fbpx

Transportation

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: Milano, Roma e Bologna nella top 10

Per il secondo anno consecutivo, il Consumer Choice Center ha stilato l’European Railway Station Index, cioè la classifica delle stazioni ferroviarie più apprezzate del Vecchio Continente. Nella graduatoria 2021 c’è una new entry al primo posto. E bene fanno anche le stazioni italiane

Migliori stazioni d’Europa. È quella di Lipsia, in Germania, la stazione ferroviaria più apprezzata d’Europa: a dirlo, la classifica 2021 dell’organizzazione Consumer Choice Center, che ha preso in esame le 51 stazioni più grandi del Vecchio Continente. Per stilare la graduatoria sono stati presi in esame diversi fattori, tra questi l’accessibilità dei binari; il numero di destinazioni nazionali e internazionali servite; la pulizia; l’affollamento; la disponibilità e il numero di ristoranti e negozi; la segnaletica. E persino i giorni di sciopero. Il massimo di punti possibili (mettendo insieme i punteggi relativi alle varie voci) è di 139.

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: la medaglia d’oro del 2021

Come detto, la medaglia d’oro va alla stazione di Lipsia Centrale, in Sassonia, che totalizza 116 punti. Qui, prima dello scoppio della pandemia, transitavano più di 120 mila passeggeri al giorno. Il secondo posto spetta alla stazione di Vienna Centrale con 108 punti, mentre il vincitore dell’anno scorso, la stazione di St Pancras a Londra, scende in terza posizione. 

Le migliori stazioni d’Europa: le italiane

Nelle prime dieci posizioni si piazzano ben tre stazioni tedesche (Lipsia, Monaco e Francoforte) e le tre principali stazioni italiane: Milano Centrale (settima, era ottava l’anno scorso); Roma Termini (nona, era al quarto posto nella classifica 2020) e Bologna (decima, era 39esima). 

Molto buone anche le prestazioni delle altre italiane: Napoli Centralesale dalla 19esima posizione del 2020 al 13esimo posto; Torino Porta Nuova dalla 47esima posizione al 15esimo posto; Firenze Santa Maria Novella dalla 38esima posizione alla 18esima e Roma Tiburtina dalla 40esima posizione al 18° posto. 

Tra le ultime tre della classifica, le peggiori d’Europa, ci sono le stazioni Châtelet–Les Halles (Parigi); Norreport (Copenhagen) e Magenta Paris. 

“Si tornerà a viaggiare” 

Gli autori dello studio hanno sottolineato: “La crisi del coronavirus ha notevolmente limitato la libertà di viaggiare in Europa e nel mondo. I lunghi viaggi in treno sono diventati un ricordo per la maggior parte di noi. Tuttavia, con il numero di vaccinati in costante aumento, ci sono tutte le ragioni per essere ottimisti sul recupero della nostra libertà di viaggiare quest’estate”.

Le 10 migliori stazioni d’Europa

  • 1. Leipzig Hauptbahnhof – 116 punti
  • 2. Wien Hauptbahnhof, Vienna – 108
  • 3. St. Pancras, Londra – 106
  • 4. Amsterdam Centraal – 101
  • 4. Moscow Kazansky, Mosca – 101
  • 5. Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof, Francoforte sul Meno – 96
  • 5. München Hauptbahnhof, Monaco di Baviera – 96
  • 6. Moscow Kursky, Mosca – 95
  • 7. Milano Centrale – 93
  • 8. Birmingham New Street, Regno Unito – 91
  • 9. Roma Termini – 90
  • 10. Gare Montparnasse, Parigi – 86
  • 10. Bologna Centrale – 86

Originally published here.

Два железнодорожных вокзала Москвы вошли в число лучших вокзальных комплексов Европы

22 марта 2021 г Consumer Choice Center (CCC) опубликовал второй ежегодный индекс европейских железнодорожных вокзалов, в котором выделены 50 лучших железнодорожных вокзалов в Европе по степени удобства для пассажиров. Индекс следует использовать для информирования потребителей и администраторов о том, кто лучше всего справляется с размещением пассажиров. В топ-5 железнодорожных вокзалов по индексу входят Leipzig Hauptbahnhof, Wien Hauptbahnhof, St. Pancras (прошлогодний победитель сдвинулся немного вниз, что также можно объяснить ограниченными услугами Eurostar), а также Amsterdam Centraal и собственно Казанский вокзал. 

«Хотя сейчас путешествие в целом кажется мечтой из прошлого, в конце туннеля есть свет. С выпуском нашего годового индекса мы также хотим напомнить потребителям, что путешествия на поезде снова станут обычным явлением. Высокие баллы были присуждены станциям, предлагающим прекрасные направления по всему континенту, а также полезное сочетание магазинов, ресторанов и удобств, имеющихся на вокзале,» – сказала Мария Чапля, автор индекса. «Главный вокзал Лейпцига возглавляет список лучших железнодорожных вокзалов Европы. Вокзал предлагает наибольшее количество внутренних направлений, а также множество магазинов и ресторанов. Несколько разных железнодорожных компаний используют главный вокзал Лейпцига, что позволило ему выделиться в пятерке лучших. «Система баллов, которую мы разработали для этого индекса, дает хорошее представление о том, какие железнодорожные станции вам следует использовать в следующей поездке, будь то отпуск или работа», – сказала Чапля. «Чтобы избежать негативного впечатления пассажиров и выбрать оптимальные узлы для будущих поездок, мы изучили 50 крупнейших железнодорожных вокзалов Европы (по количеству пассажиров) и оценили их с точки зрения пассажирского опыта, ранжируя их в соответствии с сочетанием факторов, начиная от местоположения и вариантов транспортировки на станции, а также внутренние и международные рейсы », – добавила Чапля. 

Originally published here.

London St Pancras loses its crown as the best railway station in Europe to Leipzig – but Birmingham New Street breaks into the top 10

  • Researchers studied 51 of the biggest railway stations across Europe 
  • They scored them on factors including destinations served and dining options
  • From this data they drew up a ranking – the European Railway Station Index 2021 

London’s St Pancras station has lost its crown as the best railway station in Europe to Leipzig Hauptbahnhof.

Researchers looked at 51 of the biggest stations across Europe and scored them on factors including the number of domestic and international destinations served, platform access and the quality of dining options.

From this data they drew up a ranking – the European Railway Station Index 2021. Vienna Hauptbahnhof comes second in the table, St Pancras third and Amsterdam Centraal fourth.

Germany dominates the prestigious end of the list. Frankfurt and Munich’s main stations come joint fifth, bringing the country’s top 10 total to three.

The rest of the top 10 comprises Moscow Kazansky (joint fourth); Moscow Kursky (sixth); Milano Centrale (seventh); Birmingham New Street (eighth, up from 11th); Roma Termini (ninth); and Paris’s Gare Montparnasse and Bologna Centrale (joint 10th).

The 51st station on the passenger-friendliness list, meanwhile, is Magenta Paris.

The organisation behind the ranking, the Consumer Choice Center, praised Leipzig Hauptbahnhof’s facilities.

It said: ‘The station offers the greatest number of domestic destinations and an array of shops and restaurants. Several different railway companies use Leipzig Hauptbahnhof, which made it stand out in the top five.’

St Pancras’s mini slide down the table was apparently partly due to Eurostar services being cut back as a result of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Choice Center explained in its report for the index that the size of a railway station ‘does not necessarily mean more convenience or better infrastructure’.

It said: ‘Some of the largest stations such as Paris Gare du Nord, Madrid Atocha, or Chatelet–Les Halles [Paris] did not even make it on the top 10 in terms of passenger experience.’

The report’s authors added: ‘The coronavirus crisis has significantly restricted the freedom to travel in Europe and globally. Long train voyages have now become just a memory for most of us. However, with the pace of the vaccine roll-out progressing, there is every reason to be optimistic about regaining our freedom to travel this summer. As consumers across Europe rush to book business trips and vacations, our European Railway Index will come in handy.’  

Originally published here.

Auszeichnung Leipziger Hauptbahnhof zum Besten in Europa gekürt

Leipzig –Der Leipziger Hauptbahnhof ist der beste Bahnhof Europas 2021. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt das „Consumer Choice Center“, das die 50 größten Bahnhöfe Europas unter die Lupe nahm. Leipzig biete Fahrgästen den besten Service. „Er bietet die größte Anzahl an inländischen Zielen und eine Vielzahl an Geschäften und Restaurants. Außerdem nutzen ihn mehrere verschiedene Bahngesellschaften, was ihm insgesamt den ersten Platz einbrachte“, urteilt die Studie.

