIES; CURRENT TRENDS OF POPULATION DEVELOPMENT FOR BOTH CEE COUNTRIES AND EU-28 [BASED ON DATA FROM EUROSTAT 03/2014]. 21 FIGURE 11: ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF GDP PER HEAD IN REAL TERMS FROM 2001 TO 2008 (PRE-CRISIS) AND FROM 2008 TO 2011 (POST-CRISIS) [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014B] 22 FIGURE 12: ANNUAL CHANGE IN POPULATION FROM 2000 TO 2007 IN EUROPE WITH POPULATION PROJECTIONS FROM 2005 TO 2050 BASED ON CURRENT TRENDS AND A STATUS QUO" SCENARIO [ESPON 2010 PROJECT DEMIFER] 22 FIGURE 13: HISTORICAL VIEW ON RUSE FROM 1824 AND CURRENT VIEW ON THE RIVER BANK OF THE DANUBE IN RUSE 23 FIGURE 14: OVERVIEW ON NATIONAL BORDERS AND PORTS ALONG THE RIVER DANUBE 23 FIGURE 15: OVERVIEW FREIGHT TRANSPORT VOLUMES ON THE DANUBE IN 2010 AND 2012 [VIA DONAU 2012; 2014] 24 FIGURE 16: DEVELOPMENT OF GOOD TYPES ON THE AUSTRIAN STRETCH OF THE RIVER DANUBE FROM 2007 TO 2012 [VIA DONAU 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013A, 2014] 25 FIGURE 17: OVERVIEW ON NAUTICAL BOTTLENECKS: POWER PLANTS WITH LOCKS AND CRITICAL SECTIONS [NEWADA DUO ACT 3.2] 26 FIGURE 18: OVERVIEW OF RESPONSIBLE WATERWAY ORGANIZATIONS WITH AVERAGE BUDGET AND CURRENT STAFF IN FIGURE 19: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF DANUBE FLEET 2012 BASED ON DATA FROM THE DANUBE COMMISSION [DANUBE COMMISSION 2014] 28 FIGURE 20: OVERVIEW OF DANUBE FLEET COMPOSITION AND DEADWEIGHT ACCORDING TO FLAG IN 2012 [DANUBE COMMISSION 2014] 28 FIGURE 21: OVERVIEW OF DANUBEPARKS NETWORK OF PROTECTED AREAS ON AND AROUND THE WATERWAY DANUBE [ZINKE 2011] 29 FIGURE 22: OVERVIEW OF COMMON EMPIRIC FAIRWAY MAINTENANCE CYCLE 32 FIGURE 23: ASSET MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE OF TASKS 34 FIGURE 24: ASSET MANAGMENT APPROACH BASED ON FAIRWAY AVAILABILITY WITH MEASURE COSTS AND TRANSPORT COST SAVINGS 35 FIGURE 25: MODEL OF A CROSS-SECTIONAL PROFILE OF A RIVER SECTION INCLUDING CURRENT WATER LEVEL, RIVERBED MORPHOLOGY AND FAIRWAY PARAMETERS IN ABSOLUTE ALTITUDES 37 FIGURE 26: CLASSES OF FAIRWAY WIDTH AND DEPTH OF A SPECIFIC RIVER SECTION WITH ACTUAL RIVERBED CONDITION ON A DAILY BASIS [HASELBAUER ET AL 2014]. 39 FIGURE 27: AVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE OF FORD SCHWALLENBACH (RKM ) FOR THE YEAR 2011 INCLUDING DIFFERENT SERVICE LEVELS (LOS 1, LOS 2, LOS 3). 40 FIGURE 28: FORD SCHWALLENBACH - DEVELOPMENT OF THE AVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE ON A MONTHLY BASIS DURING THE YEAR 2011 (RKM ) 41 FIGURE 29 OVERVIEW OF STANDARD MEASURES AND THEIR RESULTING IMPACT ON FAIRWAY AVAILABILITY 42 FIGURE 30: AVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE OF A RIVER SECTION COMPARED TO ACTUAL FAIRWAY UTILIZATION BY THE EXISTING FLEET 43 FIGURE 31: ACTUAL UTILIZATION OF PROVIDED FAIRWAY WIDTHS AND DEPTHS FOR THE EXISTING DANUBE VESSEL FLEET DEPENDING ON DISTRIBUTION OF UTILIZATION AND ENCOUNTER PROBABILITY OF DIFFERENT VESSEL TYPES [HASELBAUER ET AL. 2014] 43 FIGURE 32: INCREASED FAIRWAY AVAILABILITY AFTER DREDGING 44 FIGURE 33: CROSS SECTION POINT I 44 FIGURE 34:DEVELOPMENT OF ABSOLUTE RIVERBED ALTITUDE, WATER LEVEL AND RESULTING FAIRWAY DEPTH AT CROSS SECTION POINT INCLUDING THE IMPACT OF DREDGING MEASURES [HASELBAUER ET AL. 2014] 45 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 5

6 FIGURE 35: COSTS PER UNIT OF FINE SEDIMENT AND GRAVEL DREDGING DEPENDING ON THE EXTENT OF THE MEASURE ON THE AUSTRIAN STRETCH OF THE DANUBE FOR THE YEARS 2009 TO FIGURE 36: EXAMPLE COST SURFACE: TOTAL MEASURE COST SURFACE FOR VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF FAIRWAY WIDTH AND DEPTH. (FORD SCHWALLENBACH 2011) 46 FIGURE 37: EXAMPLE: NECESSARY DREDGING VOLUME FOR DIFFERENT TARGET FAIRWAY PARAMETERS (FORD SCHWALLLENBACH 2011) 46 FIGURE 38: DURATION OF A DREDGING MEASURE BASED ON THE TYPICAL BACKFILLING RATE OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL RELATED TO THE DISCHARGE IN THE TIME PERIOD 46 FIGURE 39: LOS-RELATED PLANNING OF DREDGING MEASURES AT FORD WEISSENKIRCHEN BASED ON RIVERBED SURVEYS BEFORE AND AFTER MEASURE 48 FIGURE 40: DREDGING VOLUME, DREDGING COSTS, DREDGING TIME AND DURATION OF MEASURE IMPACT FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE. 49 FIGURE 41: TOTAL LOCKED-THROUGH PASSENGER AND CARGO VESSELS PER MONTH IN 2012 AT ALTENWÖRTH LOCK IN AUSTRIA 50 FIGURE 42: (A) DRAUGHT LOADED (STATIC DRAUGHT) AND LOADING CAPACITY OF RIVER DANUBE FLEET; (B) DYNAMIC SQUAT DEPENDING ON DRAUGHT LOADED AND SPEED FOR LOW WATER LEVELS AND TYPICAL SHIPS OF THE DANUBE FLEET 51 FIGURE 43: TRANSPORT UNIT COSTS FOR JOHANN WELKER VESSEL TYPE (40% UTILIZATION) DEPENDING ON THE TRANSPORT DISTANCE 55 FIGURE 44: TRANSPORT UNIT COSTS FOR JOHANN WELKER VESSEL TYPE (50% UTILIZATION) DEPENDING ON THE TRANSPORT DISTANCE 55 FIGURE 45: TRANSPORT UNIT COSTS FOR JOHANN WELKER VESSEL TYPE (60% UTILIZATION) DEPENDING ON THE TRANSPORT DISTANCE 55 FIGURE 46: TRANSPORT UNIT COSTS FOR JOHANN WELKER VESSEL TYPE (70% UTILIZATION) DEPENDING ON THE TRANSPORT DISTANCE 55 FIGURE 47: OPTIMIZATION OF FAIRWAY PARAMETERS AND RESULTING AVAILABILITY ON A TRANSPORT ROUTE WITH DIFFERENT CRITICAL SECTIONS 56 FIGURE 48: RESULTING MEASURE PROGRAM E.G. FOR DREDGING MEASURES WITH MEASURE EXTENT, MEASURE COSTS AND TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDING ON TARGETED LOS AND PRIORITY (E.G. DUE TO CRITICAL CONDITION OR DEVELOPMENT) 57 FIGURE 49: OPTIMIZATION BASED ON AVAILABILITY, ANNUAL MEASURE COSTS AND RESULTING ANNUAL TRANSPORT COSTS 58 FIGURE 50: OPTIMIZING TARGET FAIRWAY PARAMETERS BASED ON MINIMAL TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS OF MEASURES AND TRANSPORT 59 FIGURE 51: STEPS TOWARDS A COMMON LEVEL OF SERVICE 60 FIGURE 52: MARKING ACTIVITIES: EXAMPLE OF MONITORING OF BUOY LOCATION AND CONTROL 76 FIGURE 53: EXAMPLE FOR A MARKING PLAN (OVF) 77 FIGURE 54. MARKING ACTIVITIES SVP: INSPECTION AND DISPLACEMENT OF BUOYS ON THE SLOVAKIAN DANUBE STRETCH 79 FIGURE 55: AVERAGE STATED ANNUAL BUDGETS OF DANUBE WATERWAY AGENCIES BASED ON WMMS QUESTIONNAIRES 92 FIGURE 56: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTUREOF DANUBE WATERWAY AGENCIES STATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 92 FIGURE 57: AVERAGE STATED ANNUAL BUDGETS PER RIVER-KILOMETER FOR RIVERBED SURVEYS ON THE WATERWAY DANUBE 93 FIGURE 58: AVERAGE STATED ANNUAL BUDGETS PER RIVER-KILOMETER FOR MARKING ACTIVITIES ON THE WATERWAY DANUBE 94 FIGURE 59: AVERAGE STATED ANNUAL BUDGETS PER RIVER-KILOMETER FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING ON THE WATERWAY DANUBE 94 FIGURE 60: TYPICAL APPROCHES IN RIVERBED SURVEY WITH SINGLE-BEAM AND MULTI-BEAM EQUIPMENT 97 FIGURE 61: (A) PRINCIPLES, PERFORMANCE AND COST ESTIMATION FOR SINGLE-BEAM SURVEYING BASED ON CROSS-SECTIONAL PROFILES (E.G. IN AUSTRIA (B) PRINCIPLES, PERFORMANCE AND COST ESTIMATION FOR MULTI-BEAM SURVEYING BASED ON OVERLAPPING PARALLEL SWATHES E.G. IN AUSTRIA FOR A LIMITED WIDTH OF THE RIVER AND STABLE FAIRWAY PATH WITHOUT PRE-/POSTPROCESSING 99 FIGURE 62: MINIMUM AND RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT FOR A SUFFICIENT RIVERBED SURVEY IN A WMMS WITH SINGLE-BEAM OR MULTI-BEAM WITH AN ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL COSTS IN ALL NATIONAL SECTIONS WIHTOUT REGARD FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSE SURVEYS & TASKS 100 FIGURE 63: COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED AND AVAILABLE SURVEYING EQUIPMENT WITH RESULTING COSTS (PRESENT VALUE, ANNUAL COSTS) BASED ON A LIFE CYCLE OF 40 YEARS WITHOUT EXPENSES FOR ADDITIONAL CREW (CURRENTLY SUFFICIENT STAFF IN MOST AGENCIES) 101 FIGURE 64: SOME CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SITUATION, NUMBER AND ACCURACY OF WATER LEVEL GAUGES AND WATER LEVEL MODEL 101 FIGURE 65: COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE INVESTMENT NEEDS AND RUNNING COSTS FOR AN EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WATER LEVEL MODELS, CHECKING FOR ACCURACY AND/OR UPDATING THE MODELS DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS IN ALL WATERWAY AGENCIES 102 FIGURE 66: DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SURVEYING AND PROCESSING RESULTS IN WATERWAY AGENCIES ON THE RIVER DANUBE 103 FIGURE 67: REQUIRED ELEMENTS AND COST ESTIMATION FOR DATA HARMONIZATION, SOFTWARE, TRAINING AND PROCESSING AS NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND OPERATING A WMMS 104 FIGURE 68: EXAMPLES FOR CURRENT STANDARD MARKING PLANS, MARKING VESSELS AND BUOYS ON INLAND WATERWAY DANUBE 105 FIGURE 69: MARKING EXAMPLES OF THE FAIRWAY FOR TYPICAL SITUATIONS ON INLAND WATERWAYS ACCORDING TO THE UNECE "GUIDELINES FOR WATERWAY SIGNS AND MARKING" [UNECE 2013] 106 FIGURE 70: DEVELOPED MARKING MANAGEMENT AND SIGNALIZATION PORTAL ON THE RIVER DANUBE AS PART OF THE EU PROJECT NEWADA DUO ALLOWING CONTINUOUS ALIGNMENT, MANAGEMENT AND PUBLICATION OF FAIRWAY SIGNALIZATION 107 FIGURE 71: MARKING VESSELS ON THE RIVER DANUBE AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WITH YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION, LENGTH AND OPERATION AREA 108 FIGURE 72: OVERVIEW OF MARKING EQUIPMENT AND MARKING VESSELS IN RIPARIAN COUNTRIES ON THE RIVER DANUBE TOGETHER WITH FIRST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT 109 FIGURE 73: EXAMPLES FOR COMMONLY USED DREDGING EQUIPMENT ON THE WATERWAY DANUBE 110 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 6

7 FIGURE 74: SELECTED EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL DREDGERS AND TRANSPORT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL BEING IN USE ON WATERWAYS, CRITICAL SECTIONS, PORTS OR MARINE CHANNELS [PICTURES AND DATA: VAN OORD 2014; VLASBLOM 2009; OTHER SOURCES] 111 FIGURE 75: AVAILABILITY OF RIPARIAN RIVER SECTIONS, DREDGING EQUIPMENT AND PERFORMED DREDGING WORKS WITH COSTS AS BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF A WMMS FEASIBILITY 112 FIGURE 76: WATERWAY DANUBE WITH CRITICAL SECTIONS AND AVAILABILITY IN RIPARIAN COUNTRIES WITH EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE DREDGING VOLUME, DREDGING COSTS AND DURATION OF IMPACT FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) FOR JUST ONE OF >150 CRITICAL SECTIONS 114 FIGURE 77: OVERVIEW OF MAIN GOAL AND MAINTENANCE POLICY GOALS TOGETHER WITH ORGANIZATION OPTIONS 117 FIGURE 78: OVERVIEW POLICY OPTION 1 CONTINUE WITH "STATUS QUO" 119 FIGURE 79: OVERVIEW POLICY OPTION 2 TASK FORCE WMMS WITH COMMON FAIRWAY MAINTENANCE STRATEGY 120 FIGURE 80: OVERVIEW POLICY OPTION 3 INTERNATIONAL DANUBE WATERWAY AGENCY 121 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 7

8 II. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: SWOT GENERAL SITUATION WATERWAY DANUBE 31 TABLE 2: CARGO FLEET COMPOSITION ON THE UPPER DANUBE BASED ON LOCKED-THROUGH VESSELS AT MELK AND ALTENWÖRTH IN TABLE 3:GENERAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING BASIC DATA FOR FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT AND MINIMUM FAIRWAY PARAMETERS 63 TABLE 4: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL, MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING MEASURES 64 TABLE 5: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A USER-ORIENTED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 65 TABLE 6: SWOT BASIC DATA, RIVERBED SURVEYING & PROCESSING CAPABILITY 68 TABLE 7: SWOT BASIC DATA, VIADONAU (ASSESSMENT BY VIADONAU) 70 TABLE 8: SWOT BASIC DATA SVP (ASSESSMENT BY SVP) 71 TABLE 9: SWOT BASIC DATA, OVF (ASSESSMENT BY OVF) 72 TABLE 10: SWOT BASIC DATA, PLOVPUT (ASSESSMENT BY PLOVPUT) 73 TABLE 11: SWOT BASIC DATA, EAEMDR (ASSESSMENT BY EAEMDR) 74 TABLE 12: SWOT BASIC DATA AFDJ (ASSESSMENT BY AFDJ) 75 TABLE 13: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING ON THE RIVER DANUBE 77 TABLE 14: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING AUSTRIA 78 TABLE 15: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING SVP (ASSESSMENT BY SVP) 79 TABLE 16: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING OVF (ASSESSMENT BY VIZIGS) 80 TABLE 17: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING PLOVPUT (ASSESSMENT BY PLOVPUT) 81 TABLE 18: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING EAEMDR (ASSESSMENT BY EAEMDR) 82 TABLE 19: SWOT FAIRWAY MARKING AFDJ (ASSESSMENT BY AFDJ) 83 TABLE 20: SWOT AVAILABILITY, BOTTLENECKS & IMPLEMENTED MEASURES 84 TABLE 21: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT: VIADONAU (ASSESSMENT BY VIA DONAU) 85 TABLE 22: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT : SVP (ASSESSMENT BY SVP) 86 TABLE 23: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT: OVF (ASSESSMENT BY OVF) 87 TABLE 24: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT: PLOVPUT (ASSESSMENT BY PLOVPUT) 88 TABLE 25: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT: EAEMDR (ASSESSMENT BY EAEMDR ) 89 TABLE 26: SWOT MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT: AFDJ (ASSESSMENT BY AFDJ) 90 TABLE 27: SWOT BUDGETS, IMPLEMENTATION & RESULT VERIFICATION 91 TABLE 28: OVERVIEW OF STATED INVESTMENT NEEDS OF WATERWAY AGENCIES FOR A COMMON MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE 95 TABLE 29: STATED TOTAL COST ESTIMATION (ONE-TIME INVESTMENT COSTS AND ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS) FOR PROVIDING COMMON MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE ON THE ENTIRE DANUBE BY WATERWAY AGENCIES - NEWADA DUO REPORT (O.6:3:9) 96 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 8

9 III. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBR AGN AIS AV CEE DC ECDIS ENC ENR ABBREVIATION European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance Automatic Identification System Availability Central and Eastern Europe Danube Commission Electronic Chart Display and Information System Electronic Navigational Chart Etiage navigable et de régularisation (see LNWL) EUSDR GDP HNN HNQ HNWL ICT ITS kw LNG LNQ LNWL LOS OECD pkm RIS rkm SEE TEN-T tkm WAMS WMMS Strategy of the European Union for the Danube Region Gross domestic product Haut-niveau navigable (see HNWL) Highest navigable discharge; discharge (expressed in m 3 /sec) reached or exceeded at a Danube water gauge on an average of 1% of days in a year i.e. on approx days over a reference period of 30 years, excluding periods with ice. Highest navigable water level (= HNN); according to the definition of the Danube Commission this is the water level (expressed in cm) reached or exceeded at a Danube water gauge on an average of 1% of days in a year i.e. on approx days over a reference period of 30 years, excluding periods with ice. Information and communication technology Intelligent Transport System kilowatt Liquefied natural gas Low navigable discharge; discharge (expressed in m 3 /sec) reached or exceeded at a Danube water gauge on an average of 94% of days in a year i.e. on approx days over a reference period of 30 years, excluding periods with ice. Low navigable water level (= ENR); according to the definition of the Danube Commission this is the water level (expressed in cm) reached or exceeded at a Danube water gauge on an average of 94% of days in a year i.e. on approx days over a reference period of 30 years, excluding periods with ice. Level of service Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development passenger-kilometre River Information Services river-kilometre South East Europe Trans-European transport network ton-kilometre Waterway Asset Management System (= WMMS pilot implementation in Austria) Waterway Maintenance Management System NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 9

10 IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Economic development shows a strong correlation to transport volume with stable growth rates before and after the financial and economic crisis of In Europe's growing transport market inland navigation including transport on the Danube is slightly loosing its modal share with only a fraction of the available infrastructure capacity being used. Apart from over-aging structures, vessel fleet and low continuous fairway availability, the international Danube waterway is limited in its development by a resource patchwork and a number of physical, legal and administrative barriers. Due to economic and political reasons as well as a lack of funding the conditions for inland navigation especially on the lower Danube have suffered leading to substantial losses in transport volume during the last five years. The analysis conducted in this study clearly shows that one of the most critical factors is providing sufficient fairway depths throughout the year together with accurate and reliable information on current waterway conditions for the users of this traffic route. In low-water periods one single section with insufficient fairway depths will lead to a low utilization of the entire vessel fleet on the transport route. Stated national fairway availabilities are showing large deviations and are in general below agreed standards. Despite considerable efforts in a majority of Danube riparian countries, necessary maintenance measures have only partially been conducted due to a lack of common methods, approaches, sufficient budgets and legal restrictions. The research results indicate that only a real political commitment followed by concerted actions of all waterway authorities and stakeholders under a common strategy and asset management approach will lead to efficient investments and an enhanced infrastructure quality and availability. Up to date such approaches have already been implemented for road and rail infrastructure but are still missing on inland waterways. For this study this lead to the question of how the feasibility of implementing a Waterway Maintenance Management System (WMMS) may be assessed. However, just recently such an approach has been developed and is currently being implemented in a software tool with an application for the Danube in Austria by via donau. This Waterway Asset Management System (WAMS) covers all aspects from riverbed surveying and availability calculation to planning and optimization of maintenance measures up to an assessment of budgeting needs for different levels of service. The overview provided in this study on both the approach and first results in Austria may be seen as evidence for a principal feasibility of such a WMMS leading to the question for the subsequent needs for a successful implementation on the entire Danube. This feasibility study provides a needs assessment for several options ranging from a basic WMMS set-up up to a fully functional WMMS including additional resources for riverbed surveying, gauging stations, operation and maintenance measures as well as sufficient budgets. Continuing with the status quo in waterway maintenance will not lead to satisfactory results compared to previously mentioned options with their possible benefits outweighting costs and increasing with every step towards a full WMMS implementation. With the main goal of enabling competitive and sustainable inland navigation on the river Danube it is necessary to take a number of steps forward. These steps are complementary and include encouraging investments in waterway infrastructure and vessel fleet. Whether or not stakeholders will invest depends on hard evidence of economic benefits respectively a positive outlook on the development of market shares for inland navigation. At the core of this hard evidence is the provision of high fairway availability on one single waterway with the main emphasis on a continuous fairway depth exceeding 2.5 m. In addition, harmonized, reliable, up-to-date and accessible information on fairway conditions has to be provided to all stakeholders. Continuing with the status quo in day-to-day waterway maintenance without substantial investments in surveying capacity, IT infrastructure and a WMMS together with additional training of staff cannot be recommended with NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 10

11 significant improvements compared to the actual situation as a goal. In order to overcome the current structural, legal and organizational patchwork, forming a permanent task force of internal and external experts of waterway authorities would be an important step. This task force would be in charge of the development and implementation of a common maintenance strategy with the concomitant establishmend of a full WMMS for the entire Danube. Finally, the analysis revealed the great potential of the Danube as cost-efficient and environmental-friendly transport infrastructure. This feasibility study provides analyses and methods together with tangible solutions and next steps to convert this potential into substantial improvement. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 11

12 1 BASIC CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE For economic development and a functional 140 Passenger [pkm] society adequate transport systems are Goods [tkm] 135 paramount. An increasing functional division of Highway network Linear (Passenger [pkm]) labor and economy of scale with subsequent 130 Linear (Goods [tkm]) efficiency gains is only possible with highly Linear (Highway network) y = 0,9916x + 0, R² = 0,9283 functional multi-modal goods transport. The spatial distribution of basic functions such as 120 y = 1,0902x - 9,2341 R² = 0,9931 housing, working, education, shopping and leisure within available time and transport budget determines passenger transport performance. 115 y = 0,6598x + 34,86 R² = 0, The economic development is therefore closely linked to the demand of transportation and the supply of transport infrastructure. Figure shows the development of Gross Domestic Product GDP compared to passenger and goods Gross domestic product (GDP) EU27 [%] transport (demand) and transport infrastructure (supply) in the period 1995 to 2010 in the EU27. Figure 1: Development of GDP VS transport supply (highway network) and demand (passengers and goods) According to the analysis highway infrastructure from 1995 to 2010 in the EU27 is growing at a rate of 1.09 percent and goods [HOFFMANN et al. 2012] transport is growing 0.99 percent with any percent increase of GDP. Due to more stable relations of basic functions passenger transport is growing slower with 0.66 percent increase for any percent increase in GDP. In case of a decreasing GDP these relations also hold true for goods transport. Passenger transport on the other hand is more stable in times of decreasing GDP due to the small amount of variable costs especially in car transport. As transport infrastructure investments have a very long service life and are often considered a cure in times of crisis, a decreasing GDP does not immediately show in the form of a decreasing infrastructure network. Possible future developments of GDP as 150 Passenger [pkm/pp] well as goods and passenger transport according 140 to the EU baseline prediction (prepared in 2007) Goods [tkm/pp] 130 are provided in Figure 2. According to this GDP/PP (prices 2000) prediction there will be an increase of 50% in GDP at constant prices until 2030 and a somewhat slower increase of goods transport (+35%) and passenger transport (+30%). In face of current developments especially the positive outlook in GDP development looks overly optimistic. Under assumption of no shattering negative economic developments a longer period between stagnation and a slowed increase with subsequent development of passenger and goods transport will be more likely due to a =100% number of unsolved issues and an ageing Figure 2: EU baseline prediction of GDP at constant prices as well as goods and passenger transport forecasts from population to 2030 [HOFFMANN et al. 2012] Passenger & goods transport EU27 [%] Prognosis GDP & transport EU27 [%] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 12

13 In general investments in transport infrastructure increase the accessibility of regions and markets resulting in lower transport costs and faster transport speeds. Faster transport speeds in turn lead to shorter transport times on individual routes and are usually considered as time savings in transport economics. However, as total travel times in passenger and goods transport have stayed more or less the same over the last decades these local travel time savings are used to travel greater distances. An increasing catchment area which is accessible with the same travel time budget usually leads to higher economic efficiency and income due to the economy of scale and a higher number of possibilities. Figure 3 provides an overview of the connection between multi-modal accessibility and GDP showing that there is a medium to strong positive correlation between these factors. In general, accessibility gains in unsaturated markets with a low standard of transport infrastructure result in strong growth due to new and efficient transport and trade relations. In saturated markets and regions with a high building density further accessibility gains usually come at high costs and have mainly redistribution effects. These relations are furthermore overlapping with polarization and equilibrium effects explaining whether individual regions or economic sectors may profit from accessibility or not. Polarization effects describe the relative gains of strong regions and central areas at the cost of peripheral areas due to economy of scale effects and higher attractiveness especially for young and high educated people ( brain drain ). Therefore central and strong regions tend to grow until the marginal costs of further growth will be too high leading to satellite centers. Weak regions will further economic power and a population leaving only those opportunities and jobs behind that may not be substituted elsewhere. Equilibrium effects on the other hand describe a balance between regions or players in the market where no one is able to gain the upper hand in the competition. Any improvement in accessibility or attractiveness is immediately countered leading to local efficiency gains but no redistribution effects. If regions already have a highly developed (transport) infrastructure the marginal gains of additional accessibility are low compared to the necessary investment costs. Therefore historic economic gains of infrastructure investments in former unsaturated regions can usually not be repeated in almost saturated markets. An exception of this rule may be found if further low developed regions with a young population and raw materials are connected and feed the polarization effects. Figure 3: Multi-modal accessibility and GDP per capita based on NUTS3 level (EU15 = 100) [LINDNER 2005; HOFFMANN 2013] R 2 =0,29 (linear) Polarization: The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker Equilibrium: No market player is capable of gaining an upper hand NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 13

14 Furthermore, it has to be noted that negative external effects like impacts on the environment are not included in the usual measurement of economic success in terms of GDP. According to several high-level studies [e.g. MAIBACH et al. 2008; VAN ESSEN et al. 2011] external costs especially on roads are a few times higher than transport costs. Prior to any economic assessment it has to be noted that environmental goods do not have a functioning market. Despite that fact neglecting external costs in the assessment of transport infrastructure investments leads to nonsustainable decisions. In comparison of possible investment alternatives on different modes of transport it is therefore of high importance to include these effects as far as possible. But even if (public) infrastructure investments take these aspects into account, infrastructure-related decisions are mainly based on actual market prices. Therefore investments in more environmental-friendly modes of transport cannot and will not lead to the often desired or projected shifts in modal split distribution. An analysis of the historic development of transport infrastructures against this background clearly shows what mattered most and which challenges for the future might lie ahead. According to Figure 4 inland navigation on waterways developed rapidly in the period 1800 to 1850 and faced a long decline parallel to the rise of railway infrastructure in the period from 1840 to The decline of railway infrastructure development in turn fell together with the rise of surfaced roads and road transport from 1890 to For long distance passenger transport airport infrastructure showed huge increases starting from 1960 until now. For long distance goods transport maritime shipping has soared at the same time. Transport infrastructure development in Europe is in line with these developments, but currently shows huge investments in high-speed rail and air transport during the last two decades according to OECD investment figures [OECD/ITF 2013]. The typical development of transport infrastructures may therefore be approximated by a cumulative normal distribution until saturation or emergence of a newer and faster alternative. The realization of new transport infrastructure is very costly and thus a huge burden for tight budgets of regions or states even with a booming economy. If these investments are already made the necessary reinvestment needs are at first very low but are steeply increasing in form of reinvestment waves. Whether or not these reinvestment needs from ageing (transport) infrastructure are met also heavily depends on the economic situation. However, due to relatively long service lives of existing structures underinvestment takes relatively long to show compared to the time between elections. Proportion of maximum extent Figure 4: Transport network developments in the United States as proportion of maximum extent [GARRISON et al. 2006] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 14

15 2 GENERAL SITUATION OF TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORT POLICY IN EUROPE 2.1. Goods transport in Europe According to the statistical pocketbook EU Transport in Figures [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014a] the total goods transport activities in the EU-28 are estimated to have amounted to 3,768 billion tkm in Air and sea transport to the rest of the world is not included. Road transport accounted for 44.9% of goods transport, rail for 10.8%, inland waterways for 4.0% and oil pipelines for 3.0%. Maritime transport between EU countries with a share of 37.2% was almost as important as road transport. Intra-EU goods transport by air only accounted for 0.1% and is of importance mainly for urgent light weight goods. In the pre-crisis years 1995 to 2007 the total freight transport in the EU increased by 2.6% per year on average and was expected to grow 1.7% per year until However, in the same period freight transport on inland waterways increased only by 1.5% and was expected to grow by 1.0% per year based on the European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030 [EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT 2008]. As a result the market share of inland navigation dropped from 4.0% to 3.5% from 1995 to 2008 but recovered to 4.0% until Figure 5 provides an overview of goods transport development between 1995 and The correlation between economic development and goods transport goes both ways and is visible as a huge drop in transport performance during the economic crisis starting in 2008 [HOFFMANN 2013]. Despite comparably high investments in rail infrastructure during the last two decades in Europe rail transport has lost market shares from 12.6% in 1995 to 10.8% in 2012 to sea and road transport. This development proves overly optimistic performance trends of most implemented projects in the railway sector wrong and shows that current transport trends are not easily reversed. Despite a moderate total growth, the stagnation in market shares for inland navigation clearly proves that this mode of transport has stable transport relations but is struggling as well to stay in the market. With bulk and raw materials as main transport goods the possible shares on the market for this modes of transport are limited. Due to pre- and end-haulage costs the comparative cost advantages of rail transport are usually utilized at distances of more than 200 km. The same goes for inland navigation with transport distances of at least 400 km and beyond. However, with reliable transport infrastructures and intelligent multi-modal logistic chains these modes of transport may be more competitive in the future and might even increase their market shares under certain circumstances. Figure 5: Development of goods transport performance [billion tkm] and modal split [%] from 1995 to 2012 in the EU-28 [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014a; HOFFMANN 2013] Goods [billion. tkm] Road Rail Sea Waterway Pipeline Air +1.52% p.a % p.a % p.a % p.a % p.a % p.a. Modal Split [%] % 90% Air % 80% Pipeline % 70% 60% Waterway % 50% Sea % 40% Rail % 30% 20% Road % 10% 0% NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 15

16 2.2. Passenger transport and inland navigation in Europe Based on EU Transport in Figures [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014a] total passenger transport activities in the EU-28 by any motorized means of transport were estimated with 6,391 billion pkm or an average around 12,600 km per person and year for Individual transport with passenger cars accounted for the major share with 72.2%. The other modes of transport like two-wheelers (2.0%), buses & coaches (8.2%), railways (6.5%), tram and metro (1.5%) as well as intra-eu air (9.5%) and maritime transport (0.6%) contributed for the rest of total passenger transport performance. From 1995 to 2012 the average performance in passenger transport with an +1.08% increase per year was almost in line with passenger car transport (1.01%) and train transport (+1.02%) making a comeback. Transport with busses (+0.31%) had a slight increase in total passenger transport but lost shares due to underperformance compared to the market development. Tram/metro (+1.64%) and air (+2.87%) on the other hand outperformed e.g. due to an increase of population in cities on one hand and shorter travel times for long distances on the other hand. Figure 6 provides an overview of passenger transport development and modal split in Europe from 1995 to The relation between increasing or decreasing economic development and passenger transport also holds true, but is not as strong as in goods transport due to somewhat stable relations between the basic functions housing, working, education, shopping and leisure. Regular passenger transport on maritime ships decreased 0.99% in the same period due to the competitive transport market and new transport relations (e.g. channel tunnel). With increasing average speed on all other modes of transport considerable time savings on individual trips are possible compared to ship transport. On the other hand these time savings do not matter much if the main emphasis is sightseeing and leisure. Consequently tourist transport on both sea and inland waterways is increasing. As a result of these developments passenger transport on the river Danube was increasing until 2008 and the passenger fleet is quite new compared to the fleet for goods transport. Overall the market for passenger transport on inland waterways and sea is limited and will be most likely shifting further away from regular fares towards leisure trips in the future. Figure 6: Development of passenger transport performance [billion pkm] and modal split [%] from 1995 to 2012 in the EU-28 [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014a; HOFFMANN 2013] Passenger [billion pkm] 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Cars +1.01% p.a. 2-wheeler +0.03% p.a. Ship -0.99% p.a. Bus +0.31% p.a. Train +1.02% p.a. Tram/Metro +1.64% p.a. Air +2.87% p.a Modal Split [%] 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Air % Tram/Metro % Train % Bus % Ship % 2-wheeler % Cars % NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 16

17 2.3. TEN-T framework in Europe Introduction of new infrastructure policy The new infrastructure policy for Europe was released in 2013 and aims to replace the existing patchwork of European roads, railways, airports and canals into a unified trans-european transport network (TEN-T). With a memo of the European Commission from 17 th of October 2013 the new EU infrastructure policy will implement this transport network across all 28 member states promoting growth and competitiveness. By removing bottlenecks, upgrading existing transport infrastructure and streamlining cross-border transport the accessibility of regions shall be significantly improved. In order to achieve the goals of an increased quality and availability the EU will triple the financing for this core network up to 26 billion for the period 2014 to The estimated level of total investment needs for this first phase is 250 billion [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2013a]. In order to ensure the necessary investments the EU financing will act as seed money to encourage further national and private sector investments. With the main emphasis on removing existing bottlenecks and building missing links it is expected to create a huge added value in a single European market. The co-financing rates in this core network will be up to 50% for studies and certain ITS projects, up to 40% for cross-border projects in rail or inland navigation and up to 20% for exploratory works. This new core TEN-T network will be supported by a network of routes, feeding into the core network at national and regional level. As a goal by 2050 the great majority of citizens and businesses shall be able to access this network within travel times less than 30 minutes. With the completion until 2030 this core network will connect 94 main European ports with rail and road links and reduce cross-border bottlenecks. Furthermore, it will provide rail connections from 38 key airports into major cities and include 15,000 km of high speed railway lines (Figure 7). Figure 7: Trans-European transport network with TEN-T core network corridors from June 2013 [ NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 17

18 Rhine-Danube Corridor and the transversal waterway axis The Rhine-Danube Corridor is one of only nine corridors from this new core network. The Rhine- Danube Corridor with the Main and Danube is forming the backbone to connect the central regions to South East Europe and the Black Sea together with road and railway links to the hinterland. This multimodal corridor connects several millions of citizens in important cities like Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest and Belgrade. An important branch extends this corridor from Munich to Prague up to the Ukrainian border. Priority Project 18 of this core network is the waterway axis Rhine/Meuse-Main- Danube as transversal crossing of Europe from the North Sea at Rotterdam to the Black Sea in Romania. The current status of Priority Project 18 can be summarized as follows based on the annual report 2011/2012 of the European Coordinator [PEIJS 2013]: After an extended analytical period most of the bottlenecks regarding physical navigability, transnational law and environmental requirements have been identified The previous developments have not been linear with substantial progress on some river sections and unexpected stops and delays on other sections Cooperation with major environmental groups leading to common guiding principles for the development of inland navigation and environmental protection in the Danube river basin Start and implementation of the Danube Strategy since 2010 by the EU Commission The economic crisis since 2008 and the heavy draught of autumn 2011 have negatively affected already planned investments and inland navigation as a whole on the Danube Common declaration of the transport ministers of all riparian countries along the Danube (except Hungary and Ukraine) regarding fairway maintenance and responses to extraordinary conditions (low water, ice, flooding) from June 2012 Without a real political commitment followed by necessary actions regarding inland navigation the goals of an increasing waterway transport on this axis will not be met According to the annual report there has also been substantial progress as well as certain setbacks on a number of projects and existing bottlenecks on the Danube waterway axis that may be summarized as follows: Feasibility study and environmental assessment for improvement options on the bottleneck Straubing Vilshofen (Germany) completed The environmental assessment for an improvement on the bottleneck east of Vienna has been approved by the authorities in December 2011 and will be implemented until 2022 The feasibility study for the improvement of the Hungarian section of the Danube including all surveys and planning of measures has been completed in November However, the Hungarian authorities have withdrawn all permits for the project, denied the validity of the findings and asked for a relocation of the implementation funds from the EU. Currently the necessary maintenance and planned river engineering measures are shut down due to environmental reasons on the entire Hungarian sector On the Croatian and Serbian sections of the Danube, River Information Services have been implemented and several projects for the improvement of navigability are underway. On both the Croatian and Serbian sections there are also environmental concerns regarding planned measures that have to be considered in the project assessment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 18

19 For the improvement of the section between Iron Gates I and Silistra on the Bulgarian- Romanian section studies regarding feasibility and environmental effects for improved navigability are completed and will be discussed in public On the Rumanian section between Calarasi and Braila there are several river engineering projects already underway since For these projects a step-wise implementation with continuous monitoring was chosen in order to minimize negative environmental impacts Furthermore, there are several other projects underway e.g. including restructuring of existing bridges to meet necessary clearances and distance of pillars An overview of the current situation and the implementation progress of the Rhine/Meuse- Main-Danube waterway axis is provided in Figure 8 Figure 8: TEN-T Priority Project 18 waterway axis Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube [PEIJS 2013] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 19

20 2.4. General characterization of European inland waterways Based on the following advantages the European Commission and other sources [e.g. PLANCO 2007; REGINA 2010] consider waterborne transport as an important mode of transport in European future freight transport: High transport capacity and transport of bulky goods Low investment needs in infrastructure Low transport costs, especially at long distances Lowest energy consumption of all transport modes Most environmentally-friendly mode of transport (lowest external costs) Substantial free transport capacity available On the other hand there are a number of shortcomings and challenges for inland waterways that still persist today despite considerable efforts (based on the same sources): Limited catchment area due to fixed pre- and end haulage costs Favorable framework conditions mainly for bulky goods (logistical structure) Comparatively long duration of transport and limited scheduling of transport conditions Lower external costs of inland navigation are not included in the market prices No guarantee for the availability of agreed fairway parameters (e.g. AGN, Danube Commission Recommendations ) Limited utilization of existing fairway parameters due to uncertainties Over-aged waterway infrastructures and inland vessel fleet Administrative and logistical barriers as hindrance for trading of goods Limited efficiency of individual investments in waterways due to differences in infrastructure maintenance policies and approaches Limited political commitment in some riparian countries to invest in waterways Pressure from environmental groups to limit river maintenance and engineering activity Contradictory to the desired development with an increasing share of inland navigation on the transport market the current development trends show a gradually declining importance compared to road and rail. Without considerable efforts in mitigating the above mentioned shortcomings and challenges the medium to long-term outlook regarding modal share is negative as well. Due to the rapid modernization of the truck fleet in Europe and an over-aged inland vessel fleet the environmental advantage of inland navigation is about to disappear. Apart from harmonized investment strategies in river maintenance and engineering structures as well as ports and multi-modal hubs it is therefore also necessary to renew the fleet for a cleaner and safer transport. Further activities to improve the conditions for inland navigation will therefore include market incentives to support fleet modernization and infrastructure investments as well as improved logistics services and River Information Services (RIS). In the following chapters of the study the situation of inland navigation on the Danube is investigated with the goal of providing evidence of the possible benefits of harmonized investment strategies under the roof of a sound waterway asset management approach. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 20

21 3 GENERAL SITUATION OF INLAND NAVIGATION ON THE DANUBE 3.1. General situation regarding the economy in the Danube region With in general sufficient transport capacity on the market the economic development is the main driver of increase and decrease in transport demand (Chapter 1). Taking a closer look at the Danube corridor the CEE countries had a GDP per capita that was only a fraction of the EU-28 average (Figure 9). However, due to transfer payments, structural aids and opening of national markets as well as catching-up effects these countries as well as the regions along the Danube showed higher growth rates in the pre-crisis period from 2001 to 2008 of up to 3% compared to the average in the EU-28 with +1.7% per year. According to the 6 th Cohesion Report of the European Commission the economic crisis Figure 9: EU baseline prediction of GDP per capita from between 2008 and 2011 brought an average 1995 to 2013 for Danube riparian countries; current decline of GDP of -0.6% per year and had an even development trends of GDP per capita for CEE countries worse impact on CEE countries and regions along compared to the average development of the EU-28 [based on data from EUROSTAT 03/2014]. the Danube (Figure 11) [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014b]. Though an outlook on economic trends is very difficult there are major developments currently going on that will have huge effects on GDP especially on a regional level. In general one of the main drivers of medium- to long-term economic trends are age structure and population development. Though there is a slow poluation growth on the EU-28 level in general there are very strong migration trends towards major cities and countries with high GDP leading to substantial losses of population in rural regions especially in CEE countries (Figure 10). GDP per capita [ /a] 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, EU 28 Bulgaria (BG) Germany (DE) Croatia (HR) Hungary (HU) Austria (AT) Romania (RO) Slovakia (SK) Serbia (RS) Average EU-28 CEE - countries These effects are even worse in most of the small to medium towns and rural regions along the Danube with losses of -10% to -30% of population during the last two decades. The results of population projections from the EU project DEMIFER [ESPON 2010] show additional losses in population in rural regions of CEE countries in the Danube corridor of -40% to -70% until 2050 based on current trends (Figure 12). In addition the population losses are concentrated mainly on the part of young and well educated professionals and their families leading to a brain drain and loss of innovation competitivety. Thus, it is very likely that there will be fewer people, comparative competitiveness and consumption in most CEE countries and rural regions in the Danube corridor in the future. Development of Population [%] 150.0% 140.0% 130.0% 120.0% 110.0% 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% Average EU-28 CEE-countries Figure 10: Development of population from 1995 to 2013 for Danube riparian countries; current trends of population development for both CEE countries and EU-28 [based on data from EUROSTAT 03/2014] EU 28 Bulgaria (BG) Germany (DE) Croatia (HR) Hungary (HU) Austria (AT) Romania (RO) Slovakia (SK) Serbia (RS) Ukraine (UA) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 21

22 Based on these structural changes and substantial developments the economic development will be most likely concentrated on central regions and major cities in Europe with further substantial losses in population and comparative purchasing power on peripheral and rural regions. Subsequently the transport demand will follow these patterns both by means of passenger and goods transport. For consumer goods transports and container cargo these trends are of major importance whereas the production and transport demand of agricultural and other bulk goods that are mainly transported by ship and train will most likely be stable if the production in these regions stays economic. Annual growth in GDP per head Annual growth in GDP per head Ø EU-28 = 1,7% p.a. (EUROSTAT data) Ø EU-28 = -0,6% p.a. (EUROSTAT data) Figure 11: Annual growth rates of GDP per head in real terms from 2001 to 2008 (pre-crisis) and from 2008 to 2011 (postcrisis) [EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2014b] Annual population change per Inhabitants Change in population in % for status quo scenario Figure 12: Annual change in population from 2000 to 2007 in Europe with population projections from 2005 to 2050 based on current trends and a status quo" scenario [ESPON 2010 Project DEMIFER] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 22

23 3.2. Historic development, riparian countries and ports on the river Danube The river Danube has been used as a waterway for over 3,000 years, with the Danube corridor being one of the oldest and in former time s most important European trade routes (Figure 13). In the mid-20 th century, pushed navigation was introduced on the Danube, which enabled the transport of a large number of goods by using only one motorized vessel leading to a peak in the late 1980s with more than 90 million tons of goods transported on this waterway [DANUBE COMMISSION 2008]. Since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and centrally planned economy, Danube navigation had to rapidly adapt to a new economic and political landscape. In addition, political instability in the Balkans in the 1990s caused by the disintegration of former Yugoslavia led to the stagnation or even total collapse of inland navigation on the lower Danube. The destruction of three bridges in Novi Figure 13: Historical view on Ruse from 1824 and current Sad in 1999 implied an almost complete view on the river bank of the Danube in Ruse stoppage of navigation in this section up to Based on agreements following World War II there have been both sufficient budgets for waterway maintenance as well as almost no competition from road and rail. Though the Danube is part of the Rhine/Main/Danube waterway connecting over 70 ports and 15 countries on the European mainland as well as some major sea ports (Figure 14) transport budgets have been shifted in favor of road and rail transport. As a result necessary maintenance measures on the waterway Danube could not be performed in a sufficient way to meet the existing international agreements and recommendations. Due to these circumstances the transport volume between ports on the river Danube has dropped and is currently relatively stable at half of the former peak volume. However, the stabilization of the political environment provides a favorable setting for concerted common efforts to increase utilization and transport volume in the future. DE AT SK HU RS 213 km 322 km 172 km 275 km 358 km RO 941 km UA 133 km MD Sulina 191 km 350 km km 138 km DE AT SK HU HR 450 km RS 472 km BG 374 km RO Kelheim km 2,411 Regensburg km 2,375 Straubing-Sand km 2,313 Passau km 2,233 Aschach km 2,160 Linz from km 2,131 to km 2,125 Enns Ybbs Pöchlarn km 2,160 km 2,058 km 2,045 Pischelsdorf km 1,972 Vienna from km 1,920 to km 1,918 Györ Komarom Komarom km 1,794 km 1,767 km 1,767 Szahalombatta km 1,618 Dunaujvaros km 1,579 Dunaföldvar km 1,563 Paks km 1,529 Mohacs km 1,448 Osijek km 1,382 Vukovar km 1,335 Belgrade km 1,168 Smederevo km 1,116 Prahovo km 861 Vidin km 793 Lom km 742 Somovit km 608 Svishtov km 554 Ruse from km 496 to km 490 Silistria km 380 Cernavoda km 300 Tulcea km 70 Constanza Sulina Channel km 2,283 Deggendorf km 1,998 Krems km 1,940 Korneuburg km 1,917 Vienna-Lobau km 1,865 Bratislava km 1,767 Komarno km 1,722 Sturovo km 1,640 Budapest km 1,722 Baja km 1,401 Apatin km 1,401 Apatin km 1,254 Novi Sad km 1,254 Novi Sad km 1,153 Pancevo km 1,048 Moldov-Veche km 1,048 Moldov-Veche km 954 Orsova km 931 Turnu-Severin km 795 Calafat km 679 Bechet km 597 Turnu Magurele km 554 Zimnicea km 493 Giurgiu km 430 Oltenita km 170 Braila km 150 Galati km 134 Giurgiulesti km 124 Reni km 90 Izmail km 47 Kilia Figure 14: Overview on national borders and ports along the river Danube NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 23

24 3.3. General characterization of freight transport on the river Danube The Danube waterway connects ten Danube riparian states with a total navigable length of 2,414 km reaching from Germany to the Black Sea. Figure 15 shows the distribution of transport volume on the national river stretches of the Danube riparian countries divided into domestic, import, export and transit transport. According to via donau [VIA DONAU 2012;2013; 2014] the total amount of goods transported on the Danube waterway declined from 43 Million tons in 2010 to 37 million tons in 2012 with dramatic losses mainly on the lower Danube. The largest transport volume was achieved by Romania, amounting to 17.6 million tons, followed by Serbia and Austria with 12.1 respectively 11.1 million tons. The largest exporter on the Danube was Hungary, with a total of 4.0 million tons having been shipped in With 5.7 million tons of goods, Romania accounted for the largest import volume of all Danube riparian states followed by Austria taking delivery of 5.5 million tons of goods and Serbia with 2.3 million tons of goods. Romania and Serbia show the highest rates of domestic transport. The largest volume in transit transports are recorded in Slovakia with 5.5 million tons, Croatia s 5.2 million tons and Serbia s 4.9 million tons. A rough estimation of the national importance of inland waterway transport can be calculated by dividing the sum of domestic, import and export transport volume (= domestic interest) by the respective length of the Danube s national stretch. The evaluation shows the highest interest ratio for Austria followed by Romania and Slovakia. Transport distance and utilization play an important role in assessing the competitiveness of waterway transport in terms of transport costs (see Chapter 4.8 for details). Currently the load factor for cargo vessels on the upper Danube in Austria shows an average of 64%, ranging from 60 to 68% throughout the year. On the lower Danube the average load factors are between 50 to 55%. On the Austrian stretch of the Danube the average transport distance per ton in 2013 was 995 km for imports, 885 km for exports, 1,456 km for transit and 148 km for domestic transport, clearly showing that waterway transport is dominated by long distance transport exceeding 1,000 km. With 70 to 80% of goods transport relations on the entire market not exceeding a radius of 300 km, the shifting potential in transport volume under current circumstances is very limited. For long distance transports in the Danube corridor waterway transport still has a strong market position with only a fraction of waterway capacity being used. With the current transport volume the actual utilization of lockage capacity on the upper Danube amounts to an average of only 30%. With an average encounter probability of just a few cargo vessels per day there are large transport capacities still available that could be used under certain circumstances Mill. t Mill. t Mill. t 7.11 Mill. t 6.59 Mill. t 9.85 Mill. t Mill. t 8.02 Mill. t 8.33 Mill. t Mill. t 7.14 Mill. t 3.66 Mill. t km 2, km km 2,202 km 1,880 DE AT SK HU RS 322 km 172 km km 1, km km 1, km km 1,075 RO 941 km Bratislava Budapest Giurgiu Galati km 134 km 133 MD UA 133 km km 0 Linz Vienna Belgrade Ruse Sulina Constanza km 2, km 350 km km 138 km DE AT SK HU HR km 2,223 km 1,873 km 1,811 km 1,433 km 1, km RS km km BG km km RO km Mill. t Mill. t 5.80 Mill. t 8.15 Mill. t Domestic transport interest 8.82 Mill. t 6.49 Mill. t Domestic Import Export Transit international transport interest Figure 15: Overview freight transport volumes on the Danube in 2010 and 2012 [VIA DONAU 2012; 2014] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 24

25 3.4. Goods transport on the Danube major good types The cargo fleet on the upper Danube mainly consists of single vessels (1.100 to tons), coupled convoys (3.000 to tons) and pushed convoys with up to 4 barges (6.000 to tons) far exceeding bulk capacity of road (20 to 25 tons) and rail (40 tons per wagon). In addition waterways offer highly competitive and safe conditions for high and heavy special transports. However, due to somewhat unreliable fairway conditions and comparably low transport speeds just-in-time transport is a constant challenge with the result of costly or perishable goods usually being transported by other modes. For large quantities of non-time-critical or less costly goods waterway transport offers best conditions at very low prices within a reasonable catchment area. Figure 16 provides an overview of the total quantity, share and type of transported goods on the Austrian stretch of the river Danube between 2007 and In general the steel industry being directly situated in the vicinity of the Danube is the most important customer with the highest share of transported goods being ores and metal waste (31.3% on average) for the production and shipping of metal products (8.4% on average). The second largest share of transported goods are petroleum products with 22.0% on average with a number of refineries being situated close to the Danube as well. The transit and import of agricultural and forestry products (13.7% on average) together with the export of fertilizers (9.3% on average) and machinery (2.2% on average) play an increasing role in waterway transport [VIA DONAU 2008 through 2014]. In general raw materials and products are mainly transported upstream as input factors for production with the resulting products being distributed on the entire European market. With high energy costs and a stagnating market, ore and metal waste transport showed decreasing transport volumes with stable outlook in the best case and a slow decrease in a more realistic sceanrio. The transport trends in petroleum products are closely linked to energy demand and transport capacity of pipelines and also show a declining tendency. Possible opportunities for future growth in this sector are LNG transports on specialized vessels. With seasonal fluctuations the transport of agricultural goods is strongly growing with a positive outlook due to favourable conditions for farming especially in Romania and Ukraine. Under current conditions and the most likely scenarios container transport will play a marginal role in the future with traditional bulk goods being the main market for waterway transport. An increasing competitivety and reliability may lead to shifts from rail to waterway and additional shares on the transport market for shorter distances. Figure 16: Development of good types on the Austrian stretch of the river Danube from 2007 to 2012 [VIA DONAU 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014] Goods AT [1.000 t] 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Type of goods 9_Machinery, vehicles and other articles 8_Chemical products 7_Fertilisers 6_Crude and manufactured minerals, building materials 5_Metal products 4_Ores and metal waste 3_Petroleum products 2_Solid fuels 1_Foodstuffs and animal fodder 0_Agricultural and forestry products, livestock Total Period 2007 to 2013 Ø 2.2% Ø 0.4% Ø 9.3% Ø 6.0% Ø 8.4% Ø 31.3% Ø 22.0% Ø 2.4% Ø 4.4% Ø 13.7% 100,0 % NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 25

26 3.5. General situation structural bottlenecks on the waterway One of the main factors for competitivety and reliability of waterway transport are fairway availability at all times with the main factor fairway depth limiting the utilization of the entire fleet during low-water periods. For continuous fairway conditions on long transport routes bottlenecks arise especially in the form of short stretches of shallow or narrow sections. Whether these navigational bottlenecks can be removed in time depends on a number of budgetary, logistic, environmental and legal restrictions showing a different importance and weight in the riparian countries along the Danube. According to an evaluation in the EU-co-funded project NEWADA duo only 10% of the socalled navigational bottlenecks according to Figure 17 show a critical behavior limiting utilization of the vessel fleet during low-water periods. For a typical transport route there are a few river sections in which bottlenecks occur more frequently. Due to the linear transport structure one single bottleneck on the waterway with insufficient depth will therefore limit the utilization for all transport routes passing this section. In order to increase the competitivety and reliability of fairway conditions fairway monitoring as well as maintenance measures have to be concentrated on these few sections based on a common, i.e. Danube-wide maintenance strategy. However, achieving physical continuous and sufficient fairway conditions will not be enough if information on the current condition of the fairway is scattered on a variety of national information pages and services showing very different levels in detail and accuracy. For typical waterway transport trips taking one to three weeks and being planned in advance even current information based on the latest surveys may be already outdated during the trip. However, navigation companies have to make their decisions based on this level of information. As a result, higher safety margins regarding the draught loaded of a vessel are considered leading to comparably low average load factors of 50 to 60% when compared to rail (70 to 75%) or road (70 to 80%). Therefore, a full utilization of physically availability under the current circumstances is almost impossible especially in low-water periods. According to various sources and interviews conducted by the authors further bottlenecks for inland navigation are administrative barriers e.g. like custom formalities and limited operating times of ports as well as high fees for using certain channels or other infrastructure facilities. Further limits may arise depending on the type of transported goods together with multi-modal transport chains with the resulting transport reliability and costs. One possible solution for improving information quality and fairway utilization could be a waterway route planner providing an outlook of maximum draught loaded for any given route as well as the resulting transport costs including pre- and end-haulage. However, without a waterway asset management system based on a common harmonized database, regular periodic surveys and maintenance activities such a route planner will probably not provide sufficient results. Critical sections DE N.: 17; Ø length =1.1 km Total length: 18.2 km (km 2,225 2,402) Critical sections AT N.: 17; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 15.4 km (km 1, and km 1,998 2,038) Critical sections SK/HU Number: 10; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 7.7 km (km 1,711 1,799) Critical sections RS Number: 7; Ø length = 5.6 km Total length: 39.2 km (km 1,195 1,287) Critical sections RO Number: 29; Ø length = 2.2 km Total length: 63 km (km ) Critical sections UA Number: 16; Ø length = 2.1 km Total length: 33 km (km Chilia branch) DE AT SK HU RS RO 213 km 322 km 172 km 275 km 358 km 941 km Bratislava Budapest Giurgiu Galati UA 133 km MD Linz Vienna Belgrade Ruse 191 km 350 km km 138 km 450 km 472 km DE AT SK HU HR RS BG Sulina Constanza 374 km RO km 2,397 km 2,380 km 2,354 km 2,328 km 2;231 Bad Abbach Regensburg Geisling Straubing Kachlet Jochenstein km 2;203 Aschach km 2,163 Ottensheim-W. km 2,146 Abwinden-Asten km 2,120 Wallsee-Mitterk. km 2,096 Ybbs-Persenbeug km 2,060 Melk km 2,038 km 1,980 km 1,949 km 1,933 km 1,921 Altenwörth Greifenstein Nußdorf Freudenau km 1,819 Gabcikovo Critical sections HR/RS Number: 17; Ø length = 5.0 km Total length: 84.6 km (km 1,300 1,429) Critical sections HU Number: 33; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 27.3 km (km 1,435 1,701) km 943 Iron Gate I km 863 Iron Gate II Critical sections BG/RO Number: 23; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 18.4 km (km ) Figure 17: Overview on nautical bottlenecks: power plants with locks and critical sections [Newada duo Act 3.2] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 26

27 3.6. General situation organization, resources and responsibility framework The 2,414 km long waterway Danube shows a strong fragmentation of responsibilities in the operation and maintenance of the fairway (Figure 18). With 10 responsible waterway authorities having a variety of organizational structures and objectives finding and implementing a common approach is no easy task. National river stretches have a length between 138 km (Croatia) and up to 1,075 km (Romania). In order to manage these river stretches waterway authorities can make use of a number of employees ranging from 100 up to 3,000. In addition, there are overlapping responsibilities for certain river sections due to the river Danube as a national border (42% or 1,025 km of its navigable length represent a state border), with annual changes in responsibility on the one hand but a long history of cross-border cooperation on the other. As a result of this fragmentation each waterway agency has its own database with riverbed surveys on different coordinate systems and reference water levels. Furthermore, there are large deviations between agencies regarding the scope and expenses of a variety of additional tasks e.g. flood protection or maintenance of towpaths (for cycling). Major deviations also occur concerning the budgetary situation of waterway authorities of the river Danube. While the average annual budget of Austria s via donau amounts to 43.2 million (albeit also including considerable budget shares for flood management, development and innovation as well as ecological measures), Serbia s Plovput has to manage inland navigation on the Serbian Danube stretch with only 1.53 million. Waterway administrations in Bulgaria and Hungary also have to deal with a small budget. Waterway authorities in Romania and Slovakia are situated in the midrange in terms of budget availability. The available equipment for riverbed surveys as a basic input for a waterway management system varies between modern multi-beam measuring equipment and outdated simple echosounder devices. The density of automatic water level gauging stations, time for data processing and applied water level models are also on very different levels. Providing actual and accurate information on fairway conditions on the entire river Danube based on these different standards is therefore a possible but challenging task. The current absence of uniform fairway availability assessment and subsequent implementation of necessary maintenance measures on the most critical bottlenecks are also certain limits for utilizing the full potential of maintenance and engineering investments. The continuous management of all critical sections at a uniform minimum quality level should therefore not only be seen as a national interest but needs to be in the focus of the European transport policy as well. If such a uniform minimum level of fairway availability together with actual and reliable information can be guaranteed potential partners will be encouraged to make long-needed investments in waterway infrastructure and fleet again. Generaldirektion Wasserstraßen und Schifffahrt - Außenstelle Süd Budget: ~ N/A Staff: ~ N/A SVP Slovak Water Management Budget: ~ 40.9 Mio. /a Staff: ~ 987 PLOVPUT Directorate for Inland Waterways Budget: ~ 1.5 Mio. /a Staff: ~ 101 AFDJ River Administration Office of the Lower Danube Budget: ~ 18.9 Mio. /a Staff: ~ 660 ACN Administration of the Navigate Canals Budget: ~ N/A Staff: ~ N/A State Enterprise Ukrainian sea ports authority Budget: ~ N/A Staff: ~ N/A km 2,415 km 2,202 km 1,880 DE AT SK HU RS 213 km 322 km 172 km 275 km 358 km km 1,708 km 1,433 km 1,075 RO 941 km km 134 km 133 UA 133 km MD km 0 Sulina km 2, km 350 km km 138 km DE AT SK HU HR km 2,223 km 1,873 km 1,811 km 1,433 km 1, km RS km km BG km km RO km 0 via donau Österreichische Wasserstraßen-GmbH OVF General Directorate of Water Management AVP Agency for Inland Waterways EAEMDR - Executive Agency for Exploration and Maintenance of the Danube River Budget: ~ 43.2 Mio. /a Staff: ~ 250 Budget: ~ N/A Staff: ~ 414 Budget: ~ N/A Staff: ~ N/A Budget: ~ 1.5 Mio. /a Staff: ~ 125 Figure 18: Overview of responsible waterway organizations with average budget and current staff in 2012 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 27

28 3.7. General situation shippers and navigation companies In the past, the transport market on the waterway 100% number ships Danube was dominated by a small number of 90% engine power large navigation companies on the supply side 80% deadweight dwt and a few large shippers with large quantities of 70% bulk goods on the demand side. The majority of 60% median age = 50% these large navigation companies was stateowned and had long-time contracts with also ~ 45 years 40% 30% formerly state-owned shippers. During the last 20% few decades, most of the navigation companies 10% were privatized and reduzed in size with a 0% number of small navigation companies and independent shipowner-operators appearing on Year of construction [a] the market. These small companies and owneroperator combinations have to be very flexible Figure 19: Age distribution of Danube fleet 2012 based on data from the Danube Commission [DANUBE and are concentrating their activities on niche COMMISSION 2014] markets and short-term contracts with mainly single motor cargo vessels. According to Figure 19 the average age of the Danube vessel fleet is around 45 years with almost no investments in new vessels after Based on data from the Danube Commission [DANUBE COMMISSION 2014], the fleet consists of around 10% single vessels, 8% tugs, 11% pushers, 23% barges and 48% pushed lighters. Figure 20 provides an overview of the nationality (flag) of the Danube vessel fleet with Romanian, Serbian and Ukrainian navigation companies currently providing both the largest fleet and vessel transport capacity (data excluding Austria and Germany). According to the interviews conducted by the authors for this feasibility study the transport market is still somewhat intransparent with discontinuous fleet utilization throughout the year and a low parity of traffic (i.e., unequal volume of traffic both upstream and downstream within a certain time span). Due to resulting low load factors, overcapacities and low profitability, required investments into modernization of the vessel fleet are currently not possible. Further challenges for waterway transport are seen in providing services with high reliability as well as still existing administrative and structural obstacles together with an over-ageing of skilled vessel crews. Multi-modal all-inclusive transport contracts distributing utilization and risk over a longer period are seen as a possible solution apart from substantial and reliable improvements in fairway availability. Fleet age distribution [%] Fleet composition [-] 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, pushed lighters barges pushers tugs single vessels *no data available Fleet deadweight [1,000 t] 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, pushed lighters barges single vessels *no data available 0 0 UA MD RO BG SRB HR HU SK AT* DE* Country of origin UA MD RO BG SRB HR HU* SK AT* DE* Country of origin Figure 20: Overview of Danube fleet composition and deadweight according to flag in 2012 [DANUBE COMMISSION 2014] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 28

29 3.8. General situation - inland navigation and the environment Rivers have been and will always be multi-use areas combining divergent interests such as transport, energy production, nature protection, fishery, forestry, agriculture and tourism, amongst others. 19 th century river regulation schemes on the upper and middle Danube as well as the construction of river hydropower plants in the 20 th centruy had a lasting severe impact on the natural ecosystem of the river. As a result of anthropogenic interventions there have been severe changes in river morphology as well as a substantial decline in habitat areas and fish populations. Despite all these factors the river Danube is still the backbone of the most important transnational environmental habitat in CEE countries. During the last decades the Figure 21: Overview of Danubeparks network of protected areas on and around the waterway Danube [ZINKE 2011] awareness for the ecological value has grown, resulting in a number of protected areas with tight national and international laws for any kind of operation or measure with a certain impact (Figure 21). Numerous studies have been carried out pointing out the impacts of inland navigation as well as fairway maintenance and engineering works. According to WOLTER et al. [2004], GABEL [2012] and others inland navigation poses a certain risk for the nurseries of small freshwater fish due to vesselinduced waves on shore areas. These effects have the highest significance in narrow sections at low water periods and are directly related to vessel type and travel speed. In addition river maintenance measures (e.g. dredging) are usually performed on very short river sections, but have more substantial ecological impacts for a limited time. River engineering measures (e.g., groynes) up to flood protection dams or shore engineering are always treated case-by-case in extensive environmental assessments which cannot be generalized here. As a result of these developments there have been a number of conflicts between environmental protection organizations on the one hand and waterway operators, navigation companies and the economy on the other. If an extreme environmentalist approach is favoured, necessary maintenance and engineering measures are not implemented resulting in unfavourable fairway conditions and lasting shifts in freight transport towards road and rail leading to a substantial increase in transport-induced emissions. Contrariwise, providing maximum fairway depths and widths at all times on the entire Danube by using the full arsenal of maintenance and engineering measures has severe ecological consequences and would also be a substantial waste of resources. Based on current research results and best practise examples there are a number of possible areas of compromise that may improve the situation and yield satisfactory results for all stakeholders. Reducing the width of the fairway in ecologically sensitive areas on a limited length of river sections usually has no substantial negative effect on navigation and would in turn lead to substantial savings in maintenance and engineering costs. Speed reductions on limited, most sensitive river sections only in low-water periods would mean a substantial improvement for the environment with very limited impact on transport costs. Further improvements can be found in the areas of optimizing maintenance measures, modernizing the vessel fleet and additional compensatory measures in critical areas. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 29

30 3.9. SWOT analysis and summary waterway Danube Economic development is closely linked to transport demand and investment in new transport infrastructure. According to the analysis goods transport is growing 0.99 percent with any percent increase of GDP. The CEE countries in the Danube corridor have a GDP of only a fraction of the EU- 28 average and have been more vulnerable to the economic crisis. The mainly rural regions in the Danube corridor have been facing massive losses of population and brain drain that will probably continue. With less population the demand for consumer goods and construction materials is not likely to increase leading to less transport demand for this type of goods as well. However, with massive investments of foreign companies in agriculture and increased productivity the transport of fertilizers and agricultural goods will increase providing opportunities for waterway transport. Despite previous efforts, various common declarations and political statements inland waterways in Europe only hold a market share in freight transport of around 3.8% and have been outperformend by the transport market for decades. Considering the current resource patchwork in the riparian countries of the Danube, inland navigation has not been able to utilize its main strength in moving large quantities of bulk goods over long distances at low prices and low external costs. Despite different levels of political commitment, insufficient budgets for necessary maintenance measures as well as substantial deviations between agreed and actually achieved fairway availability, inland navigation was able to stay in the market. However, with availability and draught loaded being directly related to fleet utilization and competitivety the profit margins of navigation companies are critically low leading to a lack of funds and of a stable environment for necessary reinvestments. As costs and benefits of necessary measures are not necessarily arising at the same place the incentives for further investments are low. Only a common investment strategy and a harmonized approach in waterway maintenance management will allow overcoming this prisoner's dilemma avoiding inefficient use of funds and unfavorable losses in market shares. The river Danube acts both as a connection and boundary between ten national states resulting in ten different waterway authorities having a variety of organizational structures and responsibilities as well as a long tradition of individual empirical approaches towards waterway maintenance. Different levels of riverbed survey and processing capacity together with budgetary and legal restrictions for necessary maintenance measures limit the possibility to provide continuous and reliable fairway conditions on the entire waterway. With a length of national river stretches between 138 up to 1,075 km and average transport distances exceeding 1,000 km shortcomings in maintenance work on just one bottleneck in one country limit the utilization and efficiency of the entire waterway transport. Therefore a common investment strategy and a harmonized maintenance management approach is needed to create favorable conditions for a competitive waterway transport and increase in market shares (Table 1). Both the interviews and analysis in this study lead to the conclusion that reliable and sufficient fairway conditions can only be provided on the basis of a comprehensive waterway asset management. Such a system would include regular riverbed surveys with denser intervals at critical sections at least a few times a year, standardized data processing and databases, continuous water level models linked to automated gauging stations. Furthermore, all operational, maintenance and engineering measures would have to be optimized regarding a high fairway availability with main emphasis on draught loaded. The following chapters provide an overview of such a waterway asset management approach covering all relevant aspects. The following analysis will provide evidence how compromises regarding limitations of fairway width and speed reductions in limited areas in favor of the environment may be implemented with almost no negative impacts on transport costs. In addition substantial savings in maintenance expenses leading to higher efficiency can be achieved as well. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 30

31 Table 1: SWOT general situation waterway Danube STRENGTHS Economic development: Substantial economic growth in riparian countries between leading to a small but stable increase in demand Substantial transfer payments and increase of agricultural production in the Danube corridor Low costs for labour force in CEE Transport policies: EU Danube Strategy in implementation since 2011 & Declaration of Danube Transport Ministers 2012 Danube as part of TEN-T Rhine-Danube core corridor Funds for substantial improvements available Transport development: Steady growth of waterway transport volume (+1.08% p.a.) Low transport costs for long distances Increasing importance for tourist transport /ship investment Navigation industry: Investment costs are already repaid/written off Long-lasting business relationships with steady market High level of free transport capacity (waterway, vessel fleet) Transport costs: Very competitive offers especially for bulk goods Main customers / shippers close to the Danube Lowest external costs of all modes of transport OPPORTUNITIES Economic development: Possible future economic growth in the agricultural sector due to improved production management and methods Market opportunities and efficiency gains based on substantial EU transfer payments Transport policies: Common database on fairway availability and information systems for customers Coordination of survey, maintenance and engineering activities in order to achieve continuous fairway parameters Danube waterway agency coordinating all relevant activities and distribution of EU-funds for one single waterway Transport development: Transport cost savings due to improved fairway conditions Cost savings due to better logistics and higher utilization Increase in total transport volume and market shares Navigation industry: Improved transport logistics and fairway conditions All-inclusive contracts with fixed costs independent of fairway condition with subcontracts for low water levels Transport costs: Higher revenues due to higher load factor of vessels Safe environment for investments due to actual information and guaranteed minimum fairway conditions WEAKNESSES Economic development: Outlook of economic development in CEE slower than EU15 Loss of population and brain drain effects with massive impact on competitivity of rural CEE regions on the Danube Overaged and underdeveloped production and transport infrastructures in CEE Transport policies: In general low importance of waterways for politics Resource patchwork with insufficient budget for maintenance works and limited fairway availability Hungary and Ukraine did not sign Declaration 2012 Frequent changes in political and administrative leadership lead to low continuity of transport policy implemenation Transport development: Loss of market shares to market growth of 2.6% per year Currently lower utilization and lower level of reliability compared to other modes of transport Navigation industry: Ageing vessel fleet and transport equipment Suitable staff difficult to acquire on the market Almost no modern freight logistics and all-in contracts Transport costs: Uncertain fairway conditions leading to low utilization Competition with heavily subsidized rail transport External costs not included in market prices THREATS Economic development: Further population losses and massive brain drain in CEE with overageing population as persistent future trends Deindustrialization due to high energy costs & low demand Vulnerable transport market for industry bulk goods due to small number of big shippers Transport policies: Lack of political commitment / uncertain investments Untargeted subsidies with no substantial impacts on the real underlying problems Imbalanced laws and approaches between environmental protection and inland navigation in riparian countries Imbalanced funds and inefficient spending of money with resulting non-continuous fairway availability Transport development: No improvement in transport costs and utilization of fleet Losses due to growing competition & shrinking market No reinvestments due to small profits/future uncertainties Navigation industry: Deindustrialization with shrinking market for bulk goods Increasing competition from road and rail due to massive infrastructure investments in these modes Transport costs: Low reliability customers with critical goods turn away Uncertainties and absence of necessary measures lead to poor fairway conditions, low utilization & competitivety NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 31

32 4 WATERWAY ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 4.1. Overview of current approaches on fairway maintenance management Any kind of maintenance management as part of a life-cycle-cost-based asset management of infrastructures is defined by a number of goals and certain steps or modules in a circular process leading to a constant improvement based on an analysis of previous experience and results. For fairway maintenance the basic process consists of monitoring and surveying of fairway conditions, assessment of current conditions and an estimation of possible developments as basis for planning and optimization of necessary maintenance or engineering measures. Depending on priorities Figure 22: Overview of common empiric fairway maintenance cycle these measures have to be executed within given budgets followed by an assessment of results compared to predefined performance goals. A continuous improvement in this circular process is achieved on the basis of an extensive documentation followed by a persistent analysis and implementation of recognized improvement potentials. Management in this context means providing leadership and directions in order to keep this cycle running while gaining the means for evidence-based management decisions (Figure 22). The general goal of fairway maintenance should be providing optimal continuous conditions for inland navigation especially in low-water periods based on an effective use of available resources. In practice, waterway authorities are operating under several international agreements and recommendations regarding targeted fairway widths and depths on a certain number of days per year (Chapter 4.5.1). Whether these targets may be achieved or not depends on a number of factors that are to a certain extent beyond the range of waterway authorities (e.g. water levels during the year, available budgets etc.). In addition, there is no common approach available allowing an assessment of the efficiency of both measures and any target conditions. For waterway agencies with sufficient budgets this leads to the situation that an assessment of possible alternatives and optimization to achieve these goals is rather difficult. If the budgets are insufficient, then recommended goals cannot be achieved at all leading to the question how and to what end these insufficient resources should be used. Without any positive or negative consequence for gaps between targeted and achieved results a systematic improvement is not likely, leading to an empirical trial-and-error approach with given rules. Any infrastructure maintenance cycle always starts with an inventory and survey of the current conditions. The optimal frequency of any kind of survey is found if the additional costs for surveys are not outweighted by the benefits of better decisions based on these additional surveys. Starting with the survey of fairway conditions the available equipment and assessment performance shows large deviations in accuracy and period length between assessments ranging from every two months in critical sections with multi-beam up to an assessment every two years with single-beam and echo sounder. The subsequent processing capacity leading to navigation charts or action plans depends on the length of a river section and may range from one day to several weeks (Chapter 6.2). Cleary, the NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 32

33 existing practical survey approaches are therefore not the result of an optimization process but in fact the result of both empirical experience and available resources. For any kind of decision process regarding measure implementation an assessment and estimation of possible condition development with and without measures is crucial. A comparison and optimization of all technically feasible measures as a result is therefore only possible if both costs and impacts (duration) are known. If the goal of measures is to improve fairway availability then the question must be: Which improvement might be attainable with which type, extent and costs of measures and for what time frame? Without a systematic database including implemented measures and enabling a mathematical description, both impacts and costs of measures are subject to individual empirical experience. Currently, there is some information available in waterway agencies regarding the costs and time of measure implementation. As to the duration of impact and condition development there are only selective project-based assessments but no systematic conditionprediction approaches available. Therefore, a systematic optimization of operation, maintenance and engineering works is currently not feasible leading to an empirical and budget-driven priority approach (Chapters 6.3 and 6.4). In contrast to an optimization process, setting priorities for measures on transport infrastructures basically means a ranking e.g. regarding the highest negative impact on infrastructure users, the worst condition compared to a target level or the highest losses due to malfunction. Typical priorities regarding fairway maintenance are giving to measures on shallow sections with the lowest fairway depth compared to low navigable water level (LNWL). Additional criteria may be the remaining fairway width with sufficient depth and/or the rate of sedimentation on critical bottlenecks based on an estimation of remaining time until the section cannot be passed. Currently these processes are handled manually case by case by using different software tools. Due to the massive amount of necessary data and necessary logistic efforts, setting the priorities in waterway maintenance is mainly the result of experts discussing the implementation of planned measures. In general, management and implementation of fairway maintenance on a dynamic river on a few hundred kilometres with constantly changing riverbed morphology and water levels is in itself a very demanding task. Only with sufficient equipment, trained staff and a comprehensive holistic approach this task will become manageable in a modern sense of a waterway asset management. Nonetheless, this is not enough to provide continuous fairway conditions, if fairway maintenance on a comparable and coordinated level is not performed in all riparian countriesalike. For shippers and navigation companies on the other hand the maintenance approach does not matter as long as continuous fairway conditions and actual reliable and accessible information are provided. If this information would be available, navigation companies might calculate with lower safety margins leading to a higher load factor of vessels throughout the year. Due to the amount of fixed costs this would lead to considerably lower transport unit costs and higher competitivety on the transport market. This overview of current approaches regarding fairway maintenance leads to the question of how a feasibility of implementing a waterway maintenance management system (WMMS) may be assessed without such a system currently in place. One approach could be based on the assumption of the existence of an ideal system and to derive the necessary requirements without detailed knowledge. Fortunately, this is not necessary due to the fact that via donau is currently developing a waterway asset management system (WAMS) as a pilot project based on such a holistic approach covering all the afore-mentioned aspects. In addition, this approach is currently being implemented in a software tool allowing a straightforward calculation of all necessary results. As a basis for an assessment of the feasibility of a WMMS this asset management approach together with first preliminary results from the pilot project are presented in the following chapters. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 33

34 4.2. Overview of new asset management structure and tasks Waterway asset management is a holistic multidisciplinary approach for the development, maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of waterway assets based on life cycle costs. Whether or not a waterway management approach qualifies as asset management therefore depends on the covered aspects. Figure 23 provides an overview of typical asset management organization structures and implementation cycle of tasks. The strategic level is the highest level of decision making where the general strategy and goals are set, the budgets and investment constraints are handled and the main projects are defined. On this level there is a need for actual generalized figures and benchmarks as well as actual data from the main projects and their financial needs to enable the necessary steering and controlling. The management level is responsible for certain tasks like hydrographical surveys, environmental protection or maintenance measures etc. or assets like river engineering structures, ports, flood protection dams. This medium level of decision making needs more detailed information and has to implement a process-oriented asset management cycle from condition survey, prognosis, measure planning and optimization up to implementation and follow up of achieved results. The implementation level needs clear directions based on checklists and protocols in order to be able to execute necessary tasks according to the overall strategy. Due to the fact that this level is the closest to the actual situation, the experience, motivation and feedback of the staff involved is crucial for any asset management. Waterway asset management is not an end in itself but may be seen as a service for the society in general respectively the navigation sector, shippers, the economy, environment and the public alike. Thus, it is a difficult task to coordinate the different objectives of these stakeholders and align them into one unified optimized asset management strategy. Furthermore, with limited budgets there will always be a tradeoff regarding desirable and actually affordable conditions. The acceptance of both waterway asset management approaches and achieved results depends on an appropriate communication and participation of relevant stakeholders in shaping these asset management processes. In the following sections of this report such an asset management approach for inland waterways with the main emphasis on operation and maintenance of the fairway is presented. The presented approach is availability- and performance-based and allows an optimization of any kind of necessary measures for different strategies and goals with a comprehensive life cycle costing approach. Working Level Implementation Depth Control Feedback Survey asset condition Strategic Level Management Level Implementation Level Strategy & Goals Budgets & Constraints Main Projects Asset - Strategy Guidelines & LCC Tasks & Organisation Checklists & Protocols Implementation Implementation & documentation Steering & Controlling Survey & Information Realization of measures Resource allocation Asset Managementcycle Optimization & Stakeholder Check & Prognosis Strategy & Measures Figure 23: Asset management structure and implementation cycle of tasks NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 34

35 4.3. Overview of new waterway asset management approach Maintaining the availability of the fairway for inland navigation is not only a main task of Danube waterway authorities but also the methodological core of any waterway maintenance management system. Availability at the center of a waterway asset management approach implies a fairway with predefined widths and depths that can be used for navigation without any further restrictions (Chapter 4.5.2). Currently there are no known systematic waterway asset management approaches available which allow an optimization regarding fairway availability and performance. According to waterway authorities [VIA DONAU 2013b] Danube navigation is only shut down in times of extreme weather conditions (floods, extensive ice formation) and only in a few Danube countries at low-water conditions. Subsequently the current definition of availability of the fairway is a yes/no criteria in days per year. Based on this definition the average availability of the Austrian section of the Danube waterway for the time period from 1999 to 2013 was calculated with 97.8% [VIA DONAU 2014]. However, the explanatory value of this existing availability concept is rather limited due to the fact that insufficient fairway depths in low-water periods are not considered. On the other hand there are a number of international recommendations and agreements (e.g. UNECE 1996, DANUBE COMMISSION 1988, DANUBE COMMISSION 2013) aiming at common minimum fairway depths and widths on a certain number of days per year setting ambitious targets for fairway maintenance. Due to political, technical, environmental and economic reasons this recommended availability performance is almost never met in practice on all river stretches of the riparian countries. Unfortunately, exact calculations of available fairway depths being closely related to possible draughts loaded of individual vessels and convoys currently do not exist. Furthermore, there are no systematic approaches available allowing an assessment of the actual availability of fairway parameters. Thus, maintenance and river engineering works are mainly planned on a case-by-case basis with limited continuous coordination and optimization between riparian countries. In addition there is a fundamental lack of basic data models and software solutions that would enable an assessment of measure impact on fairway availability and thus an optimization of all kinds of measures. Lock failures Failures Accidents Recommendations fairway parameters AGN DC 1988 DC 2013 Floods Natural impacts Ice Critical location #2 Critical location #1 River infrastructure model Lock #2 Port #2 free flow backwater free flow backwater free flow Port #1 Downstream Lock #1 Critical location #3 Upstream Measure catalogue M#1 Maintenance measures Fairway availability Transport costs & savings zero maintenance with budget recom mended AGN, DC 2013 etc.: Targets e.g. width = 120 m depth = 2,5 m 240 days 65.7% 300 days 82.2% 343 days 94.0% Fleet model e.g. 10,500 (AT) zero maintenance with budget % % % % % % recom mended Annual costs [ /a] budget measure costs Days per year [d] availability 2.5 m 120 m 300 days Transport costs [ /tkm] Optimum transport costs depth [m] 365 days = 100% depth [m] depth [m] Figure 24: Asset managment approach based on fairway availability with measure costs and transport cost savings NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 35

36 For passenger transport in the tourist season from beginning of April to end of October with a vessel draught usually not exceeding 1.5 m the current yes/no availability criteria might be sufficient even at low-water conditions. In comparison, the possible utilization in goods transport and the resulting draught heavily depends on actually available fairway depths. If possible utilization due to insufficient fairway conditions falls beyond a certain margin inland navigation is no longer competitive compared to other modes of transport. With typical transport distances between 500 to 2,000 km and transport times of one to three weeks, a few days per year with insufficient fairway depths might be economically manageable for the navigation industry. However, if the resulting delays are not manageable anymore and the average load factor of the vessel fleet during the year falls below 50 to 60% navigation on the Danube might not be able to stay in the market on the long run. Therefore, any kind of approach that only uses yes/no availability criteria is not capable of an assessment and optimization of measures regarding the needs of the transport industry and resulting transport costs. The presented waterway asset management approach (Figure 24) accounts for these factors with the fairway availability of widths and depths in days per year as a core parameter. Each recommendation or agreement (e.g. UNECE 1996, DANUBE COMMISSION 1988, DANUBE COMMISSION 2013) can be modelled as a single point. The position of this point in a 3D availability chart is determined by defined fairway widths and depths and the required days of availability. With a 3D data model of the river including locks, ports and the fairway the resulting overall availability includes both non-availability and available fairway widths and depths for certain levels in days per year resulting in a 3D availability surface. River maintenance and engineering works modify this 3D river geometry and thus increase the availability of fairway parameters. With increasing targeted fairway widths and depths the necessary investments will increase as well leading to a rising 3D cost surface. Besides deliberate interventions, such as dredging measures, there are further impacts on waterway infrastructure and its availability which can be affected only to a limited extent. These factors include precipitation events and resulting floods as well as temperature-dependent ice formations, extreme fog, powerful storms, vessel accidents, lock failures, legal or environmental restrictions. On the other hand, an increased availability will in turn lead to a higher utilization and thus lowered costs of inland navigation which is described by a falling 3D cost surface. The fleet model of the Danube vessel fleet is based on calibration curves of all relevant individual vessels and convoys navigating on the river Danube. For a given draught loaded the respective vessel utilization can be derived providing the basis for transport cost models. Such a transport cost model enables the calculation of availability-based resulting transport cost savings for different investment strategies and entire transport routes. The methods, approach and first results of such a transport cost model are also covered in this feasibility study (Chapter 4.8). However, maintenance and river engineering measures do not only affect the availability of the fairway but also have an impact on local ecological habitats. In a further step, the model could also be extended towards an assessment of environmental effects. This may include the elaboration of compensation measures as well as an assessment of more ecological alternatives in close collaboration with stakeholders in the field of environmental protection. Based on this approach costefficient measures can be found not only for individual critical sections but for the entire Danube as well. Furthermore, it is possible to optimize with regard to recommended fairway parameters, a constrained budget or minimal total costs of inland navigation. The following sections of the study will highlight certain aspects of this asset management approach and the developed optimization process that could replace the current case-by-case approach. The implementation of the presented approach could contribute to a continuous coordination and optimization of investment strategies between riparian countries. A comparison of current resources, approaches, necessary steps and investments for such a system in all Danube riparian countries are also covered in this feasibility study. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 36

37 4.4. Basic fairway and river section model Forming the basis for evaluations of the availability of inland waterways, the main (m.ü.a) (m.ü.a) (m.ü.a) components of the infrastructure model are lock chambers, ports, as well as numerous Fr li Fairway depth Fr re RB 11 (m.ü.a - Δmfix) (m.ü.a - Δmfix) RB 2 transhipment sites, berths and landing stages RB 8 Altitude with widenings of the fairway. These assets RB 3 RB 9 RB 10 waterline Gauge zero RB 7 level affect the resulting availability of the transport (m.ü.a) RB 4 [m.ü.a] Altitude RB 6 river bed route e.g. due to unexpected lock failures or RB 5 [m.ü.a] Adriatic height = level zero planned maintenance works of lock chambers. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) (x,y) Further negative impacts on availability may also arise in the form of a lowered accessibility of port RB Riverbed W Water level Fr Fairway facilities due to sedimentation processes e.g. in Figure 25: Model of a cross-sectional profile of a river the area of port entrances. For a realistic picture section including current water level, riverbed morphology of present and past availability conditions it is and fairway parameters in absolute altitudes therefore crucial to take all of these aspects into account. The presented approach is substantially based on a model of free-flowing and backwater sections consisting of 3D data of riverbed and water level and their changes in the course of time. The information is given by coordinates describing the position on a horizontal level (x, y) and the absolute altitude of the respective points (Figure 25). The fairway is linked to the current water level line and can be modeled for each recommended fairway width and depth. The calculated availability is the result of combining fairway classes with changes of the riverbed on a daily basis equaling a 3D surface. Other influence factors such as the low navigable water level (LNWL) may be determined based on a statistical analysis. One advantage of using absolute height data compared to such a statistical value is to enable the mapping of over-deepening tendencies of the riverbed. For an integration of the entire river Danube in such a system the different national coordinate systems and altitude references will have to be harmonized into one unified database [HASELBAUER et al. 2014]. If availability is calculated on the basis of cross-sectional profiles, the necessary density of the latter depends on riverbed characteristics. Critical, i.e. shallow and/or narrow sections that are relevant for availability require a higher density compared to non-critical sections. In Austria, the average density of cross-sectional profiles at critical sections is 25 metres, whereas a distance of 50 metres is considered as sufficient in between. In some of the riparian Danube countries the average distance between cross-sectional profiles amounts to 100 metres and more in sections without critical locations. For critical sections additional multi-beam surveys are regularely used in order to get a more accurate picture of the development of the riverbed between periodic standard single-beam surveys. Thess multi-beam data can be thinned out by using various algorithms in order to avoid excessive amounts of data. Single- or multi-beam data are the basis for the calculation of riverbed isolines that are used to display riverbed and current fairway conditions. As a result of continuous riverbed surveying and data modeling an analysis of sedimentation and erosion processes is possible as well e.g. with difference maps between two riverbed surveys as possible results. Furthermore, navigational charts with fairway depths in relation to low navigable water level (LNWL) can be prepared as well. For the availabilitybased waterway asset management approach a model of the water level is needed. This water level can be modeled based on various methods. Depending on the slope of the riverbed in the respective section and the density of water level gauging stations, the actual water surface can be calculated either by a simple linear interpolation between current water levels or by numeric models. Linear interpolations are common for stretches with a low slope of the riverbed (e.g. Lower Danube). W1 RB 1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 Fr li Fr m Fr re RB 12 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 37

38 4.5. Fairway parameters and availability Existing international recommendations and agreements In order to make international inland waterway transport in Europe more efficient and attractive to customers a common legal framework was established in This "European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance" (AGN) classifies inland waterways on the basis of minimum requirements regarding standardized horizontal dimensions of motor vessels, barges and pushed convoys with categories ranging from from I to VII. For the upper Danube the minimum vessel draught should not fall below 2.50 m on at least 300 days per year. Further important recommendations for a uniform navigability of the river Danube were already specified in With the Belgrade Convention the Danube Commission (DC) was established as an intergovernmental organization with the task to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Convention with regard to the regime of navigation on the Danube. Specifications of fairway widths and depths were implemented as a function of riverbed material and result, e.g. for the Austrian stretch of the Danube waterway, in a fairway width for free-flowing sections of 120 m (Wachau) and 75 m resp. 120 m (east of Vienna) at a minimum fairway depth of 2.5 m to be reached on at least 343 days per year (94% of the year) [VIA DONAU 2013b]. In practice, these recommended fairway parameters, especially a fairway width of 120 m, can hardly be met due to the hydromorphological situation on these stretches as well as economic and environmental issues (restrictions according to environmental law permits, Danube Floodplains National Park). Studies on the cost-effectiveness of these recommendations regarding their impacts on navigation companies and waterway authorities are only at the beginning. In Austria a first analysis of fleet composition and traffic volumes on the upper Danube (traffic throughput at lock of hydropower plant Altenwörth) provided evidence for the claim that critical vessel encounters on narrow river sections are hardly a problem. The probability of a critical encounter of two 4-unit pushed convoys (pusher plus four barges as maximum configuration on the Austrian stretch of the Danube) on the narrow sections is rather low due to the fact that their share of the vessel fleet with an average total of 19 vessels per day amounts to only 4.2% (Table 2). Further analysis of transponder data proves the low utilization of fairway width, which is therefore with the exception of the German stretch of the waterway not a critical issue on the river Danube given the current transport volume. The possible draught loaded of vessels, however, significantly influences the transport costs on the Danube and the competitiveness of this mode of transport [HOFFMANN et al 2014a]. As a part of internal quality reviews at via donau several fairway categories (Levels of Service) were defined for the Austrian river stretch. For a curve radius of < 1,000 m, fairway widths are 80 m (LOS 1), 120 m (LOS 2) and 160 m (LOS 3) respectively, all for a common fairway depth of 2.5 m. However, if currently available fairway depths are not included in the analysis there will be no way of determining the necessary extent of maintenance measures. Current definitions of fairway availability as yes/no criteria on a transport route thus fall somewhat short with regard to customer needs and measure optimization. Table 2: Cargo fleet composition on the upper Danube based on locked-through vessels at Melk and Altenwörth in Vessel/convoy type Melk 2012 Altenwörth 2012 share [%] Single vessels 3,735 3, % Coupled convoy 1xbarge % Coupled convoy 2xbarge % Coupled convoy 3xBarge % Pushed convoy 1xbarge % Pushed convoy 2xbarge 1,762 1, % Pushed convoy 3xbarge % Pushed convoy 4xbarge % Total number vessels 7,092 6, % NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 38

39 New availability approach For navigation companies the availability of minimum fairway widths and depths is crucial both for planning individual transport trips and for being competitive throughout the year. Based on data from historic water levels as well as riverbed surveys it is possible to calculate the availability for any given time frame, cross section, river section or entire transport route according to Formula (1): 365 AV = t for all d > d, w > w dw ; i i i i= 1 (1) with AV d,w = total availability of a fairway class in days per year; t i = available time in days; d = fairway depth w = fairway width. In order to model the availability of the fairway, the top edge of the course of the fairway is linked to the water surface. The altitude of the fairway's top and bottom varies on a daily basis according to the current water level. The physical availability for a river section on a specific day results from the non-intersection of a combination of width and depth of the fairway with the riverbed. Starting with the fairway axis and the minimum fairway dimensions each combination of fairway depth and width is analyzed (Figure 26). If this procedure is repeated for all days of a period the availability percentage may be defined as the number of days with non-intersection divided by the total number of days in the analyzed period. For any river section or river stretch the resulting availability will decrease with increasing fairway dimensions resulting in a convex falling availability performance surface. The gradient of curvature for this surface strongly depends on the geometry of the riverbed and the course of the fairway in the riverbed. An almost plain availability surface is typical for wide shallow sections with a uniform extensive sedimentation along the river axis. Lateral sedimentation implicates that the availability performance of the fairway shows a sudden drop if a specific fairway width is exceeded. Based on this approach any recommendation may be described as a single point. If this point is below the actual availability surface the recommendations are met in the analyzed period. Otherwise, additional physical measures (e.g. dredging) have to be implemented in order to achieve the targeted availability resulting in an improved availability performance that may be described in an upward shift of the availability surface [HASELBAUER et al 2014]. Recommendation DC 2013*: Width=120m Depth =2.5m (Level of Service 3) *Danube Commission Fairway depth 2.2 m 2.3 m 2.4 m 2.5 m Dredging volume level 3 [m³] Fairway width Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Adria 120 m 100 m 80 m 60 m 40 m Absolute altitude Available days per year [d] LOS (1) (2) (3) Dredging Availability performance section i 200 Width [m] Level Level Level days = 100% Depth [m] Figure 26: Classes of fairway width and depth of a specific river section with actual riverbed condition on a daily basis [HASELBAUER et al 2014]. Availability performance of a specific river section for one year with deviation from different Levels of Service (LOS) e.g. regarding width (e. g. LOS 3: width = 120 m, depth = 2.5 m, 343 days) [HASELBAUER et al 2014] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 39

40 Availability calculation on the Danube The presented waterway asset management approach is currently being implemented on the entire Austrian section of the Danube waterway. As an example the availability of one of the most critical shallow sections (ford Schwallenbach in the free-flowing Wachau stretch) was investigated for the year This year was characterized by particularly unfavorable water levels for inland navigation. The targeted fairway availability on this critical section for LOS 3 was only met on 234 days (64.1%), for LOS 2 on 257 days (70.4%) and for LOS 1 on 269 days (73.7%). Thus, the recommended fairway availability of 343 days (Figure 28: LOS 1: -74 d, LOS 2: -86 d, LOS 3: -109 d) could not be met. This example clearly demonstrates that the target availability of 94% of days per year only could have been achieved by implementing further physical measures with substantial extent. In order to get a more accurate picture of the availability performance during the year 2011, the development of fairway availability was evaluated on a monthly basis. For each month the availability surface is illustrated in Figure 29 together with the availability of recommended fairway parameters (LOS 3: width = 120m, depth = 2.5 m). The analysis shows an excellent fairway availability during the summer months of June, July and August with fairway LOS 3 being available during 90 to 100% of the month. The analysis also indicates a particularly poor availability performance in typical low-water periods during the months of September and November. With a fairway availability of only 6% for the target parameters, the month November in 2011 had severe negative consequences on waterway transport. Overall, inland navigation could use only a fairway depth of 1.9 m throughout the entire month based on the analysis of this critical sector. For a smaller fairway width a depth of 2.2 m was available at least on 50% of days in November. The assessment of availability on a monthly basis allows a better understanding of the river and the specific characteristics of critical sections. This may in turn lead to an improved planning of future transport operations especially in goods transport as well as the timing of river maintenance and engineering measures. For planning, historical discharge data will enable the calculation of probability levels for different target availability performances which is based on previous water level distribution in the future [HASELBAUER et al 2014]. LOS 3: 234 d; (-109 d) LOS 2: 257 d; (-86 d) LOS 1: 269 d; (-74 d) Figure 27: Availability performance of ford Schwallenbach (rkm ) for the year 2011 including different service levels (LOS 1, LOS 2, LOS 3). NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 40

41 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 AV LOS 3: 74,20 % AV LOS 3: 82,10 % AV LOS 3: 25,80 % April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 AV LOS 3: 50 % AV LOS 3: 41,94 % AV LOS 3: 100 % July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 AV LOS 3: 100 % AV LOS 3: 90,03 % AV LOS 3: 43,30 % October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 AV LOS 3: 77,42 % AV LOS 3: 6,70 % AV LOS 3: 77,42 % Figure 28: Ford Schwallenbach - development of the availability performance on a monthly basis during the year 2011 (rkm ) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 41

42 365 days (100%) 4.6. Measures and their impact on fairway availability In order to increase fairway availability waterway authorities may choose between various 5. possible measures with different costs, impact Dredging 2. Narrowing full width on availability, realization time, duration of 4. Deep 3. Shifting impact, resulting user costs and environmental fairway channel 6. Construction impact. Figure 29 shows a decision tree of of groynes typical operation, maintenance and engineering 1. Zero alternative measures as well as a possible availability performance for a fixed fairway depth of a given river section. In order to find the optimal measure 0 days (0%) for one section all measures have to be Fairway width [m] compared to the current situation ( status quo or Decision tree for individual measure selection doing nothing ) and to each other. The measure 1. Zero alternative ( doing nothing ) 2. Narrowing of fairway (operation) with the highest impact on availability compared 3. Shifting of fairway (operation) to annual costs is considered as favorable. 4. Dredging deep fairway channel (maintenance) 5. Dredging full fairway width (maintenance) Operational measures, i.e. narrowing or 6. Construction of e.g. groynes (engineering) shifting of the fairway, may be applied in order to Figure 29 Overview of standard measures and their resulting improve the utilization of the available fairway impact on fairway availability only in such cases where the target fairway depth is available on a sufficient number of days at least in one adequately wide area of the crosssectional profile. If the recommended fairway depth is not available for the entire fairway width, narrowing the fairway to those areas with sufficient water depths together with appropriate marking will allow a better utilization of the physically existing availability. For typical wider river sections on the lower Danube showing a higher physical availability outside of the current fairway, shifting of the course of the fairway also may be a cost-efficient option. However, a successful implementation of operational measures requires periodic riverbed surveys, data processing and information of customers at least with an interval of two to four weeks in critical low-water periods and river sections. For river sections without a sufficient width and depth only physical, i.e. maintenance measures may lead to an increase in fairway availability. The least costly measure would be dredging a deep fairway channel on a minimum necessary width (LOS 1) in order to provide a continuous availability of a targeted fairway depth. On river sections with very high transport volumes and no budgetary or environmental restrictions, dredging the entire fairway width according to international recommendations may be considered as favorable. However, on river stretches which are characterized by very dynamic river morphology the duration of dredging impact may be insufficient leading to the question of more sustainable measures. Such measures may be described as river engineering measures and include the construction of new and/or adaptation of existing training structures such as, e.g., groynes, training walls or bottom sills. Typically, the planning and implementation of this kind of measures takes longer and they are more costly as well. First evaluations show that especially measures such as the dredging of a "deep fairway channel" or the narrowing of the fairway leading to favorable improvements in terms of navigability with a positive impact on transport costs. In summary, a careful assessment of the individual situation is always necessary due to different types of river morphology and resulting deviations in the costs and impacts of possible measures. For a successful planning and implementation of possible measures, periodic riverbed surveys are mandatory together with an assessment of the actual impact and costs of already implemented measures. Available days [d] Availability of fairway depth 2.5 m DC 2013 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 42

43 Operational measures and their impact on fairway availability The actual utilization of physically provided Target DC fairway availability by the vessel fleet is a Availability 365 performance function of various impact parameters such as traffic volume, the accuracy of fairway 300 information or the reliability of water level 200 Fairway forecasts. These factors together with the utilization empirical experience of navigation companies lead to an implicit safety margin between physically possible draughts loaded of vessels and actually used draughts that can also be 365 days = 100% Depth [m] characterized as a "trust margin". Therefore, the Figure 30: Availability performance of a river section utilization of available transport capacity over the compared to actual fairway utilization by the existing fleet course of the year will always be below availability performance. Figure 30 provides a principal insight on the ratio of used fairway availability compared to provided fairway widths and depths. Operational measures, i.e. narrowing or shifting of the fairway, generally reduce the gap between utilized and provided infrastructure availability. The comparison of both the provided and actually used infrastructure quality is an important indication for infrastructure operators whether available infrastructure quality and fairway information meet the demand of the transport market. The calculation and visualization of fairway depth utilization in a WMMS may be based on a combination of section-related vessel trajectories and data on individual draught loaded which may be available, e.g., in a (transponder) database. Furthermore, anonymous utilization indicators of navigation companies may be used for more general backward-related evaluations. A key parameter for improving utilization of available fairway depths is the accuracy of water level forecasts as a basis for transport planning with typical transport durations from 1 to 3 weeks. The necessary basic information (water levels, fairway depths and course of the fairway) is currently provided on a patchwork of individual national websites, if at all. However, there are certain projects on the Danube underway aiming at a further improvement and harmonization of information access on one single online platform (e.g. Fairway Information Services (FIS) portal under development by the NEWADA duo project partners). Available days per year [d] Utilization of fairway depth 2.5m Vessel fleet of river Danube Target DC Availability of depth = 2.5 m Trust Information Uncertainty water level Width [m] Depth [m] Figure 31: Actual utilization of provided fairway widths and depths for the existing Danube vessel fleet depending on distribution of utilization and encounter probability of different vessel types [HASELBAUER et al. 2014] The utilization of fairway widths is mainly a function of traffic volume on transport routes and fleet composition and can be clustered based on encounter cases and overtaking manoeuvres. Current low traffic volumes on the Danube with an encounter probability of only 4.3% for two convoys with critical dimensions which currently only have a share of 4.2% in the entire Danube fleet on Available days per year [d] Available days per year [d] Vessel fleet of river Danube 60 m 80 m m 120 m 160 m 2.1 Probability of critical encounters 2.2 Utilization of fairway width 120 m Target DC Availability Width = 120 m NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 43

44 narrow sections implies that resulting waiting times and costs are negligible. Therefore, individual vessels or convoys will leave the main traffic lane in the fairway only in the case of an encounter or overtaking manoeuvre. The actual utilization of fairway widths can be derived on the basis of vessel trajectories, which may be stored in a (transponder) database. Operational measures such as narrowing of the fairway including the appropriate marking of the limits of the fairway, and coordination between approaching vessels on a limited number of river sections may lead to a higher efficiency of inland navigation in general without the need for substantial additional investments (Figure 31) [HASELBAUER 2014] Maintenance measures and their impact on fairway availability With the implementation of maintenance measures, i.e. dredging a "deep fairway channel" of the full width of the fairway, the geometry of the riverbed is modified. This modification is characterized by a (sudden) difference in riverbed altitudes on the time scale and may be verified by single- or multi-beam riverbed surveys. Depending on the existing regulations the maximum dredging depth may be limited as well whereas necessary minimum dredging depth is determined on the basis of Recommendation DC 2013*: Width=120m Depth =2.5m (Level of Service 3) *Danube Commission Fairway depth Figure 33: Cross section point i targeted availability levels. The riverbed geometry available after dredging worksshould lead to an improved Dredging 365 fairway availability throughout the year according to Figure 33 and Figure 32 (dark 300 Availability performance section i grey). Naturally, sedimentation and erosion are 200 Width [m] continuous processes, with the duration of Level 3 measure impact being defined by the time until the dredged volume will have filled back (Figure below) and predicted fairway availability 365 days = 100% Depth [m] dropped to the level of initial availability Figure 32: Increased fairway availability after dredging performance without measures. If other parameters of this process like corresponding discharge level, flow speed or average grain size are recorded in the database as well, further statistical analyses and even more accurate empirical predictions might become feasible. Typically, an assessment of implemented measures has to cover the entire time frame prior to implementation until the end of the impact time. While cost information of measures might be available shortly after implementation, the time of impact may be very long. For a comparison of different measures both costs and time of impact need to be known. As a first approach especially for measures with a very long time of impact expert guesses could be a starting point until the necessary information can be obtained. Another approach would be a backward assessment of implemented measures during the last years or decades, provided that the necessary information regarding development of the riverbed geometry (single- or multi-beam surveys) is still available. Available days per year [d] 2.5 m Dredging volume level 3 [m³] Fairway width = 120 m Level 3 Cross section point i Water level Riverbed altitude Target fairway depth Adria Absolute altitude NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 44

45 Altitudes above Adriatic sea level [m. ü. A.] Target fairway depth Cross section point i Water level LWNL Fairway depth <2.5m Dredging measure 1 ti Duration of dredging measure impact Dredging measure 2 Riverbed Actual fairway depth [d] Figure 34:Development of absolute riverbed altitude, water level and resulting fairway depth at cross section point including the impact of dredging measures [HASELBAUER et al. 2014] Measure costs Every planned measure leads to costs that need to be covered either within budget range of the responsible waterway authority or within another 25 funding scheme. Generally, river engineering measures cause higher construction costs as 20 Fine sediment: Ø 6.54 /m² compared to maintenance measures but have a Gravel: Ø 8.36 /m³ higher duration of impact as well. For all measures 15 the economics of scale apply as well. Figure 35 provides an exemplary overview of decreasing 10 dredging costs (fine sediment and gravel) with increasing measure extent for the Austrian section 5 of the Danube. Thus, in the time period from 2009 to 2013, the average dredging costs per unit for fine sediment and gravel amounted to 6.54 per Dredging volume [m 3 ] m³ and 8.36 per m³ respectively. Depending on the particular geometry of a Figure 35: Costs per unit of fine sediment and gravel dredging depending on the extent of the measure on the river section a specific dredging volume is Austrian stretch of the Danube for the years 2009 to 2013 necessary in order to achieve any given target fairway width and depth. With increasing target fairway parameters the required dreging volume is increasing as well, resulting in a concave rising dredging volume surface. Each required dredging cubature corresponds to specific dredging costs that may also be visualized in the form of a concave increasing measure cost surface. This surface shows a lightly lower curvature, due to decreasing measure unit costs with increasing total measure extent. The costs of marking activities primarily consist of time-dependent personnel costs (e.g. vessel crew) and distance-dependent operation cost of marking vessels (e.g. fuel) as well as amortization costs of marking equipment. The costs of operational measures are therefore mostly determined by the length of the marking section as well as the monitoring interval with control and relocation of the position of buoys.the construction costs of river engineering measures such as groynes can be roughly estimated by the number and geometry of these structures. In practice, factors such as planning and construction time as well as environmental restrictions significantly affect resulting measure costs and must therefore be evaluated in a more detailed process. In a life cycle approach a comparison of measure efficiency has to include both costs and duration of measure. Costs per unit [ /m 3 ] 30 Fine sediment Gravel Linear (Fine sediment) Linear (Gravel) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 45

46 e+5 3e+5 2e+5 LOS LOS LOS e , , , ,8 2.8 LOS3 = 1,700 m LOS2 = 1,395 m LOS1 = 370 m , , , , , , , , , LOS3 = 14, LOS2 = 11, LOS2 = 3, , , ,0 Figure 37: Example: Necessary dredging volume for different target fairway parameters (Ford Schwalllenbach 2011) Figure 36: Example cost surface: Total measure cost surface for various combinations of fairway width and depth. (Ford Schwallenbach 2011) Duration of measure impact In general, the duration of measure impact ends if actual values for quality criteria (e.g. the availability of infrastructure) fall below predefined limits. The duration of impact of a dredging measure on a river section is calculated starting with the excavation of gravel or fine sediment cubature lasting until the total backfilling of the removed material, represented by the backfilling rate reaching 100% as shown in Figure 38. The duration of measure impact can be defined as the time period in which an increased availability is given as compared to the zero alternative of doing nothing. Thus, the measure with the highest impact on availability compared to necessary measure cost per time unit must be considered as favorable. Based on the analysis of historical data of water levels and riverbed surveys for a time period of 10 to 30 years, the characteristic development for each critical section can be derived as an empiric function of various impact parameters like, e.g., discharge and structure of riverbed material. The schematic gradient of riverbed development, e.g. above Adriatic Sea, and the backfilling rate of the excavated volume can be derived on the basis of analysis results from one comprehensive database depending on the progressivity of the respective erosion and deposition curves. A high progressivity and frequence of interventions indicate that dredging measures are not appropriate for this section and Discharge more sustainable measures like river engineering Time [d] works should be considered. Riverbed [m.o.a] The characteristics of river sections which R 90% 90 % show a flatter schematic gradient of riverbed R 75% 75 % development over time as compared to the average R can be classified as relatively stable. By using defined 50% 50 % safety levels below the bottom of the fairway (parallel lines to the water level), critical developments of the Target dredging depth riverbed can be automatically identified, acting as an t 50% t 75% t 90% innovative alert system (Figure 38). The highest Duration of measure impact Time [d] priority should always be addressed to the critical Figure 38: Duration of a dredging measure based on the section showing the lowest fairway depth on the typical backfilling rate of the dredged material related to the discharge in the time period [m³/s] Dredging volume [m³] Backfilling rate R [m³] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 46

47 entire width of the fairway. Since this kind of sedimentation in the fairway leave no room for bypassing, such a section is considered as highly critical for navigation companies in case of low-water levels. Second in the ranking system are critical sections which are characterized by low fairway depths only at the limits of the fairway. As part of a holistic WMMS such an approach may facilitate the ranking of intervention times and a prioritisation of existing critical sections. Considering long-term data sets, the backfilling function of each river section will show a different characteristic behavior, which can be derived, for example, transversely with impact parameters such as the predominant discharge. For a certain critical section the optimal timing of a dredging measure may be determined by a variation of excavation time and subsequent evaluation of the backfilling behavior. Thus, the intervention time with the flattest gradient of the backfilling rate will result in the highest measure impact. Due to environmental reasons in Austria the maximum target dredging depth within the fairway in free-flowing sections of the Danube is restricted to 2.5 m m tolerance below low navigable water level (LNWL). If the duration of the measure impact is considered together with measure costs the resulting annual costs can be calculated based on standard formulae. In practice, the total measure extent per year as well as any individual measure extent an time to implementation are limited by technical, environmental and economic reasons (e.g. available number and quality of dredging equipment on the market, temporal restrictions regarding maintenance interventions, annual budget of waterway authorities). The presented approach provides the means to achieve unified and continuous fairway availability levels and may lead to an efficient allocation of available budget or funds. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 47

48 4.7. Example for the preparation, planning and optimization of dredging measures Figure 39: LOS-related planning of dredging measures at ford Weissenkirchen based on riverbed surveys before and after measure In case of limited budget and/or limited available dredging capacity on the local market, necessary measures may not be implemented within the available budget or dredging period. In order to continuously maintain availability at a high level for an entire river stretch, a priority ranking for the implementation of measures is required. Prior to a possible occurrence of low water levels, e.g. during winter months, all potential critical sections are surveyed by using multi-beam surveying equipment. The following evaluation of available fairway depths at critical sections is always based on the last riverbed survey. In a next step, priority is given to those critical sections showing the lowest available fairway depths. The priorization process can be carried out for different levels of fairway width allowing flexible adjustments of fairway maintenance works in terms of traffic volume and available measure budget. In order to implement a dredging measure for one critical section, the calculation of dredging volume is a prerequisite. With the aim to minimize deviations between calculated dredging needs and actual dredging volume, results of riverbed surveys not older than one month should be used. Depending on the targeted Level of Service (LOS 1, LOS 2, LOS 3) the necessary width and depth of the dredging area can be determined and may be automatically displayed in a WMMS as a suggested dredging polygon (Figure 39). In a further optional step, the manual optimization of the dredging measure based on changes in the shape of the dredging polygon and target depth allows accounting for individual local circumstances. The dredging module of a WMMS should be capable of displaying all necessary results of planned dredging measures. The necessary dredging volume for various target levels is the result of a comparison of the actual riverbed geometry, the dredging area and target dredging. As this is a standard task the developed WAMS software of via donau is capable of performing these and other calculations with ease. For a precise NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 48

49 determination of required dredging volume, triangulated irregular networks (TIN) data of the riverbed surface from processed multi-beam surveying data should be used. With unit cost functions and dredging volume at hand an estimation of dredging costs can be displayed in real-time for any target fairway parameters. Figure 40 provides a principal overview of required dredging volume, total dredging costs, necessary time for measure implementation and estimated duration of measure impact for increasing fairway widths (Levels of Service). While measure costs and dredging volume are more or less fixed average values (with a rather small deviation), duration of measure impact is related to the specific hydraulic characteristics of a specific section. As a first approach predictions of measure impact duration may be based on an averaged master function based on an evaluation of already implemented maintenance measures. Further improvements of these predictions may either be based on a more thorough statistical analysis or on calculations of sedimentation processes with the use of an appropriate software solution (e.g. Flow 3D). The dredging time in general depends on the amount of dredging volume and performance of the dredging equipment with total dredging time being a result of dredging volume divided by dredging performance in days. In addition, there are some restrictions as to the use of certain dredging equipment such as maximum draught and flow velocity that have to be considered. In low-water periods hopper barges cannot be fully loaded so that the number of required trips to transport the same amount of dredging volume increases substantially together with resulting costs. In order to ensure a continuous depth of the fairway in the case of impending low-water periods, dredging a "deep fairway channel" in a first step may be an option to assure the continuity of a certain fairway depth. If necessary, a subsequent completion of dredging to full fairway widths may increase the transport capacity if needed. In most cases the duration of measure impact for specific critical sections will be based on an analysis of previous measure implementations. For a WMMS the statistical analysis of historical backfilling behavior is proposed as an empiric solution due to certain deviations of analytical approaches with common software from actual development. If these input factors are known for a number of critical river sections a fast estimation of dredging costs, dredging time and duration of measures impact can be provided. Furthermore, the system allows an assessment of already implemented measures providing a continuous update of parameters. [m³] Necessary dredging volume [m³] [ ] Total estimated costs dredging [ ] 108,000 12,000 80,000 8,000 66,000 5, ,500 8,000 12,000 Target width [m] Dredging volume [m 3 ] [d] Dredging time [d] Impact duration of dredging [d] 10 [d] Backfilled volume [m] 7 5 5,500 8,000 5,500 8,000 12,000 Dredging volume [m 3 ] 12,000 Figure 40: Dredging volume, dredging costs, dredging time and duration of measure impact for different levels of service. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 49

50 4.8. Fairway availability and resulting transport costs on the Danube Traffic volume, composition and utilization of cargo fleet For an assessment whether the supplied infrastructure availability meets the needs of the users of the waterway it is essential for waterway authorities to have an overview of transported cargo volumes during the year, including the composition of the cargo vessel fleet navigating on the national river stretch. The transport volume on the Austrian section Locked vessels Altenwörth [-] of the river Danube for example shows a 300 steady tendency with around one million 200 passengers and nine to eleven million tons of goods transported per year. In 2012, the total 100 Passenger vessels number of vessels locked through the Cargo vessels and convoys 0 Altenwörth river hydropower plant amounted to 10,700 units with 35% being passenger Months in the year 2012 vessels and 65% cargo vessels and convoys. Figure 41: Total locked-through passenger and cargo Passenger transport shows a steady high vessels per month in 2012 at Altenwörth lock in Austria season between April and October whereas cargo transport shows more fluctuations depending on the prevailing water levels and market conditions of the types of goods transported (Figure 41). The average load factor for cargo vessels on the Austrian section of the Danube usually ranges from 60 to 68% but may drop to 40% in severe low-water periods (as for example in the summer of 2003). On the lower Danube the average load factor varies between 50 to 55%. As shown in Table 2 (Chapter 4.5), which provides an overview of the throughput of vessels at the Austrian Melk and Altenwörth locks in 2012, the majority or 51.6% of journeys on the upper Danube are performed by individual vessels consisting mainly of the vessel types Johann Welker or extended Gustav Koenigs. The second most frequent type are a combination of a pusher and two barges with a fraction of 26.5%. Another frequent type with 11.5% are large motor cargo vessels in combination with one barge. Furthermore, the provided table allows the calculation of critical encounter probabilities between cargo vessels and convoys making a determination of waiting times and costs at narrow river sections possible as well. The analysis of the cargo vessel fleet allows further insights into the possible and actual utilization of the physical availability of the waterway. The fleet on the upper Danube mainly consists of self-propelled motor cargo vessels and pushed convoys consisting of a pusher and one to four barges. On the lower Danube, pushed convoys with a pusher and up to nine or more barges are used.the majority of cargo vessels on the Austrian stretch of the Danube are individual vessels with a share of 51.6% followed by two-unit pushed convoys (pusher plus two barges) with 26.5% and two-unit coupled convoys (motor cargo vessel with one barge) with 11.5% (Table 2). With a share of merely 4.2% for four-unit pushed convoys (pusher with four barges) and an average frequency of 19 goods vessels per day (8.5 per direction/day) the critical encounter probability for LOS 3 (oncoming traffic with two four-unit pushed convoys passing) is less than once a week and even lower in the few critical sections which amount to a small fraction of the entire transport route (Figure 17) with just a few minutes waiting time in the worst case. Therefore, fairway widths will not be an issue even with a possible future substantial increase in transport volumes on the Danube [HOFFMANN et al. 2014b] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 50

51 Draught loaded and squat For the attractiveness of inland waterways and the competitiveness of navigation companies on the transport market a high utilization of transport capacity throughout the year is essential. The available fairway depth on any given day determines the amount of goods that may be carried on an inland cargo vessel. The fairway depth needed for a trip of an individual vessel consists of static vessel draught (draught loaded), dynamic squat and an underkeel clearance and must be lower than actually available fairway depth. Depending on vessel type, calibration curves link possible utilization and loaded draught static (velocity = 0). Based on SCHWANZER et al. [2010], SIMONER et al. [2004] and other sources, Figure 42 (a) provides an overview on draught loaded (static draught) for the most common vessel types on the river Danube. For example, the most common single vessel type (Johann Welker) provides a static draught loaded of 2.5 m at a load factor of around 96%. A pushed convoy with two barges and the same draught loaded shows a load factor of only 54%. If draught loaded drops below 2.0 m, utilization decreases to 64% for the single vessel type Johann Welker and to 38% for typical pushed convoys with two barges. Depending on vessel speed in shallow waters an area of lowered pressure is formed causing the ship to dive into the water. This dynamic squat depends on vessel speed, among other factors, and ranges from 0.05 to 0.5 m for the afore-mentioned vessel types and for a speed between 5 and 15 km/h (Figure 42 (b)). Experienced captains therefore decrease vessel speed at already known or properly marked critical sections or increase vessel speed in order to clear bridges during high water levels. In order to prevent groundings or damage to the propulsion system of vessels, in addition to static draught and dynamic squat the underkeel clearance has to be considered as well. According to various sources [SIMONER et al. 2004; VIA DONAU 2013b] the underkeel clearance is at least 0.2 m for gravel and 0.3 m for a rock on the riverbed. Even though these factors and their impact on necessary fairway depths are well known, the main uncertainty lies in an accurate estimation of water levels prior to loading and knowledge of actual conditions on arrival at shallow sections. Therefore, the physically available fairway depth is almost never fully utilized in practice. Though permanent riverbed surveys are not possible, the actual information from echo sounders of already passed ships could be made available for all customers. If this information would be validated in a systematic way this would surely improve the relevance and reliability of provided information on fairway availability [HOFFMANN et al 2014b]. Draught loaded [m] Aproximate squat [m] typ. squat_1.5 m typ. squat_2.0 m typ. squat_2.5 m Gustav Koenig Johann Welker GMS 110m GMS 135m GMS 110m & 1x E II-barge JOWI-Type Pusher & 2x E II-barge Pusher & 2x2 E II-barge 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5, Loading capacity [t] Speed [km/h] Figure 42: (a) Draught loaded (static draught) and loading capacity of river Danube fleet; (b) Dynamic squat depending on draught loaded and speed for low water levels and typical ships of the Danube fleet NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 51

52 Potentials and risks related to fairway conditions With the number of different shallow or narrow sections at low water levels on typical long transport distances being relatively high, the probability of one section being critical is also very high. Due to the linear structure of this mode of transport, only one remaining shallow section is enough to limit the draught loaded of the entire vessel fleet on this transport route. With relatively long transport times between one to three weeks, the impacts on transport costs of a few minutes waiting time at narrow sections are negligible if captains of encountering vessels are coordinated properly. Thus, restrictions of fairway width on transport routes with low transport volumes have almost no impact on transport costs. If the average load factor of vessels drops to 50% or more due to insufficient fairway depths, this mode will not be competitive when compared to subsidized rail transport according to market analysis and interviews (except in cases with direct port-to-port transport with almost no pre- or endhaulage costs or insufficient train connections). If it is possible to increase the load factor of vessels up to 70% due to improved fairway conditions, actual information and transport logistics, it will be hard for road and rail to compete on the goods market for transport distances exceeding 500 to 800 km in the Danube corridor. Such a stable situation could also encourage much-needed investments in an ageing waterway infrastructure, vessel fleet and equipment Studies on road, rail and waterway transport costs Reliable and available transport infrastructures as well as resulting transport costs are of crucial importance with regard to the competitiveness of different modes of transport on the market. Depending on the type and amount of goods, transport relations, transport distance and possible utilization the choice for a mode of transport or intermodal transport chain will be different. For shippers and logistics service providers the ratio of price and performance mostly determines the individual caseby-case decision for a mode of transport. In practice, the total transport duration, including unloaded journeys as well as loading and unloading times, is calculated in a first step. In general, transport cost models therefore consist of variable time-dependent, transport distance-related (operating costs) and fixed cost components (standby costs). Standby costs include crew wages, maintenance and repairs, amortisations of vessel and insurance. Operating costs include bunker and lubricant costs, commission for brokering contracts, dues, fees and fuel consumption. Furthermore, utilization and transport relation have a major impact on the resulting transport unit costs. Depending on the complexity and implemented cost components almost all transport cost models show a convex decreasing form with increasing transport distance [HOFFMANN et al. 2014b]. HANSSEN et al. [2012] reports an average speed of train and truck (utilization = 80%) between 60 to 70 km/h with time-related costs of 3.96 per hour (truck) respectively 3.71 per hour (train) for a full container. The distance-related costs are given with 4.61 per km respectively 4.17 per km with handling costs of 408. The resulting costs for a transport distance of 1,000 km are 0.29 per tkm respectively 0.26 per tkm. The resulting costs for a transport distance of 1,000 km based on the report of PLANCO [2007] are given with per tkm (truck), per tkm (rail) and per tkm (vessel). The EU-cofunded project COMPASS (2010) reports average costs for trucks with per tkm being rather high compared to rail with 0.04 to 0.08 per tkm or small vessels with 0.02 to 0.04 per tkm. All these models show somewhat large deviations that may be explained with regard to considered/neglected cost components, compared transport routes or other factors. Independent of total costs of these models the principal relations are in line with market shares being in favor of truck transport for short to medium distances not exceeding 400 km. Due to availability as well as pre- and end-haulage costs train transport is competitive for medium to long distances beyond 200 km with advantages for inland navigation due to higher fixed but lower variable costs for distances exceeding 500 to 800 km. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 52

53 Transport cost model for the Danube corridor For an optimization in a WMMS or an assessment of competitiveness as well as limitations of transport modes it is necessary to develop a consistant multi-modal transport cost model. For a specific analysis in the Danube corridor this transport cost model needs to be calibrated to account for current market conditions. The generalized model includes time- and distance-dependent costs for cargo transport by road, rail and inland waterways as well as one-off costs e.g. for loading, unloading, port fees, insurance or logistics according to Formula (2). Ctrans = Ctime + Cdist + Cind (2) with C trans = total unit transport costs; C time = time-dependent transport costs; C dist = distance-dependent transport costs; C ind = individual one-off costs; To account for the real market situation, pre- and end-haulage costs for inland navigation and rail transport have to be included. Based on these components unit transport costs have to be calculated as a function of transport distance for different utilization scenarios and all modes of transport. Due to significant differences in fuel consumption, unit transport cost functions for inland navigation have to be split into upstream and downstream transport. As a simplification both transport directions have been calculated for the same level of utilization. The compiled transport cost model in this study for trucks (40 tons) calculates 70 km/h velocity, time-related costs of 20 ( 5 per hour and vehicle + 15 per hour for driver CEE), fuel consumption from 24 to 34 l/100 km at 1.4 per litre with tolls of 0.1 per km. Fixed costs for loading, unloading, waiting time and logistics are assumed with a total of 5.5 per ton. According to various sources, the load factor of trucks is 60% (pre-/end-haulage) and 80% (line transport). To provide information on different possible scenarios the transport cost calculation for trucks is based on a load factor of 60, 80 and 100 percent. The transport costs for rail are based on a full train with 26 wagons, a loading capacity of 837 tons and a total weight of 1,561 tons. Average speed is 40 km/h with a typical load factor of 75%. Furthermore, pre- and end-haulage each with trucks (60%) in a catchment area of 50 km are assumed as well. Fixed costs for loading/unloading with 2.8 per ton as well as total distance-related costs for train transport are adapted from JANIC [2007] according to the following Formula (3). C = 0,58*( weight * distance) dist 0,74 (3) with C dist = distance-dependent transport costs. The costs of inland navigation are based on the most common Johann Welker (MGS) vessel type on the upper Danube with a speed between 7 to 17 km/h depending on river stretch respectively direction up-/downstream and flow velocity resulting in a difference in energy demand from 300 to 600 kw based on a typical consumption of 0.24 l/kw with 1.4 per litre. The vessel speed in backwater sections of hydropower plants which represent approximately 20 percent of the river is slightly higher than on free-flowing sections constituting the remaining 80 percent of the transport route in the basic model. Time-related costs of vessel and crew are assumed with 780 per day with 14 h/day operating time. In addition to travel time, waiting times at locks are assumed with 0.5 h each [SIMONER et al 2004; SCHWANZER et al. 2010; BRUINSMA et al. 2012]. Pre- and end-haulage costs are based on the same assumptions as for rail. Together with at least one day waiting time at each port and one NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 53

54 spare day the transport time is obviously much longer with vessels compared to other modes [HOFFMANN et al 2014b]. Figure 43 to Figure 46 provide an overview of unit transport costs depending on transport distance and different load factors for different modes of transport. Road and rail transport are compared to the most common single vessel on the upper Danube, i.e. the Johann Welker type (accounting for roughly 50% of transport operations) with deadweight of 1,350 tons. The transport cost model is calibrated mainly for the upper Danube, as consistent data on fleet composition and cost components have been made available. In order to be able to also assess transport processes for the lower Danube, an adaption of the cost model for pushed convoys will be necessary. Generally, inland navigation transport downstream is much cheaper when compared to upstream due to higher travel speed and lower fuel costs. With a high level of utilization only being possible with bi-directional transport relations, actual market costs will fall between these cost curves. Based on the presented transport cost model possible savings of improved fairway conditions can also be estimated. Per centimeter of utilized additional vessel draught the transport capacity increases sufficiently (e.g. 7.8 tons for Johann Welker type vessels) leading to additional revenues and substantial possible savings. For all utilization scenarios, the figures include necessary fairway depth (draught loaded + squat + underkeel clearance). Thus, for vessel load factors of 40, 50, 60 and 70 percent, fairway depths of 1.78 to 2.18 m, 1.96 to 2.36 m, 2.14 to 2.54 m and 2.32 to 2.72 m would have to be provided by waterway authorities. According to the model direct trains (75%) will be competitive compared to truck transport (80%) for distances beyond 200 to 300 km. If somewhat high pre-/end-haulage (50 km each) costs are considered train transport will be competitive only at long distances exceeding 600 to 700 km. The competitivety of inland navigation is obviously higher downstream and is highly dependent on the load factors realized by the fleet. For typical import, export and transit distances usually exceeding 500 to 800 km, inland navigation will always be cheaper compared to truck transport but is in close competition to rail transport depending on the individual situation. The results indicate that an average vessel load factor of at least 55 to 60% is necessary in order to stay in the market. These results are in line with the responses from navigation companies and further market analysis as well. Thus, currently inland navigation is barely able to stay in the market for average transport distances exceeding 1,000 km, but revenues for necessary reinvestments are critically low. Overageing vessel fleet and equipment are further indicators confirming these results (Chapter 3.7). Increasing market shares at shorter transport distances call for an average load factor of the vessel fleet exceeding 60% [HOFFMANN et al 2014b]. However, such a goal cannot be achieved if actual fairway availability of 2.5 m depth is far below the target conditions of 94% of days/year (Chapter 7.2.5, Figure 76). For limited maintenance budgets the results clearly confirm that it is far more efficient to concentrate on sufficient fairway depths and minimal widths as compared to a strategy with fixed fairway parameters foreseen by international agreements and recommendations. If external costs are included as well, possible economic savings in inland navigation due to improved fairway conditions will be a few times higher [PLANCO 2007, BRUINSMA 2012]. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 54

55 Figure 43: Transport unit costs for Johann Welker vessel type (40% utilization) depending on the transport distance Total transport unit costs [ /tkm] Vessel upstream 40%* (incl. pre-/end haulage) Vessel downstream 40%*(incl. pre-/end haulage) Rail 75% (incl. pre-/end haulage) Truck 60% (just handling)) Truck 80% (just handling) Truck 100% (just handling) * 40% utilization = 1.48 m draught to 0.4 m squat to 0.3 m clearance Tranport distance [km] 1.78 to 2.18 m water depth with pre- /endhaulage (catchment area = 50 km) Figure 44: Transport unit costs for Johann Welker vessel type (50% utilization) depending on the transport distance Total transport unit costs [ /tkm] Vessel upstream 50% *(incl. pre-/end haulage) Vessel downstream 50%* (incl. pre-/end haulage) Rail 75% (incl. pre-/end haulage) Truck 60% (just handling)) Truck 80% (just handling) Truck 100% (just handling) * 50% utilization Johann Welker = 1.66 m draught to 0.4 m squat to 0.3 m clearance Tranport distance [km] 1.96 to 2.36 m water depth with pre-/end haulage (catchment area = 50 km) Figure 45: Transport unit costs for Johann Welker vessel type (60% utilization) depending on the transport distance Total transport unit costs [ /tkm] Vessel upstream 60%* (incl. pre-/end haulage) Vessel downstream 60%*(incl. pre-/end haulage) Rail 75% (incl. pre-/end haulage) Truck 60% (just handling)) Truck 80% (just handling) Truck 100% (just handling) * 60% utilization = 1.84 m draught to 0.4 m squat to 0.3 m clearance Tranport distance [km] 2.14 to 2.54 m water depth with pre- /endhaulage (catchment area = 50 km) Figure 46: Transport unit costs for Johann Welker vessel type (70% utilization) depending on the transport distance Total transport unit costs [ /tkm] Vessel upstream 70%* (incl. pre-/end haulage) Vessel downstream 70% *(incl. pre-/end haulage) Rail 75% (incl. pre-/end haulage) Truck 60% (just handling)) Truck 80% (just handling) Truck 100% (just handling) * 70% utilization Johann Welker = 2.02 m draught to 0.4 m squat to 0.3 m clearance Tranport distance [km] 2.32 to 2.72 m water depth with pre-/end haulage (catchment area = 50 km) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 55

56 4.9. Optimization approaches for measure selection, timing and fairway parameters Measure optimization for entire river stretches - the principle of continuity The presented approach includes an identification of critical sectors such as fords and narrow sections using an algorithm for an automated linkage of neighboring critical sectors, e.g. based on single-beam surveys, to one shallow section, thus providing the basis for a real-time monitoring system with a current catalogue of critical sectors in the background. The resulting total availability of a transport route is determined by the shallowest and/or narrowest section. Therefore, the minimal fairway depth on a transport route determines the possible utilization of the vessel fleet. A lower availability of fairway width, e.g. with one-way traffic on several sections, results in an accumulation of waiting times in a series of narrow sections. Currently, transport on the river Danube utilizes only a fraction of its transport capacity. Thus, possible encounters of convoys with most critical dimensions (4% of the fleet on the upper Danube) are very rare, making it unlikely to occur very often on a transport route. Compared to transport durations of a few weeks, possible time and transport cost savings are almost negligible. Thus, dredging the entire width of the fairway with resulting high costs of necessary measures will not be cost-effective. The serial model of section availability regarding fairway depth is limited by the innermost availability performance of the most critical section on a transport route to provide continuous navigation conditions. Improved continuous fairway conditions can be achieved by shifting (e.g. dredging of the riverbed) the availability performance of the most critical section beyond predefined fairway target parameters (e.g. DANUBE COMMISSION 2013 for the Austrian section of the Danube: width = minimum 100/120 m and maximum 120/150 m, vessel draught = 2.5 m). For a serial system, the effectiveness of measures on availability is limited depending on the condition of the next most critical section. Further expenditures towards improving the availability on the first critical section are therefore a waste of budget if the conditions on the other critical sections are not improved up to a certain common target level (Figure 47). For a manual maintenance optimization the availability curves may be shifted outward until the budget is spent. For implementation purposes the respective functions of riverbed development, water level forecasts and performance of used equipment have to be included as well. An automated measure planning mode in a WMMS should be able to outline the required dredging volume, necessary sequence of measures and resulting financial requirements for each combination of fairway width and depth as a basis for optimized investment decisions and determination of annual budgeting needs [HASELBAUER et al 2014]. port #1 critical #2 (2) 365 days 343 days Available days [d] 0 days free flow critical #1 downstream backwater Availability of fairway depth 2.5 m 60 (3) LOS 1 LOS 2 LOS 3 Implementation turn of dredging measures: (1) (2) (3) critical #2 80 critical #3 100 River infrastructure model section i Fairway width [m] free flow upstream backwater Figure 47: Optimization of fairway parameters and resulting availability on a transport route with different critical sections port #2 free flow lock #1 critical #3 lock #2 Availability of fairway width 120 m 365 days critical #1 343 days critical #1 DC 2013 critical #2 DC 2013 Recommendations Recommendations Available days [d] 0 days (1) Implementation turn of dredging measures: (1) (2) (3) critical # Fairway depth [m] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 56

57 Measure program and budget for target parameters As a result of this optimization process all resulting measures aiming at a certain Level of Service (LOS) may be condensed into a measure program containing priority, measure extent and costs as well as time for implementation. Figure 48 shows a conceptual overview of such a program for different LOS with a main emphasis on, but not limited to, dredging measures. On the most critical sections regarding availability certain measures (e.g. dredging) will be necessary even for lower requirements regarding fairway parameters (e.g. LOS1). With higher requirements regarding LOS the number of critical sections with necessary measures will increase. The same holds true for necessary measure extent as well as resulting costs and time for implementation. The priority between measures for achieving a certain Level of Service is based on the critical behavior of individual sections (alert system). The highest priority is given to shallow sections with a very low fairway depth within the central fairway area. The respective available fairway depth below LNWL is therefore decisive. Thus, possible negative impacts on inland navigation can be minimized with an implementation in time prior to arriving at critical conditions. All measures to achieve a certain LOS result in a total measure extent, costs and time. The implementation of such a resulting measure program may be limited by several factors. In Austria the time frame for possible interventions in the riverbed are restricted to certain periods due to environmental reasons (e.g. spawning season of fish). Further restrictions and shifts in priorities may apply due to appearing low water periods. For dredging as a main measure in Austria the possible dredging volume may also be limited due to the current market capacity of available dredging equipment. Even with sufficient budget at hand it would therefore not be possible in certain cases to implement all measures in time to achieve targeted fairway availability and minimize negative impacts on inland navigation without setting priorities and/or limiting fairway width [HOFFMANN et al 2014a].. Figure 48: Resulting measure program e.g. for dredging measures with measure extent, measure costs and time for implementation depending on targeted LOS and priority (e.g. due to critical condition or development) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 57

58 4.10. General optimization approaches in waterway asset management In general different optimization objectives can be pursued with the presented WMMS. This approach is based on the comparison of a given availability target and the actual availability Annual performance of a river stretch in days per year. If DC- budget this performance is insufficient, fairway Target availability has to be improved e.g. by Equal measure costs implementing maintenance measures which may With 120 budget DC 100 be described by a measure cost surface if all possible combinations of fairway width and depth Depth [m] are considered. With increasing target fairway parameters the required measure extent and Transport Costs Equal measure costs costs are increasing, resulting in a concave rising maintenance measure cost surface. The With budget resulting availability of fairway width and depth DC-Target on a transport route finally affects transport Min. costs. This total annual transport costs for a 160 transport route with a given combination of 140 DC fairway width and depth are a result of summing up utilization-related transport costs throughout a year. If these annual transport costs are Depth [m] calculated for any combination of fairway width Availability With budget and depth the resulting concave transport cost 365 days DC-Target = 100% = 343 days surface will decrease with increasing fairway dimensions (Figure 49). Starting with given fairway dimensions (e.g. DANUBE COMMISSION 2013, UNECE 1996) as input parameter and resulting measure Width [m] costs, annual budget requirements for waterway 140 DC authorities can be calculated. With availabilitybased transport costs and fleet composition at hand the resulting transport costs for any level of Depth [m] availability may be calculated. A comparison with Figure 49: Optimization based on availability, annual actual available budget indicates which measure costs and resulting annual transport costs maintenance target (LOS) can be achieved in providing the means to calculate transport cost savings for any investment strategy and budget. In general, measures may be optimized regarding different fairway parameters leading to specific combinations of continuous fairway widths and depths within the same budget. The resulting combinations may also be modeled as intersection of the horizontal annual budget surface with the increasing measure cost surface for achieving increasing availability of fairway depths and widths. If this intersection line is projected on the resulting transport costs surface the optimal combination of fairway width and depth with minimal transport cost within the given budget can be found (Figure 49). Logically, recommended fairway parameters (e.g. DANUBE COMMISSION 2013) that appear above the availability surface for any given budget cannot be achieved without further funding [HASELBAUER et al. 2014]. Annual costs [ /a] Transport costs [ /a] Available days per year [d] Measure Costs NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 58

59 Optimization of an overall system resulting costs and fairway parameters For infrastructure operators acting as privatesector enterprises, the main focus will mainly be on minimizing expenditures for operation, maintenance and engineering measures. In a competitive market on the other hand it is necessary for individual players to increase market shares and not to lose market shares to other modes of transport. In order to find favorable fairway conditions for both waterway operators and the navigation and shipping industry, annual maintenance and transport costs for each combination of fairway depth and width have to be calculated. For an overall optimum of both measure and transport costs the annual measure costs and availability-based annual transport costs for the same fairway width and depth have to be added (Figure 50). At the point of the overall minimum of total measure and transport costs the optimal combination of fairway parameters is found for the given situation according to Formula (4) and (5). Total Costs [ /tkm a] Transport Costs [ /tkm] 2.0 Optimal Transport Costs Total Costs = Transport Costs + Measure Costs 2.4 Transport Costs Opt. Fairway Parameters Depth [m] Measure Costs [ /a] Measure Costs Optimal Measure Costs Figure 50: Optimizing target fairway parameters based on minimal total annual costs of measures and transport C ( wd, ) = C ( wd, ) + C ( wd, ) total m tr (4) n Ctotal wi di i= 0 (, ) = min! for each combination of width w i and depth d i in metes; with C total = total annual costs, C m = annual measure costs, C tr = annual transport cost and 0<d i < 4 m, 0<w i <250 m In addition to optimal fairway parameters, resulting measure costs and an estimation of transport costs on the market may be identified as well. If measure costs are unknown it would still be possible to describe the impact on transport costs based on any given availability target. The same would hold true for measure costs if transports costs are unknown. Modelling of actual transport costs is a difficult task due to a number of factors affecting the results on the transport market. Nevertheless even a rough estimation of transport costs can provide useful results if measures are only compared to each other. With a more accurate cost model the impact of measures on the transport market may be assessed as well. The accumulation of all costs of optimal measures on all critical sections for achieving predefined continuous fairway conditions lead to a certain necessary budget for achieving a certain set of conditions. With an infinite number of possible combinations of fairway depth and width in days per year that might be achieved within different budgets it is very unlikely that any set of predefined or recommended fairway parameters (UNECE 1996, DANUBE COMMISSION 1988, DANUBE COMMISSION 2013) would be optimal. Even if just measure costs and resulting transport costs are considered it would be due to pure chance that recommended fairway parameters are the same as optimal fairway parameters at the point with the lowest measure and transport costs combined. Further improvements of the optimization approach could also include an environmental assessment of planned measures. This would allow a balanced view between local impacts of measures (e.g. on habitats) an general impacts on the environment within the transport corridor (increasing CO 2 emissions due to shifting effects to modes of transport [HASELBAUER et al. 2014]. (5) NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 59

60 5 REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL WMMS VS COMMON MINIMUM LOS 5.1. Common minimum LOS in maintenance and management on the river Danube Defining a common level of service (LOS) in a waterway maintenance management system can be done using different approaches. The difference between any defined LOS and the current individual situation always results in a GAP defining needs in case of lacks or overachievement if the given LOS is exceeded. From a scientific point of view Figure 51: Steps towards a common level of service a common LOS in itself is the result of an optimization process based on a holistic approach with any definition just being an approximation and simplification of the underlying processes. Nonetheless defining a common LOS is an important step to harmonize approaches and achieve attainable improvements in waterway maintenance. Such a practical definition of a LOS without an underlying holistic asset management approach allows benchmarking and assessment of perceived needs from a practical perspective as an important step towards improvement (Figure 51). Whether these practical defined LOS and the subsequent requirements to close existing gaps are in itself justified compared to achievable improvements cannot be assessed without a holistic asset management approach. During the EU project NEWADA duo one task has been to define such a practical LOS on the operational level from the perspective of all participating waterway agencies. Based on this common minimum LOS for the Danube waterway, national needs assessments on fairway maintenance have also been prepared in the same project (NEWADA duo Act. 6.3), addressing technical, budgetary (investment and operational costs) and staff needs regarding future fairway maintenance and management activities on the Danube. The main discussions on LOS and related performance indicators have been defined on the managing director s level (NEWADA duo Act 6.1). In NEWADA duo Act. 6.2 current processes in surveying and maintenance activities were further specified by the heads of the respective departments and their experts. As a result nine different need areas as well as a common minimum level of service (LOS) for each need area were identified as follows: 1. Minimum fairway parameters (depths & width) 2. Surveying of the riverbed 3. Water level gauges 4. Marking of the fairway 5. Availability of locks / lock chambers 6. Fairway related information for customers water levels and forecasts 7. Fairway related information for customers marking plans 8. Fairway related information for customers meterological information The necessary basic data and requirements for the implementation of a full WMMS approach (see Chapter 4) were categorized and can be found in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. For some data groups common minimum standards have already been defined within the above mentioned activity 6.3 (common minimum Level of Service LoS). However, there are still some aspects and contents that are required for the implementation of a full WMMS that have not been part of these definitions and agreements. Chapter 5.2 provides a comparison of necessary basic information for the implementation of a full WMMS and the afore-mentioned practical established minimum requirements. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 60

61 5.2. Comparison of full WMMS and defined common minimum LoS The basis of all recommendations and agreements (Chapter 4.5.1) or any definition of a common LOS in fairway maintenance is always based on the availability of fairway widths and depths in days per year. Table 3 provides both an overview of agreements for practical minimum requirements together with additional requirements for a full waterway asset management. Both practical experience and a first economic assessment provide evidence that at least 2.5 m fairway depth at low navigable water level (LNWL) have to be provided in order for inland navigation to be competitive. Any additional fairway depth would be favorable regarding transport costs but has to be weighted carefully against subsequent additional maintenance costs for Danube waterway agencies. The minimum fairway width depends on the necessary width for one-way traffic and maximum dimensions of convoys for different curve radii. For an economic assessment of optimal fairway width the number and dimension of actually passing convoys during the year with possible waiting costs at narrow sections have to be weighted against additional maintenance costs for full fairway widths as well as possible additional environmental consequences. According to a first assessment based on current conditions and traffic volume, fairway width is not critical compared to fairway depth (Chapter 4.8). Periodic bathimetric surveys of the riverbed, continuous data from water level gauges and water level models together enable the calculation of the development of actual fairway conditions and resulting fairway availability over time. Any inaccuracy in one basic input parameter will limit the accuracy of calculated availability and has a negative impact on maintenance decisions due to additional safety margins for vessel utilization and allowance e.g. for dredging measures. Based on current accuracy of multi-beam surveys (± 5 cm depth, ±20-30 cm location at 95% confidence) and basic 1D water level models (e.g. for Austria: ± 5 cm at 95% confidence) should result in a target accuracy of calculated fairway depth not exceeding ± 10 cm for the most critical sectors. This accuracy would also be sufficient for all further relevant tasks e.g. monitoring and prediction purposes, sediment management and measure planning. For all other river sections the resulting accuracy may be lower. According to Table 3 there is an agreement for one regular survey of the entire waterway per year (single-beam). In addition to marking activities the minimum frequency of the most critical sector surveys is once per week up to every two weeks. Further measurements may be performed based on individual requirements e.g. due to extreme weather events and river dynamics. From the perspective of a full WMMS the survey density and accuracy depends on the individual task and is optimized in an iterative process. As an example it is rational to conduct a multi-beam survey before and after dredging measures for accurate planning, quality assurance and cost control. For monitoring backfilling behavior and performance prediction at least two additional surveys within duration of measure impact would be needed. For an accurate water level model and calibration a certain number of gauging stations is necessary depending on factors such as the length of the river stretch, the slope of the riverbed, the number of tributaries, hydropower plants and critical sections. For implementing a waterway asset management in any kind of software tool an automated transmission, error control and conversion of all basic data is mandatory. If the tasks of fairway maintenance should be extended towards a systematic sediment management, additional measurements of suspended solids and sediment movements should also be included in a WMMS database. Such a database would include all input parameters for numerical modeling and verification of sediment transport. A simple database consisting of these basic data falls short compared to a functional WMMS software tool providing planning and assessment of measures and budgets capabilities in a continuous process as described in Chapters 4.1. to 4.3. In general measures may be divided into operational, maintenance and engineering measures with individual underlying processes and requirements. Extent and efficiency of different types of measures as well as measure selection itself NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 61

62 depend on the characteristic of the river stretch and water levels as well as the type and volume of traffic. Fairway marking as a typical operation measure has the goal to provide accurate information on physical availability of fairway widths. In practice, the limits of the fairway are marked with buoys with an average density of 4 to 5 km and a higher density in critical sectors according to the specifics of the respective stretch. In contrast to current practice with one or two marking plans per year a dynamic marking approach in a WMMS would allow continuous adjustments and monitoring of GPS buoys depending on actual water levels and navigation requirements. Dredging as a common maintenance measure offers a short- to medium-term increase of physical fairway availability in cases of insufficient fairway depths or sedimentation at port entrances. Planning and optimization of dredging measures must be based on a common strategy providing continuos fairway parameters. In contrast to current discussions between agencies with no agreements regarding dredging standards a WMMS approach requires actual multi-beam surveys, a calculation of dredging volume and costs as well as an empiric assessment of impact duration on availability. As an improvement to current best practice with a manual approach a WMMS allows direct planning of new (dredging) measures including all steps from first draft to tendering until completion and follow-up controlling. As a basis for constant improvement in a feedback loop all implemented measures have to be recorded regarding dredging and dumping area as well as volume, final costs, duration of implementation and impact (Table 4). River engineering may be characterized as a medium- to long-term intervention in river ecology, morphology and fairway availability. Typical engineering measures include shore engineering, river training measures (e.g. groynes or training walls), construction of artificial river banks and islands. They are usually based on an extensive planning process up to a full environmental assessment. In contrast to current best practice with a case-by-case approach a full WMMS offers the option for a standardization and inclusion of such kinds of measures in an holistic optimization process (Table 4). If for instance dredging measures on certain critical sections have to be performed frequently, the cost-benefit optimization may favor river engineering measures offering sound evidence for management decisions. Hydroelectric river power plants have a huge impact on sedimentation processes improving navigability in back water sections but are also posing a certain risk regarding water levels and instant changes in river morphology. In addition, availability and reliability of lock chambers together with waiting and lockage times also have an impact on transport duration and should therefore be part of a holistic WMMS. In practice there are certain agreements between operators of hydroelectric power plants and lockage facilities with waterway agencies regarding lock availability and information exchange. According to Table 5 waterway agencies have defined a 100% availability of at least one lock chamber troughout the year with average waiting times for lockage not exceeding one hour. A first assessment for the Austrian Danube stretch shows that the average utilization of lock capacity is well below 30% with an average lockage time not exceeding 30 minutes providing evidence for the claim that locks are currently not a limiting factor for transport capacity and competitivety of inland navigation on the river Danube. Actual information on traffic and transport volume together with the types of transported goods and main routes as well as available port capacities are important information for strategic high-level decisions. Though there are regular transport statistics available, a full fleet model in a WMMS would allow an accurate assessment of the impact of different maintenance strategies as well as other scenarios on the transport industry. Currently there is an agreement between waterway agencies that providing water level information and forecasts of water levels and fairway depth for at least three days should be published in certain intervals as information to customers. In a fully functional WMMS this information could be generated semi-automatically to one central information portal offering highly accurate information on all aspects of navigability. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 62

63 Table 3:General requirements regarding basic data for fairway management and minimum fairway parameters MINIMUM FAIRWAY PARAMETERS (DEPTH & WIDTH) NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Flexible fairway width with a minimum of 40 to 80 m in a straight section together with economic assessment & verification Scenarios with different classes of fairway widths depending on actually passing convoys, current traffic volume, average water levels, environmental restrictions etc. Continuous available fairway depth of 2.5 m at LNWL with economic assessment & verification of costs and benefits for deviations Assessment of fairway availability based on all combinations of fairway widths and depths in days per year as a basis for maintenance decisions MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES Minimum fairway depth of 2.5 m at Low Navigable Water Level (LNWL/ENR) 94% (343 days) of the year Minimum fairway width (range of values accounts for different curve radii): - 40 to 80 m in Austria - 60 to 100 m in Slovakia and on the Slovakian-Hungarian border section - 80 to 120 m in Hungary - 80 m in Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria (including the HR/RS, RS/RO and BG/RO border sections); no range for curve radii defined, as there is usually no encounter of vessels/convoys in river bends on these sections BATHYMETRIC DATA SURVEYING OF THE RIVERBED NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS 1 regular riverbed survey per year of entire waterway with denser survey intervals at critical sections 1 regular riverbed survey before and after operational, maintenance and engineering measures with in-between surveys for measures with a longer duration State-of-the-art bathymetric equipment and standardized data storage and processing with automated processing of fairway depths & navigational charts Economic assessment of necessary riverbed surveying density regarding characteristic riverbed development and decision-making process Common database for surveying data with conversion between different reference systems and options for reducing the amount of data MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES 1 regular measurement of entire national waterway stretch per year with single-beam equipment 1 additional measurement of all critical sectors per year on the upper Danube Monitoring of critical sectors (by means of echo sounders / marking vessels): - Upper and central Danube: 1 per week - Lower Danube: every 2 nd week and in low water periods 1 x per week (or more, if resources are available) Additional measurements as required, e.g after extreme weather events (floods), depending on the riverbed dynamics prevailing in the respective sector WATER LEVEL GAUGES NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Target accuracy of combination of gauging data and water level model ±5 cm (95% confidence) Number of gauging stations as result of length of stretches, slope of the riverbed, distribution of discharge, number of tributaries, hydropower plants and critical sections Conversion of different coordinate systems Water level forecast & time series analysis Quality management and reliability of automatic gauging stations MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES Automatic gauging stations have to be established on sections showing the most significant changes in the hydraulics of the riverbed and at critical sectors based on a 1D water level model GSM coverage and energy supply for automatic gauging stations Density of staff gauges according to national regulations NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 63

64 SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Database with historic riverbed surveys Difference maps after severe hydrological events such as floods Calculation of sedimentation cubature Numerical models for sediment transport Sediment measurement stations MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES No agreement currently existing Table 4: General requirements for operational, maintenance and engineering measures MARKING OF THE FAIRWAY NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Optimization of equipment as stepwise process State-of-the-art buoys with GPS sensors, radar reflectors and night visibility Sufficient density of buoys at critical sections, depending on the characteristics and length of the respective section Number of state-of-the-art marking vessels depending on length of national river stretch being 2 for redundancy reasons Automated visualization of current information on fairway development and buoy positions with authorization to adapt the course of the fairway Prompt customer information on changes in the course of the fairway with fast displacement of buoys MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES Average distance between floating signs (buoys) 4 to 5 km Critical sectors have to be marked with a higher density according to the specifics of the respective stretch Visibility of buoys on the radar in mandatory (Radar reflectors on floating signs ) DREDGING NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Planning and optimization of dredging measures are based on a common strategy providing continuos fairway parameters Calculation of the necessary dredging volume based on latest multi-beam surveys Estimation of measure costs with cost functions and duration of measure impact based on previously implemented measures Duration of measure implementation dependent on the performance of dredging equipment Calculation of measure impact on fairway availability together with impact duration Monitoring and controlling of dredging progress Sufficient number of available dredgers for emergency dredging Feedback loop and controlling MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES No agreement currently existing NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 64

65 RIVER ENGINEERING NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Catalogue of standard engineering measures with condition matrix for measure application Verification of the need for engineering measures based on decision tree for measure selection Estimation of measure costs with cost functions and duration of measure impact Calculation of measure impact on fairway availability together with impact duration Condition assessment after measure implementation Feedback loop and controlling MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES No agreement currently existing Table 5: General requirements for a user-oriented traffic management AVAILABILITY OF LOCK CHAMBERS NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Traffic management based on RIS in order to minimize waiting times for lockage Providing redundant lockage capability with high availability throughout the year Planned maintenance activities and major repairs outside of high traffic season Low number of days with unforeseen failures Regular analysis of lockage data regarding traffic volume and fleet composition Analysis of waiting times and utilization of locks MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES 100% availability for the entire lock facility during the year (with one lock chamber permanently available), excluding minor repairs and closures For locks with two chambers both chambers should be available in the high traffic season Maximum average waiting times at a lock: - Upper Danube: less than 1 hour - Lower Danube: on average 1 hour INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT VOLUME NECESSARY BASICS FULL WMMS Transported goods and main routes (inland ports of loading and unloading) Characterization of potential additional types of goods for waterway transport Transport volume on a daily basis for main transport routes Available port capacities Arrival times based on RIS for port operators Danube Fleet Model with maximum draught and average squat Actual utilization of the vessel fleet for main transport routes, e.g. using AIS transponder data Transport duration and average travel speed Average age of the vessel fleet and transport costs for WMMS optimization & strategies MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES No agreement currently existing NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 65

66 FAIRWAY-RELATED INFORMATION FOR WATERWAY USERS NECESSARY BASIC INFORMATION WMMS Central information platform on current water level information Central information platform on current minimum fairway depths Central information platform on water level forecasts during low-water periods with common standards Central information platform on the actual course of the fairway and current traffic regulations Uniform preparation and verification of marking plans at least once a year Central information platform on current marking plans with publication of mayor changes at least once a week Route planner for logisticians and navigation companies with probability of max. draught loaded and optimal track as outputs MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AGREEMENT AGENCIES Water level information every hour (1 x per day via Notices to Skippers) Water level forecasts for 3 days (might be extended to 7 days) Fairway depths: - Upper and central Danube: Information on relative fairway depths with a 10 cm scaling for fairway depths below 2.5 m 1 x per day - Lower Danube: Information on actual fairway depths via echo sounders of marking vessels every second week or with a higher frequency in low-water periods Complete renewal and verification of marking plans 1 x per year Monitoring of fairway marking 1 x per week (publication of mayor changes via Notices to Skippers) Synchronised publication of data on FIS Portal upon data availability NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 66

67 6 NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF BASIC DATA & MEASURES 6.1. Survey for a WMMS feasibility study A comprehensive waterway maintenance management system (WMMS) supports and facilitates the decision-making processes in modern waterway management by taking into account all relevant processes and available data. Furthermore, such an ICT-based system is able to include and store relevant historical data for all processes related to waterway management (e.g. riverbed surveying, dredging, water level gauges, costs and quantities of maintenance works etc.), thus functioning as a comprehensive management and controlling tool (e.g. maintenance and staff costs). The presented WMMS approach includes all relevant functionalities of a modern waterway management system and may provide a blueprint for all participating waterway administrations. NEWADA duo Activity 6.4 mainly deals with the implementation of a feasibility study for the roll-out of such an ICT-based WMMS approach on all riparian Danube countries. In order to prepare this feasibility study for the implementation of an ICT-based WMMS on the entire river Danube, visits by the authors to all waterway agencies attending the NEWADA duo project as well as navigation companies and shippers were organized. The aim of these meetings was to interview all stakeholders and check their potential system requirements (relevant national data, workflows, functionalities and other related important demands). Thereby it was not only possible to get a deeper insight into local issues of waterway maintenance but also into the essential needs of local industry, navigation companies, shippers and port operators. Furthermore, the prepared questionnaires on the core topics of a WMMS were completed. One goal of the NEWADA duo work package on integrated waterway management was to establish similar quality levels in waterway maintenance and management by agreeing on customer-oriented key performance indicators, optimization of processes in sustainable waterway maintenance and enhancing the transparency of the overall performance of waterway management authorities. Therefore, an assessment of the current situation of navigation on the river Danube was accomplished as a first step. This assessment was also based on desktop research with the reports prepared in the NEWADA project ( ) as a vital input. Mayor setbacks of inland navigation have been identified both in the field of waterway maintenance as well as waterway transport on the Danube in general. The analysis of the responses and gathered data was followed by an assessment of cost estimations for the implementation of a minimum level of service and necessary criteria definitions for granting subsidies. Finally, different policy options to overcome the current resource and responsibility patchwork leading to a competitive waterway Danube are proposed and analyzed as well (Chapter 8). NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 67

68 6.2. National assessment of basic data, riverbed survey & processing capability in terms of a common minimum level of service as well as WMMS The SWOT analysis is based on the information provided in the NEWADA duo reports on current and future maintenance activities (Act 6.2) together with the questionnaires on resources and equipment (Act 6.4) in comparison to identified practical needs and requrements for a full WMMS approach. The following chapters provide an overview of the most important strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the core areas of a waterway management system in general and of each individual waterway agency as a result of this analysis. As a strength regarding basic data, it should be mentioned that important current and historical data on riverbed morphology, water levels and the course of the fairway are in principle available. In addition, the basic equipment for monitoring of fairway conditions is available at all waterway authorities with critical sections being surveyed with an increasing frequency. However, due to different availability of budgetary and human resources as well as different standards of bathymetric surveying equipment, standard surveys are still not performed on the level of the agreed minimum frequency. For critical sections no common approach providing sufficient survey frequency could be identified. In addition, large parts of existing historical basic data have been used just once but are not systematically archived and analyzed. Potential improvements and insights can be expected from an establishment of a common database of riverbed surveys and water level data with first efforts in this direction already being underway. Different projection systems and use of different reference altitudes in the riparian Danube countries still pose a major challenge for harmonizing data and enabling continuous analysis. During the last years common standards for marking plans and electronic navigational charts were already implemented by all Danube waterway agencies improving waterway management and information situation alike. Further data standards and subsequent processing and storage approaches of riverbed surveys are still not in place. In addition, multi-beam surveys as a basis for state-of-the-art accurate analyzes of sedimentation processes, development of fairway availability and measure impact are available only in a few waterway agencies. Table 6: SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES Basic data: Actual & historic data on riverbed surveys and water levels available Digital data on fairway path and location of signals etc. Surveying capability: Principal survey capacity for single-beam & echo sounder Periodic survey of riverbed & shorter interval for bottlenecks Basic data: Very few common data standards, different projections Different reference altitudes, mostly single files / no database Surveying capability: Multi-beam surveys not in all agencies available Intensity and quality of riverbed surveys are largely different Processing capability: Standard marking plans, plans of critical sections Data & information for ENCs (electronic navigational charts) Processing capability: Standard plans with different processing time No common standards, capacity for specific analyses limited NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 68

69 OPPORTUNITIES Basic data: Develop harmonized standards and a common database for riverbed surveys and water level gauges Surveying capability: Increase utilization of surveying capability Multi-beam surveying capability for all agencies THREATS Basic data: Continue on different levels without standards making availability & measure optimization impossible Surveying capability: Current survey intervals not often enough for actual assessment of fairway conditions and measure impacts Processing capability: Training of staff and provision with adequate software Decrease processing time < one week = actual information Processing capability: Slow processing time and different levels of quality lead to inefficient planning and unsatisfied customers / shippers RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Standardization and consolidation of all basic data such as water levels, riverbed surveying data, levels of fairway width, course of the fairway, marking measures, dredging measures and river engineering measures into one transparent database as foundation for an ICT-based WMMS approach. Based on a common approach, all important key figures for waterway management such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service in fairway operation and duration of measure impact should be calculated ensuring an efficient and transparent allocation of budgets. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 69

70 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: via donau (Austria) To meet the requirements in waterway management as specified by law, a sufficient number of surveying vessels with up-to-date bathymetric equipment is available at the Austrian waterway agency viadonau. Further harmonization of software aboard the surveying vessels would contribute to further improvements in data quality and post-processing. An optimization of riverbed surveying intervals corresponding to the occurrence of low-water periods and critical sections would further facilitate the derivation of optimal operational, maintenance and engineering measures as well as timing of interventions. The surveying capacity could be improved by acquisition of additional multi-beam equipment for existing vessels. The development of a consistent database including all available riverbed surveying data is currently underway and will lead to a significant simplification of work routines and provide additional possibilities for analyses. These possibilities include an evaluation of current fairway depths on the entire Danube stretch, up-to-date ranking of critical sections, analysis of sedimentation and erosion processes, difference maps of riverbed altitudes and so on. This is also the groundwork for a future automated identification of optimal vessel trajectories for any given draught loaded. The new Waterway Asset Management Software (WAMS) will be able to provide new service features which could also be available to third parties in the future. A further expansion of internal staff expertise in handling of software products such as GIS systems and hydrodynamic-numerical software would further improve analysis and assessment capacity as key issues in waterway management. With respect to hydrological basic data, the number of water level gauging stations on the Austrian Danube stretch can generally be described as very satisfying. The reliability of water level gauges is seen as sufficient for current tasks. However, an improvement of water level models and their implementation in the WAMS is planned as a part of future development projects. Table 7: SWOT basic data, viadonau (assessment by viadonau) STRENGTHS Up-to-date sounding equipment Sufficient amount of surveying vessels WEAKNESSES Consistent database of all surveying results (improvement underway) OPPORTUNITIES Extended use of multi-beam equipment Processing of orders for third parties & financing Common database with WAMS system THREATS Cuts in allocated budgets for, e.g. multi-beam equipment Cuts in allocated staff Lack of highly trained staff RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Automated integration of data from water level gauges and of new riverbed surveys (regular surveys, additional surveys in low-water periods, additional surveys before and after measures) in the WAMS database Analysis of sedimentation and erosion characteristics of critical sections based on surveying data Harmonization of software systems on surveying vessels Development of internal staff expertise in HN-software handling for analysis purposes Integration and visualization of existing river engineering structures in the waterway management system. Calculation of budget requirements for different levels of service NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 70

71 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: SVP (Slovakia) In Slovakia, riverbed surveying of the entire Danube is performend annually with single-beam equipment. This also applies to border sections with Austria and Hungary with annual changes in responsibilities. Additional surveys are seen as important e.g. in cases of extreme weather events. Currently, there is only single-beam equipment available for riverbed surveying. Due to different surveying software systems and differing coordinate systems in neighboring countries, joint monitoring of riverbed development, data management and implementation of appropriate measures is currently seen a real challenge for the affected waterway authorities. Therefore, implementing a common database solution not only for neighboring waterway agencies but also for the entire Danube is regarded a high priority. In terms of a holistic WMMS such a joint Danube-wide solution would also require common post-processing approaches for surveying data, a concerted software solution and a strategy for advanced training and exchange of staff between agencies. In order to implement a continuous waterway management allowing an optimized planning of operational, maintenance and engineering measures a higher number of riverbed surveys is perceived as necessary. Current random evaluations of fairway conditions during the marking process are only representative for the respective vessel trajectory on a specific day and are therefore improper for this kind of modelling of the riverbed's development and fairway availability. Therefore, improving surveying capacity with an acquisition of additional surveying vessels and trained staff are seen as a high priority. Table 8: SWOT basic data SVP (assessment by SVP) STRENGTHS Own staff Many years of experience in the field OPPORTUNITIES More budget for hiring of experienced staff Acquisition of additional surveying vessels with multibeam equipment together with necessary software Common holistic database and maintenance approach WEAKNESSES Lack of experienced staff, limited budget Only single-beam technology no multi-beam technology Many different coordinates system used for measurements No database solution old IT technology - upgrade needed THREATS Insufficient funding for future work Further loss of qualified staff RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Standardization and consolidation of all basic data such as water levels, riverbed surveying data, levels of fairway width, course of the fairway, marking measures, dredging measures and river engineering measures into one holistic common database Acquisition of multi-beam surveying equipment and training/acquisition of staff Improving density of surveying intervals (SB/MB) and standardization of pre-/ post-processing Acquisition/development of a software tool providing key figures such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service in fairway operation and duration of measures NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 71

72 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: OVF (Hungary) In Hungary the number of available water level gauging stations is generally seen as sufficient whereas the energy supply of some transmissions systems is prone to errors, leading to a partly inadequate reliability of the measured values. Currently, riverbed surveys of the entire Hungarian Danube stretch are performed with a frequency of approximately five years. On the common border section with Slovakia the responsibily for monitoring of the condition of the riverbed changes annually. Critical sections are measured once a year with single- or multi-beam surveying equipment and are supplemented by additional montoring of fairway depths with marking vessels during low-water periods. In order to provide the basic data for an assessment of fairway availability, measure planning and riverbed development, a higher density of riverbed surveying intervals would be necessary. In order to perform these surveys, the acquisition of additional surveying vessels with single- or multibeam equipment is seen as necessary. Consequently, appropriate post-processing software is required as well together with specialized staff. Currently, post-processing takes about the same time as the riverbed survey itself, leading to a limited accuracy at the time of possible maintenance decisions. The division of the waterway authority into three independent service centers (VIZIGs) for the tasks of fairway operation and maintenance impedes joint activities due to largely different standards in surveying equipment and the resulting data accuracy. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of tasks like fairway operation and maintenance is currently covered by different ministries posing a high hurdle for an implementation of necessary maintenance and engineering measures on the fairway. In order to meet future requirements of modern waterway management a common database is seen as an important step. Furthermore, the acquisition of additional surveying equipment in order to achieve a higher density of surveying intervals is considered important. On this basis, additional steps in the future would be a standardization and automatization of post-processing procedures together with additional training of specialized staff to provide actual information to the users of the waterway. Table 9: SWOT basic data, OVF (assessment by OVF) STRENGTHS Well organized survey, data collection, qualified staff Good cooperation with Slovakia, no redundancy Fast response to changes in riverbed Experience/knowledge of the Danube OPPORTUNITIES Acquisition of surveying equipment Training in surveying and post-processing software Employing qualified staff for additional surveys Harmonized database on the waterway Improvement of legal situation/responsibilities WEAKNESSES Lack of human resources, lack of financial resources 3 different VIZIGs responsible for the Hungarian stretch of the Danube No 6-meter surveying boat with closed cabin 14.5 m long twin-engined multi-beam vessel is costly THREATS Long free-flowing section with many critical sectors No improvement regarding legal situation and fragementation of national responsibilities for fairway maintenance RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Standardization and consolidation of all basic data into one transparent database Higher density of surveying intervals (SB/MB) and standardization of pre-/post-processing Standardization of the surveying software and additional training of staff Software tool providing key figures such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service in fairway operation and duration of measures Improvement of fragmented responsibilities/legal situation NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 72

