The French press has brought back to my attention the issue concerning the investments allocated for the public transport infrastructures and their efficiency. In the Hexagon, the modification of the market conditions in public transport is imminent: motor coach operators have received permission to sell tickets for inter-regional and national journeys, an attribute that used to be reserved only for railway operators. What is the immediate consequence? Tickets are sold at prices 50% lower than in railway transport and they are promoted as having a high level of comfort and safety. While it is relatively easy to evaluate these two final aspects in comparison with railway transport (the statistical indicators are definitely in favour of the railway industry), the question now relates to the fairness of the prices.
The disloyal competition between rail and road operators exists since for ever, especially in the New EU Member States. The abrupt opening of the road transport market, without a preliminary and fair evaluation of the costs born by the public authority, has practically destroyed rail transport, leading it towards bankruptcy. The freight volumes, which were reduced by more than half throughout the 20 years of “democracy”, raise once again a fair question: what should be the role of the public authority on the transport market? Resuming the topic that we discussed in last month’s issue (Railway PRO. Infrastructure Development, February 2011), the way in which the local and European authorities approach the issues related to the railway sector makes us wonder if the public authority behaves in this case as a strategic investor (a developer) or, most likely, as an investment fund (striving to obtain more dividends)?
The achievement of the organizations that support road transport is, once again, that they managed to impose their point of view, even if it was to the detriment of the general interest and, in the long-term, with the risk of causing a major gap on the transport market which could lead to a reduction in mobility. The passenger rail transport sector is mostly governed based on the public service principle. In this context, the counter-value of the transport service covers both the direct costs of the operator and the costs related to infrastructure development. Having an “integrated” approach, the railway sector (unlike the road sector) aims at covering all costs through the services provided by railway operators. This way, all the policies related to the expansion of the railway networks, vehicle fleet and the costs caused by accidents and pollution etc. are included in the tariffs, unlike the situation found in the road sector.
In time, the thoughtless opening of the road sector may reduce rail traffic on certain routes, labelling them as inefficient or imposing a higher level of subsidies. Introducing road transport services without a proper balancing of infrastructure related costs and without a fair evaluation of the direct and indirect environmental impact will lead to a poor management of the public funds. Introducing bus routes which compete with railway routes will lead to a poor usage of the terrain by imposing new infrastructure works and increasing external costs.
This reality which silently encourages road transport (which is more polluting and, indirectly, more expensive) makes us wonder if the public authorities are truly concerned about how they use the public funds and about the future of the projects that they so boldly promote to the public. I wonder … Will we also prove the futility of high-speed trains?
by Ştefan Roşeanu
Share on:
