No C 23/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 1. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation for an action programme in the field of 
transport infrastructure with a view to the completion of an integrated transport market in 
1992 (!) 
(89/C 23/05) 
On 5 July 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 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 1988. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Rouzier. 
At its 260th plenary session (meeting of 23 November 1988), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The action programme is in line with the me­
dium-term transport infrastructure programme 
approved by the Committee on 18 September 1986 
(Rapporteur: Mr Rouzier) (2). The aim of the proposal 
is to make it easier for persons and goods to move 
freely within the Community. Measures will focus on 
the construction or improvement of transit routes 
between Member States, more particularly between the 
north and south of the Community. The programme 
has the advantage of covering a limited period (1988-
1992), and specifies the schemes which will receive 
priority financial aid from the Community. However, 
the programme does not call into question the medium-
term programme, which is still pending at the Council. 
1.2. The Committee approves the principle and 
objectives underpinning the Commission's proposal. 
It nevertheless feels it useful to make the following 
comments. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The proposal states that, in order to qualify for 
financial support, transport infrastructure projects must 
be 'consistent with other Community measures under 
the common transport policy or with other Community 
policies, and with other national measures given pri­
ority in national transport infrastructure plans and 
projects'. The Committee fully endorses this criterion. 
2.2. The proposal refers to a 'declaration of Euro­
pean interest' as a precondition for eligibility for finan­
cial aid. Such a reference is most expedient. The Com­
mittee accordingly urges the Council to expedite its 
decision on the financing of large-scale infrastructure 
projects of European interest, which will institutionalize 
this legal concept. 2.3. The specific schemes contained in the action 
programme are listed in Article 3. The Committee is 
unable to make a substantive assessment of the Com­
mission's selection, as no detailed justification is pro­
vided. 
However, in view of the relatively limited financial 
resources available, the Committee considers that the 
most disadvantaged regions would have benefited more 
if resources had been concentrated on a limited number 
of schemes. 
2.4. The Committee notes that certain schemes will 
qualify for two sources of Community financing at 
once (budget heading 580 and the European Regional 
Development Fund). It is clear that under no circum­
stances must either of these contributions exclude the 
other. 
The Committee would also point out that Community 
funds for launching or speeding up infrastructure pro­
jects must be additional to national funds and should 
therefore not lead to a reduction thereof. 
2.5. Analysis of the timetable contained in point 6 
of the financial record appended to the proposal 
prompts the following observations: 
a) Out of the 630 million ECU planned for the pro­
gramme for the five years 1988-1992, 264 million 
ECU (= 40%) will be paid after 1 January 1993. 
b) No indication is given of the schemes involved, 
making it difficult to assess the breakdown of spend­
ing between the different forms of land transport, 
and the risk of spreading funds too thinly. 
(*) OJ No C 270, 19. 10. 1988, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No C 328, 22. 12. 1986, p. 42. c) Lastly, the Annex could usefully contain an estimate 
(even if only approximate) of financing from all 
30. 1. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 23/9 
sources, including the private capital mentioned in 
the eighth recital (*) of the Commission proposal. 
2.6. Articles 7 and 10 do not include the Committee 
among the recipients of communications on the prelimi­
nary draft budget and the report on the experience 
gained. These documents would provide more infor­
mation about the projects, a shortcoming which is 
particularly regretted in point 2.3 above. 
3. Long-term guidelines 
3.1. The Commission report (in accordance with 
Article 10 of the proposal) on the experience gained in 
the action programme has acted as a catalyst in launch­
ing or speeding up the various transport infrastructure 
schemes. The Committee hopes that this report will 
facilitate the preparation of guidelines taking account 
of the following criteria: 
— contribution to the setting-up of coherent, balanced 
transport networks, drawing on the European 
guidelines which already exist or which should be 
formulated as soon as possible, and taking account 
of intermodal links, 
— present and future transport requirements; this 
brings a need for faster progress on the standardiz­
ation of assessment criteria, and a more extensive 
exchange of information between Member States, 
(') This recital highlights the problem of tolls, raised in point 2.1 
of the Opinion on infrastructure costs of 3 June 1988 (OJ 
No C 208, 8. 8. 1988, p. 29). 
Done at Brussels, 23 November 1988. — improvements to safety, 
— impact: 
— micro-economic and macro-economic, 
— on the environment, 
— on living and working conditions. 
These guidelines should help the Council decide on 
further measures for transport infrastructure after 
1 January 1993. 
3.2. In this context, the Committee feels it useful 
to refer back to its Opinions of 25 September 1985 
(Rapporteur: Mr Plank) (2) and 16 December 1986 
(Rapporteur: Mr Rouzier) (3) which stressed that all 
transport infrastructure developments in the Com­
munity should: 
— reduce the economic, social and environmental costs 
of transport, and improve the productivity of trans­
port undertakings, 
— sustain and develop the international competitive­
ness of European undertakings, by means of an 
international high-speed transport network, 
— harmonize the living conditions in the Community's 
least and most developed regions. 
(2) OJNoC303, 25. 11. 1985. 
(3) OJ No C 68, 16. 3. 1987, p. 5. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE