Over the past 20 years, the European Community has been involved in the reorganisation of the European railway transport market and in promoting railway transport growth. The Community’s efforts in railway market liberalisation, improving interoperability and developing infrastructure have resulted in the growth of the profile market during the period considered for the elaboration of this study (2001-2009) and a continuous growth is expected. One of the most expected moments of 2010 in railway transport was the entrance into force of the Third Railway Package for the market of railway passenger transport services. Moreover, an essential element of European Union’s transport policy is the development of interoperability within the Union and in relation with third countries.
To maximise the potential of current and future developments in transport area, the European Commission must develop a fair and comprehensive understanding of the current condition of the railway market.
To this end, several European institutes have elaborated a study which evaluates the development of international railway passenger transport in EU-27, as well as between EU-27 and the neighbouring countries. The study published in March 2010 on the European Commission’s web site is very comprehensive and has been elaborated by NEA Transport Research Institute in the Netherlands, Leeds University (UK), PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Significance Transport Research Institute in Netherlands. Thus, the study elaborated for the European Commission approaches both national and international passenger traffic, the international freight transport, as well as the hindrances faced by railway traffic; it also includes several efficient long term solutions, such as the unanimous adoption of the COTIF
provisions.
More simplification of cross-border services
The study is dedicated to transport markets in Europe and Central Asia. The growth average of international markets between the old and new member states is 51% which is almost twice the EU-27 overall average. Service supply has also known a significant growth, especially on regional cross-border connections.
International passenger transport services are modest compared to the internal service market. On longer distances, for example journeys of over 400 km, railways have a relatively small market share. For such journeys, personal vehicles and planes have conquered the greatest part of the market. On short, regional distances, the highest demand refers to suburban railway transport services within the agglomerations of a country; therefore the international railway transport volume is modest. There are, however, some examples of suburban railway services where international transport services are also provided, one such example being the S-Bahn network around the Swiss city of Basel.
Railway freight transport prevails on long distances. Freight transport has a high share especially for the transport of large amounts of goods between ports and their hinterlands. Because of explicit differences between railway passenger transport and railway freight transport, they have been dealt with in separate chapters.
On the state budgeted railway market (for which there are public service contracts), the implication of several authorities complicate the organisation of international transport services. There are, however, several successful examples of international regional lines operated under public service contracts. But there are many technical hindrances in the operation of international transport services, hindrances that could only be overcome through additional costs. Since international passenger transport can only cover a small part of the overall railway transport services, technical standardisation is only possible to a limited extent, the recently launched study specifies. Moreover, the non-comprehensive implementation of the existing EU legislation continues to be a barrier in the development of cross-border services for passenger transport.
“The quality of railway freight transport services needs improvement. In addition, capacity restrictions, such as the failure to optimize the use of the existing infrastructure and rolling stock generate the insufficient exploitation of railway capacity. Therefore, the Commission’s main priority, as well as that of other interested parties, is to optimize the use of the existing infrastructure. Moreover, member states will have to finalize the implementation of the EU legislation and make more efforts for interoperability”, declared Enrico Grillo Pasquarelli, Head of Inland Transport within DG TREN, on the occasion of the fifth summit on railway infrastructure in 2008.
More political implication is needed
The lack of strong and independent regulatory bodies that could intervene in case of litigation is also considered a hindrance. High charges for railway infrastructure access can also be an obstacle, especially on new high-speed lines. The analyses included in the study published on the European Commission’s web site refer to international passenger transport during 2001-2009. Thus, the number of passenger trains that have crossed the European Union’s borders towards third non-EU countries in the mentioned period increased by 13%. The cross-border high-speed traffic between the 27 EU member states has increased by 48%, cross-border regional services have increased by 36%, while conventional long-distance services have dropped by 32%.
At the same time, a 91% increase in the number of regional trains has been recorded between EU15 and EU 12. As for Switzerland and Norway (non-EU countries that signed several agreements on railway transport with EU members), a 71% increase was known in the number of high-speed trains.
Around 100 million cross-border journeys were recorded in EU 27 during 2007 with 27% more border crossings than in 2001. Borders between EU15 countries cover nearly 85% of the traffic flow, where growth is based on high-speed railway traffic development between France and different other countries, but also on higher traffic between Sweden and Denmark. In other EU15 countries railway traffic was below 10%.
In regard to international railway freight transport, several land connections have been considered in this study. One of these connections refers to EU27 cross-border sections with Ukraine, Russia (a small section crosses Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad), Belarus and the Republic of Moldova.
The union’s countries that have a common border with these countries are Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. The findings reveal that there are several interoperability issues on these border sections, issues caused by the 1435mm-1520mm break-of-gauge in the above-mentioned countries. Another reviewed connection refers to the Balkan countries and Turkey, especially to cross-border connections between EU27 Balkan countries with the EU27 non-Balkan countries, the latter category including Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Turkey. These have common railway borders with Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece. Those who have elaborated the study believe that there are no gauge-related problems on these sections, but there are, however, significant problems related to railway transport organisation.
Considering technical barriers at borders, the institutes that have contributed to the study development recommend several decision aspects to take into account as system development means. It is necessary to establish a fair competition between railway operators both in passenger, as well as freight transport. Railway market access should be permit to non-state-subsidized railway operators which, the study says, would balance the rights and obligations of railway companies. Another problem emphasized in the report refers to railway capacity. Competition renders investment pressures more intense. In order to keep up with this growing tendency, the extension and modernisation of railway networks require strong political support. During the same 2008 summit, CER Executive Director Johannes Ludewig declared that “the infrastructure quality evaluation and finding the appropriate means to improve quality indicators, such as punctuality, are much more comprehensive processes than expected. For example, improved competition will not necessarily improve punctuality. This depends more on infrastructure quality. The political factor has to create framework-conditions in order to achieve these infrastructure quality-related changes”.
by Elena Ilie
Share on:
