Chemins de fer de LEurope: Vue du Reste du Monde

1
Chemins de fer de LEurope Vue du Reste du Monde

• Louis S. Thompson
• Railways Adviser
• The World Bank
• 5 Decembre 2001

2
Chemins de fer de LEurope Vue du Reste du Monde

• Comparisons of EU Railways with others
• Railway change outside the EU
• The Commission Orders the shape of change
• Changes in the EU Railways the clear, the
  possible and the confused

3
Comparisons of E.U. Railways with others

• High Speed Technology is superb, and not equaled
  except in Japan. BUT
• Not large compared with other major railways (Km,
  Pass, P-Km, Tons, T-Km)
• Physical productivities not high (traffic
  density, wagon, coach, labor), and labor
  productivity is not growing very fast
• Relatively short trip or haul shows urban impact
  and weakens competitive position. Effect of
  borders for freight
• EU Rail market shares are low and falling further

4
Rail Route Kilometers
5
Rail Passengers Originated (000)
6
Rail Passenger-Km (000,000)
7
Rail Tons of Freight Originated (000,000)
8
Rail Ton-Km (000,000)
9
Comparisons of E.U. Railways with others

• High Speed Technology is superb, and not equaled
  except in Japan. BUT
• Not large compared with other major railways (Km,
  Pass, P-Km, Tons, T-Km)
• Physical productivities not high (traffic
  density, wagon, coach, labor), and labor
  productivity is not growing very fast
• Relatively short trip or haul shows urban impact
  and weakens competitive position. Effect of
  borders for freight
• EU Rail market shares are low and falling further

10
Rail Traffic Density (T-kmP-Km)/Km
11
Annual Rail T-Km/Wagon
12
Rail Coach Productivity(P-Km/CoachMU)
13
Rail Output/Employee(T-kmP-km)/Employee
14
Ratio of Rail Labor Productivity1999 to 1980
Note Amtrak is 110
15
Comparisons of E.U. Railways with others

• High Speed Technology is superb, and not equaled
  except in Japan. BUT
• Not large compared with other major railways (Km,
  Pass, P-Km, Tons, T-Km)
• Physical productivities not high (traffic
  density, wagon, coach, labor), and labor
  productivity is not growing very fast
• Relatively short trip or haul shows urban impact
  and weakens competitive position. Effect of
  borders for freight
• EU Rail market shares are low and falling further

16
Average Length of Rail Passenger Trip (Km)
Amtrak 450
Commuter/regional Impact
17
Average Length of Rail Freight Haul (Km)
All Truck Competitive
18
Comparisons of E.U. Railways with others

• High Speed Technology is superb, and not equaled
  except in Japan. BUT
• Not large compared with other major railways (Km,
  Pass, P-Km, Tons, T-Km)
• Physical productivities not high (traffic
  density, wagon, coach, labor), and labor
  productivity is not growing very fast
• Relatively short trip or haul shows urban impact
  and weakens competitive position. Effect of
  borders for freight
• EU Rail market shares are low and falling further

19
Rail Ton-Km as Percent of All Surface ton-km
20
Rail P-Km as Percent of All Passenger Transport
and of Public Transport Only
21
Ratio of 1998 Ton-Km to 1980 Ton-Km
22
Ratio of 1998 P-Kmto 1980 P-Km
23
Percent of Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail
TrafficP-Km/(P-kmT-Km)
24
Railway change outside the EU

• The US case trucks, rail air deregulated in
  1981. Demand up, prices down, productivities up
  along with industry concentration
• Latin America and Africa (passengers and
  freight) concessioning. Demand up, prices down,
  productivities up
• Japan (1987) privatization Demand and
  productivities up.
• Broad model emerging with two dimensions and a
  question structural change, private role, and
  competitive objectives

25
Ton-Km in the US By Mode(000,000 Ton-Km)
26
Freight Modal Shares ( T-Km) in the US
27
Modal Share ( P-Km) of Intercity Public
Carriersin the US -- Autos Excluded
28
Productivity in US RailroadsIndex 1982100
29
US Rail Freight Revenue(US cents/ton-km)
30
Directions of Railway Change
Private Involvement
Structural Change
Mixtures and partnerships are possible!
31
Competitive Objectives

• Dominant user, parallel tracks
• Subdominant users
• Competition on the same tracks
• U.K. Paradox little COMPETITION

32
The Commission Orders(and the White Paper)

• Shake up promote competition across borders,
  clarify government policies (restrict subsidies).
  Market definition objectives not clear, private
  sector not mentioned (explicitly).
• Mandated accounting separation plus some
  liberalized access but policies are evolving in
  favor of institutional separation and competition
  for as well as in markets
• Railway response strong opposition, slow change.
• British and Swedish cases.

33
Percent of Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail
TrafficP-Km/(P-kmT-Km)
PASSENGER DOMINANT
Balanced
FREIGHT DOMINANT
34
E.U. Railways Future?

• Agreed policy needed on separation, access
  charges, slot priorities and competition for
  markets. Current conflict is the worst outcome.
• Assembling and selling slots mechanism?
• Freight competition and privatization objectives?
• Experience suggests
• Competition for regional, urban and suburban
  passenger services clearly works
• Freight privatization must be considered
• Intercity passenger services likely to be
  separated with a mix of public private provision
  (for and in the market)
• Infrastructure likely to remain public, but
  management contracts are possible.

35
Rail Staff
36
Locomotives
37
Multiple Unit Cars
38
Rail Passenger Coaches
39
Rail Freight Wagons
40
Rail Employees/Km
41
Employees of US Railroads
Because of scale, Regional and Local Railroads
cannot be shown properly. In 1998 Regional
Railroads had 10,995 employees and Local
Railroads had 11,741 employees