The separation of infrastructure and train operations in Europe's railway sector has increased the importance of a transparent policy for pricing infrastructure use. This paper reviews the quality of data on the Swedish railway network to allow estimation of the marginal costs of railway track wear and tear. Information about costs, traffic, and infrastructure is examined and assessed in light of an econometric modeling approach. The review shows that the basic data necessary to estimate an econometric cost function are not always at hand. In particular, no extensive time series data are available, and there are instances of partially missing data. However, some problems can be overcome through the use of data imputation techniques. A database covering 749 track section observations from 1999 to 2002 was created. Cost functions were estimated via pooled ordinary least squares, and marginal costs were calculated. Separate charging regimes for operational and maintenance costs are suggested, but more research is needed before renewal costs can be recommended for inclusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Järnvägslag. Regeringens Proposition 2003/04:123. Riksdagen, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
2.
Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 Amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the Development of the Community's Railways. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 075, March 15, 2001, pp. 1–25.
3.
Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 Amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the Licensing of Railway Undertakings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 075, March 15, 2001, pp. 26–28.
4.
Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the Allocation of Railway Infrastructure Capacity and the Levying of Charges for Use of Railway Infrastructure and Safety Certification. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 075, March 15, 2001, p. 29.
5.
Directive 2001/16 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the Interoperability of the Trans-European Conventional Rail System. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 110, April 20, 2001, p. 1.
6.
LarssonD. and GunnarssonJ.A Model to Predict Track Degradation Costs. Proc., 7th International Heavy Haul Conference, Virginia Beach, Va., International Heavy Haul Association, Inc., 2001, pp. 437–444.
7.
KeelerT.Railroad Costs, Returns to Scale, and Excess Capacity. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 56, No. 21974, pp. 201–208.
8.
CavesD. W.ChristensenL. R. and SwansonJ. A.Productivity in U.S. Railroads, 1951–1974. Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 11, No. 11980, pp. 168–181.
9.
BitzanJ. D.Railroad Costs and Competition: The Implications of Introducing Competition to Railroad Networks. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 37, No. 2, May 2003, pp. 201–225.
10.
BereskinC. G.Estimating Maintenance-of-Way Costs for U.S. Railroads After Deregulation. In Transportation Research Record 1707, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 13–21.
11.
Daljordö. B.Marginalkostnader i Jernbanenettet.Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research, Oslo, Norway, 2003.
12.
TervonenJ. and IdströmT.Marginal Rail Infrastructure Costs in Finland 1997–2002.Finnish Rail Administration, Helsinki, Finland, 2004.
13.
GaudryM. and QuinetE.Rail Track Wear-and-Tear Costs by Traffic Class in France. Presented at the First Conference on Railroad Industry Structure, Competition and Investment, Toulouse, France, 2003.
14.
Railway Reform and Charges for the Use of Infrastructure. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Brussels, Belgium, April 4, 2005.
15.
JohanssonP. and NilssonJ.-E.An Economic Analysis of Track Maintenance Costs. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 32004, pp. 277–286.
16.
AnderssonM.Swedish Data for Railway Infrastructure Maintenance and Renewal Modelling. In Computers in Railways IX (AllanJ.BrebbiaC. A.HillR. J.SciuttoG. and SoneS., eds.), WIT Press, Southampton, UK, 2004, pp. 283–292.
17.
De Svenska Godstransportstråken—Uppföljning Sedan 1997. SIKA, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
18.
FogartyD. J. and BlakeJ.Utilising Recent Advancements in Techniques for the Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data to Improve the Data Quality Management of Current Academic Research. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 36, No. 32002, pp. 277–289.
19.
SchaferJ. L. and OlsenM. K.Multiple Imputation for Multivariate Missing-Data Problems: A Data Analyst's Perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 33, No. 41998, pp. 545–571.
20.
SchaferJ. L. and GrahamJ. W.Missing Data: Our View of the State of the Art. Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, No. 22002, pp. 147–177.
21.
LittleR. J. A. and RubinD. B.Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.
22.
RubinD. B.Multiple Imputation After 18+ Years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 91, No. 4341996, pp. 473–489.
23.
LIMDEP 8.0. Econometric Software, Inc., New York, 2002.
24.
AlexanderssonG.HulténS.NordenlöwL. and EhrlingG.Spåren Efter Avregleringen.KFB-Rapport, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
25.
WooldridgeJ. M.Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2002.
HallJ. P.RobinsonR., LaffeyS., and AhrensT.Data Partnering Between Transportation Agencies for Mutual Benefit: The Illinois Experience. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1870, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 77–83.
