Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe - European Commission Green Paper` (96/C 337/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the 'European Commission Green Paper on The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe` (COM(95) 601 final);

Having regard to the decision taken by the EC Commission on 12 December 1995, under Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

Having regard to its decision of 18 July 1995 to direct Commission 3 'Transport and Communications Network` to draw up the relevant Opinion;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 42/96 rev.) adopted by Commission 3 on 18 April 1996 (Rapporteur: Lord Bowness);

Considering that the Working Document (CdR 106/96 & Addendum), adopted by Commission 4 (Rapporteur: Mr Pentillä) has been incorporated into the Draft Opinion,

adopted the following Opinion at its 13th Plenary Session on 12 and 13 June 1996 (meeting of 13 June).

1. Introduction

1.1. It has been noted by the Committee of the Regions that a common transport policy has been a long-term objective of the European Union and that the Maastricht Treaty enhanced the role of the European Union in the development of transport policy. Maastricht added improvements in the safety and effectiveness of transport infrastructure as a new objective in the development of this common policy. The publication of the Green Paper on The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe opens a new debate on this policy objective which arises from the need for a common strategy for European land-use planning.

1.2. Since the establishment of the European Community, the volume and usage of passenger transport has increased significantly. Over the last 25 years passenger transport in the 15 EU states has grown at an annual rate of 3,2 % - a total increase of 85 %. The increase in the use of the passenger transport is due to a number of issues, including: economic mobility of labour, increasing wealth, scattering of communities and out-of-town shopping.

1.3. The issue of most concern is the proportional increase in the use of the car. Car usage grew by 120 % and now represents three quarters of all travel across the European Union. This can be contrasted with bus travel which grew by 40 % but the proportion of total travel undertaken on buses has declined by a quarter and is now below 9 %.

1.4. Over the last 20 years car ownership in 15 EU states has increased from 232 for every 1 000 people to 435 for every 1 000 people. Whilst the car gives flexibility and independence in travel, it also contributes to air pollution, immobility in cities, social exclusion, congestion and is not a means of transport which is accessible to all.

1.5. With no indication that car travel is decreasing, the possible effects upon congestion, air quality, environmental sustainability and quality of life are fearful.

1.6. These issues are being tackled by local and regional authorities across the EU within the framework of spatial planning policies implemented locally. There is a common understanding that there needs to be a review of the present system of transport and to secure a fundamental transformation of transport policy to ensure sustainable development and a better balance between car and public transport.

1.7. The Committee of the Regions considers that it is insufficient to look only at mobility in urban areas and asks the Commission to address in the same way the specific problems found in rural and less populated areas.

1.8. Within this common principle of seeking a better balance between car and public transport, there are distinct roles for the European Union, national governments and local and regional authorities. In this context, the Transport Commissioner's Green Paper on The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe opens a new debate on this important issue.

2. Structure of this Report

2.1. There have been numerous reports by the Transport and Telecommunications commission which have sought to define the Committee of the Regions' contribution to the development of EU transport policy. This report does not seek to add to that specific debate. The Committee of the Regions requires one strategic report which defines its overall aims in transport policy and which would provide a coherent framework for Commission Opinions. There would be a constant danger of policy fragmentation and incoherence if all reports sought to define global transport objectives.

2.2. This Opinion provides the COR's specific response to the Green Paper. It looks at the Green Paper from the perspective of the powers and responsibilities of the localities and regions of the European Union. Whereas the Green Paper sets out an overall macro view of the development of a citizens' network and developing a better balance between car and public transport, the European Union has, in fact, little power to ensue comprehensive implementation. Therefore, the future implementation of the Green Paper is dependent upon a partnership between all levels of government.

