Impacts of Rail Deregulation on Rail Transport Performance


Published on

Compare the impact of rail deregulation in the different EU countries and analyse railway sector performance and identify related problems. Project developed in RailNewcastle' 2012

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impacts of Rail Deregulation on Rail Transport Performance

  1. 1. Comparative Assessment of the Impacts of Rail Deregulation on Rail Transport Performance 04.07.2012 & Newcastle UniversityErasmus Intensive Railway Programme 2010/21125th June - 13th July 2012, Newcastle upon Tyne 1/
  2. 2. Team members & Mentors Team members: Alexandra Staikou, Athens University of Economics and Business [GR] Comparative Assessment Antonios Polychronopoulos, University of Newcastle upon Tyne [UK]Giovanni Marco Vallera, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” [IT] Liviu Stoican, Universitatea Politehnica din Bucuresti [RO] Loukia Lolou, Athens University of Economics and Business [GR] Rodrigo Cruz Dourado, Instituto Superior Tecnico [PT] Group leaders:Michael Madas (GR), Paulus Aditjandra (UK) Other mentors: Fabian Meier (GE), Tom Zunder (UK), Dewan Islam(UK) 2/
  3. 3. Introduction• Railways in the past were very popular• Due to the evolution of road infrastructure Comparative Assessment and cars going faster they lost ground• Because of this EU tried to balance the situation through legislations and projects• Deregulation is in progress 3/
  4. 4. Objectives• The goal of this project are: 1. Compare the impact of rail Comparative Assessment deregulation in the different EU countries 2. Analyse railway sector performance and identify problems 3. Propose solutions for them 4/
  5. 5. Methodology• We tried to achieve this by reviewing laws and regulations from the Three Rail Comparative Assessment Packages.• Our sources were mostly official like the EU, OECD and Eurostat publications.• From them we highlighted the most important things and used them in our research. 5/
  6. 6. Methodology• Review laws and regulations from the 3 packages• Check for Implementation level on freight and Comparative Assessment passenger train reading the indicators• Analytical information was extracted by the graphs and tables and after discussed.• This information leads the research team to the problems that rose through the deregulation• We can’t change the law but we have some recommendations 6/
  7. 7. The EU Railway Packages Directive 2001/12/EC Directive 2001/13/EC Directive 2001/14/EC 1st Package Directive 2004/49/EC EU Packages Directive 2004/50/EC 2nd Package Directive 2004/51/EC Regulation 881/2004 3rd Package Directive 2007/58/EC Directive 2007/59/EC Regulation 1371/2007 7/
  8. 8. The EU Railway PackagesDirective 2001/12/EC Open the international rail freight market Establish a general framework for the development of European railways Relationship between the State and the infrastructure manager Relationship between the infrastructure manager and railway undertakings The First PackageAmend Directive 91/440/EEC by: Separating the management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services; Improving the financial structure of undertakings; Ensuring access to the networks for rail undertaking engaged in international intermodal transport of goods.Infrastructure licensing and charging must be undertaken by an organization that does notprovide transport operations, in order to create unbiased access to infrastructure. 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 8/
  9. 9. The EU Railway PackagesDirective 2001/13/EC• Freight operators must meet in order to be granted a license to operate services on the European rail network. The First Package• Licensing issue body must be independent from rail undertaking• Rail undertaking can also refer to the commission if it claims that the national requirements are applied in a discriminatory manner. In case of such an appeal, the Commission must issue a statement. 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 9/
  10. 10. The EU Railway PackagesDirective 2001/14/EC• Refers to capacity allocation and infrastructure charging• Infrastructure manager must publish a network statement that describes the condition and limitation of the network The First Package• Infrastructure manager calculates the charge, takes the track access fees and use them to fund its business (in according to Member States rules)• If the infrastructure manager is not independent from a Railway Undertaking, an independent body must to do all these functions and collect itself the fees. 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 10/
  11. 11. The EU Railway Packages2004’s Directives and Regulation 881/2004• Development and improvement of safety on the European’s railways The Second Package• Lay down a procedure for granting the safety certificates that every railway company must obtain before it can run trains on the European network• Member States must establish a safety authority independent from any railway undertaking or infrastructure manager and collecting safety indicators 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 11/
  12. 12. The EU Railway Packages• Member States must also establish an investigating body independent from any rail undertaking or infrastructure manager. It must The Second Package investigate any serious accident and publish an annual report• Establishes 1 January 2007 the date to open up both national and international freight services on the entire European network• Creation of the European Railway Agency that will establish common safety objectives that all Europes railways must achieve 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 12/
  13. 13. The EU Railway Packages2007’s Directives and Regulation (EC) 1371/2007• open up the international passenger transport market by 2010 The Third Package• operators will have the opportunity to pick up and set down passengers at any station on an international route, including at stations located in the same Member State• allow train drivers to circulate on the entire European network with certification of cross-borders drivers, by respecting some standards• regulate passengers’ rights (passengers with reduced mobility, accidents, personal security) 1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package (2001) (2004) (2007) 13/
  14. 14. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members• “Tendering is indeed further related to rising performances in terms of patronage growth Comparative Assessment and service reliability, but empirical analysis seem to conclude that performances are more akin to the infrastructure investments coinciding with tendering rather than the regulatory reforms themselves” (Aarhaug, et al.,2011) 14/
  15. 15. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members• Procedure passing from the first railway package to the second was considered Comparative Assessment successful and productive!• Stakeholders had another opinion… 15/
  16. 16. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members Comparative Assessment Organizational models in EU members,(IBM Deutschland GmbH 2011) 16/
  17. 17. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members THE REALITY AFTER THE 1ST PACKAGE IMPLEMENTATION: Comparative Assessment• In 2003-2004 the railway undertakings and infrastructure managers had a yearly income of 50 million.• Only 51 of the 95 railway undertakings and infrastructure European managers have separate accounts for passenger and freight transport and/or infrastructure management 17/
  18. 18. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members• Relation between Infrastructure managers and Government commitments. Comparative Assessment• Market is strongly related with independence. 18/
  19. 19. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members Railway Liberalization Index• Index to measure Implementation level• Track the degree of market opening in the European railway transport markets• Promoted by Deutsch Bahn AG, since 2002 LIB Index (a year after 1st Rail Package)• A study conducted by IBM Deutschland GmbH 19/
  20. 20. Deregulation Impacts on EU-Members Railway Liberalization Index• Divided in 3 sub-indexes: • LEX – degree of transposed laws • ACCESS - for market accessibility level • COM - rail’s modal split and intermodal LIB Index market share• Each UE-member is rated to the following categories: Delayed, On Schedule and Advanced 20/
  21. 21. Deregulation Impacts on EU-MembersRailway Liberalization Index Delayed• High density of barriers in law and market exists and there’s a long way run. New entrants would expect difficulties to operate on state- LIB Index owned infrastructure On Schedule• the process of liberalization is currently on going, although it may be having some problems 21/
  22. 22. Deregulation Impacts on EU-MembersRailway Liberalization Index Advanced• Favorable environment for private companies and high level in market opening implementation process LIB Index 22/
  23. 23. Deregulation Impacts on EU-MembersRailway Liberalization Index 1 – Sweden 2 – UK 3 – Germany LIB Index 25 – Lithuania 26 – Greece 27 – Ireland 23/
  24. 24. Deregulation Impacts on EU-MembersRailway Liberalization Index Index Growth 2007-11 Ireland, Italy, Bulgaria and Belgium LIB Index Spain, Latvia and Lithuania 24/
  25. 25. Performance of rail transportLicensingThere are five types of licenses:• Network license (authorises a person to be the operator of a Comparative Assessment network, and trains being used on a network for any purpose comprised in the operation of the network)• Passenger train licence (authorises a person to be the operator of a train being used on a network for the purpose of carrying passengers by railway)• Non-passenger train licence (authorises a person to be the operator of other trains being used on a network)• Station licence (authorises a person to operate one or more specified stations)• Light maintenance depot licence (authorises a person to operate one or more specified light maintenance depots) 25/
  26. 26. Performance of rail transportLicensingThe number of the railway licenses increased in most EU membersduring the period of 2003-2006. Comparative Assessment Development of the number of notified and valid licenses, EU 2006 26/
  27. 27. Performance of rail transportFreight transport 2000-2007: the rail freight transport increased in most EU countries. Comparative Assessment Trends in performance rail freight transport 2000-2007, EC 2009 27/
  28. 28. Performance of rail transportFreight transport After 2008, there was a decrease in the rail freight transport, due to the economics crisis which affected a lot of countries. Comparative Assessment Trends in performance rail freight transport 2007-2008, EC 2009 28/
  29. 29. Performance of rail transportFreight transport Performance of rail freight transport (2001-2010). Comparative Assessment Rail freight transport (thousands mio tkm), Eurostat 2011 29/
  30. 30. Performance of rail transportPassenger transport 2000-2007: the majority of EU members had an increase in the rail passenger transport. Comparative Assessment Trends in passenger rail transport over the period 2000-2007, EC 2009 30/
  31. 31. Performance of rail transportPassenger transport In 2008, passenger transport continued to increase but in low levels. Comparative Assessment Trends in passenger rail transport over the period 2007-2008, EC 2009 31/
  32. 32. Performance of rail transport Passenger transport Performance of rail passenger transport (2001-2010). Comparative Assessment Rail passenger transport (thousands mio pkm), Eurostat 2011 2009-2010: there was a small decrease in rail passenger transport. The sector with the highest increase in traffic is the high-speed sector. 32/
  33. 33. Quality of service • Safety • Punctuality Comparative Assessment 33/
  34. 34. Safety One indicator to measure the quality of services is the safety. We can notice decrease through the years. Comparative Assessment European railway passenger fatalities per billion passenger-km 1970-2006, UIC 2010 34/
  35. 35. Punctuality One of the most important problems for passengers is the delay over scheduled arrival time. Comparative Assessment Punctuality of combined transport trains on eight European freight corridors in 2007, EC 2009 35/
  36. 36. Punctuality % Punctuality Comparative Assessment Evolution of punctuality of the combined transport trains 1999-2007, EC 2009 36/
  37. 37. Conclusions • EU-Members began the legal process of transposing EU Directives into national law and they completed the legally separation between IMs and Operators. Comparative Assessment • Although we found divergent interpretation of railway legislation among the countries. • The top rated countries are UK, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. These countries are already providing favorable conditions for new competitors both in freight and passengers service. • Safety efforts were made and actually are being implemented sophisticated safety systems and new regulations that lead the railways to a one of the reliable and safer transport mode. • Pax- kilometre data show that countries like Germany, France and UK have an increased performance in passenger services. On the other hand, ton- kilometre remain stable since the last years. 37/
  38. 38. Suggestions• Specific training programs may be needed to help railway workers acquire new skills in order to obtain jobs in technically advanced railway companies. Comparative Assessment• The rail sector faces the real danger of losing know-how if no training is provided to the beginners because many railway undertakings over Europe are facing shortages as a result of the incentive to early retirements.• Spreading railway-related information and training on a wider range should become one of ERA’s role. The performance indicators should be published regularly by an official source like ERA, in order to better monitoring the deregulation impacts. 38/
  39. 39. σας ευχαριστώ grazie mulţumesc obrigado Comparative Assessment THANK YOU !! danke teşekkür благодаря thank you dank u ederim