Die Rangliste setzte sich aus Faktoren, die von der Lage und der Anbindung über das Erlebnis im Bahnhof bis hin zu nationalen und internationalen Verbindungen reichen, zusammen, heißt es. Platz zwei belegte der Wiener Hauptbahnhof vor St. Pancras in London, Amsterdam  Centraal und Moskau Kazansky.

Originally published here.

Her er Europas bedste banegårde

Selv her under Corona, hvor flytrafikken har været næsten lammet, har jernbanerne ikke overtaget opmærksomheden hos hverken politikere, presse eller forbrugere.

Joh – DSB har gjort en indsats for, at vi ikke skal sidde over for hinanden i s-togene, eller at det kræver pladsbestilling at rejse med tog over længere afstande i Danmark.

Men, hvor ofte har I set overskrifter i de store medier om katastrofale passagertal, behov for statslig hjælp for at overleve, eller at hele rejsebranchen er ved at gå konkurs på grund af tog, der ikke kan køre?

Never mind. Jeg ville bare sige, at toge slet ikke har plads i publikums bevidsthed som passagerfly. Måske fordi vi har haft toge i mange flere år end fly, og togrejser ikke skaber så meget prestige som en flyvetur til USA eller Asien.

Det samme gælder jernbane-stationerne. Lufthavne får masser af opmærksomhed, og man sammenligner lystigt deres størrelse, ny-indretning, passager-komfort osv. Hvor ofte gør man det med en banegård?

Den internationale forbruger-organisation Consumer Choice Center (CCC) gør. CCC, der har base i Bruxelles og afdelinger i 100 lande verden over, har netop offentliggjort sit ”European Railway Station Index 2021.”

Det er en sammenligning på kvalitet og service i Europas 50 største banegårde. De er blevet bedømt på en lang række kriterier inklusive antal butikker, muligheder for at købe billet, passager-information, kødannelser, udvalg af destinationer – og i disse moderne tider – Wi-Fi, opladnings-muligheder osv.

Lad det være sagt med det samme. Danmark har ikke en eneste banegård med i den europæiske Top-50. Den højest placerede er Nørreport Station i København, der lander på 51. pladsen hos CCC.

Til gengæld er de tyske banegårde helt på sporet. Tyskland har Europas bedste togstation i Leipziger Hauptbahnhof. Tyskerne har også tre stationer med i Top-10 og 15 med i Top-50.

Her er den aktuelle Top-10 over togstationer. De maksimale antal point er 139, som en banegård kan opnå i CCC’s indeks for 2021:

  1. Leipzig Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 116 points
  2. Wien Hauptbahnhof – Østrig – 108
  3. Pancras i London – England – 104
  4. Amsterdam Centraal – Holland – 101
  5. Moskva Kazansky – Rusland – 101
  6. Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 96
  7. München Hauptbahnhof – Tyskland – 96
  8. Kursky i Moskva – Rusland – 95
  9. Milano Centrale – Italien – 93
  10. Birmingham New Street – England – 91

Til sammenligning opnåede Danmarks største banegård – Nørreport – i alt 38 points i konkurrencen….

Originally published here.

Are we thinking correctly about rail passenger rights?

“Rail passenger rights” are paid by consumers…

The European Parliament’s TRAN committee recently approved new rail passenger rights legislation. With this new text, rail companies will be obligated to re-route passengers for delays of more than 100 minutes, provide bike racks, and assure “through-ticketing” under a single operator. This last requirement means that passengers will be eligible for the right of arriving at their final ticket destinations and that consumer rights requirements do not only apply to one leg of the journey. In essence, if you’re taking a Deutsche Bahn ticket from Cologne via Frankfurt to Munich, and start the journey with a delay in Cologne, then DB will be required to get you to your final destination no matter what.

The conversation about rail passenger rights is somewhat similar to that of air passenger rights, drawing the distinction between reimbursement rules and rights to active services. If a company fails to fulfil the service that the customer purchased, then from a mere contractual obligation, the customer ought to be able to choose between reimbursement and re-routing. However, adding additional layers such as compensation models and services on top of the existing services is not something that consumers should be burdened with.

An easy comparison for the purpose of this argument is that of a low-cost airline. Say you fly to a city for a short two-night trip, and you manage to pack all your belongings in a small personal item (like a backpack). With carriers such as RyanAir and EasyJet, you can get the lowest price in the cabin by choosing the most basic options, and sometimes flying to a regional airport that’s further away from the destination you’re trying to reach. Those wishing to get extra luggage, transport over-sized baggage, more spacious seats, airport lounge also pay additional fees for these privileges. We should not take the highest standard on the aircraft as the norm, and then derive that the basic options are somewhat “deprived” of these rights. 

In contrast, the basic options are opt-outs of these services that some consumers simply don’t want or need. On more high-end airlines, some of these services are included in the price, but end up alienating consumers looking for a cheap fare.

The same approach should be taken in the domain of railway mobility. While bike racks are a convenient addition, they do prevent rail operators from selling more access to seats and bring additional financial burden that consumers will end up paying. For state operators running deficits, this is of no particular concern. However, with an increasing number of private rail operators, we cannot pretend as if these companies provide certain services out of mere altruism. If consumers choose certain services, they should be able to pick those services they really want. The same applies to insurances to reach the final destination: as the number of rail operators multiplies, so do the expectations for different service levels. Low-cost providers will make cheap tickets available, with fewer expectations of support in case of delays, while more high-end operators will make sure that customers enjoy the highest possible comfort. Adding to that, insurance companies, sometimes through credit and debit cards, can also offer certain insurances as complementary services.

Consumers aren’t a monolithic bloc. Some are students who instead of hitchhiking to a summer camp prefer the cheapest possible ticket, with the longest possible itinerary. These students have different expectations than the Brussels bubble business traveller, and they should not be penalised with ticket price hikes because of additional service and insurance requirements.

Originally published here.

Free the buses

We need to push bus market liberalisation further.

One of the EU’s common transport policy principles is the freedom to provide services in the field of transport. This freedom includes access to international transport markets for all EU carriers without discrimination on the grounds of nationality or place of establishment. The second Mobility Pack is encouraging the liberalisation of the inter-city bus market. Therefore, it is attempting to replicate that which has been a success in countries like Germany (and subsequently France after the Macron labour reforms).

In Germany, the coach usage has sextupled between 2012 and 2016, while ticket prices are simultaneously falling from €0.11 to €0.089 per kilometre in the same period, with discount prices going down from €0.05 to €0.036 per kilometre. This evolution is crucial for the development of improved transport services, and most importantly, for the living standards low-income households. The competition of buses in the inter-city transport business has increased competition between air travel, rail, and car-sharing, to the extent that consumers see themselves with increased choices and reduced prices on all fronts. Instead of giving in to interest groups in one sector or the other, which profit from restricted market access, allowing for the competition is the real way to improve consumer services quality.

Protecting a local provider for the sake of protectionism would negate the spirit of free trade within the Single Market. This will ultimately be the challenge if liberalisation of the coach market is settled as a desirable goal by the EU: market entry costs will be crucial in determining if the system works. Allowing for bus travel between city A and B is all well-intended. Still, suppose city B requires a special permit, paid in the local currency and subject to administrative approval. In that case, we’ll soon find ourselves once again with increased prices in favour of a state-owned rail company or a subsidised airline. Market entry costs cannot only be unfairly advantageous to local providers but may very well turn against them. Large coach-providers have the capabilities to comply with local market regulations and figure out rules and regulations, while small start-ups might not be able to do the same. 

Once again, market-entry costs would then limit the supply and give a specific provider preferential treatment. In the interest of the consumers, member states should commit to liberalise the routes and make it easy for new companies to enter the market and compete on it.

Bus transport providers will be aware that price increases will experience the market’s price-elastic nature, meaning that consumers respond swiftly to higher prices. This is, of course, related to the fact that the market provides alternatives such as air travel, car sharing, rail, or simply using your car. The fact that all options remain on the table is crucial for the price development in this sector.

As long as local regulators respect this principle, the fear that the current market landscape, or even a more concentrated market in which a handful of companies take over their competitors, would become predatory, is doubtful. In this instance, consumer choice isn’t only an argument of principle for the freedom of consumers. Still, it represents a guarantee against a market controlled by a handful of people or companies.

Ultimately, bus market liberalisation means that consumers can travel more efficiently and cheaply than ever before. It offers low-income households the opportunity to benefit from the same opportunities as everyone else. It helps reduce social inequality. 

However, challenges remain even as liberalisation progresses. Not all member states are on top of their game when it comes to reducing barriers, so more is left to be done to reach a fully integrated single transport market.

Originally published here.

Airlines need to be held accountable for reimbursements

Consumers are entitled to receive reimbursements, especially because of bailouts.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of EU member states were asking for changes to ticket cancellation policy rules, effectively exempting airlines from refunding their customers. As it stands, airlines have a week to fully refund their customers for cancelled flights. Additional compensation rules apply for long delays and other inconveniences. When consumers book flights, they anticipate these protections to be upheld.

