Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ' The Citizens' Network - Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe - European Commission Green Paper'
Date: 1996-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: carriage of passengers, common transport policy, means of public conveyance, transport network, transport planning













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0705 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC0705

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ' The Citizens' Network - Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe - European Commission Green Paper'  


Official Journal C 212 , 22/07/1996 P. 0077 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'The Citizens' Network -  Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe - European Commission Green  Paper`(96/C 212/17)On 21  December 1995, the Council decided to consult the Economic and  Social Committee, under Article  198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on  'The Citizens' Network - Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe -  European Commission Green Paper`. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's  work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13  May 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin and  the Co-Rapporteur Mr Koopman. At its 336th Plenary Session (meeting of 30  May 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted  the following Opinion by 93 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions. 1. Introduction1.1. The Commission's Green Paper launches a campaign to promote a  'Citizens' Network` aimed at supporting the development of public transport systems throughout the  whole Union. 1.2. The EU is breaking new ground as the Green Paper is its first policy document on public  transport. Hitherto it has focused on related areas and areas with only an indirect bearing on  public passenger transport. 1.3. The purpose of the Green Paper is to initiate a public debate throughout Europe on how to  optimize public transport systems in Europe so as to offer alternatives to the ever more  problematic use of the car. 1.4. Local and regional prerogatives will not be infringed as the Commission's aim is merely to  provide an overall picture of existing EU measures affecting public transport, with a view to  creating a general framework for a coordinated policy on public passenger transport. 2. The Commission's Green Paper on 'The Citizens' Network`2.1. The Green Paper points out that  there has been a rapid growth in passenger transport due to road traffic especially and the vicious  circle in which car use and road building continually chase each other. 2.2. The car has made possible a new freedom of mobility, but the rapid expansion of road transport  affects people and the environment through air pollution, noise, accidents and congestion. The  transport infrastructure is already overloaded and cannot go on expanding unchecked because the  harm would outweigh the benefits. 2.3. The solution is seen as to develop the public passenger transport system into a real Citizens'  Network and to give it priority. User needs will be the determining factor in decisions at local,  national and Community level. 2.4. Public transport systems must be improved in several respects, e.g. through the following  measures: a) Improved accessibility and attractiveness through: - better designed rolling-stock and interchange stations; - better links between residential areas, workplaces, shops, leisure facilities, town centres,  peripheral and I9rural areas; - easier access for people with reduced mobility; - enhanced safety, comfort and quality, including the number and motivation of staff. b) Better intermodal integration by means of: - improved coordination of bus, tram, metro and train; - greater use of the potential of terminals and rail tracks; - comprehensible ticketing, fare and information systems, including reasonable prices. c) Better integration of transport policy with other policy areas: - this includes, for instance, possible coordination with health and social services in enabling  people with reduced mobility to use public transport; and- coordination with land-use planning,  regional and urban development. 2.5. The Green Paper specifies the following areas in which public transport can be encouraged: a) Promotion of information sharing and best practices: In particular the Commission is considering setting up an award for European towns whose transport  systems consistently provide high quality services. b) Research and development: The Commission is planning a significant shift of emphasis towards public transport in its R& D  work. c) Financial instruments: The Commission will consider how financial instruments can be better used to promote public  transport. For instance, in the case of trans-European network (TENs) projects, the Commission can  ensure that priority is given to connections which interlink local systems and encourage the use of  public transport. d) Review of regulations: There are already numerous European regulations with an important bearing on public transport (e.g.  those on public procurement, the environment and vehicles). Some of these could be scrutinized to  see whether they could be targeted on building up public transport. e) The regulatory framework: The Commission supports competition, but (i) rejects complete deregulation/liberalization and (ii)  calls for fulfilment of transport policy goals and public service obligations. 3. General comments ()3.1. People want to be mobile and the possibilities have never been  greater, yet they find themselves stuck in traffic or stranded because they do not have their own  transport. The motor car represents real progress, but not everyone can drive their car everywhere  or at the same time. 3.2. Transport policy must therefore seek new ways of ensuring and improving mobility, and for many  people providing it for the first time. The mission of European transport policy is to uphold the  social importance of mobility which has hitherto been undervalued. 3.3. The Commission's Green Paper is a start. It contains the key concepts: integrated transport  policy, higher priority for public transport and finally the 'Citizens' Network`. These are very  demanding objectives. They have the vigorous support of the Economic and Social Committee. 3.4. The Commission is urged to do more since public transport, local transport in particular, is a  decisive factor in the quality of life in cities and conurbations as well as for mobility in rural  areas. Specific proposals are needed to improve the efficiency of public transport systems if  mobility is to be ensured well into the next millennium. 3.5. Pollution, noise, congestion and accidents are rampant and must be reduced on human, social  and economic grounds. They also cost a fortune. Not least for this reason, public transport is not  only necessary but also requires public subsidies. 3.6. The idea of a Citizens' Network- firstly, as an interconnecting network of transport flows,  carriers and modes at local level; - secondly, linking up with regional and long-distance services and TENs; - thirdly, with priority for public passenger transportis, for the ESC, an alternative for the  future. 3.7. However, if the Citizens' Network is to live up to its name, citizens and users must be  actively involved in the discussions, as mentioned in the Green Paper. They must be consulted,  their needs identified in detail, and the decisions taken at grassroots level. 3.8. One aim must be to improve traffic conditions for commuters and shoppers. Many places, e.g.  retail and manufacturing premises, are already difficult to get to in conurbations and built-up  areas. Ferry services, which in some parts of the EU are an important link in the transport chain,  should also be included. 3.9. The Commission should emphatically support this process by providing the impetus, creating the  right environment and ensuring continuity from the smallest local transport systems up to the  European networks. This accords with a view of the subsidiarity principle as a dynamic, open  process. 3.10. Europe-wide publication and international pooling of experience can in themselves achieve a  great deal, witness the examples of Aalborg, the Netherlands, Grenoble, Freiburg, Vienna and Madrid  cited in the Green Paper. Passing on information and encouraging the use of proven procedures is in  fact a sound approach for the Commission to follow. 3.11. Progress can only be achieved if there is a major improvement in the quality of public  transport services, including transport infrastructure (tramways, high-speed urban railways,  terminals, interchange facilities, stations, etc.). Rather than allowing these services to atrophy,  they must be supported. 3.12. The ESC therefore endorses the Commission proposal to give special awards to towns and cities  providing high-quality local transport. This is a real incentive to compete on quality. The  'quality check list` (point 15) should also include the journey time. 3.13. The ESC endorses the Commission's choice of policy areas where action needs to be taken to  promote public transport, namely: - research and development; - TENs; - regional development policy; - market regulatory policy. 3.14. The ESC approves the general slant and many of the specific points in the comments about  these policy areas in the 'executive summary`. 3.15. In the case of R& D for instance, EU action should focus on linking up systems with both  private transport and transfer points to non-local networks. Financial aid should therefore be  granted for the first practical application and for trial projects. 3.16. In contrast, the ESC cannot go along with all aspects of the Commission's proposals for  market regulatory policy. 3.17. In both the summary and especially in the chapter on market regulatory policy (Part C,  Chapter  IV), the Green Paper points up very accurately the conflict between the claims of public  interest - public service - and of completely free competition - liberalization. What matters now  is how the conflict is to be resolved. 3.18. The Commission stresses that various options are open to the Member States for structuring  their markets, ranging from a publicly controlled system to completely free competition. The  Commission considers that a system of 'contracting concessions... based on transparent, Europewide  public tendering` represents a suitable solution. 3.19. The ESC considers this approach - pending the improvement of crucial conditions, e.g. the  quality of public services (including infrastructure), and harmonization of the terms of  competition - would result in full liberalization, which is not the Commission's intention and  which it elsewhere rejects. Furthermore, the quality of services must, in the users' interest, have  absolute priority. 3.20. Before any specific moves are made on market regulatory policy, this whole area needs looking  at more thoroughly. Experience to date with Regulation 1893/91 reveals the primary importance of  striking a reasonable balance between all the facets of this policy. The aim is to create a level  playing-field. The instruments which the ESC considers necessary are listed in the specific  comments (on C, IV). 3.21. The ESC would ask the Commission to consider whether the problems of competition and market  regulation in public transport should not be studied thoroughly and reappraised in a separate Green  Paper. 3.22. The focal points of the Citizens' Network should therefore be infrastructure, quality and the  links with related policies such as zoning, physical planning and urban development. Competition on  quality and performance should take precedence over competition purely on price. 3.23. All local transport companies, be they private or public, should be subject to such  competition on quality and performance. The ESC calls on the Commission to spell out its quality  criteria in greater detail and to develop methods for applying them. 3.24. Furthermore, the Green Paper lacks a coordinated overall approach. It is not enough merely to  string separate topics together. What is needed is to apply the basic idea of interconnection even  more forcefully to the relevant policy areas and measures. 3.25. Accordingly the ideas on R& D, technology policy, infrastructure and investment policy should  be embedded more firmly in a common blueprint and linked up with physical planning, zoning and  urban development policies with a view to achieving greater benefits for all European citizens. 3.26. Although passenger transport is the subject of the Green Paper, the ESC thinks it worth  considering the links - in terms of ideas and planning - with goods and commercial traffic. This  could highlight the positive effect which promoting public transport - e.g. commuter traffic -  could have on the situation for goods and commercial traffic. Similarly, consideration should be  given to using local transport infrastructure for deliveries to shops in town centres, e.g. if  deliveries were made using tram and suburban railway networks. This would require more flexibility,  including in working hours, but would safeguard employment. The delivery of goods to customers  offers scope to public transport companies. The ESC would have thought it quite feasible to connect  supply depots (generally situated out of town) to the public transport infrastructure for this  purpose. 3.27. Generally speaking the ESC regards the Green Paper as an innovative approach to a highly  important area of policy at Community level. The EU is urged to develop more radical initiatives  which give higher priority to public transport. The Commission must come up with practical  proposals for improving efficiency if mobility is to be secured well into the next millennium. This  applies above all to local public transport. 3.28. In developing the Citizens' Network it is particularly important to take account of the  interests of the 'consumer` because consumers, unlike the competitive market for goods and other  services, have no or only a limited choice of supplier. Quantity, quality and price are not  determined solely by supply and demand, but by transport policy decisions. In the interests of the  general public and users, the reliability, efficiency and effectiveness of not only regional and  long-distance but above all local transport must be improved so that user satisfaction and  acceptance rise and public expenditure can be cut. Governments must safeguard quality and  accessibility and ensure that there is no discrimination against less privileged users. In  particular this means measures to facilitate the use of public transport by citizens with a wide  variety of disabilities. To achieve these objectives the consumer must have measurable performance and quality standards  (see, for example, the Citizens' Charter of the British National Consumer Council or the quality  label for local environmental policy of the Dutch 'Consumentencontact` organization. These  standards must above all bear in mind the 'horizontal` aspects, e.g. contractual relations between  customer and supplier, representation of consumer interests and how complaints are handled. The  responsibility for such initiatives rests, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, mainly  with the Member States. 4. Specific comments on the individual chaptersPART A - Trends and policy requirementsChapter  I: Recent developments and current challenges to passenger transport in Europe4.1. Points  1-94.1.1. The ESC agrees with the Green Paper's statement that passenger transport is a growth  industry, with most of the growth coming from private transport, and with its comments on the  imbalance between private and public transport. The ESC also agrees with its description of the  adverse effects for large sections of the population, especially in the rural, badly connected  regions. 4.1.2. The process of overdevelopment ('dispersion of residential areas`) is sketched accurately,  along with the environmental damage and costs of congestion. Special emphasis should be placed on  the statement that 'Studies indicate that improving and extending infrastructure results in more  journeys overall as road users make use of the new or improved facilities. The environmental impact  both of these extra journeys and of the construction of the road infrastructure may outweigh any  benefits in improved traffic flows`. 4.2. Points 10-124.2.1. The ESC strongly agrees with the conclusion that the Green Paper draws  from this stocktaking, namely that 'Reinforcing public passenger transport services offers an  alternative`, because it is 'efficient in terms of resources required`. 4.2.2. The ESC also goes along with the description of the challenges facing attractive public  passenger transport. However, it could be brought out more clearly that the obstacles to quality  mentioned, e.g. personal security (crime) and outdated equipment, are not natural deficiencies but  the consequence of inadequate funding. Chapter II: Towards an integrated 'Citizens' Network`4.3. Points 13-164.3.1. As a response to the  problems and challenges outlined in Chapter I, the Green Paper offers the prospect of a 'Citizens'  Network` of public passenger transport. For this, there has to be a marked qualitative improvement  in public transport, especially system accessibility, including rolling-stock and station design,  interconnection, opportunities for door-to-door travel without the use of the car. 4.3.2. The 'Citizens' Network Quality Checklist` is an appropriate instrument for increasing the  attractiveness of public transport. Those people for whom the Citizens' Network is intended -  citizens and users, especially potential users/new customers - should have an input into its  development and application. 4.3.3. The ESC suggests that measures involving citizens and users be included in the Commission  programme. An attractive measure could be one car-free Saturday every year in inner cities in every  country, when the local transport companies should put quality and flexibility to the test. This  would be a good opportunity to demonstrate the strengths of the service and to pinpoint and deal  with any weaknesses. The proposed award for quality standards could be linked to this measure. 4.4. Points 17-214.4.1. The ESC agrees unreservedly with the aim of improving integration with  walking, cycling and private transport. The formation of a common front between walkers, cyclists  and public transport to protect the environment should be encouraged. 4.4.2. In the case of cooperation with private transport, the ESC approves in principle the 'push`  and 'pull` measures aimed at discouraging private and encouraging efficient public transport.  Except for the central, supra-regional measures/networks, these should however be left up to the  local, regional and national decision-makers. 4.4.3. The problem of efficient and equitable transport pricing mentioned in connection with the  push measures deserves particular attention as it is the basic control mechanism. The crux of the  matter is the internalization of external costs (see COM(95) 691 final - Towards fair and efficient  pricing in transport). 4.5. Points 22-244.5.1. Integration with other policy areas is dependent on, for instance, the  special costs of social services provided by public transport being charged directly to the social  services, health authorities, educational establishments, etc. In Bremen (Germany), for example,  the cost of installing lifting platforms in low-floor vehicles is met by the social services. A similar approach could be adopted for safety, with the costs for service/security personnel being  met by the authorities responsible for public safety. 4.5.2. In addition to the benefits of planning based on development corridors, as described by the  Commission, the question arises as to user participation in financing. For instance, when new  housing, commercial and/or industrial areas are identified for development, users could be asked to  contribute towards the creation of the public transport infrastructure and a suitable range of  services. Thus tramways, urban railways and stations (including bus-stops) could be constructed at  the same time as new urban areas are developed. 4.5.3. If we are to have a unified transport and physical planning policy, the Commission must  introduce proper coordination. Its first assignment would be to launch the integrated transport  policy which forms the heart of the Citizens' Network and to forge appropriate links with  environmental and spatial planning policy. This applies in particular to transport and spatial  planning policy in the border regions. 4.6. Points 25-284.6.1. The Commission sees its proposals as in keeping with the subsidiarity  principle and sets out those areas where it applies: R& D programmes, regional policy, technical  harmonization, TENs, coordination with economic, social and environmental policy. This is to be  endorsed. 4.6.2. The Commission has already been active in market regulation under the heading 'elimination  of obstacles to the internal market` and has opened up public passenger transport to competition  (Regulations 1191/69 and 1893/91). This activity alone obliges the Commission to take  responsibility for coordinating policy. Mention should also be made of the proposal for a Council  Regulation laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road  passenger transport services within a Member State (see COM(95) 729 final of 12  January 1996). 4.6.3. These separate initiatives, which in isolation often do more harm than good, should be  reduced to a common denominator through the Citizens' Network policy. That is what the ESC expects  of the Commission. PART B - Good practices in passenger transport planning - developing the Citizens' Network4.7.  Points 29-544.7.1. Part B cites various examples of measures taken in the EU Member States to  improve the quality of local passenger transport. We will not discuss the measures in detail since  virtually all the examples fall within the responsibility of the operators and local and regional  authorities. Many further examples for improvements could be added, but cannot be discussed here. 4.7.2. The ESC suggests that the individual measures mentioned in Part B be checked off and  assessed against the 'quality check list` in Part A, points 15/16. 4.7.3. A short-term research project should be set up to work the proposed quality check list into  a standardized quality assessment system which could then be offered to transport companies and the  competent local bodies. 4.7.4. The ESC would, however, refer to a few serious topics, proposals and contradictions: 4.7.4.1. Point 32- The ESC sees problems in allowing powered two-wheelers blanket access to bus  lanes; trials could, however, be run if they can be restricted to two-wheelers for which a driving  licence is required and technical/operational aspects are coordinated with the local transport  companies. 4.7.4.2. Point 33- The possibility of including taxis in local public passenger transport is  rightly mentioned. A precondition for this, however, is that inflexible restrictive practices on  the part of taxi firms are eliminated. Besides the examples mentioned, the use of taxis in thinly  populated areas or at off-peak periods is an attractive alternative for local passenger transport.  Greater consideration should be given to the possibility of radioing from bus or train for a taxi  to be waiting at the station. 4.7.4.3. Point 41- System integration and coordinated timetables are key quality criteria for an  attractive service. The 'integral timetables with departures at regular intervals` which are  currently undergoing successful trials in, for example, several regions of Germany, are a good  illustration of this. Departures at regular, easy-to-remember intervals (e.g. trains depart on the  half hour in all directions from nodes) and guaranteed intermodal connections (e.g. from train to  bus to shared dial-a-taxi) have resulted in a marked rise in passenger numbers. Timetable planning  should give priority to the interests of passengers. The wishes of different groups of passengers  should be studied. 4.7.4.4. Point 46- Information on existing local transport services is rightly seen as important.  Besides the examples cited, however, what matters is to target information campaigns more precisely  on specific groups and their mobility requirements. Especially so as to win over 'tomorrow's users`  to public transport, information campaigns on what it has to offer should be conducted in schools.  These include, for instance, special services for school children and young people such as disco  buses and holiday tickets. 4.7.4.4.1. The ESC would make the following additional suggestions: Setting-up mobility centres- Another approach worth supporting is that of the so-called 'mobility  centres` - centrally located contact and information offices - which can provide potential users  with information on existing local public transport services, car sharing/pooling opportunities,  connections with long-distance services, etc. Flexible opening hours- More use should be made of flexible working hours to ease rush hour  congestion especially. Firms should cooperate with the transport companies to ensure that flexible  working hours are introduced in conjunction with the new timetables. School/student transport and  shopping traffic should be included in this. Improved safety- To ensure and improve passenger safety is another primary task for the future.  Since, however, the deployment of security staff entails not inconsiderable costs, transport  companies are often not in a position to provide adequate personnel. For this reason, the bodies  responsible for public safety and the transport companies should cooperate more closely on devising  and implementing joint safety plans. (On financing, see point 4.5.1.) Buildings should be  (re)designed to be user/communication-friendly for greater safety. Uniform signs and symbols- To make it even easier for travellers to use public transport, an  attempt should be made at both national and international level to standardize pictograms wherever  possible. 4.7.4.5. Points 53 and 54- The ESC is of the opinion that the overall development of an area  should be considered before entering into discussions on specific land-use plans. Area planning  allows space to be organized in such a way that the need for transport is kept to a minimum, i.e.  areas should be developed with a view to avoiding unnecessary journeys and hence reducing the  volume of traffic. In providing transport for individual areas, the aim should be an appropriate  and environmentally-friendly division of tasks and interconnection between the various transport  systems. In principle, centres of habitation and industrial development zones should only be  located in areas served by public transport. 4.7.5. A final comment on Part B: the promotion of public transport should not stake everything on  increased efficiency and new technologies, but should also put more effort into furthering system  integration, unconventional new services and the intelligent combination of technology, marketing  and preferential treatment for public transport in planning and regulatory policy. PART CChapter I: Disseminating know-how and setting targets4.8. Points 55-624.8.1. The ESC  welcomes the measures proposed by the Commission for disseminating know-how and pooling  information. It should, however, be ensured that, before new panels of experts are set up and more  contacts established, existing arrangements and committees are better integrated. It is more  important for existing institutions to improve cooperation. In the case of construction work, for  instance, planning management is required so that practical arrangements and timing can be  coordinated and three different parts of a street are not dug up three times one after the other. 4.8.2. The ESC welcomes the proposal to integrate existing data banks, so as to improve  information, and to draw up new procedures. 4.8.3. The ESC supports unreservedly the aim of placing an improvement in public transport higher  on the political agenda, but regrets the lack of specific proposals. As a - albeit small - step in  this direction the following is suggested: To accompany and supplement the Citizens' Network Forum scheduled for 1996, the Commission, in  cooperation with all the Member States, could organize such a forum in each country to highlight  the practical links which exist between Community policy and the situation in the towns and regions  of the Member States. Such events could even be held at regional or local level. This would also provide a suitable platform for users to give voice to their concerns. Chapter II: Aligning R& D priorities with user needs4.9. Points 63-684.9.1. R& D is particularly  welcome if aimed at meeting citizens' mobility requirements in an environmentally friendly and  economical way. 4.9.2. More than ever it will be necessary to consolidate the - sometimes uncoordinated -  multiplicity of R& D projects under various programmes, with a view to finding general solutions  which are truly viable and can serve as a model; they should then be followed through rigorously in  the initial application phase. 4.9.3. The experience thus acquired from pilot projects should subsequently be embodied in European  standards and technical rules so that innovative products can be developed, manufactured and  marketed throughout Europe on the basis of these agreed standards. 4.9.4. In line with these priorities, the ESC welcomes the Commission's support for R& D projects  to promote the application of modern telecommunications and information technologies as a solution  to the transport problems of congested areas by encouraging a shift from private to public  transport. Boosting and supporting cooperation between European towns and regions in this field is  a clear example of an important task which comes under the Commission' responsibility. 4.9.5. The projects carried out under the COST programme provide a particularly suitable  opportunity for those countries interested in a particular topic to cooperate closely on  establishing standards and specifications with a view to their Europe-wide application. The  Committee warmly welcomes the recommendations drawn up, for instance, as part of the COST 322  'low-floor buses` project. 4.10. Points 69-734.10.1. The current 'car of tomorrow` and 'transport intermodality` schemes  could be just as successful as the COST projects if the overall picture is borne in mind  consistently in these schemes too. Hence it will be absolutely essential that: - as part of the 'car of tomorrow` research, more development work should also be carried out on  buses as a largely non-polluting and attractive form of transport which is also suitable for  disabled people; - in the discussion of 'trains and railway systems of the future`, it should not be forgotten that  users want an attractive, cheap door-to-door service. Hence suburban lines and local connections  can help to make the most of long-distance services; - in the discussion of the requirements for maximum transport intermodality, local public transport  should not be misinterpreted as an overflow facility on standby in the event of congestion, but  should be used to maximum effect to take over the main burden of urban transport by means of  effective transfer points, rigorous preferential treatment and rapid expansion. 4.10.2. In future the Commission should use mandates more to support the CEN, Cenelec and ETSI  standards institutes in drawing up standards for the railways, e.g. for technical equipment, but  also for the whole passenger transport sector, including vehicles; in this way, through uniform  standards, European industry will be able to reduce manufacturing costs, which will in turn enable  transport companies to provide cheaper services. This will not only facilitate Europe-wide public  tendering in these sectors of the economy, but also stimulate industrial policy. Chapter III: Making Community instruments effective4.11. Points 74-794.11.1. Linking local to  inter-regional and trans-European networks is certainly a good starting-point for the Commission.  But it is only one - albeit important - argument for the Citizens' Network. In this respect it is  very important that the interfaces are designed as effectively as possible, in particular so as to  provide a through-service from a station near the passenger's home to long-distance destinations. 4.12. Points 80-854.12.1. However, the ESC sees the Citizens' Network as even more important for  regional policy, as the lion's share of passenger transport takes place in the regions. The  Citizens' Network is essentially about local transport links. Much has still to be done to make  public transport systems the backbone of regional services. 4.12.2. At present there is in fact a danger that the regionalization of the national railways will  lead to a shift from rail to road - even if mainly bus - in the regions. 4.12.3. In future, therefore, Community regional policy, especially infrastructure measures, should  concentrate more on ensuring that the projects assisted accord with the objectives of the Citizens'  Network. 4.12.4. The ESC proposes that selective programmes be drawn up for the use of rail lines by  tram/urban railway rolling-stock and the construction of interchange facilities to provide a direct  link between the systems. 4.13. Points 86-884.13.1. The Committee basically welcomes the support for the telematics systems  referred to in various sections of the Green Paper (points 34, 65, 86, 87), but cautions against  overestimating their contribution to the solution of transport problems. Such capital-intensive  systems could create an additional incentive to the use of private cars and shift traffic to areas  where motorized private transport has not hitherto been a problem ('back roads`). Support for the  use of telematics systems to improve public transport can, on the other hand, be endorsed  unreservedly. Chapter IV: Modernizing the regulatory framework4.14. Point 894.14.1. Liberalization is seen by  the Commission as at the heart of the conflict between completely free access to the market and  public service requirements. In contrast to the arrangements already introduced for long-distance  transport, the Commission still has some reservations about the attractiveness of extending open  market access to all public passenger transport services and calls for further consideration of the  public service obligations. Basically the Committee supports this. 4.15. Point 904.15.1. Modernization of the regulatory framework is regarded as one solution. The  legal framework should be geared towards the same objectives as the quality check list, e.g. system  accessibility, affordability, safety/security, travel convenience and environmental impact (cf.  points 15/16 on the Citizens' Network quality check list). 4.15.2. The other objectives listed - including increased use of public transport, system  integration, quality incentives, financial conditions and minimum requirements for staff - are  quite acceptable, but the Commission would have to flesh out its ideas before the relevant  directives, regulations or other measures were issued. 4.15.3. Thus, in the ESC's view, it would be necessary to: - specify the transport planning and management measures necessary 'to encourage increase in use of  public transport`; (e.g. planning priority for public transport infrastructure)- develop the criteria (universal  services) needed for 'fulfilment of public service requirements`; (e.g. transport policy objectives for the level and quality of services expected of public  transport; improved user access to local transport; affordable fares; local transport plans for  towns, regions)- spell out the 'incentives... to improve accessibility, efficiency, quality and  user-friendliness`; (e.g. financial incentives for erecting user/communication-friendly stations and terminals, taking  into account functional aspects and safety standards)- define the 'financial conditions... both  for public and private investors`; (e.g. legal requirements for the public financing of infrastructure)- lay down binding 'minimum  requirements in respect of the qualification of staff` (see point 4.15.4); - define in greater detail the coordination with the 'national, regional and local priorities  and... national legal systems`. (e.g. by the Commission proposing a list of who does what)Citizens and passengers should be able  to give their views on and object to these criteria, e.g. by setting up passenger fora. 4.15.4. The ESC attaches particular importance to minimum standards for the qualifications of  transport employees and believes that any rules must contain the following: - the content and duration of training, more customer-oriented, stress management, safety; - on-going training for drivers throughout their career; - drawing up qualifications profiles for mixed duties in a transport company to prolong the working  life of drivers. 4.16. Points 91-984.16.1. There is some truth in the criticism levelled in the 'Market structures`  section that in the past there has been a lack of managerial incentives in publicly owned transport  systems and companies. This has meant that public transport companies have also been all the more  at the mercy of public sector financial crises and the call for privatisation. Of late this  situation has led to a radical rethink on the part of publicly owned local transport companies.  This process must be continued and adequate funds allocated. 4.16.2. On the other hand, the ESC agrees with the Commission that complete deregulation would not  make public transport more attractive. It is therefore necessary to search for a new and better way  of putting the various elements together; there is no one single correct way. 4.16.3. In this connection the Commission points out that 'various public authorities appear to  have achieved positive results by tendering concessions`. Contracting services on the basis of  tendering concessions of limited duration instead of ad personam concessions establishes a  competitive environment without compromising the attainment of transport policy objectives. As the public procurement rules are not applicable, the quality and cost-effectiveness of transport  operations could be improved by a 'more systematic tendering of concessions`. However, this must be  done with due regard for system integration and quality requirements. Quality criteria must be  included in the specifications so that transport policy objectives are not neglected. Besides the  quality specifications, conditions must be laid down regarding the share of public financing in  public transport services. 4.16.4. Similarly, the authorities must have room to intervene 'to safeguard fulfilment of public  service requirements`. No details are given on how this is actually to be achieved. 4.16.5. The ESC considers that the Commission has specified the appropriate elements correctly, but  attaches too much importance to the proposed unlimited tendering of concessions and neglects the  fact that the general framework needs sorting out first. In the following points 4.17.1-3 and  4.17.9 the ESC sets out its proposals for clarifying the general framework. These are preliminary  ideas which can be fleshed out as the debate progresses. 4.17. Points 99-1004.17.1. To be able to meet public service requirements - e.g. certain quality  criteria such as adequate frequency, reliable connections, convenience and comfort  - the financial  equilibrium of companies must be improved. This applies to public as well as private companies. In  this respect the ESC suggests proceeding on the basis of Regulations 1191/69 and 1893/91. 4.17.2. A sensible way for the Commission to apply these two regulations would be to formulate  proposals for quality requirements and services and their assessment, thus providing criteria for  the payments to be made by the regional authorities to secure the financial equilibrium of  transport companies. 4.17.3. In accordance with Regulation 1893/91 the competent authorities should grant those  transport companies fulfilling the required quality criteria fair financial conditions as part of  the contractual arrangements covering public service obligations, the imposition of such  obligations and compensation for this. The regional authorities should therefore pay 'fair prices`  for the services provided by the transport companies and thus contribute to their financial  equilibrium. The concessions should be put out to tender if it is not possible for transport companies,  including public companies, to provide the required services under these conditions, i.e. if their  financial equilibrium is not thereby secured, e.g. because of uneconomic structures, and they can  no longer carry out the public service operations. Proposals for the conditions required for this are set out in point 4.17.8. 4.17.4. The separation of planning and operations given by way of example in annex A of the Green  Paper (rows II and III of table) should be assessed to see whether such separation would weaken the  companies, thereby passing up the opportunity for vertical cost benefits. Such approaches also  involve the risk that planning becomes bogged down in public authority red tape. 4.17.5. The responsibility of the public authorities should be confined to planning the overall  urban infrastructure (e.g. road or rail), while the transport companies should remain responsible  for operational planning because this is where their expertise lies. 4.17.6. The managerial practices of public transport companies could be strengthened - insofar as  this is not already the case - by other measures, for instance by allowing companies to privatize  (e.g. as plcs) or through comparisons of economic efficiency between public transport companies. 4.17.7. With regard to tendering, irrespective of the framework within which it takes place, the  central demand of the ESC is that companies compete on equal terms, especially as regards the  requirements imposed upon them (staff, social standards, rolling-stock and systems quality,  co-financing of infrastructure costs). In addition, it must be ensured that competition in  passenger transport does not lead ultimately to performance being judged solely in terms of price;  quality must also be a prime consideration. 4.17.8. The ESC therefore proposes that the following elements be included in any solutions so as  to ensure that competition is fair: - criteria for orderly competition rather than distortions of competition; - tendering procedures which offer equal opportunities to both public and small and medium-sized  private companies competing to provide a professional service; - inclusion of public transport in EC Regulation 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social  legislation relating to road transport, with a view to further developing the regulation against  the background of equal minimum conditions in the EU; - rules on market access; - proposals for a competition procedure which takes account of the concept of local competence; - recommendations for improving the social dialogue between the social partners at EU level. 4.17.9. These measures are necessary if the opening-up to competition pursuant to Regulations  1191/69 and 1893/91 is to be organized in a sensible way and underpinned. 4.18. Points 101-1034.18.1. With regard to the inclusion of the national railways' regional  services in the Citizens' Network, the ESC supports the ideas set out in the Green Paper; the  example cited of the approach adopted by the German government could provide a major stimulus. Chapter V: Improving standards4.19. Points 104-1144.19.1. The ESC welcomes the Commission's  intention of pressing ahead with rules on the technical harmonization of transport equipment and on  environmental standards. 4.19.2. However, particularly in the case of technical harmonization, there should be no  'downwards` adjustment. 'State of the art` should be the yardstick. This also applies to the  adaptation of existing environmental provisions, which continue to differ from one Member State to  another. Special importance should be attached to transport safety provisions, protection against  fire and similar safety requirements. 4.19.3. In the final analysis, measures in this field help to bring about the level playing-field  called for by the ESC. 5. Concluding commentThe ESC firmly welcomes the Commission's initiative and the debate launched  by the Green Paper. It will contribute its expertise to the ongoing exchange of ideas in the hope  that this initial opinion on the Green Paper will meet with broad approval. Done at Brussels, 30  May 1996. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() The  'general comments` refer mainly to the principles set out in the 'executive summary` of the Green  Paper.