The European Commission has come forward with the fourth railway package in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of rail services by removing the remaining market obstacles. Most of the EU’s network was designed at country level to be a single network. Further, efficient use of infrastructure relies on its intensive use. So infrastructure in the EU is and is likely to remain a natural monopoly, says the European Commission. Existing EU legislation therefore requires a degree of separation between infrastructure managers, which run the network, and railway undertakings which run the train services on it, with the aim of ensuring fair and equal treatment of all railway undertakings. Full independence of charging and capacity allocation is required, as these were seen as key to ensuring equal access.
So we asked a reasoned opinion on this matter from The European Rail Infrastructure Managers Association (EIM), one of the most important actors in the rail infrastructure market in Europe.
Railway PRO: Do you consider that the Fourth Railway Package could be “the structure that delivers”, as the European Commission says in its proposals?
EIM:The European Rail Infrastructure Managers warmly welcome the Commission’s wish to eliminate the obstacles to the unified European rail market while at the same time consolidating the performance, competitiveness and growth of the railways. EIM firmly believes that infrastructure ma-nagers have a key role to play in this process.
As the market continues to open up, it is essential that the growing expectations placed on infrastructure managers are taken into account and fulfilled. Over the course of the liberalisation process, infrastructure managers will become the only actors in the rail market who have a system-wide perspective and thereby ensure long-term planning for the entire network. The Commission has recognised this fact and has defined in the fourth railway package the ‘optimal infrastructure manager of the future’.
The infrastructure manager of the future must be given all the tools it needs to satisfy the expectations of the market and, above all, of customers. This means efficiency, investment and customer-oriented performance.
A harmonised EU-wide definition of infrastructure manager competences and clear guidelines on transparency will also improve cooperation, which in turn would be beneficial for customers. EIM’s members have pledged to turn the rail network into the backbone of the European transport system, disregarding individual interests and focusing on serving rail customers. This is an important difference compared with infrastructure managers owned by holding companies.
Railway PRO: Is the proposal for institutional separation the most efficient measure to remove potential conflicts of interest and give all companies access to tracks in a non-discriminatory way?
EIM: The European Rail Infrastructure Managers are not interested in dogma or buzzwords. Aside from safety, our members believe that their primary responsibility is towards customers and towards their owners. That is why our focus is on performance, efficiency and transparency in the rail market. Increasing the competences and independence of infrastructure managers will allow them to achieve this. Organisational models must guarantee infrastructure manager neutrality.
Therefore, EIM supports all proposals that dispel any doubts about infrastructure managers’ neutrality, and that includes strict separation between network and operations. Only regulations that preclude conflicts of interest among infrastructure managers from the outset can guarantee an efficient, high-performance rail market. Three conditions are needed to meet the expectations of the market and of customers: a strengthening of competences, a consolidation of competen-ces and greater independence for infrastructure managers.
The competences granted to infrastructure managers under EU law must be extended to encompass all functions they need to manage the network as a commercial enterprise. Dividing up responsibilities is inexpedient from both a cost and performance perspective. For example, this is the case where an infrastructure manager, despite official separation, doesn’t have the necessary room for manoeuvre because a carrier is performing certain infrastructure management tasks. Greater independence is also vital for transparency, so as to avoid any conflicts of interest in decision-making by infrastructure managers. Therefore, infrastructure managers must be completely independent of all carriers when making decisions.
Share on:
