Upload
vanthu
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The World Bank
Chemins de fer de L’Europe:Vue du Reste du Monde
Louis S. ThompsonRailways AdviserThe World Bank
5 Decembre 2001
The World Bank
Chemins de fer de L’Europe: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
The World Bank
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
The World Bank
Rail Route Kilometers
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Passengers Originated (000)
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Passenger-Km (000,000)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Tons of Freight Originated (000,000)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Ton-Km (000,000)
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
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
The World Bank
Rail Traffic Density(T-km+P-Km)/Km
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Annual Rail T-Km/Wagon
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Coach Productivity(P-Km/Coach+MU)
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
DJPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Output/Employee(T-km+P-km)/Employee
0
10002000
30004000
5000
60007000
80009000
10000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
DJPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Ratio of Rail Labor Productivity1999 to 1980
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
Note: Amtrak is 110
5 growth%
The World Bank
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
The World Bank
Average Length of Rail Passenger Trip (Km)
0
100
200
300
400
500
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
Amtrak = 450
Commuter/regional Impact
The World Bank
Average Length of Rail Freight Haul (Km)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
All Truck Competitive
The World Bank
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
The World Bank
Rail Ton-Km as Percent of All Surface ton-km
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPN
CA
N
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail P-Km as Percent of All Passenger Transport and of Public Transport Only
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CZ HU JPN
USA A B D DK E FIN
F EL IRL I NL P S UK
AllPublic
The World Bank
Ratio of 1998 Ton-Km to 1980 Ton-Km
0
50
100
150
200
250
USA A B D DK E FIN F EL IRL I NL P S UK
Truck Rail
The World Bank
Ratio of 1998 P-Kmto 1980 P-Km
0
50
100
150
200
250
USA A B D DK E FIN F EL IRL I NL P S UK
Auto+BusRail
The World Bank
Percent of Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail Traffic
P-Km/(P-km+T-Km)
0
1020
3040
50
6070
8090
100
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
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
The World Bank
Ton-Km in the US By Mode(000,000 Ton-Km)
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
Rail Truck
Lakes Canals
Pipelines Air
The World Bank
Freight Modal Shares (% T-Km) in the US
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Rail Truck Lakes Rivers Pipelines Air
Deregulation
The World Bank
Modal Share (% P-Km) of Intercity Public Carriersin the US -- Autos Excluded
0102030405060708090
100
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
RailBusAirWater
The World Bank
Productivity in US Railroads:Index: 1982=100
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Locomotives:(Ton-km/horsepower)
Labor(Ton-km/employee)
Wagons(Ton-km/ton of wagon capacity)
The World Bank
US Rail Freight Revenue(US cents/ton-km)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Constant 1988 dollars
Current dollars
The World Bank
Directions of Railway Change
Private InvolvementSt
ruct
ural
Cha
nge
Mixtures and partnerships are possible!
Public Ownership
Partnerships: Concessions or Franchises Awarded Private Ownership
Integral
China, Russia and India (ministries), MAV, SRT, MZ, others, (SOE's)
Argentina (13), Brazil (9), Mexico (5), Peru (3), Guatemala, Bolivia (2), Panama, Cote d'Ivoire/Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), Malawi, Madagascar, Jordan
New Zealand, Ferronor (Chile), CVRD (Brazil), A&B (Chile)
Dominant Integral, Separated Minority Operators
Amtrak, VIA, Japan Freight
Mexico City suburban, CONCOR (India)
US Class I, CN and CP, East/West/Central Japan Railways
SeparationE.U. and Chile passenger
Swedish suburban, FEPASA (Chile), LHS line (Poland)
U.K. franchises and EWS, Polish and Romanian freight
The World Bank
Competitive Objectives
? Dominant user, parallel tracks? Subdominant users? Competition on the same tracks? U.K. Paradox: little COMPETITION
The World Bank
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.
The World Bank
Percent of Rail Passenger Traffic to Total Rail Traffic
P-Km/(P-km+T-Km)
010
203040
50607080
90100
CA
N
USA
ES
RU
SLV
E
SLK
C
HA
FIN
CZ
PL
S A TU
R
RO
B
HU
D F IN
D
E I P UK
KO
R
DK
IR
L
NL
EL
JPN
FREIGHTDOMINANT
PASSENGERDOMINANT
“Balanced”
The World Bank
E.U. Railways Future?? Agreed policy needed on separation, access
charges, slot priorities and competition formarkets. 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.
The World Bank
Rail Staff
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Locomotives
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Multiple Unit Cars
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
A
KO
RIN
D
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Passenger Coaches
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPN
CA
NU
SA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Freight Wagons
050,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000550,000600,000
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
RSLV
ER
U
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPNC
AN
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Rail Employees/Km
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CZ
SLK
HU
PL RO
TU
R
SLVE
RU
ES
CH
AK
OR
IND
JPN
CA
N
USA
A B D DK
E FIN
F EL
IRL
I NL
P S UK
The World Bank
Employees of US Railroads
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Class I 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
Competition on Parallel Tracks:U.S. Class I Railroads
Competition on the Same Tracks:Multiple Use U.S. Freight Tracks
(Excluding Amtrak)
Amtrak: The Secondary User
Amtrak owns or controls
The Full Predominant/Secondary Model:Multiple Use U.S. Tracks Including Amtrak
U.S. Rail Line Traffic Density
UK Franchises: (not much) Competition