2.3. This issue is accepted by the Green Paper itself which sets out a practical analysis of the principle of subsidiarity. It states:

'Decisions should be taken at a level close to those using the service. The Commission recognizes that the nature of passenger transport means that measures necessary to build up the Citizens' Network must and will be taken at a local, regional or national level.`

2.4. Given the inter-dependence of the European Union, national state and regional/local authorities in the development of transport policy, the focus of this Opinion will therefore be the following:

- the overall philosophy of the Green Paper as a guide to EU transport policy development and the COR's reaction to it;

- the proposed activities of the European Commission in the development of the Citizens' Network and the COR's reaction to it;

- the role that can be played by the regions and localities in Europe to promote the Citizens' Network in partnership with the European Union.

3. The Green Paper: Macro issues

3.1. The Green Paper seeks to open a debate on the future of public passenger transport and on a proposed EU transport policy framework. The framework envisaged is one where:

- passengers' needs are placed in the centre of policy development, and

- public transport is made more attractive and efficient to ensure less use of the car.

3.2. The Paper addresses possible criteria for this type of public transport system. It concentrates on ways in which public transport could be made more attractive, rather than limiting the use of the car (i.e. pull rather than push factors).

3.3. Five key issues are suggested: system accessibility, affordability, safety/security, travel convenience and environmental impact. It also suggests that the effectiveness of stand-alone quality improvements is limited if there is no system integration. Thus two further key issues are suggested: integration of public transport with individual need and integration of the various modes of public transport.

3.4. As a macro framework for decision making, the COR welcomes the Green Paper on Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe and the opening of a debate on the future of public passenger transport. The COR shares the view that the following are key issues in the development of transport policy:

a) putting the citizen at the centre of transport planning,

b) making public transport more attractive to the consumer as a means of ensuring a better balance between the car and public transport,

c) system accessibility, affordability, safety/security, travel convenience and environmental impact forming the basis of the promotion of transport systems, and

d) system integration being a key ingredient.

3.5. The COR welcomes the Citizens' Network as an embryonic framework for EU decision-making in the development of all aspects of EU transport interventions across all Commission services. This should help provide a coordinated approach to EU transport policy. The fact that the Commission has taken a global approach to transport policy to guide its own areas of competence is also welcomed.

3.6. In order fully to safeguard the potential of IT development, the EU has an important role to play in preparing common standards for information systems and carriers of information, thus creating opportunities for easily accessible and user-friendly traffic information.

3.7. Whilst welcoming the opportunity to discuss common approaches to transport policy, the COR reaffirms the principle of subsidiarity in the implementation of transport planning and development. However, the opportunity to develop voluntary but common principals will ensure an effective transport system across the EU. Thus the COR confirms the principle of partnership between all levels of government to ensure a coherence to policy development. The principle of subsidiarity is compatible with the pursuit of common goals which can be agreed and implemented consistently by different levels of government.

3.8. The COR welcomes the recognition of the role to be played by spatial planning in achieving the overall goals of the Citizens' Network. For example, spatial planning policies could ensure mixed use of space in inner cities which reduces a reliance on long-distance commuting. This recognition of the need for coherence across all policy areas means that there must be a recognition that transport policy cannot be reviewed in isolation. Realistically, a coherence in transport policy is impossible without a coherence of policy objectives across all EU services. Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies of approach across the Commission. For example, under Objective II of the Structural Funds, public transport improvements are being discouraged as a means of regional development. The Committee of the Regions finds that large-scale road projects in themselves are not a source of new employment opportunities nowadays. However, the infrastructure that these projects create is of great importance for development and employment in the regions. Thus there is a need for a greater coherence across all EU services. The COR believes that this should be based on Article 130a of the Treaty (and the additional amendment proposed by the COR):

'In order to promote its overall harmonious development the Community shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of its economic and social cohesion.

In particular, the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions, including rural and urban areas.` (COR's proposed amendments in bold)

3.9. Furthermore, the COR advocates that, in future transport planning, particular attention be given to ensuring development in rural areas through the creation of new forms of public transport which can provide services to thinly populated areas in a competitive and flexible way.

3.10. The COR believes that even consistency of approach across Commission services is limited in effect as the implementation of transport policy is achieved at different levels of government. Regional and local authorities often need to consider the consistency of their transport and spatial planning policies as the provision of out-of-town shopping developments may result in increased car usage. Thus, consistency of approach across all levels of government could be a long-term target. In order to achieve partnership and a shared vision across all levels of government on macro policy, there needs to be a structured framework. The proposal for networks of users groups could be complemented by a similar voluntary transport implementors networks which brings together all levels of government (for example, operators, planners, executive bodies, etc.) to seek voluntary partnership and discussion on policy coherence across the EU and across all levels of implementation.

3.11. The COR welcomes the formation of networks of users groups as this allows for consumer voices to be heard. However, there needs to be a clear role for these users groups. Previous paragraphs have looked at the need for a coherent approach to policy development in all areas and at all levels. The principle of subsidiarity ensures that different levels of government are responsible for different action. This ensures a balance of power, but may also lead to a fragmentation of policy. Users groups networks with terms of reference to investigate inconsistencies in approach and to suggest practical solutions could be of great benefit to local and regional authorities, provided that any recommendations are not binding on those authorities but form part of voluntary guidance and provide recommendations for all levels of government: European, national, regional and local.

3.12. The COR is concerned that the Commission has separated push and pull factors in two Green Papers (both The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe and Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport: Policy options for internalizing the external costs of transport in the EU). This is considered a false division. The Green Papers are pursuing a coherence to transport policy. The solutions proposed in both Green Papers should be studied together. Regional and local administrations and user groups should be consulted on the various options.

4. The proposed activities of the European Commission in the development of the Citizens' Network

4.1. The Green Paper suggests that the Commission can help the development of a Citizens' Network through the following EU areas of legal competence: know-how (networking of good practice, forming users groups, looking at voluntary targets or awards, databases of good practice); research and development (helping to implement results of the Fourth Framework projects and research into the implications of new techniques and new ideas for the EU regulatory framework); Transnational European Networks (improving interconnection with urban and local systems, assessing new TEN proposals using citizens' checklist); regional policy (looking for better public/private cooperation in the funding of transport projects); EU regulatory framework (favouring liberalization with public service issues - concession tendering) and standardization (EU role in vehicle standards, including accessible transport, security, environmental issues, noise and air quality).

4.2. The Committee of the Regions believes that interconnection with local rural and urban systems should be considered in relation to the proposed regulation on the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport service (COM(95) 729), which would allow international coaches to pick up and set down passengers in the host Member State.

4.3. In the Green Paper, the Commission also identifies three general areas of interest: information, promotion and enabling.

4.4. The promotional and enabling areas of influence are particularly welcomed by the COR. This can be helpful to local and regional decision-makers in a number of ways. For example, it could provide a consensual framework for the implementation of local plans. For example, the provision of a better balance in city transport structure could be perceived as a threat to individual rights through a restriction on the use of the car. Thus local or regional decision-making could be very controversial. In fact, it is the local and regional decision-makers who would be in the forefront of any public criticism. Such criticism is likely to be intense even if the Citizens' Network approach to transport planning is followed, i.e. any restrictions of private transport (push factors) following increased investment in public transport (pull factors). However, an EU macro framework which has been accepted on a consensual basis by EU institutions and different levels of government could create a more conducive decision-making environment at a local level.

4.5. The EU has also identified ways in which it could play a role in the dissemination of local and regional best practice. Again, this EU role would be of great help to the local and regional decision-makers. Dissemination of information on best practice is also strongly supported in the following areas:

- exemplify public transport initiatives which have received popular public support;

- innovative public/private finance initiatives.

4.6. The COR welcomes the Quality Checklist as a voluntary common standard as a means of promoting good practice. However, the Quality Checklist should also include, as something to be taken into consideration in the design of stations, the existence not only of inter-modal platforms but also of interchanges for passengers using the same mode of transport (e.g. from urban to international bus). Connection between rural and outlying regions and national and international services should also be taken into consideration, whilst trying especially to make urban service networks and short distance inter-urban networks complementary. The COR endorses the experience of the Blue Flag Scheme for clean beaches which has enabled citizens to look to European benchmarks to judge the performance of local and regional authorities. However, the complexities of transport systems must be recognized and it is difficult to envisage common standards or benchmarks for urban, rural, mountainous and island areas. Therefore, the COR recommends that the proposed citizens transport awards should be categorized by geographical areas, with the possibility of awards and standards for urban, rural, mountainous and island areas.

4.7. The COR is concerned, however, that the recipients of awards will be long-established innovators in public transport. Given the long-term planning and investment which would be required to achieve such an award, some regions or localities which are working towards a better public transport system may be given no encouragement through the awards system. The Committee of the Regions suggests therefore that there are two grades of schemes to reward best practice and working towards best practice.

4.8. The COR also suggests that the checklist is accompanied on an annual basis by policy advice from the Commission on the implementation of the Citizens' Network. If common principles are agreed by national, regional and local government as a result of the consultation process, the Commission may wish to produce policy statements or guidelines which can advise national, regional and local implementors on areas of best practice.

4.9. The COR supports the Commission's initiative for improving the accessibility of urban transport for all users. Disabled people should be given equal access to public transport. This could be achieved through the establishing of certain new performance criteria by the EU. It is, however, not appropriate that the EU issues detailed regulations on the standards of function. Other needs in relation to this type of transport should, however, be taken into account, for example, a reduction in pollution including noise, and an increase in manoeuvrability. The Commission should look at the experience of local and regional administrations in this field when it draws up the planed directive on manufacturing standards for buses and coaches.

5. The role that can be played by the regions and localities in Europe to promote the Citizens' Network in partnership with the European Union

5.1. One of the problems of the Green Paper is that the European Union has insufficient power to implement its objectives. The COR would therefore like to see a greater partnership on policy objectives and agreed goals on implementation which recognize the various levels of competence across all forms of government. This can help ensure coherence to policy implementation across the EU.

5.2. The COR can offer support to the Commission to ensure an effective implementation of the ideas in the Green Paper. Yet, it must be recognized that this is a two-way process and the innovative work of local and regional authorities should be considered in the implementation of Commission policy (for example, in EU research and development). This section will look at these two issues.

5.3. In many regions and cities, the objectives and philosophy of the Citizens' Network are already being implemented. Local and regional authorities across the EU have responsibility for implementing transport initiatives. This should be explicitly recognized by the Commission. There is little point in the Citizens Network trying to encourage innovation in one region when such 'innovation` is custom and practice in another region. Thus the responsibilities and experience of local and regional authorities in the transport field are key to the success of the Citizens' Network. Indeed, there could be retrospective Citizens' awards for work already undertaken by local and regional government. For example:

- Berlin has the experience of reuniting the transport systems of a divided city. The western part of the city has previously been severed from all links with eastern Berlin and consequently, there were severe imbalances in the overall structure of the city. The separation had to be overcome as quickly as possible and the traffic network reunited.

- The City of Copenhagen has developed an innovative traffic management system with strong parking restrictions, bus priorities and continuous investment in bicycle facilities. Through this city-wide work, it has been possible to develop a public transport system where one-third of traffic to the city is by bicycle, one-third by public transport and only one-third by private car.

- In the mountainous region of the Tyrol, 80 % of the population live on 4.3 % of the total area. Thus most traffic routes are located in the areas shared with farms and populated areas. Extensive use of private transport in this limited area has led to high nitrogen oxide levels and deforestation. In the 1990s, the regional government has been devising various ways of influencing the distribution of traffic to ensure a greater balance between private and public transport. For example, additional rail capacities which seek to reduce the level of traffic.

- The Madrid-Region is undertaking extensive work on the development of a safety policy for its public transport renewal.

5.4. These examples, by no means exclusive, show the importance of local and regional authorities in the implementation of a Citizens' strategy. This report has suggested ways in which the Citizens' Network could be advanced: an Implementors Group, annual advice and geographical division of awards. Local and regional authorities' importance in the delivery of transport services would mean that:

- any best practice advice by the Commission would have to be based on a partnership arrangement with local and regional authorities. This issue is of crucial importance for the development of the Citizens' Network. The example of good practice presented in this report and in the Green Paper itself show that the work to implement the Citizens' Network has often already been undertaken at a local and regional level. Thus the key issue is the dissemination of information in a structured and coherent manner;

- award criteria would have to be reviewed annually in collaboration with local and regional authorities, as the daily provision of transport services at a local level means that innovation and best practice is being continually redefined;

- any Implementors Group would have to be primarily based on the experience of local and regional authorities to identify common solutions and problems.

5.5. In the Green Paper it is pointed out that public transport should be developed in cooperation between the authorities on different levels. In order to obtain public transport that is coordinated and adapted to customer needs, the roles and division of responsibilities need to be clear. The role of the EU should be to support and stimulate the development projects and to emphasize good practice. Issuing detailed regulations is, however, not a task for the EU.

5.6. Local and regional authorities will also have to be recognized by the Commission as initiators in the field of transport and as able to influence the development of research and development programmes. The development of the Fifth RTD Programme should be based upon an assessment of the ongoing research and development of local and regional authorities. EU competence in this area should be value added to the wealth of experience at a local level. Although it is the intention of the Commission to consult the COR on its research programme, the Commission's initial proposals themselves should also be partially based on an examination of the research and development already undertaken at a local level. This would ensure a recognition of the role of localities and regions in this area and ensure no duplication of effort.

6. The implications for urban areas

(This section of the report has been included and produced by the Commission on Urban Affairs [Commission IV.)]

6.1. Transport policy measures should be implemented on a broad front and basis. No significant progress can be made if the various measures promoting the use of public transport are only applied selectively. Even major selective efforts will not be as costeffective as a comprehensive approach.

6.2. Investing in the development of public transport is particularly worthwhile given the external benefits that result. However, the benefits are only generated in the long run and therefore projects always require a substantial financial input. A closer examination needs to be made of ways of creating the financial prerequisites for implementing projects in the public transport sector.

6.3. The Green Paper's treatment of 'push` measures is too superficial, as real reforms and changes in behaviour cannot be achieved without addressing the use of private cars in cities. Public transport can never compete with the private car in terms of frequency and flexibility, and often the private care is faster than public transport. For this reason a properly functioning transport system, especially in larger cities, is inconceivable without limitation on the use of the car and the promotion of public transport.

6.4. The provision of public transport services can, and should, be made more efficient, whilst ensuring that the quality of the service is guaranteed. In many countries there is scope for improving the efficiency of publicly-owned public transport bodies, but improving their efficiency can be difficult due to historical constraints. On the other hand, democratically-elected bodies should have the power of decision as regards routes, supply and fares. Matters relating to planning, organization and insurance of adequate transport services should remain in the hands of democratically-elected bodies. In order to ensure that the diversity of national and regional concepts are taken into account, it should remain possible that key sectors within the provision of services (such as operational planning and fare-setting for passenger public transport) should come under the responsibility of private operators within the framework of existing European and national laws. Tendering could enable running costs to be cut but not to the extent that public transport can be financed from ticket sales alone. Consequently, subsidies are still necessary if public transport is to remain competitive with the private car, since motorists tend to underestimate the fixed costs of their running costs and take decisions on individual journeys on the basis of their immediate out of pocket cost.

6.5. In its Green Paper, 'Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport` (COM(95) 691 final), the Commission discusses the various policy options for internalizing the external cost of transport in prices. However, no specific proposals are made for reducing the congestion and pollution generated by urban transport.

6.6. The Trans-European Networks (TENs) will not function effectively if they do not have good links with each other via local transport systems. Airports and harbours should also be integrated into local networks. In establishing priorities for TENs, consistency with the Green Paper on the citizens' network should be a major criterion. At the same time, consideration should be given to EU funding for key projects within local public transport systems which provide vital links with the TENs. The importance of traffic networks is not based on the construction of the network itself, but the creation of an infrastructure that later facilitates new employment opportunities and regional development.

6.7. Priorities should also be established for measures which help develop public transport. Limited resources must be assigned through an evaluation based on several criteria, including not only economic considerations but also criteria concerning social advantages, that reflect the objectives mentioned in Article 130a of the Treaty (see par. 3.8). In that case, of course, the measures should focus on areas where there is most traffic.

6.8. The development of telematics is important but cannot replace the extension of transport systems. One particular application which the EU should examine is the automatic levying of charges on private cars at congestion points in urban areas.

6.9. It is important for the development of new solutions to test them in practice. The EU should therefore launch extensive transport experiments designed to test different combinations of measures and their effects. The EU should itself fund measures aimed at encouraging cities to embark on new projects, including those which involve risks. A well coordinated data bank containing information on the projects and their effects should be established.

6.10. An urban transport system based predominately on public transport places fewer demands on space and reduces pollution. The inclusion of these external factors in the internal costs of transport means that not all costs need to be covered by revenue from ticket sales. Rather it is in the interest of society to partly subsidize this form of transport. Indeed, it is important that the EU look closely into developing new forms of financing for public transport.

7. Additional issues

7.1. The COR asks the Commission to consider the following additional issues:

a) the provision of infrastructure adapted to the specific problems of rural zones and sparse populations to make waiting for buses more comfortable and to facilitate the connections between various services and stimulate their use;

b) encourage transport service providers to grow to the optimal size and from small linear units to larger zonal units to the extent that they may better guarantee a high level of safety and satisfaction for the user;

c) find new formulas to resolve the serious problems of lack of information on available transport in the zones concerned, in order to facilitate the substitution of the private car with public transport. Such formulas should include the creation of databases of public services which would facilitate the updating of information and provide easy access for the citizen;

d) consider improving rail networks in trans-frontier regions where, because of their peripheral situation, the railway does not fulfil the expectations of the potential of the region.

8. Conclusions

8.1. This Opinion has set out the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Transport Commissioner's Green Paper on The Citizens' Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe:

a) it welcomes the Green Paper as an overall framework for the development of EU transport policy;

b) it advocates the principle of subsidiarity and partnership between all levels of government to ensure implementation and highlights the crucial role to be played by local and regional authorities in the development of the network;

c) it highlights local and regional authorities important work to date in developing a Citizens' Network and calls for the EU to support exchanges of experience in the area of inter-regional, transnational and cross-border cooperation;

d) it calls for coherence across all EU policy areas based on Article 130a of the Treaty;

e) it welcomes the formation of networks of users and groups and suggests complementary networks of Implementors Groups and states that the role of the EU should be to support and stimulate the development of public transport and not to issue binding detailed regulations;

f) it calls for the joint consideration with the Green Paper in pricing;

g) it welcomes the proposed awards system, but suggests awards based on regional characteristics and stages of implementation;

h) it calls for annual advice on the Citizens' Network;

i) it advocates that innovation by local and regional authorities is considered by the Commission to ensure there is no duplication in the operation of EU policies.

Conclusions for Urban Commission contribution (Section 6)

j) it proposes that push and pull should be considered together to help minimize traffic in cities;

k) it calls for sufficient planning, organization and guarantees of transport services to remain in the hands of democratically-elected bodies in order to take into account the diversity of national and regional concepts, and for key sectors within the provision of services (such as planning-supply and fare-setting) to come under the responsibility of private operators within the framework of existing EU and national laws;

l) it calls for the integration of TENs with local, national and international transport networks as a precondition of construction;

m) it proposes that telematics be considered as a means of enhancing traffic solutions;

n) it calls for a series of new pilot projects to test new transport policies and for an examination of new forms of financing public transport.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA