- vi -

xx. **Track Maintenance Coordination with Operations.** How will the safety and work efficiency needs of the entity maintaining the track be reconciled with the needs of other entities for timely, unrestricted access to fixed facilities?

xxi. **Private Sector Development.** Will the option afford an opportunity for increased involvement of the private sector in railway transportation?

xxii. Startup/Transaction Costs. Do the initial costs of implementing the option, and the administrative costs of perpetuating it, outweigh its likely benefits?

xxiii. Table SC.3 evaluates the generic options in very broad terms according to their responsiveness to each of the issues. As might be expected, the _monolithic railway_ rates high on apparent technical efficiency (since conflicts are decided by executive fiat and transaction costs are minimized), but low on marketing effectiveness considerations. The _lines-of-business_ option offers improved responsiveness to markets and accountability, but reflects increased operating conflicts and transaction costs as the monolith becomes divided. The _competitive access_ option introduces intramodal competition in selected markets, while maintaining unitary control over most railway operations. Unless th., distribution of "franchises" is self-balancing, providing clear benefits to all participants, the owning railways are unlikely to permit a serious level of competition in markets which they have traditionally controlled. Thus, competitive access is often an evolutionary approach. The _'wholesaler'_ option should accomplish an excellent marketing job, but the actual operation would remain in monolithic hands. Finally, the _'toll rail" enterprise_ might come closest to reflecting a theoretical model of marketing effectiveness; yet it would generate potential operating conflicts and higher transaction costs. This option would also call for the highest degree of administrative capability in the owning government.

xxiv. Circumstances differ in every country and for each railway. Since the relative values applied to each objective (row) in Table SC.3 will vary by country, the ratings shown in each column cannot simply be added together to determine an optimum. Thus, no a priori conclusions are possible as to which generic option (or combination) would be "best" in a specific circumstance. Nevertheless, certain country types and railway characteristics would, in principle, lend themselves most readily to certain reshaping options. For example, a monolithic railway might be an appropriate choice for a fully planned, command economy (or for a true single purpose operator such as a mining evacuation railway) -- although a desire for better measurement of performance might lead to a line of business organization even in these circumstances. Economies in transition, small railways with a restricted number of customers, or larger railways seeling to depart incrementally from a monolithic framework, will probably find a lir.: zf business organization to be a useful first step. A need for intra-modal rail competition, either in large countries with well developed rail systems or in adjacent countries with integrated economies, could promote greater use of competitive access solutions, as in the European Community's recent order. When customer service quality needs are paramount (as in container landbridge services or in certain unit train applications), or when the rail service is driven by external requirements (as in container dry ports), it may be best if the railway is