TAC and influence on RU’s in NL 21 th of Januari 2015Aldert Gritter

ProRail, 21 January Overview  Parties involved  Basic information about TAC in NL  Present situation about TAC in NL  Conclusions of impact of TAC

ProRail, 21 January Parties involved in TAC in NL  ProRail: methodology and tariffs in Network Statement  Ministry: approves level  Regulator: monitoring used methodology  RU’s: paying TAC

ProRail 21 January Basic information about TAC in NL 1.30 % of total costs of operation, maintenance and renewal (€ 299 million on a total of € 975, excl HSL, excl new projects e.g. introducing ERTMS) 1.Price per km freight train 1000 ton: € 2,99 Price per km passenger train of 500 ton: € 1, freight RU’s, 11 passenger RU’s, 8 contractors 4.System based on business-model

ProRail 21 January Present situation TAC -2015/2016: changing methodology, set up in consultation with regulator, ministry and RU’s -reason of change: 1.complaints about old methodology by regulator 2.extra income target of € 50 mln from ministry (crisis) -consequences: increase in TAC of on average 20 %

ProRail 21 January Present situation TAC 1.Incumbant NSR: compensation in ticket prices in 3 years 2.Freight operators: accepted with “attack plan” and subsidy for Regional operators: problems (not all over compensation in ticket prices because of agreement in concessions): complaint by regulator

ProRail 21 January Present situation Attack plan freight operators: -Results in improvements for business of freight RU’s so that they can be the higher prices (20 % increase in TAC is around 1% up to 4 % increase in costs of freight RU,s -Examples of suggested improvement: green wave, no non-commercial stops (higher average speed)

Influence of TAC  For freight: importance very relative  Incumbant: no financial problems  Regional passenger RU’s: contract agreements with provinces  Much more important: assistance in exploitation RU’s ProRail 21 January 20158

9 Policy study on influencing railway use by differentiating TAC 3 policy goals:  Better capacity use  Higher cost recovery  Other socially desirable outcomes

Policy goals in relation to TAC Differentiating TAC influencing : Speed GOALS: Punctuality Path Time Dangerous goods Train Length Better capacity use Socially desirerable outcomes Higher cost recovery

Summary on the effects of using TAC for policy goals Better capactity utilisation scarce capacity can be optimized using TAC to improve speed, punctuality and train length Higher cost recovery achieving more revenue (using TAC) has limitations due to the limited fiancial capacity of RUs. Might only workable for path allocation Other social desirable outcome Price differentiation on route, time and dangerous might work 11