Competition between railway undertakings is still limited by different factors resulted from the protective behaviour of “traditional” railway operators and from the management based on different privileged pacts of the railway infrastructure which, as natural monopole, has to be non-discriminatory and accessible to the same extent to all interested parties. In most member states, the insufficient transparency of market conditions and the inefficient operation of the institutions continue to worsen the supply of competitive railway services. Essential information for the new entrants are not yet systematically and easily accessible. Operators who access a new market continue to be confronted with discriminations in terms of track accessing and of rail-related services (maintenance sites, terminals, information desks and ticket offices, both for railway freight transport and passenger transport) which are often owned and exploited by the “traditional” railway undertaking.
The process of opening rail transport to competition has led to important structural changes on the market. Competition, amongst others, is growing at all business levels. This obviously generates new business opportunities and challenges that affect the market as a whole.
The current EU legislation includes laws on guaranteeing the non-discriminatory access to rail-related services, especially if there is no other viable alternative.
The White Paper on Transport adopted in 2011 stipulates the provision of a real and non-discriminatory access to the railway infrastructure and to rail-related services, especially by structurally separating the management of infrastructure and supply of services.
According to Directive 14/2004, infrastructure access additional and auxiliary services, would be explicitly demanded by the operator and invariably offered by the manager, however, in practice, rail-related services that can be provided by an infrastructure manager vary from one state to another and tariffs for these services are calculated based on the degree to which they are used. Rail-related services should be established in a way that would guarantee the support of this type of services on a constantly increasing railway market. For example, reinvesting profit should be moderately permitted where private rail services use private infrastructures, or else the investment will not generate return. In fact, it should be specified that the “rail-related services” expression is neither mentioned nor used in Directive 14/2001. Moreover, the Directive addresses to infrastructure managers and can be easily misinterpreted by a lay reader. Confusions can refer to the guarantee of rail-related services, by whom and under which conditions.
Recently, at mid-June, the proposals on the recast of the First Railway Package have had a negative impact on the European railway sector, an aspect clearly expressed through its “voice”, the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies. The European ministers of transport have adopted by low majority, a “general approach” on the recast. The position adopted by the Council on such an important legislative proposal for the railway sector was disappointing.
The European Commission’s proposal aimed at clarifying the First Railway Package and an increased improvement of railway competition. This should have been met through more specific laws regarding the financial architecture and dispositions regarding the access to infrastructure and implicitly to rail-related services and the extension of the national railway regulatory authorities’ competition towards the rail-related transport services does not seem to be the right solution for supporting competition.
Share on:
