Reform Movements in the Railway Sector

Reform Movements in the Railway Sector
Although the railways were mentioned with planned economies and public management until twenty years ago, the first emergence was realized by private sector in USA and UK. For the US and Canada, which are North American countries, this situation has remained unchanged, but after the Second World War European countries and the rest of the world continued to operate in the state monopoly of railways.
With the development of the highway and airlines, the railway sector, which has left its bright period behind, has become unable to meet the service expectations of today's consumers such as speed, comfort, door-to-door transportation due to worsening service quality, failed management and insufficient investments. As a result, the decrease in the demand for the railway and the burden on the state budget of the losses of the railway undertakings cause the question of the necessity of the railway system under the presence of modes of transportation such as the rapidly developing road and airway; began to be seen. The fact that it is safer and more environmentally friendly than other transportation systems has increased the attractiveness of the sector, and technological advances have supported the development of faster vehicles and the development of appropriate infrastructure. In this way, the reform processes in the railway sector, which have been placed on the agenda of transport policies, have started under these conditions.
The competitiveness of railway reforms within the sector and the competitiveness of other transport systems. kazanIt is possible to say that he has two legs like a ma. In the creation of a competitive environment within the sector, the question arises of what kind of structure the infrastructure-transportation activities will be carried out. Infrastructure-transport activities in railways can be configured horizontally or vertically; It is possible to establish competition under both structuring models. In countries such as the USA and Canada, which are examples of horizontal structuring, there is a competitive environment between more than one railway undertaking that carries out infrastructure-transport activities in a vertically integrated structure. In such a structuring, which is seen in some countries that have invested heavily in railways in the past years, have developed industry and trade volume, and have a suitable geographical structure, the railway networks have developed so much that the formation of more than one line (parallel lines) connecting different routes within the country has been allowed. The competition of parallel lines, in which horizontal structuring develops in the natural course, on the one hand, creates a direct competitive environment, thus putting downward pressure on rail transport fees; On the other hand, due to vertically integrated service provision, the interaction in infrastructure-superstructure services ensures correct, timely and on-site investment decisions. However, the biggest disadvantage of this model is that it does not allow to benefit sufficiently from the density economies. In addition, constructing the infrastructure in accordance with parallel line competition may not create physically and economically rational choices in every country.
Even if the parallel lines are not formed, the competition environment can be provided indirectly by horizontal means. In this system, the existing railway network is transformed into a divided structure and each network is connected to the main ports or industrial cities with high traffic volumes. Therefore, although it is not between the same routes, at one of the destinations or destinations, the user is given the opportunity to make more choices by offering more than one network access. Developed in the Latin American region after railway reforms, this system has been successful in some countries. However, not every user can achieve the same advantage, especially when some users in the inner regions are confronted with a single railway operation and the need for access to more than one railway network for the transportation between some points due to the divided structure of the railroad constitutes the problematic sides of the model.
The draft law studies in Turkey's European Union reform process, which takes samples As can be seen from the traced vertical structural model for the provision of intra-industry competition and infrastructure-transport activities ensured the separation of at least some accounting; In addition to the already existing railway transportation companies, independent railway enterprises have been allowed to enter the market in return for infrastructure usage fee payments. In this system, infrastructure activities are carried out by the public as a monopoly outside the UK; however, competition is becoming more favorable in the downstream market of transport activities. The fact that independent railway enterprises do not have to bear the infrastructure costs that require high investment makes the market entry attractive. On the other hand, the fact that railway enterprises provide uninterrupted service on a single railway network positively affects service quality. The most criticized aspect of this model is the fact that decomposition increases transaction costs in the sector where the infrastructure-business dependency is high and causes coordination problems among the parties in many aspects such as investment efficiency and security. In the context of competition law, it is also among the other risks of the model that the firm can use its dominant position in the upper market in the disruptive direction in the lower market in every situation where there is no vertical structure. Therefore, access to infrastructure is generally regulated in countries with vertical structuring, but this situation contradicts with the aim of reducing the weight of the targeted state in the sector by reforms.
In countries that implement the railway reform, debates are revolving in the framework outlined above, and there is no widely accepted model of the most appropriate structuring. The success of the reforms is shaped by the influence of the country experience in the liberalization of network industries, the physical and economic situation of the railway sector in the country, the competition with other transport systems, the demand structure in passenger-freight transport services. There is no seamless structuring model and the applicability of any chosen method may change depending on the transformation of the railway sector over time. However, despite all the risks, it is possible to see examples of countries that have been successful under each structuring model. Recognizing that competition is better than the public monopoly under regulation, as it is generally accepted in the literature, and as far as possible, Newberry * is directed towards competition wherever possible, but inevitable resorting to regulation will not disappoint us on railway reforms.

Source :

Similar Ads

Be the first to comment