Considerations on COM(1998)480-3 - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(1998)480-3 - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(1998)480  |
| date | February 26, 2001 |
(2) Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways(5) provides for certain access rights in international rail transport for railway undertakings, and international groupings of railway undertakings; these rights mean that railway infrastructure can be used by multiple users.
(3) Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees(6) set out a broad framework for the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity.
(4) Those Directives have not prevented a considerable variation in the structure and level of railway infrastructure charges and the form and duration of capacity allocation processes.
(5) To ensure transparency and non-discriminatory access to rail infrastructure for all railway undertakings all the necessary information required to use access rights are to be published in a network statement.
(6) Appropriate capacity-allocation schemes for rail infrastructure coupled with competitive operators will result in a better balance of transport between modes.
(7) Encouraging optimal use of the railway infrastructure will lead to a reduction in the cost of transport to society.
(8) An efficient freight sector, especially across borders, requires action for the opening up of the market.
(9) It should be possible for Member States to allow purchasers of railway services to enter directly the capacity-allocation process.
(10) The revitalisation of European railways by means of extended access for international freight on the Trans-European Rail Freight Network requires fair intermodal competition between rail and road, particularly by taking appropriate account of the different external effects; appropriate charging schemes for rail infrastructure coupled with appropriate charging schemes for other transport infrastructures and competitive operators will result in an optimal balance of different transport modes.
(11) The charging and capacity allocation schemes should permit equal and non-discriminatory access for all undertakings and attempt as far as possible to meet the needs of all users and traffic types in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
(12) Within the framework set out by Member States charging and capacity-allocation schemes should encourage railway infrastructure managers to optimise use of their infrastructure.
(13) Railway undertakings should receive clear and consistent signals from capacity allocation schemes which lead them to make rational decisions.
(14) In order to take into account the needs of users, or potential users, of railway infrastructure capacity to plan their business, and to the needs of customers and funders, it is important that the infrastructure manager ensures that infrastructure capacity is allocated in a way which reflects the need to maintain and improve service reliability levels.
(15) It is desirable for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to be provided with incentives to minimise disruption and improve performance of the network.
(16) Charging and capacity allocation schemes should allow for fair competition in the provision of railway services.
(17) It is important to have regard to the business requirements of both applicants and the infrastructure manager.
(18) It is important to maximise the flexibility available to the infrastructure managers with regard to the allocation of infrastructure capacity, but this must be consistent with satisfaction of the applicant's reasonable requirements.
(19) The capacity allocation process must prevent the imposition of undue constraints on the wishes of other undertakings holding, or intending to hold, rights to use the infrastructure to develop their business.
(20) It is desirable to grant some degree of flexibility to infrastructure managers to enable a more efficient use to be made of the infrastructure network.
(21) Capacity allocation and charging schemes may need to take account of the fact that different components of the rail infrastructure network may have been designed with different principal users in mind.
(22) The requirements for passenger services may often conflict with the requirements for freight; the requirements for passenger services may result in a network which is more costly to build and maintain than one designed solely for freight; the increasing speed differential between freight and passenger rolling stock can lead to an exacerbation of the conflict between these two types of traffic.
(23) Different users and types of users will frequently have a different impact on infrastructure capacity and the needs of different services need to be properly balanced.
(24) Services operated under contract to a public authority may require special rules to safeguard their attractiveness to users.
(25) The charging and capacity allocation schemes must take account of the effects of increasing saturation of infrastructure capacity and ultimately the scarcity of capacity.
(26) The different time-frames for planning traffic types mean that it is desirable to ensure that requests for infrastructure capacity which are made after the completion of the timetabling process can be satisfied.
(27) The use of information technology can enhance the speed and responsiveness of the timetabling process and improve the ability of applicants to bid for infrastructure capacity, as well as improving the ability to establish train paths which cross more than one infrastructure manager's network.
(28) To ensure the optimum outcome for railway undertakings, it is desirable to require an examination of the use of infrastructure capacity when the coordination of requests for capacity is required to meet the needs of users.
(29) In view of the monopolistic position of the infrastructure managers it is desirable to require an examination of the available infrastructure capacity, and methods of enhancing it when the capacity allocation process is unable to meet the requirements of users.
(30) A lack of information about other railway undertakings' requests as well as about the constraints within the system may make it difficult for railway undertakings to seek to optimise their infrastructure capacity requests.
(31) It is important to ensure the better coordination of allocation schemes so as to ensure the improved attractiveness of rail for traffic which uses the network of more than one infrastructure manager, in particular for international traffic.
(32) It is important to minimise the distortions of competition which may arise, either between railway infrastructures or between transport modes, from significant differences in charging principles.
(33) It is desirable to define those components of the infrastructure service which are essential to enable an operator to provide a service and which should be provided in return for minimum access charges.
(34) Investment in railway infrastructure is desirable and infrastructure charging schemes should provide incentives for infrastructure managers to make appropriate investments where they are economically attractive.
(35) Any charging scheme will send economic signals to users. It is important that those signals to railway undertakings should be consistent and lead them to make rational decisions.
(36) To enable the establishment of appropriate and fair levels of infrastructure charges, infrastructure managers need to record and establish the valuation of their assets and develop a clear understanding of cost factors in the operation of the infrastructure.
(37) It is desirable to ensure that account is taken of external costs when making transport decisions.
(38) It is important to ensure that charges for international traffic are such as to permit rail to meet the needs of the market; consequently infrastructure charging should be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.
(39) The overall level of cost recovery through infrastructure charges affects the necessary level of government contribution; Member States may require different levels of overall cost recovery through charges including mark-ups or a rate of return which the market can bear while balancing cost recovery with intermodal competitiveness of rail freight. However, it is desirable for any infrastructure charging scheme to enable traffic to use the rail network which can at least pay for the additional cost which it imposes.
(40) A railway infrastructure is a natural monopoly. It is therefore necessary to provide infrastructure managers with incentives to reduce costs and manage their infrastructure efficiently.
(41) Account should be taken of the fact that for a great many years the level of investment in infrastructure and technology has not made it possible to create the conditions for any real development of railway transport. It is therefore advisable, against this background, for appropriate upgrading to be carried out, in particular in the context of setting up the Trans-European Rail Freight Network, by using inter alia the Community instruments available, without prejudice to priorities already established.
(42) Discounts which are allowed to railway undertakings must relate to actual administrative cost savings experienced; discounts may also be used to promote the efficient use of infrastructure.
(43) It is desirable for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to be provided with incentives to minimise disruption of the network.
(44) The allocation of capacity is associated with a cost to the infrastructure manager, payment for which should be required.
(45) Measures are needed to ensure that all railway undertakings licensed under Community law are required to hold an appropriate safety certificate before operating on the territory of a Member State; the granting of safety certificates must comply with Community law.
(46) The efficient management and fair and non-discriminatory use of rail infrastructure require the establishment of a regulatory body that oversees the application of these Community rules and acts as an appeal body, notwithstanding the possibility of judicial review.
(47) Specific measures are required to take account of the specific geopolitical and geographical situation of certain Member States as well as a specific organisation of the railway sector in various Member States while ensuring the integrity of the internal market.
(48) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(7).
(49) In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objectives of this Directive, namely to coordinate arrangements in the Member States governing the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charges made for the use thereof as well as safety certification, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States in view of the need to ensure fair and non-discriminatory terms for access to the infrastructure as well as to take account of the manifestly international dimensions involved in the operation of significant elements of the railway networks, and can therefore, by reason of the need for coordinated trans-national action, be better achieved by the Community. This Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.
(50) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2830/77 of 12 December 1977 on the measures necessary to achieve comparability between the accounting systems and annual accounts of railway undertakings(8), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2183/78 of 19 September 1978 laying down uniform costing principles for railway undertakings(9), Council Decision 82/529/EEC of 19 July 1982 on the fixing of rates for the international carriage of goods by rail(10), Council Decision 83/418/EEC of 25 July 1983 on the commercial independence of the railways in the management of their international passenger and luggage traffic(11), and Directive 95/19/EC are superseded by this Directive and should therefore be repealed.