Professor and Researcher in Railways, Technical University of Lisbon (IST), Portugal. July 12, 2012, SESSION: Economy & Finance 2

Transcription

1 2012 European Study on Infrastructure Charges Professor and Researcher in Railways, Technical University of Lisbon (IST), Portugal Research Team: Aleksandr PRODAN Andrés LÓPEZ-PITA PITA (IST Lisbon) (IST Lisbon) (UPC Barcelona) UIC Steering Committee: Ignacio BARRON Michel LEBOEUF Naoto YANASE July 12, 2012, SESSION: Economy & Finance 2

2 Background Introduction and Objectives Issue and Implementation of EU Directive 2001/14/EC UIC conducted pricing studies in 2005 and 2007 Heterogeneity: - Pricing principles, schemes and formulas - Pricing levels How pricing systems evolved since 2007? Study Objectives Present the state of the industry in 2012 (pricing of intercity passenger services in EU-27) 1. Analyze charging structures and charging levels (between 102 Origin-Destinations) 2. Assess the impact of charging levels on Operators (RUs) and IMs 2

3 ANALYSIS of Tariff Systems in EU-27 Study Methodology Structure: Tariff System Summary Files METHODS & VARIABLES NFLUENCING FACTORS EVOLUTION Calculation of Fees for 102 European OD Pairs (SAME TRAIN) Revenue Estimation: Railway Undertakings SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: - e.g. TYPE OF TRAIN EVOLUTION COMPARISON IM FEE vs. RU REVENUE Evaluation of the IMPACT of Tariff Systems Revenue Estimation: Infrastructure Managers CONCLUSIONS COMPARISON IM REVENUE, LINE MAINTENANCE COSTS, LINE CONSTRUCTION COSTS INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT 3

4 ANALYSIS of Tariff Systems in EU-27 Study Methodology How did charging systems evolve in the past 5 years? Did charging levels increased? Did charging structure / methodologies changed? Are they converging or diverging? Are Access Charges an important part of Operators Revenues? Evaluation of the IMPACT of Tariff Systems In the case of HSL, can IM recover their costs with current charges? CONCLUSIONS INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT 4

5 Results: National OD Pairs per train-km (National ODs) % change per year Netherlands (Amsterdam-Breda) Increases: 16 NEW HSL France (Paris-Lyon) % Germany (Frankfurt-Cologne) Decreases: 6 4% Spain (Madrid-Seville) No change: 5 2% Belgium (Brussels-Liege) % Ireland (Belfast-Dublin) 7.90 Latvia (Riga-Rēzekne) % Luxembourg (Luxembourg) % Italy (Rome-Florence) % United Kingdom (London-Newcastle) % Lithuania (Vilnius-Klaipeda) % Denmark (Copenhagen-Esbjerg) % Austria (Vienna-Salzburg) % Romania (Bucharest-Timisoara) % Poland (Warsaw-Katowice) % Bulgaria (Sofia-Varna) 2.06 Hungary (Budapest-Debrecen) 1.86 Slovakia (Bratislava-Zilina) % Greece (Athens-Thessaloniki) % Portugal (Lisbon-Porto) 1.43 Switzerland (Lausanne-Bern-Zurich) % Czech Republic (Prague-Brno) % Sweden (Goteborg-Stockholm) Slovenia (Ljubljana-Maribor) % Finland (Helsinki-Turku) 0.61 Norway (Oslo-Trondheim) 0.00 Estonia (Tallinn-Narva) % -1-5% 5% 1 15% 2 5

6 Charges vs. Commercial speed AMS-BREDA AMS-BREDA PAR-LIL PAR-LIL PAR-LYON PAR-LYON PAR-TOUR PAR-TOUR GLAS-RENN Charges vs. Traffic (HS Lines) PAR-LIL PAR-LYON per er train-km LUX LUX AMS-BRU PAR-AMS AMS-BRU PAR-AMS PAR-GVA PAR-MARS PAR-MARS y = x R² = LON-WAW MARS-AMS PAR-RENN PAR-RENN MARS-AMS LYON-MARS PAR-BORD MAD-ZAZ MAD-SVQ LYON-MARS PAR-BORD FRA-KOLN MAD-ZAZ FRA-CGN BCN-SEVL MAD-SVQ PAR-ROM MAD-TLDO MAD-BCN MAD-TLDO BCN-SEVL PAR-ROM PAR-STRS PAR-HAN LIL-BRU BRU-LIEGE HAN-FRA ROM-NAP FLR-MIL HAN-BER ROM-FLR LON-NEWC ROM-FLR LON-NEWC Excluding outliers y = x R² = ROM-NAP HAN-BER AMS-BRU y = x R² = FRA-KOLN MAD-BCN MAD-SVQ FLR-MIL ROM-FLR Excl. AMS-BRU: y = 0.114x R² = TLV-NRVA GOTEB- STOCk Commercial Speed (km/h) Commercial Speed (km/h) Traffic: Trains per Day

7 Tariff Systems Structure DIVERSITY / COMPLEXITY: 50 different variables type used across EU-27 INSTABILITY: 13 of the EU-27 countries produced major changes on the pricing scheme between 2007 and 2012 NO CONVERGENCE: Cross-border compatibility (international market) 7

8 ANALYSIS of Tariff Systems in EU-27 Study Methodology How did charging systems evolve in the past 5 years? Did charging levels increased? Did charging structure / methodologies changed? Are they converging or diverging? Are Access Charges an important part of Operators Revenues? Evaluation of the IMPACT of Tariff Systems In the case of HSL, can IMs recover their costs with current charges? CONCLUSIONS INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT 8

9 Tariff Impact on RUs = IM CHARGE RU REVENUE Fee as a percentage of estimated revenue 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 9% % 16% 16% 18% 36% 7% 9% 6% 35% 25% 29% 35% 29% 28% 29% 14 4% 33% 17% 5% * : Impact increased (charges increased more than ticket prices) 9

10 ANALYSIS of Tariff Systems in EU-27 Study Methodology How did charging systems evolve in the past 5 years? Did charging levels increased? Did charging structure / methodologies changed? Are they converging or diverging? Are Access Charges an important part of Operators Revenues? Evaluation of the IMPACT of Tariff Systems In the case of HSL, can IMs recover their costs with current charges? CONCLUSIONS INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT 10

11 IM COST RECOVERY = TOTAL REVENUES MAINTENANCE (per year) in 2012 Charges (Σ all trains) COSTS M (Millions of Euros) per year, per km * * - Hannover-Berlin: only passenger traffic considered 11

12 IM COST RECOVERY = TOTAL REVENUES MAINTENANCE (per year) in 2012 Charges (Σ all trains) COSTS M (Millions of Euros) per year, per km * % of Construction Costs Recovery per year (in year 2012): Majority in the 0,3% to 3% range, some cases up to 2 or more (France) * - Hannover-Berlin: only passenger traffic considered 12

13 IM COST RECOVERY Cross-border Cost Recovery Differences in tariff levels across borders harmonization needed? Example: London Brussels (65,83 /train.km) / train.km HS1 Eurotunnel France Belgium 13

14 Conclusion 1: Tariff (in)stability Conclusions An important number of systems have matured significantly General increase in tariff levels (in a number of systems higher increase than the CPI) Conclusion 2: Cross-border compatibility Dispersion has increased in levels and structure Might hinder (HS) international services Possible Interoperability problem Conclusion 3: Tariff Impact on RU and IM revenues Infrastructure charges impact on RU revenues is very significant and has increased IMs are able to recover a part (in some case substantial) of investment costs 14

15 2012 European Study on Infrastructure Charges Professor and Researcher in Railways, Technical University of Lisbon (IST), Portugal Thank You for Your Attention!