The debate over track access charges in Germany has been marked by a fundamental imbalance for years. Users of the rail infrastructure cover only ten percent of the costs, while the majority is financed through government subsidies. This practice not only affects economic efficiency but also the quality of the infrastructure.
As reported by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, since the 1990s, hundreds of billions of euros in non-repayable construction cost subsidies have flowed into the system. For 2023, more than 20 billion euros are earmarked for InfraGO, the subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn. These subsidies require no depreciation or interest, reducing the actual cost recovery rate to just around ten percent.
Financing through government subsidies has created a dysfunctional incentive system. The Performance and Financing Agreement (LuFV) encourages infrastructure operators to neglect necessary maintenance work in order to finance later replacement investments from federal funds. This leads to a vicious cycle of wear and tear and emergency financing that jeopardizes long-term asset preservation.
Another problem is the state subsidy for track access charges, originally intended as temporary aid but has become a permanent subsidy. In 2026, it is expected to still account for about one-third of nominal track access charges. As a result, long-distance passenger rail pays an average of only 6.11 euros per train kilometer instead of the nominal 9.26 euros, matching the level of 2015.
The frequent claim that Germany has the highest track access charges in Europe is misleading. In long-distance passenger transport, Germany ranks in the European middle, behind countries like France or Belgium. In freight transport, users often pay less than half the costs charged in Switzerland, where track access charges are 5.40 euros per train kilometer.
A direct price comparison without considering network quality and political objectives is misleading. Countries with high charges and a high-quality network promote a shift of traffic to rail. In contrast, countries with low track access charges often have fewer high-speed lines.
The current financing practice is not only inefficient but also opaque. The frequently changing subsidy conditions seem more like using leftover budget funds than a smart steering instrument. This creates windfall effects but no reliable investment incentives.
The Federal Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticized this practice and pointed out the need for reform. It is crucial that the financing of rail infrastructure is restructured to ensure long-term sustainability and efficiency.
Source: www.faz.net
