EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/49

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The quality of rail services in the EU’ (own-initiative opinion)

2013/C 44/08

Rapporteur: Mr CINGAL

On 12 July 2012, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on

The quality of rail services in the EU

(own-initiative opinion).

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 November 2012.

At its 485th plenary session, held on 12 and 13 December (meeting of 13 December), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes to 54 with 8 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 This opinion relates to passenger transport by rail. It has been written and should be read in the light of the objectives set out in the Lisbon Treaty, namely in Article 14 and Protocol No 26, regarding Services of General Interest. It follows on from the recommendations made in the transport white paper, which reiterated the need to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and secure sustainable, environmentally-sound mobility.

1.2 Looking beyond whether the mobility objectives required of operators are being met, and assessing the relevant rights and obligations of stakeholders, this opinion aims therefore to address the issue of the accessibility for the European public of rail transport services of general interest in the European Union, and the quality of that transport.

1.3 Since the quality of rail transport services is a necessary condition for the development of this mode of transport but is not in itself sufficient, the EESC considers that there is need to improve performance in order to make rail services more attractive, by making a factual observation of the various contributing factors.

1.4 The EESC calls for investment and maintenance loans for infrastructure to be subject to multi-annual planning and for funding provisions to be spread over a number of years. Consideration must also be given to land-use planning, to the need to keep infrastructure available and to the funds that can be deployed in the short and medium term.

1.5 The EESC also calls on Community, national and regional authorities to reformulate financing conditions for the various types of infrastructure, while upholding the principles of subsidiarity, with the aim of bolstering solidarity between the regions. To this end, it recommends redirecting transport funds allocated under regional policy, as this could provide a strong leverage effect in terms of spatial planning.

1.6 The EESC calls for an independent EU-level body to conduct a user satisfaction survey based on a factual assessment (punctuality, frequency, pricing, cleanliness, accessibility, etc.). This evaluation should be conducted using a methodology set by a steering committee that involves all the parties concerned (users, organising authorities, operators, employees, etc.) and that is able to perform a monitoring role.

1.7 The EESC is concerned by the European Commission's plan to revise Regulation 1370/2007/EC (on public passenger transport services by rail and by road), which was the product of a difficult compromise at institutional level. It notes in particular that this regulation gives Member States broad organisational scope, while upholding the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and that the balance it strikes should be assessed in the light of experience, as stated in its Article 8(2).

1.8 With regard to the provisions of Regulation 1371/2007/EC and possibilities for future developments, the EESC calls on the European Commission to study the following potential areas for improvement: — bolstering the right to compensation for delays by comparing the duration of the delay with the total duration of the journey concerned; — strengthening the right to compensation for delays by providing for direct payment by the operator concerned, with no prior apportioning of responsibility; — simplifying access to forms and procedures for claiming compensation, either individually or collectively (use of internet, ticket offices, etc.); — improving rights to disabled access by making it compulsory to restore accessibility rapidly (within a day); — improving rights in terms of safety by making it compulsory to install alarm systems for alerting train staff to dangerous situations or health problems; — bolstering passengers' rights by providing for mediators to act as go betweens in disputes between the various parties.

1.9 Furthermore, the EESC calls on the European Commission and on Member States to conduct a joint study into the following areas for improvement: — improving passengers' right to information regarding guaranteed connections; — improving security rights by naming high-risk lines and situations, establishing appropriate procedures, and putting the necessary staff in place.

1.10 Lastly, with regard to subsidiarity, the EESC calls on the Member States to look into the following areas for improvement: — improving passengers' rights by enabling them and their representatives to join with the relevant authorities and elected representatives from the local areas concerned, to draw up a model for monitoring rail service standards (regularity, punctuality, accessibility, cleanliness, etc.); — improving procedures providing passengers on journeys with help and assistance in cases of prolonged stoppages (more than one hour).

2. General comments: the experience of the public, and of current or potential rail passengers

2.1 General observations

2.1.1 Gauging passenger satisfaction and arriving at a common position is made all the more difficult by the fact that it is the companies concerned that hold the basic information for analysis, setting their own service quality standards and monitoring their own performance accordingly (Article 28 of Regulation 1371/2007/EC). The same applies to commitments made in relation to punctuality, frequency, cleanliness, customer reception, information, and pricing, to give just a few examples.

2.1.2 Many passengers experiencing rail service problems complain of the multiple factors to blame for disruptions, unpredictable services with no immediate possibility of knowing what is happening in real time and a general lack of information when problems arise. They have the impression that the situation is continuing to worsen in individual Member States. Rail service operators that offer the right to compensation under Regulation 1371/2007/EC do not make it easy for passengers to access these measures.

2.1.3 When it comes to rail services subject to public service obligations, which account for the vast majority of day to day transport, there are many examples that have required the intervention of transport authorities, or competent authorities, to maintain services at the necessary level.

2.1.4 The proliferation of services provided by different players, without any operational connection or coherence between them, in an organisational environment that has undergone major structural changes and that lacks stability and transparency, has resulted in local operators responding to situations without immediate access to real-time information, leading to problems and thus to passenger dissatisfaction. In the light of these observations, there is a need to take stock of the situation in the sector in each Member State so as to pinpoint potential areas for improvement.

2.2 Non-exhaustive list of the type of problem observed by passengers and/or their associations:

— difficulty accessing information, faulty or ill-suited information display systems,

— unclear or opaque pricing,

— impossibility of planning journeys far enough ahead of departure dates owing to advance booking limits,

— problems relating to over-booking,

— ill-suited waiting areas in trains and stations and ill-suited platforms (crowded waiting areas), unhygienic facilities, or lack of toilets,

— poor disabled access to platforms, stations, toilet facilities, trains, excessive pre-booking requirement for assistance from specialised services (48 hours), or overly strict load criteria (total weight),

— lack of security on trains and in stations,

— late provision of equipment, failure to take account of platform changes when making connections,

— two trains leaving within a few minutes of each other from the same platform, even when there are many unused platforms,

— insufficient luggage space,

— failure to take account of multi-modal transport options, (difficulties in coping with bicycles, poor or zero organisation and management of connections with other modes of transport, lack of information or integrated pricing and service arrangements),

— poor punctuality, inadequate frequency of services, train cancellations with no prior warning,

— poor passenger care in the event of a disruption, compensation insufficient or refused,

— removal or rescheduling of services with no prior consultation of users, their representatives, or the local authorities concerned (e.g. removal of night trains, timetable changes, changes in frequency, etc.),

— increase in time taken between two stops,

— poor accessibility of sales and distribution circuits.

2.3 Main causes of unforeseeable disruptions:

— bad weather: failure to put technical equipment or procedures in place in advance so as to improve the quality of the service provided,

— equipment problems: consequences of poor monitoring of equipment life-cycles and life-spans and failure to address obsolescence and lack of planning and long-term budgeting of maintenance,

— human problems: suicides, associated with access to vulnerable infrastructure; an issue whose causes and effects the EESC does not wish to discuss in this opinion.

2.4 Positive assessments and points that could contribute to a change in transport habits:

— high level of safety for people and transport,

— staff professionalism,

— potential contribution of railways to spatial planning and regional development.

3. Specific comments: how the situation has changed over the last few decades

3.1 The European Commission has upheld the Treaty principles of the free movement of people and sustainable mobility. Rail is acknowledged as a high performance mode of mass public transport, capable of meeting the demands of the relevant authorities, environmentally sound and utilising infrastructure that is still very present, well-maintained or easy to restore to use.

3.2 The EU has mapped out a European network of international routes. Extremely large investments have been and will continue to be made to complete this network. This Community initiative must however be able to count on Member States making similar investment choices, so as to enable European passengers to travel door to door without too many changes in mode of transport.

3.3 The examination of regional services and their planning has nevertheless given rise to arbitrary strategic choices, failing to give consideration to the need to design transport systems with fewer of the changes breaking up a journey that have a detrimental effect on public transport use.

3.4 Although, increasingly, the prior examination of such weighty choices is now built into the deliberations of the authorities responsible, they are nevertheless faced with issues relating to unpredictable and unstable medium- and long-term financing.

3.5 After all, transport represents a considerable burden on national and regional budgets. The public are aware of this situation, especially in the current crisis, and they would like to see real transparency and reliable information. They still have concerns about the lack of additional expertise offering a second opinion on new large-scale projects. As the EESC noted in its opinion TEN/479, dialogue between the authorities and civil society is extremely important, particularly where investment in transport infrastructure projects is concerned.

4. This issue ties in with the Committee's programme of priority actions

4.1 This own-initiative opinion follows on from previous opinions: — TEN/432-433 on the Single European Railway Area; — TEN/454 on the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area; — TEN/471 on Guidelines for trans-European transport network; — TEN/479 on the Transport White Paper: getting civil society on board; and — TEN/480 on passenger rights in all transport modes.

4.2 The commitment to establishing a European transport network has meant that the bulk of European funding has naturally gone to mainline railways. This trend has been accompanied by choices favouring the construction of high-speed lines, sometimes at the expense of the upgrading of other existing lines, owing to budget cuts. Public authorities must aim to give a greater role to rail transport within public transport supply, possibly even making it, in some cases, the backbone of a coherent multi-modal system. There is a case here for merging European funds for the benefit of a coherent sustainable mobility policy (allocation of DG Regio's transport funds).

4.3 The Committee therefore calls for an objective evaluation of the current rail transport situation (advantages/disadvantages). The Commission should conduct this evaluation openly, by providing the requisite information and asking members of the public to say what they expect from rail services, a subject that concerns the overwhelming majority of people (commuting, occasional business trips, family visits, holidays, etc).

5. The EESC would like to draw attention to all these problems

5.1 At this time of crisis, with shrinking public resources available, a policy of recovery based on a strategy of sustainable development would have a positive impact on employment and job quality, helping to meet modal shift objectives and improve access to transport services of general interest for Europeans. The EESC notes therefore that large-scale works must tie in with this global strategy.

5.2 The EESC would like to point out that if services deteriorate as a result of changes to trains or timetables, this can cause people to move house or change job. This forced mobility is not the kind of mobility our fellow Europeans want to see. The EESC emphasises that change often results in a shift in transport use (to car or plane) running counter to transport policy objectives.

5.3 The EESC would like the European Commission to consider and design a European programme to re-develop rail networks and/or support future programmes in the Member States. A European programme aimed at meeting the expectations of rail passengers could easily be built into the European strategies (Sustainable Development Strategy, Horizon 2020, etc.). A dialogue on transport policy with civil society would be very much appreciated by ordinary Europeans. The redirection of transport funds from regional policy could provide the leverage necessary for this strategy.