Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union: A Systems Approach to Freight Transport - Strategies and Actions to Enhance Efficiency, Services and Sustainability"'
Date: 1997-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: carriage of goods, combined transport, common transport policy, organisation of transport

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/25

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions entitled “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the
European Union: A Systems Approach to Freight Transport — Strategies and Actions to
Enhance Efficiency, Services and Sustainability”’

(98/C 19/07)

On 3 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 October 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Kielman.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

1. The Commission document

1.1.
The objective is to develop a framework for an
optimal integration of different modes so as to enable
an efficient and cost-effective use of the transport system
through seamless, customer-oriented door-to-door ser-
vices whilst favouring competition between transport
operators.

This will promote a greater use of environmen-
1.2.
tally-friendly modes of transport with spare capacity.
By improving the potential of rail and water-borne
transport, intermodality will help to overcome congested
road networks. Performance improvements in railways,
the full internalization of external costs and the pro-
motion of intermodality are part of an overall strategy
for sustainable mobility.

intermodal transport (1). In its own-initiative opinion of
22 November 1995 (2) on the legislative Commission
programme for transport/the common transport policy
action programme 1995-2000, the ESC stressed the
crucial importance of intermodality and interoperability
for the development of trans-European networks.

2.3.
Further economic growth will boost demand for
transport, as developments in production and logistics
require systems that are more and more flexible and
efficient. So far road transport has been the best placed
to satisfy such demand and growth there has been more
than reasonable. Growth is still expected to be strong
in road transport in the near future. Given that such
growth cannot go on indefinitely is an important reason
for the development of intermodality.

2.

Introduction

3. General comments

2.1.
The ESC supports the integrated approach to
developing intermodal transport in the EU. The way in
which this is described in the communication shows
insight into a complex issue and points the way for
concrete action. However, the ESC feels that many
problems are involved in carrying out the actions
described in the communication. While it appreciates
the Commission’s ambitious approach to these unusually
complex issues, it feels that the approach should also be
realistic and practical.

3.1.
The Commission communication targets the
removal of obstacles to the use of intermodal transport
on a wider scale. But the technical, economic and, above
all, political obstacles to the market-oriented operation
of the railways in particular are hardly mentioned. The
ESC therefore feels that one of the most serious, if not
the most serious stumbling blocks to the development

In its opinions the ESC has always attached great
2.2.
importance to the improvement and extension of

(1) OJ C 19, 25. 1. 1993, p. 29; OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996, p. 32;

OJ C 39, 12. 2. 1996, p. 100.
(2) OJ C 39, 12. 2. 1996, p. 43.

C 19/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

of intermodality is missing from the communication.
Mention should also be made here of the ESC opinion
on the White Paper on European railways (1).

3.2.
Road transport is leading the way on the new
technology front. Ever-cleaner and more economical
engines are constantly being developed, while new
logistical concepts and systems are soon brought on line.
The development and application of new information
technologies, such as communications, navigation and
planning systems, is also widespread in road transport.
Intermodal transport is losing more and more ground
here. One should focus on improving technology and
finding solutions to present obstacles (such as bottle-
necks caused by cumbersome administrative procedures
and lack of infrastructure investment) in rail, inland
waterway and coastal transport, so they can maintain
their advantage in the fields of energy consumption,
emissions and noise prevention.

3.3.
‘Intermodality’ is an interesting principle to use
as a quality indicator of the efficiency of the total
transport system. But the Commission’s communication
does not elaborate this idea or give it any concrete
foundation. It is also unclear what the consequences of
intermodality will be for jobs and society as a whole.

3.4.
Anyway, the ESC doubts whether policy regard-
ing ‘intermodality’ is a complement to other EU policies.
For instance, support is sometimes given to regional
economic developments that may hamper the develop-
ment of an integrated intermodal transport network, or
encourage road transport. In addition, the disappearance
of internal frontiers and the liberalization of road
transport have led to strong growth in that sector.
The development of Trans-European Networks of
motorways and ‘Freeways’ for rail traffic will directly
have a big impact on the use of road, rail and water-borne
transport and may greatly influence the development of
‘intermodality’.

3.5. When one compares the quality of road, rail,
water (including short sea) and road/rail and road/
waterway intermodal transport, it is clear that road
transport can achieve a high quality-to-price ratio, but

often scores lower on social aspects (safety, space and
infrastructure use, energy efficiency, noise prevention
and emissions) or causes higher social costs. So, an
active policy by the public authorities on intermodality
is justified, because the government is now responsible
for calculating external costs, and market participants
can count on having to take account of total costs when
doing their sums.

3.6.
In the short and medium term road transport
will continue to have a big lead over intermodal transport
as long as the total costs of transport are not fully taken
into account. The creation of a level playing field and
the inclusion of external costs (fair pricing) are important
Commission tools for stimulating intermodal transport.
It is not clear to what extent this will actually lead to a
change in the modal split. In addition, it is still difficult
to attribute external costs correctly to the different
transport modes. For this reason the effects of such
internalization on international competition between
locations is still insufficiently clear. (2) Moreover, it will
probably be a long time before external costs are
internalized in all transport modes, as the Commission
itself admits.

3.7.
The development of ‘intermodality’ often calls
for huge investments, especially in equipment, terminals
and information systems. Government support for new
services is only possible to a limited extent, while
subsidies for operating losses, for example, are on the
whole impossible, even in the initial phase. As many
parties in intermodal transport can only invest very
limited sums, this is a considerable barrier.

3.8.
The ESC thinks that red tape should be kept to
a minimum when implementing the Commission’s action
programme and further developing intermodality. In its
view there is no need for a whole new set of administrative
regulations. Right from the start of the implementation
of the action programme the Commission should consult
closely with all those involved, both market operators
and social partners.

(1) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 23.

(2) Cf. the Economic and Social Committee’s Opinion on the
Green Paper — Towards fair and efficient pricing in
transport — Policy options for internalizing the external
costs of transport in the European Union; OJ C 56,
24. 2. 1997, p. 31.

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/27

3.9.
The ESC feels that the Commission communi-
cation does not give sufficient credit for what has already
been achieved in the field of intermodality. For example,
the liner shipping industry has for many years been
operating through intermodal services all over Europe
and this has developed greatly since the advent of
containerization.

4. Specific comments

4.1.
It is very ambitious to try and build up an
integrated European intermodal transport system in
which transport policy is coordinated at all
levels.
Regional and local authorities in particular often play a
decisive role in the development of intermodal infrastruc-
ture. Mention has been made earlier (see under point 3.4)
of the different areas of policy that can be better
coordinated within the European Commission. This
problem is even more apparent at national, regional and
local level. The communication gives no indication of
how the Commission intends to coordinate policy, nor
of where and how decisions are to be taken in practice.

4.2.
Attention should be paid to the interaction
between passenger and goods transport both by road
and on the railways. In many countries passenger
transport places such demands on available infrastruc-
ture that it hampers the continuous development of
intermodal goods transport by rail. One solution may
be to have separate infrastructures for passenger and
goods traffic on the railways, but this will require huge
investments and very long planning and construction
lead times. A comparable separation of passenger and
goods traffic on the roads is also conceivable and has
already been tried out in a number of European countries.
Such developments will have a big influence on the
quality of road and rail transport and on the oppor-
tunities for intermodal transport.

4.3.
In a free transport market it will be, to a large
extent, the market participants themselves (carriers,
operators and users) who manage such things as infor-
mation networks and rates structures. From the com-
munication it is not sufficiently clear what role the
Commission can play here.

