Rationale Effective transportation systems are essential to Europe’s prosperity and possibilities for sustainable regional development. Rail transport is assumed to have a particular potential in this respect but the benefits of this mode are by far fully exploited so far. This is particularly true for the NSR.

There are several aspects to be considered in this respect:

• One aspect is that despite of the latest communication technologies, physical exchange of information is still of vital importance. Smooth circulation of knowledge workers is crucial for knowledge regions, and face-to-face contacts are still an important - if not decisive - factor in doing business. The term High quality rail connection (HQRC) comprises not only the initial meaning of high speed trains (HST) + 250 km/h,, but also substantial improvements of rail connections so that they become much faster and efficient and hence more competitive to other modes. The HQRC term is introduced in the context of this project to highlight the fact that the rail system in the most peripheral and sparsely populated parts of the NSR is not yet ripe to directly establish a HST network in the strict sense, but would have to move through several “intermediary” stages of “quality improvements”.
• A second aspect is that the full benefit of investing in HQRC is not reached until a network is established between major cities and regions throughout the NSR so that HQRC is a relevant option in several directions. The HQRC in the NSR need to be integrated into or linked to the future TEN-T priority network to be designed in the coming years..
• A third aspect driving towards HQRC is that the present transport system dominated by road transport is having several negative effects in terms of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, local air pollution, noise, congestion and accidents. HQRC have a big potential for promoting sustainable regional development by shifting traffic from road and air – reducing congestion, emissions and accidents. HQRC do also have a substantial potential for regional enlargement in terms of expanding the commuting range to work places, educational institutions and commercial and medical services
• A fourth aspect is that regions a high speed train is passing through may experience a “tunnel” effect” – whereby they are bypassed and not benefiting from the services of the high speed train. It is therefore a challenge to develop HQR/HSThubs in terms of land use and connecting local public transport systems in such a manner that businesses and people benefit from the services. Strong and attractive hubs in return pave the way for further enlargement of and better services on the HQRC network.
• A fifth aspect is that an international network crosses national borders. The planning and assessments of infrastructure may be complicated by different impact assessment (EIAs, CBAs etc) and market analysis methods. It may happen that the same link in the calculations is socio-economically favourable in the one country, but not so in the neighbouring country. Another issue is that the positive effects on “wider” regional development, e.g accessibility benefits in terms of reduced travel times & costs, are often not properly covered in stringent economic analyses, and in addition comes the political processes these analyses part of. Transnationally harmonised and broader impact assessment methods would therefore benefit the development of HQRCs in the NSR.
• Finally, there are technical, administrative and cultural bottlenecks and obstacles that limits the effective use of existing rail services across borders, e.g. limited interoperability, different stafffing requirements etc.

Durability of the Project Results
A permanent partnership for promoting high quality rail connections is envisaged as one of the results of the project, being a key factor for ensuring durability of the results.. Such a partnership should comprise all relevant stakeholders, incl national transport ministries, rail infrastructure owners & operators, rail operators, interest organisations, regional and local authorities and corresponding “umbrella organisations (e.g CPMR North Sea Commission), universities, RTD institutions and business organisations. The mandate should be to advocate and monitor the HQRC developments in the NSR and beyond, give input to EU policy papers, follow up, systematise and learn from HQRC development projects in the NSR. It is also foreseen that this partnership eventually could designate coordinators for specific corridors or links after the model of the current TEN-T priority projects.

Complementary projects – the RoCK project and the HQRC project
The project will have a close cooperation with the RoCK project which is approved and running in the NWE Programme, http://www.nweurope.eu/index.php?act=project_detail&id=3859

That project aims at the development of improved, efficient, interoperable and user-friendly railway networks, including transnational connections, in and between knowledge regions - making use of existing infrastructure and developing and implementing smart solutions to improve the network quality.

The HQRC project will benefit from this project since a number of the partner regions in the RoCK project have experience with HST/HQRC. However, the North Sea Region differs from the NWE regions involved in the RoCK project. Some regions in the NSR are densely populated like the RoCK regions, the distance between the central parts of the regions is not very large, and the regions have several HQRCin place. But many regions in the NSR are sparsely populated, the distance within and between them are often large, and there are limited HQRC established.

Hence, the HQRC project will differ from the RoCK project since it will focus on establishing a HQRC network in both densely and sparsely populated regions in the NSR. While regions that have established a basic HQRC network can focus on utilising existing infrastructure, regions without a basic HQRC network will focus on producing arguments for developing a HQRC network and the role of the regions in facilitating and utilising HQRC services. A common concern of the two projects will be to provide national and EU level authorities with input to policies that makes train transportation more competitive to other modes of transportation, with an emphasis on cross border transportation.

Work Packages
Work Package 1 Project Management, and Work Package 2 Publicity and Communication are mandatory. They shall secure a proper management of the project as well as efficient dissemination of project results and cooperation with other projects.

In addition there are four work packages where all to some extent are directly complementary to some of the working groups in the RoCK project:

• Work Package 3 is partly complementary to Working Group 1A1 in respect to drawing knowledge from investments being carried out in parallel with the project
• Work Package 4 is partly complementary to Working Group 2A2 in respect to how impact assessments and market analyses are used to promote HQRC developments and business cases
• Work Package 5 is partly complementary to Working Group 3A5 in respect to integrated ticketing and to Working Group 1A1 in respect to ERTMS
• Work Package 6 is to a large extent complementary to Working Group 2A3

Work Package 3 HQRC Concepts and Regional Development:
WP 3 will review existing HQRC and hubs, incl ways of integrating local public transport systems , also considering solutions and ideas produced in other programmes and projects, WP 3 will assess the applicability of existing HQRC concepts and solutions for and in between the various partner regions in respect to the concrete cases, as well as exploring the pre-conditions for establishing a coherent HQRC network that is connecting cities and regions in the NSR. Depending upon the final composition of the partnership, the project could look at the perspectives for a future HQR network connecting Stavanger – Kristiansand – Oslo – Gothenburg – Malmø/Copenhagen – Hamburg – The Netherlands/Flanders – Channel area – and further north in the UK.

A number of concerted actions related to land use planning and integration of local public transport systems, as well as real estate development in hubs has to be undertaken as they are needed in order for the regions to fully benefit from HQRC network. Universities and knowledge-intensive companies in the partnership will be invited to provide relevant academic and business cases into the project – also strengthening the innovative aspects,. WP 3 will make an overview of funding instruments and assess the applicability of the various national and European funding instruments in respect to the different types of investments and operations needed to make HQRC a success in the regions.

Work Package 4 Impact Assessment Methods and Political Processes:
In WP 4 the concrete cases on concepts and solutions for hubs and links analysed in WP 3 will be further refined, including operational concepts for the various cases. One main objective is to assess the potential for shifting passengers from road and air to HST, and the shift of cargo from road to rail. An other main objective is to sort out relevant environmental impacts to study, as well as socio-economic impacts.

One important objective will be to compare the methods for impact assessments in different countries, and contribute to a harmonisation of such methods for cross border projects. The political processes for large investment projects are different in various countries. It is also experienced that political assessments on top of a standard impact assessment rather often end up with a different conclusion. The Botnabanen HQRC project in Sweden is an example where political goals were overriding the conclusions in a standard impact assessment. Hence it is most relevant to look at the political processes as well.

Work Package 5 Improving operability and userfriendliness:
In WP 5 draw on state-of-the-art and best practices in respect ITS and ERTMS, and assess the potential for improved interoperability in the various cases that the partner regions are focusing on as well as premisses for a transnational HQRC network in NSR. In this respect work and results for RoCK project will be a source, related to the investments partners in RoCK are involved in:

• Development of interoperability-systems on the railway track Eindhoven-Venlo-Düsseldorf (Investment I)
• A hybrid system solution at connection Eindhoven-Heerlen-Aachen, allowing IC trains running from Eindhoven to Aachen (investment II)
• Safety and system integration (ERMTS) to allow higher speeds at the first Dutch-Belgium Light lightrail connection Maastricht-Hasselt/Leuven (Investment III).

Furthermore, best practices in respect to integrated ticketing and journey planning will be studied and applied as principle ideas to be pursued by the various partner regions to enhance their efforts to increase the usage of HQRC and public transport.

Work Package 6 Joint actions on future improvements:
Regional and national entities can develop and implement HQRC with an efficiency up to a certain level. But actions will remain necessary to deal with European institutional barriers that cannot be solved by the HQRC and RoCK partners alone. The partners will undertake joint action by showcasing successes of HQRC projects in NSR, NWE and beyond as well as the barriers that remain (e.g. cross-border tax). The partners will take advantage of the network established by previous NWE projects HST4i and HSTConnect and will expand this network.. Partners, supporting partners and members of the ‘previous’ HST-platforms, relevant European organizations like ERA, high-level EU actors and new strategically important organizations, will participate and/or be asked to participate.

WP 6 will take an initiative to turn the project partnership into a permanent HQRC promotion partnership with the mandate to advocate and monitor the HQRC developments in the NSR and beyond, give input to EU policy papers, follow up, systematise and learn from HQRC development projects in the NSR.

Promote HQRC as a means of improving the accessibility within and between North Sea regions in an environmental and competitive manner, facilitating knowledge-based businesses development and job creation throughout the NSR, and at the same time paving the ground for reduced emission of green house gases.

The objectives of the HQRC are:

• To determine socio-economic and environmental pre-requisites and standards for developing a HQR / HST network in the North Sea Region
• To explore how the regions can benefit from HQRC/HST going to or going through, and what actions regional actors have to take in order to secure the benefits
• To improve and harmonise the methodologies used for the assessment of transnational rail investments
• To facilitate quality-improvements of (transnational) railway connections by removing operational barriers
• To promote the integration of HQRC’s in the future TEN-T network

• Perspectives for a coherent HQRC network in the North Sea region, with recommendations for integration in a future priority TEN-T network
• Strategies for promoting a NSR wide network for HQRC
• Concepts for hubs and local public transport systems connecting the regions to the HQRC/HST network, tailored to the circumstances in the partner regions
• Transnationally harmonised impact assessment methods and political processes
• Concrete ideas for improving the existing rail network with small investments, e.g through a concept for integrated transnational ticketing and Transnational journey planning tools
• Methods for better utilisation of existing rail capacity through ITS (Intellligent Traffic Systems) and ERTMS (European Railway Traffic Management System).
• Input to national and EU policies with an emphasis on cross border rail transport
• A permament partnership for rail promotion in the NSR incl stakeholders from all governance levels and sectors

• Rogaland County Council, Norway
• Vest-Agder County Council, Norway
• SEEDA, UK
• Eindhoven Region, the Netherlands
• Eindhoven City, the Netherlands
• Delft University, the Netherlands

Potential 20% partners:

• Region Västerbotten, Sweden
• Budapest university of Technology and Economics

In particular partners from Northern Germany, Flanders, Denmark and Western Sweden

Both national level entities, incl rail infrastructure owners & operators, regions/cities/development agencies, and rail operators