1. Background and key findings

The EU sustainable and smart mobility strategy and the revised TEN‑T Regulation propose a big shift of medium‑ and long‑distance passenger and freight flows to rail by 2030 and 2050, but current trends fall short of these ambitions.

The STOA study, conducted by a consortium led by Ecorys and CEPS, underlines that the main obstacles are not a lack of promising technologies but fragmented governance, lack of a common EU vision of investment decisions and patchy implementation of interoperable systems such as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and digital traffic management. National infrastructure planning and funding cycles often remain focused on domestic priorities, with limited binding obligations to coordinate acrossborders, which reduces the convenience of international passenger and freight services compared to alternatives. Stakeholders signal that highly visible, capital‑intensive 'flagship' projects or speculative concepts (for example, the hyperloop) risk diverting scarce public resources away from the conventional and high-speed networks, where most passengers and freight will continue to travel. Evidence from EU‑funded projects and market studies suggests that targeted investment in maintenance, bottleneck removal, electrification and digital capacity management can deliver substantial reliability and capacity gains at lower risk and cost.

2. Policy options

The options included in the STOA study present different possibilities to steer the long‑term development of the European railway system. They assume that technology is largely available, and that the main constraints lie in governance, funding and integration of national systems into a genuinely European rail network.

Option 1 – Implementation and system delivery

This option is about addressing the current gap between an already extensive EU rail acquis and uneven implementation on the ground. It focuses on accelerating ERTMS roll‑out on the core and extended Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), phasing out legacy signalling, and prioritising operational interoperability through harmonised capacity allocation, coordinated handling of temporary capacity restrictions and common digital traffic management tools. EU technical bodies, notably the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), would have a stronger role in authorisation, certification and ensuring system compatibility. EU funding would favour mature projects on cross‑border bottlenecks, missing links and capacity upgrades, with short eligibility windows, high pre‑financing and milestones tied to physical delivery rather than studies. This option promises rapid, tangible improvements in reliability and capacity and should be politically feasible, but mostly delivers incremental gains and does not by itself resolve deeper structural fragmentation in long‑term investment planning.

Option 2 – European high ‑speed rail integration

Option 2 seeks to maximise modal shift from air and road by building a coherent European high‑speed rail (HSR) network rather than disconnected national lines. It prioritises cross‑border and missing links on high‑demand corridors where HSR can credibly replace short‑haul flights, and treats HSR as a tool to free capacity on conventional lines for regional and freight services. It aims for rail–air substitution and, to support that, for integrated ticketing, coordinated timetables and airport rail links. EU planning and funding would require corridor‑level cost‑benefit analysis, demonstrating end‑to‑end time reductions, network effects and interoperability, while safeguarding non‑discriminatory access for new players. This option is capital‑intensive, reliant on a common strategy and at risk of prioritising speed over reliability and maintenance.

Option 3 – Digitalisation and operational optimisation

This option assumes that large capacity and reliability gains can be unlocked by improving operations. It promotes EU‑wide digital capacity management for allocation; real‑time traffic management and planning; progressive deployment of automation; accelerated EU‑coordinated rollout of Digital Automatic Coupling (DAC) for freight; and robust EU data governance for standardised data sharing and cybersecurity. EU funding for rail digitalisation would prioritise deployment of high‑level ERTMS and digital tools that demonstrably improve capacity, punctuality and asset utilisation, with milestones linked to operational outcomes. EU action would be centred on common architecture and funding conditionality on interoperability and cross‑border interconnections. This option can deliver significant performance gains and strengthen freight competitiveness, but depends heavily on organisational change and effective cross-border coordination in the rail sector.

Option 4 – Demand ‑led multimodal integration

Option 4 addresses the fact that rail's modal share is constrained more by weak door‑to‑door performance and fragmented customer interfaces than by train speeds. It aims to embed rail within passenger and logistics chains through mandatory participation in interoperable booking and information platforms, full implementation of multimodal digital mobility services, integrated rail–air products, and better integration of freight with terminals, last‑mile links and real‑time tracking. EU funding would prioritise stations as multimodal hubs, digital ticketing and timetable management, with criteria focused on transfer times and customer experience, developed through joint planning between rail, regional and urban authorities. This option promises strong, sustained modal shift and higher utilisation of existing assets, but requires complex cross‑sector coordination and is less effective without parallel investments in reliability and capacity.

Option 5 – European ultra ‑high ‑speed rail

This high‑risk option would create an EU‑level ultra‑high‑speed transport layer (for example, hyperloop‑type systems) on a small number of very high‑demand long‑distance corridors, fully centralised in planning and funding at EU level. Ultra‑high‑speed systems would complement rather than replace conventional and high‑speed rail, with Member States acting mainly as hosts and providers of feeder connections. An EU‑wide fund and single implementing authority would decide on corridor‑level investments based on European demand, travel‑time reductions and network effects, with multi‑decadal financing outside national budget cycles. Potential benefits include transformational travel‑time reductions and positioning Europe as a norm‑setter in next‑generation mobility technologies. However, financial, technological and demand uncertainties are very high, and there is a significant risk of crowding out resources and attention from maintaining and upgrading the existing rail system.

Assessment of the policy options

Comparing these policy options against future scenarios for the EU rail show that Option 4 is 'no‑regret', because it improves door‑to‑door performance and amplifies the impact of other measures, but alone it does not drive performance and is constrained by fragmented governance. European high‑speed rail integration (Option 2) offers high transformative potential but is strongly dependent on a common vision shared by different authorities and operators. It performs well only when governance is sufficiently centralised to enable corridor‑level planning and investment, and is only effective once implementation gaps have been closed and digital and capacityenhancing measures (through Options 1 and 3) are put in place. European ultra‑high‑speed rail (Option 5) emerges as the most risky option, which is only viable under a highly centralised and technologically ambitious future.

3. Considerations for the European Parliament

As co‑legislator and budgetary authority, the European Parliament could use ongoing and forthcoming files to embed stronger cross‑border coordination, performance‑based investment and fairer price signals between rail, road and air transport modes. Members may wish to support different strategic approaches that, as explained in the study, either seek to close implementation gaps in the existing acquis (Option 1), accelerate digitalisation and operational optimisation (Option 3) and/or promote demand‑led multimodal integration (Option 4), while promoting HSR expansion (Option 2). They can also consider ultra‑high‑speed concepts (Option 5) as an EU alternative to HSR.

In the ongoing EU budget and multiannual financial framework (MFF) debates, Parliament could propose more stable and conditional EU‑level funding for rail –for example, an RRF‑type facility or a strengthened Connecting Europe Facility, with milestone‑based disbursement linked to delivery of cross‑border projects, digital upgrades and interoperability on corridors of EU interest. In addition, through scrutiny of Europe's Rail Joint Undertaking and other EU programmes, Members can ensure that research, innovation and pilot deployments address the systemic needs identified in the STOA study, avoid new technological silos and support a coherent European approach to data, standards and digital tools.

This document is based on the STOA study 'The future of sustainable railway transport in Europe'. The study was written by Karoline Führer, Marco Brambilla, Davide Dolente, and David Matheus of Ecorys, and Andreas Kopp and Hien Vu of CEPS, at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS), European Parliament. STOA administrator responsible: Vasco Guedes Ferreira.