The Commission recommends extending the system of multi-annual contracts between the State and the rail infrastructure management to improve the quality and maintenance of infrastructures in this sector.
The usage situation of the multi-annual contracts significantly varies among the Member States. Approximately half of the Member States do not use and do not intend to use this kind of contracts. Some Member States do not finance at all the railway infrastructure maintenance, others are for the first time negotiating some contracts and others are preparing the extension of contracts for a new multi-annual period. At the same time, more and more Member States plan to introduce these contracts once implemented the requirements within the first railway package. Multi-annual contracts represent a long-term financing method of infrastructure maintenance activities.
Preserving an existing network based on engineering criteria and fixed renewal intervals has been the dominant approach to rail maintenance for many years. What is needed, though, is for rail infrastructure to respond to future transport demand patterns and thus boost traffic and revenues from user charges. Multi-annual contracts should force both parties to take a long-term view and develop maintenance plans on the basis of the infrastructure manager’s business plan and thus on future service demand. The need for further action is considered at three levels: Member States, infrastructure managers and regulatory bodies.
Member States and their infrastructure managers have to ensure that multi-annual contracts are consistent with the national strategic transport plans and the infrastructure manager’s business plan. The same holds true for infrastructure franchises and for any framework contracts between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. The state should consult stakeholders on any proposal for multi-annual contracts before letting a new contract or renegotiating existing provisions. The European Commission considers that the arbitrary intervention of the state in the infrastructure management should be limited to the cases provided by the contract, while the infrastructure manager benefits from a wide management independence margin in the pursuit of the agreed objectives. Otherwise, the agreement or the contract must be renegotiated.
An independent body should be tasked with monitoring compliance with a multi-annual contract and with mediating between the parties to the multi-annual contract in the event of any dispute. This presupposes having the appropriate staff and expertise to carry out this type of assessment.
Multi-annual contracts can be a precursor for making better use of competitive tendering for infrastructure services. Since it will be difficult to put an entire national network out to tender at once, tendering might involve an increasing number of infrastructure managers, network statements, charging systems and access conditions. To minimise any possible negative effects, safeguard measures need to be taken to ensure simple and non-discriminatory access rules, ensuring respect of the rules on competition.
Share on:
