Co-funded by:
7th framework programme of the European Commission, DG MOVE


http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

Railway infrastructure charges directive (2001/14/EC)

FACT SHEET NO.: Cat-No.1 / Subcat-No.1.1-2

General Information

Title

FACT SHEET NO.: Cat-No.1 / Subcat-No.1.1-2

Category

1. Pricing

Subcategory

1.1 Infrastructure charging / Access management schemes

Transport policy measure (TPM)

Railway infrastructure charges directive (2001/14/EC)

Description of TPM

The European Union (EU) encourages the establishment of fair and efficient charging systems for the use of infrastructure. These charging systems must allow for fair competition between different transport modes. Investment in railway infrastructure is desirable. Infrastructure charging schemes will provide incentives for infrastructure managers to make appropriate investments where economically attractive. Charging schemes send economic signals. It is therefore important that those signals to railway undertakings are consistent and lead to rational decisions [4].

Implementation examples

The Directive 2001/14/EC clearly states [4] that charges must be based on costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service. This leaves room for interpretation, resulting in great diversity in the implementation of the directive. A wide variety of both structure and level of charges is found.
Most countries have implemented a simple charge per train kilometer, differentiated by traction type, weight, speed and axle load of the train. Some countries (ie. Switzerland) also charge for train planning and operations, and even add a congestion charge (ie. Italy). In addition, Switzerland also has a surcharge for dangerous goods. Added to the basic track access charges, some countries have also charges for supplementary services (ie. Sweden) like passenger information, the use of stations, depots, marshalling yards, etc. [6]

Objectives of TPM

Paving the way for optimal use of existing rail infrastructure. Encouragement of investment in railway infrastructure. Provide incentives for infrastructure managers to make appropriate investments. This transport policy measure adopts, as far as possible, the "user pays" principle. Thus allowing private investors to charge the full cost of construction and maintenance. This creates acceptable revenue streams, which in turn will make railway infrastructure investments more attractive to private capital.

Choice of transport mode / Multimodality

Undetermined. Due to higher costs, it seems likely that the modal share of rail will be under pressure from road and inland water transport. However in other transport modes similar measures regarding the "user pays principle" will come in action, making it difficult to provide modality trends. Plans are to adopt the "user/polluter pays principle" in all transport modes [10]. That is beneficial to railways as it generates a relatively small amount of additional costs (like pollution, climate change, health hazards, etc) compared to other modes. In that situation, railways become more competative.

Origin and/or destination of trip

Trip frequency

Choice of route

Timing (day, hour)

Occupancy rate / Loading factor

However, when transport costs increase it is likely that operators will try to cut their costs, in order to stay competative. Due to the variety in the type of national charges (like weight charges, axle load charges, track scarcity, etc) it is difficult to provide a trend.

Energy efficiency / Energy usage

Main source

[1] Hendik Andersson & Henrik Ogren (2006): Noise Charges in Railway Infrastructure. In Transport Policy, nr 14(3)
[2] Federico Antoniazzi (2010): Infrastructure charging and project financing in the railway sector in France
[3] European Commission (2007): Calculating Noise Charges in Railway Infrastructures
[4] European Parliament (2001): Directive 2001/14/EC, on the allocation of railway infrastructure
[5] International Transport Forum / OECD (2008): Charges For The Use Of Rail Infrastructure
[6] Chris Nash (2005): Rail Infrastructure Charges in Europe -- in Journal of Transport Economics And Policy, nr 39(3)
[7] Katalin Tánczos & Gyula Farkas (2003): Railway infrastructure charging in Hungary
[8] UNIFE The European Railway Industries (2008): Internalisation of external costs of transport
[9] European Commission (2011): Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, SEC(2011)391final
[10] European Commission (2008): Strategy for the internalisation of external costs, COM(2008)435final
[11] CE Delft (2008): Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector
[12] Hendik Andersson & Henrik Ogren (2006): Bulleravgift for järnvägsoperatörer

Traffic Impacts

Passengers 

         

Transport operators 

           

Unassigned 

         

Travel or transport time

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Risk of congestion

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Vehicle mileage

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Service and comfort

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Overall impacts on social groups

Implementation phase

Operation phase

Summary / comments concerning the main impacts

With respect to travel or transport time and risk of congestion: there is a positive effect. This is because aspects like trip planning is scheduled (with scarcity in mind) and reservations have been made for the use of ancillary services (such as station use, marshalling yards, etc).
With respect to service and comfort: in the case of fixed charges per passing, there is a tendency to run the longest possible trains to reduce costs. An example is new infrastructure facilities (ie. bridges) where an additional charge is levied, like the Oresund Bridge and Storebelt Bridge connecting Sweden-Denmark-Germany. Freight trains are charged about 1.500 euro extra [6] for passing these bridges. In this way Denmark and Sweden are recovering the building costs. However, this furnishes a powerful incentive to run the longest possible freight trains, in order to reduce bridges charges. But this is at the expense of a reduced service frequency for freight shippers. By comparison, a simple charge per gross tonne-kilometer would have had no effect on the length of freight trains, and would not affect service levels.

Quantification of impacts

Due to the diversity of the Directive’s implementation, a quantification of impacts can not be provided.

Economic Impacts

Passengers 

         

Transport operators 

           

Unassigned 

         

Transport costs

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Private income / commercial turn over

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Revenues in the transport sector

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sectoral competitiveness

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Spatial competitiveness

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Housing expenditures

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Insurance costs

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Health service costs

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Public authorities & adm. burdens on businesses

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Public income (e.g.: taxes, charges)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Third countries and international relations

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Overall impacts on social groups

Implementation phase

Operation phase

Summary / comments concerning the main impacts

In the case of fixed charges per passing, there is a tendency to run the longest possible trains to reduce costs (ie. train route between Sweden and Germany over the Oresund Bridge Storebelt Bridge). However, this leads to a reduced service frequency. A simple charge per gross tone-kilometer would have been better.
The policy measure [4] leaves much room for interpretation. The implementation of the directive show great diversity [2] [6] [8] with results ranging from less then 1 euro per train kilometer (Scandinavia) to charges of up to 11 euros per train kilometer for freight (Eastern Europe). It is likely that some countries simply aim at near full cost recovery. Such differences in charges will continue to feed spatial competitiveness. Applying the "user pays principle" always results in higher transport costs. However, this principle will also be applied in other modes. Changes in costs, will keep competitiveness going.
It is important to minimise distortions of competition which may arise from significant differences in charging principles: either between railway infrastructures or between transport modes. To ensure this, the EU made up financial principles [7] on behalf of free access to railway paths and to preclude cross-financing. These principle are:
* the principle of transparency
* the prohibition of cross financing
* the principle of cost bearing
* the accountancy separation of passenger and freight transport
* the principle of open access to tracks

Quantification of impacts

Due to the diversity of the Directive’s implementation a qualification of impacts can not be provided.

Social Impacts
Environmental Impacts

Passengers 

         

Transport operators 

           

Unassigned 

         

Air pollutants

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Noise emissions

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Visual quality of the landscape

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Land use

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Climate

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Renewable or non-renewable resources

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Overall impacts on social groups

Implementation phase

Operation phase

Summary / comments concerning the main impacts

Inclusion of for example a noise component in rail infrastructure charges, raises some problems. Noise is a non-marketed-good, the monetary value of noise abatement is therefore hard to calculate. Another difficulty is the estimation of the effect on the noise level that one extra train will create. The advantage of such infrastructure charges is that it provides operators with an incentive to reduce their noise emissions, pollutant emissions, etc. [1] [3] [12]

Quantification of impacts

A qualification of impacts can not be provided, because environmental aspects are difficult to formulate as monetary value in a unique and consistant manner. Various studies concerning the transforming of air emissions and noise emissions into monetary values are available [11]. However, such transforming and their results do not show full consistancy as they depend on a variety of assumptions and/or situations. In general it can be said that environmental charges will eventually push operators towards reducing negative environmental impacts.

0  Comments

Write a comment for this page

Response to:  Direct response to the article