Iwo Nowak: – While congratulating you on taking up such a new and responsible position, which is – to put it figuratively – taking the helm and at the same time responsibility for the Polish railway industry, I must state that the government has reached out to a group of experts whose voice has not always been taken into account so far…
Mirosław Chaberek: – I have been observing the situation on our railways for several decades. And I regret to say that successive governments in the past periods did not approach this problem as experts, including those from academic circles, suggested to them. Many proposals were formulated at various meetings; I myself have also been in ministers’ offices with specific demands, but after listening to them, nothing was implemented. Now there is a situation where I have the opportunity to try to implement what I once proposed to other decision-makers.
I. N.: – Despite the known situation on the railways, you have taken up the challenge?
M. Ch.: – Yes. The situation is difficult in terms of finance, structure, and society. Previous concepts, moving mainly towards privatization and the creation of capital groups, did not yield the expected results. So far, we have had privatization according to a calendar; a given year, you have to give so much money to the budget, so we will sell so much.
I. N.: – What is your program for further action then?
M. Ch.: – It is difficult to describe it in a few words, but the fundamental issue is to organize the economy and organization of the Polish railway industry. The main axis of railway matters is the price of access to railway infrastructure, i.e., to transport routes. This price should be based on justified costs resulting from the costs of a given transport process. Previous work focused mainly on individual transport routes. I believe that this needs to be corrected and we should not talk about the price of access to a specific line, but to the railway network as a whole. We know that currently, it happens that transport rates on highly loaded lines fall due to a decrease in unit fixed costs spread over many services. On the other hand, on less loaded lines, a very high access price leads to a reduction in the number of transports and the appearance of an additional argument to close a given section.
In our assumptions, we assume restoring the railway to its rightful place in the country’s transport system. So that the railway takes over the cargo and passenger traffic for which it is predisposed. So that it takes over agglomeration and mass transport. For short and long distances.
I. N.: – And so that there is money for it….
M. Ch.: – Railway transport of a public service nature – as is implemented in other countries – i.e., regional, inter-voivodeship, and some international, must be financially supported from external funds. The system functioning today allocates “unspecified money” for these transports in local government budgets, which causes – to put it mildly – misunderstandings between the carrier performing them and the local governments paying for these transports. Therefore, solutions should be adopted so that all funds allocated by the state budget for financing public service transport go unconditionally to the implementers of such transport. This should be followed by a clear way of financing development and modernization investments of the railway network. Today, this is included in the activities of Polskie Linie Kolejowe SA. There is a need for a clear separation of operational and investment activities. Infrastructure investments, carried out outside the manager of the national railway infrastructure, will go to him (i.e., the manager) after their completion as a contribution or state in-kind subsidy. The company managing the railway infrastructure, i.e., the network (not lines or their sections), should not be privatized. Which does not mean that it should not function in a pro-efficiency regime. Only “cost-transparent” will it be able to be subsidized from the state budget. It will be able to offer access to infrastructure at discounted prices for carriers providing public service transport. The difference between the objective cost of access to the network and the actual one – incurred by the carrier – will be compensated by the budget.