The Benefits of Separating Rail Infrastructure from Operations

The author offers a number of reasons for separating rail infrastructure from operations: to reduce unit costs, to create intrarail competition, to better focus on the services to be provided, to clarify public policy, and to strike a better balance between the roles of the public and private sectors. Moreover, recent experience with "negative" concessions, in which the private sector provides public services (based on competition to provide the service and in return for compensation), is adding another dimension to the "public vs. private" debate. In this sense separating infrastructure allows new approaches to the problem of meeting public responsibilities. Concessioning programs in Argentina, Sweden, and the United Kingdom define the broad alternatives in rail infrastructure separation. The two main challenges for separation are capacity management and pricing policies. While it is true that infrastructure separation is messy and expensive, it will be a small price to pay if "fragmentation" offers a better fit for consumers.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Thompson, Louis S.
Language:English
Published: World Bank, Washington, DC 1997-12
Subjects:ACCOUNTING, ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, FREIGHT, FREIGHT RATES, FREIGHT SERVICES, PASSENGER SERVICES, PRIVATE SECTOR, PRIVATIZATION, PRODUCTIVITY, PUBLIC AGENCIES, PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECTOR, PUBLIC SERVICES, RAIL, RAIL COMPETITION, RAIL FREIGHT, RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE, RAIL LINE, RAIL OPERATIONS, RAIL PASSENGER, RAIL SECTOR, RAIL SERVICE, RAIL SERVICES, RAIL SYSTEMS, RAILWAY, RAILWAY CONCESSIONS, RAILWAY INDUSTRY, RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE, RAILWAY OPERATOR, RAILWAYS, RAILWAYS ADVISER, ROLLING STOCK, SOCIAL SERVICES, TRACK, TRACKAGE, TRACKS, TRAINS, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPORT, TREASURY, URBAN SERVICES RAILWAYS, DENATIONALIZATION, TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, MARKET COMPETITION,
Online Access:http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1997/12/437052/benefits-separating-rail-infrastructure-operations
https://hdl.handle.net/10986/11562
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The author offers a number of reasons for separating rail infrastructure from operations: to reduce unit costs, to create intrarail competition, to better focus on the services to be provided, to clarify public policy, and to strike a better balance between the roles of the public and private sectors. Moreover, recent experience with "negative" concessions, in which the private sector provides public services (based on competition to provide the service and in return for compensation), is adding another dimension to the "public vs. private" debate. In this sense separating infrastructure allows new approaches to the problem of meeting public responsibilities. Concessioning programs in Argentina, Sweden, and the United Kingdom define the broad alternatives in rail infrastructure separation. The two main challenges for separation are capacity management and pricing policies. While it is true that infrastructure separation is messy and expensive, it will be a small price to pay if "fragmentation" offers a better fit for consumers.