The discussion about rising track access charges falls short if it focuses only on individual years or subsidy rates. This is because the current price trend is not an anomaly, but rather a systemic problem.
Although measures are being taken to curb prices in individual years, this does not mean that the all-clear can be given. The costs of network usage continue to rise, while the quality, availability, and predictability of the rail network are declining.
The federal government has recognized and identified the need to reform the track access charge logic. At the same time, reality shows that implementation is being postponed. This mammoth task is too complex, too controversial, and too big.
Short-term interventions may temporarily slow down price developments. However, they do not change the structural causes.
The following will continue to apply beyond 2026:
- Rail infrastructure will continue to be financed to a large extent by track access charges.
- Network usage will become structurally more expensive – even if quality and predictability do not keep pace.
- Rail freight transport will bear a growing share of these costs.
- Once temporary mitigation mechanisms expire, a further significant increase in charges is also to be expected. Without structural correction, a new level of burden threatens from 2027 onwards.
This places a burden on a mode of transport that is actually supposed to be strengthened politically.
To put it plainly:
those who merely dampen instead of reforming are merely postponing the problem – and exacerbating it in the long term.
The core of the problem lies in the current model for setting track access charges. The calculation includes not only the direct marginal costs of use – i.e., operation and wear and tear – but also:
- Borrowing costs
- Equity costs
- Financing elements
This means that track access charges are increasingly being used to refinance structural system costs.
The result: network usage is becoming more expensive regardless of whether performance, reliability, or quality are improving.
For rail freight transport, this represents a structural burden – especially in a market that is in direct competition with road transport.
To put it plainly:
the current model links rising system costs directly to usage – not to performance.
European regulations stipulate as a minimum principle that track access charges must be based on the direct costs of use.
Additional surcharges are permitted, but only if they do not jeopardize market viability.
Germany makes particularly extensive use of this leeway.
Other countries, such as Austria and Switzerland, finance a larger portion of infrastructure, maintenance, and investment costs directly from public funds. In Germany, on the other hand, these costs are refinanced to a greater extent through usage-based charges.
The difference is not legal, but systemic: in many European countries, rail infrastructure is clearly organized as a public service – in Germany, users bear a significantly higher share of the total costs.
To put it plainly:
Germany finances its infrastructure more heavily through fees – thereby weakening the competitiveness of rail in Europe.
The situation is exacerbated by the internal distribution logic of the track access charge system. When transport segments develop differently, the so-called market capacities shift. In practice, this means that
- if rail freight transport develops more dynamically than passenger transport, it is disproportionately burdened with infrastructure costs.
This creates a paradoxical situation:
- Growth segments bear disproportionate burdens.
- Those who are given political priority are relieved.
As a result, climate-friendly freight transport, of all things, bears a growing share of the system costs – even though it is supposed to be politically strengthened.
To put it plainly:
Fair play means that rail freight transport must not become the system's financial wild card.
Track access charges are more than just a technical fee – they determine the future of rail freight transport.
As long as:
- track access charges continue to rise structurally,
- foreseeable cost increases are not cushioned by reform,
- reforms are postponed,
- and costs are distributed unevenly,
combined transport will remain under pressure.
A track access charge reform is therefore not a minor issue, but a structural prerequisite for competitiveness, modal shift, and the achievement of climate targets.
- Fundamental reform of the track access charge logic
- Stronger direct financing of infrastructure costs (maintenance and investment)
- Fair cost distribution between passenger and freight transport
- Predictable, early decisions on track access charges
- Consistent and sufficient track access charge subsidies