4.4. Obviously, the further development of intermo-
dality will have repercussions on jobs, training require-
ments and working conditions. An increase in intermodal
transport will lead to an increase in road transport

feeder services, which will affect drivers’ working
conditions such as working hours. As the ESC has
pointed out earlier, the liberalization necessary in rail
transport will have enormous consequences for railway
jobs and company organization. The ESC considers that
special attention should also be paid to the social aspects
involved in implementing intermodality when working
out the overall blueprint. The Commission should
have the necessary studies undertaken beforehand in
collaboration with the committees and social partners
involved. This should also be incorporated into the
action programme.

systems

4.5.
It is also worth looking at new concepts and
systems of technological development in intermodal
transport. Bimodal
(such as RoadRailer,
CODA-E and Kombirail) may lead to a new extensive
market segment for intermodal transport and the devel-
opment of multiple unit cars for intermodal transport
(such as the German Cargosprinter) is very promising.
With such systems whole new market segments can be
served, but they may also ‘threaten’ existing intermodal
transport markets. Fragmentation of supply must be
guarded against, so attention should be paid to differ-
ences in systems and techniques when further developing
the framework for intermodality described in the com-
munication.

4.6.
The ESC would stress the need to integrate
transport techniques to promote door-to-door intermo-
dal transport. The Commission’s point of departure
is that undesirable developments in road transport
(congestion, emissions and accidents) can be avoided by
promoting intermodal transport. The Commission’s
supposition that (existing) reserve capacity on the
railways can thereby be used must, in the ESC’s view,
be doubted. First, it is not certain that there is reserve
capacity everywhere, while in addition passenger trans-
port is mostly given priority on the railways. Further
rationalization of rail traffic should lead to additional
transport capacity becoming available. Otherwise there
is still plenty of capacity in a number of countries and
transport links for combined road/water transport both
by inland waterway and by short sea transport. It is also
very important to list which of the infrastructures used
in the past for one of the transport modes can be
modernized quickly and incorporated into the existing
network.

C 19/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

4.7.
The problem of transalpine traffic is of great
importance to the development of intermodality in
Europe. But some of this sector falls outside the EU’s
sphere of influence. This can stand in the way of an
effective European policy on intermodality.

A new, ‘intermodality-based’ approach to trans-
4.8.
port will require a re-organization of the transport
chain. New actors will be active, logistical concepts and

systems will change. This in turn will alter the level and
structure of transport costs. It is not clear whether or in
what way such developments will influence the price of
transport and quality of service, and perhaps with it the
competitive position of Europe. Whatever happens, it is
important to learn from the experiences of existing
intermodal transport services and build on them as
much as possible. Solutions should be found for existing
obstacles so that intermodality becomes more efficient
and attractive.

Brussels, 29 October 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on a Numbering Policy for Telecommunication
Services in Europe’

(98/C 19/08)

On 26 May 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 October 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Mobbs.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 108 votes for, one vote against and two abstentions .

1.

Introduction

The Economic and Social Committee issued its

1.3.
opinion on 28 May 1997 (1).

1.1.
The Commission issued a Green Paper on a
Numbering Policy for Telecommunication Services in
Europe (COM(96) 590 final) on 20 November 1996.
This resulted in a period of wide ranging consultation
with all interested parties within the EU on a variety
of options for a common approach towards certain
numbering issues in order to reach the agreed goals of a
competitive and liberalized telecommunications market.

1.4.
The Committee welcomed the Commission’s
initiative and recognized it as playing an important part
of the process towards full liberalisation since the Green
Paper on Telecommunications (2) was issued in 1987.

1.2.
In addition, the Commission organised a public
hearing in February 1997, attended by over 100 partici-
pants. Over 80 written submissions were received by the
closing date of 21 February 1997.

(1) OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, p. 15.
(2) Towards a dynamic European Economy — Green Paper
on the development of the common market for telecom-
(COM(87) 290
services and equipment
munications
final) — ESC Opinion: OJ C 356, 31. 12. 1987, p. 46.