For the European railway system, the approach of autumn means the crucial moment for debates on the recast of the first railway package. Opinions are source of controversy between great public owners of rail networks and companies regarding the amplitude of the separation movement of activities on the railway vertical organisation. Examples and counter examples are trying to reason whether it is necessary to maintain holdings or to accept a radical separation.
Under the circumstances, it seems that we are forgetting the fundamental layer of the debate, namely the role that the railway system plays and should play in the society. The emphasis on the commercial character of the activity in this field, which has been discussed on other occasions too, threatens the foundation of a sustainable society, both in terms of policy and of environment. Close to the European Parliament’s vote, statistics made available to the public by the International Transport Forum show that the European states tend to ignore rail investment needs to the detriment of road infrastructures. The worrying evolution of bitumen and concrete investment share instead of railway infrastructure or inland waterways investment share shows the negligence of long-term consequences of our decisions. Figures for Central and Eastern Europe are quite alarming – the road investment share has increased during the last years from 66% to 83%, representing a growth by almost 25% – while in Western Europe the overwhelming share (66%) remains in the road sector.
Far from the balance figure (EUR 1 for roads = EUR 1 for railways) claimed by the European Union!!!
In this case, the continuous degradation of the railway system attractiveness should not be surprising. At the same time, the danger of the railway business environment is real, the “means of production” being condemned to a long immobilization on a technical infrastructure of poor quality and to a disproportionate amortization with the road competitor (reported for the carried tonne). Therefore, I think that the debate related to the holding/non-holding issue is improper. It is important that the political factor would assume the declarations made over the years and that it would correctly dimension the amounts allocated to the railway infrastructure investments and maintenance.
Ignoring the physical limits of the environment may be fatal for the ecosystem. Such a decision, made during the Roman Republic ever since ancient times, to deforest Sicily both for the agricultural extension and for building military fleets, led over the time to the desertification of the large Mediterranean island (ancient Greek sources speak about navigable rivers and large forests on the island territory).
Assuming some policies in favour of the railways at national level does not mean a discrimination of the road transport system, but building a solid backbone able to support and erect the European transport system. If we compare transport volumes between countries with a modern railway business environment and the other countries, we will find major discrepancies (reported to major populations).
The recast of the first railway package, together with the directive for a single European railway area, must provide a solution to the issue of funds and to the investment return (evaluated at society level and not at branch level) and less to the issue of organisational structure of railway companies.
by Ştefan Roşeanu
Share on:
