Ricardo Filipe is a fellow with Young Voices Europe based in Portugal and a writer on politics and policy.
The inefficiencies of public railway companies are not unique to Portugal, but they are especially glaring in the case of Comboios de Portugal (CP). For European Union citizens, this story may sound familiar: public train companies often prioritize politics over passengers, leaving consumers stranded—literally and figuratively. As the EU strives to promote sustainable transport, the failures of companies like CP illustrate the urgent need for a shift towards private sector involvement.
This article delves into the situation with CP, its implications for Portuguese citizens, and the lessons it offers for Europe as a whole.
Comboios de Portugal (CP) traces its origins to the 19th century, and since the Carnation Revolution in 1974, it has operated as the national rail company. While its historical legacy is impressive, its modern reputation is anything but. CP has become synonymous with inefficiency, frequent strikes, and a lack of accountability. For many Portuguese citizens, CP’s performance symbolizes the broader failures of state-owned enterprises.
For the European Union, where public rail is often positioned as a cornerstone of green, integrated transport, CP’s failings raise important questions about the role of public railway operators in delivering reliable services.
Curious about Europe's best and worst railways? CCC's recent European Railway Index has made it to Bloomberg's @CityLab https://t.co/2786eoOIed
— Consumer Choice Center (@ConsumerChoiceC) December 21, 2023
One of the most glaring problems with CP is its history of strikes, which frequently disrupt services and leave commuters stranded. While the right to strike is fundamental, its overuse at CP has led to widespread public frustration.
A recent strike epitomized this dysfunction. It followed comments by the Minister of Infrastructure, Miguel Pinto Luz, about safety concerns surrounding train conductors allegedly drinking while driving, sparking outrage by the National Syndicate of Railway Drivers and a union-led strike. While debates about workplace conditions are legitimate, such strikes only serve to harm commuters. Urban hubs like Lisbon and Porto are particularly affected, with workers and students forced to scramble for costly alternatives.
Across Europe, such disruptions highlight the broader problem of poorly managed public rail systems. Strikes paralyze the economy and undermine public trust, especially when they occur regularly.
The unreliability of CP has profound consequences beyond mere inconvenience. Portugal’s economy, heavily reliant on tourism, suffers when train cancellations and delays tarnish the experience for foreign visitors. Businesses dependent on timely freight transportation, face delays that disrupt supply chains, leaving them in a precarious situation.
For Europe, where rail is promoted as a critical tool for reducing carbon emissions and boosting regional trade, such inefficiencies are a grim warning. A reliable and efficient rail system is not just a convenience; it is essential for economic resilience and environmental sustainability.
2. "railway operations in the hands of a private company, while infrastructure and maintenance of the rail network are the responsibility of others" seems like a failing model.
The success of private railways in Japan: rail & operations were not split: https://t.co/Y1RoueWFrS
— Pieter Cleppe (@pietercleppe) March 5, 2023
To improve its public image, CP introduced a €20 train pass allowing unlimited travel across various routes all through the country. However, this initiative was marred by its own inefficiencies: passengers who purchased the pass frequently found trains canceled, leading to wasted money and further frustration.
This issue became so high-profile that a Portuguese political party, Iniciativa Liberal, proposed compensation for pass holders. Such incidents undermine public confidence in CP and reinforce the perception that public rail companies are out of touch with their customers’ needs.
The stark contrast between CP and private operators like Fertagus demonstrates that better alternatives are possible. Fertagus, which operates the rail link between Lisbon and Setúbal, has built a reputation for punctuality, cleanliness, and customer service. It achieves this without the strikes and inefficiencies that plague CP.
Fertagus’s success is a powerful argument for privatization. When market competition drives performance, companies are incentivized to prioritize passenger satisfaction and operational efficiency. For Portugal—and Europe—this presents a compelling case for reducing the role of the state in rail transport.
The European Union has ambitious goals for rail transport, including making it the backbone of sustainable mobility by 2050. Yet, public operators like CP are failing to deliver. If the EU is serious about promoting rail as a viable alternative to car and air travel, it must confront the inefficiencies of state-owned rail companies.
Privatization can help bridge this gap. By introducing competition, private operators can drive innovation, improve service quality, and ensure taxpayer money is spent more effectively.
CP’s problems are not inevitable; they stem from structural issues commonly found in public enterprises. One major issue is the lack of accountability, as the absence of market competition leaves CP with little incentive to improve its operations. Additionally, political interference often drives decisions based on agendas rather than prioritizing the needs of passengers. This dysfunction ultimately places a heavy burden on taxpayers, who are forced to subsidize a failing system without any assurance of improved service.
For Europe, CP serves as a cautionary tale. Public rail companies across the EU must be restructured to prioritize efficiency and customer satisfaction—or face similar criticisms, as is the case with the Spanish REFE and the German Deutsche Bahn.
Perhaps the strongest argument for privatization is fairness. Why should taxpayers subsidize a system that consistently underperforms? Many Portuguese citizens never use CP’s services, yet they are forced to bear its costs. This is neither efficient nor just.
The EU, too, must consider the moral implications of funding public rail systems that fail to deliver value. By shifting towards private models, governments can ensure that only those who use the service bear its costs.
Portugal’s railway system is failing its citizens, and the European Union cannot afford to ignore the broader implications. Public train companies must adapt or step aside. By embracing privatization and competition, Portugal—and Europe—can ensure its rail systems serve passengers, not politics.
The time for change is now. European citizens deserve better than the inefficiencies of state-run monopolies. Let CP’s failures be a wake-up call for a continent striving to build a sustainable, integrated future.