Consumers who have purchased tickets at a precise moment in time did so under existing rules and regulations. The European Union cannot retroactively change these policies — this is a rule of law issue above all else. Consumers should not be forced to pay for the poor bookmaking of airline companies. COVID-19 is undoubtedly a disaster for airline companies, but that doesn’t mean that the obligation to refund consumers should be willed away by the stroke of a pen. It’s also important to point out the incredible hypocrisy on the part of policymakers. 

EU policymakers spent most of 2019 lecturing consumers about flights, and are now rigging the rules of commerce for the benefit of airline companies. It is outrageous that airline companies are getting special treatment when hotel and event bookings are not. Retroactively changing the terms of a contract is a severe blow to consumer trust and consumer protection. This move decimates the consumer trust in existing and incoming protections entirely and puts a question mark of the actual authority of law-makers.

The refund mechanism has since been sped up by many airlines, but mostly because billions in bailouts have been transferred all throughout spring and summer. Some airlines are going to receive additional funds as lockdowns and travel restrictions continue. In that context, airlines also need to be held to their word when it comes to refund policies.

That said, compensation policies aren’t what consumers need. Passengers can expect compensation for their flight cancellation, between €250 and €600 depending on the length of their route. This has been the reason for significant disputes and has proven to make neither companies nor passengers happy.

This compensation scheme is a government-mandated insurance policy, which increases the price of the ticket, despite passengers not wanting generalised insurances. How can I say that with confidence? It suffices to take a look at how many people conclude voluntary travel insurances upon checkout. The result of the compensation scheme has been long court battles, in which passengers rightfully demand the funds that they were promised. The procedures here are too costly for consumers to engage in them themselves, but resorting to large law firms leaves them with only a percentage of their expected compensation. While the policy sounds good in theory, it doesn’t work in practice. Instead, private travel insurances give consumers better leeway to act. 

However, while compensation rules can be controversial (and do not apply in cases of natural disasters), it seems fair and just that passengers are reimbursed for flights they did not get to take. This is not an argument from a David vs. Goliath perspective of the big company vs. the small consumer, but rather from the principle of contract law — i.e. rendering the service.

As I wrote in a letter to airline CEOs back in June:

“We want to be in the air with you as soon as possible, but please do your part and commit to the rule of law and don’t force us to bring you to court. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers across the world are already helping you through government bailouts. We do our part to advocate for fewer levies and taxes paid on airfares and against silly bans of domestic flights, like the ban being discussed in France right now. This will make the sector more competitive and will allow us, consumers, to fly more with you.”

Originally published here.

Monitor Mercantil

Sindicato quer que Ford reverta demissões

O Sindicato dos Metalúrgicos de Taubaté e Região (Sindmetau) quer que a Ford reveja a decisão de fechar as fábricas no Brasil e mantenha os empregos. Segundo o presidente do Sindicato, Claudio Batista, os trabalhadores foram “pegos de surpresa” com a decisão anunciada ontem.

“O sindicato vai fazer toda luta necessária para tentar reverter essa situação”, disse Batista. De acordo com ele, os 830 funcionários da fábrica em Taubaté tinham estabilidade no emprego até o fim de 2021, devido a um acordo de redução de jornada e salários feito no ano passado, em razão da Cvid-19. A unidade da montadora na cidade está há 53 anos de atividade.

A Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos Automotores (Anfavea) evitou comentar diretamente as razões e os impactos do fechamento das fábricas no Brasil.

“A Anfavea não vai comentar sobre o tema. Trata-se de uma decisão estratégica global de uma das nossas associadas. Respeitamos e lamentamos”, disse a entidade em nota.

No entanto, a associação comentou que os custos de produção têm afetado as montadoras no país. “Isso corrobora o que a entidade vem alertando há mais de um ano, sobre a ociosidade da indústria (local e global) e a falta de medidas que reduzam o Custo Brasil”.

Já a Federação das Indústrias do Estado de São Paulo (Fiesp) insiste que a alta carga tributária é um dos fatores que dificulta a manutenção da produção industrial no país. “A Fiesp tem alertado sobre a necessidade de se implementar uma agenda que reduza o Custo Brasil, melhore o ambiente de negócios e aumente a competitividade dos produtos brasileiros. Isso não é apenas discurso. É a realidade enfrentada pelas empresas”, disse, em nota, a federação.

Para Fabio Fernandes, diretor global de Relações Institucionais e Governamentais da entidade de defesa do consumidor Consumer Choice Center, apesar da decisão da Ford de fechar suas fábricas no Brasil impactar os consumidores, não há razão para desespero.

“O fechamento das fábricas da Ford no Brasil segue uma tendência mundial de queda na venda de veículos que foi drasticamente acentuada em 2020 em decorrência da pandemia. O setor automotivo enfrentou uma série de transformações tecnológicas nos últimos anos, e os consumidores estão mais exigentes e conscientes dessas mudanças, o que tem obrigado as empresas tradicionais a reestruturarem os seus negócios. O problema, é que os ciclos de produtos na indústria automotiva são, de pelo menos, cinco anos, e as mudanças estão acontecendo mais rápido do que a capacidade das empresas de acompanhar”, disse Fernandes.

“Os consumidores brasileiros não têm nada com que se preocupar no médio prazo. Os proprietários dos modelos que serão descontinuados, terão acesso a manutenção, peças e mais importante à garantia. O fabricante é obrigado a manter a oferta de peças de reposição mesmo com o fim da produção dos modelos por um prazo razoável, e acreditamos que esse tempo seja de, pelo menos, mais 15 anos”.

“Além do mais, o anúncio da Ford é para o fechamento das fábricas no Brasil e não para as concessionárias. A marca continuará a vender carros no país e inclusive anunciou novos modelos que chegarão ao mercado. O consumidor no final terá acesso à um produto mais internacional”.

Originally published here.

Europe’s Year of Rail should be about competition

We need more rail competition through private competition.

The European Parliament recently approved 2021 to be the European Year of Rail, to promote rail as a sustainable and viable alternative to air travel or use a car. 

European Commissioner for Transport Vălean said: “Our future mobility needs to be sustainable, safe, comfortable and affordable. Rail offers all of that and much more! The European Year of Rail gives us the opportunity to re-discover this mode of transport. Through a variety of actions, we will use this occasion to help rail realise its full potential. I invite all of you to be part of the European Year of Rail.”

However, while the European Union’s promotion of rail might be laudable, actual policy changes need to follow suit. In too many member states, incumbent state rail actors receive preferential treatment, either through years of subsidisation or through continued state participation. Europe is far from having a real free market in the rail sector, which leads to higher prices and more and more antiquated networks.

Rail privatisation would bring far greater efficiency to the transport of cargo, while also improving domestic passenger services, bringing lower fares and greater choice. In the Czech Republic, for example, the entrepreneur Leoš Novotný created Leo Express, a private rail company which is attempting to drive Czech trains into the 21st century. 

In Germany, however, things have started to change. Federal states are now offering regional rail traffic to the best bidder. It’s not the ideal solution, but it has enabled prices to drop, even for the main provider Deutsch Bahn.

Many fear that rail privatisations lead to price gouging, yet there is little evidence for this. In the United Kingdom there has been, since 1995, only a 2.7 per cent increase in the average cost of a single journey. If you bear in mind that today’s trains run faster, have air-conditioning and loos that people actually don’t mind using, then ‘gouging’ is something of an overstatement.

Another viable alternative is the Italian model.

After several directives between the 1980s and the 1990s, the most important of which was the Directive 440/91/EC, several positive changes have occurred in the European Union. Between 2001 and 2016, the EU approved four legislative packages aiming at gradually opening up rail transport service market to competition, defining passengers’ rights about minimum quality standards, making national railway systems interoperable, and defining appropriate framework conditions for the development of a single European railway area. The Italian legislation enforcing these directives was not easy to implement, as in other European countries. Still, Italy was the first member state that proved successful in opening the HSR market to competition.

The new regime of competition began in April 2012, when the private company, Italo (managed by Nuovo Trasporto Viaggiatori), entered the market. The existing rail incumbent at that time, Frecciarossa, managed by Trenitalia, was wholly owned and operated by the national railway company Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, a conglomerate holding of the railway sector including service, infrastructure, and transportation of goods, as required by European legislation concerning the separation between the infrastructure manager and the service operator.

As a result, we’ve seen a reduction in ticket prices of 41%, paired with an increase in demand of 90%. This makes Italy one of the best countries for high-speed rail use.

We can make viable changes to the European network, but we should refrain from believing that government investment alone can make this happen. On the contrary, we should look to the private sector to provide the means to reach our sustainable transport objectives.

Originally published here.

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN