No C 191/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
lution and its level of concentration. This would assist 
the CSFR in the difficult taks of implementing the initial 
measures under the Convention. 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The proposal for a Council Decision concerning 
the development of a European high-speed train net­
work is based essentially, but not solely, on another 
draft Decision on the establishing of a European high­
speed train network [Doc. COM(89) 564 final—OJ No 
C 34, 14. 2. 1990]. 
1.2. The ESC adopted an Opinion on the latter by 
a substantial majority at its plenary session of 4 July 
1990 (2). While endorsing the Commission proposal in 
principle, the ESC Opinion nonetheless pointed out 
some key priorities in the rail sector as a whole: 
— the need to prepare European rail infrastructure for 
the needs of the next century, without, however, 3.5. The experience gained in this field should, in 
the Committee's view, also prove beneficial in connec­
tion with the planned establishment of the European 
Environment Agency. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
neglecting gradual modernization and extension of 
conventional infrastructure, 
— the environmental advantages inherent in railways 
should not be underestimated when high-speed lines 
are being built, 
— the need to reduce noise nuisance and impact on 
the environment to a minimum, 
— the need to take account of the total time required 
for journeys and connecting services, 
— compatibility of infrastructure technology, equip­
ment and the transmission of data during journeys. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the establishing of a network of 
high-speed trains (*) 
(91/C 191/10) 
On 22 February 1991 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 Opnion on 8 May 1991. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Bleser. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
(J) OJ No C 51, 27. 2. 1991, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No C 225, 10. 9. 1990. 1.3. The Council of Transport Ministers, at its meet­
ing of 17 and 18 December 1990, adopted a resolution 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/23 
which took up the points made by the ESC in its 
Opinion, but took no decision on the matter. 
2. General comments 
2.1. At its meeting on 4 and 5 December 1989, the 
Council appropriately adopted a Resolution on the 
framing of a master plan specifying the priority projects 
to be undertaken and the measures needed to ensure 
technical and infrastructure compatibility between the 
parts of the network. 
2.2. A high-level working party was set up, including 
representatives of the national administrations, the 
Community of European Railways and the major 
manufacturers of railway equipment; its work proved 
effective and productive. 
It is important for intensive consultation to take place 
within and between the Member States before each step 
is taken. 
Without seeking to deny the technical, political and 
environmental nature of the subject, the Committee 
notes that neither the two sides of industry nor the 
consumers were consulted at that stage. 
2.3. The Council Resolution of 17 December 1990 
on the development of a European network of high­
speed trains (OJ No C 33, 8. 2. 1991) constitutes a 
similar approach to that of the draft Council Decision 
referred for the Economic and Social Committee's opin­
ion, while raising additional questions. 
2.4. The Committee notes a certain parallelism in 
this work, leading to a lack of clarity which certainly 
makes the Committee's deliberations on the matter no 
easier. 
2.5. Moreover, the Committee notes with regret that 
some Member States have not yet finally decided on 
the main routes for high-speed railway lines crossing 
their territory. This could put at risk the very aims 
of the master plan for the European high-speed train 
network envisaged by the Council. 
2.6. The draft Decision mentions an appropriate 
framework for priority actions and for the establish­
ment of key links: this framework needs to be defined. 
Will it be at Community level or will it be the sole 
prerogative of the Member States? Great attention must 
be given to the Member States' transport policies, in 
order to make them compatible with the Council 
Decision. To optimize the establishment of key links, the Commission should have the requisite resources to 
control and finance their implementation. 
2.7. In the United Nations context, the Internal 
Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for 
Europe is also discussing high-speed train projects. Both 
the project of Trans-European Rail (TER) and the AGC 
(European Agreement on Main International Railway 
Lines) network are on the agenda. The International 
Union of Railways (IUR) gives its support to any steps 
taken and technical studies carried out. 
The Commission should therefore ensure coordinated 
planning of the European railway network. Existing 
liaison with bodies and institutions should be placed 
on an even more operational footing. 
3. The master plan and its implications 
The Committee regrets that the draft Decision remains 
too vague with regard to many problems; proper sol­
utions must be found in order to act as an effective 
catalyst for the development of high-speed trains. 
This view is confirmed by the Commission's invitations 
to tender for studies on the socio-economic and environ­
mental impact (OJ No C 89, 6. 4. 1991). 
It is aware that the development of high-speed rail links 
will have an impact on other modes of transport, with 
substantial spin-off in terms of coordinated action. 
3.1. Interpretation of the term 'master plan' 
The Committee feels that, at the present stage, this 
term runs the risk of being interpreted differently from 
one country to another. For some a 'plan' is an indica­
tive, evolutionary concept which does not involve much 
commitment, whereas for others it serves to provide 
guidance or for finalizing planning. 
Nonetheless, it thinks that, once the Council has taken 
the decision, both the master plan and the 'key links' 
should be given more binding force. 
3.2. Clarificatio n ofthe term''p rio rity actio ns' 
Will priority be given to studies, plans, long-term plan­
ning and decisions on financing, or only to certain key 
links? 
The Committee takes the view that the type of project 
to be given priority must be decided for each key link. 
No C 191/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
3.3. Examination of the 'corridors' 
The work of the high-level working party identified 
fourteen important 'corridors' of the European high­
speed network. Existing and potential developments of 
all the lines making up these 'corridors' have been 
examined in detail. But not all these lines have been 
included in the master plan. 
The Committee takes the view that the work carried 
out in examining the corridors could serve as a useful 
basis to clarify questions relating to the access of Euro­
pean regions to the main future high-speed rail routes. 
3.4. Standardization of the quality of services and fares 
throughout the network 
The setting-up of the European network should make 
it possible to ensure a balanced inter-regional service for 
the Community under similar fare conditions. Gradual 
harmonization of the fare structure will then be called 
for. 
3.5. Harmonization of legislative, administrative and 
other provisions relating to the planning of pro­
jects 
3.5.1. The time-scale necessary for the implemen­
tation of a high-speed rail link project varies consider­
ably from one Member State to another. 
3.5.2. Coordinated land use planning should take 
place in parallel, on a European scale. 
3.5.3. The commercial assessment of the project 
must take external costs into account. However, the 
impact of the new infrastructure on town and country 
planning is imperfectly understood by regional or local 
authorities. 
3.5.4. The Committee advocates harmonization of 
safety and other procedures, whilst respecting the spec­
ific needs of each country. 
4. Financial aid instrument 
4.1. As the Committee has already pointed out in its 
earlier Opinion (OJ No C 225,10. 9. 1990) the financing 
raises exceptionally serious difficulties. Cost estimates 
are indispensable. 
Moreover, in its Resolution of 17 December 1990, the 
Council asks the Commission to carry out more detailed 
economic studies, to encompass the commercial aspects 
of the key links and other difficult parts of the network, 
and the problem of their financing. 4.2. Financial aid, above all for regional projects, 
requires Community-level coordination. The costs 
should be redistributed to place less strain on disadvan­
taged regions. 
4.3. The Committee wonders which financial instru­
ments are to be deployed to guarantee the support 
needed to establish the key links—which cannot be 
justified solely on grounds of financial viability. 
5. Operation 
5.1. The Committee is pleased to note that the high-
level working party is discussing the technical compati­
bility of the high-speed train system and ergonomic 
problems relating to the rolling stock on the European 
network. 
5.2. Dialogue between and with the two sides of 
industry is essential for achieving optimal standardiz­
ation on ergonomic and organizational questions. 
6. The EC railway industries 
6.1. Inadequate technical harmonization is a serious 
handicap to the EC railway industries. In line with 
Article 3 of the proposal, the Committee takes the view 
that the establishment of an integrated European high­
speed train network should be an excellent opportunity 
for aligning the railway systems and technologies used 
and for attempts at closer cooperation between the 
manufacturers concerned. 
7. Conclusions 
7.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
current efforts to set up a properly integrated network 
of high-speed trains on a Community or even a conti­
nental scale. 
7.2. The Committee nonetheless feels that, in view 
of the problems set out above, and the Council Resol­
ution of 17 December 1990, the principles and criteria 
should be enshrined in a Community framework instru­
ment. 
At all events, the proliferation of decisions and resol­
utions is not conducive to ascertaining what the precise 
objective is. 
7.3. As coordination work proceeds, a set of specific 
directives would gradually take effect. 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/25 
8. Specific comments 
Article 1 
8.1. In the light of the above, the Committee notes 
that speed, although an essential factor, is insufficient 
as the sole criterion. With reference to the draft Council 
Decision on the establishing of a European high-speed 
train network (OJ No C 34,14. 2. 1990), the Committee 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
1. General comments 
1.1. It is quite natural that the Commission should 
be proposing a European system for observing the 
inland goods transport markets. In the Dutch text, 
however, it would be better to use the term 'inland-
goederenvervoer' rather than 'over-land-goederenver-
voer' as the proposed system covers transport by inland 
waterway as well as road and rail. recommends that the speeds indicated be coordinated 
with the present proposal. 
Article 2 
8.2. In its future work, the Commission's deliber­
ations should not focus only on the key links, but 
encompass all the constituent parts of the corridors 
examined. 
8.3. The content and aims of 'priority actions' should 
be defined. 
The Chairman . 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
In discussing the crisis mechanism the Economic and 
Social Committee pressed for a market observation 
system (MOS). Now that the Council of Ministers has 
adopted the crisis mechanism (December 1990), the task 
at hand is to get the MOS off the ground as quickly as 
possible. 
1.2. The proposal is very general. This raises the 
question as to whether the Commission will be spelling 
out in more detail the data it wishes to receive. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision for the European system for observing the 
inland goods transport markets (!) 
(91/C 191/11) 
On 23 January 1991, 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 Tranport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 May 1991. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Tukker. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
(!) OJ No C 29, 5. 2. 1991, p. 8. The ESC urges the Commission to involve the statistical 
offices of the Member States when compiling data in 
order to avoid problems and duplication of work.