- The Review of the First Railway Package
-
- Joint Position Paper of the
-
- European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)
-
- and the
-
- European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP)
-
- 18 May 2011
-
Seaports and inland ports are faced with the same challenges
and the same problems when it comes to railways and the policy
governing it. Therefore, the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)
and the European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP) have prepared a
joint position paper on EU railway policy in general and the
proposals for the recast of the First Railway Package in particular.
Table of contents
Executive summary
1. The relation between ports, port authorities and railways
2. Concerns about the current functioning of European railways
3. ESPO-EFIP views on EU railway policy and the recast proposal
References
Executive summary
The Single European Railway Area - no more time to lose!
For ports, there is a clear sense of urgency in achieving
a single European railway network. A single European railway area
without barriers seems to be the best way to guarantee an efficient
use of the existing railway capacity. The remaining barriers, both
legal, technical and political, should be lifted without further
delay.
This is the main message that European seaports and inland ports
want to send to European policy makers, now that the proposal to
review the first railway package, the so-called “recast-proposal”,
is high on the political agenda of both the European Parliament and
the Council. The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) and the
European Federation of Inland ports (EFIP) fully support the recast
proposal of the Commission. They even want to go a step further.
The main challenges and concerns European seaports and inland
ports are facing today regarding the functioning of the European
railways are:
- Today, rail still has a national approach.
-
The investments in rail freight infrastructure are not always demand
driven.
-
The incumbent undertaking often still enjoys a preferential
treatment in receiving slot access to the network and good
timetables at the dispatching centres of the infrastructure manager.
-
The European railway system consists of a patchwork of different
track pricing regimes. Track pricing is not always transparent and
fair.
-
There is a low level of reliability for non prescheduled rail
freight trains (ad hoc slots).
-
The “last rail miles” linking the rail terminal outside
the port area with the port area are often characterised by old
infrastructure and bad equipment.
-
Spatial as well as local environmental effects (noise, vibrations…)
are often difficult issues for local authorities and citizens.
-
Rail has problems to meet the demand for short distance journeys
(<100 km). The lack of flexibility when using rail freight
services plays a role here.
-
There is a lack of statistical information on rail cargo, their
destinations and volumes.
- Based on these concerns, ESPO and EFIP have developed the
following recommendations:
-
- The current EU legislative framework on railways should be
simplified.
-
A real European approach will avoid diverging interpretations by
Member States and limit the risk of having new barriers.
-
The rail links to and from the port area should be optimised in view
of guaranteeing a non discriminatory access for all railway
undertakings to the port area. Improving these links should be seen
as an important element of completion of the TEN-T network.
-
Awaiting a full European interoperable railway system, a pragmatic
regime of cross acceptance of operational rules at local level is
needed to enhance the railway links between cross border ports in
the short run.
-
The corridor approach should not replace “national barriers”
with “corridor barriers”. The corridor approach should
be considered as a step towards a genuine European policy and
railway network.
- As regards the recast proposal of the European Commission,
ESPO-EFIP ask for:
-
- The full unbundling of railway infrastructure and operations.
-
A transparent role of the infrastructure manager.
-
A railway strategy based on a genuine European approach.
-
A non discriminatory access to rail related services in the port.
-
A transparent charging system for using railway infrastructure.
-
There should be no higher charges (“mark ups”) for
international railway services than for domestic services.
- 1. The relation between ports, port authorities and railways
-
- Before addressing the current EU railway policy and the EC
proposals on the table, it is important to define from which angle
ports should be looking at European railways and to determine why
railway policy is important for both sea and inland ports and their
authorities.
-
- Looking at railway services and ports one should first make the
distinction between port infrastructure and operations in the port
area and port infrastructure and operations outside the port
area.
-
- Different models exist for the development, management and
operation of the railway system inside the
port area. Even if there seems to be a tendency for port
authorities to become owner of the railway infrastructure in the
port, there is no agreement on what model should be favored.
-
- It is however clear that railway undertakings operating on the
national and European railway network should have track access to
the port area. The connection between the European rail network and
the port should be open to all railway undertakings wanting to enter
the port. Moreover, rail related services in the port, such as
shunting infrastructure, fuelling and servicing, … should be
open to all rail undertakings in a non discriminatory manner.
-
- But Europe’s railway policy concerns in the first place
the railway system outside the port area.
-
- Both for seaports and inland ports, the existence of adequate
rail links between the port and the hinterland and the efficient use
of this railway infrastructure, linking the port with the
hinterland, are of paramount importance.
-
- From a seaport point of view, efficient and sustainable
hinterland connections are increasingly important. With transport
volumes rising gradually in European seaports, it is clear that
sustainable solutions have to be found to transport these freight
flows to the hinterland. Moreover, often the development of
additional capacity in a seaport will only get an approval if some
strong engagements as regards sustainable hinterland flows are made.
Indeed, as mentioned in a recent analysis ITMMA made for ESPO (i),
the configuration (of barge and) railway networks proves to be a
crucial organisational element for the future spatial hierarchy in
the European port system.
-
- But there is more. To face the growth rates in container
handling, seaports are also increasingly looking beyond their own
infrastructure and facilities and liaise with intermodal inland
terminals in their hinterland. Inland ports and terminals allow for
de/re-consolidation of cargo flows, and can help seaports to fully
exploit potential economies of scale. Here again, performing railway
links are, together with inland waterway links, a decisive factor.
-
- From an inland port point of view, a well functioning and
efficient railway infrastructure is fundamental. Inland ports are a
lot more than entrance and exit gates on the waterway. Inland ports
are important nodes in the inland transport network. Their success
depends on their efficient water and railway transport links with
the seaports and with the different economic centres. For inland
ports situated along waterways, which do not have a guaranteed
navigability all year round, railways are even more important.
-
- At the same time, seaports and inland ports can be considered as
very important “feeders” of rail freight trains and
their lines in the European Union. Sea port related traffic, as part
of the overall European traffic mix, constitutes a significant
volume. WORLDNET estimated that some 603bn inland tonne kilometres
are generated annually within the EU territory from seaborne
freight, about a quarter of total freight. Looking at rail freight,
26% of rail freight traffic in the European Union is port related
(ii).
-
- 2. Concerns about the current functioning of European
railways
-
- 2.1. Rail still has a national approach
-
- Today, rail still has a national approach. The cross border
problems and lack of interoperability between the different railway
systems are a major concern, clearly hampering the smooth
functioning of the railway market and a fluid cargo flow by rail
from the ports to the hinterland. A harmonisation of the rail gauges
seems in that respect a priority. Other existing constraints in
border crossing relate to differences in traction energy, train
length, train controlling systems, rolling stock, operational rules,
train crew certification, etc. But the need for cooperation goes
beyond the development of Technical Specification for
Interoperability (TSI). Infrastructure managers should also better
cooperate in exchanging cross-border information.
-
- Moreover, European railway corridors do not stop at EU borders.
As a consequence, European railway policy should not only aim for an
EU approach but also for a common approach that goes beyond these
borders.
-
- 2.2. Investments in rail freight infrastructure are not
always demand driven
-
- The investments in rail infrastructure should be targeted and
balanced. The incumbent railway undertaking (the former national
railway company) remains often the most important interlocutor.
Newcomers nor port authorities are sufficiently involved in the
planning of investments in railway infrastructure.
-
- In addition, it is important that the quality of infrastructure
and tracks relate to the demands of the market and the function they
have to fulfill, avoiding overinvestment and obliging users to pay
for a quality that they do not need.
-
- 2.3. Preferential treatment of the incumbent railway
undertaking can lead to market distortions
-
- Often the incumbent undertaking still enjoys preferential
treatment in receiving slot access to the network and good
timetables at the dispatching centres of the infrastructure manager.
In some cases, the incumbent undertaking has a special access to the
information database of the infrastructure manager. This access
provides him with valuable (sensitive) commercial information which
gives him a competitive advantage over other parties who do not have
this “inside” information. This preferential treatment
is due to the fact that the incumbent rail undertaking often has
staff (e.g. to manage the interface ‘track/slot allocation,
rolling stock-fleet and undertaking-staff) in this dispatching
centre.
-
- 2.4. Lack of statistical information
-
- There is a lack of statistical information on rail cargo, their
destinations and volumes. The liberalisation of the rail freight
market has implied that available information became fragmented,
since cargo and wagons are in hands of different parties. This calls
for a stronger role of the infrastructure manager to ensure data
availability and exchange.
-
- 2.5. Track pricing is not always transparent and fair
-
- The European railway system consists of a patchwork of different
track pricing regimes. Furthermore the track price is not always
related to the quality of the path or the service. The price of a
train path should be related to its use (e.g. passenger or freight)
and to the quality of the services offered and used.
-
- 2.6. A low level of reliability for non prescheduled rail
freight trains
-
- Reliability of rail freight transport proves to be a problem for
ad hoc slots: these are freight trains that are not regular, not
integrated in a dedicated time slot. This is especially the case for
inland ports and terminals, which very often rely on many different
infrastructure managers and experience more difficulties since they
are further located in the chain.
-
- 2.7. Local environmental complaints in urban areas
-
- Logistic and spatial planning problems can arise when linking
ports and urban areas through railways. Using rail to link long
distance transport with the last urban mile implies sufficient
consolidation, distribution and logistics space in or near urban
areas. Spatial as well as local environmental effects (noise,…)
are often difficult issues for local authorities and citizens.
Moreover, given the fact that rail freight has to share the
infrastructure with passenger traffic, it is clear that rail freight
often crosses urban areas in transit. Increasingly, this leads to
local environmental problems (noise, vibrations,…). This is
also due to the fact that housing is authorised very near to train
tracks. The transport of dangerous goods can give rise to additional
problems in that respect.
-
- 2.8. Problems to meet the demand for short distance journeys
(<100 km)
-
- The transport from and to the port is not always a long distance
transport. The big challenge for rail freight is to attract the
important market segment of the shorter freight journeys. Up to now,
rail seems not ready to fulfill this function. The lack of
flexibility when using rail freight services plays a role here.
Often, train paths for rail shuttles have to be reserved one year in
advance. Here inland waterway transport and road are far more
flexible.
-
- 2.9. Limited infrastructure and access for the “last
mile” by rail
-
- The last rail miles linking the rail terminal outside the port
area with the port area are often characterised by old
infrastructure and bad equipment. Sometimes the tracks are not
electrified, which means that the link with the port area can only
be made with diesel locomotives. The limited infrastructure makes
the rail operations on these last miles very complicated (burdensome
security rules,…) and restricts indirectly the access to the
port area. Often rail undertakings are not willing or not able to
access ports and have to rely on the unique railway undertaking
bridging the rail terminal with the port area (“opérateur
ferroviaire de proximité”). The lack of competition in
this part of the network has an effect on the price.
-
- To conclude, port authorities are convinced that railways
have to be taken out of their isolation. Rail performance can be
improved by going outside the ‘comfort zone’: all
parties (also private undertakings, shippers,…) should be
involved and close cooperation between sea ports and inland ports
should be encouraged. This cooperation should also be sought
cross-border through a better exchange of information. Ports should
not only look in their own backyard, but should oversee their entire
supply chain and act proactively on both bottlenecks and
opportunities.
-
- 3. ESPO-EFIP views on EU railway policy and the recast
proposal
-
- 3.1. Introduction: the Single European Railway Area - no more
time to lose!
-
- For ports, there is a clear sense of urgency in achieving a
single European railway network. A single European railway area
without barriers seems to be the best way to guarantee an efficient
use of the existing railway capacity. The remaining barriers, both
legal, technical and political, should be lifted without further
delay. Therefore, ESPO and EFIP fully subscribe to the aims of this
recast.
-
- In a co-modal transport chain, each transport mode has to follow
pace. The strength of a transport chain is determined by the
strength of its weakest part. ESPO and EFIP strongly believe that
green logistics is not possible without a dynamic railway sector.
-
- Bearing in mind the huge investments needed to develop railway
infrastructure in Europe, ESPO and EFIP consider that existing
railway infrastructure has to be used as efficient and sustainable
as possible. Each barrier implies an additional delay. New
infrastructure should be developed as targeted as possible taking
into account the needs of European transport users and market
demands.
-
- ESPO and EFIP underline the importance of optimising rail links
to and from the port area in view of guaranteeing a
non-discriminatory access for all railway undertakings to the port
area. Improving and modernising the link between ports and railway
networks should be seen as an important element to complete the
TEN-T network.
-
- ESPO and EFIP particularly favours the attempts to simplify the
current EU legislative framework on railways. The recast should aim
at a real European approach, avoiding diverging interpretations by
Member States. As such, the risk of having new barriers to a fully
European market will be limited.
-
- European ports urge the European Commission to step up its
efforts to monitor the implementation of the European regulatory
framework. It is useless to have a European Railway Area on paper,
if the majority of governments and stakeholders are not respecting
the rules. Market failures and distortions should be addressed
promptly.
-
- Awaiting a full European interoperable railway system, European
ports ask for pragmatic solutions in local cross-border zones. In
that respect ESPO and EFIP plead for a pragmatic regime of cross
acceptance of operational rules at local level, to enhance the
railway links between cross-border ports in the short run. These
short term solutions at local level should not jeopardise the
overall aim of achieving a full interoperable railway system.
-
- Finally, ESPO and EFIP point out that the corridor approach
should not replace “national barriers” with “corridor
barriers”. The corridor approach should be considered as a
step towards a genuine European policy and railway network. The
corridors should learn from each other and exchange (best)
practices, instead of competing with each other. The relation
between the different corridor-oriented initiatives at EU level
(ERTMS, rail freight, …) should be clarified and their
implementation should be coordinated.
-
- 3.2. Full unbundling railway infrastructure and operations
(Article 4 and 7)
-
- ESPO and EFIP plead for a complete unbundling of railway
infrastructure and operations. The infrastructure manager should be
completely independent from rail operations. The separation of
infrastructure management and railway operations that is currently
foreseen “on paper” does not guarantee a full separation
in reality. The current provisions still allow for situations where
the infrastructure manager remains hostage of the rail operation
branch of the incumbent railway undertaking. This could lead to
infrastructure investment choices that are biased by the interests
of the incumbent undertaking and could hamper an optimal
organisation, use and management of rail infrastructure. Therefore
ESPO and EFIP back the proposal for a full unbundling of
infrastructure and operations. The unbundling should thus also be
“legal”: infrastructure managers and rail operations
services cannot be housed under the same mother company or holding.
Only a fully independent infrastructure manager can play its role
properly.
-
- 3.3. The role of the infrastructure manager should be
transparent (Article 7 and annex II)
-
- ESPO and EFIP welcome the proposal to work towards a harmonised
list of “essential functions” of infrastructure
managers. This will enhance the transparency of their role and make
it easier for applicants of train paths to deal with the different
infrastructure managers.
-
- Moreover, infrastructure managers should avoid taking decisions
that are in conflict with Europe’s Infrastructure Policy. It
is clear though that the role of the infrastructure manager goes
beyond the management of the TEN-T railway infrastructure.
Infrastructure managers are also in charge of managing the regional
and local network. It is important however that both levels of
infrastructure management are reinforcing - and not contradicting -
each other.
-
- 3.4. Need for a genuine European railway strategy (Article 8)
-
- In view of achieving a single European railway network, ESPO and
EFIP fully support the idea of a medium and long term infrastructure
strategy to be developed by Member States, allowing the market and
potential investors to make the necessary choices. However, when
developing this strategy a clear distinction should be made between
rail passengers and rail freight transport. Moreover, a the
development of the strategy should follow a genuine European
approach. ESPO and EFIP believe it should be stated more explicitly
in the text of the proposal that this strategy should be based on
the Union’s infrastructure policy, avoiding as such that 27
national strategies are being developed. A clear reference to
Europe’s infrastructure policy seems relevant in that respect.
It is then for Member States to elaborate it, taking into account
specific national circumstances. Finally, it is important to involve
port authorities, applicants and potential applicants of the railway
infrastructure proactively in this exercise.
-
- Finally, the five-year duration of the agreement between
competent authorities of Member States and infrastructure managers
(article 30, paragraph 2), which provides for State funding, should
be seen as an absolute minimum, in order to guarantee continuity of
investment.
-
- 3.5. Rail related services: the scope needs clarification
(Article 10, 13 and Annex III)
-
- ESPO and EFIP support the Commission proposals on rail related
services. Rail related services in ports, such as shunting and
marshalling yards, fuelling, maintenance, storage sidings,
servicing, … should indeed be equally open to all rail
undertakings. The “use-or-lose-it” principle, as put
forward in the Commission proposal, can be an interesting instrument
to guarantee an optimal use of rail related services. A conflict of
interest may rise when one of these rail related services is in the
hands or under control of the incumbent undertaking. This can affect
newcomers who are disadvantaged through higher prices, less access
or less service. It remains however to be seen what the modalities
of such a principle should be.
-
- ESPO and EFIP request however a clarification as regards the
scope of the rail related services. Looking at freight terminals, a
distinction should be made between “on dock terminals”
(seaside or waterborne terminals) and “off dock terminals”
(hub terminals). Whereas the access to on-dock rails should not be
limited to one rail undertaking, ESPO and EFIP believe that
dedicated rail tracks on the on-dock terminals, which are only used
by the undertaking of the on-dock terminal, should be excluded from
the scope of the provisions on rail related services. It seems
logical that a privately owned railway infrastructure is only used
for transporting freight that arrived by ship at this terminal.
Neighbouring terminals should only have access to this terminal and
its rail tracks if the on-dock terminal operator agrees. “Public”
on-dock terminals which are used by different companies for loading
and unloading ships should not be excluded from the provisions of
this directive. The railway infrastructure on these terminals should
be open for all users.
-
- 3.6. Charging of railway infrastructure must be transparent
and fair
-
- ESPO and EFIP plead for a transparent charging system for using
railway infrastructure. The setting of charges for the use of
infrastructure should guarantee a level playing field between
different Member States, different ports, different applicants of
railway infrastructure. European ports mainly operate on an
international basis. An increased coordination between
infrastructure managers when it comes to establishing charges for
the use of infrastructure is therefore considered a priority.
-
- In this respect, ports are responding positively to the
initiative of the Commission to identify on the basis of objective
criteria different market segments that allow for a different level
of charges.
-
- But looking at the different market segments identified in the
recast proposal, European ports believe it is against every market
logic to allow for a higher charge (“mark up”) for
international services than for domestic services. In view of
guaranteeing a level playing field between Member States, one should
avoid that different charges for different market segments lead to
market distortions. A higher charge for international services could
have adverse effects in terms of achieving a Single European Railway
Area by making domestic rail freight journeys cheaper. In an open
European market, international rail freight journeys shouldn’t
be more costly for infrastructure managers than domestic journeys.
Besides, by making international journeys more expensive, one could
indirectly make the call on domestic ports cheaper than the use of
ports in neighbouring countries. On the other hand, ports of small
Member States would be disadvantaged if crossing a national barrier
can give rise to a higher charge. ESPO and EFIP therefore oppose the
differentiation between domestic and international services for the
setting of the charges.
-
- European ports acknowledge that infrastructure managers of
different Member States have to cooperate when introducing mark-ups
that relate to rail services on more than one network (article 37).
However, international and domestic charges should not be treated
differently in a fully open EU rail market.
-
- 3.7. A balanced market monitoring
-
- ESPO and EFIP back the Commission proposals regarding market
monitoring. Market imbalances and distortions of competition should
be detected as soon as possible. A strict monitoring system of the
quality of rail transport infrastructure and of infrastructure
charging seems appropriate in that respect. The question is whether
Member States are able to assess prices and quality of railway
services as foreseen in the recast proposal.
-
- References
-
- For more information, please contact:
-
Isabelle Ryckbost
Director
European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP)
Tel + 32 2 219 82 07
Email: isabelle.ryckbost@inlandports.be
|
Patrick Verhoeven
Secretary General
European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)
Tel + 32 2 736 34 63
Email: patrick.verhoeven@espo.be
|
- ESPO - EFIP
-
Treurenberg 6
-
B-1000 Brussel / Bruxelles
-
www.espo.be - www.inlandports.eu
-
|
- Via Raffaele Paolucci 17r/19r - 16129 Génova - ITALIA
tel.: +39.010.2462122, fax: +39.010.2516768, e-mail
|
