Let's Connect
Follow Us
Watch Us
(+385) 1 2380 262
journal.prometfpz.unizg.hr
Promet - Traffic&Transportation journal

Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science

Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science

Login Submit

PDF
PUBLISHED
15.07.2022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v34i4.4010
ISSUE
2022 (Vol 34), Issue 4
LICENSE
Copyright (c) 2022 Branislav BOŠKOVIĆ, Mirjana BUGARINOVIĆ, Nebojša BOJOVIĆ
Creative Commons 4.0 logo
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Design Track Access Charges for Small Railways – A Montenegro Case Study

Authors:Branislav BOŠKOVIĆ, Mirjana BUGARINOVIĆ, Nebojša BOJOVIĆ

Abstract

In 1991, the European Union decided on setting up a liberalised and single railway market. However, in the atomised European region, more than a half of railways can be designated as small railways. For the very reason of significant differences between the national railway systems, the EU legislation has laid broad grounds for track access charge (TAC) modelling, thus resulting in many different TAC models. Out of numerous papers in respect of TAC modelling, only a small number consider the specificities and the needs of small railways. The paper aims to answer the questions of how to design or set up an efficient TAC structure when it comes to small countries. Another objective is to answer how to develop a TAC structure allowing the infrastructure manager to manage its costs. The answers to these questions are provided through the case study of railway in Montenegro – small railways in the Western Balkans. The main contribution of this paper is in developing the TAC model based on the efficient ratio of the capacity and infrastructure wear and tear components.

Keywords:track access charges, efficiency, model design, small railways, case study, Montenegro

References

  1. [1] IRG. Ninth annual market monitoring working document. 2021. https://www.irg-rail.eu/irg/documents/market-monitoring/312,2021.html.
  2. [2] Bugarinović M. Modeling of access charges for the use of railway infrastructure. PhD thesis. University of Belgrade, Serbia; 2014.
  3. [3] Link H. Unbundling, public infrastructure financing and access charge regulation in the German rail sector. Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management. 2013;2(3): 63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jrtpm.2013.02.002.
  4. [4] Nash C, Coulthard S, Matthews B. Rail track charges in Great Britain the issue of charging for capacity. Transport Policy. 2004;11: 315–327. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2003.12.003.
  5. [5] Crozet Y, Chassagne F. Railway access charges in France: Beyond the opposition between competition and financing. Research in Transportation Economics. 2013;39(1): 247–254. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.021.
  6. [6] Van Vuuren D. Optimal pricing in railway passenger transport: Theory and practice in The Netherlands. Transport Policy. 2002;9: 95–106. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00005-7.
  7. [7] Andersson M. Marginal cost pricing of railway infrastructure operation, maintenance, and renewal in Sweden – From policy to practice through existing data. Transportation Research Record. 2006;1943: 1–11. doi: 10.1177/0361198106194300101.
  8. [8] Jansson K, Lang H. Rail infrastructure charging EU-directive, Swedish concerns and theory. Research in Transportation Economics. 2013;39(1): 285–293. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.026.
  9. [9] Odolinski K. Contract design and performance of railway maintenance: Effects of incentive intensity and performance incentive schemes. Economics of Transportation. 2019;18: 50–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ecotra.2019.05.001.
  10. [10] Rotoli F, et al. An analysis of the railway access charges regime in the Italian context. Transport Policy. 2018;64: 20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.01.006.
  11. [11] Nikolova C. User charges for the railway infrastructure in Bulgaria. Transportation Research Part A. 2008;42: 487–502. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.015.
  12. [12] Ronai P. Rail charging and accounting schemes in Europe: Case study for six countries. Brussels, Belgium: CER; 2008. http://www.cer.be/publications/brochures-studies-and-reports/rail-charging-and-accounting-schemes-europe-case-studies.
  13. [13] Calvo FJ, et al. A proposal for cost-related and market-oriented train running charges. Transportation Planning and Technology. 2014;37(4): 354–372. doi: 10.1080/03081060.2014.897127.
  14. [14] Ciuffini F, Ricci S, Sitongia GR. Track access charge algorithms in EU railways: A dynamic benchmarking. 2nd International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure, CETRA 2012, 7-9 May, Dubrovnik, Croatia. 2012. p. 161–168. https://master.grad.hr/cetra/ocs/index.php/cetra/cetra2012/paper/view/190.
  15. [15] Arrigo U, Di Foggia G. Theoretical and viable charging models for railway infrastructure access: An European survey. Management Research and Practice. 2014;6(2): 5–24. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:rom:mrpase:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:5-24.
  16. [16] Dolova A, Zitricky V, Cerna L. Decision-Making process in the case of insufficient rail capacity. Sustainability. 2020;12(12): 5023. doi: 10.3390/su12125023.
  17. [17] Santos J, Furtado A, Marques RC. Reform and regulation of the Portuguese rail sector. What has failed?. Utilities Policy. 2010;18: 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2009.12.001.
  18. [18] Bugarinović M, Bosković B. A system approach to access charges in unbundling railways. European Journal of Operational Research. 2015;240(3): 848-860. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.036.
  19. [19] Abramović B. Infrastructure access charges. In: Marinov M. (ed.) Sustainable rail transport. 2016. p. 45–58. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58643-4_4.
  20. [20] ECMT. Railway reform & charges for the use of infrastructure. 2005. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/05railreforme.pdf.
  21. [21] Thompson LS. Charges for the use of rail infrastructure. Paris, France: International Transport Forum; 2008. http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/08RailCharges.pdf.
  22. [22] Bugarinović M, Davidović T, Bošković B. Management of the access charges level for the use of railway infrastructure by bee colony optimization. Book of Abstracts, 18th Euro Working Group on Transportation EWGT 2015, 14-16 July, Delft, The Netherlands. 2015. p. 184. http://www.proceedings.com/28062.html.
  23. [23] Rothengatter W. How good is first best? Marginal cost and other pricing principles for user charging transport. Transport Policy. 2003;10(2): 121–130. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00063-X.
  24. [24] Teixeira P, Pita AL. Infracharges. UIC study on railway infrastructure charges in Europe. Final report. 2012. https://www.shop-etf.com/en/infracharges-uic-study-on-railway-infrastructure-charges-in-europe.
  25. [25] Nash C. Rail infrastructure charges in Europe. Journal of Transport Economic and Policy. 2005;39(3): 259–278. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2032/.
  26. [26] Bošković B, Bugarinović M. Single and two part access charges – massages to the operators. 3rd Interantional scientific symposium of transport and communications “New Horizons 2011”, 24-25 November, Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2011. p. 512–517. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3062.2725.
  27. [27] RailNetworkEurope. 2020/2021 Network Statement. https://rne.eu/organisation/network-statements/.
  28. [28] Lidén T, Joborn M. Dimensioning windows for railway infrastructure maintenance: Cost efficiency versus traffic impact. Journal of Rail Transport Planning&Management. 2016;6(1): 32–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jrtpm.2016.03.002.
  29. [29] Nash C. Rail transport. In: Finger M, Holvad T. (Eds.) Regulating transport in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781004838.00008.
  30. [30] Nash C. Track access charges: Reconciling conflicting objectives. Brussels, Belgium: Centre on Regulation in Europe; 2018. p. 1–17. https://cerre.eu/publications/track-access-charges-reconciling-conflicting-objectives/.
  31. [31] Link H. Track access charges: Reconciling conflicting objectives – Case study Germany. Brussels, Belgium: Centre on regulation in Europe; 2018. p. 17–46. http://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/180509_CERRE_TrackAccessCharges_CaseStudy_Germany_Final.pdf.
  32. [32] Bošković B, Nuhodžić R, Bugarinović M. The sustainability of small countries' railway sector institutions in liberalized market - Case Study Montenegro. 11th WCRR, 29 May – 2 June, Milano, Italia. 2016. https://www.sparkrail.org/Lists/Records/DispForm.aspx?ID=23409.
  33. [33] Ministry of Capital Investment. [Railway strategy for the period 2017-2027]. 2017. https://www.gov.me/en/documents/5b241a59-db74-4bf6-a3d6-1453dda6dc03
Show more

SPECIAL ISSUE CALL

Innovation and New Technologies in Transport and Logistics

Guest Editor: Eleonora Papadimitriou, PhD

Editors: Marko Matulin, PhD; Dario Babić, PhD; Marko Ševrović, PhD.

RECENT PAPERS

Browse through the selection of our recent research
Factors Influencing Sustained Use of Shared E-Scooter Services in Urban TaiwanResearch on the Efficiency of Major Airports in China’s Six Major Airport Cluster: Based on Common Frontier Super-Efficiency DEA and Malmquist MethodA Deep Learning Approach for Enhanced Real-Time Prediction of Winter Road Surface Temperatures in High-Altitude Mountain AreasA Review of Expert Systems Integration in Signal Plan Optimisation

Accelerating Discoveries in Traffic Science |
2024 © Promet - Traffic&Transportation journal