Renfe plans to move forward with its project to establish a bus company to cover alternative transport services when railway circulation is not possible. This decision remains despite a court having annulled the tender with which the operator intended to select a partner from the bus sector to launch that joint venture.
In a public statement, the company emphasizes that the recent resolution of the Central Administrative Court of Contractual Resources (TACRC), which nullifies the tender considering that several clauses violated regulations, does not imply in any case that this initiative is ruled out.
On the contrary, Renfe advances that it will adjust the administrative procedure to the indications made by this body, with the aim of reviewing and modifying the points of the specifications that need to be corrected before re-tendering.
"Renfe reiterates that it does not renounce the creation of the joint venture, considering that it is a strategic tool to strengthen attention to travelers in situations of railway incidents or works on the network, improve response capacity, and optimize resources allocated to alternative transport plans," it argues.
The operator insists that the new company is not conceived to compete with the rest of the sector, but "to guarantee a sufficient response capacity when the railway system is interrupted," and emphasizes that it is the only company (unlike Ouigo or Iryo) that ensures the mobility of citizens when these incidents occur.
According to Renfe's internal analyses, the current model, based on ad-hoc and urgent bus contracts, is not adequate to cover the derived demand, especially from the major works on the railway network.
The company's studies also estimate that, in the coming years, up to 300 buses may be required to address the various alternative transport plans that are implemented throughout the territory.
This last element was what led Renfe to restrict participation in the tender to larger companies, understanding that it needed a partner with a large fleet and sufficient operational capacity to react quickly and effectively to any train service interruption.
Nevertheless, that limitation was challenged by several employers' associations in the sector, considering that it represented discrimination against smaller companies, an argument that has ultimately been accepted by the Court.