Track access charges account for a significant part of the costs of a railway operator. The level and structure of the charge are therefore crucial in establishing competition on the rail network. According to government contributions, theses charges are usually the main source of income for the infrastructure manager and usually represent third the outgoings of a railway company.
Therefore the level of track access charges in different countries has a major impact on railway competitiveness. The way charges are determined is also crucial to a recurring issue all states face: how big a rail network and how many non-commercial passenger services should be supported by the public budget? Undercharging trains threatens the long-term financial sustainability of the network and deferring renewals can increase costs to crisis point in the long run. Undercharging subsidized passenger trains often results in over-charging freight, damaging its competitiveness with road haulage. It is also important to create transparency, continuity and predictability of financial flows. A stable outlook for charges and state contributions to infrastructure financing is of key importance, also because it is a prerequisite for public-private-partnerships for infrastructure financing.
The recast of the First Railway Package, for which the final vote of the European Parliament is expected this July, is aimed at providing additional details about the track access charge, especially about defining direct costs and market segments. The European Commission wishes that its proposals would encourage a more flexible track access charge depending on market segments which could lead to a lower charge when customers cannot afford paying higher fees. To increase transparency in the use of state funds, it is proposed to require that member states’ charging frameworks and rules be published in network statements.
The proposed changes detail the process for developing and managing contractual agre-ements between the national competent authorities and infrastructure managers on infrastructure costs and access charges. In particular the regulatory body is empowered to assess the appropriateness of the envisaged medium to long-term budgetary envelope for the high-level infrastructure output specifications for the same period (performance targets). Such independent assessment can diminish the risk of the incumbent railway undertakings using their political strength to influence the agreements. Also, the recast proposal introduces two separate measures for improving the principles of charging.Therefore, the first measure has to do with differentiation of track access charges based on the noise emission characteristics of the rolling stock making up the train. This will constitute a clear incentive to modernise the infrastructure and in particular to invest in more sustainable rail technologies.
To improve transparency of charges, the second measure stipulates that service providers must also provide information on charges for rail-related services to be published by infrastructure managers in their network statement.
Share on:
