The liberalisation of the railway transport sector is making its presence felt at the level of all European networks and even several extra-European networks only in theory. The factor that triggered this reform was the lack of national funds used to mask the losses recorded (or even those not recorded) by the railway companies. Under no circumstance can the railway reform be seen as a liberal factor (from the financial point of view), but as a socialist-statist reform. The financial division, and not the privatisation of all activities, was the basis that led to the first reform actions. The philosophy that stands behind this division is the identification of the sources of financial losses, and not the encouragement of competition. Identifying new factors in order to finance some of the activities related to railway transport and eliminating some of the least interesting activities are two major cornerstones of this reform.
At the same time, maintaining an overall vision of what the railway activities should be like (from infrastructure managers and railway operators to the supply sector) led to the creation of a distorted and incomprehensible image of the railway sector among the public opinion. This way, it could easily be explained to the citizen (or even no explanations would be needed) why the railway infrastructure and most of the activities provided by railway operators should be controlled by the state representatives. The simple man, be it a businessman or a simple employee, has a certain image of the “railway industry” – as if rail transport itself is an activity with a final purpose, and not just a component of the production chain. The railway (and each of its components) should be directly profitable. That is why, when it comes to financing the activities related to infrastructure management, the “infrastructure access fee” was invented. A fee that could condemn railway transport to destruction.
Why? Because this fee is established strictly at a political level and it either squeezes the operators of the revenues obtained from the end customer or it squeezes the state and the infrastructure manager, where the level is very low. Because, unlike the road sector, the main competitor in terms of land transport, the fee is established per kilometre, and not per unit of time. Because this way certain sections of the network appear as non-profitable (based on the traffic and the revenues obtained) and are therefore doomed to be shut down or transformed. Because the railway network should be in the hands of the state, while the other transport infrastructures can be divided between the national and local networks.
This lack of will in sharing the responsibility between the central and local authorities, between the state and the private sector, is best reflected in the freight transport sector. While in the road sector nobody sees as abnormal the fact that the local and regional roads record a low freight traffic (this is even a reason for joy) and yet they are still in need of investments for modernisation, for the railway sector the low traffic recorded is a reason for grief and it forces the lines to be shut down because they don’t generate a sufficient level of revenues for the infrastructure manager. At the same time, we ignore the fact that 50% of the overall traffic rate recorded on the lines with a high level of traffic/revenues is generated by these local sections and, moreover, these sections contribute to regional development by facilitating the existence of an industrial centre. Overcharging or closing these lines in order to meet the requirements of some simplistic financial calculations represents the silver bullets for a sustainable development and an efficient and well-balanced transport offer.
by Ştefan Roşeanu
Share on:
