-.., 
, 
• COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 12.9.2001 
COM(2001) 370 final 
WIDTEPAPER 
European transport policy for 2010: time to decide 
WHITE PAPER 
European transport policy for 2010: time to decide 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE WHITE PAPER ................................................................ 6 
PART ONE: SHIFTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN MODES OF TRANSPORT ............ 20 
I. REGULATED COMPETITION ............................................................................. 21 
A. Improving quality in the road sector ....................................................................... 22 
1. A restructuring to be organised .......................................................................................... 22 
2. Regulations to be introduced ............................................................................................ 24 
3. Tightening up controls and penalties ................................................................................ 24 
B. Revitalising the railways ......................................................................................... 25 
1. Integrating rail transport into the internal market ................................................ -.............. 26 
2. Making optimum use of the infrastructure ........................................................................ 31 
3. Modernisation of services ................................................................................................. 33 
C. Controlling the growth in air transport .................................................................... 34 
1. Tack.ling saturation of the skies ........................................................................................ 35 
2. Rethinking airport capacity and use .................................................................................. 37 
3. Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment ........................... 39 
4. Maintaining safety standards ............................................................................................ 40 
II. LINKING UP THE MODES OF TRANSPORT ..................................................... 40 
A. Linking up sea, inland waterways and rail... ............................................................ 41 
1. Developing "motorways of the sea" .................................................................................. 42 
2. Offering innovative services ........................................................................ _ ..................... 44 
B. Helping to start up intermodal services: the new Marco Polo programme ............... 46 
C. Creating favourable technical conditions ............................ : ................................... 4 7 
1. Encouraging the emergence of freight integrators ............................................................. 4 7 
2. Standardising containers and swap bodies .......................................................... : ............. 48 
PART TWO: ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS ................................................................. 49 
I. UNBLOCKING THE MAJOR ROUTES ............................................................... 51 
A. Towards multimodal corridors giving priority to freight ......................................... 51 
2 
B. -A high-speed passenger network ............................................................................ 52 
C. Improving traffic conditions ................................................................................... 54 
D. Major infrastructure projects .......................................................... ." ........................ 54 
1. Completing the Alpine routes ........................................................................................... 54 
2. Easier passage through the Pyrenees ................................................................................. 55 
3. Launching new priority projects .......... ; ............................................................................ 56 
4. Improving safety in tunnels ................................ : ............................................................. 57 . 
II. TIIE IIEADACIIE OF FuNDING ......................................................................... 58 
A. Limited public budgets ........................................................................................... 58 
B. Reassuring private investors ................................................................................... 59 
C. An innovative approach: pooling of funds .............................................................. 60 
PART THREE: PLACING USERS AT TIIE HEART OF TRANSPORT POLICY ............. 64 
I. UNSAFE ROADS .................................................................................................. 64 
A. Death on a daily basis: 40 000 f~talities a year ........................................................ 65 
B. Halving the number of deaths ......................... _ ........................................................ 66 
1. Harmonisation of penalties ............................................ .-.......................................... ~ ....... 66 
2. N~w technologies for improved road safety ...................................................... : ............... 69 
II. THE FACTS BEHIND THE COSTS TO THE USER ............................................ 71 
A. Towards gradual charging for the use of infrastructure ........................................... 72 
1. A price structure that reflects the costs to the co~unity ................................................. 73 
2. A profusion of regulations······························~································································· 75 
3. Need for a Community framework .............................................................. .-.................... 76 
B. The need to harmonise fuel taxes····························-~·-·~·········································· 78 
Ill. TRANSPORT WITH A HUMAN FACE .......................... ." .................................... 80 
A. Intermodality for people·············································································~··········· 80 
1. Integrated ticketing ............................................................ : .............................................. 80 
2. Baggage handling ........................................................ _ ..................................................... 80 
3. Continuity of journeys ....................... ~·············································································· 81 
B. Rights and obligations of users ............................................................................... 82 
1. User rights ...... _. ...................................... : .......................................................................... 82 . . 
2. User obligations ................................................................................................................ 83 
3 
• 
• 3. A high-quality public service ................................................................................. ~ .......... 83 
IV. RATIONALISING URBAN TRANSPORT ........................................................... 85 
A. Diversified energy for transport .............................................................................. 86 
1. Establishing a new regulatory framework for substitute fuels ........................................... 86 
2. Stimulating demand by experimentation ........................................................................... 87 
B. Promoting good practice .................. : ...................................................................... 88 
PART FOUR: MANAGING THE GLOBALISATION OF TRANSPORT .......................... 90 
I. ENLARGEMENT CHANGES THE NAME OF THE GAME ................................ 90 
A. The infrastructure challenge ................................................................................... 91 
B. The opportunity offered by a well developed rail network ...................................... 92 
C. A new dimension for shipping safety·········..:······················· .. ··································· 93 
II. THE ENLARGED EUROPE MUST BE MORE ASSERTIVE ON THE WORLD 
STAGE .................................................................................................................. 96 
A. A single voice for the European Union in international bodies .. : ............................. 96 
B. The urgent need for an external dimension to air transport ...................................... 98 
C. Galileo: the key need for a global programme ......................................................... 99 
CONCLUSIONS: TIME TO DECIDE ............................................................................... 101 
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 103 
I. ANNEX I: ACTION PROGRAMME ................................................................... 104 
II. ANNEX II: INDICATORS AND QUANTITATIVE ILLUSTRATIONS ............. 110 
III. ANNEX III: PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE :MEl\IBER ST ATES AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND BEING EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSION 
FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF "SPECIFIC" PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 116 
IV. ANNEX IV: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOP1'IBNTS AND INTELLIGENT 
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ............................................ : ....................................... 118 
4 
Table 1 
Table 2 
Table 3 
Fig. 1 
Fig. 2 
°Fig. 3 
Fig. 4 
Fig. 5 
Fig. 6 Permitted speed limits and blood alcohol levels in EU countries 
External and infrastructure costs (euros) of a heavy goods vehicle 
travelling 100 km on a motorway with little traffic 
Costs and charges ( euros) for a heavy goods vehicle travelling 100 km 
on a toll motorway with little traffic 
Passenger transport: performance by mode of transport (1970-1999) 
Goods transport: performance by mode of transport ( 1970-1999) 
Container carrier~ and convoys 
· A VE traffic 
Reduction in road pollution as a result of Auto-Oil Directives 
International road haulage: cost/km ( 1998) 
List of maps 
Map of the main rail electrification systems in Europe 
Map of the trans-European rail freight network 
Map of Europe's main industrial ports 
Map of the inland waterway network in Europe 
Map _of "specific" projects adopted in 1996 ("Essen" list) 
Map of potential "specific" projects 
5 68 
• 
73 
• 
74 
20 
21 
44 
53 
86 
93 
30 
33 
42 
43 
57 
57 
• 
POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE WHITE PAPER 
Transport is a key factor in modem economies. But there is a permanent contradiction 
between society, which demands ever more mobility, and public opinion, which is becoming 
increasingly intolerant of chronic delays and the poor quality of some transport services. As 
demand for transport keeps increasing, the Community's answer cannot be just to build new 
infrastructure and open up markets. The transport system needs to be optimised to meet the 
demands of enlargement and sustainabfo development, as set out in the conclusions of the 
Gothenburg European Council. A 'modem transport system must be sustainable from an 
economic and social as well as an environmental viewpoint. 
Plans for the future of the transport sector must take account of its economic importance. 
Total expenditure runs to some 1 000 billion euros, which is more than 10% of gross domestic 
product. The sector employs more than ten million people. It involves infrastructure and 
technologies whose cost to society is such that there must be no errors of judgment. Indeed, it 
is because of the scale of investment in transport and its determining role in economic growth 
that the authors of the Treaty of Rome made provision for a common transport policy with its 
own specific rules. 
I. The mixed performance of the common transport policy 
For a long time, the European Community was unable, or unwilling, to implement the 
common transport policy provided for by the Treaty of Rome. For nearly 30 years the Council 
of Ministers was unable to translate the Commission's proposals into action. It was only in 
1985, when the Court of Justice ruled that the Council had failed to act, that the Member 
States had to accept that the Community could legislate. 
Later on, the Treaty of Maastricht reinforced the political, institutional and budgetary 
foundations for transport policy. On the one hand, unanimity was replaced, in principle, by 
qualified majority, even though in practice Council decisions still tend to be unanimous. The 
European Parliament, as a result of its powers under the co-decision procedure, is also an 
essential link in the decision-making process, as was shown in December 2000 by its historic 
decision to open up the rail freight market completely in 2008. Moreover, the Maastricht 
Treaty included the concept of the trans-European network, which made it possible to come 
up with a plan for transport infrastructure at European level with the help of ~ommunity 
funding. 
Thus the Commission's first \Vhite Paper on the future development of the common transport 
policy was published in December 1992. The guiding principle of the document was the 
opening-up of the transport market. Over the last ten years or so, this objective has been 
generally achieved, except in the rail sector. Nowadays, lorries are no longer forced to return 
empty from international deliveries. They can even pick up and deliver loads within a 
Member State other than their country of origin. Road cabotage has become a reality. Air 
transport has been opened up to competition which no-one now questions, particularly as our 
safety levels are now the best in the world. This opening-up has primarily benefited the 
industry and that is why, within Europe, growth in air traffic has been faster than growth of 
the economy. 
The first real advance in common transport policy brought a significant drop in consumer 
prices, combined with a higher quality of service and a wider range of choices, .thus actually 
changing the lifestyles and consumption habits of European citizens. Personal mobility, which 
6 
increased from 17 km a day in 1970 to 35 km in 1998, is now more or less seen as an acquired 
right. 
The second advance of this policy, apart from the results of research framework programmes, . 
. was to develop the most modem techniques within a European framework of interoperability. 
Projects launched at the end of the 1980s are now bearing fruit, as symbolised by the trans­
European high-speed rail network and the Galileo satell_ite navigation programme. However, 
it is a matter for regret that modem techniques and infrastructure have not always been 
matched by modernisation of company management, particularly rail companies. 
Despite the successful opening-up of the transport market over the last ten years, the fact 
remains that completion of the internal market makes it difficult to accept distortions of 
competition resulting from lack of fiscal and social harmonisation. The fact that there has 
been no harmonious development of the common transport policy is the reason for current 
headaches such as: 
unequal growth in the different modes of transport. While this reflects the fact that some 
modes have adapted better to the needs of a modem economy, it is also a sign that not all 
external costs have been included in the price of transport and certain social and safety 
regulations have not been respected, notably in road transport. Consequently, road now 
makes up 44% of the goods transport market compared with 41 % for short sea shipping,-
8% for rail and 4% for inland waterways. The predominance of road is even more marked 
in passenger transport, road accounting for 79% of the market, while air with 5% is about 
to overtake railways, which have reached a ceiling of 6%; 
congestion on the main road and rail routes, in towns, and at airports; 
-harmful effects on the environment and public health, and of course the heavy toll of road 
accidents. 
II. Congestion: the effect of imbalance ·between modes 
During the 1990s, Europe began to suffer from congestion in certain areas and on certain 
routes . .The problem is now beginning to threaten economic competitiveness. Paradoxically, 
congestion in the centre goes hand in hand with ·excessive isolation of the outlying regions, 
where there is a real need to improve ·links with central markets so as to ensure regional 
cohesion within the EU. To paraphrase a famous saying on centralisation, it could be said that 
the European Union is threatened with apoplexy at the centre and paralysis at the extremities. 
This was the serious warning made in the 1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and 
Employment: "Traffic jams are not only exasperating, they also cost Europe dear in terms of 
productivity. Bottlenecks and missing links in the infrastructure fabric; lack of interoperability 
between modes and systems. Networks are the arteries of the single market. They are the life . 
blood of competitiveness, and their malfunction is reflected in lost opportunities to create new 
markets and hence in a level of job creation that falls short of our potential." 
If most of the congestion affects urban areas, the trans-European transport network itself 
suffers increasingly from chronic congestion: some 7 500 km, i.e. 10% of the road network, is 
affected daily by traffic jams. And 16 000 km of railways, 20% of the network, are classed as 
bottlenecks. Sixteen of the Union's main airports recorded delays of more than a quarter of an 
hour on more than 30% of their· flights. Altogether these delays result in consumption of an 
extra 1.9 billion litres of fuel, which is some 6% of annual consumption. 
7 
• 
• Because of congestion, there is a serious risk that Europe will lose economic competitiveness. 
The most recent study on the subject showed that the external costs of road traffic congestion 
alone amount to 0.5% of Community GDP. Traffic forecasts for the next ten years show that, 
if nothing is done, road congestion will increase significantly by 2010. The costs attributable 
to congestion will also increase by 142% to reach 80 billion euros a year, which is 
approximately 1 % of Community GDP. 
Part of the reason for this situation is that transport users do not always cover the costs they 
generate. Indeed, the price structure generally fails to reflect all the costs of infrastructure, 
congestion, environmental damage and accidents. This is also the result of the poor 
organisation of Europe's transport system and failure to make optimum use of means of 
transport and n~w.technologies. 
Saturation on some major routes is partly the result of delays in completing trans-European 
network infrastructure. On the other hand, in outlying areas and enclaves where there is too 
little traffic to make new infrastructure viable, delay in providing infrastructure means that 
thes·e regions cannot be properly linked in. The 1994 Essen European Council identified a 
number of major priority projects which were subsequently incorporated into outline plans 
adopted by the Parliament and the Council, which provide a basis for EU co-financing of the 
trans-European transport network. The total cost was estimated at around 400 billion euros at 
the time. This method of building up the trans-European network, as introduced by the 
Maastricht Treaty, has yet to yield all its fruits. Only a fifth of the .infrastructure projects in 
the Community guidelines adopted by the Council and Parliament have so far been carried 
out. Some major projects have now been completed, such as Spata airport, the high-speed 
train from Brussels to Marseille and the 0resund bridge-tunnel linking Denmark and Sweden. 
But in far too many cases, the national sections of networks are merely juxtaposed, meaning 
that they can only be made trans-European in the medium term. With enlargement, there is 
also the matter of connection with the priority infrastructure identified in the candidate 
countries ("corridors"), the cost of which was estimated at nearly 100 billion euros in Agenda 
2000. 
It has not been possible to meet these significant investment requirements by borrowing at 
Community level, as the Commission proposed iri 1993. The lack of public and private capital 
needs to be overcome by innovative policies on infrastructure charging/funding. Public 
funding must be more selective and focus on the major projects necessary for improving the 
territorial cohesion of the Union as well as concentrating on investment which optimises 
infrastructure capacity and helps remove bottlenecks. 
However, in this connection, and disregarding the funds earmarked for the trans-European 
network which are limited to around 500 million euros a year and have always given clear 
priority to the railways, it is clear that more than half the structural expenditure on transport 
infrastructure, including the cohesion fund and loans from the European Investment Bank, 
have, at the request of Member States, favoured road over rail. It has to be said, nonetheless, 
that motorway density in countries such as Greece and Ireland was still far below the 
Community average in 1998. In the new context of sustainable development, Community co­
financing should be redirected to give priority to rail, sea and inland waterway transport. 
III . Growth in transport in an enlarged European Union 
It is difficult to conceive of vigorous economic growth which can create jobs and w.ealth 
without an efficient transport system that allows full advantage to be taken of the internal 
market. and globalised trade. Even though, at the beginning of the 21st century, we are 
entering the age of the information society and virtual trade, this has done nothing to slow 
down the need for travel; indeed, the opposite is true. Thanks to the Internet anyone can now 
communicate with anyone else and order goods from a long ~ay away, while still enjoying 
the option of visiting other places and going to see. and choose products or meet people. But 
information technologies also provide proof that they can sometimes help reduce the demand 
for physical transport by facilitating teleworking. or teleservices. 
There are two key factors behind the continued growth in demand for transport. For passenger 
transport, the determining factor is the spectacular growth in car use. The number ·of cars has 
tripled in the last 30 years, at an increase of 3 million cars each year. Although the level of car 
ownership is likely to stabilise in most countries of the European Union, this will not be the 
case in the candidate countries, where car ownershlp is seen as a symbol of freedom. By the 
year 2010, the enlarged Union will see its car fleet increase substantially. -
As far as goods transport is concerned, growth is due to a large extent to changes in the 
European economy and its system of production. In the last twenty years, we hav~ moved 
from a "stock" economy to a "flow" economy. This phenomenon has been emphasised by the 
relocation of some industries -particularly for goods with a high labour input -which are 
trying to reduce production costs, even though the production site is hundreds or even 
thousands of kilometres away from the final assembly plant or away from users. The abolition 
of frontiers within the Community has resulted in the establishment of a ')ust-in-time" or 
"revolving stock" production system. · 
So unless major new measures are taken by 2010 in the European Union so that the fifteen 
can use the advantages of each mode of transport more rationally, heavy goods vehicle traffic 
alone will increase by nearly 50% over its 1998 level. This means that regions and main 
through routes which are already heavily congested will have to handle even more traffic. The 
strong economic growth expected in the candidate countries, and better links with outlying 
regions, will also increase transport flows, in particular road haulage traffic. In 1998" the 
candidate countries already exported more than twice their 1990 volumes and imported more 
than five times their 1990 volumes. 
Although, from their planned economy days, the candidate countries have inherited a 
transport system which encourages rail, the distribution between modes has tipped sharply in 
favour of road transport since the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1998, road haulage increased by 
19.4% while during the same ·period rail haulage decreased by 43.5%~ although -and this 
could benefit the enlarged European Union -it is still on average at a much higher level than 
in the present Community. 
To take drastic action to shift the balance between modes -even if it were possible -could 
very well destabilise the whole transport system and have negative repercussions on the 
economies of candidate countries. Integrating the transport systems of these countries will be 
a huge challenge to which the measures proposed have to provide an answer. 
IV. The need for integration of transport in sustainable development 
Together with enlargement, a new imperative -sustainable development -offers an 
opportunity, not to say lever, for adapting the common transport policy. This objective, as 
9 
• 
• introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, has to be achieved by integrating environmental 
considerations into Community policies.1 
The Gothenburg European Council placed shifting the balance between modes of transport at 
the heart of the sustainable development strategy. This ambitious objective can obviously 
only be fully achieved over the next ten years. The measures presented in the White Paper are 
nonetheless a first essential step towards a sustainable transport system that will ideally be in 
place in 30 years' time. 
As stated in the Commission's November 2000 Green Paper on security of supply, in 1998 
energy consumption in the transport sector was to blame for 28% of emissions of C02, the 
leading greenhouse g~s. According to the latest estimates, if nothing is done to reverse the · 
traffic growth trend, C02 emissions from transport can be expected to increase by around 50% 
to reach 1 113 billion tonnes in 2010, compared with the 739 million tonnes recorded in 1990. 
Once again, road transport is the main culprit since it alone accounts for 84% of the C02 
emissions attributable to transport. However, internal combustion engines are notorious for 
their low energy efficiency, mainly because only part of the combustion power serves to 
move the vehicle. 
Reducing dependence on oil from the current level of 98%, by using alternative fuels and 
improving the energy efficiency of modes of transport, is both an ecological necessity. and a 
technological challenge. 
In this context, efforts already made, particularly in the road sector, to preserve air quality and 
combat noise have to be continued in order to meet the needs of the environment and the 
concerns of the people without compromising the competitiveness of the transport system and 
of the economy. Enlargement will have a considerable impact on demand for mobility. This 
will involve great~r efforts in order gradually to break the link between transport growth and 
economic growth· and make for a modal· shift, as called for by the European Council in 
Gothenburg. Such a shift cannot be ordered from one day to the next, all the less so after more 
than half a century of constant deterioration in favour of road, which has reached such a pitch 
that today rail freight services are facing marginalisation (8% ), with international goods trains 
in Europe struggling along at an average speed of 18 km/h. However, this is by no means 
inevi~able in modern economies, since in the USA 40% of goods are carried by rail. 
A complex equation has to be solved in order to curb t~e demand for transport: 
-economic growth will almost automatically generate greater needs for mobility, with 
estimated increases in demand of 38% for goods services and 24% for passengers; 
-enlargement will generate an explosion in transport flows in the I)ew Member States, 
particularly in the frontier regions; 
The Cardiff European Council in June 1998 set the process in motion by asking a number of sectoral 
Councils to develop concrete integration strategies. The Transport Council defined its strategy in 
October 1999, highlighting fiv_e sectors in which measures should be pursued, namely (i) growth iQ C02 
emissions from transport, (ii) pollutant emissions and their effects on health, (iii) anticipated growth in 
transport, in particular due to enlargement, (iv) modal distribution and its development, and (v) noise in 
transport. 
10 
-saturation of the major arteries combined with accessibility of outlying and very remote 
areas and infrastructure upgrading in the candidate countries will in tum require massive 
. investment. 
This is the context in which we have to consider the option of gradually breaking the link 
between economic growth and transport growth, on which the White Paper is based. 
-A simplistic solution would be to order a reduction in the mobility of persons and goods 
and impose a redistribution between modes. But this is unrealistic as the· Community has 
neither the power nor the means to set limits on traffic in cities or on the roads or to impose 
combined transport for goods. To give just one example of the subsidiarity problems, it 
must be remembered that several Member States contest the very principle of a general· 
Community-wide ban to keep heavy goods vehicles off the roads at weekends. Moreover, 
dirigiste measures would urgently require unanimous harmonisatio_n of fuel taxes, but just 
a few months ago the Member States took diverging paths on taxa!ion in response to the 
surge· in oil prices. 
Bearing in mind the powers of the European Union, three possible options emerge from an 
economic viewpoint: 
-The first approach (A)2 would consist of focusing on road transport through pricing alone. 
This option would not" to be accompanied by complementary measures in the other modes 
of transport. In the short-term it might curb the growth in road transport through the better 
loading ratio of goods vehicles and occupancy rates of passenger vehicles expected as a 
result of the increase in the price of transport. But the lack of measures to revitalise the 
other modes of transport, especially the low gains in productivity in the rail sector and the 
insufficiency of infrastructure capacity, would make it impossible for more sustainable 
modes of transport to take over the baton. 
-The second approach (B) also concentrates on road transport pricing but is acc<?mpanied by 
measures to increase the efficiency of the other modes (better quality of services, logistics, 
technology). However, this approach does not include investment in new infrastructure and 
does not cover specific measures to make for a shift of balance between modes. Nor does it 
guarantee better regional cohesion. It could help to achieve greater uncoupling than the 
first approach, but road transport would keep the lion's share of the market and continue to 
concentrate on saturated arteries and certain sensitive areas despite being the most 
polluting of the modes. It is therefore not enough to guarantee the necessary shift of 
ba~ance and does not make a real contribution to the sustainable development called for by 
the Gothenburg European Council. 
-The third approach (C), on which the White Paper is based, comprises a series of measures 
ranging from pricing to revitalising alternative modes of transport to road and targ~ted 
investment in the trans-European network. This integrated approach would allow the 
market shares of the other modes to return to their 1998 levels and thus make for a shift of 
balance from 2010 onwards. This approach is far more ambitious than it looks, bearing in 
mind the historical imbalance in favour of road for the last 50 years. It is also the same as 
the approach adopted in the Commission's contribution to the Gothenburg European 
Council which called for a shift of balance between the modes by way of an investment 
policy in infrastructure geared to the railways, inland waterways, short sea shipping and 
See explanatory table in Annex II. 
11 • 
... 
v. intermodal operations (COM (2001) 264 final). By implementing the 60-odd measures set 
out in the White Paper there will be a marked break in the link between transport growth 
and economic growth, although without there being any need to restrict the mobility of 
people and goods. There would also be much slower growth in road haulage thanks to 
better use of the other means of transport (increase of 38% rather than 50% between 1998 
and 2010). This trend would be even more marked in passenger transport by car (increase 
in traffic of 21 % against a rise in GDP of 43%). 
The need for a comprehensive strategy going beyond European transport policy 
The objective -never yet achieved -of shifting the balance of transport involves not only­
implementing the ambitious programme of transport policy measures proposed in the White -
Paper by 2010, but also taking consistent measures at national or local level in the context of 
other policies: 
-economic policy to be formulated to take account of certain factors which contribute to 
increasing demand for transport services, particularly factors connected with the just-in­
time production model and stock rotation; 
-urban and land-use planning policy to avoid unnecessary increases in the need for mobility 
caused by unbalanced planning of the distances between home and work; 
-social and education policy, with better organisation of working patterns and school hours 
to avoid overcrowding roads, particularly by traffic departing and returning at weekends, 
when the greatest number of road accidents occur; 
-urban transport policy in major conurbations, to strike a balance between modernisation of 
public services and more rational use of the car, since compliance with international 
commitments to curb C02 emissions will be decided in the cities and on the roads; 
-budget and fiscal policy to achieve full internalisation of external -in particular 
environmental -costs and completion of a trans-European network worthy of the name; 
-competition policy to ensure that opening-up of the market, especially in the rail sector, is 
not held back by dominant companies already operating on the market and does not 
translate into poorer quality public services; 
-transport research policy to make the various efforts made at Community, national and 
private level more consistent, along the lines of the European research area. 
Clearly, a number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car, 
improving the quality of public services or the obligation to carry goods by rail instead of 
road, are matters more for national or regional decisions than for the Community. 
VI. Principal measures proposed in the White Paper 
The White Paper proposes some 60 specific measures to be taken at Community level under 
the transport policy. It includes an action programme extending until 2010, with milestones 
along the way, notably the monitoring exercises and the mid-term review in 2005 to check 
whether the precise targets (for example, on modal split or road safety) are being attained or 
whether adjustments need making. 
12 
Detailed proposals, which will have to be approved by.the Commission, will be based on the 
following guidelines: · 
Revitalising the railways 
Rail transport is literally the strategic sector, on which the success of the efforts to shift the 
balance ~ill depend, particularly in the case of goods. Revitalising this sector means 
competition between the railway companies themselves. The arrival of new railway 
undertakings could help to bolster competition in this sector and should be accompanied by 
measures to encourage company restructuring that take account of social aspects and work 
conditions. The priority is to open up the markets, not only for international services, as 
decided i~ December 2000, but also for cabotage on the national markets (to avoid trains· 
running empty) and for international passenger services. This opening-up of the markets 
must be accompanied by further harmonisation in the fields of interoperability and safety. 
Starting ·next year, the Commission will propose a package of measures which should restore 
the credibility, in terms of regularity and punctuality, of this mode in the eyes of operators, 
particularly for freight. Step by step, a network of railway lines must be dedicated 
exclusively to goods services so that, commercially, railway companies attach as much 
importance to goods as to passengers. 
Improving quality in the road transport sector 
The greatest strength of road transport is its capacity to carry goods all over Europe with 
unequalled flexibility and at a low price. This sector is irreplaceable but its economic position 
is shakier than it might seem. Margins are narrow in the road transport sector because of its 
considerable fragmentation and of the pressure exerted on prices by consignors and industry. 
This tempts some road haulage companies to resort to price dumping and to side-step the 
social and safety legislation to make up for this handicap. 
The Commission will propose legislation allowing harmonisation of certain clauses in 
contracts in order to protect carriers from consignors and enable them to revise their 
tariffs in the event of a sharp rise in fuel prices. 
The changes will also require modernisation of the way in which road transport services are 
operated, while complying with the social legislation and the rules on workers' rights. Parallel 
measures will be needed to harmonise and tighten up inspection procedures in order to put 
an end to the practices preventing fair competition. 
Promoting transport by sea and inland waterway 
Short-sea shipping and inland waterway transport are the two. modes which could provide a 
means of coping with the congestion of certain road infrastnicture. and the lack of railway 
infrastructure. Both these modes remain underused. 
The ~ay to revive short-sea sryipping is to build veritable sea motorways within the 
framework ·of the master plan for th~ trans-European network. This will require better 
connections between ports and the rail and inland waterway networks together with 
improvements in the quality of port services. Certain shipping links (particularly those 
providing a way round bottlenecks -the Alps, Pyrenees and Benelux countries today and the 
frontier betw~en Germany and ·Poland tomorrow) will become part of the trans-European 
network, just like roads or railways. · 
13 
The European Union must have tougher rules on maritime safety going beyond those 
proposed in the aftermath of the Erika disaster. To combat ports and flags of convenience 
more effectively, the Commission, in collaboration with the International Maritime 
Organisation and the International Labour Organisation, will propose incorporating the 
minimum social rules to be observed in ship inspections and developing a genuine 
European maritime traffic management system. At the same time, to promote the 
reflagging of as many ships as possible to Community registers, the Commission will propose 
a directive on the tonnage-based taxation system, modelled on the legislation being 
developed by certain Member States. 
To reinforce the position of inland waterway transport, which, by nature, is interinodal, 
"watenvay branches" must be established and transhipment facilities must be installed to · 
allow a continuous service all year round. Greater, fuller harmonisation of the technical 
r~quirements for inland waterway vessels, of boatmasters' certificates and of the social 
conditions for crews will also inject fresh dynaniism into this sector. 
Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment 
Today, in the age of the single market and of the single currency, there is still no "single sky" 
in Europe. The European Union suffers from over-fragmentation of its air traffic management 
systems, which adds to flight delays, wastes fuel and puts European airlines at a competitive 
disadvantage. It is therefore imperative to implement, by 2004, a series of specific proposals 
establishing Community legislation on air traffic and introducing effective cooperation both 
with the military authorities and with Eurocontrol. 
This reorganisation of Europe's sky must be accompanied by a policy to ensure that the 
inevitable expansion of airport capacity linked, in particular, with enlargement remains 
strictly subject to new regulations to reduce noise and pollution caused by aircraft. 
Turning intennodality into reality 
Intermodality is of fundamental importance for developing competitive alternatives to road 
transport. There have been few tangible achievements, apart from a few major .ports with 
good rail or canal links. Action must therefore be taken to ensure fuller integration of the 
modes offering considerable potential transport capacity as links in an efficiently managed 
transport chain joining up all the individual services. The priorities must be technical 
harmonisation and interoperability between systems, particularly for containers. In 
addition, the new Community support programme ("Marco Polo") targeted on innovative 
initiatives, particularly to promote sea motorways, will aim at making intermodality more 
than just a simple slogan and at turning it into a competitive, economically viable reality. 
Building the trans-European transport network 
Given the saturation of certain major arteries and the consequent pollution, it is essential for 
the European Union to complete the trans-European projects already decided. For this reason, 
the Commission intends to propose revision of the guidelines adopted by the Council and the 
European Parliament, which will remain limited until funding is secured for the current 
projects. In line with the conclusions adopted by the Gothenburg European Council, the 
Commission proposes to concentrate the revision of the Community guidelines on 
removing the bottlenecks in the railway network, completing the routes identified as the 
priorities for absorbing the traffic flows generated by enlargement, particulariy in 
frontier regions, and improving access to outlying areas. To improve access to the trans-
14 
European network, development of the secondary network will remain a Structural Fund 
priority. 
In this context, the list of 14 major priority 'projects adopted by the Essen European Council 
and included in the 1996 European Parliament and Council decision on the guidelines for the 
trans-European transport network must be amended. A number of large-scale projects have 
already been completed and six or so new projects will be added (e.g. Galileo or the high- ~ 
capacity railway route through the Pyrenees). 
To guarantee successful development of the trans-European network, a parallel proposal will 
be made to amend the funding rules to allow the Community to make. a maximum 
contribution -up to 20% of the total cost -to cross-border railway projects crossing natural· 
barriers but offering a meagre return yet demonstrable trans-European added value, such as 
the Lyon-Turin line already approved as a priority project by the Essen European Council. 
Projects to clear the bottlenecks still remaining on the bqrders with the candidate countries 
could qu-alify for the full 20%. 
In 2004· the Commission will present a more extensive review of the trans-European 
network aimed in particular at introducing the concept of "sea motorways", developing 
airport capacity, linking the outlying regions on the European continent more effectively 
and connecting the networks of the candidate countries to the networks of EU 
countries. 3 
Given the low level of funding from the national budgets and the limited possibilities of 
public/private partnerships, innovative solutions based on a pooling of the revenue from 
infrastructure charges are needed. To fund new infrastructure before it starts to generate the 
first operating revenue, it must be possible to constitute national or regional funds from the 
tolls or user charges collected over the entire area or on competing routes. The Community 
rules will be amended to. open up the possibility of allocating part of the revenue from user 
charges to construction of the most environmentally friendiy infrastructure. Financing rail 
infrastructure in the Alps from taxation on heavy lorries is a textbook example of this 
approach, together with the charges imposed by Switzerland, particularly on lorries from the 
Community, to finance its major rail projects. 
Improving road safety . 
Although transport is considered -an essential for the well-being of society and of each 
individual, increasingly it is coming to be perceived as a potential danger. The end of the 20th 
century was marred by a series of dramatic rail accidents, the Concorde disaster or the wr~ck 
of the Erika, all of which are etched into the memory. However, the degree of acceptance of 
this lack of safety is not always logical. How else can the relative tolerance towards road 
accidents be explained when every year .there are 40 000 deaths on the roads, equivalent to 
wiping a medium-sized town off the map. Every day the total number of people killed on 
Europe's roads is practically the same as in a medium-haul plane crash. Road accident 
victims, the dead or injured, cost society tens of billions of euros but the human costs are 
incalculable. For this reason, the European Union should set itself a target of reducing the 
number of victims by half by 2010. Guaranteeing road safety in towns is a precondition for, 
for example, developing cycling as a means of transport. 
Without prejudice to the outcome of the accession negotiations, the candidate countries' netw<;>rks will . 
be integrated into the Union's network via the accession treaties. 
15 
•I It must be said that the Member States are very reluctant about action at Community level, 
whether on seat belts for children or in coaches or on harmonisation of the maximum 
permitted blood alcohol levels, which they have been discussing for 12 years. Up until 2005 
the Commission intends tc:> give priority to exchanges of good practice but it reserves the 
right to propose legislation if there is no drop in the number of accidents, all the_ more so since 
the figures are still high in the candidate countries. 
In the immediate future, the Commission will propose two measures for the trans­
European network only. The first will be to harmonise signs at particularly dangerous 
black spots. The second will be to harmonise the rules governing checks and penalties for 
international commercial transport with regard to speeding and drink-driving. 
Adopting a policy on effective charging for transport 
It is generally acknowledged that not always and not everywhere do the individual modes of 
transport pay for the costs they generate. The situation differs enormously from one Member 
State and mode to another. This leads to dysfunctioning of the internal market and distorts 
competition within the transport system. As a result, there is no real incentive to use the 
cleanest modes or the least congested networks. 
The \Vhite Paper develops the following guidelines: 
-harmonisation of fuel taxation for commercial users, particularly in i:oad transport. 
-alignment of the principles for charging for infrastructure use; the integration of 
external costs must also encourage the use of modes of lesser environmental impact and, 
using the revenue raised in the process, allow investment in new infrastructure, as 
proposed by the European Parliament in the Costa report.4 The current Community rules, 
for instance Directive 62/99 on the "Euro vignette", therefore need to be replaced by a 
modern framework for infrastructure-use charging systems so as to encourage advances 
such as these while ensuring fair competition between modes of transport and more 
effective charging, and ensuring that service quality is maintained. 
This kind of reform requires equal treatment for operators and between modes of transport. 
Whether for airports, ports, roads, railways or waterways, the price for using infrastructure 
should vary in the same manner according to category of infrastructure used, time of day, 
distance, size and weight of vehicle, and any other factor that affects congestion and damages 
the infrastructure or the environment. 
