Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (94/C 397/12)

On 16 June 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under the first paragraph of Article 129d of the Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 9 November 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr von der Decken and the Co-Rapporteurs Mr Bleser (replaced by Mr Decaillon on 20 October 1994), Mr Moreland and Mr Whitworth.

At its 320th Plenary Session (meeting of 23 November 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority, with one vote against.

1. Preliminary comments

1.1. The Commission proposal deals with the progressive Europe-wide interconnection of specific national land, sea and air transport infrastructures over the period up to the year 2010.

The aim is to create an extensive pan-European transport network encompassing the main transport modes and axes, as well as services and management systems which back up and safeguard intermodal cooperation. The development of this network is particularly important for competitiveness, growth and employment.

1.2. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal as a highly significant, logical and forward-looking step for transport policy.

In the Committee's opinion it has to be spelt out more clearly that trans-European networks (TENs) are only one instrument of EU transport policy and concern only the trans-European dimension. They are not an instrument for resolving shortcomings in regional policy or other shortcomings in EU transport policy. All parties must be clear about this right from the start of the development process.

However, the creation of a network of trans-European transport links will place heavy demands on both the individual Member States and the Community as a whole; the scope and implications of the effort required are not yet entirely clear. Hence the Committee considers that a master plan should be drawn up for the TEN which takes account of the impact on the economy as a whole and on transport policy, as well as of social policy objectives. Such a master plan should serve as a foundation for the TEN development process now being launched which must be steered towards (i) the consolidation of Community interests and (ii) sustained support for intermodal, intersystem cooperation.

1.3. The Commission has already submitted to the Council the first interim report of Mr Henning Christophersen on the political background to the development of a European transport network and the areas where action is called for. In particular it stresses that implementation of the priority projects must be speeded up and a better regulatory framework created, including incentives for private financing. Therefore the Committee intends to examine first in its Opinion the master plan which it regards as vital to the success of the project as a whole.

1.4. The new powers of the European Union in the field of transport infrastructure policy also provide the Community with a valuable tool for helping to combat unemployment. The Committee therefore calls on the Commission to ensure the rapid implementation of infrastructure projects of common interest so that their effect on employment can be felt.

2. Master plan

2.1. With a view to the future, the Commission has laid down the objectives for the development of an efficient, modern trans-European network which will provide safe transport and help safeguard mobility.

At the same time the Community transport sector, largely unfettered by public intervention and red tape, will gradually be opened up to competition. The free choice of carrier should be maintained as long as possible. At present there are no grounds to deviate from this principle.

2.2. The Committee points out, particularly with the future in mind, that a TEN master plan is essential for fixing and gaining general acceptance for (i) future priorities for transport, environmental and energy policy (ii) the level of government intervention transport users must reckon with, and (iii) the extent to which the desired market economy must of necessity be held in check in order to achieve the goals.

In this connection the Committee would refer to its Opinion on the White Paper on the future development of the common transport policy [COM(92) 494 final], in which it sees the control of transport flows, modal switching and the avoidance of unnecessary journeys as major common transport policy objectives.

We must be clear about this: fixing priorities in itself helps to determine future transport developments and whether and to what extent the objectives are actually attained. In fact it is basically a form of intervention which influences the modal split of carriers.

2.3. Nevertheless, the Committee would yet again reiterate its view that the development of the transport industry should be guided by the principle that there should be as little intervention as possible. The conditions for this must be established in keeping with the political objectives and incorporated in the development process. So far this has not been done. This is also mentioned by the Christophersen report, which highlights the need for an analysis of the regulatory framework. In the Committee's view, the Community regulations and general guidelines for EU transport policy provide an opportunity for a systematic analysis of the regulatory conditions, bearing in mind also the fact that a trans-European transport network provides a transport policy instrument with great potential for integration.

2.4. If this is the case, the Community now has an opportunity, by means of a specific EU transport policy master plan, to coordinate these conditions in such a way that they give a firm lead in the right direction. Such coordination could also be seen as a basic part of the development process and organized in such a way that at certain intervals new findings are incorporated in the process, like a rolling programme.

2.5. The Committee thinks that priority should be given in this development process to ensuring that transport systems and infrastructures are economically viable. On account of the long economic life and follow-up costs of transport investment, it would however be nonsensical not to provide the conditions for efficient, economic exploitation of the networks. This does not preclude the award of TEN investment aid, on grounds of public interest.

2.6. If, however, the aim is an intermodal trans-European transport plan, it will not be sufficient to concentrate solely on the expansion of transport infrastructure to satisfy the growing demand for transport. Research must be directed more towards how the efficiency of the individual transport systems and above all intermodal cooperation can be improved and organized more economically, with due regard to environmental protection and the demands of social policy.

2.7. The Committee would like to highlight the fact that so far in the discussion and in the Commission's thinking, the intermodal nature of the TENs has not been brought out clearly. Much more attention should be paid to this aspect than has hitherto been the case.

In the Committee's opinion the Commission's guidelines for developing trans-European infrastructure networks are over concerned with the individual systems. An overall, intermodal TEN is not simply the sum of these separate networks. Some Member States have practical experience of intermodal transport systems and of practical cooperation between carriers within such a system. This is not enough, however, for a TEN master plan. Consequently the Committee thinks that work needs to be done in particular on the interconnectability of the individual networks so that they can be integrated on a European-wide scale.

2.8. In this connection, the Committee would point out that there is a lack of transparency as regards the extent to which the individual networks can be integrated on an international scale. Hence the master plan must establish the integration and interconnection facilities which are necessary for an overall TEN.

2.9. Of particular importance are the 'transport nodes' linking the different transport networks and hence the different modes. (In the following paragraphs these 'nodes' are differentiated from the 'transport junctions' within individual networks).

2.9.1. To obtain an overview of where nodes are possible and where they are necessary, the Committee considers that it would be useful to draw up a map of Europe on which all the nodes are indicated.

2.9.2. In theory these nodes can be determined by superimposing the network plans for each separate mode. This will show where the networks should be interlinked, i.e. where, and if necessary in which conurbations, such nodes should be located.

2.9.3. This will also show which modes merge at the individual nodes, which structures already exist or must be created at the intermodal interfaces, which requirements are already met or still have to be met and what importance each particular node has for the TEN as a whole.

2.9.4. From an analysis of such a map it would be possible to work out the characteristics of the nodes, i.e. the number of interlinked modes, their capacities and operating methods, the services they offer and their management and information systems. Finally, it would show, for each trans-European node, what intermodal transfer points exist and what benefits can be expected for industry, trade and transport users. A node may be considered trans-European if it has permanent intermodal transfer facilities on a European-wide scale and is linked with other trans-European nodes.

2.9.5. The Committee considers that a master plan with a map showing the position of the trans-European nodes would represent a significant step forwards, giving political expression to the fact that Community transport infrastructures have brought the different parts of Europe closer together. However, it is also a new fundamental area of infrastructure planning and organization.

With such a master plan, the individual networks could also be steered more towards a pan-European approach and prepared for intermodal cooperation. The planning, authorization and evaluation procedures and regulatory conditions could be geared more specifically to the priorities, thus giving the whole network a clearer identity and greater coherence on a worldwide scale too.

2.10. In summary, a pan-European network can only be created by deliberately and systematically interlinking the separate networks by means of nodes which are more all-embracing than the junctions within the individual networks.

3. The development process

3.1. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the construction of trans-European transport networks calls for new types of partnership and working methods, which will have to be developed at all levels between Member States and EU bodies, in particular between administrations, investors, banks and not least transport users.

For this reason it considers that as many of the competent bodies as possible must be informed about the master plan and involved in the development process. The clearer and more unambiguous the presentation of the TENs master plan is, the more propitious the climate for new partnerships will be.

3.2. Experience shows that transnational projects run into difficulties because of conflicting national priorities, unwieldy preparatory, planning and authorization procedures and regulatory obstacles. These cannot all be overcome at the same pace, so that only the short- and long-term overall goals must serve as a yardstick for the progress and success of the TENs. As the Committee has already stressed, these goals should be set out in a master plan which takes into account not only the trans-European dimension of the networks, but also the questions of structural improvement, uniform management systems and efficiency from a variety of angles.

3.3. While it is clear that a development process should be continuous and should not be interrupted if at all possible, the Committee still considers it useful to carry out a periodic review in which the guidelines are reexamined and if necessary reformulated and updated, and in which the objectives and above all the regulatory framework are adjusted to the progress made.

3.4. The Committee considers that the development process must begin by focusing on the integration of existing networks, the overall network then being built up on this foundation. The proposed guidelines are broadly approved by the Committee as they cover most of the areas where action is currently needed. However, Member States must now act very quickly to complete their preparatory/planning work and submit their TEN investment programmes.

3.5. Under these circumstances the Committee considers it important for the Commission to define the services and technologies for the management and information systems to the point where they can help immediately to develop the overall network. They are important parts of the general framework and must serve both the transport market and transport policy objectives. Once the investment process for the development of the TEN has been set in motion, investments will take off on their own and have a special knock-on effect on industrialization, trade and consumer behaviour. For this reason it is particularly difficult to set investment priorities and control the use of transport infrastructure.

The Committee would therefore like to recommend that, before final commitments are entered into, the objectives of the measures are defined more concretely and precisely than hitherto and enshrined in an intermodal master plan.

3.6. Furthermore, the Committee considers it necessary, with a view to strengthening intermodality and complementarity, to develop a multi-criteria procedure for ascertaining under what conditions better use can be made of each mode.

For many years there have been calls for such a multi-criteria procedure; on several occasions, in other contexts, the Committee too has recommended this as a way of improving planning. However, now that a pan-European network is to be constructed, such a procedure is indispensable if the future development of transport is to accord with the common transport policy.

3.7.

Decision-making procedures

3.7.1. The Commission proposal on the TEN guidelines concentrates on the objectives, priorities and essential features of the measures under consideration for the development of these networks. Under Article 25 the Commission is to be empowered 'to specify the projects of common interest in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26'.

One question which must be asked is whether the Commission proposal, under which the latter can take decisions by itself after consulting the Infrastructure Committee, should not be changed.

3.7.2. In view of the far-reaching importance of infrastructure decisions, and in the interests of a smooth implementation of the necessary projects, the Committee wonders whether the Member States, regions, users and citizens concerned should not have a greater say.

3.7.3. The Committee also wonders whether decisions on projects of common interest for the entire network should not be simply taken by the Council and the Parliament under the co-decision procedure.

3.7.4. Account must be taken of the relevant consultation requirements when the time limits are set for dealing with Commission proposals on infrastructure projects. Depending on the scale of a project, an appropriate period must also be allowed for an environmental impact assessment. The Committee proposes that the procedure laid down in Article 26 be made more precise and detailed (joint decision on time limits, phased timescale according to scale of the project under consideration and consequent need for consultation).

3.7.5. Article 27 of the Commission proposal states that the Commission is to report annually to the Council, EP, ESC and COR on the implementation of the guidelines. The Committee proposes that these reports be supplemented by an updated time schedule listing the projects of common interest.

3.8.

Financing of infrastructure projects of common interest

3.8.1. The European Council has already dealt with the financial rules required for measures in the sphere of TENs pursuant to Article 129c of the EU Treaty and has already taken the first decisions on the list of projects. Thus, financial aid is regulated separately.

3.8.2. In its White Paper on the future development of the common transport policy [COM(92) 494 final] the Commission assumes a financing requirement for TENs of ECU 220 000 million up to 1999. Since then the Christopherson Group has estimated the financing for first ten projects alone (without the Öresund link) as at least ECU 68 000 million. The Commission proposal on the TEN guidelines mentions a figure of at least ECU 400 000 million over the next fifteen years.

3.8.3. It is clear that the necessary investment over this period cannot be met in full from the budgets of the Member States and EU funds. The Committee therefore stresses the need to mobilize private capital for infrastructure investment.

3.8.4. The Committee is, however, also of the opinion that the participation of private capital in infrastructure financing should not mean that the planning of projects and control over parts of the network and hence over the network as a whole is taken away from the public authorities. The State's underlying responsibility vis-à-vis the public for the provision of transport links must be maintained.

3.8.5. The Committee is further of the view that the unity and coherence of the individual networks must not be impaired by the participation of private capital in infrastructure projects. This applies particularly in the case of railways where, for practical reasons, there has traditionally been a close link between operators and infrastructure. Access to the network must continue to be determined by socio-economic criteria; responsibility cannot be handed over entirely to private operators of parts of the network and their business calculations.

3.8.6. The Committee stresses the need for Community financing instruments. Existing and future instruments must form part of an innovative, coordinated approach. The possibility of EU borrowing on the private capital market should also be examined. In this way incentives can be provided for the relevant Member States' own financing efforts and it will be possible to ensure implementation of projects of common interest which cannot elicit sufficient public funds from the Member State(s) concerned or arouse the interest of private investors.

4. Guidelines

4.1. The development process, including the master plan, is to be launched by applying guidelines which will be formally addressed to the Member States and which will involve Community bodies, financial institutions and also private investors in the investment plans.

Account is to be taken of (i) existing network schemes, criteria and procedures for identifying projects of common interest and (ii) transport policy objectives.

The Committee feels that the current version of these guidelines should be critically reviewed, particularly to see whether they take sufficient account of the future intermodal nature of the overall network. To this end, the Committee would like to raise the following points:

It is the Community's responsibility to lay down the guidelines; in this context, the aims and main features of the trans-European transport network and the individual measures involved should be updated on a coordinated basis.

Since only one standard set of rules and no guidelines are planned for carrying out the various projects, the Committee feels it is necessary to coordinate investment planning at Community level, providing clear guidance for dealing with different cases and different stages in development so that firm plans can be made.

4.1.1. The planning of guidelines should also be seen as a way of establishing a pan-European model for the TEN, which takes account of both energy policy aims and the aim of developing major trans-European transport junctions as effectively as possible.

4.1.2. From the point of view of transport development, it also seems useful to include in the guidelines conurbations in which nodes for the intermodal trans-European transport network could be developed.

4.2. Otherwise, the Committee approves in general the consensus approach which the Commission is planning for the guideline rules. This applies both to the network schemes and to the main features of the measures and the criteria and procedures for identifying projects.

The Committee would however like to reiterate that the key to solving problems of detail is to broaden the intermodal and trans-European dimensions of the master plan and to use these as a yardstick for assessing conformity with the objectives.

5. Community measures and subsidiarity

5.1. The Committee does not consider the Commission's view that the subsidiarity principle should be upheld in Community measures to constitute an obstacle to the development of the TEN. It agrees that it has to be up to Member States to determine the details of the network infrastructure and the timetable for completion and for the various stages.

5.2. It is, however, at Community level that action will have to be taken in good time to remove obstacles - one-by-one if necessary - which might arise at national level and have to be overcome. This applies not only to building work or to financing, but also to regulatory measures which might affect transport users.

5.3. In the main, the Committee endorses the general principles for drawing up network schemes and for the various types of measures affecting projects of common interest. It would stress that here in particular the subsidiarity principle comes into play and must be upheld; it would also highlight the possibility of involving private investment.

6. Research and development measures

6.1. The Committee considers that R & D measures are absolutely crucial. They are of fundamental importance in drawing up the master plan for a trans-European, intermodal transport network and for many specific measures.

6.2. They should act as a support for practical and political decisions and for assessing the effects of the possible options. Such support is indispensable in helping policymakers come to decisions on the long-term commitment of public and private capital for infrastructure investment and the use of management and communications technologies in the transport sector. This also means giving a clear explanation of these technologies, which are to be central to the overall network.

Above all, the industry and competent authorities will in this way be provided with better information on transport flows and helped to decide which transport links and which modes are best suited to meeting the demand for transport in the long term. In this connection the Committee has already proposed that a transport data bank be set up for identifying and studying possible trends in transport demand.

6.3. Research measures must therefore focus on the preconditions for the interoperability and interlinking of the networks, with particular regard to intermodality and accessibility.

6.4. Bearing in mind the principle of subsidiarity, the EU's R & D measures in this field especially should aim to exploit the synergies between the relevant work carried out by the Member States and by the EU. This also applies to the work of other international organizations. Only in this way can the meagre resources of the fourth framework programme be put to the best possible use.

6.5. The Committee welcomes the fact that in the fourth framework programme a specific programme is devoted to the transport sector (). The chapter 'Strategic research for a trans-European multimodal network' is particularly important in this context. The Committee regards the five areas of activity referred to there as a good start, namely:

- understanding mobility: provision of data as a precondition for a data bank;

- developing intermodality: study of the technical and organizational conditions for linking the different modal networks according to their complementarity;

- economics of the transport system;

- system organization and interoperability: standardization is a sine qua non for interoperability;

- forward studies: new generic technologies also require a study into the institutional, organizational and socio-economic changes which they engender.

6.6. Finally, strategic research can also help to analyze the regulatory framework and the use of regulatory measures in pursuit of transport policy goals.

The socio-economic aspects as they affect transport users must be covered in this analysis of regulatory policy, too.

6.7. In the Committee's view, the idea of producing a map of intermodal nodes in Europe, as expounded in chapter 2, could be useful not only as an instrument but also as a subject of strategic research.

7. Distinctive features of the network elements

The Committee has given its views on almost all the Commission's proposals for the various modes and network components (). Three remain - ports, airports and conventional railways - which are commented on below.

7.1.

Ports

7.1.1. In the Commission's view 'promoting ports and maritime transport is an important and desirable part of common transport policy and the development of the TEN'. Ports and maritime transport are regarded as a key consideration in the principles and thinking underlying the TEN because they:

- help boost intra- and extra-Community trade;

- expand the range of maritime transport links within the Community;

- open up opportunities for a partial shift of traffic from other modes and hence make a crucial contribution to the principle of sustainable mobility.

7.1.2. The Committee sees the guidelines on ports policy as a positive step. It therefore also welcomes the inclusion of a joint plan for the development of seaports in EU transport policy and in the guidelines for the development of the TEN; it also endorses the criteria proposed by the Commission for port and port-related projects of common interest.

7.1.3. In the Committee's opinion the port development projects should go hand in hand with the TEN links planned for other modes. Consequently the Committee eagerly awaits the promotion of coastal and short sea shipping announced in point 75 of the Commission's explanatory memorandum, and urges on the Member States Group on Ports and Maritime Transport to conclude as rapidly as possible its work on the possibilities for upgrading individual ports and improving their status in the transport chain. The Committee notes that a whole series of possible projects is already sketched out in the report of the Commission Working Party on Ports [SEC(93) 2129 final] and considers that there is no reason not to tackle some of these projects forthwith.

The Committee agrees, however, that the proposed plans must not lead to distortions in competition between individual ports and that port development plans must be flexible and tailored to each specific case rather than follow rigid guidelines.

7.1.4. In a master plan highlighting the intermodal nature of a trans-European transport network, inland ports will also play a major integrating role. The Committee feels that this should be dealt with in a separate chapter ().

7.2.

Airports

7.2.1. Airports also play an integrating role in the overall passenger and freight transport system. The Committee therefore endorses the assumption in the Commission guidelines that there is a need for measures to improve airport capacity. In particular connections with other modes of transport and access to airports in general must be improved.

7.2.2. However, the Committee believes that the first priority must be to improve air traffic management systems, as this is essential to the efficiency of the network.

7.2.3. However, it suggests that decisions on airport capacity must take into account market demand and the competition between airports. Also some decisions which could improve airport capacity lie in the hands of the Member States and airport managers, particularly in terms of improving the utilization and efficiency of airports. Slot allocation for example is crucial to ensuring the better utilization of airport capacity as well as to improving the competitive environment for airlines.

7.3.

Conventional railways

7.3.1. The Committee notes that the railways in particular have suffered from the imbalance in infrastructure investment policy over recent decades. There has been hardly any expansion and investment has been confined basically to the electrification of lines. Therefore it is even more important for the railways than for roads that the existing network reflect first and foremost Member States' own domestic needs for transport links rather than the changing demands of a Europe growing ever closer together. Consequently there is a pressing need for special EU action in the rail sector.

7.3.2. The Committee therefore welcomes the fact that the EU's current strategy to construct a high-speed network is finally to be bolstered by plans for the conventional rail network and combined transport networks. Together these three elements form the basis for a European rail network. In planning and implementing rail projects it must be ensured that conventional projects do not take second place to high-speed projects when it comes to financing.

7.3.3. The creation of this basic network is necessary if infrastructure is also to contribute to the Community's underlying goal of spreading transport flows evenly between the different modes. Measures must be taken to counter any further relative and absolute fall in rail's share of the transport market and particularly the market in goods transport. This is also very much in the interests of the other modes: road transport in particular will become increasingly congested if an appropriate part of the expected growth in traffic is not diverted to the railways.

8. Prospects for further development of the common transport policy

8.1. The most recent developments with regard to the building of TENs have shown that basically all Member States recognize this logical progression in the common transport policy and want to be involved in building the networks.

8.2. Current proposals on the financing of the TENs have shown that there is widespread consensus on the measures decided on up to now and that the EU is capable of acting in this sphere. Therefore, the various national transport infrastructures can be confidently expected to fit together to make up a coherent trans-European network.

8.3. The Committee feels, however, that whether or not the demanding requirements are met will depend ultimately on whether the administrative procedures can be speeded up and whether the remaining constraints in individual Member States can be removed. According to the Christophersen report, a whole series of analyses are still missing. These will have to be speeded up and completed.

8.4. In this connection the Committee would stress that the following work should be given priority:

- fixing of the priorities for the development of the TEN within the framework of the master plan; uniform assessment of the projects from the point of view of environmental acceptability, economic viability and importance for European integration;

- immediate setting up of institutional groups with the participation of public and private bodies to study how individual projects can best be carried out with minimum outlay and the best chances of success and what obstacles will have to be removed in the interests of the EU;

- priority study of the advantages and weaknesses of the present regulatory conditions imposed by the individual Member States and the Community with a view to creating a regulatory framework as called for in the master plan;

- development of financing formulas for the construction and expansion of the TEN which include/encourage the participation of private-sector bodies.

8.5. In the Committee's view one of the primary tasks in the development of a master plan for the multimodal TEN will be to establish the criteria and individual measures for interoperability between the various modes at Community level.

8.6. New technologies, e.g. for traffic management systems in road, air and sea transport or for multimodal positioning systems by satellite, should be standardized as far as possible so that they can be used in all Member States.

8.7. Furthermore, the Committee considers that even now, at the development stage, special emphasis must be placed on ensuring that the TEN is able to incorporate transport links with the rest of the world as far as possible, that it is open to such link-ups from the outset. For this, however, the objectives, priorities and conditions must be defined right now.

Done at Brussels, 23 November 1994.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() Opinion on the specific R & D programmes (CES 1019/94, 14/15. 9. 1994).

() High-speed trains (Rapporteur: Mr Bleser - OJ No C 191, 22. 7. 1991, p. 22); Combined transport (Rapporteur: Mr Tukker - OJ No C 19, 25. 1. 1993, p. 29); Transport infrastructure: road and inland waterways (Rapporteur: Mr Bonvicini - OJ No C 19, 25. 1. 1993, p. 32).

() See the ESC's Own-initiative Opinion on inland waterway transport (Rapporteur: Mr von Haus) and in particular chapter 7 on the trans-European inland waterway network.