73 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: Plovput (Serbia) Plovput has a well-developed digital database of riverbed surveys, dating back to the year This database could be an important step towards a future WMMS for their section of the river Danube. Single-beam surveys of cross sections are performed regularly and allow a monitoring of riverbed developments. Further systematic expansions of the existing database towards a WMMS are currently considered. However, due to budgetary reasons surveying activities and investment budgets for further developments are limited. Furthermore, there is a lack of surveying vessels with up-to-date equipment and the necessary highly trained staff both for performing riverbed surveys as well as analysing and processing of hydrological data. For the improvement of user-oriented information and water level modeling, further water level gauges with the possibility of an automatic transmission of current water level data are required as well. Though cross-border cooperation with the Croation waterway agency AVP on common river sections is already established, there is still room for improvement regarding data exchange, processing and subsequent measures. For Plovput, the current low salaries for employees resulted in a loss of key personnel and experts to private companies. An increased national budget together with EU subsidies could help financing necessary equipment, staff and training. In addition, an exchange of experts with the necessary know-how in process management and organization of work flows is seen as favorable for the future development of the organization. Table 10: SWOT basic data, Plovput (assessment by Plovput) STRENGTHS Experienced staff members Cross-sectional profiles are being surveyed, enabling comparisons and monitoring of riverbed development Digital database of surveying records in place since 1987, widely used for daily work and further analysis OPPORTUNITIES Using EU funds to acquire vessels/equipment for improved riverbed surveys Optimization of riverbed surveying measures could improve the performance. Expert exchange to improve work-flow & processes Improved cooperation with AVP (Croatia) WEAKNESSES Limited budget for hydrographic surveying activities Number of vessels/surveying equipment is limiting the surveying frequency Limited number of surveying personnel, and personnel involved in the analysis of data (hydrotechnical engineers) THREATS Experienced staff members could leave Plovput Overstretching of existing resources has its limits Potential technical problems in transformation and exchange of data collected by AVP(Croatia) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Further efforts regarding a holistic database including water level information, riverbed surveying data, levels of fairway width, course of the fairway, marking measures, dredging measures and river engineering measures as foundation for a suitable ICT-based WMMS Calculation of key figures for waterway management such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service in fairway operation and duration of measure impact. Development of analysis procedures for determining budget needs and verification of an efficient and transparent allocation of budgets as a basis for future investments. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 73

74 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: EAEMDR (Bulgaria) Basically, riverbed surveys of critical sections are performed once a year with more frequent intervals in the case of low-water periods. Depending on the type and length of the measurement, surveying activities on the entire Bulgarian stretch may take up to two years. Due to insufficient budgets and inadequate surveying equipment, the targeted accuracy of riverbed surveys as well as the desired accuracy of subsequent data processing is currently not met. For an adequate implementation of regular riverbed surveys at critical sections there is a lack of multi-beam equipment, appropriate software packages and trained staff as well. Due to low wages and limited budgets EAEMDR struggles with the migration of qualified staff both to private companies and to Central European countries. Existing skills in the field of fairway monitoring could be significantly improved on the basis of continuous cooperation and expert exchanges and may be a first step towards harmonized standards in fairway monitoring. The cross-border cooperation of EAEMDR with neighbouring waterway agencies in concerted riverbed surveying is based on many years of experience and is generally considered as satisfactory. Improvement potential is seen in a harmonization of currently different reference systems for water levels between Romania and Bulgaria, being a major hindrance for consistent data modelling. For an improvement of information accuracy and reliability regarding fairway depths at critical sections, the installation of additional water level gauging stations with automated data transmission is seen as an important step. As a future goal the implementation of a WMMS with a harmonized database including improved riverbed surveying data, water levels and measures is considered a big step towards the improvement of measure results. Especcialy improvements regarding quality and speed of data processing leading to accurate and fast provision of navigational charts and fairway depth information are seen as main benefits of such a system. Table 11: SWOT basic data, EAEMDR (assessment by EAEMDR) STRENGTHS Experience of many years Good cooperation on cross-border level Qualified experts with many years of experience OPPORTUNITIES Tapping of additional EU funds for modernisation of the equipment Preparation and implementation of international projects for improvement and optimisation of the monitoring processes Exchange of knowledge and good practices between partners from different countries Expert exchange to improve work flow & processes Improved cooperation with AFDJ (Romania) WEAKNESSES Old equipment Not enough qualified staff Limited budget THREATS Budgetary restrictions Relocation of qualified personnel to the private sector RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Standardization and consolidation of all basic data such as water levels, riverbed surveying data, levels of fairway width, course of the fairway, marking measures, dredging measures and river engineering measures into one transparent database Common database and WMMS software with capability forcalculating important key figures such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 74

75 SWOT basic data, riverbed surveying & processing capability: AFDJ (Romania) The Romanian Danube stretch consists of two free-flowing stretches with annual riverbed surveys performed with either single- or multi-beam surveying equipment. In case of impending low-water periods up to 6 additional riverbed surveys are performed on critical sections. Further surveying activities are carried out before and after any implementation of maintenance and engineering measures. For this purpose modern multi-beam surveying equipment is already available at AFDJ. For one river section the execution of a riverbed survey including post-processing usually takes 2-3 days and depends on the urgency and the length of the section. On the Danube in Romania the targent fairway depth of 2.5 meters was reached on 272 days in 2011, 314 days in 2012 and 303 days in More detailed information on actual available fairway depth is currently not available. The definition of a minimum fairway width (= deep fairway channel) should be based on a thorough evaluation of encounter probabilities of relevant convoys on the lower Danube and is seen as an important task for the future. 23 conventional water level gauging stations and 20 gauging stations with automatic data transmission are available as a basis for a water level model leading to an average distance of 50 to 60 kilometers between gauging stations. Experts of the respective departments consider this distance as insufficient. Therefore, an assessment of necessary density of gauging stations as a basis for the implementation of a WMMS is seen as a priority. A higher density of gauging stations together with an accurate water level model would enable AFDJ to provide a higher accuracy of fairway information to the users of the waterway in the future. Further improvements for both customer information and availability calculation need improved processing procedures and investment in IT infrastructure and training as well. Table 12: SWOT basic data AFDJ (assessment by AFDJ) STRENGTHS Endowment with new multi-beam equipment Experienced staff Mobility of staff and equipment WEAKNESSES Legislation barriers Improvement potential in existing procedures Lack in quality of infrastructure OPPORTUNITIES Quality and quantity of available data Modernization and development of the infrastructure Efficient use of additional EU funding THREATS Climate change Delay due to insufficient funds for co-financing RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Standardization and consolidation of all basic data such as water levels, riverbed surveying data, levels of fairway width, course of the fairway, marking measures, dredging measures and river engineering measures into one holistic database Assesment of necessary additional water level gauges based on an iterative process Optimization of surveying interval density (SB/MB) and standardization of pre/postprocessing Standardization of surveying software and additional training of staff Acquisition/development of a software tool providing key figures such as fairway availability, estimated maintenance costs for a certain target level of service in fairway operation and duration of measures NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 75

76 6.3. National assessment of fairway marking in terms of a common minimum LOS as well as WMMS The marking and alignment of fairway signs is Danube-wide the most common measure to ensure safe passage and improve navigation conditions. In countries on the central and lower Danube, marking of the fairway is usually based on a marking plan created at least on an annual basis (Figure 53). Thereby, the location of the signals is defined as well as the number and type of signals. In a further step, the signs and their position are intergrated in the electronic navigational charts and published for the users of the waterway. After anchorage of buoys, the inspection and revision of their position and condition defining the limits of the fairway dominate the daily work (Figure 52). This inspection is carried out with spezialized marking vessels and in addition allows monitoring of the fairway depths along the vessel trajectory by using an integrated echo sounder. These randomly measured fairway depths also serve as an indicator, whether changes in riverbed call for additional detailed surveys (single- or multi-beam) with subsequent adjustment of buoys. However, on this basis, multi-dimensional developments of the rivebed such as sedimentation processes cannot be modelled and fairway availability calculations based on echosounder data will not be conclusive. The frequence of buoy inspections depends on factors such as the prevailing water levels, the length of national river stretch and the number of available marking vessels. For this activity most of the waterway authorities have to work with over-aged marking vessels. In order to allow adequate signalling even in low-water periods a sufficient number of buoys must be kept in stock. These buoys are not bought but are produced mainly by the waterway authorities themselves. In common border stretches of the Danube the responsibility for a river section often changes annually between neighboring waterway authorities. Because fairway marking and monitoring is a continuously ongoing process, a high amount of human resources is required as a result. Due to budget cuts a number of agencies are already affected by a lack of trained staff. Furthermore, it is expected that this trend is likely to continue in the future (Table 13). Fairway marking can only be executed on river sections with suffient fairway depths (> 2.5 m) at least for a reduced fairway width of 40 or 60 meters. Otherwise physical measures like maintenance or engineering measures are needed in order to achieve the predefined fairway depth. Typically, buoys are equipped with radar reflectors to improve navigability. From a nautical point of view (visibility) the distances between buoys are not sufficient. However, at critical sections they have to be positioned with a higher density depending on the charactaristics of the section according to international regulations with a short overview being provided in Chapter (Figure 69). Figure 52: Marking activities: example of monitoring of buoy location and control NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 76

77 Figure 53: Example for a marking plan (OVF) In contrast to current practice with one or two marking plans per year a dynamic marking approach in a future WMMS would allow the continuous adjustements and monitoring of GPS buoys depending on actual water levels and navigation requirements with reduced effort. Table 13: SWOT fairway marking on the river Danube STRENGTHS Well-trained staff Clear marking procedure Good cooperation with competent authorities and neighbouring countries OPPORTUNITIES Implementation of remotely controlled and virtual Aids to Navigation Acquisition of new marking vessels,buoys and staff WEAKNESSES Over-aged vessel fleet for marking purposes Marking signs are being stolen in the field Unpredictable financing support because of continuous changes in organizational structures Loss and theft of buoys and floating signs THREATS Further budget cuts Insufficient resources for maintenance of floating signs Lack of human resources for marking RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information for waterway users. Optimization of the marking process allowing continuous adjustments and monitoring of GPS buoys depending on actual water levels and navigation requirements NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 77

78 SWOT fairway marking at via donau (Austria) The tasks of fairway marking and maintenance of navigational signs are beyond the jurisdiction of the Austrian waterway agency viadonau. Fairway marking is supervised once a week by the Navigation Surveillance which is tasked by the Supreme Navigation Authority in the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT). Navigation signals are controlled at least once per week. In contrast to the lower Danube, no marking plan is implemented for the Austrian stretch of the Danube due to the fact that the course of the fairway is fixed to a high degree, given the rather narrow cross-section of the Austrian stretch of the Danube with limited possibilities for a shift of the fairway. Information on location of marking signs is transmitted to boatmasters by means of IENC charts. Table 14: SWOT fairway marking Austria STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES Marking plans are not necessary No responsibility for fairway marking at viadonau OPPORTUNITIES THREATS Integration of the task of fairway marking Limited flexibility of the course of the fairway RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A FULL WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Integration of fairway marking as a task and measure in waterway management in the competence of viadonau allowing a continuous adaption and optimization process Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users SWOT fairway marking at SVP (Slovakia) Marking activities are carried out under responsibility of SVP and belong to the main tasks of this waterway authority. SVP has many years of experience in the field of fairway marking. Fairway marks are adjusted once a year according to an annual plan that is approved by the State Navigation Authority in its final version. Fairway marks and traffic signals are used to compensate for those dredging interventions which are not feasible due to limited resources. Navigation signals of the entire Slovakian river stretch are controlled once per week at a minimum. All buoys are equipped with radar reflectors. On the Slovakian stretch of the river Danube, the fairway is marked with a high density of buoys and floating signs. Due to the high amount of existing used buoys and signs the post production and storage of buoys and floating signs poses an important future challenge. The operation of the fairway for a given level of service is guaranteed by weekly monitoring of buoy position with GPS and simultaneous random check on faiway depths by echo sounder equipment on marking vessels. The survey vessel fleet used for this task does not meet the state-of-the-art in all cases so that equipment upgrades are necessary in order to enable modern fairway operation and management. However, the available budget for this activity is not sufficient for this purpose. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 78

79 Table 15: SWOT fairway marking SVP (assessment by SVP) STRENGTHS Own staff Many years of experience in this field Regularity on the service (marking) OPPORTUNITIES Renovation of existing fleet and devices, small motor boat for fast reaction (upgrading) Puchasing of new marking vessels Improvement of navigation devices of vessels WEAKNESSES Old fleet and over-ageing equipment and buoys Limited budget and trained staff Low flexibility in case of extraordinary situations THREATS Insufficient budgets for necessary investments in equipment and staff RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users. Optimization of the marking process allowing continuous adjustments of GPS buoys Figure 54. Marking activities SVP: Inspection and displacement of buoys on the Slovakian Danube Stretch SWOT fairway marking at OVF/VIZIGs (Hungary) The riverbed of the Hungarian Danube stretch consisting of gravel, rock and sand is cosiderd to be quite stable; therefore only marginal adaptions are necessary for the preparation of the annual marking plans which are approved by the general directorate. Such adaptions may be required after major riverbed surveys. However, most of the buoys remain at the same position. At least every 5 years this marking plan has to be approved by the respective waterway authority also involving the shipping authority. The monitoring of buoy positions is carried out by the VIZIGs with a frequency of one or two monitoring trips per week depending on current resources. On cross-border sections, this is performed taking turns with the neighbouring agencies. The handling of buoys and landmarks includes removing of driftwood, replacement of missing buoys, and adaption of buoy position in accordance to current water levels and maintenance of land-based signs. Furthermore current fairway depths are checked using the echo sounder of the marking vessel. Shallow section reports are released on a daily basis resulting in additional detailed single- or multi-beam surveys in case of an NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 79

80 indicated insufficiency in fairway conditions. Though the average service life of the marking vessel fleet exeeds 30 years the number of marking vessels for this activity in general can be described as sufficient. However, modernization of buoys e.g. with important additional equipment like solarpowered LED lights and GPS sensors are seen as a future opportunity. Due to ongoing changes in the organizational structure, there is almost no planning and budget security resulting in uncertainties regarding all future planning, marking and maintenance activities. Relatively low salaries of public servants result in migration trends of skilled employees to private companies. Shortcomings of trained marking staff have led to a situation which leaves room for improvement. In order to implement a modern WMMS a central collection and analysis of monitoring data based on a common database solution is seen as a necessity. Such a solution would allow a centralized harmonization and optimization of the marking process based on a modern software solution including current positions of all buoys as well as current fairway depths at critical sections. Table 16: SWOT fairway marking OVF (assessment by VIZIGs) STRENGTHS Some 30 years experience in fairway marking activities Integrated knowledge of river management, flood protection, nature protection and navigation Well-placed, de-centralized-background support infrastructure (Gönyű, Budapest, Baja) OPPORTUNITIES Acquisition of new marking vessels Purchase of a fast response boat Using maintenance-free, sonar-powered LED lights with GPS sensors in buoys WEAKNESSES Unpredictable financing support because of continuous changes in organizational structure Lack of human resources and trained staff Overaged marking fleet with30 to 40 years old marking vessels THREATS Lack of staff allows only limited fairway marking activities RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users. Optimization of the marking process allowing continuous adjustments and monitoring of GPS buoys depending on actual water levels and navigation requirements SWOT fairway marking at Plovput (Serbia) Inland waterway marking activities include preparation of marking plans, establishing fairway marking systems, and maintenance of marking systems. Marking activities are undertaken by the marking department s well-trained staff. The marking plans are adapted annually and mapped according to a clearly defined process. For common river stretches there is a joint annual marking plan with Croatia. Romania and Serbia have separate marking plans, which are harmonized. The continuous process of fairway marking runs throughout the year with a monitoring frequency of twice per month. Thereby, both the functionality and location of buoys is checked. In close cooperation with neighboring waterway agencies position corrections and repair works are performed as well. During these monitoring activities, monitoring teams are using echo sounders installed on board of marking vessels to measure depth at the limits of the fairway, where buoys are located. In case of measured depths NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 80

81 beeing significantly lower as compared to the last hydrographic survey, the fairway is realigned by reallocating the available marking signs (e.g. narrowing of the fairway). Unfortunately, both human resources and the availability of the necessary marking equipment are already extremely exhausted, so that a densification of monitoring intervals is not feasible. For upcoming budget periods the high age of the marking vessel fleet will lead to additional reinvestment needs. In the future customers may benefit from an integration of position adaptions of buoys based on GPS equipment and automatic data transmission into RIS. With the outlook of possible further budget cuts an optimization of the marking process will be needed. In order to improve the fairway marking process as a cost-efficient measure on the dynamic Serbian Danube stretch, a higher density of monitoring intervals with an increased number of buoys are seen as necessary leading to additional investment needs in staff and equipment. Table 17: SWOT fairway marking Plovput (assessment by Plovput) STRENGTHS Well-trained staff Clear marking procedure Good cooperation with competent authorities and neighbouring countries OPPORTUNITIES Implementation of remote and virtual Aids to Navigation (AtoNs) Common BG/RO marking plan database Delivery of two new marking vessels WEAKNESSES Overstretched resources Old vessels Marking signs are being stolen in the field THREATS Further budget cuts Inability to employ new staff, due to governmental restrictions RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users SWOT fairway marking at EAEMDR (Bulgaria) The fairway in Bulgaria is marked on the basis of two periods of signalization. Thus, a marking plan is prepared for the winter season based on the meteorological conditions. For the summer period no marking plan is prepared due to very dynamic changes in fairway depths. In order to ensure the safety of navigation during this period, the number of signals is increased based on the characteristic of critical sections. In order to check the position of buoys in accordance to the annual marking plan, marking vessels are busy with monitoring activities on 240 days troughout the year. On joint Danube stretches EAEMDR was able to build up a good cooperation with neighboring waterway authorities in recent years. In general, the number of available buoys and signals is sufficient. However, the frequence of repairs is steadily increasing. In low-water periods many large convoys leave the marked fairway in order to save time and fuel and thereby damage existing buoys and floating signs. In the future visibility of the fairway for navigation companies can be improved by buoys equipped with solar panels, lighting and GPS support providing the basis for real-time monitoring as an essential functionality for modern waterway management. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 81

82 Table 18: SWOT fairway marking EAEMDR (assessment by EAEMDR) STRENGTHS Good modernisation of the marking system Good cross-border cooperation OPPORTUNITIES Common BG/RO marking plan database Delivery of two new marking vessels WEAKNESSES Loss of navigational signs Insufficient budget THREATS Insufficient resources to maintain the floating signs RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WAMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users SWOT fairway marking at AFDJ (Romania) An annual work plan sets out the number, type and location of signals, dredged areas and dredging periods. Fairway monitoring is conducted according to this work plan and in line with joint working group meetings of AFDJ's hydrology, hydrography, signalization and dredging works departments. Plans are made on the basis of the analysis of measurements and statistical data. The general marking plan defines the marking of the fairway for different water levels. Fairway marking is monitored at monthly and sometimes even weekly intervals with specialized vessels. Marking plans are verified and renewed monthly and updated daily in critical situations. Marking activities are related to extreme water levels with the occurrence of critical locations. Free-flowing sections are marked by buoys with a distance of three kilometres on average. The alignment of the course of the fairway is published weekly and available daily via signalling bulletin. Navigational marks are updated daily. Monitoring activities are also performed before and after each intervention. The interventions include positioning of new buoys, removals of buoys as well as repair works. The numerous buoys and floating signs have a long service life and are low-priced as they are manufactured in house. In case of low-water periods the limits of the fairway at critical sections are marked with additional buoys in order to provide safe conditions for inland navigation. However, the number of available buoys and position monitoring equipment is insufficient. Due to the enormous length of the Romanian section and the low number of marking vessels a prioritization of sections with necessary monitoring activities has to be conducted. Thus, critical sections, sections with bridges and sections with on-going engineering projects as well as sections with vessel accidents are given preference. The equipment used for marking activities is partly outdated, i.e. the lighting of buoys and monitoring equipment are not stateof-the-art. In addition, only a fraction of the vessels used meet the basic requirements of modern marking equipment. An additional, specially-equipped vessel would facilitate the implementation of the marking activities. A comprehensive WMMS should include the operational measure of fairway marking for improving navigation conditions as this is an important taks on the lower Danube. In order to implement such an approach, the systematic consolidation of basic data such as riverbed surveys, inspections surveys, water levels and positioning data of buoys are required as well. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 82

83 Table 19: SWOT fairway marking AFDJ (assessment by AFDJ) STRENGTHS Experience/knowledge Mobility Low-cost marking material OPPORTUNITIES Aligning waterway system of Romania to the European waterway system Increase traffic safety Economic development Development of European transport corridors WEAKNESSES Critical sections represent natural barriers to vessels that cannot be removed by marking alone Lack of specialized modern marking vessels THREATS Traffic flow bypass Romania or find alternative transport routes Reducing water level gauges Increase of days with traffic jam due to low water levels RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Implementation of an ICT-based WMMS approach including current buoy position, current fairway depths as basis for ongoing planning of marking activities of the fairway and information of waterway users. Optimization of the marking process allowing continuous adjustments and monitoring of GPS buoys depending on actual water levels and navigation requirements NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 83

84 6.4. National assessment of implemented measures and monitoring of impact Danube waterway authorities generally have an overview on both critical sections and possible measures to improve fairway availability on these sections. The SWOT analysis in the thematic field of availability and bottlenecks shows that there is currently no possibility for a comprehensive calculation of actual availability of fairway parameters as most evaluations are based on low navigable water level (LNWL) as a reference. A further weakness of current Danube waterway management are insufficient monitoring frequencies for critical sections on some relevant river stretches on the entire waterway. For these purposes a unified methodology for monitoring and assessment of critical riverbed developments is currently missing as well. This also applies to consistent harmonized investment strategies of waterway authorities with the target of providing continuous fairway availability on one single waterway. The implementation of a WMMS would provide the opportunity to calculate current availability and thus create the basis for an assessment of necessary measures on all critical sections towards a continuous level of availability on the entire river Danube. Without such a basis even substantial additional funding will most likely lead to an inefficient allocation of budget and unsatisfactory results. Table 20: SWOT availability, bottlenecks & implemented measures STRENGTHS Availability: Regular assessment of fairway parameters Publication of processed surveying results Bottlenecks: Bottlenecks are well known More frequent assessment of critical sectors WEAKNESSES Availability: Calculation of availability of fairway parameters currently not possible mostly related to LNWL Bottlenecks: Surveying intensity shows large differences No systematic monitoring for critical developments Measures: Effective maintenance and engineering measures are known Implementation of necessary measures in some countries OPPORTUNITIES Availability: Providing a continuous level of availability on the entire Danube waterway Calculating current availability for entire routes Bottlenecks: Common standards for assessing critical sectors Common database on surveying of bottlenecks Monitoring and prediction of critical developments Measures: No consistent investment strategy limited measure budget No systematic assessment of measure impact on availability optimization potential unused THREATS Availability: No improvement in actual availability No improvement in availability information for customers Bottlenecks: No improvement in processing capability Remaining critical sections prevent continuous conditions Measures: Common strategy and investment in most critical sectors Necessary funds for measures Measures: No common strategy and implementation of measures Continuous lack of sufficient funding for necessary engineering and maintenance measures NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 84

85 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: via donau (Austria) viadonau currently has sufficient budget and resources for the implementation of necessary dredging and engineering measures. In typical years, the agreed target fairway parameters can be provided by appropriately timed, i.e. proactive, maintenance measures. As all dredging equipment was sold due to reorganization in the past, maintenance works (= dredging) have to be tendered on the market leading to bottlenecks especially after high-water periods or prior to low-water periods. In order to provide the agreed targeted fairway widths and depths, a proactive dredging strategy has been implemented as standard procedure. In the future, priority dredging of a fairway channel with minimum width (LOS 1) at a continuous fairway depth of 2.5 m as a first step followed by dredging to full fairway width as a second step may lead to further improvements for inland navigation on the Danube in Austria. The acquisition of dredging equipment to perform emergency dredgings in-house without the need for lengthy tendering processes on a limited market is being assessed with a cost-benefit analysis. The planning of dredging measures up to date was based on the experience of individual employees without a systematic evaluation and documentation of measure success. As this area is seen as a major field for improvement, viadonau has started a WAMS pilot project in 2012 that will include all necessary options and tasks as described in Chapter 4. A functional evaluation and assessment of actual measure impact as a basis for future planning activities is scheduled for the end of Further improvements are currently under discussion regarding additional multi-beam surveys for the evaluation of dredging progress and duration of impact that may lead to a higher efficiency of implemented measures in the future. With the implementation of the presented optimization algorithms, an assessment of necessary budgetary resources for any given target availability should be feasible in 2015 for the Danube in Austria. Table 21: SWOT measure implementation and assessment: viadonau (assessment by via donau) STRENGTHS Currently sufficient budget for engineering measures and dredging activities Experienced staff in planning, tendering and surveying Database existing on costs of dredging measures OPPORTUNITIES Use of multi-beam equipment for measure assessment Optimization of tendering and quality assessment Optimization of measures with new WAMS system WEAKNESSES Currently no systematic survey of measure impact duration (but implementation planned for 2015) Currently comparison of measures only based on experience Dependency on developments on the dredging market (no dredging equipment owned) THREATS Rise in dredging costs due to unfavorable development of the dredging market Cuts in allocated budgets Cuts in allocated stuff Lack of highly trained staff in the future RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Intergration of already implemented dredging and engineering measures in viadonau's WAMSdatabase until fall 2014 Derivation of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost fuctions based on the evaluation of previous measures Derivation of a measure program with priorization of most critical sections followed by critical sections with insufficient depths at the limits of the fairway Cost-benefit assessment of aquisition of own dredging equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 85

86 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: SVP (Slovakia) In the year 2012 the availability of the fairway with a minimum width of 60 meters (minimum Level of Service = LOS1) amounted to only 318 days on the Slovakian Danube stretch. In order to meet the availability targets of the Danube Commission, additional physical measures are required. Although SVP is in possession of dredging equipment, implementing the necessary measures takes a long time due to limited dredging capacity and financial resources as well as outdated equipment (chain-bucket dredger). Coordination and planning of measures in the common stretches with Austria and Hungary are done in two Transboundary Water Commissions. Yearly interventions ( Dredging project of the Danube ) are planned and amended by working groups of the border commissions in spring. Fairway marking and signaling needs for the Slovakian Danube stretch are determined in the Fairway Project, which is also the basis for yearly dredging interventions. A prioritization of dredging interventions is preliminarily done according to the available financial resources. In the case of budget constraints appropriate marking activities are conducted as a less costly alternative in critical sections with lower priority. In order to achieve the recommendations of the Danube Commission, additional budgetary resources are needed for maintenance and engineering activities as well as up-to-date dredging equipment. Analysis of effectiveness of dredging interventions is already being carried out as a standard process based on pre- and post-monitoring. For a more accurate assessment of dredging impact a systematic evaluation of impact duration and impact on actual fairway availability would be required. In order to facilitate cross-border monitoring of the riverbed as well as concerted interventions, a common database providing uniform interfaces for planning and execution of measures up to a WMMS are needed to make day-to-day work more efficient and enable further optimizations in measure planning. Table 22: SWOT measure implementation and assessment : SVP (assessment by SVP) STRENGTHS Own staff Many years of experience in the field OPPORTUNITIES Renovation of the fleet Purchasing of the new dredgers WEAKNESSES Old fleet Old dredging equipment Limited budget THREATS Insufficient funds for necessary maintenance and engineering works RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Support cross-border harmonization of monitoring standards and implementation of a concerted WMMS database Intergration of implemented dredging and engineering measures in a WMMS database Derivation of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost fuctions based on the evaluation of previous measures Derivation of a measure program with priorization of most critical sections (2.5 m fairway depth is not available even for LOS 1) followed by critical sections with insufficient depths at the limits of the fairway Provide evidence of the required budget funds for dredging based on a comparison of fairway condition before and after dredging measures with an estimation of measure costs Cost-benefit assessment of aquisition of new efficient dredging equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 86

87 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: OVF (Hungary) In Hungary dredging activities are under the responsibility of three different VIZIGs. Currently, there is no consistend framework for maintenance activities of the fairway. Due to the fact that the main tasks of OVF are related to the responsibility of three different ministries (Interior, National Development and Rural Development) the execution of fairway operation and maintenance is rather difficult. Currently, in Hungary the defined minimum fairway parameters (minimum LOS) are not guaranteed at low navigable water level (LNWL). In recent years, no dredging measures were performed on the Hungarian section of the river Danube. An annual work plan only exists at the common sector of the waterway with Slovakia, where Slovakia is performing dredging measures. In Hungary, the working plan has to be accepted by the territorial environmental, nature protection and water authority. Currently, dredging equipment is only available at one directorate; the others have to run public procurement procedures. Controversial discussions on the actual stability of the riverbed are on-going. Among other factors significant riverbed degradation over the last decade resulted in the discontinuation of dredging measures. Generally the legal framework for dredging measures can be described as rather complex with vague formulations forming a legal twilight zone. According to KDV- KTVF (the green authority in Budapest) and several nature protection organizations, dredging activities are disturbing wildlife. The dumping of sediment is subject to strict regulations. There is no continuous authorization for the implementation of dredging activities. The Natura 2000 declaration protects large sections of the Hungarian Danube stretch and thereby represents a further challenge for maintaining navigability. Table 23: SWOT measure implementation and assessment: OVF (assessment by OVF) STRENGTHS Integrated knowledge of river management, flood protection, nature protection and navigation ADUVIZIG owns dredging equipment, no contracting needed Good working relationship in cross-border area with Slovakia OPPORTUNITIES New Danube Commission recommendation may give impetus to perform necessary maintenance works Acquisition of dredging equipment Getting licences for the VIZIGs for re-establishing fairway parameters with necessary measures WEAKNESSES Waterway maintenance is in the responsibility of the water sector developing the fairway belongs to the transport ministry Lack of financial resources Difficult and unclear legal procedure from green authority No dredging activities and low fairway availability THREATS Lack of maintenance work leads to further degradation of fairway parameters and availability Possibility of changes in organizational structure disrupting existing workflows and procedures Lack of funding and further legal restrictions RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Improvement of legal situation and fragmented resonsibilities Comparison of direct impacts of inland navigation and dredging measures on the environment with increasing emissions as a result of a modal shift to road transport Provide evidence of the required budget funds for dredging based on a comparison of fairway condition before and after dredging measures with an estimation of measure costs Derivation of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost fuctions based on the evaluation of previous measures Cost-benefit assessment of aquisition of efficient dredging equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 87

88 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: Plovput (Serbia) Plovput has many years of experience in the implementation of fairway maintenance measures. Dredging activities are executed on the basis of an annual plan but depend on the provision of financial means by the government. Thus, maintenance activities can only be executed if sufficient budget will be available as a result of annual negotiations. Success control (bathymetric surveys) is performed after the implementation of dredging measures. Dredged sediment is disposed back into the river Danube. In the years 2012 an 2013, the implemented dredging measures were restricted to winter ports and areas with winter ship shelters, with no dredging of shallow sections due to a lack of budget. Dredging interventions are only executed in exceptional cases, e.g. creation of shoals in the riverbed after extreme high or low water periods. Currently, the necessary extent of dredging measures is predetermined based on the documentation of the last riverbed survey. Deviations between the required and actually dredged cubatures are monitored as well. With the implementation of appropriate maintenance measures the majority of shallow and narrow sections forming obstacles for inland navigation could be removed. First analyses indicate a beneficial ratio if costs (dredging costs) and benefits (improved fairway conditions) of necessary maintenance measures are compared to each other. If no solution for financing of dredging measues can be found, a further significant deterioration of navigation conditions on the Serbian Danube stretch has to be expected. In addition to necessary budget increases, further surveying vessels would be required in order to improve the planning and execution of future operation and maintenance measures. Appropriate software solutions for the analysis of surveying results and planning of measures are seen as a further need area in order to provide favorable conditions on one single waterway. Table 24: SWOT measure implementation and assessment: Plovput (assessment by Plovput) STRENGTHS Knowledge of maintenance planning exists in Plovput Plovput owns dredging equipment WEAKNESSES Budget for fairway maintenance dredging activities does not exist OPPORTUNITIES Most of critical sectors on the Danube river in Serbia could be solved by good planning and dredging activities Cost-benefit ratio of maintenance measures are very favourable THREATS Further absence of budget for dredging activities will lead to less favourable development of navigation conditions with all related consequences RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Secure sufficient and predictable financial means for dredging measures Intergration of already implemented dredging and engineering measures in a WMMS database Analysis of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost functions based on the evaluation of previous measures Derivation of a measure program with priorization of most critical sections (2.5 m fairway depth is not available even for LOS 1) followed by critical sections with insufficient depths at the limits of the fairway Provide evidence of required budgets for dredging based on a comparison of fairway condition before and after dredging measures with an estimation of measure costs NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 88

89 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: EAEMDR (Bulgaria) EADMR owns dredging equipment and barges for the transportation of dredged material and performs dredging activities in-house as well. The capacity of the available equipment only allows dredging of access areas to channels and ports. For many years, only very limited dredging works in the fairway have been performed because of insufficient dredging equipment and limited financial resources. In addition, no modern and efficient dredging equipment is currently available. In face of the dynamic riverbed morphology of the lower Danube, waterway authorities in this region consider dredging measures in many cases as an inefficient method to increase fairway availability as compared to marking and shifting of the course of the fairway. In the long term, navigability could be improved by river engineering measures, which are currently pursued only inadequately due to limited budgets and resources. The waterway agency believes that optimal measures may only be found for the individual situation if all possible measures are compared to each other based on a systematic life-cycle cost method. Therefore, implementing a WMMS would be seen as an important goal. A combination of river engineering measures and maintenance measures may increase the time between necessary interventions and thus make dredging measures economically more attractive. An acquisition of new dredging equipment with a high efficiency funded by the EU could also provide EAEMDR with the means for fast reactions to unfavorable conditions and short- to medium-term improvements of fairway conditions. However, this will only be possible if sufficient budget for staff and for performing dredging activities will be available as well. Table 25: SWOT measure implementation and assessment: EAEMDR (assessment by EAEMDR ) STRENGTHS Good cross-border cooperation with Romania Own dredging equipment Experience in planning and implementation of dredging measures OPPORTUNITIES Use of EU funds for delivery of dredging equipment Increased transport volume due to improved fairway conditions WEAKNESSES Old and not appropriate equipment Lack of engineering measures No additional budget for dredging activities THREATS No approval of the financing of a project for delivery of dredging equipment Insufficient funds for necessary maintenance dredging and trained staff RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Secure sufficient and predictable financial means for dredging measures Intergration of already implemented dredging and engineering measures in a WMMS database Derivation of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost fuctions based on the evaluation of previous measures Derivation of a measure program with priorization of most critical sections (2.5 m fairway depth is not available even for LOS 1) followed by critical sections with insufficient depths at the limits of the fairway Provide evidence of the required budget funds for dredging based on a comparison of fairway condition before and after dredging measures with an estimation of measure costs Cost-benefit assessment of aquisition of new efficient dredging equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 89

90 SWOT measure implementation and assessment: AFDJ (Romania) The Danube in Romania is characterized by about 33 critical bottlenecks including 11 locations being critical shallow sections. The riverbed shows a typical composition for lower reaches of a river consisting of sand (60%), gravel (15%), clay (10%) and silt (10%). AFDJ is responsible to ensure at least minimum fairway depths for inland navigation e.g. by means of dredging. Prior to planning of dreding measures riverbed surveys are conducted at respective shallow sections with the aim to determine the required dredging cubature. Due to budgetary constraints the implementation of dredging measures is based on a prioritization process giving preference to sections showing the worst fairway depths, locations that are difficult to pass and areas with accidents. Dredging measures in general are subcontracted to third parties. In order to assess the success of such dredging measures, the implementation is followed by further riverbed surveys. The excavated material is afterwards dumped in areas far away from the fairway. Thus, in recent years on average 1.34 million tons of gravel were removed within the scope of fairway maintenance. In order to eliminate all shallow sections in time additional dredgers with a high capacity would be required. Thereby fairway availability could be increased even for larger convoys. Furthermore, additional revenues are expected by selling dredged river gravel. However, this may contribute to an improvement of navigation conditions only if maintenance activities are also performed in the fairway area. These maintenance activities should include adequate subsequent documentation in any case. Unfortunately, experiences of AFDJ in the recent years indicate no positive impacts of dredging on a lasting stability of the riverbed. Great expectations exist for river engineering projects that may increase riverbed stability and thereby fairway availability in the long term and are already underway. Only a systematic evaluation of riverbed surveys together with an in-depth analysis of factors influencing riverbed dynamics will allow an assessment and optimization of dredging measures on the lower Danube. Table 26: SWOT measure implementation and assessment: AFDJ (assessment by AFDJ) STRENGTHS Experience/knowledge available in the agency Facilities at all related services OPPORTUNITIES Increasing number of days with navigability Eliminate traffic jam & protecting the environment Additional sources of income from selling dredged gravel WEAKNESSES Limited facilities / equipment for dredging Lack of specialized staff Deficiency of investments in river regulation THREATS Failure to ensure navigation conditions Lost opportunity if EU funds are not used Degradation of biodiversity RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WMMS IMPLEMENTATION: Support cross-border harmonization of monitoring standards and implementation of a concerted WMMS database also including already implemented dredging measures Derivation of duration of dredging measure impact, duration of measure implementation and unit cost fuctions based on the evaluation of previous measures Derivation of a measure program with priorization of most critical sections (2.5 m fairway depth is not available even for LOS 1) followed by critical sections with insufficient depths at the limits of the fairway Provide evidence of the required budget funds for dredging based on a comparison of fairway condition before and after dredging measures with an estimation of measure costs Establish standard procedure for cost-benefit assessment of possible measures NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 90

91 6.5. General assessment of budgets and investment policies At the moment, the necessary budget for ensuring the current level of staff is available at all waterway agencies. However, budgets for sufficient riverbed surveying intervals and necessary maintenance measures are lacking at almost all Danube waterway agencies. Funds for the implementation of river engineering measures can be acquired with a higher rate of success, mostly due to co-financing by the European Union. At the moment there is still a lack of awareness regaring the required continuous fairway parameters and thus a consistent fairway quality for customers on the main transport routes. In contrast to other modes of transport only one remaining shallow section leads to severe consequences in the utilization of the entire Danube vessel fleet and may result in a shut-down of inland navigation as a worst-case scenario. Without harmonized efforts and sufficient budgets for maintenance activities at the most critical sections on the entire course of the river an efficient allocation of funds cannot be guaranteed. It is therefore also necessary to raise awareness at the political level that funds and investments are necessary for all these tasks in order to improve navigation conditions and competitivety on the Danube. Unfortunately, necessary measures are currently not implemented in a sufficient way due to a lack of budget leading to significant losses for the transport industry and a declining importance of inland waterway transport in the Danube region. Therefore, a common assessment of critical sections, planning of measures and allocation of budgets would be crucial. Chapter 8 provides an overview of possible policy goals and organizational options in order to improve the current situation. An efficient use of any additional funding cannot be guaranteed without significant improvements in all areas of waterway asset management. The implementation of a WMMS could significantly improve this situation with the necessary requirements for such an implementation project being summarized in Chapter 7.3. Table 27: SWOT budgets, implementation & result verification STRENGTHS Budgets: Budget for existing staff available Implementation: Implementation of riverbed surveys Implementation of measures as well on the provision that budget is available Result verification: Single- & multi-beam surveying prior and after measures established in some agencies OPPORTUNITIES Budgets: Increasing political awareness leads to more budget Implementation: Coordinated priorities and efficient implementation of measures Result verification: Systematic surveying of measure impact and exchange of experience WEAKNESSES Budgets: Budget for riverbed surveying & maintenance measures not available Implementation: Currently limited coordination of maintenance strategies Necessary measures not implemented no budget Result verification: Surveying of measure impacts has improvement potential THREATS Budgets: Budgets stay the same or are cut even further Implementation: No implementation of necessary measures leads to low availability and declining waterway transport Result verification: No systematic assessment of measure success due to a lack of funding, staff, training & equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 91

92 Annual budgets [Mill. ] Annual stated budgets - waterway agencies avg Figure 55: Average stated annual budgets of Danube waterway agencies based on WMMS questionnaires Figure 55 provides an overview of average annual budgets of all Danube waterway agencies. Since Danube waterway authorities may have completely different tasks a direct comparison of available budgets of individual agencies is only of limited relevance, also due to notable differences in per capita labour costs as well as purchasing power in CEE and SEE countries. While the average annual budget of Austria s viadonau amounts to 75.6 million for 350 km, Serbia s Plovput has to manage inland navigation on the Serbian Danube stretch with only 2.1 million on 963 km. Waterway administrations in Bulgaria and Hungary also have to deal with a small budget. Waterway authorities in Romania and Slovakia are situated in the mid-range in terms of budget availability. Apart from different responsibilities and tasks of waterway agencies the characteristics of the waterway also show certain deviations as well as the resulting availability performance on national stretches. Therefore, just being responsible for the waterway does not determine budget needs, if a number of important parameters reveal a wide variation and the extent of performed maintenance measures show a variation between doing nothing and substantial investments. The number of available employees is illustrated in Figure 56 and highlights the differences in the structure of waterway administrations and indicates both overstaffing as well as personnel deficiencies. Plovput for example has to manage the Serbian Danube stretch with only a fraction of staff compared to other agencies. It has to be mentioned though that the total headcount alone is not SVP AFDJ EDUVIZIG + KDVVIZIG via donau EAEMDR PLOVPUT km 2,415 (Bratislava) (EDUVIZIG + KDVVIZIG) DE AT SK HU RS 213 km 322 km 172 km 275 km 358 km km 2,202 km 1,880 km 1,708 km 1,433 km 1,075 RO 941 km km 134 km 133 MD UA 133 km km 0 Sulina km 2, km 350 km km 138 km DE AT SK HU HR km 2,223 km 1,873 km 1,811 km 1,433 km 1, km RS km km BG km km RO km 0 Figure 56: Organizational structureof Danube waterway agencies stated number of employees NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 92

93 only the deciding factor if there is a lack of qualified staff for key tasks in some areas or if other tasks (e.g. flood protection, water quality assessment) have to be addressed. If it is decided to implement a WMMS it will therefore be necessary to assess the number of personnel for all key tasks of a WMMS from survey and data processing up to planning, tendering and implementation of necessary measures on the waterway. Answering the question wether existing personnel may be enough, needs to be qualified or additional staff has to be hired requires an in depth individual assessment of each waterway agency and needs to be addressed only if a WMMS should be implemented. If total budgets and number of staff per river-kilometer cannot be directly compared without account for a number of factors how about budgets for riverbed surveys? Figure 57 provides an overview on available annual budgets per river-kilometre including tributaries for surveys ranging from 2,300 /km in Austria to 230 /km in Hungary. Without indepth knowledge of riverbed characterics, width of fairway, length of critical sections, survey equipment and frequency as well as labour costs one could ask why the Austrians need ten times the budget compared to Hungary for almost the same river section length (350 km VS 378 km). With average labour costs of 31,3 /h in Austria compared to 7.8 /h in Hungary and surveys of the entire national stretch twice a year with additional survey of critical sections every month by viadonau compared to a complete survey once every five years and critical sectors once a year by OVF/VIZIGS it is quite clear that lower budgets pose a substantial risk regarding survey density and processing capability. As a result there are large deviations both in available budget and subsequent survey approach on the entire Danube being a critical issue for the implementation of a full WMMS. Therefore, Chapter provides a possible life cycle costing approach together with an overview on how to assess the costs for a common survey density as basis for actual fairway information and implementation of such a WMMS. Annual budgets [ /km] River survey budgets per river-km from 2010 to 2014* *350 km *172 km *378 km *137 km *963 km *236 km *1,018 km , avg. 913,2 704,4 229,6 494,4 334,4 280,4 *River-km inkl. tributaries in responsibility of water agencies Figure 57: Average stated annual budgets per river-kilometer for riverbed surveys on the waterway Danube Marking activities are also a typical core task of any waterway management approach especially on river sections with dynamic sandy or muddy riverbed and large width of the entire river resulting in both the possibility and necessity for shifting of the fairway path. With available budgets determining the limits of any marking activity actual marking costs are depending on marking approach, equipment and staff among other factors. Figure 58 provides an overview on available annual budgets for marking activities per river kilometer ranging from 760 /km in Serbia to 4,420 /km in Bulgaria. In Austria the value is zero due to the fact that marking activities are not in the responsibility of viadonau but a different authority. Furthermore, almost the entire national stretch of the Danube in Austria is quite narrow and regulated leading to a somewhat stable fairway path and not much room for shifting as regular task. In contrast to this situation on the upper Danube shifting the fairway path with subsequent marking activities is regarded a regular activity with high efficiency for NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 93

94 providing continuous fairway parameters without the need for costly maintenance or engineering measures. Chapter provides an overview of available marking equipment together with a more detailed assessment on how to calculate possible investment needs depening on the marking approach or even implementation in a full WMMS. Annual budgets [ /km] River marking budgets per river-km from 2010 to 2014 *350 km *172 km *378 km *137 km *963 km *236 km *1,018 km , , , avg , ,5 0,0 758,0 *River-km inkl. tributaries in responsibility of water agencies Figure 58: Average stated annual budgets per river-kilometer for marking activities on the waterway Danube The investment needs for achieving continuous fairway parameters or even agreed fairway depth and width on 343 days a year deviate largely from actual budgets and resulting fairway availability. Therefore current maintenance or dredging budgets provide in no way any evidence for actual needs but are rather an indicator of more or less limited capabilities of waterway agencies to provide sufficient fairway conditions. Figure 59 provides an overview on river dredging budgets per river kilometer on the Danube ranging from zero in Bulgaria to 15,100 /km in Austria. With a stated fairway availability e.g. for 120 m width and 2.5 m depth on only 16% per year in 2012 in Hungary but practically no investments in maintenance it becomes quite clear that continuous fairway parameters cannot be achieved within the current patchwork of organizations, approaches and very limited resources. With the current information density and approaches stating reasonable numbers for achieving continuous harmonized fairway parameters are therefore more or less educated guesswork. Therefore, chapter provides a more indepth analysis of dredging activities together with an approach on how to assess the necessary budget for maintenance activities on the basis of a WMMS in order to achieve continuous fairway paramegters on the entire Danube. Annual budgets [ /km] River dredging budgets per river-km from 2010 to 2014 *350 km *172 km *378 km *137 km *963 km *236 km *1,018 km , , avg. 17, ,5 342,7 0, ,8 *River-km inkl. tributaries in responsibility of water agencies Figure 59: Average stated annual budgets per river-kilometer for maintenance dredging on the waterway Danube NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 94

95 7 COST ESTIMATIONS AND POSSIBLE BENEFITS 7.1. Stated investment needs to provide a common minimum LOS The NEWADA duo project partners have calculated costs of 85.7 million (Table 29) in order to bridge the gap between the current status quo in fairway maintenance and management and the common minimum level of service which has been identified among the project partners. These involve investment costs of 80.0 million and annual operational costs of 5.7 million (Table 28). Costs included in the following table only relate to needs identified for routine or day-to-day waterway maintenance and management activities. Costs for large-scale river engineering projects which are planned or ongoing in the various Danube riparian countries are excluded in this report, as they constitute one-time structural interventions which are eligible for EU co-funding, with funding rates of up to 100%. For the different need areas, the total investment and operational costs can be found in Table 28: Table 28: Overview of stated investment needs of waterway agencies for a common minimum level of service NEED AREA MINIMUM FAIRWAY PARAMETERS (DEPTH AND WIDTH) ONE-TIME INVESTMENT COSTS OPERATIONAL COSTS PER YEAR 37,770,000 3,160,000 SURVEYING OF THE RIVERBED 10,751,700 1,102,200 WATER LEVEL GAUGES 500,000 73,900 MARKING OF THE FAIRWAY 29,271,000 1,007,500 AVAILABILITY OF LOCKS / LOCK CHAMBERS 400,000 INFORMATION FOR USERS ON WATER LEVELS AND FORECASTS INFORMATION FOR USERS ON FAIRWAY DEPTHS INFORMATION FOR USERS ON MARKING PLANS METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR USERS 256,000 17, , ,000 25, ,000 OTHER NEEDS 100, ,200 SUM TOTAL 80,047,700 5,704,800 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 95

96 Table 29: Stated total cost estimation (one-time investment costs and annual operational costs) for providing common minimum level of service on the entire Danube by waterway agencies - NEWADA duo report (O.6:3:9) COUNTRIES NEED AREA AUSTRIA SLOVAKIA HUNGARY CROATIA SERBIA BULGARIA ROMANIA VIADONAU SVP OVF AVP PLOVPUT EAEMDR AFDJ+ACN TOTAL SUM MINIMUM FAIRWAY PARAMETERS (DEPTH AND WIDTH) SURVEYING OF THE RIVERBED WATER LEVEL GAUGES MARKING OF THE FAIRWAY AVAILABILITY OF LOCKS / LOCK CHAMBERS INFORMATION FOR USERS ON WATER LEVELS AND FORECASTS INFORMATION FOR USERS ON FAIRWAY DEPTHS INFORMATION FOR USERS ON MARKING PLANS METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR USERS 0 6,732, , ,000 8,662,000 24,036,000 40,930, , ,700 49, ,200 4,410,000 5,434,000 11,853,900 42, , ,000 3, , , ,120,000 3,204, ,000 5,435,000 9,235,000 10,274,000 30,278, n/a n/a 0 n/a 400, , , , , , , ,000 n/a 0 72, , , , , ,000 OTHER NEEDS , , ,200 SUM TOTAL 42,400 9,582,000 5,137,200 59,000 6,909,400 22,397,500 41,625,000 85,752,500 NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 96

97 7.2. Estimation of investment needs for a WMMS Investment needs and running costs for fairway surveys Periodic bathymetric surveys of the riverbed are a core business of any waterway agency. As described in Chapter 5 periodic bathymetric surveys and continuous information from water level gauges provide waterway agencies with the data to assess the course of the fairway, draw 2D plans of water depths up to a 3D model of the fairway together with a calculation of fairway availability. The methodic background, technical requirements as well as some preliminary results and their use in a WMMS are given in Chapter 4. Depending on available equipment, available resources and the accuracy of necessary information there are mainly three typical types of bathymetric surveys (Figure 60). The first types are longitudinal profile measurements mainly parallel to the fairway path with single-beam equipment being mainly used for a fast preliminary check of possible changes in the riverbed. A systematic assessment of river morphology, fairway availability and measure impacts as required in a WMMS is not possible based on this approach. The second types are systematic singlebeam measurements of cross-sectional profiles with a fixed distance between 25 and 100 m that are regularely used by all waterway authorities on the river Danube. Obviously this type of measurements provides no depth information between the profiles which may be an advantage regarding amount and processing of data. Regarding a full WMMS it is possible to calculate the fairway availability and establish a rough model for an assessment of measure impact based on a very limited amount of data. Thus, all waterway agencies on the river Danube are in principle eligible for implementing a WMMS. However, for an in-depth analysis the resulting accuracy of single-beam measurements is rather low, thus posing a certain limit for any WMMS. The third types of measurements are multi-beam bathymetric surveys based on overlapping stripes providing very accurate dense information of the entire riverbed surface. Due to Survey of riverbed with single-beam based on longitudinal profiles (e.g. fast check, marking) surveyed section (high speed, low accuracy) water level riverbed Linear measurement parallel to fairway Only fast check of possible changes in riverbed Lowest amount of data and resulting accuracy fairway Survey of riverbed with single-beam based on cross sectional profiles (e.g. regular survey, full river) surveyed section (medium speed, medium accuracy) water level riverbed fairway Linear measurement of cross sectional profiles (e.g. 50 m) Regular survey and adjustment with river profiles Systematic comparison of profile development over time Low amount of data and low-medium resulting accuracy Survey of riverbed with multi-beam based overlapping stripes (e.g. shallow sections, measures) surveyed section (low speed, high accuracy) water level riverbed fairway Measurement of overlapping stripes (width depends on depth) Survey of shallow sections, before/after (dredging) measures Systematic comparison of riverbed development over time Calculation of sedimentation/erosion/dredging volume Backcalculation of longitudinal/cross-sectional profiles High amount of data and high resulting accuracy Figure 60: Typical approches in riverbed survey with singlebeam and multi-beam equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 97

98 significantly higher equipment costs only very few waterway agencies on the Danube currently own such equipment. In addition the high density of multi-beam measurement data resulting in a few gigabytes per measurement of short shallow sections is not easy to handle without special software and training. Pre- and post-processing of all data both from single-beam and multi-beam surveys is a time-consuming task that is mainly performed manually case-by-case in all waterway agencies even though the principal input of data and output of plans, maps and analysis stay the same. Except of the via donau pilot project described in Chapter 4 showing very promising results regarding fast pre- and postprocessing of the resulting big data volumes there are currently no real WMMS solutions on the market. As a result there are almost no common standards regarding the storage, processing and analysis of bathymetric data being mainly organized depending on different software products and perceived national practical needs. With the common goal of providing accurate information on fairway conditions as a basis for the planning of measures and navigational purposes the question of the necessary means to obtain this information arises. As a first approach for an assessment of this means a periodic survey of the entire rivebed at least once a year and additional 5 surveys of all critical sections are defined. Based on actual knowledge and practical experience such a density of surveys would fulfill all possible needs of analysis as well as a full WMMS. Furthermore, this approach to bathymetric surveys is already established at via donau providing satisfactory results for all main tasks and even special analysis. As a basis for the assessment of necessary equipment and staff in each riparian country the performance and costs of cross-sectional surveys with single-beam as well as multi-beam equipment have to be estimated (Figure 61). Based on an assumed surveying speed of 4-5 km/h per hour, 150 m length of measurement of profiles and 50 m distance between profiles it should be possible to cover 4.0 to 5.0 km survey per day and vessel including the necessary time from the starting point to the surveying area and back. With around 200 days per year with favorable surveying conditions and operating vessel the survey performance per vessel with single-beam can be estimated at 800 to 1,000 km per year. The calculation of investment and running costs is based on a deterministic lifecycle cost approach with a service life of 40 years for the vessel, 20 years for single-beam equipment and 10 years for computers, monitors, vehicles. The calculation includes running costs from maintenance and repair as well as insurance, taxes and fuel, with an interest rate of 3% leading to annual costs between and per vessel and year or 60 to 65 per kilometre of survey. The calculation of performance and costs of multi-beam surveys is conducted on a rather similar way based on a slightly higher vessel speed of 5-7 km/h parallel to the fairway due to a highter density and accuracy of the equipment. With an average depth of in average 5.0 m for regular surveys and 3.0 m for shallow sections the survey width can be estimated with 21 to 23 m (regular) and 10 to 12 m (shallow). Thus, water depth is crucial for getting a full picture based on overlapping longitudinal surveying swathes and the resulting daily performance of around 3.7 to 4.0 km (regular) respectively 1.9 to 2.0 km (shallow). As a result the regular survey performance with multi-beam equipment (700 to 800 km per year) is lower compared to single-beam, but offers a much higher accuracy and information density. With labour costs staying the same the differences in surveying costs per kilometre are mainly related to higher costs of the equipment ( 77,500 to 82,500 per year) and lower surveying performance at costs of 105 to 110 per kilometer of survey. Regarding a full WMMS a combination of single-beam for regular surveys and multi-beam for shallow sections and measures may also be an option. The costs for staff are calculated separately due to large differences in labour costs and taxes in Danube riparian countries based on 1 x captain (70,000 incl. taxes p.a.) and 2 x crew (2 x incl. taxes) with annual costs in Austria/Germany of around 170,000 (100%). According to labour cost data from EUROSTAT the total costs for the crew can be estimated as a fraction of these values for the riparian countries as well (e.g. SK and HU = 50%; HR, RS and RO = 40%; BG and UA =30%). Pre- and post-processing costs are not included in the calculations. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 98

99 Survey of riverbed with singlebeam based on cross sectional profiles with capacity and performance Survey of riverbed with multibeam based overlapping stripes with capacity and performance Principle: Singlebeam dgps water level riverbed Measurement of distance to ground Depth information in motion direction Coverage = single line Principle: Multibeam dgps Measurement of distance to ground Depth information in motion direction Coverage = stripe SB Survey approach: Cross-sectional profiles Shallow section MB Survey approach: Overlapping parallel stripes Shallow section SB Survey performance: [km] Closer profiles (every 25 m?) Crew: 3 people, 8h/d Approach: km/h Example 1 Performance regular survey entire river: Survey speed: 4-5 km/h ~ 1,25 m/s Profiles: 150 m length every 50 m Performance: ( )/1,25 = = 160 sec + turning, adjustment 3 min/50 m 60 min/km Approach/return to central base Ø 1,5h Radius = 2x2x1,5 = 6h km Breaks: 1x0,5 h/day Ø Survey time/day = 8-2x1,5-0,5 = 4,5 h = 270 min Performance/day: (270 min) / (60 min/km) = 6,75 4,0-5,0 km/day Duration full survey 150 to 180 km from central base: 37,5-40 work days Example 2 Investment & running costs survey (3% interest): Vessel availability / max. performance: 200 workdays km/year Crew (e.g. AT): 2x50.000, 1x Captain /a labour costs for crew (100%) (DE/AT=100%; SV/HU=50%; HR/RS/RO=40%; BG/UA=30%) Option single-beam - regular (50 m cross-sectional profiles): Interest rate [%] 3.0% Duration cycle 40 Item Costs Time Present value Annual costs Vessel 500, , ,631.2 Single-beam 1 20, , Single-beam 2 20, , Computer, Monitor 1 10, , Computer, Monitor 2 10, , Computer, Monitor 3 10, , Computer, Monitor 4 10, , GPS 1 60, , ,595.7 GPS 2 60, , ,437.2 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 1 35, , ,514.2 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 2 35, , ,126.7 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 3 35, , PKW (Bus / Hilux) 4 35, , Maintenance invest. (2%) 12,500.0 per year 288, ,500.0 Insurance, tax invest (1,5%) 9,375.0 per year 216, ,375.0 Fuel 2,340.0 per year 54, ,340.0 Total without crew 1,305, ,498.8 Survey vessel costs per survey [ ]/km 62.8 Crew max (100%) 170,000.0 per year 3,929, ,000.0 Crew costs per survey [ /km] Crew min (30%) 51,000.0 per year 1,178, ,000.0 Crew costs per survey [ /km] 56.7 Distance [km] Fuel [l/km] fuel costs [ /l Total ,340 lower depth smaller width of survey MB Survey performance: [km] backcalculation of any profile Crew: 3 people, 8h/d Approach: km/h Example 1 Performance regular survey entire river: Survey speed: 5-7 km/h ~ 1,67 m/s Width shallow: Ø depth = 3,0 m draught + squat =0,5 m 135 Angle ~ 11 m Approach/return to central base Ø 1,5h Radius = 2x2x1,5 = 6h km Breaks: 1x0,5 h/day Ø Survey time/day = 8-2x1,5-0,5 = 4,5 h = 270 min Performance/day: 150/(22) ~ 7x (1,67/7)*60*270/ ,7-4,0 km/day Duration full survey 150 to 180 km from central base: work days Example 2 Investment & running costs survey (3% interest): Vessel availability / max. performance: Width total: Ø depth = 5 m draught + squat =0,5 m 135 Angle ~ 22 m 200 workdays km/year Crew (e.g. AT): 2x50.000, 1x Captain /a labour costs for crew (100%) (DE/AT=100%; SV/HU=50%; HR/RS/RO=40%; BG/UA=30%) Option multi-beam - regular (width = m coverage): Interest rate [%] 3.0% Duration cycle 40 Item Costs Time Present value Annual costs Vessel 500, , ,631.2 Multi-beam 1 250, , ,815.6 Multi-beam 2 250, , ,988.3 Computer, Monitor 1 15, , Computer, Monitor 2 15, , Computer, Monitor 3 15, , Computer, Monitor 4 15, , GPS 1 60, , ,595.7 GPS 2 60, , ,437.2 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 1 35, , ,514.2 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 2 35, , ,126.7 PKW (Bus / Hilux) 3 35, , PKW (Bus / Hilux) 4 35, , Maintenance invest. (2%) 17,200.0 per year 397, ,200.0 Insurance, tax invest (1,5%) 12,900.0 per year 298, ,900.0 Fuel 1,950.0 per year 45, ,950.0 Total without crew 1,857, ,379.6 Survey vessel costs per survey [ ]/km Crew max (100%) 170,000.0 per year 3,929, ,000.0 Crew costs per survey [ /km] Crew min (30%) 51,000.0 per year 1,178, ,000.0 Crew costs per survey [ /km] 68.0 Distance [km] Fuel [l/km] fuel costs [ /l Total ,950 Figure 61: (a) Principles, performance and cost estimation for single-beam surveying based on cross-sectional profiles (e.g. in Austria (b) Principles, performance and cost estimation for multi-beam surveying based on overlapping parallel swathes e.g. in Austria for a limited width of the river and stable fairway path without pre-/postprocessing NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 99

100 The cost calculations for both single-beam and multi-beam surveys show the dominance of labour costs especially in Austria and Germany. Furthermore, the majority of the total costs for crew and vessels are fixed if a own-and-operate approach is favored leading to certain budget needs even if no kilometer of survey is performed at all. On the other hand annual costs may be reduced significantly if free survey capacities are offered to harbor operators or other third parties or the entire survey being tendered on the market. However, with current tight budgets of waterway agencies in general the investment costs are rather high if no sufficient surveying capacity is already owned. With the surveying capacity of vessels, length of national river stretches and shallow sections ("Fairway Maintenance Master Plan" of the Danube Region Strategy's Priority Area 1a on inland waterways; September 2014) as well as the predefined riverbed surveying density it is possible to calculate equipment needs for a full WMMS. Actual practical needs may then be derived as the difference between estimated needs and actual available equipment. Figure 62 provides an overview of these calculations (Danube only) without regard of possible additional survey needs for other purposes taking into account a higher width of the river on the lower Danube compared to Austria. In addition, experience shows that a continuous survey during the entire year with just one vessel will not provide sufficient reliability of surveying capacity and may fall short in delivering actual data of all critical sections in time. Therefore, a second column provides the recommended number of vessels for each riparian country for a WMMS without additional survey tasks. Finally, total annual costs for both crew and vessel based on minimum and recommended equipment/survey capacity are given as well. The resulting total costs of 2.5 to 3.0 million per year for single-beam surveys respectively 3.0 to 3.4 million per year for multi-beam surveys of the entire river Danube covering around 2,400 km (WMMS survey only without pre-/postprocessing) are rather low. With the difference in costs between multi-beam and single-beam, additional possibilities and accuracy of multi-beam surveys at least one should be available to each waterway agency. Despite low annual costs for each waterway agency for such an equipment it has to be noted that investment costs in the year of acquisition may be a rather prohibitive factor with current tight budgets of most agencies. In addition, current available equipment in most agencies is rather old leading to certain investment needs that are a necessary prerequisite for providing accurate and actual information on fairway conditions in the future. WMMS only: cost calculation and needs for regular riverbed surveying in riparian Danube countries: Scenario 1: 1x year full, +5x critical with Single-beam Country* lenght_l lenght_r total critical width*** survey_reg survey_crit tot_survey Vessels_min Vessels_rec. crew_cost costs_min costs_rec. [km] [km] [km] km]** factor [-] [1/year] [1/year] [km/a] [ - ] [ - ]**** factor [%] [ - ] [ - ] Germany % 226, ,998 Austria % 226, ,998 Slovakia % 141, ,499 Hungary % 141, ,998 Croatia % 124, ,998 Serbia % 248, ,496 Romania % 373, ,496 Bulgaria % 107, ,998 Ukraine % 107, ,998 Factor critical sections SB 2 Total 1,697,986 2,756,478 *Moldova with a lenght of 0,55 km (l) is covered by Romania *** Width factor accounts for higher fairway width/changing fairway path especcially on the lower Danube ** Joint border sections, critical sections partly joined/alternating survey (counted 50:50) ****Recommendation based on fast parallel survey / redundancy needs WMMS only: Cost calculation and needs for regular riverbed surveying in riparian Danube countries: Scenario 1: 1x year full, +5x critical with Multi-beam Country* lenght_l lenght_r total critical width*** survey_reg survey_crit tot_survey Vessels_min Vessels_rec. crew_cost costs_min costs_rec. [km] [km] [km] km]** factor [-] [1/year] [1/year] [km/a] [ - ] [ - ]**** factor [%] [ /year] [ /year] Germany % 500, ,759 Austria % 250, ,759 Slovakia % 165, ,380 Hungary % 330, ,759 Croatia % 148, ,759 Serbia % 445, ,139 Romania % 445, ,139 Bulgaria % 131, ,759 Ukraine % 131, ,759 Factor critical sections MB 2 Total 2,548,694 3,210,212 *Moldova with a lenght of 0.55 km (l) is covered by Romania *** Width factor accounts for higher fairway width/changing fairway path especcially on the lower Danube ** Joint border sections, critical sections partly joined/alternating survey (counted 50:50) ****Recommendation based on fast parallel survey / redundancy needs Figure 62: Minimum and recommended equipment for a sufficient riverbed survey in a WMMS with single-beam or multibeam with an estimation of annual costs in all national sections wihtout regard for different purpose surveys & tasks NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 100

101 In contrast to estimated total costs including all expenses for surveying vessels and crew for a sufficient riverbed surveying density of a WMMS actual investment needs are based on the difference between recommended and currently available equipment and staff in waterway agencies. The estimation of investment needs in Figure 63 is a first approach for a WMMS on the Danube (not regarding other survey needs and tasks) with a distinction between costs for equipment for a full life cycle of 40 years with present value and annual costs of necessary expenses. The costs for the crew of additional vessels is provided separately on an annual basis as there is currently no consistent information available wether there is enough qualified staff for additional vessels in the waterway agencies. The estimated figure for recommended investments in survey capacity is 9.3 million for 40 years once (present value) or 400, ,000 for staff per year depending on the financing approach. Renewal of existing equipment is not included in the calculations but may be derived with the provided calculation approach based on an in-depth analysis for the current equipment condition. WMMS only: Comparison of possible investment needs for survey equipment and actual available equipment in waterway agencies Country* vessel SB vessel MB Vessels_min Vessels_rec. sufficient costs_present costs_annualcosts_annual available [ - ] available [ - ] [ - ] [ - ]*** [yes/no] vessel [ ]* vessel [ /a]* crew [ /a]* Comments and recommendations regarding existing equipment and investment needs Germany yes Sufficient equipment regarding a WMMS Austria yes Sufficient equipment regarding a WMMS Slovakia no 1,857,956 80,380 85,000 +1x vessel with MB is recommended Hungary no 1,857,956 80,380 85,000 1x vessel with MB in principle available Croatia yes Sufficient equipment regarding a WMMS Serbia no 1,857,956 80,380 68,000 1x vessel with MB in repair until vessel with MB is recommende Romania yes Sufficient equipment regarding a WMMS Bulgaria no 1,857,956 80,380 51,000 1x vessel with MB is recommended Ukraine no 1,857,956 80,380 51,000 1x vessel with MB is recommended Total 9,289, , ,000 *only additional costs compared to existing equipment are considered with present value for 40 years operation - costs for crew are provided separately on an annual base Figure 63: Comparison of recommended and available surveying equipment with resulting costs (present value, annual costs) based on a life cycle of 40 years without expenses for additional crew (currently sufficient staff in most agencies) Investment needs for water level gauging stations and data transmission Reliable actual data from water level gauges is the basis for calculating a water level model Situating water level gauges and possible accuracy considerations regarding calculated water levels forming the backbone for assessing fairway gauge accuracy 1. Free flowing sections: µ g = 0, σg availability together with data from bathymetric surveys. According to NEWADA duo Act. 6.3 gauge #1 gauge #2 gauge #3 water level min. regular model accuracy optimum locations of automatic gauging stations riverbed µ a, σa /2 /2 a a a/2 a/2 depend on the local hydro-morphological gauge failure model accuracy characteristics with gauging stations at sections 2 2 Regular: σg,a/2 = σg + σa/2 µ a, σa with the most significant changes in the 2 2 Failure: σg,a = σg + σa a hydraulics of the riverbed (Figure 64). In order to acquire continuous information at least every e.g. 95% Confidence for real water level calculated not being more than 5 cm below calculated water level real problematic hour an automated transmission (e.g. via GSM) safety margin (one sided)? σ * g,a/2 cm of measurement data and an independent power supply for all gauging stations are necessary. A 2. Backwater sections: gauge #1 calculation of water levels between gauging freeflow backwater gauge #2 gauge #3 stations may be based on an interpolation freeflow between gauges or a 1D, 2D or 3D hydraulic a model. In practice there are mainly interpolation b and 1D water level models in use. More complex Figure 64: Some considerations regarding situation, number and accuracy of water level gauges and water level model 2D models are mainly used in waterway agencies for special purposes and limited stretches of the river. Complex 3D models are only used for scientific purposes and engineering projects for limited river section lengths due to efforts for model setup and long processing times. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 101

102 For a full WMMS every water level model that can be calculated or actualized and maintained for entire national river sections with an accuracy of ± 5 cm at 95% confidence level or less should be sufficient. However, in order to allow an automatic processing water level gauges need to have a high reliability and the system should be able to filter errors and compensate for at least a possible failure of a neighbouring gauge. Based on such a standard almost real-time availability and water level information may be provided to customers. For calculating the sufficient number of gauges and gauge density the average slope of the riverbed is an important factor with the number of gauges increasing with slope. On the upper Danube from Kehlheim to Gönyü (rkm 2, ,791.33) the slope is 37 cm/km, on the central Danube down to Turnu Severin (rkm ) this value is 8 cm/km and for the lower Danube down to the Black Sea it is only 4 cm/km. For a sufficient level of accuracy on the central and lower Danube an interpolation or 1D water level model together with a small number of gauges will be sufficient whereas on the upper Danube with its higher slope and number of hydroelectric power plants a higher number of gauges together with a 2D water level model could prove favorable. According to the needs assessment conducted in NEWADA duo Act 6.3, only Hungary (150,000), Serbia (48,000) and Romania (300,000) see a need for further investments in this area. From the current point of information these numbers do not seem too high, though there is no assessment available which accuracy can be achieved in which country under actual conditions. With the information from Act 6.3 as well as the Draft EUSDR "Fairway Maintenance Master Plan" (September 2014) several Danube riparian countries state that a water level accuracy of ± 5 cm (95% confidence level) and an overall accuracy of water depth and fairway conditions not exceeding ± 10 cm (95% confidence level) is currently not possible. For the implementation of a full WMMS accurate and reliable information on water levels is essential. According to Figure 64 the total accuracy of calculated water level is a function of both accuracy and density of gauges as well as the water level model itself. It is recommended to set up a project with external experts for updating existing and/or calculating new 1D/2D water level models for the entire river Danube that can be incorporated in a WMMS. This project should include an assessment of the accuracy and reliability of existing gauges in order to determine additional investment needs. Figure 65 provides cost estimation for such a project ( 650,000 to 700,000) as well as running costs for continuous updates and statistical analyses including an annual report with 120,000 to 150,000 per year. Tendering the project on a European level as a package would seem to be optimal for harmonized results. Though such a project does not exist at the moment, the additional investment costs in gauging stations should be reasonable. Based on very low costs of automated high quality water level gauges (e.g. 5,000 to 8,000 per gauging station) total investment costs including software and servers should not exceed 1 million with operating costs of 50,000 to 100,000 per year for the entire river Danube. WMMS only: Comparison of possible investment needs for water level gauges & water level models with actual available equipment in waterway agencies Country* no. priority density sufficient used water rec.water sufficient costs_invest costs_run gauges [ - ] gauges [km [yes/no] level model level model [yes/no] [ ]* [ /a]** Germany n.a. 1D/2D 1D/2D n.a. 75,000 15,000 Austria 9 37 n.a. 1D/2D 1D/2D n.a. 75,000 15,000 Slovakia 5 23 n.a. 1D 1D/2D n.a. 50,000 10,000 Hungary n.a. Interp./1D 1D/2D n.a. 75,000 15,000 Croatia 5 14 n.a. Interp./1D 1D/2D n.a. 50,000 10,000 Serbia n.a. 1D 1D/2D n.a. 100,000 20,000 Romania n.a. Interp./1D 1D/2D n.a. 150,000 30,000 Bulgaria 4 59 n.a. Interp./1D 1D/2D n.a. 50,000 10,000 Ukraine #NV #NV n.a. Interp./1D 1D/2D n.a. 50,000 10,000 Total 675, ,000 Comments and recommendations Accuracy/check water level models recommended Accuracy/check water level models recommended Update water level models strongly recommended Update water level models strongly recommended Update water level models strongly recommended Accuracy/check water level models recommended Update water level models strongly recommended Update water level models strongly recommended Update water level models strongly recommended *Estimation of investment costs for external calculation 1D/2D water level models for each country together with an assessment of necessary number of gauges for target accuracy of WMMS *Estimation of running costs for updating of water level models and external statistical analysis every year including a report of the situation on the entire river Danube Figure 65: Comparison of possible investment needs and running costs for an external assessment of existing water level models, checking for accuracy and/or updating the models depending on the results in all waterway agencies NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 102

103 Investment needs for data harmonization, software and processing The NEWADA duo Act 6.3 needs assessment as well as the Draft EUSDR "Fairway Maintenance Master Plan" (September 2014) together with the field survey to project partners conducted by the authors for the feasibility study revealed that certain parts of equipment are outdated. Furthermore, there is sufficient need for additional state-of-the-art databases, software and training in order to allow data harmonization and fast processing of surveying information as well as planning of maintenance measures. With these stated preferences for a need of improvement the question arises how this may be achieved and what would be necessary. One possible way would be to modernize the IT infrastructure and software with a best practice approach. As the best practice is currently still a manual approach even in advanced waterway agencies this would most likely not be a very efficient way in order to arrive at a common WMMS. For the implementation of a full WMMS with regard to the aspects of data harmonization, software and processing, all of the following elements would be needed: IT infrastructure: New IT infrastructure and Figure 66: Different levels of surveying and processing servers with SQL database, capacity for > results in waterway agencies on the river Danube 100 GB together with a connection to all national bases and central server, automatic measurements (e.g. water level gauging stations, GPS buoys) and IT safety measures in order to prevent unauthorized access or loss of data WMMS software: Development and adjustment of a WMMS software including necessary interfaces to existing databases and algorithms for conversion and harmonization of existing data from bathymetric surveys, water level gauges and other measurements. Furthermore licenses for pre- and post-processing as well as additional mapping needs (e.g. ARCGIS, ACADMAP etc.) Data migration: In order to establish a common base for further analyses and any kind of maintenance measure optimization or budgeting, the data from riverbed surveys and maintenance measures of the last 5 years have to be migrated into a WMMS database. The result would be a digital model of the entire Danube allowing a calculation of fairway availability, maintenance optimization and common strategic decisions. In addition, information and prediction of fairway conditions will become feasible as a precondition for optimal information of navigation companies and shippers alike. Training: Though there is qualified staff with years of practical experience available in all waterway agencies, shifting to a common high-level approach and new software calls for extensive training. This training would include general methods and optimization approaches as well as the practical handling of WMMS software and other software with all necessary steps to enable a fast processing and analysis of data on a daily basis. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 103

104 The cost estimation for an IT infrastructure as provided by Figure 67 is very conservative and only includes the necessary equipment for maintaining and operating a WMMS with 2-3 additional workplaces. The costs for IT specialists in waterway agencies are not included. Only running costs for replacing certain parts and external expert checks are included in maintenance costs. As Germany and Austria already have some new IT infrastructure only 50% of the full costs are accounted for in these cases. A generalized waterway asset management approach is described in Chapter 4 together with a first pilot implementation in software. However, in order to arrive at a fully functional software tool there is still a lot of development and discussion necessary both regarding a common approach and its implementation. However; from previous experience it can be expected that development and implementation of a full WMMS may be completed in 3 to 4 years in all waterway agencies. However, with customization and development needs there will be running costs for a WMMS as well. The data migration into such a WMMS system and database is a necessary prerequisite in order to use all existing information of fairway development, measure costs and impact as well as other information from the start. With a self-learning approach in a WMMS system, using historic information from the last 3 to 5 years provides solid ground for any kind of analysis or estimation until newer data is available. The calculation includes costs for external experts that assist waterway agencies in this migration process but does not include costs of internal staff. As further maintenance of the database should be a core competence of waterway authorities there is no need for additional running costs here. Training of staff in waterway agencies both in the general WMMS approach and practical handling of necessary software products is crucial in order to produce reliable information from a massive amount of data. The cost estimation includes preparation of course material as well as intense training on-site for all waterway agencies at the time a WMMS is implemented. However, as staff changes and a WMMS is practically used new questions and findings may arise. Therefore, it is necessary to have a small budget for travelling and training expenses ready that may be found in the calculations in Figure 67 as well. In summary it can be concluded that investing in data harmonization, software and processing without a common plan will most likely lead to more of the same. In a best case such an approach would lead to a copy of current best practices without the possibility of utilizing the functionality and potentials of a harmonized WMMS on the entire river Danube. If efforts and knowledge of all agencies together with help from some external experts and software developers are bundled it is very likely that sufficient results can be achieved. Estimated investment costs (~ 3.1 million) and running costs (~ 0.45 million) for such an approach are the very core of harmonized strategies and an efficient processing of data in order to arrive at solid evidence for an efficient use of funds. Investment and running cost estimation for data harmonization, software and processing in riparian countries of the Danube Country* lenght_l lenght_r IT -Infra WMMS* Data- Training Total IT-maint. WMMS*** Data**** Training Total [km] [km] structure [ ] Software [ ] migration** [ ] staff [ ] Invest [ ] [ /a] maint. [ /a] maint. [ /a] staff [ /a] running [ /a] Germany ,000 75,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Austria ,000 75,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Slovakia ,000 50,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Hungary , ,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Croatia ,000 50,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Serbia , ,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Romania , ,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Bulgaria ,000 50,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Ukraine ,000 50,000 25, ,000 10,000 30,000-10,000 50,000 Total 2, , ,000 1,200, , ,000 3,125,000 90, ,000-90, ,000 *WMMS - pilotproject of via donau may be a base for developing a full WMMS - Software for the entire river Danube - total costs depend on demanded functionalities, adaption, translation efforts ** Efforts for migration of data strongly depend on current standards and available databases and formats as well as lenght of river stretch. Only costs for external experts included *** Annual costs software maintenance and ongoing development **** Maintenance of data is in the responsibility of the waterway agencies - no extra costs Figure 67: Required elements and cost estimation for data harmonization, software, training and processing as necessary prerequisite for implementing and operating a WMMS NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 104

105 Investment needs for marking vessels and buoys According to the UNECE "Guidelines for Waterway Signs and Marking" [UNECE 2013], waterway marking comprises of signs used to Marking plan example from a section of the river Danube in Hungary regulate navigation on the waterway and floating as well as onshore signs/signals marking the limits of the fairway and navigational hazards. In order to increase traffic safety, kilometre and hectometre markings should be placed wherever possible. The number of floating and onshore marks as well as any signal and plan for their location depends on the characteristics Marking list example with all signs and river-km from a section of the river Danube in Serbia of the waterway with the main goal to ensure navigational safety. Placement of the marks shall be based on regular surveys of the riverbed together with measures of depth and width of the fairway so that they indicate fairway dimensions. Furthermore, the location and number of all sings and marks has to be layed out in actual plans with the responsible authority being in charge of the right positioning and Marking vessel example from Hungary uninterrupted operation. Furthermore, all boatmasters have to be informed of the date of installation or removal or any other alterations together with the rules in restricted sections where meeting and passing are prohibited. Figure 68 provides an overview on typical marking plans and a marking vessel with buoys for inland navigation. The number of necessary signs and fairway markings is strongly related to the characteristic of the Figure 68: Examples for current standard marking plans, respective river section. Based on the abovementioned "Guidelines for Waterway Signs and marking vessels and buoys on inland waterway Danube Marking", Figure 69 provides an overview on all main typical situations. As already described under Chapter 6.3 the fairway on the river Danube is checked from twice a week to twice a month based on three longitudinal single-beam profiles of the riverbed together with the location of all signs. As signing is mandatory there are in general enough signs and buoys in most waterway agencies available as well as a certain number of marking vessels. According to the findings of the field trip and surveys as well as stated preferences from Act 6.3 the vessel fleet for marking is overaged leading to certain replacement needs in some agencies. Furthermore, replacing old static buoys on critical sections with new GPS tracked buoys would enable tracking any changes in position and reduce marking/controlling efforts. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 105

106 (1) Marking example of obstacles on the side of the fairwaywith signs and signals (5) Marking example of the front and back signs at hidden routes (9) Marking example of the fairway passing in a straight line between sandbanks with two signs (13) Marking example of the fairway passing a bridge in a curved situation (2) Marking example of the current making an angle with the fairway or strong side winds (6) Marking example of obstacles protruding in the fairway reducing its width (10) Marking example of a curved fairway passing between sandbanks with two (or more) signs (14) Marking example of the fairway passing a bridge in a very curved situation (3) Marking example of the fairway crossing through the river centre from one bank to another (7) Marking example of underwater obstacles with considerable length (11) Marking example of a curved fairway passing between sandbanks with additional side streams (4) Marking example of the navigation line returning to the opposite bank after crossing (8) Marking example of the fairway passing shallow water on a river section with one sign each (12) Marking example of the fairway passing a bridge in a meandering section Figure 69: Marking examples of the fairway for typical situations on inland waterways according to the UNECE "Guidelines for Waterway Signs and Marking" [UNECE 2013] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 106

107 Currently there are seven countries and nine partners being responsible for waterway signalization with different standards for updating periods of coastal and floating signalization as well as different websites for signalization. As a part of the EU project NEWADA duo it was a goal to harmonize these information on one single waterway with one common database and web-portal. In a first step such a database was developed allowing both management and immediate publication of coastal and floating signalization data in Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania (Figure 70). This portal can be accessed under with the future goal to integrate this system into the FIS portal or maybe a WMMS as well as dissemination via mobile app for Android and IOS directly to customers All marking information are also published in standardised form as Inland Electronic Navigational Charts (IENCs). These charts contain all information for a safe navigation and are compatible with the standardized Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS). In the future it is the goal to provide these information automatically as well. Figure 70: Developed marking management and signalization portal on the river Danube as part of the EU project NEWADA duo allowing continuous alignment, management and publication of fairway signalization NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 107

108 Austria (Supreme Navigation Authority) Serbia (Plovput) No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 Engelhartszell Danube rkm Linz Danube rkm Grein Danube rkm Krems Danube rkm Wien Danube rkm Hainburg Danube rkm AT Average Danube rkm Slovakia (SVP) No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 Istrajni Danube rkm rkm Istrajni Danube rkm rkm SPP XVIII Danube rkm rkm SPP XIX Not functional #NV 05 SPP XX Danube rkm rkm SPP XXI Sava rkm rkm SPP XXII Tisza rkm rkm RS Average Danube rkm No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 BD Čajka Danube rkm BD Gabčíkovo Danube rkm SK Average Danube rkm Hungary (OVF / VIZIGs) Bulgaria (EAEMDR) No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 Vit Danube rkm Dunav Danube rkm BG Average Danube rkm No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 Atlasz II Danube rkm Kitűző IX Danube rkm Kitűző III Danube rkm Kitűző VIII Danube rkm Kitűző V Danube rkm Kitűző IV Danube rkm Kitűző VII Danube rkm HU Average Danube rkm Croatia (AVP) No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 JMB Vučedolska go Danube rkm RH 285 OK Drava rkm RH 36 SB Sava rkm ; Una rkm RH 221 SK Sava rkm Una [under constru Sava rkm ; Una rkm HR Average Danube rkm Romania (AFDJ) No. Vessel name Year of construction Length [m] Operation area Distance 01 Mamaia Danube rkm ; Chilia branch Semnal anube rkm ; Sf. Gheorghe bran Semnal Danube rkm ; Macin branch Glina Danube rkm ; Borcea branch Plopeni Danube rkm ; Bala branch Salceni Danube rkm Semnal Danube rkm Semnal Danube rkm Orsova Danube rkm Salceni Danube rkm RO Average Danube rkm Figure 71: Marking vessels on the river Danube and its tributaries with year of construction, length and operation area NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 108

109 However, as the marking vessel fleet and buoys are overageing and modern buoys could certainly reduce marking efforts, substantial reinvestments in order to provide accurate navigational information are out of the question. Based on the findings of marking activities regarding a WMMS (Chapter 4.6) fairway availability, utilization and safety can be strengthend based on regular surveys and pro-active marking strategy. In certain cases such an approach including the narrowing of the fairway could lead to significantly lower costs for necessary dredging activities resulting in fewer impacts on the environment as well. With the stated investment needs from waterway agencies being also very high (Chapter 7.1) further investigation into costs and benefits of possible investments are a must. The stated costs for marking activities from Act. 6.3 amount to 29.3 million investment costs and additional 1.0 million for operational costs. As there are disparities in both cost asumptions and stated needs e.g. for new marking vessels from zero (e.g. AT, DE) to three (RS), an assessment of actual requirements is difficult. As such an assessment would require an indepth analysis of marking activities, vessel fleet, equipment and procedures; it is out of the scope of this feasibility study. According to the Act 6.3 needs assessment, investment costs for new state of art marking vessels can be estimated with 1.5 million. The costs for buoys of 1,000 to 2,500 per piece depends whether they are plain standard with only radar reflectors or equipped with additional light, GPS sensors and solar panels. Typical costs for onshore signs and markings may be estimated with 750 to 1,000 per piece. Using GPS buoys may have several advantages regarding a reduction of marking efforts but requires additional software and training for an implementation and optimization of marking activities in a WMMS. As basis for a first approach based on the status quo Figure 71 provides an overview on all marking vessels on the river Danube and its tributaries together with year of construction, length and assigned operation area. Despite comparative differences in river morphology and navigational characteristics the average assigned operation area ranges from 41 km (Hungary) to 160 km (Serbia). Figure 72 provides an overview on total available vessels as well as vessel being assigned on the Danube together with current data on buoys density among other data. As a first preliminary recommendation one marking vessel for an assignment area of 50 to 70 river km may be regarded as sufficient. Based on the national section lengths of the river Danube without regard on further agreements it is possible to provide recommendations for the necessary number of marking vessels. As there is no further information available wether the condition of existing vessels is sufficient among other factors no cost estimations at this stage are given. As there are large disparities in stated investment needs an independent assessment based on a common marking concept is recommended prior to any funding from scarce public funds. However, regarding the feasibility of a WMMS, the existing equipment would be no hindrance for starting such a system. WMMS only: Comparison of possibleneeds for marking vessels, equipment and buoys in waterway agencies Country mark. vessel mark. vessel km/avail. mark.vessel buoys/signs sufficient costs_invest. costs_other costs_invest costs_run Comments and recommendations total [ - ] avail*[ - ] vessel [ - ] rec. [ - ] avail. [ - ]* [yes/no] vessel [ ]*** items [ ] [ ]* [ /a]** Germany #NV #NV #NV 3-4 #NV/km #NV Independent needs assessment recommende Austria >0,25/km* yes Independent needs assessment recommende Slovakia ,25/km n.a Independent needs assessment recommende Hungary #NV/km n.a Independent needs assessment recommende Croatia ,4/km yes Independent needs assessment recommende Serbia ,39/km no Independent needs assessment recommende Romania ,0/km n.a Independent needs assessment recommende Bulgaria ,25/km no Independent needs assessment recommende Ukraine #NV #NV #NV 1-2 #NV/km #NV Independent needs assessment recommende Total *Available marking vessels for the river Danube according to survey that are not in use mainly for other rivers or tributaries ** Without further research WMMS - recommendations are loosely based on an average section lenght of km per vessel *** Based on previous feedback and calculations marking vessel costs may be estimated with 1.5 Mio. with running costs of approx. 10% per year with 40 year of operation Figure 72: Overview of marking equipment and marking vessels in riparian Countries on the river Danube together with first recommendations for additional equipment NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 109

110 Investment needs for dredging measures and equipment Maintenance dredging is defined as removal of Common backhoe dredger on the upper Danube sediments and debris from the bottom of rivers, performing dredging works in Austria for viadonau lakes, harbors, and other water bodies. It is a routine necessity on waterways in the fairway because natural sedimentation processes are gradually filling channels and harbors. Dredging is often focused on maintaining or increasing the depth of the fairway for a given width to ensure the safe passage of vessels without touching ground. Vessels require a certain amount of water in order to float and avoid groundings. The necessary fairway depth is a function of static draught, dynamic squat and underkeel clearance. With dynamic squat being mainly related to Common cutter suction dredger on the central vessel speed and a fixed minimum underkeel Danube owned since 2001 by Plovput in Serbia clearance to prevent groundings, the remaining static draught depends on vessel utilization (4.5). International recommendations for certain fairway classes define fairway availability as a function of width and depth in days per year. Since utilization of the entire fleet is mainly related and limited to minimum depth on an entire transport route dredging as a fast and effective measure plays a vital role in providing competitive conditions for inland navigation. Apart from analysis and optimization Figure 73: Examples for commonly used dredging equipment options in full WMMS current typical planning on the waterway Danube processes for dredging measures consist of an assessment of most critical sections regarding the available fairway depth for a certain width (Levels of Service LOS). For these sections dredging plans are designed with an additional allowance to the design depth in order to account for local backfilling during the measure as well as for equipment-related inaccuracy in the performance of the dredging work itself. As a result a certain volume can be calculated that has to be dredged in a given area with the material normally being dumped upstream (e.g. with hopper barges) in order to avoid riverbed erosion or being used for other purposes (building islands, use as construction material). Depending on the situation and the type of dredged material, different dredging equipment will be appropriate. Figure 74 provides an overview of dredgers and transport equipment together with engine power, transport capacity and maximum dredging depth being in world-wide use. Most common equipment on the waterway Danube for dredging mainly in critical sections and port areas are backhoe dredgers and cutter suction dredgers (Figure 73). Based on the analysis performed in Chapter 4.6.3, dredging costs for a given dredging volume, e.g. on a shallow sections, depend mainly on dredger performance, labour costs, dredging acquisition and maintenance costs, fuel and transport distance to dumping site, with a decreasing tendency of dredging unit costs with increasing dredging volume (economy of scale). Prices on the other hand depend on the situation whether agencies are dredging by themselves or are tendering dredging works on an only partially functioning market with limited capacity. NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 110

111 Figure 74: Selected examples of typical dredgers and transport of excavated material being in use on waterways, critical sections, ports or marine channels [pictures and data: VAN OORD 2014; VLASBLOM 2009; other sources] NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 111

112 According to the Draft EUSDR "Fairway Maintenance Master Plan" (September 2014) both approaches to calculate dredging needs together with achieved fairway availability show large differences between riparian countries. In general, the necessary total dredging volume for targeted fairway availability strongly depends on the development of discharge during the year (low and high water periods) with small or large floods usually leading to certain additional dredging needs in most sections but may also clear other sections as well. Therefore, an estimation of total dredging needs and the resulting annual budgets for achieving targeted fairway parameters strongly depends on both costs and morphological changes (e.g. backfilling rate) leading to an average impact duration. As a result of an iterative process annual budget needs may be estimated based on average dredging costs and average measure duration as a key figure for how often repeated dredging works on certain sections are needed. If the number of dredgings is sufficiently large the calculation of budgeting needs based on averages will yield stable results due to the central limit theorem. However, as budgets are both limited and inflexible the resulting availability from year to year and from one riparian country shows considerable deviations. In addition, analysis shows a vast range of approaches from tendering all dredging works on the market to performing dredging works by the agencies themselves to no dredging works at all (Figure 75). Availability, expenditures, cost calculation and assessment for maintenance/dredging measures total critical availability* dredger dredging dredging vol_dredge total cost costs_dredge estimation Country* [km] [km]** crit agency [ - ] agency [%] tender [%] Ø [m 3 ] 2012 [ /m 3 ] 2012 [ /m 3 ] dredge [ /a] Germany ,0/ % 80% 87, , #NV Austria ,5/ % 100% 285,714 2,000, #NV Slovakia ,5/ % 0% 150,000 #NV #NV #NV Hungary #NV 1 #NV #NV #NV Croatia ,5/ % 100% 45, , #NV Serbia ,5/ % 0% 100,000 #NV #NV #NV Romania ,5/ % 100% 1,340,000 #NV #NV #NV Bulgaria ,5/ % 0% 45,000 #NV #NV #NV Ukraine ,5/365 #NV #NV #NV #NV 1,600,000 #NV #NV Total 2, no common LOS #NV Comments and recommendations Problem: limited dredging market Problem: limited dredging market, no own dredger Acquisition state of art dredger needed Insufficient depth/no availability info/no dredging No own dredger, everything is being tendered Insufficient equipment, no budget Problem: fast reaction critical sector, no own dredger Insufficient dredging and monitoring equipment Marine section: from 5.85 to 8 m need of 35 Mill. *Availability in days per year 2012 for minimum depth/days Figure 75: Availability of riparian river sections, dredging equipment and performed dredging works with costs as basis for an assessment of a WMMS feasibility Nevertheless, waterway agencies on the river Danube have been trying to provide an estimate of necessary additional budgets being compiled in NEWADA duo Act 6.3 and the Draft EUSDR "Fairway Maintenance Master Plan". As a result there are stated needs of 37.8 million for one-time investment costs and additional annual operational costs of 3.2 million for enabling waterway agencies to provide the recommended minimum fairway parameters. With current large differences in availability between riparian countries ranging from 266 days per year (65.2%) to 365 days per year (100%) and deviations from agreed target availability conditions of 343 days (94%) there is absolutely no doubt of substantial investment needs on the river Danube regarding fairway maintenance and engineering works. Whether the above-mentioned figures are overstated or understated cannot be verified without a Danube-wide WMMS or an extensive additional research project based on the provided evidence due to the following reasons: Incomplete basic data: There are large disparities in surveying density and accuracy of available data on fairway depths, morphological changes and a number of other aspects leading to substantial uncertainties regarding analysis results of waterway agencies. Gaps in availability: Though some information on all critical sections is finally compiled, an analysis of the entire waterway based on common different Levels of Service or 3D availability (WMMS) is not available. Therefore, a verification of provided availability figures is hardly possible. In addition, availability figures for a period of at least 3 to 5 years with measure impact would be needed in order to achieve stable results. Unknown impact duration of easures: Only if reliable input data on impact duration on a sufficient number of measures is available it will be possible to estimate annual NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 112

113 budgeting needs with sufficient certainty. From the relation of stated to fixed costs of 1:10 it may be concluded that the majority of implemented measures have a lasting impact. However, without evidence on impact duration e.g. based on thorough analysis or a WMMS system as described in Chapter 4.6 the necessary annual additional budgeting needs could be lower but will be most likely much higher for the entire Danube. In summary, it is hardly possible to verify whether the stated investment needs will provide the desired results especcially as target availability and measure extent are far off the actual scale leading to very limited empirical experience for these aspects. Investment needs and common strategy lacking: For the given situation it cannot be repeated enough that just one country on the entire waterway not performing necessary measures on critical sections will limit the expected positive benefits of measures on all other sections. Despite scarce public funds in general and the above-mentioned uncertainties, the question arises why it has not been possible in the last decade to provide sufficient budgets for waterway agencies to fulfill international agreements related to fairway parameters on inland waterways. In general, any public investment has to be weighted against other financial obligations with their possible benefits leading to ever competing interests. Therefore, there must be a substantial interest in spending the money on other tasks and an uncertainty regarding the actual commitment of riparian countries to act according to existing agreements. Providing sufficient evidence of economic benefits as results of investments in inland navigation together with certain proof that necessary funds are used in an efficient and economic way might be one important step in the right direction. Dispelling uncertainties and providing such evidence are among the core tasks of a national and transnational WMMS. Possible strategic policy options to improve the current situation are covered in Chapter 8. A short summary of the actual situation together with a possible approach for assessing investment needs, e.g. for dredging measures, is provided in Figure 76. The comparative visualization allows insights with regard to how over 150 critical sections influence the actual availability in riparian countries on the Danube. The necessary dredging volume on any of these sections is based on a difference calculation between actual bathymetric riverbed surveys and the target depth for any given width or Level of Service (LOS). Expected dredging costs may then be estimated with a dredging cost function based on previous conducted measures and expected developments of prices on the market. The duration of measure impact on fairway availability can be estimated in a next step with a prediction of backfilling rates derived from previous assessments and analysis. Repeating this approach for all critical sections in one riparian country yields national budgeting needs for dredging. Repeating this process for all critical sections will lead to an estimation of total budgeting needs for dredging. If the resulting measures are implemented, a constant adaption of input parameters based on actual surveys will lead to stable results in an iterative process. Performing this process on a manual basis over and over again each year would certainly require a large number of trained staff. Therefore, it is a crucial goal of any WMMS to provide semiautomatic functionalities for such tasks. For the question wether a WMMS for the entire river Danube is feasible an estimation of investment needs e.g. for dredging measures and equipment is not necessary. The description of first results from the WAMS pilotproject of via donau as described in Chapter 4 provides sufficient evidence for the claim that such a system can be developed and successfully applied to real-world conditions. Furthermore, the results show that such semi-automatic functionalities for calculating investment needs can be implemented as well. The comparison of available data and approaches in waterway agencies with the minimum requirements for a WMMS (Chapters 5 and 0) show that such a system is also practically feasible in other riparian countries if NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 113

114 reasonable improvements can be implemented. In summary, it can be concluded that substantial investments in fairway maintenance and engineering works are needed but a validation of stated investments needs is currently hardly possible. Such a validation will become possible if an already feasible WMMS will be implemented in all Danube riparian countries. Overview of current achievements and resulting availability with outlook towards optimization of waterway maintenance on one single waterway based on a WMMS Availability DE m/351 D Availability AT m/315 D Availability SK m/266 D Availability HU m/??? D Availability HR m/357 D Availability RS m/238 D Availability RO m/314 D Availability BG m/317 D Availability UA m/365 D 96.2% 86.3% 72.9%??? 97.8% 65.2% 86.0% 86.8% 100% Critical sections DE N.: 17; Ø length =1.1 km Total length: 18.2 km (km 2,225 2,402) Critical sections AT N.: 17; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 15.4 km (km 1,873 1,921 and km 1,998 2,038) Critical sections SK/HU Number: 10; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 7.7 km (km 1,711 1,799) Critical sections RS Number: 7; Ø length = 5.6 km Total length: 39.2 km (km 1,195 1,287) Critical sections RO Number: 29; Ø length = 2.2 km Total length: 63 km (km ) Critical sections UA Number: 16; Ø length = 2.1 km Total length: 33 km (km Chilia branch) DE AT SK HU RS RO 213 km 322 km 172 km 275 km 358 km 941 km Bratislava Budapest Giurgiu Galati UA 133 km MD Linz Vienna Belgrade Ruse 191 km 350 km km 138 km 450 km 472 km DE AT SK HU HR RS BG Sulina Constanza 374 km RO km 2,397 km 2,380 km 2,354 km 2,328 km 2;231 Bad Abbach Regensburg Geisling Straubing Kachlet Jochenstein km 2;203 Aschach km 2,163 Ottensheim-W. km 2,146 Abwinden-Asten km 2,120 Wallsee-Mitterk. km 2,096 Ybbs-Persenbeug km 2,060 Melk km 2,038 km 1,980 km 1,949 km 1,933 km 1,921 Altenwörth Greifenstein Nußdorf Freudenau km 1,819 Gabcikovo Critical sections HR/RS Number: 17; Ø length = 5.0 km Total length: 84.6 km (km 1,300 1,429) Critical sections HU Number: 33; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 27.3 km (km 1,435 1,701) km 943 Iron Gate I km 863 Iron Gate II Critical sections BG/RO Number: 23; Ø length = 0.8 km Total length: 18.4 km (km ) Just one of >150 critical sections km km 2013,825 2, ( ) [m³] Dredging volume depth, width for limited funds? LOS 3 LOS 2 LOS 1 LNWL - t [m] Target depth 12,000 8,000 5,500 LOS 1 LOS 2 LOS 3 Target width [m] For any given shallow section the dredging volume depends on target depth higher depth = higher dredging volume Even with a fix target depth dredging volume sharply increases with increasing fairway width Section with lowest depth will always be the limiting factor Easy calculation of dredging volume for any combination of width and depth in a WMMS LOS3 LOS2 LOS1 [ ] 108,000 80,000 66,000 5,500 8,000 12,000 Dredging volume [m 3 ] Dredging costs market, own dredger or tendering? Total dredging costs increase with increasing dredging volume but unit costs are getting lower (economy of scale) If annual dredging volumes is high the market situation might get better (more companies, lower unit prices) Dredging costs can be easily estimated based on indexed unit costs of previous measures and dredging volume in a WMMS [d] , ,500 8,000 Backfilling behavior [m³] Backfilling behavior duration & availability? With a WMMS calculation of availability for the past based on fairway survey and water levels is comparably easy Without systematic documentation of the duration of measure impact the time to the next necessary measure is unknown If the impact and duration on availability is unknown an assessment of budgeting needs/optimization is almost impossible Figure 76: Waterway Danube with critical sections and availability in riparian countries with example of possible dredging volume, dredging costs and duration of impact for different Levels of Service (LOS) for just one of >150 critical sections NEWADA duo Act.6.4 WMMS Final Feasibility Study_ docx 114