In a good many cases, taking external costs into account will produce more revenue than is 
needed to cover the costs of the infrastructure used. To produce maximum benefit for the 
transport sector, it is essential that available revenue be channelled into specific national or 
regional funds in order to finance measures to lessen or offset external costs (double 
dividend). Priority would be given to building infrastructure that encourages intermodality, 
especially railway lines, and offers a more environmentally friendly alternative. 
In certain sensitive areas there might be insufficient surplus revenue where, for example, 
infrastructure has to be built across natural barriers. It should therefore be made possible for 
new infrastructure to receive an "income" even before it generates its first operating revenue. 
4 AS-034/2000. 
16 
In other words, tolls or fees wo~ld be levied on an entire area in order to finance future 
infrastructure. 
One final point for consideration is that different levels of taxation apply to the energy used 
by different modes, e.g. rail and air, and that this can distort competition on certain routes 
served by both modes. 
Recognising the rights and obligations of users 
European citizens' right to have access to high-quality services providing integrated services 
at affordable prices will have to be reinforced. Falling fares -as witnessed over the last few 
years -musi not signify giving up the most basic rights. With the air passenger rights charter 
the Commission therefore set an example which will be followeei for other modes. In 
particular, air passengers' rights to information, compensation for denied boarding due 
to overbooking and compensation in the event of an accident could be extended to other 
modes. As in the case of the air passenger rights charter, the Community legislation must lay 
the foundation for helping transport users to understand and exercise their rights. In return, 
certain safety-related obligations will have to be clearly defined. 
Developing high-quality urban transport 
In response to the general deterioration in the quality of life of European citizens suffering 
from growing congestion in towns and cities, in line with the subsidiarity principle the 
Commission proposes to place the emphasis on exchanges of good practice aiming at 
making better use of public transport and existing infrastructure. A better approach is needed 
from local public authonties to reconcile modernisation of the public service and rational use 
of the car. These measures, which are essential to achieving sustainable development, will 
certainly be among the most difficult to put into practice. This is the price that will have to be 
paid to meet the international commitments made at Kyoto to reduce C02 emissions. 
Putting research and technology at the service of clean, efficient transport 
The Community has already invested heavily (over €1 billion between 1997 and 2000) in 
research and technological development over the last few years in areas as varied as 
intermodaJity, clean vehicles and telem~tics applications in transport. Now it is time for less 
concrete and more intelligence in the transport system. These efforts must be continued in the 
future, targeted on the objectives set in this White Paper. The European Research Area and 
one of its main instruments, the new research framework programme for 2002-2006.1 will 
provide an opportunity to put these principles into action and to facilitate coordination and 
increase efficiency in the system of transport research. 
Specific ·action will have to be taken on cleaner, safer road and maritime transport and on 
integrating intelligent systems in a11 modes to make for efficient infrastructure management. 
In this respect thee-Europe action plan proposes a number of measures to be undertaken by 
the Member States and the Commission, such as the deployment of innovative information 
and monitoring services on the trans:-European network and in towns and cities and the 
introduction of active safety systems in vehicles. 
Based on recent results, the Commission will propose a directive on harmonisation of the 
means of payment for certai~ infrastructure, particularly for motorway tolls, plus another 
directive on safety standards in-tunnels. · 
17 
In the case of air transport, the priority will be to improve the environmental impact-of engine 
noise and emissions· -a sine qua non for adoption of stricter standards -and to improve air 
safety and aircraft fuel consumption. 
Managing the effects of globalisation 
Regulation of transport has long been essentially international in character. This is one of the 
reasons for the difficulties encountered in finding the proper place for the common transport 
policy between the production· of international rules within established organisations on the 
one hand and often protectionist national rules on the other. 
As the main objective of these international rules is to facilitate trade and commerce, they do 
not take sufficient account of environmental protection or security of supply concerns. 
Consequently, for some years now, certain countries such as the USA have been 
implementing regional transport accords; particularly in the maritime or aviation sector, to 
protect specific interests. The European Union has followed closely in their footsteps in order 
to guard against catastrophic accidents at sea or to abolish inappropriate rules on aircraft noise 
or on compensation for passengers in the event of accidents. 
With enlargement on the horizon, and the transport policy and trans-European networks soon 
to extend across the continent, Europe needs to rethink its international role if it is to succeed 
in developing a sustainable transport system and tackling the problems of congestion and 
pollution. As part of negotiations within the World Trade Organisation, the European Union 
will continue to act as a catalyst to open up the markets of the main modes of transport while 
at the same time maintaining the quality of transport services and the safety of users. The 
Commission plans to propose reinforcing the position of the Community in international 
organisations, in particular the International Maritime Organisation, the International · 
Civil Aviation Organisation and the Danube Commission, in order to safeguard Europe's 
interests at world level. The enlarged Union must be able to manage the effects of 
globalisation and contribute to international solutions to combat, for example, abuse of flags 
of convenience or social dumping in the road transport sector. 
It is paradoxical that the European Union, which is the world's leading commercial power and 
conducts a large part of its trade outside its own borders, carries so little weight in the 
adoption of the international rules which govern much of transport. This is because the Union 
as such is excluded from most inter-governmental organisations, where it has no more than 
observer status. This situation needs to be remedied without delay, by having the Community 
accede to the inter-governmental organisations which govern transport so that the thirty-odd 
members of the enlarged Union not only speak with a single voice but, above all, can 
influence those organisations' activities by promoting a system of international transport 
which takes account of the fundamental requirements of sustainable development. A 
European Union bringing all its weight to bear could, in particular, see that raw materials are 
processed locally to a greater extent, rather than encouraging processing in other locations. 
Developing medium and long-term environmental objectives for a sustainable transport 
system 
Numerous measures and policy instruments are needed to set the process in motion that will 
lead to a sustainable transport system. It will take time to achieve this ultimate objective, and 
the measures set out in this doc1:1ment amount only to a first stage, mapping out a more Jong­
term strategy. 
18 
This sustainable transport system needs to be defined in operational terms in order to give the 
policy-makers useful information to go on. Where possible, the objectives put forward need to 
be quantified. The Commission plans to submit a communication in 2002 to spell out these 
objectives. A monitoring tool has already been put in place by way of the TERM mechanism 
(Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism). 
* 
* * 
To support the package of proposals to be implemented by 2010, which are essential but not 
sufficient to redirect the common transport policy towards meeting the need for sustainable 
development, the analysis in the White Paper stresses: 
-the risk of congestion on the major arteries and regional imbalance, 
-the conditions for shifting the balance between modes, 
-the priority to be given to clearing bottlenecks, 
-the new place given to users, at the heait of transport policy, 
-the need to manage the effects of transport globalisation. 
So we need to decide between maintaining the status quo and accepting the need for change. 
The first choice -the easy option -will result in significant increases in congestion and 
pollution, and will ultimately threaten the competitiveness of Europe's economy. The second 
choice -which will require the adoption of pro-active measures, some of them difficult to 
accept -will involve· the implementation of new forms of regulation to channel future demand 
for mobility and to ensure that the whole of Europe's economy develops in sustainable 
fashion. 
"Large sacrifices are easy: it is the small continual sacrifices which are difficult. " 
Johann Wolfgang Goethe: "Elective Affinities" (Minister for the Rebuilding of 
Ro-ads in the State of Weimar ... and writer) 
19 
PART ONE: SHIFTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN MODES OF TRANSPORT 
There is a growing imbalance between modes of transport in the European Union. 
The increasing success of road and air transport is resulting in ever worsening 
congestion, while, paradoxically, failure to exploit the full potential of rail and short­
sea shipping is impeding the development of real alternatives to road haulage. But 
saturation in certain parts of the European Union must not blind us to the fact that 
outlying areas have inadequate access to central markets. 
• -~· • : ti 
3500 
3000 
2500 
j 
Q. c 2000 
~ :s 
1500 
1000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
·---·-·-·---·-·---------------------·-·-·---·-------:~: 
..... -......... -.... . .. .... ---.... --..... .. ..... .. .... ---. .. --..... ... .. --.... -.... . . . . ..... 
o~+-~--+--+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+-+-~--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+-+-~~-+--1 
1970 1974 1978 1982 -1986 -·1990 
· j--car --Bus and Coach --· --Railway --· ----Air , . 
?() 
. . -
' ': -:. 1200 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------
' · .. ~' . -
-J 
J 
·-.-.. : ·_1 OQO __ . ---------------------------------------------------·---------/------------. '-
,,.,, -_,, 
-~ -- • • 1 
~4' 
~ , 
-------------------------------------------_.;'- ----------------------------
"' J1 
---------------~-----
~ 
.../ ----
400 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
·r;• 
-··:.,'200 
' ' -. . . -.,_. 
. . . -~ -.. --· --. -.. -.. -. -.... -. ---.. ·--·-. --. --... -.... -....... -. ------.. --· -........ .... 
. o.+·-------------,--, -------------.-_l--i.~.~----------.-.~_...-...-.------------.. · :1970_ ~... ~s-14 -~:::·;·~-~ -~,j-~?s:_ ... _ "-~ f~~\ :. ;-.:. fsss o_, . 1_s~Q _ _.-~P-·--\~~~--.·· --~ · 1ssa ··. 
. • . .,_ ·.-·· .. _ ' .-,c' ; • . --.. -1,. . _; .-. - ' . ~; :··--'.---.:·-., ':_:,· .. ·/->~~_.:._' _. ___ . '::·;.. ·. ..· . 
.. -_" :·-:' -/·~ ~:~~-?, >-~-. ~-: ---·: -~:./ .-.· .. . .. ', """ ·-. --' . . --
---Road ----Short-sea shipping.---Rail -· -· --·Inland waterways ---Pipeline 
This persisting situation is leading to an uneven distribution of traffic, generating 
increasing congestion, particularly on the main trans-European corridors and in 
towns and citi_es. To solve this problem, two priority objectives need to be attained 
by 2010: 
-regulated competition between modes; 
-a link-up of modes for successful intermodality. 
I. REGULATED COMPETITION 
Unless competition between modes is better regulated, it is Utopian to believe we 
can avoid even greater imbalances, with the risk of road haulage enjoying a virtual 
monopoly for goods transport in the enlarged European Union. The growth in road 
and air traffic must _therefore be brought under control, and rail and ·pther 
environmentally friendly modes given the means to become competitive alte.matives. 
21 
A. Improving quality in the road sector 
Most passenger and goods traffic goes by road. In 1998, road transport accpunted for 
nearly half of all goods traffic ( 44% )5 and more than two-thirds of passenger traffic 
(79% ). The motor car -because of its flexibility -has brought about real mass 
mobility, and remains _a symbol of personal freedom in modem society. Nearly two 
households in three own a car. 
Between 1970 and 2000, the number of cars in the Community trebled from 62.5 
million to nearly 175 million. Though this trend now seems to be slowing down, the 
number of private cars in the Community is still fsing by more than 3 million every 
year, and following enlargement the figure will be even higher. 
Every day, another 10 hectares of land are covered over by new roads. Road-building 
has been particularly intense in the regions and countries furthest from the centre, as 
a means of helping their economic development, and particularly in the cohesion 
countries, where motorway density increased by 43% in the ten years from 1988 to 
1998, though it remains below the Community average. Taking the Union as a 
whole, the number of kilometres of motorway trebled between 1970 and 2000. 
Despite all these new roads, saturation is still a serious problem in industrialised 
urban areas such as th_e Ruhr, the Randstad, northern Italy and southern England. 
Failure to control road traffic has compounded the situation in the major cities. The 
stop-start motoring characteristic of bottlenecks means higher emissions of pollutants 
and greater energy consumption. 
Studies of climate change put the blame on fossil fuels. More than half the oil 
consumed by transport is accounted for by private cars, and in 1998 transport was 
responsible for more than a quarter (28%) of C02 emissions in Europe. Because road 
transport is totally dependent on oil (accounting for 67% of final demand for oil), 
road transport alone accounts for 84% of C02 emissions attributable to transport. 
But the problem of congestion is now spreading to major trunk roads and sensitive 
areas. 
Much of this growth is due to international road haulage. Forecasts for 2010 point 
to a 50% increase in freight transport alone unless action is taken to counter the 
trend. Transport by lorry is unavoidable over very short distances, where there is no 
alternative mode sufficiently tailored to the needs of the economy. By contrast, we 
might ask what factors are sustaining, indeed encouraging, the expansion of road 
transport over middle and long distances, where alternative solutions are available. 
Part of the answer lies in the perpetuation of practices which distort competition. The 
ending of these practices will call not so much for further regulation as for effective 
enforcement of the existing regulations by tightening up and harmonising penalties. 
1. A restructuring to be organised 
The greatest competitive advantage of road transport is its capacity to carry goods all 
over the European Union, and indeed the entire continent, with unequalled flexibility 
Road's share of the goods market has been growing constantly, from 41 % in 1990 to 44% in 1998, and, 
if no action is taken. is expected to reach 47% by 2010. 
22 
and at a low price. But this capacity has been built up in highly paradoxical 
circumstances. Haulage companies compete fiercely against other modes and against 
each other. As operating costs (for fuel and new equipment) mount, this has reached 
such a pitch that, in order to survive in this extremely competitive environment, 
undertakings are forced to side-step the rules on working hours and authorisations 
and even the basic principles of road safety. Such breaches of the law are becoming 
too common. The risk is that, operating costs being lower in the candidate countries, 
enlargement could further_ exacerbate this price competition between undertakings. 
The argument that road transport is placed at a competitive disadvantage by the 
financial advantages the railway companies supposedly receive as of right from the 
public authorities is becoming less and less true. It glosses over the fact that, in terms -
of infrastructure, road transport, too, receives benefits from th~ public authorities. 
For instance, motorway maintenance would cost six times less if cars were the only 
_vehicles to use the motorways. This benefit is not offset by any corresponding 
differential between the charges paid by heavy goods vehicles and by private cars. 
However, the market share captured by the roads cannot conceal the extremely 
precarious financial position of many haulage companies today, particularly the 
smallest, which are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain often even a 
semblance.of profitability in the face of the pressure exerted on prices by consignors 
and industry, especially in times of crisis such as the rise in diesel prices. 
The tax relief measures taken hastily and unilaterally by certain Member States to 
appease the truckers discontented by the sharp rise in diesel prices in September 
2000 are no long-term .solution. They are a palliati_ve, not a cure. The danger is not 
just that they will have only a limited impact on the sector's financial health but also, 
and above all, that they could harm other modes by giving road transport an even 
greater competitive edge. These measures could possibly be interpreted as disguised 
subsidies and could eventually destabilise the industry, since road transport. prices 
would not reflect real costs. 
Despite this, no real plan to restructure the sector has yet been produced in Europe. 
The fear of industrial action and of paralysis of the major routes is certainly a factor 
here. Given the current context, however, it would seem desirable to clean up 
practices and put companies on a sounder footing by encouraging mergers and 
diversification. Undertakings which are big enough and have a large enough 
financial base _to capitalise on technological progress will be able to stand up -on a 
sound footing -to the arrival on the road haulage market of competitors from eastern 
Europe, where labour costs are currently lower than in the west European countries. 
Support must be provided to encourage micro-businesses or owner-operators to 
group together in structures better able to provide high-quality services, including, 
for example, logistics-related activities and advanced information and management 
systems, in line with competition policy. r--------------------------------------·---------------! In this context, harmonisation of transport contract minimum clauses regarding the passing-! on of ~osts should help protect carriers from pressure from consignors. In particular, 
I transport contracts should .include clauses allowing, for example, revision of tariffs in the I event of a sharp rise in fuel prices. It must not be forgotten that, as the dominant mode, it is 
; road transport which sets the price of transport. In the circumstances,. it tends to keep J?rices 
, down, to th~ detriment of the other modes, which are less adaptable. '------------------------------------------------------
23 
2. Regulations to be introduced 
Very few measures have been taken at Union level to provide a basic regulation of 
social conditions in the road transport sector. This goes some way towards explaining 
the sector's high competitiveness. It took the Council of Ministers until December 
2000 finally to decide to harmonise driving time at _a maximum of 48 hours per week 
on average, even then with certain exceptions, as in the case of self-employed 
drivers. In other modes working hours have long been strictly limited, starting with 
train drivers, who are restricted to an average of between 22 and 30 hours per week 
in the main railway undertakings. 
A large number of Commission proposals are designed to provide the European ; 
Union with full legislation to improv_e working conditions and road safety and ensure 
compliance with the rules for the operation of the internal market. In particular, they 
seek: 
-to reorganise working time; though self-employed drivers are excluded, this 
proposal will regulate working time throughout Europe, establishing an average 
working week of 48 hours and a maximum of 60 hours; 
-·to harmonise weekend bans on lorries; this proposal seeks to align the national 
rules in this area and introduce an obligation to give notification before such bans 
are imposed; 
-to introduce a "driver's certificate"; this will enable national inspectors to conduct 
effective checks to make sure that the driver is lawfully employed and, if 
necessary, to record any irregularity (and impose penalties); 
-to develop vocational training; common rules have been proposed on compulsory 
initial training for a11 new drivers of goods or passenger vehicles and on ongoing 
training at regular intervals for all professional drivers. 
Adoption of this package of measures is essential if we are to develop a high-quality 
road transport system in the enlarged European Union. This package could be backed 
up by action undertaken by the employers' and employees' organisations represented 
on the Sectoral Dialogue Committee, particularly activities focusing on worker 
employability and on adapting the way work is organised in haulage companies. If 
necessary, specific measures could be taken to combat the practice of subcontracting 
to bogus "self-employed" drivers. 
3. Tightening up controls and penalties 
EU regulations on road transport, particularly on working conditions, are not only 
insufficient; they are also, and above all, extremely poorly enforced. This laxity in 
enforcing the regulations creates problems. For instance, it is not unusual for a driver 
whose driving licence is suspended in one Member State to be able to obtain another 
in a neighbouring country. 
Extract from a mission report (Directorate-General for Energy and Transport) 
?4 
carried out checks. 
On 7 July 2000 a total of 800 lorries and coaches were checked, approximately 100 of 
which were found to have committed infringements (this proportion of 1 to 8 was 
considered a normal average for checks such as this). Half the infringements detected were 
against national legislation (irregularities with licences, insurance, road tax, etc.), while 
the other half were breaches of European legislation, the most common offences being 
against the rules on driving time. 
Consequently, the effectiveness of Community and national legislati<;m depends on 
correct, impartial application t~roµghout the Community. 
To this end, by the enrll of 2001 the Commission plans to submit a proposai on 
harmonisation of controls and penalties designed to: 
promote efficient, uniform interprefatfoni, implementation and monitoring of 
Community road transport legislation. This amendment to the existing legislation 
will also contain provisions to establish the liability of employers for certain 
offences committed by their drivers; 
harmonise penalties and tthe condition§ fo1r ummolbiiising vehicles; 
-increase the. number of checks which Member States are. required to carry out 
(currently on 1 % of days actually worked) on compliance with driv~ng times and 
drivers' rest periods; · 
encourage systemat!c exchanges of illlfoirmatfo:n, such as the scheme in the · · 
Benelux countries, coordination of inspection ~ctivities, regular· consultation 
between national administrations and training of inspectors to ensure better 
compliance with the legislation. 
New technologies will have an important role to play in this context. The · 
introduction, by the end of 2003, of the drrgit~i fadmogir21pihl, a device to record data 
such as speed and driving time over a longer period than is possible with the 
mechanical tachograph of today, will bring significant improvements in monitoring, 
with better protection of the recorded data than is offered by the current equipment, 
and greater reliability. Account will also have_ to be taken of the new opportunities 
opened up by satellite radionavigation. The G~meo programme will make it possible 
to track goods wherever the lorry is, and to monitor various parameters relating to 
driving and other conditions, such as container tempetature. Where appropriate, 
parameters not relating to vehicle location could be monitored remotely by means 
othet than Galileo (for example, GSM or telecommunications satellite). 
B. Revitalising the railways 
Rail is a contrast: a mixture of ancient and modern. On the one hand, there are high­
performance high-speed rail networks serving their passengers from modern stations; 
on the other, antediluvian freight services and decrepit suburban lines at saturation 
point, with commuters_ jammed into crowded trains which are always late and 
eventually -release their floods of passengers into sometimes dilapidated and unsafe 
stations. 
Between 1970 and 1998 the share of the goods market carried by rail in Europe fell 
from 21.1 % to 8.4% (down from 283 billion tonnes per kilometre to 241 billion), 
25 
even though the overall volume of goods transported rose spectacularly. But while 
rail haulage was declining in Europe, it was flourishing in the USA, precisely 
because rail companies were managing to meet the needs of industry. In the USA, 
rail haulage now accounts for 40% of total freight compared with only 8% in the 
European Union, showing that the decline of rail need not be inevitable. 
The fact is that, almost two centuries after the first train ran, the railways are still a 
means of transport with major potential, and it is renewal of the railways which is the 
key to achie_ving modal rebalance. This will require ambitious measures which do not 
depend on European regulations alone but must be driven by the stakeholders in the 
sector. 
I 
The growing awareness on the part of the operators who recently engaged on a joint 
definition of a common strategy for European rail research to create a single 
European railway system by 2020, must be welcomed. In this document signed by 
·the International Union of Railways (UIR), the Community of European Railways 
(CER), the International Union of Public Transport (IUPT) and the Union of 
European Railway Industries (UNIFE), the rail stakeholders agree to achieve the 
following objectives by 2020: · 
-for rail to increase its market share of passenger traffic from 6% to 10% and of 
goods traffic from 8% to 15%; 
-a trebling of manpower productivity on the railways; 
-a 50% gain in energy efficiency; 
-a 50% reduction in emissions of pollutants; 
-an increase in infrastructure capacity commensurate with traffic targets. 
What is needed is, therefore, a veritable cultural revolution to make rail transport, 
once again, competitive enough to remain one of the leading players in the transport 
system in the enlarged Europe. The priority must be to resolve the problems holding 
back its development: the lack of infrastructure suitable for modem transport and of 
interoperability between networks and systems, the constant search for innovative 
manufacturing technologies, the non-transparency of costs, and the patchy 
productivity and shaky reliability of the service, which is failing to meet customers' 
legitimate expectations. 
1. Integrating rail transport into the internal market 
6 Community involvement in the sector came late, at the beginning of the 1990s, when 
it attempted to breathe fresh life into the railways6 and end the operating difficulties 
caused by geographical fragmentation of the networks by introducing a policy for the 
regulated opening-up of the markets. 
If nothing is done rail's share of the freight market, which has already fallen from 11 % in 1990 to 0
8% in 
1998, can be expected to slip to 7% by 2010. Its share of passenger traffic stood at 6% in 1998 and is 
expected to hold steady until 2010. 
26 
7 
8 The foundation stone was laid in 1991 with a Directive requiring separate accounts to 
be kept for railway infrastructure management and the provision of railway transport 
services. Amongst other things, this Directive opened the way for independent, 
transparent management and for future competition between rail companies . 
. Building on this foundation, several Member States now have separate undertakings 
to operate railway services and to build and manage the network. A second package 
of measures to help open up the market came into force on 15 March 200!7 
following an historic agreement _between Parliament and the Council in November 
2000. 
a) Creating a genuine· internal market in rail transport 
Opening up rail transport to regulated competition -which will start properly in 
March 2003 when international goods services on the 50 000-kilorrietre trans­
European rail freight network are opened up -is the central ·precondition for 
-revitalising the railways. By 2008 the entire European international freight network 
will have been opened up completely, thanks, in particular to the determination of the 
European Parliament.8 The arrival of new railway companies from other 
backgrounds, with solid experience of logistics and intermodal integration, must 
make this sector more comp~titive and encourage the national companies to 
restructure while also taking social issues and working conditions into account. This 
restructuring will thus need to include accompanying measures· to minimise its social 
impact. 
New operators 
BASF, the German chemicals giant, is becoming the first major rail freight operator to join 
the traditional companies, with the aid of "Rail4Chem", a joint venture which it has 
launched with Bertschi AG, Hoyer GmbH and VTG-Lehnkering AG. 
The Swedish group !KEA recently set up a separate company to manage the transport of its 
own goods. At the moment, 18% of them are carried by rail. !KEA 's management wants to 
raise this to 40% by 2006 (equivalent to around 500 trains a week). In this context, !KEA 
plans to publish a call for tenders for railway companies to carry goods between its 
different subsidiaries -at the lowest cost and giving the best guarantees. In the long term, 
!KEA could seize the opportunity offered by this opening of the European market to become 
a major rail company. 
If more room· is made for competition between operators, the rail industry as a whole 
will become more competitive against other modes of transport. The arrival of new 
operators on an opened-up market can make the industry more competitive by 
encouraging healthy competition between the existing operators and their new 
competitors. The existing technical and regulatory barriers· work in favour of existing 
companies, and are continuing to hamper the entry of new operators. This is why it is 
. important that the Community competition rules be applied properly here to prevent 
anti-competitive practices and ensure that the Community rail transport market is 
genuinely opened up. 
Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001114/EC. OJ L 75, 15.3.01. 
Jarzembowski report AS-0013/2201 and Swoboda report AS-0014/2001. 
27 
9 
10 However, in too many cases where there is still no proper separation between the 
body which owns the infrastructure and the body which operates services. Moreover, 
companies do not have clear commercial objectives allowing them to make a 
distinction between freight services and passenger services. Indeed, in some 
countries, rail companies not only own the infrastructure; they also operate the trains, 
allocate the rights to use the network and conduct their own safety checks. 
Examples of malfunction 
Companies can't count: Some rail companies admit that they would not be able to say 
how many locomotives or wagons they have available or give the precise location of 
trains. So sometimes trains which are scheduled (usually freight, but also passenger 
trains) have to be cancelled because there is no locomotive, or no driver, or because 
the driver has not been told 
Trains do11 't run properly: It takes thirty or forty minutes to replace the locomotive on a 
goods train and to check that the train is in proper working order (changing the 
locomotive, filling out the composition form, checking the brakes, changing over the 
driver and crew, inspecting the train, carrying out checks on dangerous materials, 
checking documents, making up the train, labelling the wagons, train report, checking 
the rear light). All this work is obviously wasted if the locomotive and crew are not 
ready on time. According to Werner Kuiper, President of the UJRR, 9 of 20 000 full 
c_ombined international transport trains investigated, only half were on time. 
-Missing information: At borders, one network hands over the train to another. They 
exchange information on loads, destinations, and train composition. Computer links 
between systems do exist, but are not used systematically because they are not 
particularly reliable, so information is often exchanged on paper. This information may 
arrive too late or it may not be accurate, and will need to be checked 
"Ghost trains": A goods train stops to change locomotive, but it may then be held up 
even longer while waiting/or a train path to become free on the neighbouring network. 
A locomotive may have to wait for a train: a train may have to wait for a locomotive. 
Often there is no information on when they will arrive, which just makes matters worse. 
One train -lots of drivers: Relief crew requirements also undermine the productivity of 
international rail services. Even Louis Gallois, Chairman of the SNCF, has said "I 
think the Charleroi-Paris route needs five driving crew members: two in Belgium and 
three in France. ,,Jo · 
With all the various delays, the average speed of international rail haulage is only 
18 km/hour, which is slower than an ice-breaker opening up a shipping route through 
the Baltic Sea! 
To make international freight services competitive and reduce movements of empty 
wagons, it is important that railway companies be allowed to refill trains en route, 
where appropriate between two points within the same Member State. For this reason 
the Commission will, by the end of 2001, as part of the second railway package, 
propose extending rights of access to all freight services, including the possibility of 
cabotage. 
Preface to the 2000 report of the International Union of Rail/Road Transport Companies (UIRR). 
Addressing a meeting at the French National Assembly on 8 June 2000. 
28 
II As for the possibility of extending access to international passenger services, which 
account for around 6% of all passenger-kilometres, this will ~ave to be achieved 
gradually. The Commission will give particular priority to opening up· competition 
on lines where a monopoly exists and will see to it that the lack of competition which ·, 
could eventually emerge on certain intra-Community routes does not end in abuse of 
a dominant position and excessive fares. 
In this context, in 2001 the Commission will submit a further package of measures 
to create a genuine internal rail market. The package will have to take account 
of general interest tasks and of economic and territorial cohesion, and will hinge 
around: 
I 
-opening up _the national freight markets to cabotage; 
-setting high safety standards for the rail network, based on· regulations 
established by an independent body and on clear definition of the responsibilities 
of each player involved in order to ensure smooth operation of this market in 
which several operators will share the same stretches of the network (see below); 
-updating the Interoperability Directives to harmonise the technical 
requirements and provisions on use of all components of the high-speed and 
conventional railway networks; 
-gradual opening-up of international passenger services; 
promotion of measures to safeguard the quality of rail services and users' 
rights. In particular, a directive will be proposed to fay down the terms of 
compensation in the event of delays or failure to meet service obligations. Other 
measures on the development of service quality indicators, terms of contract, 
transparency of information for passengers and mechanisms for out-of-court 
settlement of disputes will also be envisaged; 
creation of a Community structure for safety and interoperability. 
In addition, the Commission will start round-table talks with the railway-industry to 
examine ways of reducing air pollution and noise, as it did with carmakers in the 
"Auto-Oil" programme. At the moment 13% of rail traffic. in the Union is diesel­
powered. 
No railway system can be fully competitive unless all matters relating to the removal 
of technical barriers to trade in trains and to their interoperability -i.e. their ability 
to run on ariy stretch of the network -are resolved first. In particular, although goods 
wagons and a large proportion of passenger caqiages ·have, for decades, been 
technically capable of travelling from Sicily to Scandiriavia, the same cannot be said 
of locomotives, which suffer numerous constraints concerning electrification and 
signalling systems. I I Significant differences remain between the networks in Europe, 
most of which were built ·from a national perspective and which have long played on 
these differences to protect their own interests or those of their national railway 
industry. 
The benefits of interoperability are estimated at 30% of the cost of rolling stock. 
29 
• 11/9/2001 • Main electrification systems on the trans-European rail network in Europe 
9/2001 
.. , 
---·--· :~~~ ~ 
~. 
: -
c:J 750 V di~ect current 
D 15kV 16 2/3 Hz alternating current 
D 3kV direct current D 1.SkV dired current 
c:J 25 kV 50 Hz alternating current 
D Not electrifi~ 1:17500000 
*).:J 
:~----'~./·~ 
••••200c===400••••600• . Kibrreters 
12 This handicapped the development of rail transport, at a time when road was 
capitalising on its freedom from technical barriers to fuel its development. The net 
result is that these differences have perpetuated several compartmentalised markets 
instead of a single network. The wide availability of multi-current locomotives 
(capable of operating at different voltages) is already making railway services more 
flexible, but not all the· problems· have yet been resolved. This technical 
harmonisation will cost tens of billions of euros. 
To help change national traditions in social matters which could become an obstacle 
to interoperability, it would be useful to provide accompanying social measures for 
staff so as to improve the general level of qualifications. The resulting European­
level solutions on working conditions, particularly driving time and rest periods, 
would offer definite added value compared with the national rules. Employers' an.d 
employees' organisations would also be involved in. producing the technical 
specifications for interoperability wherever social aspects are involved. 
Since the end of last year interoperable type BB 36000 (France) and. E402 B (Italy) 
locomotives capable of running on the French and Italian networks alike have been in use -
for the time being on an experimental basis -on the Lyon-Turin line. This new rolling stock 
has cut waiting time at the frontier to 15 minutes for some trains, compared with an 
average of an hour and a half for the rest. However, the potential of this new rolling stock 
is limited by a number of factors: 
-two drivers are needed on the Italian side, against one on the· French side, which forces 
the train to stop at Modane, even though the transport papers are now processed 
electronically; 
-French train drivers are not authorised on the Italian network and vice versa; 
-the passing tracks are of different length, which sometimes makes it necessary to split 
trains in llt:a, wasting considerable time; the traffic regulations also differ, with 1 150 
tonnes authorised on the Italian railways, compared with 1 000 tonnes in France, with 
the same result; 
-at the moment, there are only a limited number of interoperable locomotives. Because of 
their design, Italian locomotives can operate at only half power on the 1 500 volt supply 
in France. , 
Maps of the main rail electrification systems in_Europe 
In this context, deployment of the ERTMS system12 developed since the early 1990s 
under the Community framework-programmes of research marks a considerable step 
forward in network and system interoperability. Moreover, use of the ERTMS has 
been made a condition for Community co-financing of rail infrastructure and 
equipment. Telematic applications such as interconnection of seat reservation 
systems, real-time information systems or even the possibility of on-board telephone 
communications are all options which need to be developed on a larger scale in order 
to make the railway sector more competitive. 
European Rail Traffic Management System. 
30 • 
\ 
13 
14 Technological research also needs to be carried out to support rail interoperability. It 
needs to focus on integrating track design and construction characteristics and on 
rolling stock specifications, to ensure safe, clean, economically viable operations. 
b) Guaranteeing rail safety 
Rail has always been far safer than road. This -is reflected in the safety statistics, 
which show a very marked improvement in passenger safety, with the number of 
fatalities falling from 381 in 1970 to 93 in 1996, when, by way of comparison, there 
were some 43 500 deaths on the roads. Despite these encouraging figures, a number 
of dramatic train accidents over the last three years have alerted public opinion and 
the authorities to rail safety. The growing demand for international services in the 
context of network and system interoperability combined with the opening of the 
·market has therefore meant rethinking the approach to rail safety first. 
Interoperability must guarantee a level of safety at least equal to, if not higher 
than, that achieved today in the national context. That is why the Directive on the 
interoperability of the high-s~eed rail system 13 and the recently adopted Directive on 
the conventional rail system 4 both list safety amongst the essential requirements 
for operation of the trans-European railway system. 
This entails simultaneous action at two levels: 
at technical level, standards need to be set for each component of the railway 
system (track, rolling stock, signalling system, operating procedures, etc.). This is 
the role of the "Interoperability Directives"; 
at administrative level, duties and responsibilities need to be established for all 
stakeholders, from the infrastructure managers to the Community authorities, and 
including the railway undertakings and the national authorities. This is the role of 
the "Safety Directive" which will be proposed in the near future. In this 
connection, consideration will be given to establishing a Community structure 
for rail safety to look after the technical coordination of all these measures. 
SAFETRAIN: passive safety technologies for rail vehicles 
The SAFETRAIN project is a good example of technological research to support transport 
policy. Its results have been taken into account, following a dynamic validation test, by the 
European Association for Interoperability in the Rail Sector (AEIF), which is responsible 
for implementing Directive 96148/EC of 23 July 1996 (the "Interoperability Directive"). 
SAFETRAIN has provided the scientific expertise necessary for the mandatory technical 
specifications on the mechanical characteristics of rolling stock. The project has produced 
significant improvements in the strength of passenger compartments and of the driver's 
survival space at the front of trains, without any adverse effect on weight or energy 
consumption. 
Council Directive 96/48/EC C?f 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-;speed 
rail system. 
Directive 2001116/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system. OJ L 110 
of20 April 2001. 
31 
2. Making optimum use of the infrastructure 
A sign of the decline in rail transport is that over the last 30 years an average of 
600 km of railway lines have been closed each year in Europe, while at the same 
time the motorway network was increasing by 1 200 km a year. Of the thousands of 
kilometres of lines which ha~e been closed to traffic, or even dismantled, there are 
branches and lines which today would have been extremely useful for coping with ~ 
saturation on parts of the rail network. 
With an interoperable trans-European network gradually being put together and 
traffic growth expected to rise, we need to look again, from a truly trans-European 
perspective, at how the networks are organised and how they can be better integrated. -
The rail market shows the greatest potential for growth _9ver long distances. 
Successful reorganisation means making optimum use of the existing capacity. 
Mu~h railway infrastructure was designed and built between the middle and the end 
of the 19th century, with an eye to national or even regional requirements. This 
infrastructure is no ionger able to cope with the growth in traffic and, in recent years, 
more and more bottlenecks have formed in the vicinity of the largest conurbations, 
where trains of different types -goods, local or long-distance -share the same 
infrastructure. Priority is given to passenger trains, with the result that goods 
consignors have lost confidence in the railways. 
If rail transport of goods in Europe is to recover, efficient international train 
paths will have to be allocated to freight, either in the form of infrastructure or 
as time slots. Measures such as this can hardly be ordered at Community level in the 
short term, but all measures taken at national_ level should be directed towards this 
objective. Construction of the high-speed net~ork, for instance, is helping attain thi.s 
·_objective: the new lines brought into service will absorb some of the traffic from 
conventional lines, which currently carry all the traffic. 
From opening-up the market to building a dedicated Europeanfreight network 
Directive 2001112/EC defines a Trans-European Rail Freight Network (TERFN) 
comprising approximately 50 000 km of line open to European freight services by 2003. 
Any European company holding a licence may use these lines and compete with other 
companies by offering new services. As of 2008, however, the European freight services 
market will be opened up over the whole 150 000 km network. The TERFN is just an 
interim solution. . 
Another trans-European rail network was identified in the guidelines adopted by the 
European Parliament and the Council in 1996 in Decision No 1692/96, which the 
Commission proposes to revise in order to eliminate bottlenecks. This network provides the 
reference framework for European and national infrastructure funding. 
This infrastructure network must be distinguished from the specific network defined in the 
Directive on opening up the market. The two networks are not strictly identical. As the map 
below shows, some lines that will shortly be opened up to competition are not part of the 
trans-European infrastructure network (shown in blue). In the same way, some parts of the 
infrastructure network, though potentially important to freight and port connections, such as 
the Brest-Rennes line (France), will not necessarily be opened° up to competition by 2003 
(shown in green). The lack of consistency between the two is evident. 
The above mentioned revision includes proposals to include a number of TERFN lines in 
32 
• Transeuropean Rail Freight Network 
Lines open to European fret services in 2003 and included in the transeuropean rail network 
Other lines of the transeuropean rail network 
Other lines open to European services in 2003 
0 600 Kilometers --c::::===---200 400 11/9/2001 
1:17500000 
the outline plan for the rail network to make them eligible for European aid. There are thus 
proposals, at the request of the countries concerned, to include approximately 2 000 km of 
the rail network, such as the Boulogne-Reims line in France or the Rimini-Parma line 
bypassing the Bologna railway junction in Italy. 
Some of the regions linked to the trans-European infrastructure network, particularly 
coastal regions, will find it useful to take advantage of the opening of the market as quickly 
as possible in order to develop their hinterland. Some countries would be well advised to go 
beyond the TERFN and open up lines in these areas to competition, particularly port access 
routes to provide European operators with easier port access. Accordingly, when selecting 
.infrastructure projects to receive Community support, the Commission will consider the 
extent to which the line has been opened to competition. 
Map of the trans-European rail freight network 
Optimum use of existing infrastructure also means taking account of the noise 
generated by railway vehicles. Recent estimates by the European Environment 
Agency put the number of people disturbed by train noise at three miliion.15 The· 
Interoperability Directives therefore provide for limits on noise emissions from 
rolling stock. 
3. Modernisation of services 
15 
16 At the end of the 1990s, to respond to the challenge of traffic growth by offering 
integrated services, some railway companies started developing the principle of 
international cooperation, particularly on international routes. This was only partially 
successful, as it proved impossible to solve a host of operating problems which 
prevented the continuity of traffic across borders. Nor did these efforts result in any 
fundamental qualitative changes in company organisation. 
As a result the standard of services which the railways can provide for shippers is in 
most cases considerably below industry's requirements in terms of punctuality, 
reliability and speed -requirements which can, however, be met by road transport. 
With passenger transport, on the other hand, railways were able to· innovate in 
order to face· up to cnmpetition from other modes, and volumes increased from 
217 billion passenger/kilometres in 1970 to 290 in 1998. Even so, the railways' 
market share fell from 10% to 6% on account of the much larger increases in private 
car and air transport. Air traffic volumes are similar to rail in terms of 
passenger/kilometres. 
However, the success· of new high-speed rail services has resulted in a significant 
increase in long-distance passenger transport. Also the regional development policies 
which several Member States have implemented over the last decade to improve 
local services have increased train use. However, in some countries inter-city .rail 
users consider the quality of services to be mediocre.16 
The same study estimated the _number of people disturbed by road and air traffic noise at 24 milliqn and 
40 million respectively. 
Only 46. l % of German rail users are satisfied with the service; the Community average is around 57%. 
Source: Eurobarometer No 53, September 2000. 
33 
The same applies to rail freight services. Over the last 18 months, there have been 
worrying developments in freight movements from the Iberian peninsula to Northern 
Europe via France. Large numbers of car part~ are carried on this route, mainly by 
trucks. Although a number of competitive combined and rail-only transport services 
were set up, some of them have been compromised by a recent deterioration in the 
quality of the rail freight service, and a number of car manufacturers have reverted to 
road transport services. On top of the problem of track gauge differences, this is the 
result of inadequate numbers of locomotives and drivers, some persistent internal 
organisational problems and a number of social disputes. Any compensation for 
delays is proving insufficient to offset the real damages suffered by clients, 
especially when they have to shut down a production line for hours on end or make 
last minute arrangements for the urgent delivery of goods by air or road instead of· 
the unreliable rail service. The only way to gain the confidence of clients when 
dealing with this type of high added-value product is to provide a reliable service. 
Fiction or prediction? Rail transport in 2010 
The railway companies enjoy access to the railway network on equal terms, published by 
the infrastructure managers: capacity is allocated in real time with reference to the entire 
European network, and charging principles are harmonised. 
Railway equipment manufacturers ought to be benefiting from the introduction of 
Community provisions on the interoperability of the railway system to gain non­
discriminatory access to the European market and enjoy the possibility of using innovative 
technology rapidly. 
Engine drivers can drive anywhere on the trans-European network and are trained for 
European routes at European training centres open to all railway companies. 
The national infrastructure managers are organised at European level and jointly decide 
the conditions for access to the network. Observing the competition rules, they decide on 
investment priorities together and establish a dedicated infrastructure network exclusively 
for goods. 
The railway regulators meet regularly to exchange information on the development of 
the rail market and propose measures to adapt to competition from other modes. 
All rail operators offer travellers integrated online services covering information, 
bookings and payment for both leisure and business travel. 
The European network offers high safety standards, backed up by a Community 
structure responsible for ongoing appraisal of safety levels in the European rail system and 
for recommending any improvements necessary. An independent body investigates any 
accidents or incidents on the network and makes appropriate recommendations to reduce 
the risks. 
Train punctuality is guaranteed and passengers and customers receive compensation if 
trains run late. 
Average speeds for international goods trains in Europe are up to 80 km/h, four 
times faster than in the year 2000. 
14 
C. Controlling the grow_th in air transport 
Of all the different modes, air transport has shown by far the largest increase over the 
last twenty years. Expressed . in passenger/kilometres, air traffic has increased by 
7.4% a year on average since 1980, while the traffic handled by the airports of the 
Fifteen has shown a five-fold increase since 1970.17 
Every day, more than 25 000 aircraft fly the skies above Europe, and judging by 
growth trends this figure can be expected to double every ten to fourteen years. 
Though the skies are vast,_ this traffic density poses some real problems. The 
increasing number of delays is a clear sign of saturation.18 
I 
Yet airlines expect air traffic almost to double by 2010. To sustain such grow.th, a air 
traffic management will need to be reformed and sufficient airport capacity 
guaranteed in the enlarged European Union. 
1. Tackling saturation of the skies 
17 
18 The idea behind hub and spoke networks is to allow a number of different flights to 
arrive at an airport around the same time, so as to allow connections with minimum 
delay. Replacement of direct flights by indirect flights via hub airports has resulted in 
a reduction in the average size of aircraft, since airlines prefer. to run more frequent 
flights rather than have a more limited schedule using larger aircraft. Unfortunately, 
not only does this cause congestion on the ground; it also means that far more effort 
is necessary to control all the aircraft trying to use a limite.ci amount of space. 
Different problems are. caused by "en route" traffic, i.e. flights in the upper airspace 
where aircraft reach their cruising speed. Aircraft use corridors which give air traffic 
controllers an accurate view of the traffic situation. However, these corridors do not 
always follow the most rational paths because they reflect constraints arising from 
national organisation of airspace, such as the positioning of military zones, or lack of 
coordination regarding the vertical division of airspace over different areas of 
national territory. 
In addition, air navigation services are responsible for national airspace. There is still 
considerable diversity between air traffic control systems and regulations, which 
makes it extremely difficult to coordinate operations. 
Partitioning of Europe's skies 
A plane flying from the United Kingdom to France has to fly at two different altitudes: 
over British territory it flies at 24 500 feet and then has to drop to 19 500 feet when it 
enters French airspace. · 
The European air traffic control system is divided up into 26 subsystems consisting of 58 
en route control centres. This is three times as many as for a comparable area in the USA. 
The. Union is handicapped by air traffic control still be_ing insufficiently 
integrated. It is true that effective cooperation between the various services via 
The proportion of passeng~r transport accounted for by air is set to double between 1990 and 2010 from 
4% to 8% (it was 5% in 1998). 
There were bad delays in 2000: one flight in six was late, with an average delay of 22 minutes. 
35 
19 
20 
21 
22 Eurocontrol 19 has eased the passage of aircraft between national airspaces. 
Nonetheless, the current air traffic control system is limited by the intergovernmental 
nature of Eurocontrol, itself limited by a decision-making system based on 
consensus, insufficient means of control, lack of powers to impose sanctions, and a 
confusion between its regulatory responsibilities and its responsibilities as service 
provider. Since the organisation is both umpire and player, there is no guarantee that 
its decisions will always be impartial. 
Creation of the Single European Sky is one of the European Union's current 
priorities, as emphasised by the European Council on several occasions,20 
particularly in Stockholm, and by the European Parliament.21 
A High Level Group of representatives of the civil and military authorities in the 
Member States and chaired by the Commission Vice-President responsible for 
energy and transport has come up with guidelines for a fundamental reorganisation 
-of air traffic control in Europe. 22 
To overcome the current over-fragmentation of the air traffic management system, 
Community rules on air traffic control are needed. -
To follow up the report from the High Level Group, the European Commission will 
in 2001 propose that the European Union should create a single sky by 2004 by 
adopting: 
A regulatory framework to ensure that aircraft crossing the airspace of the 
enlarged Community follow harmonised procedures, use regulation equipment 
and observe common rules on use of airspace. A Community regulator with 
adequate resources will set objectives allowing traffic growth while maintaining 
safety. This regulator must have powers over a more uniform airspace, defined as 
a common resource and managed as a continuum, starting with the upper airspace. 
-A mechanism enabling the military to maintain defence capabilities while using 
channels for cooperation to ensure more efficient overall organisation of airspace. 
The objective is to achieve genuine joint civil/military management of airspace. 
Social dialogue with the social partners, possibly starting with air traffic 
controllers, based on experience in other sectors, allowing concertation on the 
common aviation policy where the latter has considerable social impact. This -
dialogue could lead to agreements between the organisations concerned. 
Cooperation with Eurocontrol to draw on its know-how and expertise to 
develop and administer the Community rules. The objective will be to ensure that 
the European Union's regulatory powers and the expertise available within 
Eurocontrol genuinely complement each other. 
Eurocontrol is the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, which was set up in 1960. It 
is an intergovernmental organisation and currently has 30 members. 
European Councils in Lisbon (23-24 March 2000), Santa Maria Da Feira (19-20 June 2000) and 
Stockholm (23-24 March 200~). . 
Report by Sir Robert Atkins on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the 
European Parliament on the creation of the Single European Sky, 26 May 2000 (PE 232.935). 
Report of the High Level Group on the Single European Sky, November 2000. 
36 
A surveillance, inspection and penalties system ensuring effective enforcement 
of the rules. 
Legislation will be proposed on the provision of services (particularly on mutual 
acceptance of authorisations granted by Member States, to guarantee provision of air 
traffic control services and to keep control of charges), on organisation of airspace 
(particularly to create an upper airspace region and optimum cross-border control 
sectors) and on equipment interoperability. 
Ultimately, however, the real capacity gains must come from modernisation of 
working methods and equipment. Besides the measures needed to reorganise 
airspace, investment in research and in-control centre equipment must be bac~ed up 
by an effort to rnake sufficient human resources available. For while the Union has 
some very highly qualified air traffic controllers to deal with air traffic safety, it also 
has a chronic shortage of control tower operators. 23 It is often difficult to ensure that 
·there are enough air traffic controllers in all control centres to handle traffic 
management. In addition, dispa.rities in procedures and training rule out any real 
mobility of A TC staff within Europe. One solution could be to introduce a 
Community licence for air traffic controllers. 
2. Rethinking airport capacity and use 
23 
24 In response to the growth in traffic, it is time to rethink how airports operate in order 
to make optimum use of existing capacity. However, this will not be enough and 
Europe will not be able to cope without new airport infrastructure, including in 
the candidate countries, few of which have sufficient capacity to cope with the traffic 
growth which enlargement will inevitably bring. This is also one'" of the key 
conditions for saving airlines from losing competitiveness against their rivals, 
particularly from North America. The turnover of the largest European company is 
not as much as that of the fourth largest American company.24 
The current struct~re of the air transport system prompts airlines to concentrate their 
activities on major airports which they tum into hubs for their intra-Community and 
international activities. Congestion then centres around the big hub airports, with all 
the consequent pollution and air traffic management problems. 
There is already a specific action plan on congestion of the sky, but congestion on 
the ground is not yet receiving the necessary attention or commitment. Yet almost. 
half of Europe's 50 largest airports have already reached or are close to reaching 
saturation point in terms of ground capacity. Such airports are calling for further 
efforts to develop integrated management _and control systems to ensure airport 
efficiency and safety. 
There is a current shortage of between 800 and 1600 air traffic controllers out of a total of 15 000 for 
the whole -of the Union. The number of controllers has not kept keep pace with traffic increases. One 
particularly disturbing aspect is that a third of today's air traffic controllers are expected to be retiring 
between now and 2010 (report by the High Level Working Group on the Single European Sky, 
November 2000. . . 
In 2000, American Airlines, the world's largest company, recorded a turnover of USD 19.7 billion, 
Federal Express, the fourth largest company, USD 15.6 billion, and Lufthansa, the largest European 
group, made USD 13.3 billion. 
37 
25 More efficient use of airport capacity means defining a new regulatory framework: 
-While the single sky is being created, the rules on slot allocation at airports will have to 
be amended, as recently proposed by the Commission. In particular, measures must be 
taken to ensure consistent planning of airspace and airport capacity. Airport slots 
granting the right to take off or land at a specific time at a congested airport must be 
correlated with the airspace capacity available. If adopted, the Commission's proposal 
should contribute to time slot management, in particular by allowing more transparent 
exchanges of slots, immediate penalties in the event of non-use of slots and, finally, 
clearer criteria for allocation priorities. The second stage must be for the regulations to 
move towards greater flexibility, inter alia with recourse to market mechanisms. To 
this end, the Commission will in 2003 -following a new study and consultation oft 
interested parties -propose further revision of the slot allocation system to allow 
greater access to the marke_t, while taking account of the need to reduce the 
environmental impact of Community airports. 
-Airport charges must be adjusted to deter bunching of flights at certain times of day. 
-Environmental rules must encourage efforts to find alternative measures before 
restricting operators at an airport. 
-Intermodality with rail must produce significant Gapacity gains by transfonning 
competition between rail and air into complementary between the two modes, with high­
speed train connections between cities. We can no longer think of maintaining air links 
to destinations for where there is a competitive high-speed rail "alternative. In this way, 
capacity could be transferred to routes where no high-speed rail service exists.25 
·------------------------------------------------------
More efficient, more rational use of airports will not obviate the need for increases in 
capacity. The fact is that new airport projects are few in number (Lisbon, Berlin, 
Paris). . 
Today the stated priority is thus to limit the construction of new airports, for which it 
is hard to gain public support, and to seek to rationalise traffic with the aid of the air 
traffic management regulations and the use of larger aircraft. In so doing, there is 
another risk, namely of neglecting the sizeable group of users of regional lines to 
destinations with no high-speed train service. To cater for them, the current 
preference for major infrastructure must be adjusted to maintain "air taxis" between 
regional centres and between such centres and hub airports where no alternative rail 
services exist. More generally, it is clear that the policy-makers will not be able to 
find a way out of building new runways or new airports, long-term investments 
which will require proper planning at European level over the next twenty years. 
In response to the congestion at most major European airports, airlines must seek to 
maximise the number of passengers carried per flight and, hence, aircraft size. 
However, organisation around a hub has the opposite effect, with airlines tending to 
opt for higher frequency with medium-capacity aircraft in preference to a limited 
service with large planes. 
Medium-capacity aircraft can be expected to continue to predominate on most intra­
Community flights. By contrast, on high-density long-haul flights many airlines will 
probably opt for very large aircraft. The Airbus A380 is the first example of what the 
For example, there are plans for the new Turin-Milan high-speed line to include a connection to 
Malpensa airport. 
38 
next generation of aircraft will probably look like: large carriers capable of 
transporting more passengers. The aviation industry is preparing for this.26-
Nevertheless, intensive use of such large carriers will pose a number of problems. 
First, airp9rts must be adapted to cope with such aircraft -embarkation and 
disembarkation of 500 to 600 passengers instead of 150 to 200 poses a greater strain 
on organisation of baggage delivery, security checks, customs formalities and 
passenger reception at airports. And, of course, use of such large carriers will do 
nothing to reduce connecting traffic, since passengers taking these new aircraft will 
have to continue their journey, thus creating an even more acute need for efficient 
intermodality. 
Turning to the legal status of airports, ·another factor to take into account !s the shift -
towards privatisation which has now started in Europe. At this stage it is hard to 
assess what impact this will have on capacity. In any event, this trend must be kept 
under control given the de facto monopoly held by airports. In particular, care will 
have to be taken to make airport charges actually correspond to the services 
provided. For thi~ reason, the Commission has long been proposing a framework 
laying down the principles governing airport charges. 
3. Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment 
26 
27 
28 
29 Air transport is having growing problems gaining acceptance, particularly from local 
residents who suffer from the noise generated by airports. Introduction of measures 
to reduce noise and gaseous emissions27 caused by air traffic is a sine qua non if the_ 
industry is to continue to grow. However, such an exercise is difficult since the 
European Union has little room for manoeuvre: in particular, account must be 
taken of the international commitments entered into by the Member- States 
within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 
The Community has taken specific actio_n by adopting the "Hushkits Regulation"28 
the_ simple purpose of which was to ban from Europe hushkitted aircraft (old aircraft 
whose noise performance has been improved but still falls short of acceptable 
standards). Nevertheless, this limited measure has been contested by the USA and a 
dispute settlement procedure is now under way before the ICAO. Unless ambitious 
new noise standards are rapidly introduced internationally to prevent further 
degradation of the plight of local residents, there is a great risk that airports could be 
deprived of any possibility of growth (limitation of the number of flights authorised) 
or be forced to apply varying local bans on the noisiest aircraft. The next ICAO 
Assembly in September/October 2001 should therefore adopt a new noise standard to 
apply to all aircraft to be brought into service in future.29 If such a standard is to have 
a tangible impact over the next few years, it must be backed up by a plan to phase out 
the noisiest aircraft in the world fleet, starting with hushkitted aircraft. By 2002 the 
ICAO will also have to take specific measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
one of the priorities stated in the Sixth Action Programme on the Environment. 
''The Future of European Aerospace: A Shared Vision for· 2020": report presented by Mr Philippe 
Busquin, January 2001. 
Flying from Amsterdam to New York, an average aircraft emits one tonne of C02 per passenger. 
Regulation No 925/1999 of 2~ April 1999. . 
The next noise standard is expected to lower the limit set in 1977 by lOdB in 2006, although the 
technology is available to reduce noise levels by 18dB. Moreover, as the service life of engines grows 
longer, so does the time which it takes for the most efficient technologies to penetrate the market. 
39 
Should aviation kerosene continue to enjoy a tax exemption? 
Airlines enjoy substantial tax exemptions, particularly from all taxes on kerosene, under 
international agreements. 30 This exemption for kerosene applies to international and intra­
Community flights alike. However, the USA has introduced a iax limited to cargo carried 
on domestic flights. 
This tax exemption for fuel provides no incentive for airlines to use the most efficient 
aircraft and to contribute to reducing C02 emissions (of which air transport accounts for 
13%). It also creates situations where the competition between air transport and other 
modes is unfair. Taxation of kerosene lzas long been under consideration at European 
level, especially since the Commission communication on taxing aviation fuel. The Eco.fin 
Council subsequently approved a recommendation that Member States should, in close . 
cooperation with the Commission, work together more closely within the International Civil 
Aviation Organisation with a view to introducing an aviation fuel tax, and other 
instruments with similar effect. The European Union has requested -thus far without 
success -that this issue be discussed within the International Civil Aviation Organisation. 
It will renew its efforts in this direction at the next !CAO Assembly. 
Without calling into question the international rules, consideration might be given to 
abolishing the tax exemption/or kerosene on intra-Community flights.31 This path is by no 
means free of problems since it will demand equal treatment vis-a-vis non-CommunitY 
carriers operating intra-Community flights. Another option which {:ould be explored, as is 
done already in Sweden, could be to tax flights only where an alternative, for example a 
high-speed train service, exists, since this would allow a switch to another mode, whereas 
an across-the-board tax would simply lead to higher fares. 
As an additional or alternative solution the Commission proposes, as part of the 
programme to create the single sky, to introduce differential en route air navigation 
charxes to take account of the environmental impact of aircraft. 32 
4. Maintaining safety standards 
30 
31 
32 
33 Air transport is one of the safest modes. Nevertheless, the experts expect one serious 
accident a week, somewhere in the world, in the years ahead. The media coverage of 
such accidents could become the one factor curbing air traffic growth in Europe, 
even if the European Union can proudly point to the best safety record in the world. 
The current cooperation between the Community and the administrations of a large 
number of European states, within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), has reached 
its limits, particularly on the legislative front, for lack of real power. The 
Commission has therefore ~roposed the establishment of a European Aviation 
Safety Authority (EASA)3 which will provide the essential machinery for all 
aspects of air transport activities, from aircraft certification to the operational rules. 
However, air safety does not end at the Community's frontiers and it is vital that 
European citizens who travel or who live close to airports can be sure that aircraft 
from non-Community countries also offer all the guarantees required. For this 
The Excise Duties Directive exempts kerosene used in aviation, in line with international practice based 
on the Chicago Convention. 
Own-initiative report by And~rs Wijkman, adopted on 28 February 2001. 
It might also be stressed that VAT is generally not included in air tickets but is added to the ticket prices 
paid by rail passengers. This point too will have to be considered. 
COM(2000) 144. 
40 
reason, the Commission will submit a proposal to guarantee minimum safety 
conditions in aircraft from non-Community countries as well. 
II. LINKING UP THE MODES OF TRANSPORT 
34 Shifting the balance between modes involves looking beyond the rightfu_l place of 
each particular mode and securing intermodality. The biggest missing link is the lack 
of a close connection between sea, inland waterways and rail. For centuries sea and 
river dominated goods transport in Europe. Major towns. were built on rivers or on 
estuaries and the large trade fairs in the Middle Ages were always held at river or sea 
ports. Nowadays, despite a slight revival, water transport is the poor relation even 
though it is a mode whicl;i is not expensive and does less damage to the environment 
than road transport. 34 
The European fleet has shrunk to the benefit of flags of convenience, and fewer and 
·fewer people want to become seafarers. There is a growing shortage of sailors in the 
European Union. Since the beginning of the 1980s, the European Union has lost 40% 
of its seamen. There is a desperate need for merchant shipping officers. Betwee~ now 
and 2006 the Union will be some 36 000 sailors short. If properly trained and 
competent, sailors ensure the safety of shipping, efficient operation of vessels, proper 
maintenance, and reductions in the number of accidents and victims, and in sea 
pollution. Finally, there are ·strategic implications relating to· the Community's oil 
supply;· the European Union requires shipping know-how in order to maintain strict 
control over its tanker fleet. 
For all that, ships carry over two-thirds (70%) of all trade between the Community 
and the rest of the world. Each year, some two billion tonnes of different goods pass 
through European ports. These goods are essential for the European economy and 
trade with other parts of the world (hydrocarbons, solid and mineral fuels, and 
manufactured products). -
Paradoxically, we have not seen the same growth in cabotage between European 
ports, even though this could ease congestion within the Community, particularly by 
bypassing the Alps and the Pyrenees. The fact is, though, that short-sea shipping 
cannot offer a real alternative solution unless the goods can then be carried by 
waterway and rail instead of by road. Generally, intermodality must be given a firm, 
practical shape; 
The proposal is to launch a large-scale programme -(Marco Polo) to support 
intermodal initiatives and alternatives to road transport in the early stages until they 
become commercially viable. Intermodality will also require rapid introduction of a 
series of technical measures, particularly on containers, loading units and the 
profession of freight integrator. 
Sea transport must also wor~ to reduc~ emissions of pollutants from ships, particularly SOx: It is 
regrettable, in this connection, _that not all Member States have yet ratified Annex VI to the Marpol 
Convention, which r~stricts emissions of used sulphur and introduces control mechanisms in the North 
Sea and the Baltic. 
41 
A. Linking up sea, inland waterways and rail 
Intra-Community maritime transport and inland waterway transport are two key 
components of intermodality which must provide a means of coping with the 
growing congestion of road and rail infrastructure and of tackling air pollution. Up 
until now these two modes have been underused, even though the Community has 
huge potential (35 000 km of coastline and hundreds of sea and river ports) and 
virtually unlimited transport capacity. 
The way to revive them is to build motorways of the sea and offer efficient, 
simplified services. To help to establish this trans-European shipping network, 
priority should be given at national leveJ to ports which have good connections to the 
inland network, particularly along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts, and which 
could form part of an authentic logistics chain. 
1. Developing "motorways of the sea" 
35 
36 Short-distance shipping has been around for a very long time: there are thousands of 
wrecked vessels around the Mediterranean dating back to Roman times. Short-sea 
shipping carries 41 % of goods traffic within the Community.35 It is the only mode of 
goods transport with a growth rate between 1990 and 1998 (+ 27%) approaching that 
of road transport ( + 35% ). In millions of tonne-kilometres,· the volume of trade 
carried between 1970 and 1998 increased by 2.5, representing 44% of the total 
volume and 23% of the total value of the goods transported within Europe. There are 
examples of efficient services between southern Sweden and Hamburg, between the 
ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam, and between south-east England and the inland port 
of Duisburg. But the current volume of traffic in Europe is well below potential 
capacity. Sea transport is ·not just a means of carrying goods from one continent to 
another; it is a real competitive alternative to land transport. 
For container traffic, a year ago an Italian company launched a fast ferry service to carry 
whole lorries (trailer plus traction unit) from Genoa to Barcelona in 12 hours. This new 
service offering speed and punctuality has been a marked success, allowing haulage 
companies to avoid some of the busiest motorways in Europe at a competitive cost. This 
example could be followed for other destinations. It combines the capacity of maritime 
transport with the flexibility of road36 
For this reason, certain shipping links, particularly those providing a way 
around the bottlenecks in the Alps and Pyrenees, should be made part of the 
trans-European network, just like motorways or railways. At national level, 
shipping routes between European ports will have to be chosen to create networks, 
for example between France and Spain or between France and the United Kingdom. 
Similar routes will also have to be encouraged between ·Poland and Germany. 
However, these lines will not develop spontaneously. Based on proposals from the 
Member States, they will have to be "sign-posted", notably by granting European 
The percentage for 2010 is estimated at 40%. Inland waterway transport, which was 5% in 1990, will 
drop from 4% in 1998 to 3% in 2010. · 
A recent study by Grimaldi f9r the European Climate Change Programme, Working Group Traqsport, 
Topic Group 3, entitled "Reducing C02 emissions in Europe through a door-to-door service based on 
short-sea shipping" demonstrated that on any given link the intermodal option based on short-sea 
shipping produced 2.5 times less pollution, in the form of C02 emissions, than the road option. 
42 
• 
Ports > 13 million tonnes/year 
90 
30 Main Community ports 
Total freight tritfic 
(milbon tonnes /yeat) t>A.imber of containers/year 
~ (m;Roo•) 
~ ~' 619/2001 
1:19000000 
0 100 200 300 Kibmeters --
~-..· . -· . . ~ ' 
°1.." _ · .. ··~ 
:~ .. -
! 
l ·--· 
..... , 
_.·\--... -'-~1,. 
·-. -... .._ .... -.. --.. 
~~!i .. , .... __ _ -. r 
'·~:"_}·r/-
(·-'::_-. ._._ •• -.• '.'I. '-.. .:..---~·· ~ 
;,...~:l'f· .. ;-:\(• 
-:,.--...... 
' . ~ 
. ,. -t 
.-
.... i l 
tf 1· J.;. 
•.=iJJ 
~.!. 
37 
38 funds (from the Marco Polo Programme and ~he Structural Funds) to encourage start­
ups and give them an attractive commercial dimension. 
Map of Europe 's main industrial ports 
The evidence shows that as yet this is not always the case: for example, 75% of the 
timber exported by Finland to Italy crosses Germany and the Alps although it could 
be carried by sea. 
The European Union has an important natural asset: a dense network of rivers and 
canals linking up the basins of the rivers which flow into the Atlantic and the North 
Sea,37 and more recently linked up to the Danube basin by the Rhine-Main-Danu1be 
Canal. In the six Member States which can use this network, inland waterway 
transport carries 9% . of goods traffic. If we include the countries preparing for 
accession, and the Danube basin as far as the Black Sea, that brings the total number 
·of Member States which can use this network to twelve and the annual volume of 
goods carried to 425 million tonnes. 
Map of the inland waterway network in Europe 
Inland waterway transport complements sea transport perfectly. It is being used 
increasingly by the major North Sea ports, which use the inland waterways for a 
large part of their inward and outward container traffic. And some of the countries 
which are not connected up to the North-West European network have their own 
systems, such as the Rhone, the Po or the Do~ro, which are becoming increasingly 
important at regional level, but also in the development of river-sea transport thanks 
to technical progress in designing vessels suitable for both river and sea. 
Inland waterway transport is energy-efficient and quiet, and takes up lit_tle space. 
In terms of energy efficiency and the weight of goods which can be moved· one 
kilometre by one litre of fuel, the figure for road haulage is 50 tonnes, for rail 
haulage_97 tonnes and for inland waterways 127 tonnes.38 · 
Apart from anything else, this is a very safe mode of transport so it is particule:irly 
suitable for transporting dangerous goods, such as chemicals. In terms of the 
volumes carried, the accident rate is virtually zero. River transport is reliable and 
ideal for the carriage· of heavy low-cost commodities over long distances (heavy 
materials, bulk industrial goods, building products, waste, etc.). Vessels can travel 
fn;>m Duisburg to Rotterdam, a distance of 225 kilometres, in half a day, regardless 
of conditions which affect other modes. This makes inland waterway transport a very 
competitive alternative to road and rail transport, on those routes which are suitable. 
Following enlargement of the European Union, this mode could do much to relieve 
traffic on east-west routes. 
Seine, Rhine, Meuse, Schelt, Elbe and Oder. 
Source ADEME. Agence fram;aise de l 'environnement et de la maitrise de I' energie. (French 
Environment and Energy Management Agency). 
43 
Contain er c arri er 
135 metres long and 17 metres wide 470X-
Pushed convoy of 4 barges 
193 metres long and 22.80 metres wide 
440 x mm:Ia 
_Moreover, the capacity of the inland waterways is considerably underused in tenns 
of infrastructure and vessels. They could handle much greater volumes of traffic than 
at present. This is because national infrastructure investment policies have given 
priority to other modes of transport without maintaining the inland waterways and 
without eliminating existing bottlenecks on the network. As the abandonment of the 
Rhii:ie-Rhone canal shows, any new canal construction project can have a potentially 
negative environmental impact and should be assessed in .very ~lose detail. 
2. Offering innovative services 
Further development of inland waterway services and short-sea shipping also 
depends on an efficient port service based on the principles of regulated competition. 
Throughout the 1990s, there was a rapid emergence of feeder, or hub, ports which 
serve as the gateways to Europe, where the ships belonging to the main shipping 
companies stop for as short a time as possible to load and unload their containers. 
The predominance of the container ports of the northern range, from Le Havre to 
Hamburg, with a hinterland of between 1 200 and 1 300 kilometres, has been one of 
the reasons for the increase in north-south traffic in Europe on routes which are 
already stretched to the limit. Ports such as Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg 
were used -and still are -principally because of the high quality/price ratio of the 
services provided, since they have modem equipment and better developed links 
with the rest of the world. 
Though Community mles already allow service-providers access to the port services 
market, they are often unable to exercise this right satisfactorily. For this reason, in 
February 2001 the Commission proposed a new legislative framework to lay down 
new, clearer rules setting high quality standards for access to the port services 
market (pilotage, cargo-handling and stevedoring) and laying down more transparent 
rules of procedure. Steps must also be taken to simplify the rules governing 
operation of ports themselves so that the port authorities are no longer both umpire 
and player when it comes to port management. 
Experience has shown that short-sea shipping requires efficient, integrated 
commercial services. Thought should be given to bringing together all the links in 
the logistics chain (consignors, shipowners and any others involved in the shipping 
industry, plus road, rail and inland waterway operators) in a one-stop shop to make 
44 
intermodal transport by sea and inland waterway as reliable, flexible and easy to use 
as road transport. 
The development of advanced telematic services in ports can also improve 
operational reliability and safety. Active cooperation between the various partners, in 
particular through electronic data interchange, enhances both the quality and the 
efficiency of the intermodal transport chain. 
Various Community measures designed in particular to renew the fleet and to fully 
open up the inland waterway market have enabled the sector to achieve a growth rate 
of more than 10% over the last two years in most countries which have a large inland 
waterway network. The most dynamic markets are those for container transport, but· 
also niche markets such as waste transport, which could expand. ~odemisation and 
diversification of the fleet have also made it possible to meet customers' needs better. 
There are limits to the system 
Coasting vessels which want access to Europe's inland waterways from Belgian or Dutch 
ports ~ust first put in at the coastal ports in those two countries to complete the customs 
transit formalities. They have to stop -thus wasting time· -and pay port dues without 
benefiting from any specific services. This reduces the competitiveness of these vessels 
compared with other modes which are not bound by_ these outdate.d rules. -One pragmatic 
solution would be to develop and authorise throughout the Community the use of an 
advance electronic reporting system and the inland customs clearance system already used 
in Sweden and Portugal. These electronic data interchange (EDI) systems save time and 
reduce costs. There are similar problems h. France. Port authorities also try to find other 
devious ways of requiring river and coastal vessels to pay port dues, such as making them 
stop to take on board a pilot. 
Despite progress following the fleet renewal and the full opening-up of the inland 
waterway market, better use could still be made of the mode. For example, there are 
still a number of infrastructure problems (bottlenecks, inappropriate gauge, height of 
bridges, operation of locks, lack of transhipment equipment, etc.) which prevent the 
uninterrupted passage of ve~sels throughout the year. The free movement of vessels 
is also hampered by the diversity of legal systems with different rules, particularly on 
technical specifications for vessels and pilots certificates. 
This mode of transport needs to be made more reliable, efficient and accessible by: 
eliminating bottlenecks, correcting gauges, providing missing links, revitalising goods 
transport waterways which have fallen into disuse, establishing links to rivers and 
installing transhipment equipment; 
installing highly efficient navigational aid and communication systems on the inland 
waterway network; 
-continuing to standardise technical specifications throughout the Community's inland 
waterway network; 
further harmonisation of pilot certificates throughout the Community inland waterway 
network, including the Rhine; the Commission will be making a proposal in 2002; 
harmonising the rules on rest times, crew members, composition of crews and sailing 
times of inland waterway vessels; the Commission will be making a proposal in 2002. 
45 
B. -Helping to start up intermodal services: the new Marco Polo programme 
39 
40 The PACT39 programme introduced in 1992 has Jed to a great many initiatives, with 
167 projects launched between 1992 ~nd 2000, despite the modest budget (53 million 
euros over the period 1992-2001). 
A few PACT successes 
-A new combined rail/sea link between Sweden and Italy, via Germany and Austria. This 
service takes some 5 00 000 tonnes a year off the busy roads and improves journey times 
significantly (by up to 48 hours). 
-Ruillair services between Schiphol (Amsterdam) and Milan airports have already taken 
the equivalent of 45 air freight pallets per week off the roads in their first year in 
operation. 
-Every day a barge service between Lille and Rotterdam removes some 50 lorries from a 
heavily used road corridor. 
-A shipping service in La Rochelle-Le Havre and Rotterdam has shifted 643 000 tonnes 
of cargo from road to sea in three years. 
-A rail/sea service between Spain and Germany avoids app,roximately 6 500 lorry 
journeys per year on congested roads. 
-An information system for freight tracking, accessible via PC and the Internet, 
translates messages wrillen in different languages into a single, common language. 
\Vhen the PACT programme comes to an end in December 2001 the Commission 
plans to replace it with a new programme to promote intermodality,- called "Marco _ 
Polo". As the financial programming currently stands,40 the margin available would 
allow an annual budget of around 30 million euros, which could be spread over four 
years. Marco Polo will be open to all appropriate proposals to shift freight from road 
to other more environmentally friendly modes. Efforts will be made to harness the 
advantages of short-sea shipping. 
Three principal objectives have been set for this support: 
-the first is to support measures proposed by players on the logistics market, with 
particular emphasis on starting up new services which will be commercially 
viable in the long term and will lead to substantial shifts from road to other 
modes, without necessarily being technological innovations. Community aid will 
be limited to the start-up phase for these services; 
-the second is to improve the operation of the entire intermodal chain; 
-the third concerns innovation in cooperation and dissemination of best practice in 
the sector. 
To back up the Marco Polo programme, the Commission will take steps to make the 
Community fleets more competitive. 
Pilot Action for Combined Transport. 
Heading 3 (internal policies). 
46 
The mounting pressure exerted by international competition has prompted the 
Member States to take different sequences of initiatives to safeguard their shipping 
interests and jobs in this sector. The 1997 Community guidelines on State aid to 
maritime transport have allowed the Member States to take a number of measures 
which have generally had a positive impact in terms of "repatriation" of the 
Community fleet. After learning lessons ·about the most appropriate action for 
making the European fleet more competitive, the plan is to revise these guidelines in 
2002 to smooth the way for action by the Member States within a coordinated 
framework avoiding distortions of competition. 
C. Creatingfavourable technical conditions 
The principal limitation of modes such as rail, inland waterway or sea is that they are 
unable to carry freight from door to door. Unloading and reloading wastes time and 
adds to costs, making the services less competitive, to the benefit of road haulage, 
which has the advantage of a feeder network enabling it to carry goods almost 
anywhere. 
Technological research has produced many innovations in logistics .concepts and 
systems. Many, however, have never got beyond the drawing-board or prototype 
stage, because all too often they have focused on just a single link in the intermodal 
chain. From now on it is imperative to target research and development on the 
integration and consistent validation of the most innovative concepts and systems. 
The critical technologies developed for vehic~es and transhipment equipment, for 
communications and for management must be tested in ·real conditions, with 
technical coordination. 
If this research is to bear fruit, it is important to create the right technical conditions, 
for developing the profession of freight integrator, and to standardise loading units. 
1. Encouraging the emergence of freight integrators 
41 For goods transport, making the right use of the most efficient mode in the transport 
chain, based on different criteria at any given time, is the job of transport flow 
"organisers", and a new profession is emerging: that of freight integrator. Modelled 
on what has been done at world level for package distribution, a new profession 
specialising in the integrated transport of full loads (exceeding around 5 tonnes) 
should emerge. These "freight integrators" need to be able to combine the specific 
strengths of each mode at European and world l~vel to offer their clients and, 
consequently, society at large the best service in terms of efficiency, price and 
environmental impact in the broadest sense (economic, ecological, energy, etc.). 
As the European Parliament has already stated,41 such a profession must develop 
within a "single, transparent scheme which is easy to enforce", clearly defining, in 
particular, where responsibility lies all along the logistics chain and laying down the 
corresponding transport documents. The Commission will make a proposal along 
these lines in 2003. 
Reports by Mr U. Stockmann of 21January1999 and by Mrs A. Poli Bortone of 27 November 2000. 
47 
2. Standardising containers and swap bodies 
42 Conventional shipping containers cannot meet all consignors' needs. In particular, 
they are too narrow to accommodate two standard pallets side by side. In addition, 
the spread of the large containers used by US or Asian companies exporting all over 
the world would pose safety problems on European roads when it comes to delivery 
to the final destination. 
For this reason, European inland t~ansport operators have developed wider containers 
suitable for palleti~ation and posing no problems at the time of final -delivery. Most 
of these "swap bodies" are easily transferable from rail to road (and vice versa). They 
are wider than containers and allow easy palletisation but, on the other hand, ar~ 
more fragile and not stackable. Measures must therefore be taken to design and 
standardise new loading units offering the advantages of both containers and swap 
bodies plus optimum intermodal transhipment. This subject, already highlighted in 
·reports by the European Parliament,42 is one of the issues the Commission wishes to 
explore in the sixth RTD framework programme. The Commission may possibly 
make a proposal on harmonisation in this area in 2003. 
I The Commission proposes the following work programme: 
-include the concept of "motorways of the sea" in the future revision of the trans­
European networks; 
-introduce a new "Marco Polo" programme, to come into operation in 2003 at the latest, 
to support intennodality; 
-encourage the emergence of freight integrators and standardise loading units (containers 
and swap bodies). Proposals to this end will be submitted in 2003; 
improve the situation of inland waterway transport by mutual recognition of boatmasters' 
t certificates throughout the Community's inland waterway network and discuss with the I social partners the minimum social legislation to be applied on crews, time at the helm 
• and navigation. I ------------------------------------------------------
See previous footnote. 
48 
·PART TWO: ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS 
43 With the transport boom outstripping economic growth, the persistence and indeed 
the very size of a number of bottlenecks on the main international routes is posing a 
major problem for the transport system in Europe. Whether located on the outskirts 
of conurbations or at natural barriers or borders, these bottlenecks affect all modes of 
transport. 
Unless infrastructure is interconnected and free of bottlenecks, to allow the physical 
movement of goods and persons, the internal market and the territorial cohesion of 
the Union will not be fully realised. · 
Foreseeable bottlenecks 
Jn border areas, the present infrastructure networks still reflect the narrow national views 
(sometimes going back to the 19th century), which influenced their construction. Wattre/os 
in France, which is not connected to the Belgian motorway network, which passes only a 
few metres away, is a good example of the dysfunctions that can arise. Between Germany 
and France, the towns of Kehl and Strasbourg are still linked only by a /ow-capacity single 
track over the narrow bridge which crosses the Rhine. Jn the Pyrenees. a single track 
crosses the border to link the national double-track systems. Ho~ever, it is not only at 
borders that problems are to be found. In Bordeaux a double-track bridge which is well 
over a century old has to be used by TGVs, regional trains andfreight trains alike to travel 
from Northern Europe to Spain, the Pyrenees or the Toulouse region.. Similarly, on the. 
roads and motorways, the lack of bridges means that the meeting of local and interregional 
or internatiOnal flows creates the notorious Bordeaux bottleneck. Little has been done in 
terms of traffic management and user information on these routes. Other famous 
bottlenecks include the one due to the delay in the construction of the Lanaye Lock, 
preventing the linking of the Meuse and the Rhine, and the ones on certain sections of the 
Danube (e.g. Straubing-Vilshofen). 
The paradox is that these bottlenecks remain even though the European Union has 
adopted an ambitious policy on the trans-European network. The Maastricht Treaty 
gave the Community the powers and instruments to establish and develop the trans­
European network. In 1993, the Commission endeavoured to give high priority to the 
trans-European network, as highlighted in the White Paper on Growth, 
Competitiveness and Employment. The conception of the transport sector network 
was initially based largely on the juxtaposition of national infrastructure plans, 
particularly for the conventional rail and road networks. The Heads of State and 
Government themselves gave a series of incentives to the development of this policy, 
particularly by sett~ng up, in 1994, a group made up of their personal representatives 
who, by focusing on existing national priorities, selected a series of priority projects, 
the famous projects of the Essen European Council, which attracted the attention of 
investors to some extent.43 
In 1996, the first guidelines for the development of the trans-European 
transport network were adopted by decision of Parliament and the Council, 
bringing together within a single reference framework these Essen priority 
. . 
The method adopted by the Group of Personal Representatives of the Heads of State and Government, 
the "Christophersen" Group, was to look at priorities at national level (bottom-up approach) rather than 
first of all considering European priorities (top-down approach). 
49 
44 
45 projects as well as the concepts and criter~a for each mode of transport, 
enabling other projects of common interest to be identified. These guidelines thus 
identified those projects into which much of EU infrastructure funding is channelled 
(budget heading for the trans-European network, Cohesion Furid, Structural Funds),44 
as well as that of the European Investment Bank. The priority areas identified by 
these guidelines also serve as a reference for other Community legislation aimed at 
international traffic (bans on weekend travel) or the interoperability of networks (rail 
interoperability). 
It is apparent today that the development of the trans-European network is not only 
far from uniform but also very slow. Scarcely 20"% of the infrastructure planned 
in :the 1996 decision has been finished. It is debatable whether it can be completed· 
by the planned deadline of 2010. It is true that significant progress has been achieved 
in providing regions lagging behind and countries aided from the Cohesion Fund 
with road infrastructure almost on a par with that of other regions and countries, as 
acknowledged by the Second Cohesion Report. And certain major projects such as 
the 0resund fixed link and Malpensa airport have been completed according to plan. 
However, much remains to be done in the other modes. Barely 2 800 km of new 
high-speed lines are currently in service. At the present rate, it will be more than 20 
years before the 12 600 km of high-speed lines planned in 1996 have been 
completed. These delays are due to local opposition to the building ·of new 
infrastructure, the lack of an integrated approach during the planning, evaluation and 
funding of cross-border infrastructure, and also reduced public funding as a result of 
a general slowdown of investment in transport infrastructure, which fell from 1.5% 
of GDP in 1970 to around 1%in1995. 
Nevertheless, whatever the delay to certain projects, support should continue to. 
be given to the trans-European network, which is an important factor in 
European competitiveness and improves the links between the European 
Union's outlying regions and its central markets. 
This is why the Commission plans to propose a two-stage revision of the trans­
European network guidelines. 
The first stage in 2001 will aim at a limited adaptation of the existing guidelines, in 
line with Article 21 of the Decision on the guidelines.45 This revision, which the 
Commission should already have proposed in 1999, must not be the occasion to start 
adding a lot of new infrastructure routes for which no funding has been secured. It 
should concentrate on eliminating bottlenecks on the routes already identified, 
completing the routes identified as priorities for absorbing the traffic flows generated 
by enlargement, particularly in frontier regions, and improving access to outlying 
areas. In this context, the list of 14 major priority projects adopted by the Essen 
European Council needs to be updated, as called for on several occasions by 
Parliament and as the Commission has been trying to do since 1997. 
A total of€ 18 billion is estimated as being available for Community funding during the period 2000-
2006 through the various financial instruments for projects of common interest relating to the trans-
European network. _ . 
Article 21 of Decision 1692/96/EC provides that the guidelines should be adapted to take account of 
economic developments and technological developments in the transport field, in particular in rail 
transport. 
50 
·The second stage in 2004 will involve a more extensive revision, in the light of 
reactions to the White Paper, aimed in particular at introducing the concept of 
"motorways of the sea", developing airport capacity, and including sections of pan­
European corridors situated on the territory of candidate countries, including those 
which will still not be members of the Union at that time. The idea is to concentrate 
on a primary network made up of the most important infrastructure for international 
traffic and cohesion on the European continent.46 . 
In this context the Commission will look at the idea of introducing the concept of 
declaration of European interest where specific infrastructure is regarded as being 
of strategic importance to the smooth functioning of the internal market .and would 
help reduce congestinn, but is of less interest at national or local leve!. This 
mechanism will be designed to assist arbitration to bring the points of view of the 
various local, national and European players closer together. 
For the time being, revision of the trans-European network47 means concentrating on 
unblocking the main arteries. Irrespective of the issue of priority infrastructure 
routes, the main problem is to solve the headache of funding, for which the White 
Paper makes ·concrete proposals, notably the pooling of funds. 
I. UNBLOCKING-THE MAJOR ROUTES 
The revised Community guidelines on the trans-EUiopean network must form part of 
an environmentally sustainable policy which, as the Gothenburg European Council 
underlined, should "tackle rising levels of congestion and encourage the use of 
environment-fr_iendly modes of transport". To this end, they must redirect 
Community action to allow the development of multimodal corridors giving priority 
to freight and a high-speed network for passengers. This also means a limited 
number of .new major i~frastructure projects. The most important European routes 
will also need to be provided with traffic management plans to make better use of 
existing capacity. The Commission will ensure a general balance in the choice of 
projects. 
A. Towards multimodal corridors giving priority to freight 
46 
47 
48 The establishment of multimodal corridors giving priority to freight requires high­
quality rail infrastructure. The physicar characteristics of the railways in Europe do 
not lend themselves to a mass transport system for freight. Nor is it possible to stack 
containers or make up long trains, and generally speaking the system has to cope 
with dense passenger train traffic48 sharing the same i~frastructure as freight trains. 
Though it will not be possible in the immediate future to establish _a complete rail 
network reserved for freight, as in the United States, investment must encourage 
the gradual development of trans-European corridors for priority or even 
exclusive use by freight trains. These will consist mainly of existing lines used 
. primarily or even exclusively by freight trains. In ·areas with intensive traffic, 
particularly urban areas, having separate lines for freight and passengers will be the 
See section on enlargement. . 
Proposed in parallel with this White Paper. 
In general, the lines designed for ·high-speed trains (more than 250 km/h) are used only by high-speed 
trains, the only goods transported being express freight. 
51 
guiding principle in the development of the network, which will require the 
construction of new lines or loop lines around rail nodes. In other areas, the gradual 
establishment of corridors giving priority to _freight will be achieved through 
improvements in capacity including the upgrading and rehabilitation of infrastructure 
on altemati ve low-traffic routes or through the development of traffic management 
systems (programme control and signalling) capable of separating trains more 
efficiently. 
Rail access to ports provides an essential link in multimodal corridors givmg 
priority to freight. This is the essential condition for the development of short-sea 
shipping to reduce traffic through the Alps and the Pyrenees. 
I 
The terminals through which goods are routed to their final destinations or at which 
trains are made up again constitute major bottlenecks. In the freight terminals open to 
all operators, public incentive investment in marshalling yards and transhipment 
·equipment can play an important role in increasing capacity, particularly in 
intermodal terminals. 
B. A high-speed passenger network 
49 The increasing distances between centres at opposite ends of the Union as it enlarges 
mean that an effective high-speed passenger network is required. Such a network 
comprises the high-speed lines, including upgraded lines, connections and systems 
which will allow the integration of air and rail transport services and airports. 
The ambitious programmes to develop a high-:speed rail network of the last decade 
have to be continued in order to achieve this objective. This does not mean that a 
freight network cannot be established, however. On the contrary, they are both part 
of the same effort to increase the capacity of the rail network as a whole. That said, 
the difficulties in finding funding encountered in the past dictate a degree of caution 
when it comes to setting objectives. Aid for new high-speed lines must be linked to 
the development of freight capacity by freeing up the lines previously used by 
passenger trains which freight trains will now be able to use much more easily.49 
On routes where it is impossible to construct new lines, the upgrading of existing 
tracks for high-speed trains is a solution offering an adequate level of comfort and 
service thanks to progress with tilting train technology. 
To cover certain sections where it is difficult to construct several tracks, such as in tunnels or on long 
bridges, it may be necessary to have mixed freight and passenger rail use. 
52 
50 
51 
52 100% 
90% .. ' 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 % +=-o:.=.:.= 
before AVE after AVE o coach 
ocar 
•air 
El rail 
On many routes, high-speed trains are a very attractive alternative to flying in terms 
of time, price and comfort, particularly if access times to airports from city centres 
are taken into account. Contrary to the widely-held view, the advantage of high­
speed trains for passengers is not limited to journeys of less than three hours. 
Between Paris and the Mediterranean, before the inauguration ~f the new high-speed . 
line, the market share claimed by high-speed trains exceeded 25% although the 
journey time to Marseilles and other stations on the Cote d'Azur was well in excess 
of four hours. 50 
The above graph51 shows that the market share for flying between Madrid and 
Seville fell from 40% to 13% with the entry into service of the high-speed line 
(A VE). Similarly, between Paris and Brussels, the market share claimed by car 
journeys has fallen by almost 15% since Th~lys started its operations. 
Network planning should therefore seek to take advantage of the ability of high­
speed trains to replace air transport and encourage rail companies, airlines and airport 
managers not just to compete, but also to cooperate. 
-Investment geared to integrating the high-speed train network with air 
transport needs to be encouraged. This investment could be channelled into 
railway stations at airports and terminals for passenger and baggage check-in in 
railway stations. Other measures could encourage the integration of systems and 
services for passenger information, reservations, ticketing and baggage transport 
which make it easier for passengers to switch from one mode to the other.52 
Otherwise, over and above a limited number of new airport hubs planned for some 
time in the future, the high-speed network for passengers in Europe is completed by 
smaller airports in regions not served by high-speed trains. 
The opening of the high-speed line over it.s entire length in June 2001 has reduced the journey time 
between Paris and Marseilles to 3 hours. 
A VE: Alta Velocidad Espafiol_a. . 
The integration of the high-speed rail network and airports should also benefit rapid freight transport, 
particularly express courier services since at present almost 50% of pre-and post-routing of air freight, 
a booming sector, is by road. 
53 
C. Improving traffic conditions 
Specific traffic management measures coordinated at European level can produce 
an overall improvement in traffic conditions on the major inter-city routes, whatever 
the causes of congestion (accidents, weather conditions, one-off or recurring 
incidents, etc.). There are many road infrastructure managers in Europe who now 
have experience in this field. For a number of years, the European Union has 
provided financial incentives to introduce such measures on international corridors. 
Such measures are already applied between Germany and the Netherlands (e.g. 
traffic di versions on routes between Cologne and Eindhoven) and a number of tests 
are under way between the Benelux countries and their neighbours and at th~ Alpine 
(between France and Italy in particular) and Pyrenean crossings. By 2006, all the 
main trans-European links should have traffic management plans. 
For heavy goods vehicles, precise traffic management at peak times will make it 
possible to offer more suitable routes, better schedules and driver assistance. This 
could result in capacity gains while reducing the risks of accidents and pollution. 
D. Major infrastructure projects 
Of the fourteen projects53 approved by ·the Essen European Council, three have 
now been completed and six others, which are in the construction phase, should be 
finished by 2005, such as the high-speed rail link between Barcelona and Figueras. 
As regards the remaining projects, the Alpine routes which require the construction 
of very long tunnels such as Lyon-Turin are encountering numerous difficulties and 
delays because of technical uncertainties and the difficulty in finding the capital to 
complete them. Equally, a new European bottleneck will appear across the Pyrenees 
if nothing is done to ensure a trouble-free passage. There is also a need to launch or 
modify other major projects. These changes are the reason why the list of priority 
projects established by the Heads of State and Government in 1994 needs to be 
updated and incorporated into the guidelines adopted by the European Parliament 
and the Council. Implementation of these projects also highlights the need to 
improve tunnel safety. 
1. Completing the Alpine routes 
53 In spite of the difficulty of completing them according to schedule, the two projects 
involving rail links in the Alps remain priority projects of particular importance in 
helping, as part of an overall transport policy in the Alps, to switch part of the growth 
in road traffic to rail in this region, which is a crossroads in the trans-European 
network. The growth of traffic in the Rhone corridor shows the urgent need to take 
measures. 
Financial aid from the Union in the form of direct contributions over the last ten 
years has not created a sufficient lever effect to commit the Member States 
concerned to the process of completing _these major Alpine projects within the 
timescale laid down by the Essen European Council, i.e. 2010. 
The "Christophersen" Group ~ad identified 26 major priority projects, the 14 most important of ~hich 
had been approved by the Essen European Council in 1994. The list of these projects was subsequently 
incorporated in Annex III to the European Parliament and Council Decision on the guidelines for the 
development of the trans-European network. 
54 
-It may be exp_ected that the new ways of operating existing tunnels will, because of 
safety requirements, lead to a not insignificant reduction in their capacity, which 
could rapidly be translated into an increase in the level of congestion. According to 
studies carried out by the Italian operator of the Frejus tunnel, the only Alpine road 
tunnel between France and Italy is already 20% above the ma:x.imum capacity 
authorised by these new safety rules. The re-opening of the Mont Blanc tunnel 
scheduled for the end of 2001 will reduce this pressure to -some extent. However, it is 
clear that the rules governing heavy goods traffic will henceforth be much more 
rigorous than those in force before the accident in 1999·, quite apart from the fact that 
local residents are increasingly opposed to the presence of these heavy goods 
vehicles. The adoption of bilateral agreements between the European Union and 
Switzerland and the completion of the Swiss programme of new Alpine rail links are · 
a step forward in the process of improving Alpine transit. However, these measures 
will only do so much to ease what is a very difficult situation in terms of congestion: 
. the transport system in this region does not need a placebo but a genuine solution to 
recurring problems. -
An alternative to the Alpine road routes and a complement to_the present rail network 
is needed in the next ten years, which means that the firm commitment to establish 
this new rail link between Lyon and Turin, already decided on at the European 
Council in Essen, must be acted upon without delay, failing which the regions 
concerned, mainly Rhone Alps and Piedmont, will 'see their economic 
competitiveness compromised. 
Similarly, the· quality of life of those living in the Tyrol and Alto Adige is likely to 
deteriorate further as a result of the constant and growing heavy goods traffic, and 
the question of completing the new Brenner tunnel between Munich ~nd Verona 
needs to be settled within a reasonable timescale. Beyond these regions, much of the 
east-west flows, between the Iberian Peninsula and central Europe and the Balkans 
would be affected by these bottlenecks. 
2. Easier passage through the Pyrenees 
If nothing is done to improve the passage through them, bottlenecks could occur in 
the Pyrenees, which are crossed by long-distance traffic, half of it involving trade 
between the Iberian Peninsula and countries beyond France. Studies by the 
Franco-Spanish centre which monitors trans-Pyrenean traffic have shown that more 
than 15 000 heavy goods vehicles cross the two ends of this mountain range every 
day and that this traffic is increasing all the time at a very high rate ( + 10% per year). 
In 1998, flows between Spain and Europe already amounted to 144 million tonnes a 
year (53% by road, 44% by sea and 3% by rail). The centre estimates that by. 
2010-2015 an additional 100 million tonnes will have to be distributed between the 
various modes. The improvement of existing lines and completion of the HST South 
will enable capacity to be increased in the medium term, on top of which there is the 
-potential of short-sea shipping. The capacity of short-sea shipping to provide a 
genuine solution depends, however, on whether operators can gain the confidence of 
shippers. In this connection, new rail capacity will have to be harnessed, in particular 
through the central Pyrenees. This is why the Commission is proposing in the 
revision of the guidelines for the trans.-European network the inclusion of a 
major project for a high-capacity rail crossing in the Pyrenees (Annex III), the 
route being left to the interested countries to agree. 
55 
This raises the issue of upgrading the existing line between Pau and Zaragoza via 
Canfranc to provide a short-term improvement in the passage through the Pyrenees. 
Despite· its low capacity in terms of anticipated long-term needs,54 the point is that 
the existing tunnel could be made use of and consignors and carriers could be 
encouraged to gear their logistics chain to this future high-capacity crossing. It is 
therefore proposed that this line should be included in the conventional rail outline 
plan of the current revised guidelines, given that this is what the governments of the 
two countries in question want. Apart from the positive environmental aspect of this 
project in the Pyrenees, the Commission will ensure that any financial aid will result 
in work on the project paving the way for a high-capacity link as part of a long-term, 
economically viable programme that is the produce of cross-border coordination. 
It will also be necessary to rethink the question of a future road link through the 
Pyrenees which for reasons connected with environmental impact, cost and 
acceptance by local residents should ensure that piggyback transport is adopted as of 
right. 
3. Launching new priority projects 
The need to launch, speed up or modify priority projects is apparent. The list of 
"specific" projects in Annex ill to the Decision on the guidelines for the trans­
European network ("Essen" list) can be amended by joint decision of the European 
Parliament and the Council. The Commission is therefore proposing that projects 
which have already been completed or are nearing completion be removed from the 
list and that a very limited number of new major projects be added. 55 
Apart from the project for a new high-capacity rail crossing in the Pyrenees 
mentioned above, the new or amended projects which the Commission is considering 
including in this future proposal are as follows: 
• East European high-speed train/combined transport: For historical reasons there has 
been little development of west-east links to the candidate countries. However, trade with 
these countries is already generating significant traffic flows. On the rail corridor along the 
Danube, more than 60% of traffic is already international. The forecasts point to sustained 
growth in traffic. It is therefore necessary to facilitate the development of a new high­
capacity west-east rail link for freight and passeng~rs from Stuttgart-Munich to 
Salzburg/Linz-Vienna. This project involves building or upgrading 780 km of track for 
high-speed trains and lines for freight transport. With a view to enlargement, it could 
conceivably be extended to Budapest, or even Bucharest and Istanbul. As the line between 
Stuttgart and Mannheim is operational, the extension of the current TGV East (Project No 
4) linking Paris to Mannheim via Strasbourg by these sections will make for a continuous 
trans-European rail corridor from Paris to Vienna. 
• Fehmarn Belt: The bridge/tunnel crossing the natural barrier of the Fehmam Belt between 
Germany and Denmark is a key link which will complete the north-south route connecting 
Central Europe and the Nordic countries and allow the development of trade between 
them. This project on the route including the recently-opened 0resund fixed link aims to 
54 
SS The line can only take 2.8 mi_llions tonnes, i.e. barely more than 1 % of the traffic between the lperian 
Peninsula and the rest of Europe by 2010-2015, and poses serious operating constraints on account of 
the steep inclines. 
See Annex III. 
56 
• "Specific" projects adopted in .1996 (so called "Essen list")* 
1. Hi!ti -speed train/combined transport north/south 
2. Hi!ti -speed train PBKAL 
3 Hi!ti -speed train sou1h 
4. High -speed train east 
5. Conventional raiL'combned traisport: Betuwe li"le 
6 Hi!ti -speed train/combined transport, France-Italy 
7. Gll!ek motoiways Pa the and Via Egiatia 
• Oecisicn 1Ell2196.EC mcdfiod by OecilllOn 13461ZID1(EC 8. ML.Ctimodal lirit Portuga..Spai~Central Europe 
9. Conventional rail Cork-OIJ>ln-8elfast-La-ne-Strairaer (completed) 
10 Malpensa airport (COfT1lleted) 
11. Fixed ink between Oenrrarlc aid SY.eden (completed) 
12. Norcic Triangle (rail/roads) 
13. lrelaicWnted Kingdorr/Benelux road Ink 
14. West Coast main hne (rail) 
200 400 600 Ki b rre te rs .... --====---
,-/ Ral 
Road 11/912001 
1:17550000 
• 
1. High·-speed trainA::omt:xned transport north -so\Jh 
3. High -speed train south 
15. Galieo 
16. High capacity rail line aaoss the Pyrenees Potential "specific" projects 
17. High -speed trainfcorrbined transport east-west 
18. River Dani.be improverrent between Vilshofen and Strauting 
19. High speed rai interoperability on the lbenan peninsula 
20 FIXed link Fehmam Belt 
0 200 400 13/9/2001 
1·11550000 
600 Kilometers 
cross the 19 km-wide belt. Completion of this project, which is still at the preliminary 
study stage, should contribute to the development of the Baltic Sea region. 
• Straubing-Vilshofen: The aim is to improve navigability on the Danube between 
Straubing and Vilshofen in Germany. This section, which is too shallow over some 70 km, 
does not allow the uninterrupted passage of vessels. Eliminating this bottleneck on the 
Rhine-Main-Danube route linking the North Sea with the Black Sea would enable a great 
deal of freight traffic to be switched from road to waterway in this increasingly congested 
. corridor. The project, which has to be conceived and implemented in accordance with 
Community law on the environment, would help to integrate the candidate countries more 
fully into the European Union and bring the Eastern Danube countries closer to the Union. 
1 • 
• Satellite radionavigation project (Galileo): This global project with a great deal of 
potential for traffic management and information for users of the trans-European network, 
as, t~o, for numerous applications in sectors other than transport, requires an intensive 
development phase until 2005 and then a deployment phase with a view to operation from 
2008 (see also Part 5). 
• Interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network: The difference in gauge between 
the network of the Iberian peninsula and the rest of the trans-European network is a major 
· o_bstacle to effective operation of the European railway system as a whole. On the basis of 
the Spanish and Portuguese plans for high-speed lines, which incluae the construction of 
new lines. and the upgrading of existing track, the alignment of the gauge in Spain and 
Portugal with European standards by 2020 will improve links between Spain and .Portugal 
and the rest of the trans..:European network. 
A number of existing projects also need to be redefined. The Verona-Naples rail link 
with its Bologna-Milan branch line, for example, should. be added to the project 
including the Munich-Veron.a·Brenner route (project No 1). These 830 km of new 
high-speed lines will provide b~tter connections between this north-south rail 
corridor and the major towns and industrial areas on the Italian Peninsula. To 
improve the link between the Mediterranean branch of the HST South Madrid­
Barcelona-Montpellier (project No 3) and the French network, it should be extended 
to Nimes. This extra 50 km will connect this project to the Paris-Marseilles route, 
improve the profitability of the cros~-border section between Perpignan and Figueras 
and facilitate freight clearance. 
Map of "specific" projects adopted in 1996 ("Essen" list) 
Map of potential "specific" projects 
4. Improving safety in tunnels 
Safety in long tunnels is another vitally important aspect in the development of 
the trans-European network. A significa_nt number of road or rail cross-border 
links, either at the project stage or under construction, inch.~de major tunnel sections, 
sometimes exceeding 50 km. These projects, which have already received or will 
receive Community financial support, include the 8 km long Somport tunnel between 
France and Spain, the rail/road link between Denmark and Sweden (0resund), the 
future Lyon-Turin trans~lpine rail link, the Brenner project and the Bologna-Flo~ence 
high-speed line currently being· constructed, where 60 of the 90 km will be in 
tunnels. Existing infrastructure in some parts, both rail and road, also has ageing 
57 
problems (80% of rail tunnels were constructed in the 19th century), or has 
increasing difficulty in coping with the inexorable growth in traffic. Current national 
legislation varies greatly: some Member States have legislation on safety in tunnels 
while in others it is rudimentary or even non-existent. The European Union can help 
to improve safety both at a technical level and in the way in which tunnels are 
operated. 
Consideration should therefore be given to European regulations, which could 
take the form of a directive on the harmonisation of minimum safety standards, 
so as to put in place the conditions guaranteeing a high level of safety for the users of 
road and rail tunnels, particularly those forming part of the trans-European transport 
network. 
Moreover, the Commission will be very vigilant with regard to the safety measures 
planned for infrastructure works which include sections in tunnels and which receive 
·Community funding, particularly under the budget for the trans-European network. 
II. THE HEADACHE OF FUNDING 
The main obstacle to carrying out infrastructure projects, apart from technical or 
environmental considerations, remains the difficulty of mobilising capital. The 
Commission sounded the alarm in this connection in its I.993 White Paper on 
Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. The suggestion of raising a loan through 
bonds issued by the Union to help funding has not been followed up. The headache 
of funding remains. To overcome this problem, not only must public and private 
funding be equal to the task, but also innovative methods of funding must be applied. 
A. Limited public budgets 
S6 Traditionally, transport infrastructure has been built on the basis of public funding, 
whether regional, national or Community. Most of the road or rail projects currently 
underway follow this pattern. In these circumstances, it is society as a whole which 
contributes. The funds needed to develop the trans-European transport network 
exceed 110 billion euros for the major priority projects alone, which meant that some 
projects had to be selected ahead of others. Public funding has therefore given 
priority to high-speed lines within Member States, such as the Paris/Strasbourg TGV, 
to the detriment of projects such as Alpine crossings, which have an international 
vocation mainly geared to freight and which therefore, because of their cross-border 
nature, appear to be less cost effective than other projects. The logic dictating 
national choices is not unconnected with the road/rail imbalance. 
Complementing national funds, Community funding (Structural Funds, Cohesion 
Fund and budget for the trans-European network) is available for studies or works in 
the form of direct subsidies.56 In the case of the budget for the trans-European 
network, the Community's contribution is limited to 10% of the total cost of 
investment. The aim is to facilitate the launch on a co-funding basis of the project or 
of studies prior to projects, to mobilise and coordinate potential investors and to 
stimulate innovative financial packages. For projects extending over several years, 
the Commission has suggested establishing a multiannual indicative programme for 
The budget for the trans-European network also offers interest rate subsidies and loan guarantees. 
58 
2001-2006, which will make for better scheduling of expenditure and ensure 
. continuity of Community financial a~d from the point of view of the promoters. 
Experience has shown, however, that in some cases, particularly those involving 
cross-border priority projects such as Lyon-Turin or the future central crossing of the 
Pyrenees, the present Community contribution rate is not a sufficient incentive to act 
as a lever to mobilise and coordinate the required. investment. It is therefore proposed 
that this rate should be raised to 20% for "critical" projects with a high added 
value for the trans-European network but a low socio-economic return at national 
level. Specifically, this will concern cross-border rail projects crossing natural 
barriers, such as mountain ranges or stretches of water, requiring de facto major civil 
engineering works such as long tunnels or bridge~. Trans-European network proj~cts 
with the aim of eliminating clearly identified rail bottlenecks at borders with 
candidate countries will also be eligible, on a one-off basis, for this 20% rate. 
·Although for some projects eligible for the structural funds the very size of the 
Community contribution is the determining factor, since aid can be as much as 80% 
of the total cost in the case of the Cohesion Fund, Community funding in other cases 
is granted sparingly and has to be complemented by substantial funding from other 
sources. The €4 170 million available for the· period 2000-2006 under the budget for 
the trans-European network, and allocated mainly to the major priority-projects, will 
cover only a small part of requirements. This means firstly that it is necessary to be 
more selective with the projects and secondly that 0ther public or private funding -or 
a combination of the two -is needed for implementing the projects. To maximise the 
return on Community aid, therefore, a11d without waiting for the revision of the 
guidelines, the aim is not qnly to tighten up the selection criteria but also to ensure · 
that Community funding is much more conditional upon the implementation of 
projects guaranteeing interconnection of the infrastructure concerned, their 
interoperability, their contribution to the development of intermodality, greater 
safety, and the recovery of the aid where this principle is not met. 
B. Reassuring private investors 
When the Channel Tunnel was built, funding was provided by private investors. 
While -this project is an undeniable technical triumph, it has however proved to be a 
notorious financial failure affecting small savers and major financial groups alike. 
The main weakness of a financial package of this type lies in the time lag between 
the capital expenditure and the first returns, which come only when the project 
becomes operational. This first returns do not necessarily mean profits. The most 
tangible effect of this failure at the financial level has been the lack of interest on the 
part of private investors to fund transport infrastructure, es.pecially cross-border 
infrastructures on which profits, often low, are by no means certain. 
In an attempt to remedy this situation, the Commission launched a consultation 
process in 1995-1997 aimed at encouraging the developIPent of public/private 
partnerships. Some major projects -the 0resund bridge/tunnel for example -have 
been funded by this partnership mechanism. The guarantees are such that almost the 
entire risk is borne by the State. In spite of this advance, the public/private 
partnership formula has still not been able to attract private investors, just as in other 
cases the inflexibility sl)own by some States has not encouraged the developme.nt of 
public/private partnerships. 
59 
By introducing new procedures for public contracts, the Commission is -hoping to 
achieve greater involvement of private capital in infrastructure funding. The revision 
of the rules on public contracts already proposed57 and clarification of the rules 
applicable to public works concessions should result in the involvement of the 
private sector at the earliest possible stage in the planning of projects and greater 
legal certainty in the way in which they are put together. Experience has also shown 
that setting up a single body responsible for obtaining and utilising funding is a 
precondition for the success of projects involving the private sector. Such 
mechanisms should therefore be encouraged. 
C. An innovative approach: pooling of funds 
57 
58 For many major projects there is no return on investment for several decades. 
The Lyon-Turin link -a textbook example of a new funding mechanism 
The difficulty of financing the international section of the new Lyon-Turin link between St 
Jean de Maurienne and Busso/eno, consisting of two major tunnels, one 54 km in length, 
the other 12 km, provides an ideal opportunity for applying a new approach to funding 
which goes beyond tried and tested forms. The new Lyon-Turin line (mixed rail line, high­
speed and combined transport) is one of the 14 projects sanctioned by the Essen European 
Council in 1994. This project had been identified as the missing link for connecting, by 
2010, the Italian high-speed network, currently under consf!:uction, to its French 
counterpart. 
The present line, the '"Maurienne" (Chamhiry-Modane-Susa-Turin), 58 which links 
France to Italy through the Mont Cenis tunnel (almost 13 km) and dates from the 1870s, is 
used by long-distance passenger trains but is of strategic importance above all for the 
transport of freight between Italy and its neighbours (France -Benelux -Spain). Even at· 
the beginning of the 1990s, it was near to saturation with traffic (in both directions) of 
around 8 million tonnes, and this figure has now reached 10 million. Over the period 1994-
2000, Community financial aid/or studies on the construction of the new link amounted to 
some €60 million, which accounts for approximately 50% of total expenditure. Thus, so 
far, the Community has been by far the biggest provider of funds/or the project. 
Between 2001 and 2005, the existing line will be upgraded and operating conditions 
improved (use of dual-current locomotives to reduce journey times) in order to cope with 
the expected growth of traffic over the next few years and launch a trans-Alpine "rolling 
road". The bilateral traffic as well as flows between Atlantic Europe and a Balkan Central 
Europe in the throes of change should soon saturate this upgraded route. The 11 000 or so 
heavy goods vehicles which travel daily through France or Switzerland to Italy are a major 
source of nuisance that is becoming less and less tolerable and less and less tolerated 
Ultimately, we are heading towards total paralysis of the region. Everything must be done 
to ensure that this project comes into operation at the beginning of the next decade. To 
avoid any further delay, sources off unding other than budget contributions from the 
Member States and the Community must he found. 
New infrastructure projects should therefore benefit from an "income" even 
before the first operating revenue is generated. The income from charges on 
competing routes -once these have been amortised -could provide a reserve of 
COM(2000)275 and COM(2000)276. 
The line has gradients of almost 35 per 1000 on the French side and 30 per 1000 on the Italian side, 
sometimes requiring three locomotives to pull the heaviest trains. 
60 
59 surplus financial resources. 59 Some of this income could therefore be used to 
make up the shortfall in funds needed to complete other infrastructure projects, 
particularly rail, in the region in question. 
In other words, the toll or charge is applied to the area as a whole to finance any 
future infrastructure. We can no longer expect, as with the Channel Tunnel, to repay 
investment by charging users once the infrastructure has been opened to traffic. If 
this approach were applied to the Alpine crossings, the Alpine motorways and 
tunnels would contribute to the funding of construction work on new crossings 
before they opened. Switzerland has adopted the radical solution of funding this type 
of major work almost entirely through charges on heavy goods vehicles, starting with 
EU lorries. 
Switzerland: a special case 
Switzerland is the first country to adopt a programme of rail infrastructure projects which 
is more than 50% funded from roads. The Swiss do not take lightly the question of 
transferring goods from road to rail: the method of fimding major rail projects for the next 
twenty years is enshrined in a specific article in the Federal Constitution (Article 196). 
This Article governs the funding of rail infrastructure, including modernisation of the 
conventional rail network and the new rail links through the Alps, which are the most 
ambitious infrastructure projects in the Alpine region (Lotschberg and Gothard tunnels 
which are due to open in 2007 and 2012 respectively). The total cost of more than 
€19 billion over twenty years is funded by: 
-A charge paid by heavy goods vehicles to use the Swiss road network which should 
account for almost half of the total cost of the planned infrastructure. Road hauliers 
from third countries will fund almost 20% of the costs of constructing the infrastructure 
through the payment of a charge on transit through Switzerland. 
-Part of the proceeds from the mine.ml oil tax, which will fund 25% of the costs of the 
new rail links through the Alps. 
-A 0.1% increase in VAT together with loans from the Swiss Confederation and private 
lenders, which will provide the remainder. The railway companies will have to repay 
these loans with interest. 
The novelty of the Swiss approach lies essentially in the creation of a special fund made up 
of the charge on Swiss and foreign heavy goods vehicles. The Federal Law of 19 December 
1997 relating to this charge is clear in this respect: "the payment-related charge on heavy 
goods traffic is intended to cover in the long term the infrastructure costs and costs 
incurred by the local community as a result of such traffic, insofar as it does not offset such 
costs through other payments or charges. The introduction of this charge is also intended to 
help improve the framework conditions for railways on the transport market and to route 
more goods by rail. " 
It is not necessary for the corresponding funds to be administered at Community 
level; this is better done by the countries or infrastructure managers concerned, on 
the -basis of bilateral agreements. Replenished by a contribution from _the income '· 
from road pricing on routes with dense traffic, these funds would offer sufficient .. _ 
guarantees to borrow rapidly and under favourable conditions on the capital market. 
See also the chapter on charging. 
61 
_ .. 
60 
61 
62 This system could provide an even more interesting solution in that. it would 
encourage the countries concerned to improve cross-border coordination and would 
pool the risks associated with traffic trends between road and rail infrastructure 
managers. 
Motorway concessionaires, who could become full partners in the construction and 
management of these future rail links, would benefit from this in the long term, by 
helping to relieve the congestion which is already badly affecting their own 
networks. Nor would such a system penalise the regions concerned. The financial 
burden would be borne by the users, including vehicles in transit and from other 
countries, and would replace traditional funding from taxes paid only by the 
inhabitants and businesses in the countries or regions crossed. 
-This new approach ties in with many of the ideas to emerge at national level since 
the basic principle is to allocate part of the surplus income from charging for existing 
infrastructures to funding the completion of missing links in the network and this 
principle is already applied or is under discussion in various forms in a number of 
Member States. It is also highlighted in the Parliamentary report by Paolo Costa,60 
which points out that "it should be considered that if there is any surplus revenue 
over infrastructure -construction and maintenance costs, the revenues could be used 
for reducing external costs within the mode of transport from which they arise or in 
other modes. " 
Precedents and projects in Member States 
In Germany, the government is currently examining the suggestions of the independent 
commission (Piillmann Commission) to introduce a new system of rights of use based on 
kilometres covered, the revenue from which could be used to fund transport. infrastructure, 
including other modes, by way of derogations to be examined on a case-by-case basis. This 
possibility of derogations proposed by a commission made up mainly of leading figures in 
the road industry -representatives of public works and constructors -is clearly aimed at 
projects such as the Brenner. 
In France, the Investment Fund/or Land Transport and Inland Waterways, which has been 
in existence since 199561 is replenished by a ta"C of 0. 69 (euro) cents per km paid by 
motonvay concessionaires ("Land Planning Ta"C "). This fimd can be used to finance 
irifrastructure projects, more than half of which are on the railways. 
This approach also suggests a revision of current Community legislation, which not 
only fails to encourage transfers of revenue from road tolls to railway infrastructure 
projects, but can even be interpreted as obstructing such transfers. The Directive on 
the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures62 thus 
restricts toll amounts to the costs of constructing, operating and developing the road 
network. Although the Directive states that it does not "prevent the Member States 
from attributing to environmental protection and the balanced development of 
transport networks a percentage of the amount of the user charge or of the toll", it is 
nonetheless true that the method of calculating the toll laid down by this legislation 
limits its amount to the costs of constructing, operating and developing the road 
network. As the European Parliament has emphasised, there is then an intrinsic 
contradiction in this provision, as the amount of the toll cannot be related both to the 
AS-0345/2000. 
For technical reasons, this fund was budgeted in 2001. 
Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certarn infrastructl!res. 
62 
costs of constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure network concerned 
and be used for environmental protection and balanced development of transport 
networks. The possibility of using part of the tolls to fund, for example, rail projects 
is therefore legally ambiguous, and·this legal uncertainty should be removed as soon 
·as possible. 
The introduction of the new Community framework for infrastructure charging as 
announced in Part Three will bring in the changes and adjustments to allow Member 
States to use income frorri infrastructure charging to fund this type of project. 
As regards the guidelines for trans-European networks, the Commission plans to 
propose: 
In 2001, an adaptation of the current guidelines with the aim of: 
.eliminating bottlenecks to encourage rail corridors with priority given to freight, greater 
integration of high-speed lines with air transport, and the introduction of traffic 
management plans on the main road arteries 
amending the· list of "specific" projects (the "Essen" list) adopted by the Community 
in 1996 by adding major projects. By way of illustration: · 
the high-capacity freight rail route through the Pyrenees; 
East European high-speed train/combined transport: Paris-Stuttgart-Vienna; 
the Fehmam Belt bridge/tunnel between Germany and Denmark; 
the Galileo satellite radionavigation project; 
improved navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen; 
the Verona-Naples rail link, including the Bologna-Milan branch; 
interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network. 
In 2004, major changes to the guidelines on the trans-European network aimed at 
integrating the networks of candidate countries, introducing the concept of "motorways of 
the sea", developing airport capacity and improving links with outlying regions. 
As regards the financing of infrastructure, the Commissiorr plans to propose: 
a change, to the funding rules for the trans-European network, increasing to 20% the 
maximum Community c~ntribution for cross-border projects crossing natural barriers 
and projects at the borders of candidate countries; 
the establishment of a Community framework to channel revenue from charges on 
competing routes towards the building of new infrastructure, particularly rail. 
As regards technical regulations, the Commission plan~ to propose: 
-harmonisation of minimum safety standards for road and rail tunnels forming part of the 
trans-European transport network; 
-a directive designed to guarantee the interoperability of toll systems on the trans­
European road network. 
63 
PART THREE: PLACING USERS AT THE HEART OF TRANSPORT POLICY 
\Vhether they be members of the public or transport sector professionals, everyone 
should enjoy a transport system that meets their needs and expectations. 
Users therefore need to be put back at the heart of transport policy: 
Users' prime concern is road safety, which they feel is constantly under threat. 
They also want to know exactly what they are paying for when they use motorways 
or public transport. Using infrastructure and tackling pollution and congestion comes 
at a cost. It is time to say exactly what these costs are so that future decisions on 
modes of transport can be taken with complete transparency and coherence. 
People do not just want to be transported in ever greater safety; they also expect 
straightforward and flexible conditions of transport, especially when they have to use 
several modes of transport. They also want more account taken of their rights. 
Finally, users expect more rational transport in towns and cities. Noise and air 
pollution and its effects on health are of greater concern in towns and cities, and a 
clear line needs to be drawn urgently between the respective roles of private cars and 
public transport. Given the constraints of the Treaty, and in particular the principle 
of subsidiarity, the Commission intends essentially to encourage the exchange of 
good practice. In achieving sustainable transport development, it is undoubtedly the 
measures which need to be taken in urban transport which will be the most difficult 
to implement. They fall within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. 
I. UNSAFE ROADS 
63 Of all modes of transport, transport by road is the most dangerous and the most 
costly in terms of human lives. Viewed as something of a fact of life, it is only 
recently that road accidents have aroused any particularly strong reaction. How else 
can the relative acceptance of road accidents be explained when every day the total 
number of people killed on Europe's roads is practically the same as in · a 
medium-haul plane crash? 
And yet road safety is a major concern of the people of Europe, possibly even their 
prime concern.63 
Studies indicate that drivers in. Europe expect stricter road safety measures, such as 
improved road quality, better training of drivers, enforcement of traffic regulations, 
checks on vehicle safety, and road safety campaigns.64 
Until the 1990s, the Community's lack of explicit powers with regard to road safety 
made it hard for it to formulate action in that area. Nonetheless, the Community has 
long been contributing to road safety. The creation of the internal market made it 
A BVA poll in France published in Journal du Dimanche on 21 January 2001 showed it to t:>e the 
number one concern of the French, ahead of serious diseases, food scares, etc. 
SARTRE (Sociar Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe) projects; SARTRE 1 involved 15 countries 
· in 1992 and SARTRE 2 19 countries in 1997. 
64 
possible, especially via technical standardisation, to develof safe motor-vehicle 
equipment and accessories by means of over SQ directives6 (compulsory use of 
seatbelts, transport of dangerous goods, use of speed limitation devices in lorries, 
standardised driving licences and roadworthiness testing of all vehicles). 
The Maastricht Treaty finally provided the Community with the -legal means to 
establish a framework and introduce measures in the field of road safety.66 
Yet even today, despite these new powers in the Treaty, some Member States still 
fail to recognise the obvious need for a proper European road safety policy, and 
invocation of the principle of subsidiarity is making Community action difficult.67 
I The European Union must, over the next 10 years, pursue the ambitious goal of 
reducing the number of deaths on the road by half; this by way of integrated 
action taking account of human and technical factors and designed to make the 
·trans-European road network a safer network. 
A. Death on a daily basis: 40 000 fatalities a year 
65 
66 
67 
68 The price paid for mobility in Europe is still far too high. Since 1970, for example, 
more than 1.64 million of our fellow citizens have been killed on the road. Though . 
the number of deaths in road accidents dropped significantly at the beginning of the 
1990s, the trend has been less marked in recent years. 
In 2000, road accidents killed over 40 000 people in the European Union and injured 
more than 1.7 million. The age group most affected is the 14-25 year olds, for whom 
road accidents are the prime cause of death. One person in three will be injured in 
an accident at some point in their lives. The directly measurable cost of road 
accidents is of the order of 45 billion euros .. Indirect costs (including physical and 
psychological damage suffered by the victims and their families) are three to four 
times higher. The annual figure is put at 160 billion euros, equivalent to 2% of the 
EU's GNP.68 
The sums spent on improving road safety fail to reflect the severity of the situation. 
Efforts to prevent road accidents are still woefully inadequate, corresponding to less 
than 5% of the total cost of those accidents, including the amount the insurance 
companies spend on compensation and repairs, which totals 60 billion euros. 
The scattering of responsibilities anc;l resources over a large number of organisations 
and authorities responsible for road safety, both centrally and regionally, tends to 
rule out large-scale action and discourage the introduction of coordinated policies. 
For instance, provisions standardising the fitting of laminated windscreens, the fitting of seatbelts for all 
passengers, ~tandardised lateral and frontal protection, standardisation of bra king systems. 
. Article 71 of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty on European Union. 
Witness the fact that a proposal first put forward in 1988 to set a legal blood alcohol limit has remained 
a dead leuer on the agenda of 24 Council presidencies. It has never been brought to a successful 
conclusion. On 17 January 2001 the Commission adopted a recommendation including and improving 
the main objectives of the original proposal. · · 
Report by Ewa Hedkvist Pet~rsen on the Communication from the Commission to the Councp, the 
European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 
"Priorities in EU road safety -Progress report and ranking of actions" (COM(2000)125 -CS-0248/2000 
-2000/2136(COS)), adopted by Parliament on 18 January 2001. 
65 
The programmes set in motion are often no more than forerunners, containing little 
in the way of substance. Faced with the difficulty of achieving real results, Member 
States sometimes cite cultural particularities to justify their fatalistic attitude. Certain 
technical measures, e.g. involving the safety of the infrastructure, call for major 
investments that Member States have thus far been dilatory in making. 
If all the Member States were to achieve the same results as the United Kingdom and 
Sweden, for example, the numbers killed would be cut by 20 000 a year. In 1998 the 
ratio between the number of persons killed·in road accidents in Sweden and Portugal, 
two countries with comparable population figures, was 1 to 4.5. The ratio between 
the United Kingdom and France was 1 to 2.5.69 There is also huge scope for 
improvement in the countries applying for accession, whose v~hicle fleets are on 
average older than those of the EU Member States and are not fitted ~ith the latest 
technology (ABS, airbags, etc.). 
In 1997 Sweden adopted an ambitious plan of ''zero deaths and zero serious injuries in 
road accidents" for the country as a whole. The programme addresses all areas in which 
local authorities and companies have a leading role to play. They were asked, for example, 
to introduce safety criteria into their public contracts for vehicles and transport services in 
order to increase the supply of safe vehicles. Systematic improvements to the road network 
bave been undertaken to reduce the. severity of accide_nts, and incentives have been 
provided, in conjunction with the private sector, to reduce the derrzand for road transport 
and thus the exposure of road users to risk. 
B. Halving the number of deaths 
In the battle for road safety, the European Union needs to set itself an ambitious 
goal to reduce the number of people killed between 2000 and 2010. The · 
Commission plans to marshal efforts around the target of halving the number of 
road deaths over that period. Though responsibility for taking measures to halve 
the number of road deaths by 2010 will fall chiefly to the national and local 
authorities, the European Union too needs to contribute to this objective, not just 
through the exchange of good practice, but also through action at two levels: 
-harmonisation of penalties, and 
-promotion of new technologies to improve road safety. 
The Commission may, following a review of the situation in 2005, propose 
regulatory measures. 
1. Harmonisation of penalties 
69 It is a fact that controls and penalties vary considerably from one Member State to 
another. Car and lorry drivers know that they have to "take their foot off the gas" in 
some countries but that they can drive almost with impunity in others. This is 
worrying inasmuch as anyone behind the wheel can move easily from one country to 
another. For a given infringement, the penalty (immediate immobilisation of vehicle, 
loss of licence) should be the same regardless of the driver's nationality and the place 
The number of road deaths in 1998 was 531 in Sweden, 2 425 in Portugal, 3 581 in the United Kingdom 
and 8 918 in France. 
66 
where the infringement occurs. Yet it is possible for a lorry driver disqualified from 
driving in one Member State to obtain another licence in a neighbouring country. 
A motorist driving from Cologne to London on the E40 and El 5 motorways has to restrict 
his speed to 120 km/h on crossing the Belgian frontier, then to 130 km/h in France before 
slowing down to the speed limit of 112 km/h in the United Kingdom. Once there he can 
drink alcohol up to a blood alcohol level of 0.8 mg/ml, but on the way back he will have to 
observe a maximum limit of 0. 5 mg/ml. 
-
The French authorities have the power to take away the driving licence of a motorist 
driving with a_ blood alcohol level of over 0. 8 mg/ml or exceeding the speed limit by more 
than 40 km/h In neither case, however, does French law allow this to be done to a driver 
who is not of French nationality. 1 
Dangerous driving is a s_courge on a par with crime, and the Commission plans, as 
.Part of the Community's justice policy, to take initiatives aimed not just at lorry 
drivers but at all motorists. 
By way of example, the Belgian association RED has come up with innovative and 
effective road safety initiatives including: 
organising defensive driving courses, i.e. -teaching drivers how to regain control of a 
vehicle during an emergency stop in wet conditions, how to sit properly at the steering 
wheel, etc. (these are not courses in skidding); 
in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, organising alternative measures to deal with 
offences,· i.e. instead of paying a fine or losing their licence, offenders would, subject to 
their agreement, receiye defensive driving tuition and spend time helping multiple trauma 
·victims of road accidents in special institutions. 
Work is needed on the problem of harmonising certain regulations, penalties and 
controls (particularly regarding speeding and drink-driving), first and foremost on the 
trans-European motorway network, which enjoys Community co-financing and is 
used by growing numbers of people from different Member States, and starting with 
international road haulage. This will mean approximating the technical 
characteristics of the infrastructure, but will also involve basic harmonisation of 
signs and road markings. 
The great diversity of road markings and road signs on European routes; especially 
directional signs which have not been harmonised by UN conventions, is a constant 
hazard to drivers. The rules for indicating direction can differ from one country to 
another for the same type of road. For instance, five countries use green to indicate 
~otorways, while the others use blue. Language rules for indicating place names also 
vary, as.does route numbering. Plans ought therefore to be made for the gradual 
introduction of harmonised signs and signals throughout the trans-European 
network, with the same signals to be used on board vehicles. In the long term, a 
common system for identifying stretches of the trans-European road network is 
bound to be required in order to make things clearer and guarantee continuous 
network quality for users. 
Proper sign-posting of black spots -including an indication of the number of victims 
they have claimed -should make them more apparent to European motorists driving 
on major routes through the various countries. 
67 
70 The scope ought to be examined for road safety impact studies and audits (along the 
lines of environmental impact studies) to be made systematic on the main routes of 
the trans-European road network, particularly for projects for which European 
funding is requested. 
Efforts must also continue to combat the scourge of drink-driving and find 
answers to the question of the use of drugs or medicines that affect people's ability 
to drive safely. On 17 January 2001 the Commission adopted a recommendation 
urging the Member States to prescribe a general limit of 0.5 mg/ml as the maximum 
permitted blood alcohol level of drivers and 0.2 mg/ml for commercial drivers, 
motorcyclists and inexperienced drivers. 
I 
In an effort to combat drink-driving in Belgium, the "Bob" campaign (i.e. the person 
driving does not drink) launched in 1995 has been a great success. Groups are encouraged 
to select one person from among them who will refrain from drinking and can thus drive 
the others home safely. 
In France, in addition to awareness campaigns, other practices have been developed to 
reduce the number of deaths among people leaving night clubs. Some establishments ask 
people to hand in their car keys on arrival and only return the keys after checking the blood 
alcohol level of the driver. 
Also, to encourage motorists to drive more carefully on some roads, several regions have 
marked the places where people have been killed in accidents by tracing silhouettes by the 
roadside. Seeing them, some 37% of motorists say they take more care and 20% slow down. 
Several Member States have introduced a range of initiatives to prevent risky 
behaviour, particularly with warnings to the young about the dangers of alcohol. It is 
important to encourage the spread and exchange of these good practices. 
Table 1 Permitted speed limits and blood alcohol levels in EU countries 
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL .A p FIN s UK 
Built-~p areas 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 48 
Trunk roads 90 80 100 110 90 90 96 90 90 80 100 100 80 90 96 
Motorways 120 110 see 120 120 130 112 130 120 120 130 120 120 110 112 
'· note70 
Blood Alcohol -level in 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.8 
mg/ml :_ ·• ., . .. ' 
Source : European Commission and Member States. 
In addition, the Council and the European Parliament are currently discussing a 
proposal for a Directive which would require coach passengers to use safety belts, 
where fitted. An existing Directive on "safety belts for coaches" lays down technical 
standards for belts but does not require manufacturers to fit them. To make this 
measure effective, action needs to be taken to require coach manufacturers, like 
car manufacturers before them, to fit all seats with safety belts. A directive along 
these lines will be proposed in 2002. 
Motorways: no speed limit, recommended limit of 130 km/h, more than half the network with speeds 
limited to 120 km/h or less. 
68 
2. New technologies for improved road safety . 
71 
72 
73 
74 Technological developments will also enhance the usual methods of control and 
penalties, with the introduction of automatic devices and on-board driving aids. In 
the same context,_ the eventua~ fitting in road vehicles, as in other forms of transport, 
of black boxes to record parameters which help explain the causes of accidents, will 
make motorists more responsible, speed up court proceedings following accidents, 
lower the cost of court proceedings and enable more effective prevention measures to 
be taken. In June 2001 the Commission also adopted a proposal to make it 
compulsory to fit speed limitation devices in vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes or 
vehicles carrying more th'1n 9 passengers (the maximum speed is 90 km/h for utility 
vehicles and 100 km/h for buses). 
The need for independent investigations 
There is a particular problem regarding the investigations which follow accidents. At 
present, the chief concern in investigations conducted by the authorities or by insurance 
companies is to-compensate for any damage caused by the accident and to determine 
liability under the codes established by the legislator. However, such investigations are 
unable to stem the growing need felt in Europe and the United States for independent 
technical investigations geared towards revealing the causes of accidents and ways of 
improving the law. 
For some years now, European law has provided for this type of investigation for civil 
aviation.71 A similar obligation has now been provided for in the rail sector.72 The 
Commission is already planning to propose the same kind of investigations for the maritime 
sector73 and in the longer term the same should be done for road accidents. 
Independent investigations such as these need to be conducted at national level but 
following a European methodology. The results should be communicated to a committee of 
independent experts within the Com.mission, whose job would be to improve the existing 
legislation and adapt the methodology inter alia to techriical developments. 
As Mr P. van Vollenhoven 74 reminded the 3rd Conference on accident investigation 
organised by the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), "a permanent independent 
organisation not only guarantees independence of investigation; it also ensures that its 
recommendations are followed up by action." 
Directive 94/56/EC provides a model for the other modes of transport. It establishes the basic principles 
governing the· investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents. In addition to that, in December 
2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation. 
Supplementing the existing Community legislation, the proposal deals with analysis of incidents and 
occurrences that are usually precursors of accidents. 
The amendment to Directive 911440/EEC, adopted last December as part of the "railway package'', 
requires Member States to ensure that all accidents are followed by investigations. Before the end of 
2001 the Commission will adopt a proposal for a Directive on railway safety requiring Ntember States 
to set up wholly independent national bodies to be responsible for investigating accidents. A 
cooperation mechanism will be put in place at'Community level, possibly as part of the future Railway 
Safety Agency. 
Directive 1999/35/EC on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry 
and high-speed passenger craft services requires, as from 1 December 2000, that . objective 
. investigations be conducted in_ the event of accidents on any such vessels and craft bound for or l~aving 
Community ports. The Commission intends to propose a harmonised system for all maritime accidents 
by 2004. 
C~airman of the Dutch Transport Safety Board. 
69 
75 
76 The introduction of electronic driving licences could also help with the enforcement 
of penalties, such as the immobilisation of vehicles whose drivers have lost their 
licences. 
The European Union has considerable, even sole, responsib~lity for encouraging the 
deployment of innovative technologies which should lead to the introduction of safe 
new vehicles on the market. Intelligent transport systems are another 
opportunity, and broad provision for them is made in the eEurope plan adopted 
by the Feira European Council in June 2000 and confirmed by the Stockholm 
European Council in March 2001. In this context, it would be useful to encourage 
the introduction of active safety systems for all new vehicles, the generalisation of 
which could be. facilitated by a Community-level agreement with the automobile· 
industry.75 Fitted with innovative technologies, e.g. in the area of traffic management 
and collision-avoidance systems, such vehicles hold out the prospect of road safety 
being improved by 50%. Technological progress should also increase vehicles' 
impact resistance thanks to the development of new materials and the introduction of 
new advanced design processes for structural integrity. 
In the same context, current progress with tyres (reduced water projection for HGV 
tyres, improved road holding on slippery surfaces, warning system to indicate under­
inflated tyres) should in the short term make for reduced fuel consumption and 
rolling noise while maintaining a high level of safety. This should produce a 10% 
saving on fuel and around one thousand fewer deaths per year. 
Protection of vehicle occupants in the event of impact is progressing remarkably. 
Electronic systems will enable new smart protection devices (airbags for example) to 
adjust for the number of vehicle occupants, their morphology and the nature of the 
impact so as to provide more tailored protection. Reminders to put safety belts on 
must become standard vehicle equipment. 
In Sweden, 95% of car occupants wear their seatbelts. However, half of all those killed in 
accidents were not wearing their seatbelts at the time of the accident. 
To make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists, safety standards for the design of 
car fronts could help save up to 2 000 Ii ves a year. A voluntary agreement on the 
application of such standards is currently being discussed with the industry.76 
Finally, as the volume of traffic increases, better vehicle-speed management is an 
essential aspect of safety that will also help tackle congestion. In addition to 
improved road safety, observation of speed limits will also reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions significantly. The most promising prospects here are offered by new 
technologies that can determine optimum speed at any moment with reference to 
traffic conditions, road features and external conditions (such as weather) and pass 
the information on to drivers by way of information display boards or on-board 
communication systems. Roads and vehicles throughout the Union need to be 
equipped with these new technologies as soon as possible, and information systems 
made accessible to everyone. 
- . 
This agreement, which the Commission is currently working on, will include systems for distance 
control, for collision prevention and for monitoring driver alertness. 
Commission Communication of 11July2001 proposing a voluntary agreement with the industry. 
70 
-A new road safety action programme covering the period 2002-2010 will identify 
what measures need to be taken to achieve the ov~rall objective of 50% fewer deaths 
on the road, and will provide follow-up for all national and European measures that 
help reduce the number of fatalities. 
-Member States will be asked to step up their cooperation and exchange of experience 
on accident prevention and analysis, notably by means of common tools developed 
via the CARE database77 or the creation of a European road safety observatory bringing 
all support activities under one roof for the benefit of road safety experts and the 
general public. 
-Harmonisation of current ·rules and penalties (in particular for disregarding road signs 
and signals, drink-driving and speeding) will be proposed for international transport oh 
the trans-European motorway networ~. 
-A list of black spots where there are particularly significant hazards will be compiled 
with a view to appropriate sign-posting. · 
A committee of independent experts specialising in accident investigations will be 
·established within the Commission to provide it with information on the development 
of rules and regulations in all areas of safety. 
Should improvements not be significant within three to four years, the Commission 
1 might _also submit regulatory proposals as of 2005. ------------------------------------------------------
II. THE FACTS BEHIND THE COSTS TO THE USER 
77 Transport users are entitled to know what they are paying for and why. Containing 
congestion in Europe, tackling the greenhouse effect and building infrastructure 
while at the same time improving safety on the road or in public transport and 
minimising environmental <;iisturbance all comes at a price. And on top of this social 
cost comes the cost of investment to provide better control of transport, put new 
trains on the tracks ~nd build new infrastructure (e.g. airports). The quid pro quo of 
these benefits for society and transport users is that they ought in future to be more or 
less reflecte~ in the price users pay for transport, but without affecting access to a 
good quality, continuous service throughout the Community. 
Though a global increase in transport prices may be on the cards, the biggest change 
will nonetheless be in price structure. In its earlier White Paper on a common 
transport policy the Commission already concluded that "one of the important 
reasons why imbalances and inefficiencies have arisen is because transport users 
have not been adequately confronted with the full costs of their activities .:. As prices 
do not reflect the full social cost •Jf transport, demand has been artificially high. If 
appropriate pricing and infrastructure policies. were to be pursued, these 
inefficiencies would largely disappear over time. ,, 
· The paradox is that transport has too many taxes: registration tax, road and insurance 
tax, fuel taxes and infrastructure charges. But while transport may be heavily taxed, 
it is above all badly and unequally taxed. Users are all treated alike, irrespective_ of 
the infrastructure damage, bottlenecks and. pollution they cause. 
CARE: Community database on Accidents on the Road in Europe. 
71 
This failure to spread the burden fairly between infrastructure operators, taxpayers 
and users causes considerable distortion of competition both between transport 
operators and between modes of transport. 
For the modes to enjoy a level playing field, taxation should work according to the 
same principle regardless of mode and ensure a fairer distribution of the burden of 
transport costs, which are generally borne more by society, i.e. taxpayers and 
companies, than by users. Applying the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, it 
should be the case, as Mr Paolo Costa, MEP, so rightly said in a recent report,78 that 
"transport users should pay for the quantifiable components of transport costs 
arising from the use, the quality and the safety of infrastructure ... " 
The Gothenburg European Council, too, pointed out that "a sustainable policy 
should tackle ... the full internalisation of social and environmental costs. Action is 
needed to bring about a significant decoupling of transport growth and GDP growth, 
-in particular by a shift from road to rail, water and public passenger transport. " 
The thrust of Community action should therefore be gradually to replace 
existing transport system taxes with more effective instruments for integrating 
infrastructure costs and external costs. These instruments are, firstly, charging for 
infrastructure use, which is a particularly effective means of managing congestion 
and reducing other environmental impacts, and, secondly, fuel tax, which lends itself 
well to controlling carbon dioxide emissions. The introduction of these two 
instruments, which will allow greater differentiation and modulation of taxes and 
rights of use,79 needs to be coordinated, with the first being backed up by the second. 
A. Towards gradual charging/or the use of infrastructure 
78 
79 
80 The fundamental principle of infrastructure charging is that the charge for using 
infrastructure must cover not only infrastructure costs,80 but also external costs, i.e. 
costs connected with accidents, air pollution, noise and congestion. This goes for all 
modes of transport and all categories of user, both private and commercial. 
In the case of private vehicles, cross-border traffic is, however, limited, and 
"infrastructure charging raises issues of freedom of movement and the need not to 
reintroduce frontiers. It would not, therefore, be expedient for the Community to 
intervene in the arbitration handled by -national and local authorities, such as the 
setting of charges for the use of utilities such as transport infrastructure. Instead, the 
Community can act most usefully by identifying, disseminating and encouraging 
good practice, e.g. through research programmes. In the case of commercial 
transport, on the other hand, in order to avoid distortion of competition the 
Community needs to establish a framework that will enable the Member States 
gradually to integrate external and infrastructure costs and guarantee consistency in 
their initiatives. 
EP report -AS-0345/2000. 
Taxation of vehicles, including passenger vehicles, on the basis of environmental criteria may also 
encourage people to purchas~ and use cleaner vehicles (see part IV.A of this Section: Dive{sified 
energy for transport). 
These various costs are detailed in Chapter 3 of the White Paper on fair payment for infrastructure use 
(COM( 1998) 466). 
72 
Price structures must better reflect the costs to the community. Given the profusion 
of current regulations in this field and the risk of distorting competition, a 
Community framework for infrastructure charging seems to be required in all modes. 
1. A price structure that reflects the costs to the community 
81 Costs to the community can be assessed in monetary terms. The table below shows 
the cost levels generated by a heavy goods vehicle covering 100 km on a motorway 
in open country at off-peak times. Estimates are made of the costs of air pollution 
(cost to health and damaged crops), climate change (floods and damaged crops), 
infrastructure,81 noise (cost to health), accidents (medical costs) and congestion (loss 
1of time). , 
Table 2 External and infrastructure costs (euros) of a heavy goods vehicle 
travelling 100 km on a motonvay with little traffic 
External and infrastructure costs Average range 
Air pollution 2.3 -15 
Climate change 0.2-1.54 
Infrastructure 2.l -3.3 
Noise 0.7 -4· 
Accidents 0.2-2.6 
Congestio_n 2.7 -9.3 
Total 8-36 
Source: Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 
Some of these external and infrastructure costs are already covered by the charges 
imposed on the goods vehicle itself, as shown by the table below indicating average 
charges, comprising fuel and vehicle taxes and infrastructure charges. Also shown 
are average infrastructure charges, in the countries that levy them in the form of t,olls 
or user charge stickers, and the rates planned in Germany and those already applied 
in Switzerland. · 
Whatever option is currently applied for motorway charging, the average charge for a 
heavy goods vehicle covering 100 km varies between 12 and 24 euros~ of which little 
more than 8 euros corresponds to infrastructure charges. 
Where costs are increased by an infrastructure charge or fuel tax there is a drop in 
traffic, which h_as the effect of reducing external and infrastructure costs all the 
quicker, leading ultimately to a balance between costs and charges. The goal of 
effective and fair pricing must be to find that balance. 
The said balance will be achieved all the more easily by having fair and effective 
charging systems on all transport networks. 
Ibid. 
73 
82 
83 
8~ Table 3 Costs and charges (euros) for a heavy goods vehicle travelling 100 km 
on a toll mot~nvay with little traffic 
Total costs Average Average Charges Charges 
(external and charges82 infrastructure planned in already 
infrastructure) charges Germany applied in 
Switzerland 
8-36 12-24 8.3 13 36 
Source: Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (1998 figures) 
A number of measures already in the pipeline should help narrow the gap between 
costs and cliarges; for instance, the gradual tightening of motor vehicle emission 
standards should reduce air pollution. Pricing that takes account of the real level of 
costs generated by different types of engine, congestion and other external cost 
-factors will not therefore mean a uniform rise in charges across the board. Charges 
are likely to be higher in areas with high traffic density than in less-developed 
regions. 
Contrary to popular thinking, such integration would not work against 
European competitiveness. It is not so much the overall level of taxes that needs 
to change significantly, but rather their structure, which. needs to be altered 
radically to integrate external and infrastructure costs into the price of 
transport. If some Member States wanted to raise the overall level of transport 
taxes, this policy could, as Mr Costa underlined,83 be "designed in such a way as to 
avoid a net increase in taxation (including charges) in the economy as a whole", for 
instance by offsetting any increase in infrastructure charges by lowering existing 
taxes, such as taxes on labour, or by allocating revenue to the financing of 
infrastructure. 
Systems to locate, identify and monitor vehicles and their loads will become 
increasingly reliable through the use of information and telecommunication 
technologies, especially satellite navigation systems (Galileo). Tariff schedules can 
then be more targeted and be drawn up according to infrastructure category (national, 
international) and use (distance travelled, length of time used). Other objective 
factors can also be taken into account, e.g. vehicle catef.ory (environmental 
performance, factors influencing infrastructure deterioration, 4 even the loading 
ratio), level of congestion (period of the day, week or year) and location (urban, 
suburban, interurban or rural). 
International standards are being adopted on short-range communication automatic 
toll systems, and work is under way to establish the contractual and legal aspects of 
network interoperability. Other aspects also need clarifying (how to handle users not 
possessing automatic equipment, fraud, etc.). Despite its efforts the Commission has 
not managed to convince operators to achieve operability on a voluntary basis and in 
the short term. It therefore plans, on the basis of the current work, to present 
Community legislation in 2002 in the form of a directive to guarantee the 
interoperability of toll systems on the trans-European road network. This will 
Not including VAT. 
See footnote 78. 
In road transport, the number of axles and type of suspension, for example. 
74 
ensure users have a quick and easy way of paying infrastructure charges, using the 
same. means of payment throughout the network without losing any time at toll 
stations. At present, for example, a motorist driving from Bologna to Barcelona has 
to pay tolls at more than six stations without the ''electronic- payment" systems being 
harmonised, even within individual countries. 
It should be noted that infrastructure charging that allows external costs, especially 
environmental costs, to be internalised in the price of transport could, in sensitive 
areas, replace the system of rationing transit rights, such as Austria's "eco-points" 
system whereby goods vehicles wishing to access the Austrian network are allocated 
points according to their environmental performance. The Commission will look into 
the expediency of proposing a transitional system to apply to sensitive mountain 
areas should it not be possible to bring the general modification of charging 
legislation into force at the beginning of 2004. 
2. A profusion of regulations 
85 Most modes of transport already have infrastructure charging systems, such as rail, 
port and airport t~xes, air navigation charges and motorway tolls. These systems 
were conceived individually for each mode of transport and for each country, which 
sometimes leads to anomalous situations that can hamper international transport and 
even discriminate between operators and modes of transport. ·For instance, a goods 
train passing though heavily congested urban areas might have to pay charges to the 
infrastructure manager whereas a lorry can pass through an entire conurbation 
without paying any road charges. 
In its 1998 White Paper on Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use, the Commission 
proposed a programme for a Community approach in stages. This programme is still 
far from taking concrete shape and the Community framework in this respect is still 
incomplete,. 
In the road haulage sector, the Commission's proposal to take better account of 
environmental costs in the Community framework for charging heavy goods vehicles 
---for infrastructure use achieved only partial success, and even then only under ·the 
pressure of negotiations on the transport agreement between the European Union and 
Switzerland. The current Community framework for heavy goods vehicles simply 
establishes minimum vehicle charges, sets maximum limits on motorway network· 
access rights and governs calculation of toll amounts.85 The European Union is 
currently made_ up of a Europe of tolls, .where users have to pay. on toll 
motonvays, a Europe of "Eurovignettes" paid by heavy goods vehicles 
throughout the entire· network, generally by the year, and a Europe where no 
-charges are applied at all. The result is therefore a disappointment, in terms of both 
the harmonisation of national systems and the inclusion of environmental costs. 
Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures. 
75 
Current road pricing legislation 
European law does not allow Member States to levy road charges above the level of 
infrastructure costs. 86 Moreover, while charges have the advantage of being a system more 
in proportion with the intensity of use, they are usually only applied to motorways. In the 
Eurovignette system, heavy goods vehicles have to pay an annual charge according to the 
damage they cause to the environment and roads. Charges are based on emissions (EURO 
standard) and the size of the vehicle (number of axles) and range from 750 to 1550 euros 
per year. The system is restricted to six Member States (Belgium, Netherlands, 
Luxembourg, Germany, Denmark and Sweden). Nonetheless, this system ties in only partly 
with the principle of fair and efficient pricing (i.e. that external costs should be paid in full 
by users) since it is a fixed cost not linked to the distance covered by a vehicle in any one 
I year. 
In maritime transport, the Commission is looking at the tariffs currently applied in 
Sweden in this sector, particularly port taxes and taxes to reduce pollutant emissions, 
in order to see whether this approach might encourage greater account to be taken of 
external costs elsewhere in the Community. In the light of this examination a 
Community framework may be proposed which links port taxes to these costs. 
In rail transport, existing Community legislation already allows for rail traffic costs 
to be internalised where this does not affect the railways' corppetitiveness vis-a-vis 
other modes of transport. In other words, Member States may introduce rates that 
take account of environmental costs only where the latter are also paid by competing 
modes of transport. The possibility of noise-related charges still needs to be looked at 
and, if need be, a new pricing system introduced which takes account of this social 
cost. 
In air transport, the proposal to regulate airport charges has not been followed up. 
Nonetheless, several other options are being examined in this sector, such as taxes on 
ticket prices, charges based on the distance covered and the type of aircraft engine 
used, and charges for take-off and landing. 87 
Generally speaking, the Member States' arrangements for· the various transport 
modes vary appreciably," are fragmented and lack coherence on a Union-wide scale, 
which makes it difficult to take external costs into account. 
3. Need for a Community framework 
86 
87 Several Member States have expressed their willingness to spread the external costs 
of transport infrastructure more equitably. Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, for 
example, plan to set up a system of charges based on distance covered instead of on a 
sticker issued for a given period of time or on tolls. 
The current Community rules therefore need to be replaced by a modem 
infrastructure-pricing scheme which encourages advances of this kind while ensuring 
In its judgment of 26 September 2000 concerning the Brenner motorway, the Court of Justice of the 
European Communities drew attention to a number of obligations arising out of Community law in this 
area (C-205/98: Commission~ Austria). 
The 1999 Communication on air transport and the environment analyses the various possible types of 
environmental charges, examines kerosene taxation and puts forward a more general strategy covering 
the full range of environmental impacts produced by aviation. 
76 
88 fair competition between the different modes of transport and more effective-pricing. 
This kind of reform requires equal treatment for operators and between modes of 
transport. Whether for airports, ports, roads, railways or waterways, the price for 
using infrastructure should vary in the same manner according to category of 
infrastructure used, time of day, distance, size and weight of vehicle, and any other 
factor that affects congestion and damages the infrastructure or the environment. 
This kind of change will require a root and branch review of accounts in the transport 
sector, including a close look at all taxes, rates and State aid in each mode of 
transport as well as external costs. 
On the basis of the current work, the Co:µimission plans to propose a 
framework directive in 2002 to establish the principles of infrastructure 
charging and a pricing structure for all modes of transport. 
·The proposal, which will leave each Member State wide scope in terms of 
implementation, will. incl~de a common methodology for setting price levels 
which incorporate external costs, and will specify the conditions for fair 
c~mpetition between modes. 
This methodology is already well advanced, and the principal external costs it will 
take into account are those shown in Table 3. 
For road transport, charges will vary according to the vehicle's environmental 
performance. 88 They will also be based on the type of infrastructure (motorways, 
trunk and urban roads), distance covered, axle weight and type of suspension, and 
degree of congestion. These charges will be introduced gradually and tie in with a 
reduction in other charges such as vehicle tax so as to minimise the impact on the 
sector. 
This directive should gradually be applied to the other modes of transport. In rail 
transport, for example, charges will include mechanisms for allocating time slots and 
will be graduated according to scarcity of infrastructure capacity and adverse 
environmental effects. Maritime transport will need to integrate charges which 
incorporate costs relating to maritime safety (especially assistance to shipping at sea, 
buoyage, availability of tugs such as "l 'Abeille"). All ships sailing in European 
waters should pay such charges. 
In a good many cases, taking external costs into account will produce more revenue 
than is needed to cover the costs of the infrastructure used. To produce maximum 
benefit for the transport sector, it is essential that available revenue be 
channelled into specific national or regional funds in order to -finance measures 
to lessen or offset external costs (double dividend). Priority would be given to the 
building of infrastructure that encourages intermodality and offers a more 
environmentally friendly alternative. 
There might be insufficient surplus revenue in some cases where, for example, 
transport policy considerations call for major infrastructure to encourage 
intermodality, such as railway tunnels. The framework directive will therefore 
In addition to Euro standards 1 to 5 used for emissions, this classification might reflect performance in 
terms of noise emissions. 
77 
have to authorise exceptions allowing an element to be added to the amount 
needed to offset the external costs. This element would be for the financing of 
alternative, more environmentally friendly, infrastructure. This option would be 
reserved for infrastructure essential for crossing natural, environmentally 
fragile barriers, and would have to be examined in advance and closely 
monitored by the Commission. 
B. The need to harmonise fuel taxes 
Taxes on fuel complete the transport infrastructure charging picture by adding 
external costs to the prices paid by users. In particular, they incorporate the external 
cost component linked to greenhouse gas emissions. With the road transport sector 
now fully opened up to competition, the absence of harmonised fuel taxes seems 
increasingly to be an obstacle to the smooth functioning of the internal market. . 
Fuel tax is to a large extent made up of excise duty. The Member States decided 
unanimously in 1992 to introduce a Community system of taxation on mineral oils 
based on two directives providing for a minimum rate of tax on each mineral oil 
according to its use (fuel, industrial and commercial use, heating). In practice, excise 
duties are often way above the Community's minimum values, which have not been 
reviewed since 1992, and differ enormously from one country to another, ranging, 
for example, from 307 euros per 1 000 litres on unleaded· petrol in Greece to 
783 euros in the United Kingdom. 
Moreover, several special arrangements alJow Member States to waive or reduce 
excise duty on oil products. For instance, Community legislation allows exemptions 
to be made for fuel used in commercial aviation. 
Community law also allows Member States to submit specific requests for exemption 
from, or reduction in, excise duties provided this is consistent with Community 
policy, notably on environmental protection, energy and transport, but also on the 
internal market and competition. These exemptions have encouraged the introduction 
of new technologies and clean fuels (e.g. unleaded or with low sulphur content). 
Towards harmonised taxation of commercial road transport fuel 
When fuel prices took off in the middle of 2000 the Community's road hauliers came under 
severe economic pressure. The fact is that fuel accounts for around 20% of the operating 
costs of road haulage companies. Also, the structure of the sector, especially the large 
number of micro-businesses, weakens their negotiating power with customers, making them 
adjust their rates more slowly to increases in the cost of raw materials. Furthermore, excise 
duty on diesel varies considerably from one Member State to another, ranging from 
246 euros to 797 euros per 1 000 litres, adding to tensions on a liberalised market. 
The Commission also notes that excise duties on diesel are on average about 140 euros 
{per 1 000 litres) lower than on unleaded petrol. 
The principle of sustainable development also requires transport users to be presented to a 
greater extent with "real" prices, i.e. including adverse· external effects, particularly the 
effects of greenhouse gases. Taxation also clearly serves to offset the effect of fluctuations 
in the price of crude oil. 
Uncoupling the taxation arrangements for fuel for commercial uses from the tax 
arranKements forfuelfor private use would enable 1Wember Stales lo reduce the differences 
78 
in tax on cars using petrol and cars using diesel. 
What ought to be proposed in the short term, therefore, is harmonised taxation off uel 
used for commercial purposes. The aim would be to introduce a harmonised Community 
excise duty on diesel for commercial uses which in practice would be higher than the 
current average tax on diesel. This approach would: 
-meet the requirements of Community policy on transport, the environment and energy by 
moving, thanks to increased excise duties, towards modal rebalance and greater 
internalisation of external costs, . 
-improve the functioning of the internal market by restricting distortions of competition, 
and 
-give the road transport sector a major edge in terms of greater retail price stability. 
Jn the medium term, it would be desirable for petrol and diesel to be taxed similarly for all 
consumers of fuel. 
It should be pointed out here that Directives 92181/EEC and 92182/EEC provided for 
different excise duties on petrol (337 euros per 1 000 litres) and diesel (245 euros per 
1 000 litres) used as fuel. Examination shows this petrol/diesel differentiation to have been 
clearly linked to the economic needs of road transport. At the end of the 1980s, when the 
Directive was being drawn up, there was a need to impose less taxation on road hauliers, 
the main consumers of diesel, so as not to jeopardise their businesses. 
The Commission notes, finally, that when the price of crude increases significantly 
additional budgetary resources from greater VAT revenue could, if need be, provide the 
basis for a cyclical adjustment mechanism. 
Lastly, substitute fuels often enjoy tax -exemption or reduction, but to different 
degrees within the Member States. These substitute fuels are of particular importance 
both to the security of energy supply and to lessening the impact of transport on the 
environment. The Green Paper on the security of energy supply proposes that 
20%. of total consumption by 2020 be made up of substitute fuels. The future 
proposal for a directive on .energy products, which will allow tax exemption for 
hydrogen and biofuels, should therefore be adopted as soon as possible. Another 
key element in this programme of gradual introduction of different types of substitute 
fuels is the directive now being drawn up by the Commission which sets a minimum 
percentage of biofuel to be added to diesel and petrol placed on the market. 
Aside from fuel taxes, problems are also raised in certain countries by different VAT 
arrangements for air, rail and coach travel. These problems of unfair competition 
between modes, not to mention the risk of upsetting the proper functioning of the 
internal market, will need to be examined. In particular, ai( transport could be made 
liable to VAT. 
In addition, there are considerable difficulties in determining. the place in which 
transport service provision is to be taxed, difficulties which the Commission intends 
to resolve with new proposals put forward as part of its new VAT strategy. Lastly, 
the deductibility rules for the purchase of company cars vary from one Member State 
to another, resulting in differences of treatment which also need to be corrected. It 
should be noted here that a proposal harmonising entitlement to deduction is already 
before the Council. 
79 ·• 
III. TRANSPORT WITH A HUMAN FACE 
The enormous changes wrought in the transport sector by opening up to competition 
and by technological progress should not obscure the fact that transport is not only a 
commodity subject to market rules; it is also a service of general interest for the 
public benefit. This is why the Commission wants to encourage measures in favour 
of intermodality for people and pursue its action on users' rights in all modes of 
transport, while also considering whether in future it might not also introduce user 
obligations. 
A. lntermodality for people 
In passenger transport, there is considerable scope for improvements to make 
travelling conditions easier and facilitate modal transfers, which are still highly 
problematic. Far too often passengers are put off using different modes of transport 
·for a single journey. They have problems obtaining information and ordering tickets 
when the journey involves several transport companies or different means of 
transport, and transferring from one mode to another can be complicated by 
inadequate infrastructure (lack of parking space for cars or bicycles, for example) .. 
The principle of subsidiarity notwithstanding, priority should be given in the short 
term to at least three fields of action: 
I. Integrated ticketing 
To facilitate transfers from one network or mode to another, encouragement needs to 
be given to the introduction of ticketing systems which are integrated (and thus 
ensure transparency of fares) between rail companies or between modes of transport 
(air -coach·_ ferry -public transport -car parks). 
Some railway companies, as in the Netherlands, are already offering an integrated 
"train & taxi" service in a single ticket. This same could be done for public transport 
or for train/air services and car rentals. Integrating the services offered by. different 
operators within a single tariff band and with a single ticket, as has existed in Ile de 
France since 1976 and in Naples since last autumn, offers users greater flexibility 
and so makes public transport more attractive. 89 
2. Baggage handling 
89 Intermodality also means providing related services, especially baggage handling. 
While it is currently possible to check in for a flight at a station, passengers have to 
look after their baggage themselves and hold on to it during transfers. 
Air-rail: a combination that works 
An innovative way of promoting intermodality for travellers has been developed in 
Germany and between Belgium and France. 
Lu thansa has concluded an a eemem with Deutsche Bahn to o 
- . 
1976: introduction of the Carte Orange combining SNCF-RATP-APTR and FNTR. Since November 
2000 Naples and 43 municipalities have had a single transport ticket called UNJCO. The experiment 
was due to run for a year, but consideration is already being given to extending it. 
80 
journey between Stuttgart and Frankfurt with flight connections in Frankfurt to or from 
anywhere in the world Passengers can book a single rail-air ticket in a single transaction. 
They can check in their baggage when arriving at the station and in the event of a problem 
enjoy the same rights as ordinary air passengers, regardl~ss of whether they are dealing 
with Deutsche Bahn or Lufthansa. 
Should this service, which is currently at the test stage, prove a success, the two companies 
could conclude similar agreements for other connections where the train journey-time is 
under two hours. Estimates_ point to 10% of Lufthansa's short and medium-haul domestic 
flights eventually transferring to rail. The capacity this creates would be to the benefit of 
medium and long-haul flights. 
Similarly, Air France and Thalys have concluded an agreement whereby all Air France -
customers travelling from Brussels to catch a medium/long-haul flight in Paris will travel 
to Paris on the Thalys train. For this purpose, Air France directly charters two coaches on 
the five Thalys trains which serve Charles de Gaulle airport each day, and has provided a 
ticket counter and train crew at the railway station in Brussels. The reservation system 
treats the Thalys journey as an.Air France flight, and customers do not need to make any 
additional reservation, but travel with just their plane ticket, as previously. Passengers and 
baggage undergo preliminary check-in at the station in Brussels; in future, full baggage 
check-in will be possible at the station of departure. 
Innovative and efficient services of this kind should help reduce congestion problems in 
some of Europe's main airports and improve the punctuality and quaiity of passenger 
transport. 
3. Continuity of journeys 
J oumeys have to be thought of as continuous, which means land-use and town 
planning policies will play a vital role. The main metrQ, train and bus stations and car 
parks should be geared towards exchanges between the car and public transport and 
should offer related services (e.g. shops), and so encourage the use of public 
transport, which causes less pollution. Providing car parks on the outskirts of towns1 
(and also_ near railway, underground, bus and tram stations) where motorists can 
leave their cars and link up with the main means of public transport (including taxis) 
is an option already implemented in a number· of cities, such as Munich and Oxford. 
Adapting public transport to carry bicycles is another way of encouraging a certain 
form of intermodality over short distances. It should be recognised that the bicycle is 
still too often neglected as a mode of transport, even though som~ 50 · million 
journeys (i.e. 5% of the total) are made by bicycle each day in Europe. The 
proportion is as high as 18% in Denmark and 27% in the Netherlands. 
The success of intermodality also requires recognition of the role of taxis, a role 
which goes far beyond merely carrying passengers, but al_so includes additional -
services (minor carriage of goods, express deliveries, etc.). Equally, the development 
of intelligent traffic systems to inform passengers of tran_sport conditions should 
eventually help reduce the time lost on transfertjng between modes. Successful 
intermodality obviously depends also on easy access to all t:ansport modes. In this 
context, it is important that account be taken of the difficulties encountered by people 
with re~:luced mobility who use public transport, for whom changing from one mode 
to another can sometimes be a real obstacle. 
81 
B. Rights and obligations of users 
The gradual opening-up of m~kets in the various transport. modes has placed 
operators at the centre of transport development. Though users may have derived 
certain benefits in terms of prices, this is not a reason to overlook their rights. 
Passengers must be able to invoke their rights, both vis-a-vis the transport company 
and vis-a-vis the public service. The Commission's aim over the next ten years is to 
develop and define the rights of users, to which end it will work with consumer and 
user organisations. In this context it will also consider whether user rights need to go 
hand in hand with user obligations. 
1. User rights 1 
It is on air transport that the Commission has thus far concentrated its efforts to 
accompany the opening-up of markets and protect passengers against conflicting 
national ·rules and regulations. Several texts have defined the rights of p~ssengers. 
All of these rights have been published in a Charter which, thanks to their 
collaboration, is displayed in most airports in the Community. The Charter 
specifies the national authorities which users can contact in order to assert their rights 
and inform the Commission of how they have been treated. It will be adapted to 
reflect legal developments and voluntary agreements. 
New proposals have been made to increase the airline companies' liability in the 
event of accidents, delays or loss of baggage. The Commission will shortly be 
proposing a reinforcement of passenger rights, including compensation where 
travellers are delayed or denied boarding due to overbooking by airlines. 
Measures will also be proposed which give passengers the benefit of service quality 
indicators. In line with current practice in the United States, and following up the . 
commitment it has already made, the Commission is therefore going to publish a 
classification of airlines according to their performance (or . lack of 
performance) in terms of punctuality, number of passengers denied boarding, 
baggage loss levels, etc. Users will thus be given objective criteria for comparing the 
various airlines and this transparency will without any doubt be the best way of 
putting pressure on airlines to improve their services. 
Passengers are also entitled to be properly informed of the contract they enter into 
with the air carrier; the clauses of that contract must be fair. The Commission will 
take initiatives along these lines in 2001. 
At the same time, working in conjunction with the European Civil Aviation 
Conference (ECAC), the Commission has launched initiatives to bring European 
airlines and airports to an agreement on voluntary codes to round off and clarify the 
regulatory framework. 
Lastly, the Community must address the problems all passengers encounter in 
enforcing whatever rights they have: how to identify the party responsible; how to 
start proced~res in other Member States; how to obtain compensation for damage. 
This is necess.ary inasmuch as in airports, unlike in ports, no-one seems to be in 
charge and all the parties involved (airport operators, service providers, police, 
airlines, etc.) pass the buck for any problems encountered by passengers. This is 
why air passengers need to be given greater protection, as well as access to rapid 
means of redress. 
82 
The next step is to extend the Community's· passenger protection measures to 
the other modes of transport, notably rail and maritime navigation and, as far 
as possible, urban transport services. Specific new measures are needed on users' 
rights in all modes of transport so that, regardless of the mode of transport used, 
users can both know their rights and enforce them. These measures need in particular 
to meet users' requirements as referred to in the Commission Communication on 
services of general interest in Europe.90 · 
2. User obligations 
It would nonetheless be oversimplifying matters and even unfair on transport 
professionals not tp point out that users also have obligations during their journeys. · 
Irresponsible behaviour, especially as encountered on aircraft, can have ·serious 
consequences for safety. The risk of fire on board from a cigarette smoked furtively 
in the toilets of an aircraft is a serious in.flight problem. If a fire breaks out stewards 
·only have one and a half minutes before the toxic fumes spread. 
Air France .classifies on-board incidents according to three degrees. of severity 
1. Simple verbal altercation, passive resistance 
2. Unruly and insulting behaviour, aggression, cigarettes smoked in_ toilets 
3. Flight safety threatened, physical violence 
Passenger aggression, sometimes fuelled by alcohol consumption, has prompted 
some airlines to provide psychological training for their staff on how· to defuse 
situations.· In fact, this aggression is also encountered against drivers and ticket 
inspectors on publiG transport and trains. Penalties for such acts of indiscipline run 
first of all into practical problems, but also raise legal problems. Thought needs to be 
given at European level to finding answers to these legal problems. 
The Commission will publish a new version of the air transport Charter 
covering the rights and obligations of passengers ·and including the latest legal 
developments, and will start producing a charter of users' rights and obligations for 
all modes of transport. 
3. A high-quality public service 
90 Providing a physical link in both social cohesion and balanced regional development, 
transport. is a major component of public service. It is, moreover, the only area for 
which the Treaty of Rome expressly enshrines the notion of public service. 
Article 73 of the EC Treaty stipulates that "Aids shall be compatible with this Treaty 
if they meet the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement 
for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service. " 
In a declaration on services of general economic interest, the Nice European Council 
in December 2000 specifically stressed the importance of such services, considering 
inter alia that "there is a need here especially for clarification of the relationship 
between methods of funding services of general economic interest and application of 
Paragraph 11 of the Communication "Services of general interest in Europe" COM(2000)580. 
83 
91 the rules on State aid In particular, the compatibility of aid designed to offset the 
extra costs incurred in performing tasks of general economic interest should be 
recognised, in compliance with Article 86(2). " 
This public service role may therefore involve special arrangements regarding 
competition law or the freedom to provide services, but it must also comply with the 
principles of neutrality and proportionality. The role of the public service is to serve 
the interests and needs of its users, not its officers and officials, and to ensure that 
services operate smoothly at all times. Nonetheless, recent industrial action in some 
countries has led operators that were using rail transport to have second thoughts 
because of its lack of reliability and to switch to road·transport. 
I . 
The public service requirement (e.g. frequency and punctuality of services, 
availability of seats, preferential fares for certain categories of user) is the main tool 
for ensuring that services of general economic interest are provided in the transport 
·sector. Thus a Member State or any other public authority can, under certain 
conditions and without impeding competition, require, or reach an agreement with, a 
private or public undertaking to meet public requirements which that undertaking 
would not take on (or at least not in the same way) if it were only considering its 
commercial interests. 
The Commission recently proposed a new approach to inland· transport, to open up 
the market while guaranteeing the transparency, quality and performance of public 
transport services by means of regulated competition. The draft regulation91 
stipulates that the national or local authorities must see to it that a suitable public 
transport service is put in place, based on minimum criteria such as the health and 
safety of passengers, accessibility of services, level and transparency of fares and 
limited contract duration. To this end, the authorities' initiatives will take the form of 
public service contracts awarded by tender for periods of five years. Nonetheless, 
public transport operators will, by way of derogation from this procedure, be able to 
conclude public service contracts with a specific operator below an annual threshold 
of 800 000 euros and to take account of safety considerations in certain rail services. 
Provisions are also planned which will control mergers and protect employees in the 
event of a change of operator. 
Generally speaking, experience has shown that li~ted amounts of aid have not 
threatened to distort competition or affect trade. Nonetheless, and contrary to practice 
in the other economic sectors, all aid to transport still has to be notified in advance to 
the Commission. This general obligation seems disproportionate, especially when 
the aid is intended to compensate for public service obligations on links with the 
Community's outlying regions and small islands. The Commission will be 
proposing an alignment of procedures in this area. 1------------------------------------------------------1 
• To guarantee users a high-quality, affordable, continuous service throughout the • ! Community, and one which complies with the Community competition rules, the ! ! Commission will continue its work to ensure that transport services of general economic ! 
I interest are governed by a series of general principles, notably: I 
I I ------------------------------------------------------· 
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on action by Member States 
concerning public service requirement_s and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport 
by rail, road and inland waterway. COM(2000)7. 
84 
-use of the tendering procedure within a clear legal framework defined at Community 
level; 
. . granting of exceptions or exclusive rights where necessary; 
-awarding financial compensation to operators responsible for performing puqlic service 
tasks. 
IV. RATIONALISING URBAN TRANSPORT 
92 The expanding urban fabric, lifestyle changes and the flexibility of the private car 
combined with not always adequate public ~ransport provision have over the last 40 
years caused a huge upsurge in traffic in towns. Though decentralisation of activities 
or housing may occasionally have been flanked by the development of appropriate 
. public transport infrastruct~re or services, the lack of an integrated policy approach 
·to town planning and transport is allowing the private car an almost total monopoly. 
Omnipresent and a burden though it may be in the town centres, it is above all in the 
peripheral areas of towns and cities that traffic growth has been fastest. But in these 
areas, where transport needs are harder to determine and satisfy, public transport is 
not proving flexible enough in its present form. And to make matters worse a feeling 
of insecurity puts people off using public transport in certain areas and at certain 
. times of day. 
Increased traffic and urban congestion go hand in hand with more air and noise 
· pollution and accidents. Frequent short journeys made with the engine cold increase 
fuel consumption exponentially, and emissions may be three or four times higher 
while traffic speed is three or four times slower. Urban transport thus accounts for 
40% of the C02 emissions responsible for climate change, as well as the other 
pollutan~s which have a worrying impact on the health of town dwellers, particularly 
the nitrogen oxides which trigger peaks in ozone concentration, and non-regulated 
micro-particles. The most vulnerable sections of the population, such as children, the 
~lderly and the ill (with respiratory, cardiovascular or other diseases), are the chief 
victims and some studies have put the cost to the community at 1.7% of GDP.92 In 
terms of safety, one fatal accident in two takes place in urban surround~ngs, and the 
highest casualties are among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. 
Even if the subsidiarity principle dictates that responsibility for urban transport lies 
mainly with the national and local authorities, th~ ills besetting transport in urban 
areas and spoiling the quality of life cannot be ignored. The big problem these 
authorities will have to resolve, sooner than might. be thought, is that of traffic 
management and in particular the role of the private car in large urban centres. 
However one looks at the problem (pollution, congestion, lack of infrastructure), 
society is taking the line that it has to be curbed .. The alternative is to promote 
clean vehicles and develop good-quality public transport. 
The subsidiarity principle allows the European Union to take initiatives, including 
regulatory initiatives, to encourage the use of diversified energy in transport. On the 
other hand, the Union cannot use regulation as a means of imposing alternative 
World Health Organisation. Health Costs due to Road Traffic related Air pollution. An impact 
assessment project for Austria, France and Switzerland. June 1999. 
85 
solutions to the car in towns and cities. That is why the Commission is confining 
itself to promoting good practice. 
A. Diversified energy for transport 
Conventional heat-engine vehicles, whose energy efficiency is far from optimal, are 
one of the main sources of urban pollution and greenhouse gases and contribute to 
the European Union's excessive energy dependency. Important progress has been 
made thanks to aryti-pollution standards for motor vehicles and fuel quality. The 
tougher standards already adopted will gradually deliver results, as the graph below 
shows. 
Cl 
Q 
~ 
Q c:n c:n 
~ Reduction in road pollution as a result of the Auto-
0 ii directives 
120 ,0 
100,0 •NOx 
80,0 0802 
oCO 60,0 •PM10 
40,0 eNMVOC 
20,0 ii Benzene 
0,0 
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 
This genuine progress should not overshadow the inadequacy of the measures taken . 
to date both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and to reduce 
the European Union's energy dependency. The agreement with the Association of 
European Carmakers should produce a 25% reduction in average emissions of carbon 
dioxide from new cars by 2008. On top of this agreement, for which new emission 
reduction objectives ought to be set for after· 2008 and extended to utility vehicles, 
additional measures should be taken at Community level to introduce substitute 
fuels, especially biofuels, and to stimulate demand by experimentation. 
1. Establishing a new regulatory framework for substitute fuels 
R&D work has also brought progress in the development of new vehicles which run 
on lower-emission alternative energies. Urban transport is already providing a useful 
market for expanding the use of alternative energies. Several European cities have 
already set things in motion: Paris, Florence, Stockholm and Luxembourg, to name 
but a few, are already using buses which run on natural gas, bio-diesel or zero­
sulphur diesel. In future, private cars and heavy goods vehicles too could run on 
alternative energy. 
The most promising forms are biofuels in the short and medium term, natural gas in 
the medium and long term and hydrogen in the very long term. In the Green Paper on 
86 
the security of the European Union's energy supply the Commission therefore 
proposed that the objective for road transport be to replace 20% of conventional 
fuels with substitute fuels by 2020. 
The spread of biofuels will help reduce the European Union's energy dependency, 
improve the environment and also di versify production and jobs in agriculture. 
Indeed, the production of raw materials for biofuels may be of particular interest 
under the Common Agricultural Policy for creating new economic resources and 
preserving employment in the rural community.93 
To promote biofuels the Commission intends to put forward two specific measures in 
2001: 
A directive on the gradual introduction in each Member State of a mm1mum 
percentage of compulsory biofuel consumption: a 2% rate will be proposed as a first 
stage, with total flexibility as to whether this objective is achieved by mixing biofuels with 
fossil fuels or by using pure biofuels. In this way, unforeseen effects on engines and the 
environment will be avoided. At the same time it will create a stable market and should 
increase fivefold the production capacity of existing biofuels. The second stage will need to 
aim at achieving a biofuel penetration rate of almost 6% by 201 O; 
New Community rules on tax reductions for biofuels: while meeting the need to 
approximate the national arrangements on biofuel taxation, the proposal will also help 
Member States create the necessary economic and legal conditions for achieving, and even 
exceeding, the objectives laid down in the above mentioned proposal for a regulatory 
directive. This proposal would give Member States the option of introducing tax reductions 
consistent with their budgetary constraints, with ·local circumstances (e.g. for agricultural 
crops) and with the technological choices they make. ·------------------------------------------------------
A review will also be needed of the overall consistency of automobile taxes and the 
scope for creating a broader framework at Community level for the introduction of 
mechanisms for differentiating passenger vehicle taxes according to environmental 
criteria. This new approach, which can be designed to have no impact on the 
Member States' budgetary revenue, would make car taxes "greener" by encouraging 
people to buy and use more environmentally friendly vehicles. 
2. Stimulating demand by experimentation 
93 For natural gas and hydrogen, work is still needed to single out the most effective 
approach for encouraging the spread of these fuels to an extent consistent with 
achieving the ambitious target of 20% of all fuels being substitute fuels. As the 
Green Paper on the security of energy supply has already emphasised, the available 
new clean car technologies will in future need to be given. greater Community 
support, especially under the 6th framework programme of research. For the 
immediate future, the Commission has brought together several sources of financing 
in the CIVITAS initiative. Launched in October 2000, CIVITAS's aim is to help 
realise innovative projects on clean urban transport. A budget of 50 million euros has 
been allocated under the 5th framework programme of research and development. 
If biofuels accounted for l % of the Union's overall consumption of fossil fuels, this would result in jobs 
being created for s~me 45 000 to 75 000 people. · 
87 
Fourteen pioneering cities have been pre-selected.94 Five cities in the countries which 
are candidates for accession have been associated.95 
Great promise is held out by the development of a new generation of hybrid electric 
cars (electric motor coupled with a heat ~ngine),96 cars which run on natural gas and, 
in the longer term, cars which run on a hydrogen fuel cell. The battery-driven electric 
car is also an example of directly applicable technology. However, with its range 
currently restricted to around 100 km, sales are confined to niche markets usually 
made up of captive fleets of municipal vehicles, or public services (water, electricity, 
gas, postal services, etc.) which only cover short distances each day. 
Jn La Rochelle, the "Liselec" experiment is enabliµg the public transport operator to offer 
its customers a fleet of 50 electric vehicles available on a self-service basis at high-use 
locations. Over 400 subscribers are already taking advantage of this new offer. Following 
the example set in Genoa, the municipal authorities have established zones where priority 
for access/parking is given to clean cars. For experiments such as these to bear fruit, they 
need to be encouraged on a scale large enough to have an appreciable impact on air 
quality. The vehicles involved need to use non-petroleum fuels so as to lower greenhouse 
gas emissions and reduce our dependency on oil. 
Thought might therefore be given to developing the use in towns and cities of taxis 
and utility vehicles which run on electricity or natural gas or even hydrogen (fuel 
cell) to perform deliveries (including services of public interest). Under the principle 
of subsidiarity, any incentives would come under national or regional jurisdiction. 
B. Promoting good practice 
94 
95 
96 
97 Traffic congestion and pollution -the two are closely linked -are among the things 
that detract from town living, and one of the main causes of congestion is excessive 
use pf private vehicles. 
We therefore need to make the alternatives to the car more attractive in terms of both 
infrastructure (metro lines -trams -cycle tracks97 -priority lanes for public 
transport) and service (quality of service, information given to users). Public 
transport needs to achieve levels of comfort, quality and speed that come up to 
people's expectations. This quality option has been the choice of many European 
cities which have decided to innovate by bringing into service new metro or tram 
lines or new buses with easier access for people with reduced mobility. It is essential 
for public transport to adapt to societal changes: journeys are becoming increasingly 
staggered throughout the day and may make the separation between peak and off­
peak hours a thing of the past. Similarly, the construction of new housing or 
shopping centres on city outskirts needs to involve a change in the routes and means 
of transport used by public transport operators. 
Light rail vehicles running on segregated track -highly valued today by many towns 
and cities -are an economic form of transport that is also popular among passengers, 
Aalbord, Barcelona, Berlin, Bremen, Bristol, Cork, Gothenburg, Graz, Lille, Nantes, Rome, Rotterdam, 
Stockholm and Winchester. 
Bucharest, Gdynia, Kaunas, P¢cs and Prague. 
One might also cite hybrid vehicles which have a small-capacity heat engine which acts as a generator 
to recharge the batteries. This gives them a greater range than conventional electric vehicles. 
Protected, so that cyclists are not risking their lives every time they use them. 
88 
98 
99 
100 
101 as the designers have revitalised the frams with a decidedly futuristic look.98 Cities 
such as Vienna, Stuttgart, Freiburg, Strasbourg and· Nantes have made tangible 
progress in shifting the balance between their transport modes by opting for this form 
of transport. They have put the brakes on car use by investing in non-road transport 
modes, and have shown that the proportion of car use can be reduced by 1 % per year, 
whereas in most city centres it is growing by more than that. 
Some cities have adopted by-laws to keep to the strict minimum the number of 
parking spaces to be provided with each new office building, making car use less 
practical. 
Some local authorities are planning to allocate priority la:nes to public means of· 
transport (buses and taxis) and also to private vehicles being used for car pooling, for 
example, while increasing the number of lanes reserved for cyclists and even 
motorcyclists. In cities and conurbations, initiatives could be encouraged to persuade 
the largest employers (firms or administrations) to help organise their employees' 
journeys or even to pay for public transport. This has been done in Vienna, for 
example, where the metro is partly funded by the city's companies. 
Recent years have seen a development promising an innovative form of mobility, 
associating "car sharing" with other means of transport.99 Alongside the development 
of new means of public transport, the reduction of urban congestion must also 
involve setting up urban infrastructure-charging schemes, the most simple form of 
which is charging for parking. Some cities, including London; are envisaging other, 
more elaborate forms involving road charging based on electronic vehicle­
identification technology and an electronic payment collection system, which could 
be harmonised at Community level 100 (see section on charging). However, urban 
road-charging schemes are well received by the local population only if competitive 
altemati ves are on off er in terms of public transport services and infrastructure. This 
is why it is essential to use the revenue to helR finance-new infrastructure for all-
round improvement of urban transport services.1 1 . 
Accessibility has been improved, for people with reduced mobility too, thanks to the introductic~n of 
purpose-built low-floor trams. New projects, financed in part from Community funds, have made it 
possible to develop other innovative solutions which are going to revolutionise the image of the tram. 
Notably in cities such as Bremen and Vienna. 
See the eEurope Action Plan P.roposed by the C~mmission to the Feira European Council. . 
Cities such as Rome, Genoa, Copenhagen, London, Bristol and Edinburgh are studying and testing 
urban road charges as. part of an integrated programme to reduce congestion and significantly improve 
their public transport networks. 
89 " . 
102 I In line with the principle of subsidiarity, and aware that most measures will fall within the 
jurisdiction of the national, regional or local authorities, the Commission intends to 
promote the following: 
support (using Community funds) for pioneering towns and cities, 102 with each Member 
State remaining responsible for coming up with national plans; 
increased use of clean vehicles and of forms of public transport accessible to all users, 
including people with reduced mobility (especially those with disabilities and the 
elderly); 
identification and dissemination of best urban transport system practice, including urban 
and regional rail services, and best practice in management of the relevant infrastructure. ------------------------------------------------------
CIVIT AS initiative. 
90 
PART FOUR: MANAGING THE GLOBALISATION OF TRANSPORT 
Much of transport is regulated at international level. The beginnings of transport 
regulation are found in Roman law. Since the Renaissance, international law has 
developed in part around principles governing transport, especially shipping law. 
Over the last two centuries, the regulatory framework has been built up within 
intergovernmental organisations, from the Central Commission for Navigation on the 
Rhine (the first of its kind) to the International Civil Aviation Organisation. 
This is one reason why it is hard for the common transport policy to secure a position 
between, on the one ha:pd, the production of international rules within established 
-organisations and, on the other, national rules which often seek to protect domestic 
markets. 
The main objective of the international rules being to facilitate trade and commerce, 
they fail to take sufficient account of key environmental protection concerns, security 
of supply requirements or the industrial and social dimensions. For some years now, 
this has been leading certain countries such as the USA to implement regional 
transport accords, particularly in the shipping and aviation sectors, to protect specific 
interests. The European Union has followed suit in order to guard against disasters at 
sea and to do away with inappropriate rules on aircraft noise or on compensation for 
passengers in the even{ of accidents. 
In addition, transport services -. particularly in air and sea transport -should be 
included in the negotiations being conducted within the World Trade Organisation. 
The Community could act as a catalyst in opening up markets that are -still too 
closed. 
With enlargement on the horizon, and the transport policy and trans-European 
network soon to extend across the continent, Europe needs to rethink its international 
role if it is to succeed in developing a sustainable transport system and tackling the 
problems of congestion and pollution. 
I. 'ENLARGEMENTCHANGESTHENAMEOFTHEGAME 
The unprecedented enlargement of the next few years will give the Union a truly 
continental dimension. Though its maximum extent already exceeds 4 000 km, e.g. 
between the south of Spain and the north of Finland, enlargement will extend the 
Union's uninterrupted landmass to more than 3 000 km, e.g. between_ Lisbon and 
·Constanza in Romania. Its fleet is set to increase substantially, given that the flags of 
Cyprus and Malta alone represent a tonnage almost equivalent to that of the current 
Comml:mity fleet. 
Adoption of the Community transport acquis does not appear to be posing any major 
problems fo_r the candidate countries. The latter are already linked to the EU Member 
States by international agreements, notably covering the international carriage of 
goods and air transport. One problem, however, which is not specific to transport, 
concerns their administrative capacity to apply the acquis and more particularly to , 
recruit sufficient numbers of inspectors. 
91 < 
-.. The first challenge in making enlargement a success will be to connect .the future 
Member States to the trans-European network; this is a precondition for their 
economic development, based on anticipated growth in transport, as was the case 
with the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece. 
However, the substantial role played by rail transport in the candidate countries 
means that enlargement is above all a prime opportunity to restore the modal balance 
of transport. 
Last but not least, enlargement will help step up maritime safety. 
A. The infrastructure challenge 
103 As identified in Agenda 2000, the trans-European transport network of the candidate 
countries amounts to some 19 000 km of roads, 21 000 km of railways, 4 000 km of 
-inland waterways, 40 airports, 20 sea ports and 58 inland ports. The ratio of network 
length to surface area is generally much lower in the candidate countries than in the 
Union, while the ratio of network length to population is generally about the same. 
In this context, enlargement is set to trigger a veritable explosion in exchanges of 
goods and people between the countries of the Union. 
In 1998, exports from the candidate countries to the Union were already running at 
112 million tonnes, i.e. 2.2 times the 1990 level, and were worth 68 billion euros. 
Their imports stood at 50 million tonnes, more than five times the 1990 level, and 
were worth 90 billion euros. Bottlenecks are already forming at the borders and there 
is a real risk of saturation on the major East-West corridors. It is not unusual for 
queues of lorries more than 50 km in length to form at the German-Polish border. 
The lack of efficient transport infrastructure networks to cope with this anticipated 
growth in movements is still greatly underestimated. And yet that infrastructure is a 
key element of the strategy for the economic development of the candidate countries 
and their integration into the internal market. 
For historical reasons, the links between the EU Member States and the candidate 
countries are poorly developed. Intensive technical cooperation between the national 
experts of the various countries and the Commission has already led to the 
identification of several corridors, as agreed by the Pan-European Conferences in 
Crete in 1994 and Helsinki in 1997, and the launch of a global assessment of the 
candidate countries' infrastructure needs (TINA 103). 
It has emerged from this that public budget resources fall manifestly short of the 
91 billion euros needed to build the priority transport infrastructure in the candidate 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe by 2015, i.e. 1.5% of their GDP during this 
period. Moreover, the aid scheduled under the instrument for structural pre-accession 
policies (ISPA) is also extremely limited (520 million euros per annum for 
Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA). Final report published in October 1999. 
92 
transport).104 This is an . issue of key importance in the context of the 
Community's future financial perspective. 
It is therefore essential for private funding to be mobilised, particularly through 
European Investment Bank loans. As far as possible, the countries concerned will 
have to tap non-traditional sources of financing, based on funds derived from fuel 
taxes and infrastructure charges, as some of them are already doing. . 
Priority must be given to funding infrastructure that eliminates bottlenecks, 
particularly at the frontiers, and modernises the railway network. In addition to 
restoring or building infrastructure, it is essential to connect it to the current trans­
Eµropean transport network. Consequ~ntly, the revision of the TEN guidelines which 
the Commission will propose for 2004 will have to take account of the candidate · 
countries. 
B. The opportunity offered by a well developed rail network 
104 Rail still retains over 40% of the freight market in the countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe (not including maritime cabotage), a level similar to that in the 
United States, as compared with 8% in the European Union. On the basis of current 
trends, this modal share could fall to 30% by 2010. Commodity flows began to 
tumble in 1990, reaching their lowest point in 1995 when they. stood at 65% of their 
1989 levels. This drop followed the collapse of traditional heavy industry and the 
economic crisis that hit these countries. The rail companies have pad to cope with 
radical c~anges in the economy, for which they were ill-prepared. The freight service 
they operated essentially involved moving heavy goods -with low value-added -
between mining areas and industrial combines. This "traditional" type of transport is 
steadily disappearing from these countries as modem economies develop. "Just in 
time" and intermodality were unknown concepts only a few years ago, and the entire 
rail transport system will have to be reviewed: the whole thing is outdated, 
investment in infrastructure and new rolling stock having plummeted in recent years. 
The existence of this particularly extensive, dense rail network and of significant 
know-how is a unique opportunity, however, which must be seized in order to 
rebalance the transport modes in an enlarged Europe. Every effort must therefore be 
made to convince the countries in question of the need to maintain the railways' share 
of the freight market at a high lev_el, with a target of around 35% for 2010. 
One way of averting this decline is to reform rail transport in the candidate countries 
(separating operation of services from infrastructure management, restructuring the 
railway companies, etc); this need to be accomplished before road transport 
completely gains the upper hand. 
Maintaining the modal share of the railways in the candidate countrie_s will also 
require even firmer action on road transport to ensure fair competitive conditions 
between the different transport modes, inasmuch as road transport will find itself 
even more competitive once it is integrated into the Community market. The impact 
of the ro_ad haulage markets being opened up upon accession should not be · 
On accession, the candidate countries will also qualify for the structural aid already provided for .under 
the ''enlargement" heading of the financial perspective adopted at the Berlin Summit. Th~ proportion 
reserved for transport is not known, however. 
93 
overestimated, however, given the small proportion of the candidate countries' fleet 
likely to be authorised (technical standards) to carry out international transport 
operations, and the relative convergence in terms of operating costs, including pay, 
that is gradually taking place (see table below). East-West traffic represents 3% by 
value of total international road haulage in the European Union. For this ~eason, the 
Member States are on the whole in favour of opening up the road haulage market 
immediately upon accession, provided the candidate countries effectively apply the 
Community acquis. However, there is a considerable difference in costs owing to the 
low rates of drivers' pay in these countries, which could have an adverse effect on 
certain markets in the short term. 
Costs per km of international road haulage ( 1998) 
1.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,70 
0,00 
-~ O,&l e 
iii 
0,4) 
O.:ll 
O,'..ln 
0,10 
o.ro 
BG CZ en H LV LT PL RO SLO SK EU CEEC •Overheads 
•Other 
a Rep airs .iMI inte nan c e 
•Tyres 
c F'uel 
• hterest 
a hsurance 
c TaxAoll11censes 
• Depreci<iion 
c Personnel 
Source: Cost and Benefit of Enlargement Study for Phare MCTP, Halcrow/NEI, 
1999. 
Effective application of the Community road haulage acquis should also bring 
significant environmental and road safety benefits (less polluting lorry fleets). 
C. A new dimension for shipping safety 
The extension of the Community's seaboard upon enlargement will allow it to 
organise the monitoring of shipping more effectively and to minimise the risk of 
accidents, particularly those caused by ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods. 
It must be remembered that 90% of oil trade with the European Union is seaborne 
and that almost 70% of imports pass the shores of Brittany and the English Channel. 
To reduce these risks, the Commission has proposed a package of major measures 
designed principally to: 
reinforce port State controls; 
-tighten up the legislation on classification societies to ensure that only competent 
societies meeting strict quality criteria will be authorised to act on behalf of 
Member States; 
-gradually phase out old single-hull tankers; 
94 
105 -introduce a compensation system for victims of marine pollution; 
-create a European Maritime Safety Agency. 
Yet even when all these -urgently required -measures have been adopted, the 
Community will still have few means at its disposal to tackle the risks inherent in the 
substandard fleets of some candidate countries and the inadequate safety in~pections 
in certain ports. Enlargement should enable more stringent controls of the type 
proposed by the Commission after the Erika accident to be carried out on ships in all 
ports, which should lead to the gradual disappearance from the European continent of 
ports of convenience with their notoriously inadequate controls. 
, I 
Enlargement must also be the occasion on which to include not only technical 
requirements regarding ships' structure and maintenance in the criteria to be met by 
ships calling at European ports, but also social standards, starting with the 
-Inten:iational Labour Organisation's standards for seafarers. 
The blacklist of substandard ships which will soon enable the· European Union to 
close its ports to dangerous -ships should logically include ships whose crews are 
underqualified and underpaid. To this end, the European Union should rapidly define 
the minimum social conditions it intends to enforce for crews. The Commission is 
proposing105 to initiate a dialogue am<?ng all the international maritime actors to 
examine the issues of training and shipboard living and working conditions. This 
should make it easier for the enlarged Europe with double the tonnage of the present 
fleet to take steps against ships flying flags of convenience and the emergence of 
ports of convenience. 
Whatever the European Union's firmness of purpose in this respect, one of the key 
problems is the lack of any powers of inspection or enforcement on the part of the 
International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the body which makes the rules. The 
IMO needs control instruments to make flag States assume their responsibilities. 
Taking the International Civil Aviation Organisation as a model and in view of 
enlargement, the European Union should support Japan's initiative to give the IMO 
the power to audit flag States. Internationally acknowledged inspectors could thus 
carry out audit missions enabling States to identify shortcomings in ships flying their 
flag. This would be the first step in verifying compliance with the international 
obligations entered into by all States party to the IMO conventions. While the 
recommendations emerging from these audits might not be internationally binding, 
they could nevertheless be incorporated into the blacklist .of ships banned from 
Community ports. 
In addition, best social or fiscal practices developed at national level, such as the 
tonnage-based taxation system, should be emulated to promote the reflagging of as 
~any ships as possible to Community registers. Under this system, shipowners 
pay a tax based on the tonnage they operate, regardless of the actual earnings of the 
business. The Commission plans to present a proposal on this subject in 2002. 
Stricter control of flags of convenience, particularly from the point of view of 
compliance with minimum social standards, is imperative not only to prevent 
COM (2001) 188 final. 
95 
accidents involving ships carrying polluting substances, but also to combat the new 
form of organised illegal immigration. Recent events have shown that illegal 
immigration is developing around the deliberate beaching of entire ships on 
European shores. Targeted checks on certain flags of convenience need to be 
combined with measures taken in the framework of Community policy on judicial 
cooperation. 
Illegal immigration 
The transport sector is not immune to the problem of illegal immigration. A number of 
rules and administrative practices (civil liability of carriers, border checks) are already in 
place to curb the inflow of illegal migrants, but they need to be reinforced as the scale of 
the problem is unlikely to diminish in future. 1 
The civil liability of carriers, an important tool in the battle against illegal immigration, 
has yet to be fully harmonised at European level. The strict provisions on carrier liability 
that exist in some Member States are the subject of various criticism. The issues raised 
relate, in particular, to the question of whether delegation of inspection tasks to carriers is 
an appropriate political instrument, the degree of diligence that can be expected of carriers 
and whether the effects of such legislation are compatible with the provisions of 
international law. 
A round table of interested parties, including the Member States, the transport industry and 
humanitarian organisations, should pave the way to a possible subsequent initiative by the 
Commission, an initiative that will need to be built up on the basis of a reasonable political 
balance. · 
Strict controls at the external borders are another key-element in the battle against illegal 
immigration. In order to compensate for the abolition of controls at the internal borders, a 
common, comparable level of controls at the external borders is required and strict 
compliance with existing obligations in the Schengen framework is essential. Border 
controls can of course result in delays, to which sophisticated inspection equipment, 
recourse to new technologies and cooperation and the exchange of personnel may provide 
an answer. 
Lastly, the Community should gradually establish a management system for 
shipping off its coasts. At present, ships' movements are regulated by bilateral 
agreements concluded in the framework of the IMO, e.g. for the English Channel or 
the "Ushant traffic separation scheme". These local controls focus on traffic 
(spacing, speed, routes). If the proposals already tabled by the Commission (in the 
"Erika II" package) are adopted, they should also concern the dangerous nature of 
cargoes and permit the re-routing of ships in stormy weather, including those sailing 
outside ·territorial waters. Irrespective of the nature of the controls, however, the 
information collected is generally neither used nor transmitted to the other centres, 
authorities or bodies along the route taken by a ship. 
The future European Maritime Safety Agency will facilitate systematic exchanges of 
information, the more so as the appearance of identification systems (transponders), 
the obligation to carry black boxes on board and, soon, the Galileo programme will 
make it possible to establish a ship's position to within a few metres. By 2010, the 
enlarged Union could thus, as in the air transport sector, have a traffic management 
system in place to prot~ct itself against dangerous or suspicious movements of ~hips, 
in particular by diverting them to ports of refuge. A harmonised system of this nature 
for the management of shipping from the Bosphorus to the Baltic, taking in the Bay 
96 
of Biscay and the English Channel, will give the European Union the means to 
coordinate intervention and contro_l and thereby, without going -so far as setting 
up a common coastguard, to take effective action on the US model against all 
hazards on its seaboard (particularly drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the 
transport of dangerous goods). 
The success of enlargement will depend on: 
-making provision in the Community's post-2006 financial perspective for adequate 
public funding of infrastructure in the new member countries and connecting the future 
Member States to the Union's trans-European network by means of high-quality 
infrastmcture while aiming to maintain the modal share of rail transport in the 
candidate countries at 35% in 2010 and mobilising private sector finance to that end; 
I -
I developing the administrative capacities of the candidate countries, notably by training 
inspectors and administrative staff responsible for enforcing transport legislation; I 
_, 
I 
I 
-promoting the reflagging of as many ships as possible- to Community registers by 
following the best national practices in terms of social and fiscal policy, such as the 
tonnage-based taxation system; 
: -enhancing maritime safety controls by establishing a European traffic management 
, system. 
I I 
---------~------------------~-----------------------------------------·--------------------------------------
II. THE ENLARGED EUROPE MUST BE MORE ASSERTIVE ON THE 
WORLD STAGE 
It is paradoxical that the European Union, which is the world's leading commercial 
power and conducts a large part of its trade outside its own borders, has so little say 
in the adoption of the international rules which govern much of transport._ This is 
because the Union as such is excluded from most intergovernmental organisations, 
where it has no more than observer status. This situation needs to be remedied 
without delay, by having the Community accede to the inter-governmental 
organisations which govern transport so that the thirty-odd members of the enlarged 
Union not only speak with a single voice but, above all, can influence those 
organisations' activities in the common interest and in support of sustainable 
development. 
The need for Europe to speak with a single voice in defence of its industrial and 
environmental interests is particularly urgent in the field of air transport. 
The clearest demonstration of the Union's higher profile in the global transport 
market is the challenge it has set itself with the Galileo programme. Until it achieves 
independence in the field of satellite radionavigation, Europe risks losing out o_n an 
effective tool to manage transport modes. 
A. A single voice for the European Union in international bodies 
The Cqmmunity has built up a considerable body of law over the last ten years, 
especially in air and sea transport. This legislation no longer simply reproduces the 
text of international conventions, as in the past. The Community has adopted specific 
regulations which do not always coincide with the recommendations and agreements 
made in international organisations. 
97 
In the field of maritime safety, the Community has agreed to ban single-hull tankers 
from its ports by 2015. This determination on the part of the European Union has led 
the International Maritime Organisation to change its planned timetable for phasing 
out such ships. The Commission's efforts to achieve a progressive reduction in 
aircraft noise have also helped speed up the multilateral discussions on the revision 
of aircraft noise standards in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 
This shows that carefully coordinated action by the EU has a real impact on the 
decisions taken in international bodies. 
However, the fact is that the Member States do not always adopt a consistent position 
within these organisations in relation to what has been agreed at Community le'{el. 
Enlargement reinforces the need for the European Union to send out a positive signal 
of consistency between the standards adopted py the 15 and those applied in 
-international bodies of 150 members. The Union needs to increase its ability to assert 
itself in the international arena and speak with a single voice in defence of its social, 
industrial and environmental interests. In the negotiations within the World Trade 
Organisation, the European Union will continue to push for the transport market to 
be opened up, while at the same time maintaining the quality of transport services, 
the accomplishment of tasks of general economic-interest, and passenger safety. 
r-----------------------------------------~-----------
1 The Community needs to provide itself with the means of exerting real influence in the I international organisations which deal with transport, in particular the International Civil 
• Aviation Organisation and the International Maritime Organisation. At the end of 2001 the ! Commission will propose that the Council open negotiations with these organisations with 
I a view to the European Union becoming a full member. In the same context, the 
I 1 Commission has already proposed that the Community accede to Eurocontrol. ·------------------------------------------------------
The forthcoming enlargement poses a specific problem concerning the Community's 
status in the intergovernmental organisations responsible for navigation on the Rhine 
and the Danube. For historical reasons, the Central Commission for Navigation on 
the Rhine has been responsible for drawing up the rules governing shipping on the 
Rhine and its tributaries, i.e. 70% of the European tonnage. The Community has 
generally endeavoured to incorporate these rules in the Community legislation 
applicable to the entire inland waterways network. Nevertheless, the coexistence of 
these two judicial systems poses problems concerning the issue of certificates, 
protection of crews and gaseous emissions. 
This discrepancy is likely to increase with enlargement. If nothing is done to alter the 
situation, when the six candidate countries connected to the Community's 
international network of inland waterways have adopted the acquis there will be one 
system in force on the Rhine and a Community system in force on the other inland 
waterways such as the Upper Danube, the Oder and the Elbe, and yet all these 
waterways will be interlinked on Community territory. The new Member States 
would thus be asked to adopt the Community legislation and to issue Community 
certificates that were not valid on the Rhine. This would be incompatible with the 
single market. 
The Commission will therefore propose that the Community become a full 
member of the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine and the 
Danube Commission. 
98 
B. The urgent need for an external dimension to air transport 
106 Air transport, more than other modes, is particularly dependent on the international 
context. To hold their own alongside the big world· players, the major European 
airlines need to operate worldwide. As long-haul and, more especially, transatlantic 
flights are some of the most profitable, it is vital to the competitiveness of European 
airlines to participate fully in this market, especially as domestic traffic will be 
exposed to growing competition from high-speed trains. Bilateral agreements, 
including the "open skies" agreements between certain Member States and the 
USA, 106 limit the exercise of air transport rights to national airlines. In the event of a 
merger between two airlines from different countries, both would risk losing their 
portfolio of traffic rights. When agreements are negotiated between the USA and EU 
Memb~r States, the US administration only recognises the companies of each 
Member State, not the European airlines. One reason for this is the lack of a suitable 
legal statute that would enable such a nationality clause to be removed. The 
·European company statute should be a driving force in the abolition of these clauses, 
which limit market access to "purely" national carriers. In other words, the objective 
is to give European airlines "Community" nationality in relations with third 
countries. 
All in all, this situation whereby each Member State separately, and not the Union, 
negotiates access conditions with third countries is a handicap. To take but one 
example, the European airlines have only been able to obtain 160 slots at Tokyo's 
Narita airport, while the American carriers have 640. 
Despite the liberalisation of air transport in the Community, 'the airlines can only operate 
from their national base and do not have the same merger possibilities as other sectors. 
The transatlantic routes are divided up between more than 20 airlines on the European side 
as opposed to seven US companie~, which might soon be reduced to four or five as a result 
of the ongoing mergers in the United States. The European airlines are limited to a single 
market for their intercontinental services and often to a single hub. A French company, for 
example, can offer flights from Berlin to Malaga, but not a service from Berlin to New 
York. Their competitors, notably the US airlines, have several hubs from which they can 
propose intercontinental services not only to their final destination in the Community but 
also to other destinations on the basis of inter-company alliance. 
This international context goes a long way towards explaining the current situation in 
the air transport sector: the three leading American airlines each carry an average of 
90 million passengers every year compared with between 30 and 40 million for the 
biggest European carriers. The smallest among them do not have a sufficiently large 
domestic market to guarantee their competitiveness. 
There is thus an urgent. need to develop an external dimension for air transport 
commensurate with the importance of the internal acquis. This is why the 
Commission has contested the compatibility of the "open skies" agreements in the 
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Italy and 
Portugal have all signed an open skies agreement with the USA. These agreements give free access to 
all carriers designated by each of the parties and which meet nationality conditions (majority of capital 
held by nationals of the coun~y concerned). The agreement between the United Kingdom and th~ USA 
differs, in that it is ~ free access agreement for all destinations in the UK except Heathrow airport and to 
a lesser extent Gatwick. Specifically as regards Heathrow, the agreement only authorises two British 
and two US carriers ~o use that airport on flights to and from the ·us A. 
99 
European Court of Justice. Without awaiting the outcome of these cases, the Member 
States should, as a matter of urgency, accept the Community as negotiator of air 
transport agreements, especially with the USA, a role it has already played in 
negotiations with N01way, Switzerland, Iceland and the candidate countries. 
The Community must base these agreements with its main partners on principles 
guaranteeing free access to traffic rights, equal conditions of competition, protection 
of safety and the environment and the elimination of property rights. These are the 
principles underpinning the concept of a common transatlantic area in air transport, 
which the Commission wishes to see replace the current transatlantic agreements. 
The common transatlantic area will create the biggest liberalised airspace in the 
world: any airline, European or American, will be able to operate freely without· 
restrictions on traffic rights, subject to compliance with the rules agreed between the 
parties on competition, safety and the environment. These rules will be administered 
by common bodies. It will also be necessary to examine the possibility of opening 
aviation negotiations with other major partners, in particular Japan and Russia. 
C. Galileo: the key need for a global programme 
Satellite radionavigation is a technology enabling anyone with a receiver to pick up 
signals transmitted by an array of satellites and at any given moment obtain not only 
an exact time reading but also their precise position by longitude, latitude and 
altitude. 
This technology is meeting with increasing success, and new applications are 
constantly being discovered. Their market and uses cover a whole range of public 
and private activities and already include transport (location and measurement of the 
speed of vehicles, insurance, etc), telecommunications (network integration signals, 
bank interconnections, electricity grid connections), medicine (e.g. telemedicine), 
law enforcement (e.g. electronic tagging), the customs service (field investigations, 
etc.) and agriculture (geographical inf<;>rmation systems). 
It is therefore clearly a strategically important technology and likely to generate 
considerable profits. 
Only the USA (GPS) and Russia (GLONASS) currently have this technology, both 
systems being financed for military purposes~ with the result that the signals can be 
blocked or jammed at any moment to protect these countries' own interests. This 
happened during the Kosovo war,_ when the United States cut the GPS signal. Neither 
system is totally reliable: for example, users are not immediately informed of faults 
and transmission is sometimes unpredictable, particularly in the towns and regions 
situated in the far north of Europe. 
Europe cannot afford to be totally dependent on third countries in such a strategic 
area. 
The Commission has therefore presented an independent satellite radionavigation 
programme, Galileo, involving the launch of an array of 30 satellites covering the 
entire planet, with local ground transmitters to provide universal services available to 
all users in any location, including sheltered areas (tunnels, underground car parks, 
etc.). · .. 
100 
The success of the Galileo programme depends to a large extent on the Community 
adopting a unified position in international negotiations. A first important step was 
taken with the procurement of the necessary frequencies at the World 
Radiocommunications Conference in Istanbul in May 2000. The Community also 
needs to conduct international negotiations to develop Galileo's complementarity 
with the Ameri~an and Russian systems and ensure their synergy. The possibility of 
being able to use both a GPS and a Galileo signal will enhance the respective 
performance of the two systems. Negotiations are under way with the American and 
Russian authorities on system interoperability and on the frequencies needed to 
develop the project. The negotiations with the United States have not yet been 
completed, though Russia, at the Paris summit with the European Union on 
30 October 2900, expressed its willingness to achieve complementarity between the 
Glonass and Galileo systems . 
. By 2008 this project will provide the European Union with a system with global 
cover over which it will have full control and which will meet its accuracy, reliability 
and security requirements. It will thus have at its disposal a tool essential to its 
transport _development policy. For instance, it will be possible using Galileo instantly 
to trace goods carried on the railway network, facilitating the development of a just­
in-time policy. Galileo will permit highly accurate positioning of ships carrying 
dangerous cargoes and give the maritime authorities the means to ensure safe 
navigation, particulady in areas of high traffic density such as' the Ushant TSS. The 
emergency, search and rescue and civil protection services are other applications for 
which Galileo will offer reliable, guaranteed solutions to the strictest standards. 
Galileo will open up access to a potential market of 9 billion euros a year in return 
for an investment equivalent to approximately [250 km] of high-speed railway track. 
Galileo could thus revolutionise transport, much as the liberalisation of air transport 
did before it by creating a niche for low-cost airlines which opened up new markets 
for tourism; or mobile telephony, which has radically changed people's daily lives. 
. . ------------------------------------------------------
The four phases of the GALILEO programme are: 
-a study phase which ends in 2001; 
-a development and test phase for the launch of the first satellites in 2001-2005; 
-a deployment phase for an array of 30 satellites: 2006-2007; 
-an operational phase from 2008 onwards. 
Following the decision by the Stockholm European Council to launch this programme 
without delay, its future depends on mobilising the private sector to provide funding 
primarily for tpe deployment phase. The Commission has therefore proposed establishing a 
joint undertaking under Article 171 of the Treaty to complete the current development 
phase and prepare the pooling of public and private fmanc~. 
The European Space Agency (ESA) will be charged by the joint undertaking with 
implementing the system's space and terrestrial segment for the development phase. A 
European company could take over from the joint undertaking in the deployment phase. 
'---------~--------------------------------------------
101 
CONCLUSIONS: TIME TO DECIDE 
A large number of political measures and instruments will be needed to launch the 
process which, over ·the next 30 years, will lead to. the kind of sustainable transport 
system we might hope to achieve. The measures advocated in this White Paper are 
merely the first stages of a longer-term strategy. 
We will not be able to adapt the common transport policy to the requirements of 
sustainable development unless a number of problems can be rapidly resolved: 
-a9equate funding :Of the infrastructure needed to eliminate bottlenecks and to link · 
the Community's outlying regions to its central regions. Creation of the 
trans-European network remains one of the preconditions for the rebalancing of 
transport modes. That is why it is fundamentally important that external costs, and 
in particular environmental costs, be internalised into the infrastructure charges 
that all users will have to pay; 
-political determination to get the sixty-odd measures proposed in the White Paper 
adopted. The EU will avoid congestion only if it remains very attentive to the 
question of regulated competition, in which, when it comes to freight transport, 
the railways are playing their last card; 
-a new approach to urban transport by local public authorities which reconciles the 
modernisation of public services with rationalisation of private car use; this is part 
of what it will take to comply with the international commitments to reduce 
pollutant C02 emissions; 
-satisfying the needs of users who, in return for the increasingly high cost of 
mobility, are entitled to expect a quality service and full respect for their rights, 
irrespective of whether the service is provided by public enterprises or by private 
companies; this will make it possible to place the user at the heart of transport 
organisation. 
However, the common transport policy alone will not provide all the answers. It must 
be part of an overall strategy integrating sust~nable <:Jevelopment, to include: 
economic policy and changes in the production process that influence demand for 
transport; 
-land-use planning policy and in particular town planning -we must avoid any unnecessary 
increase in mobility needs caused by unbalanced urban planning; 
-social and education policy, through organisation of working patterns and school 
hours; 
-urban transport policy at local level and especially in large cities; 
budgetary and fiscal policy, to link the internalisation of external, and especially 
environmental, costs with completion of the trans-European netwG>rk; 
102 
107 
108 -competition policy, to ensure, in line with the objective of high-quality public 
services, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market is not 
hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market; 
-research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the various 
research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line with the concept 
of the European research area. 
A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car and 
the quali_ty of public services, will involve choices and action decided at national 
level, in the context of clearly delineated subsidiarity. The proposals put forward in 
the White Paper (Annex I) focus1on sixty-odd measures to be taken at Community 
level. Along the lines of what is happening in other areas such as energy, 
telecommunications and financial services, there is a need for ·a new form of 
. regulation to be developed in relation to transport at European level, whereby the 
·national regulatory authorities now being setting up act in a coordinated fashion, e.g. 
for allocating slots in aviation or train paths on the railways, or for road safety .This 
is a characteristic phenomenon of the new governance.107 
As already emphasised, these measures are more a:rp.bitious than they may seem. We 
should be aware that in terms of the adoption process -which more often than· not 
entails European Parliament/Council co-decision -we need to break with the 
Transport Ministers'. present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We must 
fully exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended by the 
Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority. 
To speed up the decision-making process and assess progress, the Commission has 
decided to draw up a timetable with dates for achieving specific objectives, and in 
2005 it will make .an overall assessment of the implementation of the measures 
advocated in the White Paper. This assessment will take account of the economic, 
social and environmental consequences of the proposed measures.108 It will also be 
based on a detailed analysis of those effects of enlargement liable to change the 
structure of the European transport system. As far as possible, the Commission will 
also continue to quantify the stated objectives and to this end intends to produce a 
communication in 2002 to specify those objectives. 
"European Governance: A White Paper": COM(2001)428. 
Monitored in the framework o~ "TERM": Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism. 
103 
107 
108 -competition policy, to ensure, in line with the objective of high-quality public 
services, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market is not 
hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market; 
-research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the various 
research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line with the concept 
of the European research area. 
A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car and 
the quali_ty of public services, will involve choices and action decided at national 
level, in the context of clearly delineated subsidiarity. The proposals put forward in 
the White Paper (Annex I) focus1on sixty-odd measures to be taken at Community 
level. Along the lines of what is happening in other areas such as energy, 
telecommunications and financial services, there is a need for ·a new form of 
. regulation to be developed in relation to transport at European level, whereby the 
·national regulatory authorities now being setting up act in a coordinated fashion, e.g. 
for allocating slots in aviation or train paths on the railways, or for road safety .This 
is a characteristic phenomenon of the new governance.107 
As already emphasised, these measures are more a:rp.bitious than they may seem. We 
should be aware that in terms of the adoption process -which more often than· not 
entails European Parliament/Council co-decision -we need to break with the 
Transport Ministers'. present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We must 
fully exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended by the 
Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority. 
To speed up the decision-making process and assess progress, the Commission has 
decided to draw up a timetable with dates for achieving specific objectives, and in 
2005 it will make .an overall assessment of the implementation of the measures 
advocated in the White Paper. This assessment will take account of the economic, 
social and environmental consequences of the proposed measures.108 It will also be 
based on a detailed analysis of those effects of enlargement liable to change the 
structure of the European transport system. As far as possible, the Commission will 
also continue to quantify the stated objectives and to this end intends to produce a 
communication in 2002 to specify those objectives. 
"European Governance: A White Paper": COM(2001)428. 
Monitored in the framework o~ "TERM": Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism. 
103 
I. ANNEX I: ACTION PROGRAMME 
The measures proposed in the White Paper may be summarised as follows: 
1. SHIFTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN MODES OF 
TRANSPORT 
1.1. Improving quality in the road sector 
• Harmonise inspections and penalties by the end of 2001 in order to: 
-promote efficient, uniform interpretation, implementation and monitoring of 
existing road transport legislation; 
-establish the liability of employers for certain offences committed by their drivers; 
-harmonise the conditiqns for immobilising vehicles; 
-increase· the number of checks which Member States are required to carry out 
(currently on 1 % of days actually worked) on compliance with driving times and 
drivers' rest peri~ds. 
• Keep the road transport profession attractive by promoting the necessary skills 
and ensuring satisfactory working conditions. 
• Harmonise the minimum clauses in contracts governing transport activity in order 
to allow tariffs to be revised should costs increase (e.g. a fuel price rise). 
1.2. Revitalising the railways 
• Gradually open up the railway market in Europe. By the end of 2001 the 
Commission will submit a second package of measures for the rail sector with a 
view to: 
-opening up the national freight markets to cabotage; 
-ensuring a high level safety for the railway network based on rules and regulations 
established independently and a clear definition of the responsibilities of each 
player involved; 
-updating the interoperability directives for all components of the high-speed and 
conventional railway networks; 
-gradual opening-up of international passenger transport; 
-promoting measures to safeguard the quality of rail services and users' fights. In 
particular, a directive will be proposed to lay down the terms of compensation in 
the event of delays or failure to meet service obligations. Other measures relating 
to the development of service quality indicators, terms of contract, transparency of 
information for passengers and out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms will 
also be proposed. . 
105 
• 
' • Step up rail safety by proposing a directive and setting up a Community structure 
for Railway Interoperability and Safety. 
• Support the creation of new infrastructure, and in particular rail freight freeways. 
• Enter into dialogue with the rail industries in the context of a voluntary agreement 
to reduce adverse environmental impact. 
1.3. Controlling the growth in air transport 
• Propose the introduction by 2004, in the context of the Single Sky, of: 
-a strong regulator with adequate resources independent of the various interests at 
stake, and capable of setting objectives allowing traffic to grow while 
guaranteeing safety; 
-a mechanism enabling the military to maintain defence capabilities while using 
the scope for cooperation to ensure more efficient overall organisation of airspace; 
-social dialogue with the social partners, which could begin with the air traffic 
controllers, allowing consultation, following the experience in other sectors, on 
aspects of the common aviation policy that have a considerable social impact. 
This dialogue could lead to agreements between the organisations concerned; 
cooperation with Eurocontrol to draw on its expertise and know-how to develop 
and administer the Community rules; 
a surveillance, inspection and penalties system ensuring effective enforcement of 
the rules. 
• In the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, rethink air 
transport taxation and negotiate the introduction of a kerosene tax by 2004 and 
differential en route air navigation charges. 
• Launch a debate in 2002 on the future of airports in order to: 
-make better use of existing capacity; 
-review the airport charges systems; 
-integrate air transport into a logical system with the other modes of transport; 
-determine what new airport infrastructure is required. 
• Present a revision in 2003 of the slot allocation system, in order to improve 
market access while taking account of the need to reduce environmental impacts 
at Community airports. 
• Negotiate with the United States a Joint Transatlantic Aviation Agreement to 
replace the current open skies agreements. 
106 
1.4. Adapting the maritime and inland waterway transport system 
• Develop the infrastructure needed to build veritable "motorways of the seas". 
• Simplify the regulatory framework for maritime and inland waterway transport by 
encouraging in particular the creation of one-stop offices for administrative and 
customs formalities and by linking up all the players in the logistics chain. 
• Propose a regulatory framework for safety controls for passengers embarking on 
ships offering European cruises in order to combat the risk of attacks, along the 
lines of what is done in air transport. 
• Tighten up the maritime safety rules in cooperation with the International 
Maritime Organisation and. the Internation_al Labour Organisation, in particular: 
-by incorpor~ting the minimum social rules to be observed in sh~p inspections, and 
-by developing a genuine European maritime traffic management system. 
• Encourage the reflagging of the greatest possible number of ships to Community 
registers, based on the best practices developed in social and fiscal matters, by 
proposing in 2002 measures on tonnage-based taxation and the revision of the 
guidelines on State aid to maritime transport. 
• Improve the situation of inland waterway transport through: 
-the current standardis(,ltion of technical requirements for the entire Community 
waterway network by 2002; 
-greater harmonisation of boatmasters' certificates throughout the Community's 
inland waterway network, including the Rhine. The Commission will present a 
proposal on this subject in 2002; 
-harmonisation of conditions in respect of rest periods, crew members, crew 
composition and navigation time of inland waterway vessels. The Commission 
will present a proposal on this subject in 2002. 
1.5. Linking up the modes of transport 
• Establish by 2003 a new programme to promote alternative solutions to road 
. transport (Marco Polo), which could have a b.udget of some 30 million euros per 
year in help launch commercial projects. 
• Propose by 2003 a new Community framework for the development of the 
profession of freight integrator. and the standardisation of transport units and 
freight loading. techniques. 
2; ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS 
• In 2001 revise the trans-European network guidelines in order to elirnjnate 
bottlenecks by encouraging corridors with priority for freight, a rapid passenger 
107 • 
network and traffic management plans for major roads, and adding to the "Essen" 
list such projects as, by way of illustration: 
a high-capacity railway route through the Pyrenees for freight; 
-East European high-speed train/combined transport Paris-Stuttgart-Vienna; 
-the Fehmam bridge/tunnel between Germany and Denmark; 
-the Galileo satellite navigation project; 
-improvement of the navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen; 
-the Verona-Naples rail link, including the Bologna-Milan branch; 
the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network. 
• In 2001 increase to 20% the maximum funding under the trans-European network 
budget for the main bottlenecks, including those still. remaining on the Union's 
frontiers with the accession candidate countries, and then introduce conditionality 
rules. 
• In 2004 present a more extensive revision of the trans-European network aimed in 
particular at integrating the networks of the accession candidate countries, 
introducing the concept of "motorways of the seas", developing airport capacities 
and improving territorial cohesion on the continental scale. 
• Establish a Community framework for allocating revenue from charges on 
competing routes to the construction of new infrastructure, especially rail 
infrastructure. 
• Harmonise minimum safety standards for road and rail tunnels belonging to the 
trans-European transport network. 
3. PLACING USERS AT THE HEART OF TRANSPORT 
POLICY 
3.1. Unsafe roads 
• Set a target for the EU of reducing by half the number of people killed on 
European roads by 2010. · 
• By 2005 harmonise the rules governing checks and penalties in international 
commercial transport on the trans-European road network, particularly with 
regard to speeding and drink-driving. 
• Draw up a list of "black spots" on trans-European routes where there are 
particularly significant hazards and harmonise their sign-posting. 
• Require coach manufacturers to fit seat belts on all seats of the vehicles they 
produce. A directive -to this end will be proposed in 2003. 
108 
• Tackle dangerous driving and exchange good· practices with a view to 
encouraging responsible driving through training and education schemes aimed in 
particular ·at young drivers. 
• Continue efforts to combat the scourge of drink-driving and find solutions to the 
issue of the use of drugs and medidnes. 
• Develop a methodology at European level to encourage independent tec.hnical 
investigations, e.g. by setting up a committee of independent experts within the 
Commission. 
3.2. The facts behind the costs to the user 
• In 2002 propose a framework directive setting out the principles and structure of 
an infrastructure-charging system and a common methodology for setting 
charging levels, offset by for the removal of existing taxes, and allowing cross­
financing. 
• Make the tax system more consistent by proposing uniform taxation for 
commercial road transport fuel by 2003 to round off the internal market. 
•· In 2002 propose a directive guaranteeing the interoperability of means of payment 
on the trans-European road network. 
3.3. Rights and obligations of users 
• In 2001 increase air passengers' existing rights through new proposals concerning 
in particular denied boarding. due to overbooking, delays and flight cai:icellations. 
• In 20.01 put forward a regulation concerning requirements relating to air transport 
contracts. , 
• By 2004, and as far as possible, extend the Community measures protecting 
passengers' rights to include other modes of transport, and in particular the 
railways, maritime transport and, as far as possible, urban transport services. This 
concerns in particular service quality and th~ development of quality indicators, 
contract conditions, transparency of information to passengers and extrajudicial 
dispute settlement mechanisms. 
• Propose an adjustment of procedures for notifying State aid, particularly in cases 
relating to compensation for public service obligations on links to the 
Community's outlying regions and srriall islands. 
• ·Clarify the general principles which should govern services of general economic 
interest in the field of transport in order to provide users with a service of quality, 
in keeping with the Commission communication on services of general interest in. 
Europe. 
109 
., 4. MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF TRANSPORT 
GLOBALISATION 
• Link the future Member States to the EU's trans-European network by means of 
infrastructure of quality with a view to maintaining the modal share of rail 
transport at 35% in the candidate countries in 2010 by mobilising private-sector 
finance. 
• Make provision in the Community's future financial perspective for adequate 
public funding of infrastructure in the new member countries. 
• Develop the administrative capacities of the candidate countries, notably by 
training inspectors and administrative staff responsible for enforcing transport 
legislation. 
• Full membership for the European Community in the main international 
organisations, in particular the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the 
International Maritime Organisation, the Rhine Navigation Commission, the 
Danube Commission and Eurocontrol. 
• By 2008 develop for the EU a satellite navigation system with global cover, over 
which it will have control and which will meet its accuracy, reliability and 
security requirements (Galileo) . 
110 
II. ANN~X II: INDICATORS AND QUANTITATIVE ILLUSTRATIONS 
Figure 1: Length of motorways and rail track (EU 15) 
180 
160 
140 
120 
CJ 
CJ 100 
II --Motorvv ays 
CJ co 80 m -;., --Rail tines 
• ' ~ -:> 
60 ..... ;1,.,.. & 
40 
20 
0 
1980 1985 1990 1995 
Source: Eurostat, 2001 
Figure 2: Average external costs 1995 (EUR 17) by transport mode and type of cost: 
passenger transport (without congestion costs) 
Average External Costs: Passenger 1995 
Etio I 1DDD Pkm 
100 .......------------------------------------------, 
87 Cu P'trt am P roce u 
CU1t>a1 Entcts 
• N at11e & uicacape 
cc 1rna• c•a1ge 
lS +------1---~-------------------------iCAlr Poll1tl0t 
Cl N Ollt 
•Accl:le its 
SD-+----~ 
J8 
. 25 +----, 
o-t-----
Car IU Rall AUliltlOI 
Source: INFRAS,IWW for the IUR, 2000 
111 T 
., 
' Figure 3: Average external costs 1995 (EUR 17) by transport mode and type of cost: 
freight transport (without congestion costs) 
uro / 1000 lk m 
50----1 
Road Freight Average External Costs: Freight 1995 
205 
Rail Aviation i-----~C Upstream Process 
C Urban Effects 
•Nature & Landscap 
1C1 C Ii mate Change 
C Air P oDution -----to Noise • 
Waterborne 
Source: INFRAS, op. cit. 2000 
Figure 4: Average external costs of congestion, 1995, euros per 1 000 passenger-km 
and tonne-km 
fl.JR 11 
UK 
Swit;:crl;i,nd 
E Sweden 
~ ..., 
0 0 
0 Portug;il ... 
"' Norw;i,y c 
~ Ncthcrl;)nd:: 
E Luxcmb0<1r9 ~ •freight 
Q. lt;i,ly 0 
0 lrcl;i,nd 0 o passengers 
... ... Greece 
~ 
Q. Germ ;i,ny 
0 Fr;i,nce ... 
:::s w Finl;i,nd 
Oc111m;i,rk 
Belgium 
0 10 20 
Source: ECMT, 1998; INFRAS, op. cit, 2000 
112 
Figure 5: Passenger-km et vehicle-km in France, Portugal, Finland and the United 
Kingdom, 1980-19~8 
19 200 -.--~~~~~--,--~---~,..._,~.......,.,..__,,_--,.--....,......,,~ ; ~-,~t;~~ ~:· ·. ~;~. \~ ·-~· ·· · _: · -~-~--.·'." .: ; .\\~\~:f ~~~T~~~~~~~~/£;~tk~-; · :_\? :-~ :~~<:,~~::~; ~~ 180 
160~---~------~-----=-~~~~~=--~~~ 
140~~~---.,..---~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
80 120 +-~~__,...-,..._..,,, ....... ~~~~~~~;;;.,-,.;,~~~ -------. 
=1. 100 ~~~~~...,,;.,--.~~.;;...;,;;.:~;;...;;..;;..~~~.;.;:...::;:~ 
Off 
80 
60 
1980 1985 
Source: Eurostat, 2001 1990 1995 -+-Vehicle-km 
--Passenger-km 
Tables I (summarised) and 3 (in detail) illustrate the results of the approaches. 
Table 1: Comparison of options according ~o their increasing impact between 1998 
and 2010 
1998=100 Passenger Tonne Vehicle C02 emissions 
EU 15 Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre 
Anticipated 124 138 126 127 
trend 
Option A 124 138 115 117 
~ption B 124 138 115 115 
Option C 124 138 112 110 
GDF 143 143 143 143 
Table 2 is a rough attempt to classify the main measures which could be taken to 
reconcile transport with sustainable development. The programme of measures· set out 
in the White Paper needs to be backed up by cross-sectoral action, i.e. in sectors of the 
economy other than transport, ·to ensure the success of the options being proposed, 
particularly option C. 
113 
) Table 2: A typology of link-breaking 
Area of link-Economic activity 
breaking 
Indicators 
Link-
br~aking 
measures 
(examples) GDP (passenger­
and tonne­
kilometres) 
• Town planning 
• Work 
organisation 
(e.g. 
teleworking) 
• lridustrial 
production 
system 
• Land-use 
planning Transport system 
Vehicle-kilometres 
• Charging 
• Intelligent 
transport systems 
• Modal transfer 
• Better rates of 
vehicle loading 
and occupancy Environmental impact 
Polluting emissions 
• Less polluting vehicles 
and fuels 
• Speed control 
• Energy-efficient 
engines 
Source: 5th Commission research prowamme -SPRITE: "SePaRating the Intensity of 
Transport from Economic growth". 
Explanation: 
Passenger kilometre: transport of a passenger over one kilometre 
Tonne kilometre: transport of one tonne over one kilometre 
Vehicle kilometre: number of kilometres covered by a vehicle 
C02: estimates of carbon dioxide emissions. These take account, in the anticipated 
trend and the three options, of the gains in vehicle energy efficiency expected from the 
voluntary agreement with the automobile industry (ACEA, KAMA, JAMA). 
GDP: hypothetical growth of GDP of 3% per year. 
114 
Table 3: Illustration of results of approaches 
EU 15 1998 2010 Anticipated trend 20 I 0 -Option A 2010-Option B 2010 -Option C 
1 
Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn · Bn Mio 
Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm-· Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonm:s. Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes 
C02 Tkm C02 C02 Tkm C02 Tkm C02 
Tkm Tkm 
Cars 3776 2221.2 434.2 4650 2735.3 453.4 4650 2486.6 412.2 4650 2486.6 412.2 4559 2438 404.1 
Bus-coach 415 24.4 18.7 441 25.9 19.8 441 25.9 19.8 441 23.6 18:0 501 26.8 20.5 
Metro-Tram 50 0.5 0 53 0.5 0.0 53 0.5 0.0 53 0.5 0.0 61 0.5 0.0 
Railway 290 1.5 6.4 327 1.7 7.2 327 1.7 7.2 327 1.5 6.5 400 1.8 8.0 
Air transport 241 1.9 59.3 458 3.7 112.7 458 3.7 112.7 458 3.3 102.4 408 3.0 91.2 
Total 4772 2249.5 518.6 5929 2767.1 593.l 5929 2518.4 551.9 5929 2515.5 539.1 5929 2470.l 523.8 
Passengers 
Growth 24% 23% 14% 24% 12% 6% 24% 12% 4% 24% 10% 1% 
1998-2010 
Road 1255 313~8 271.l 1882 470.5 406.5 1882 427.7 369.6 1882 427.7 369.6 1736 394.5 340.9 
Railway 241 1.3 1.9 272 1.5 2.2 272 1.5 2.2 272 1.4 2.0 333 1.7 2.4 
Inland 121 0.3 3.6 138 ·o.4 4.l 138 0.4 4.1 138 . 0.4 3.8 167 0.4 4.6 
waterways 
Pipelines · 87 1.0 100 1.0 100 1.0 100 1.0 100 1.0 
115 
r"; ... : "4,1 
~ u .,, 
EU 15 1998 2010 Anticipated trend 2010 -Option A 2010-Option B 2010 -Option C 
Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio Bn Bn Mio 
Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes Pkm- Vehkm Tonnes 
C02 Tkm C02 C02 Tkm C02 Tkm C02 
Tkm Tkm 
Short sea 1166 0.3 23.3 1579 0.4 31.6 1579 0.4 31.6 1579 0.4 28.7 1635 0.4 29.7 
shipping 
Total Goods 2870 315.76 300.9 3971 472.8 445.4 3971 430 408.5 3971 429.8 405.1 3971 397.0 378.6 
Growth over 38% 50% 48% 38% 36% 36% 38% 36% 35% 38% 26% 26% 
1998 
Total 2565.2 819.5 3239.9 1038.5 2948.4 960.4 2945.3 944.2 2867.1 902.4 
Growth 26% 27% 15% 17% 15% 15% 12% 10% 
1998-2010 
Growth in 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 43% 
GDP 1998-
2010 
Source: For the 1998 data on passenger-km and tonne-km, "EU Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook, European Commission 2000". The data 
on C02 emissions and vehicle-km are estimates produced by the Commission's departments. 
116 
III. ANNEX III: PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND BEING EXAMINED BY THE 
COMMISSION FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST . OF "SPECIFIC" 
PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 
117 ( 
...., ...... 
""' ~· 
PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER STATES AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND BEING EXAMINED BY THE 
COMMISSION FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF "SPECIFIC" PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 
Project 
1 IT Milan-Bologna and 
Verona-Naples Length (km) Type 
830 Mixed high-speed line Completion 
date 
2007 Remaining 
investment 
(million euros) 
13 994 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 F Montpe11ier-Nimes 50 Mixed high-speed. and freight line 2012 790 ____________ ... __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 
15 EU Galileo 
16 EIF High-capacity Pyrenees crossing 
17 DI A Stuttgart-Munich-Salzburg-Vienna 
18 D Vilshofen-Straubing 
19 · EIP Interoperability of the Iberian 
high-speed rail network 
20 D/DK Fehmarn fixed link European satellite navigation system 
180 Rail freight line 
713 Mixed high-speed and freight line 
70 Improving the navigability of the 
Danube 
7 800 New and upgraded high-speed lines 
50 Rail and road bridge/tunnel 
Total 
118 2008 3 250 
2020 5 000 
2012 9 501 
700. 
29600 
2013 3 650 
66 485 
IV. ANNEX IV: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND INTELLIGENT 
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS 
Technological innovation provides an excellent opportunity to integrate the transport 
modes, optimise their performance, make them safer and help make the European 
transport system compatible with sustainable transport development. The European 
Union is very actively involved in technological innovation in transport. Its research 
and development programmes are promoting innovation upstream, while the trans­
European networks lend themselves perfectly to large-scale application. The 
technologies_ emerging from the Information .Society can make an outstanding 
contribution here. 
1) Technology development 
. Over the period 1998-2002 the EU's contribution to national and industrial RTD 
efforts in the transport field is estimated at around 1.7 billion euros, in areas as varied 
as intermodality, energy and the technology of means of transportation, including 
telematics applications. Instead of expanding this Community effort, it would in 
future be better to keep it at a constant level while focusing it more specifically 
on the obJectives of the common transport policy. The new framework 
programme of research for 2002-2006 will provide the opportunity to put these 
principles into effect in the field of transport. The Commiss.ion 's new proposal 109 
includes among its priority objectives those of perfecting new technologies to back 
up the development of safe and clean modes of transport and developing the 
European transport system. In the framework programme proposal, the priority areas 
of thematic research that are the most promising for supporting the common 
transport policy set out in the White Paper are: 
1. Aeronautics and space 
RTD priorities in the aeronautics field will focus, on the one hand, on lessening the 
·environmental impact of engine emissions and noise and improving aircraft safety 
and, on the other, increasing the capacity and operating safety of the air traffic 
management system so as to facilitate the achievement of the Single European Sky 
initiative. 
Regarding space, the development of Galileo is one of the priority research activities 
and its goal is to help build up the necessary expertise and knowledge in Europe to 
exploit this emerging technology as effectively as possible. 
Safer and less polluting aircraft 
The aim of research and development in the safety field will be to achieve a five-fold 
reduction in accident rates in order to compensate for the growth in traffic. Research will 
focus on the development of technologies which give the crew constant and controllable 
situation awareness. 
As regards the environment, the aim is to compensate for the increase in air traffic by '•( 
t 
reducing C02 emissions by 50%. and NOx by 80% and by reducing aircraft noise by 10 dB ~ 
in order to cut the perceived noise level by 50%. Research will focus on aircraft technology, 
109 COM(2001) 279. 
119 
j low-drag aerodynamics and flight operating procedures. 
2. Sustainable development and global change 
The research activities proposed within this pnonty area aim to enhance the 
scientific and technological capacities Europe needs in order to implement its 
sustainable development strategy, especially by applying new technologies. 
The strategic objectives deal in particular with the reduction of greenhouse gases and 
pollutant emissions, the security of energy supply and the balanced use of the various 
transport modes, all of these being priority research themes with a contribution to 
make to the implementation of the transport policy recommended in the White Paper. 
With regard to short and medium-term research activities aiming to reduce 
greenhouse gases and pollution and ensure a secure energy supply, the proposal is to 
focus research on action to develop renewable energy sources and on cleaner and 
more efficient energy use, especially in urban areas, and to develop new transport 
concepts that are cleaner and more energy efficient. 
Clean urban transport 
Rationalising conventional private car use in town centres and .promoting clean urban 
transport are also priority objectives, as are the efforts being made towards using hydrogen 
as the fuel for tomorrow's vehicles. Projects envisaged include supporting demand 
management measures, integrating urban transport services and promoting the marketing of 
low-polluting or non-polluting vehicles. The development of a new generation .of hybrid 
electric cars (electric motor combined with a heat engine) and cars which run on natural gas 
or, in the longer term, hydrogen fuel cells, looks very promising. 
With regard to short and medium-term research activities aimed at making transport 
modes sustainable, the proposal is to focus research on cleaner and safer road and sea 
transport, the integration of intelligent transport systems for efficient infrastructure 
management, railway interoperability and the development of intermodality for 
passengers and freight. 
Railway interoperability 
Research and development must help with the· design· and introduction of a framework 
guaranteeing full interoperability between rail infrastructures, vehicles, cabs and crews. It 
will focus on technologies which will help improve the capacity of means of transport and 
traffic management systems (longer trains, optimal allocation of slots, maintenance 
procedures) and introduce more competitive services (operating systems such as freight 
tracking, crew training). 
The long-term research objective is to develop new sources of renewable energy: 
hydrogen technologies and fuel cells which are intrinsically clean and can be used in 
transport. 
3. Anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs 
Activities in this priority area will consist of specific research or research 
complementing that in_ the abovementioned priority thematic areas in support of 
policies of EU interest, such as the common transport policy presented in this White 
Paper. 
120 
Monitoring a_nd evaluating the White Paper programme 
Harmonised data, forecasting tools and indicators will be used to monitor and evaluate the 
action programme and the guidelines for transport and the trans-European networks f 
contained· in this White Paper. 
2) eEurope c-
The need to provide new services was underlined by the eEurope 2002 Action Plan, 
adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Feira European Council in 
June 2000. Specific objectives have been set for 2002 to speed up the development 
and deployment of intelligent transport systems, for instance: 
-50% of Europe's major towns and cities ought to be provided with traffic and 
travel information services, 
-50% of Europe's major motorways ought to be equipped with systems to manage 
traffic and to detect accidents and congestion, 
-all new vehic~es sold in Europe should be equipped with more effective active 
safety systems, 
all Europe's mobile c1t1zens should have access to location determination of 
e~ergency calls on the 112 number, -with multilingual assistance and a full range 
of eme~gency services, 
-legislative initiatives should be taken to promote the Single European Sky, mobile 
communications for trains, maritime information and control systems, and 
Galileo. 
The eEurope Action Plan provides a framework for efforts to research, develop and 
deploy intelligent transport systems. The role of the Action Plan, which is to be 
implemented by the Member States and industry, is to facilitate the. deploymen~ of 
new solutions and to speed up their development. The private sector has a key role in 
the developm~nt of intelligent transport services. In implementing the eEurope 
initiatives, Member States should ensure that obstacles to the development of private 
services are removed. 
3) Deployment of intelligent transport systems 
The potential impact of intelligent transport systems has been assessed both during 
research and in the early stages of deployment. Journey time reductions of up to 20% 
and increases in network capacity of 5-10% have. often been achieved in various 
combinations. Safety improvements have often-been estimated at around 10-15% for 
certain specific types of accident (rear-end collisions) thanks to coordinated 
information and control strategies, while survival rates have also inc~eased thanks to 
automatic incident detection systems for the management of emergency situations. 
Only 6% of road accidents appear to be unavoidable and beyond the reach of 
improved technology. Lastly, integrated strategies for pollution control and traffic 1 
limitation have led to initial estimates of reductions in ground-level emissions. 
Intelligent transport's most significant impact is probably on road transport, though it 
helps make other modes safer and more efficient, too. 
121 
110 
Ill The trans-European transport network is an ideal candidate for the deployment of 
intelligent transport. It is not limited to large traditional infrastructure such as roads 
and motorways, railways, ports and airports, but also includes the traffic 
management systems and information, positioning and navigation systems and 
services which make it possible to operate such infrastructure to best effect. 
Galileo, 110 which the Commission is considering for inclusion on the list of specific 
projects ("Essen" list), is an example here of a project acting as a catalyst for the 
development of intelligent transport. In 1998-1999, some 100 million euros, i.e. over 
10% of the TEN budget, was allotted to traffic management systems. 111 The financial 
support provided through the multiannual indicative programme for 2001-2006 for 
the trans-European network has been increased to the unprecedented level of around 
800 million euros:. 
Such co-financing should focus on projects which encourage large-scale, coordinated 
. deployment, stimulating the synchronisation of investment, which is particularly 
critical for this type of project in view of the multitude of players involved. Without 
such coordination a veritable mosaic of fragmentary services on a regional or 
national scale might emerge, compromising continuity of service beyond the 
geographical frontiers of States and the organisational frontiers of operators. For 
users, this would ultimately be a major new obstacle to the smooth working of the 
internal market. 
The private sector has a key role to play in the launching of new services: from this 
point of view, the Commission strongly recommends the development of a legal and 
commercial framework for the participation of the private sector and for partnerships 
between public and private operators in order to facilitate the development of value­
added services for traffic information and travel. 
Apart from the Galileo programme described earlier in this White Paper, the main 
projects already under way or due to be launched are: 
1. Large-scale deployment of intelligent road transport systems 
Six Euro-Regional initiatives involving the main players in traffic management in 
Europe have been receiving EU financial support since 1996; these initiatives are 
already accompanying the deployment phase in 14 Member States and are placing 
particular emphasis on the needs of European users. It is essential that the trans­
European network be equipped with telematic infrastructure/systems for data 
collection and with traffic control and/or road information centres in order to 
guarantee the quality and reliability of information (e.g. journey times), just as 
cooperation between managers is indi.spensable if users are to be offered an 
uninterrupted high-quality service, whether for local or regional journeys, mass 
departures during the holiday season or at weekends, or medium or long-distance 
heavy goods traffic. On this basis, traffic management plans, information services 
provided before or during journeys, freight management services, breakdown and 
emergency rescue services and electronic road-charging systems need to be 
introduced as a matter of priority and their take-off should help greatly to alleviate 
the effects of road network saturation. 
European project for a satellite positioning system for civilian use. 
Plus subsidies of around 45 million euros for rail traffic management projects, which are not included. 
122 
112 
113 A European network of traffic management and road information centres 
. Work is under way to set up a European network of traffic management and road 
information centres by 2003; this network, which should cover the whole of the EU, will 4-
provide users with traffic management and road information services on a fully European 
scale. The network is central to the European programme for funding deployment (around 
200 million euros between 2001 and 2006), which will mobilise around 1.2 billion euros of f, 
investment of European interest and generate complementary projects at the local, regional, 
national, cross-border and European levels. 
Electronic road-charging systems and any other automatic fee-collection systems 
appear particularly useful for r~storing balanced prices. The fact that they are now_· 
being deployed or are planned in several countries, though not necessarily on a 
technically interoperable basis as yet, shows how useful it would be for Europe to 
introduce standards. An interoperability directive needs to be accompanied by 
·community aid for the deployment of such systems. 
2. The European Rail Traffic Management System112 
This system, developed since the start of the 1990s with constant Community support 
through the framework research programmes, represents an unprecedented leap 
forward. The project is completing its tests and certification procedures and has now 
reached the stage of pilot testing on the trans-European network. 
The main function of this automated system is to monitor and ensure a minimum 
distance between trains. It will allow a train to run ori all European lines with only a 
single command-control system on board, while at present. more than 11 different 
systems are in service in Europe. 
While several countries are already beginning the operational deployment phase, in the 
years ahead it will be necessary gradually to equip the main lines with this system. The 
actual traffic management and operational assistance applications on which the 
development of freight transport by rail will rely are still in the development stage and may 
receive aid under the research framework programme. 
This system will be all the cheaper to deploy for the fact that the Directive on the 
interoperability of the high-speed rail system requires common ~pecifications to be 
used for this type of system in the const~ction of all new lines.113 
3. Air traffic 
Operating and pre-operating tests, especially in the North Atlantic and the 
Mediterranean sectors, have shown the potential for improving safety _by means of 
more precise positioning information and better communications. The use of data 
transmission links also enables airlines and other operators to obtain operating data 
. from aircraft during flights. Such systems will facilitate the adoption of "free flight" 
solutions by enabling certain air traffic management functions to be carried out from 
the cockpit. Airport operations require greater integration and management of 
information so that the different controllers involved in the various flight phases can 1 
ERTMS. 
Any request for funding of high-speed lines from the trans-European networks budget needs a 
guarantee from the national authorities that ERTMS will be iristalled on those lines. 
123 
• 
· .. 
" '· exchange data and plan their operations and aircraft movements. Such management 
and planning systems, along with advanced guidance/command systems for ground 
movements in airports, will increase the airports' capacity, especially during bad 
weather, while relieving the pressure on air traffic controllers . 
Proper use of new technology is essential for increasing the available airspace 
(reapportioning civil and military use) and allowing genuinely European 
management (sector and route planning). In the past, decisions to invest in intelligent 
systems have often been taken on the basis of national industrial interests, resulting 
in limited technical and operational compatibility between the different centres and 
restricted interoperability. This lack of interoperability has severely impaired 
efficiency, from the fragment;:ttion of controller training to major operational 
coordination problems, and has pushed up investment and maintenance costs. 
Interoperability is central to the Single European Sky 
Interoperability will become a major criterion in selecting and evaluating projects for trans­
European network support. Upstream, the demonstrators produced through the research 
programme will need to be large-scale. 
4. Maritime traffic safety 
The risk of accidents due to traffic concentration in Europe's main sea lanes is 
particularly high in bottlenecks such as the Straits of Gibraltar or the Ushant Traffic 
Separation Scheme. 
Traffic monitoring aJ?.d management by coastal or port authorities is still often 
handled at a local level, and the information gathered is generally neither used nor 
passed on to the other centres, authorities or bodies along the ship's route. However, 
technologies are developing in the maritime sector: automatic vessel identification 
and monitoring systems, the development of standardised telematic exchange, the 
availability on the market of black boxes, and so on. These developments suggest a 
whole range of applications, not only in the areas of safety and pollution control but 
also for a general improvement in traffic conditions at sea and in ports. 
A trans-European network of shipping management and information 
The Commission has adopted a legislative proposal for a Community system to monitor 
and manage traffic information which will make it possible to identify and track ships 
entering European waters and to promote the systematic exchange of ship and cargo 
information among the different players in maritime transport (traffic control centres of the 
different Member States, sea rescue or pollution control bodies, port authorities, etc.). 
Setting up a trans-European shipping management and information network such as this 
should improve the management and supervision of traffic and reduce the administrative 
burden on ships' captains, while improving the preparedness and response of maritime 
authorities faced with accidents or pollution risks. 
124 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(2001) 370 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 07 06 04 08 
Catalogue number: KT-C0-01-557-EN-C 
Office for Official ~ublications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg