Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission Communication to the Council, European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions on the Common Transport Policy - Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future'
Date: 1999-07-07
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, interinstitutional relations

C 258/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.9.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Commission Communication to the
Council, European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions on
the Common Transport Policy — Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Future’

(1999/C 258/02)

On 7 December 1998 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 June 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Morgan.

At its 365th plenary session (meeting of 7 July 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 107 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

In 1992 the Commission published its White Paper on
1.1.
the future development of the Common Transport Policy (1);
in 1995 it adopted a five-year action programme for trans-
port (2). On 1 December 1998 it published this communication
which reviews progress, assesses what would be done in the
last two years of the existing action programme, and looks at
what would be needed in the period from 2000 to 2004.

1.2.
The many strands of transport policy interact strongly
with each other and must be considered together. The timescale
over which transport facilities are developed means that policy
must be planned far ahead. Therefore the Committee welcomes
the Commission’s decision to review its future action pro-
gramme for the Common Transport Policy (CTP).

The Commission sets out the three main aims of the

1.3.
CTP, with a number of subsidiary objectives:

(a)

Improving efficiency and competitiveness.

(i) Market access and functioning.

(ii) Integrated transport systems.

(iii) Fair and efficient pricing in transport (3).

(iv) Economic and social cohesion.

(v) Making sure the rules are applied.

(1) COM(92) 494 final, Commission Communication on the future
development of the Common Transport Policy (White Paper) —
ESC opinion, OJ C 352, 30.12.1993.

(2) COM(1995) 302 final, Commission Communication on the
Common Transport Policy — Action programme 1995-2000 —
ESC own-initiative opinion, OJ C 39, 12.2.1996.

(3) COM(1998) 466 final, Commission White Paper Fair Payment for
Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport
infrastructure charging framework in the EU — ESC opinion,
OJ C 116, 28.4.1999.

(b) Improving quality.

(i) Safety.

(ii) Environment.

(iii) Protecting consumers and improving the quality of

transport services.

(iv) Preparing for the future.

(c)

Improving external effectiveness.

2. Objectives and monitoring

2.1.
The Committee believes it is essential that the CTP has
clear objectives and that the legislative programme reflects
these effectively. In this context the Committee regrets that the
Commission’s vision for 2010 and beyond is not yet
developed. This will have a high priority for the new Com-
mission, but until it has been prepared it is not easy to assess
the adequacy of the short-term programme up to 2004.
Furthermore, the Commission now has many statistics at its
disposal. Hopefully these are relevant and valuable. The ESC
would like to see these more fully deployed as evidence of the
effectiveness of previous initiatives and in support of future
priorities.

2.2.
The ESC believes that ‘Sustainable Mobility’ requires a
transport policy which meets current and future economic,
social and environmental goals by getting maximum efficiency
from current technologies and developing new sustainable
technologies while minimising disturbance to the human and
natural environment. Therefore the ultimate objectives should
be economic, social and environmental.

2.2.1.

Economic objectives for transport are:

(a) A central role in supporting the single market.

(b) Facilitating links with candidates for enlargement and

other countries.

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/7

(c) Underpinning the competitiveness of Europe in the global

economy.

(d) Both direct and indirect growth in employment.

Economic objectives contribute to social objectives
2.2.2.
through taxation and employment, but other social objectives
include:

(a) Social and regional cohesion of the European Union.

2.5.
As well as setting objectives it is important to monitor
and so the Commission’s intention to develop a European
transport data system is welcomed. A better understanding of
transport through research and data collection will enhance
the Community’s ability to bring about improvements. The
ESC welcomes the research already undertaken under the
Fourth Framework Programme for RTD (1994-1998) (1). How-
ever, the Committee would like to see more data deployed in
the support of priorities and hope this will be the case when
the CTP is revised in 2000.

(b) Accessibility for the excluded citizens to transport.

3. Modal issues

(c) Providing environmentally friendly transport choices.

(d) Provision of adequate urban transport systems.

Roads

(e) Safety.

In this context the Committee responded to the communi-
cation on Transport and Cohesion.

2.2.3.
Environmental objectives ensure that economic
development is sustainable and compatible with protection of
the human and natural environment. The ESC welcomes the
Commission’s focus on this matter. Key issues include:

(a) Achieving efficiency in all modes.

(b) Revitalizing railways and collective motor transport.

(c) Minimising air and noise pollution.

(d) Addressing the problem of global warming.

(e) Spatial planning.

(f) Development of urban transport systems.

2.3. While other objectives such as quality improvement,
highlighted by the Commission, are important ways of achiev-
ing the aim of improved economic, social and environmental
conditions, they should be recognized as means to an end not
an end in themselves.

2.4.
The Commission’s communication needs to put more
emphasis on the role of transport within the European Union.
It does not sufficiently relate its intermediate objectives and
action plan back to the fundamental purpose of using transport
to improve social, environmental and economic conditions in
Europe. If it did so, its prescriptions would be more urgent
and effective.

3.1. Motor transport shares with air transport the character-
istics of being quite indispensable in today’s world. Yet
because the internal combustion engine represents a major
environmental problem, their overwhelming importance in
terms of both utility and economic contribution tends to be
offset by sustained political and social attack. In the view of
the ESC the correct approach is to adopt measures which can
slow and even reduce the growth of these modes by providing
attractive and practical modal alternatives including public
transport while at the same time exploiting new technology to
reduce the environmental damage per passenger or freight
tonne mile. The solution is not to be found in putting up
prices indiscriminately in these modes, because it would
threaten the competitiveness of the European economy.

3.2.
The road network has a central role to play in bringing
the Community together. The aim must be to ensure adequate
investment, efficient use and sustainable management of the
network.

The EU’s Trans-European Transport Networks set out
3.3.
the backbone of an EU transport system, including road links.
However progress by Member States on many of these routes
has been slow and is not really acceptable. The Committee
looks forward to the White Paper revising the TEN-T guide-
lines. In addition, while it is right to focus on the major priority
projects, there has been insufficient urgency in finding ways to
ensure that the rest of the TENS network is also able to fulfil
its role effectively. Measurement of Member States’ progress is
available from the Commission.

3.4.
The road network is important for both freight and
passenger transport, but the Commission’s transport policy
(including proposals for pricing) has focused mainly on freight

(1) See ESC opinion on the ‘Fourth Framework Programme for RTD

(1994-1998)’; OJ C 34, 2.2.1994.

C 258/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.9.1999

and commercial transport. This is a mistake, not just because
the single market needs efficient passenger transport, but also
because the majority of traffic is private motor car traffic and
any attempt to tackle congestion while ignoring this is sure to
fail. Presumably there is a finite limit to the quantity of private
cars. Public collective motor transport is a key component of
an efficient passenger transport system and an alternative to
personal private transport.

Essential to getting the European Union’s roads to fulfil
3.5.
their purpose is to balance supply and demand. There are
environmental limits to the number of roads that can be built,
although certain key roads are still needed. At peak times in
many places demand is often too high and supply is too low,
partly because the price signals in transport are wrong. The
Committee therefore welcomes the Commission’s intention to
encourage fair and efficient pricing in transport,
including
roads (1),where differential pricing will be needed. However it
must be recognized that there is an inherent uncertainty in
estimated external marginal costs, and also that transport
pricing must not damage competitiveness.

3.6.
Post-war spatial development across Europe (domestic,
industrial, and retail) has encouraged a greater dependence on
roads at the expense of other modes of transport. This is true
in both suburban and the wider environment. Future spatial
development policies adopted by Member States and at
regional and local levels will have profound implications for
transport and in particular the dependence on roads. It is
disappointing that action has not progressed faster on this.
This is a central issue for the next century. The ESC encourages
the Commission to take greater account of spatial use issues
when allocating structural funds.

3.7.
Enforcement of vehicle and driver regulations in com-
mercial transport is very important, both to ensure a level
playing field, and to improve safety.

Rail

3.9.
The Commission is right to say that the key issue is to
address the decline in rail’s share of transport. If existing
policies continue to be followed, the decline will persist, with
increasing environmental costs and fewer jobs on the railways.

3.10.
Every opportunity must be taken to improve the share
of railways in freight, and the Council and the Commission are
urged to pursue the revitalisation of the railways with even
more vigour and speed. Schemes such as freight freeways and
competition between operators have potential, but will need
to receive Europe-wide acceptance in order to achieve the
benefits. In this context the Commission should endeavour to
achieve genuine cross border cooperation.

Change is also needed for passenger rail where a
3.11.
to flexible, competitive, passenger-responsive
similar shift
services is required. The emerging network of high-speed rail
lines is important for integrating the European Union, bringing
markets closer together and reducing the need for short-haul
air services.

To reduce urban and suburban road congestion there
3.12.
is a requirement in many major cities to upgrade and expand
the 19th century commuter rail networks using 21st century
technology, to ensure that they accommodate modern travel
patterns. Collective public road transport should also play a
part in these plans. The ESC welcomes the Commission’s
intention to pursue its action programme following the
Citizen’s Network initiative. (2)

3.13.
There is certainly no one solution to the arrangements
for ownership and operation of rail services. However, if the
necessary revolution is to be brought about then freight and
passenger train operators must be given the scope and the
mandate to meet customer expectations in the urban, national
and international markets for both freight and passenger
transport. (3)

The Commission rightly devotes considerable attention
3.8.
to revitalisation of the railways but it must at the same time be
recognized that the railways are just one of many solutions to
the economic and environmental problems of transport.

Achieving seamless cross border rail transport for
3.14.
passengers and freight means tackling the problem of systems
interoperability and necessary skills upgrading. The Committee
welcomes the Commission’s intention to examine this issue
shortly.

(1) COM(1998) 466 final, Commission White Paper Fair Payment for
Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport
infrastructure charging framework in the EU-ESC opinion,
OJ C 116, 28.4.1999.

(2) OJ C 138, 18.5.1999, p. 7.
(3) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22.

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/9

Air

3.15.
Faster progress must be made towards fully inte-
grating and modernizing the air traffic control networks
over Europe. As the skies become increasingly crowded this
becomes more urgent. Efficient routing of flights will enhance
customer satisfaction and reduce environmental damage.

In addition to improved air traffic control

3.16.
is
essential to keep the supply of airport capacity ahead of
demand. Funding of airports should be transparent and avoid
unfair competition.

it

Non-availability of take off and landing slots at the
3.17.
most popular airports is a potential barrier to entry of new
operators into the aviation market. The Commission needs to
ensure that newcomers can obtain slots.

3.18.
The consumer and the economy will benefit from the
lower fares which airline competition is bringing about.
However there is still some way to go to achieve fair and open
market conditions in practice. Therefore it is important that
the Commission plays a role in monitoring progress in air
services competition and ensuring that the advantages of
competition are available throughout the EU. In addition it is
important to understand the impact of liberalization on the
social sphere with its implications for employment standards,
quality and safety. The communication from the Commission
on the European airline industry (1) explores the aspects of the
air transport market.

3.19.
It is also important to ensure that the benefits of
increased competition are felt not only on internal links, but
also on Europe’s external links to the rest of the world. Open
skies agreements need to be reached, so it is urgent to reconcile
the views of the Commission and the Member States.

Water transport

Ports, waterways and shipping are important links in
3.20.
the EU’s transport network. The Commission must ensure that
there is sustainable, fair and safe competition on the routes
served by water transport, and in the port facilities that support
them. The ESC looks forward to the proposals for the
liberalization of port services (2). The network of European
transport also needs efficient road and rail links to be integrated
with ports.

3.21.
Inland waterways form part of the TEN network. The
Rhine Danube Rhone nexus is central to this network and the
position of the Danube in particular needs special EU attention.
In order to improve interoperability between countries it
is important to work on the harmonization of waterway
operational conditions.

3.22.
The taxation and regulation of shipping must work
to maintain the attractiveness of Europe (with high standards
for ships and crews) as a place to flag fleets, while not at the
same time introducing damaging tax competition within
Europe.

3.23.
Enlargement plans and accession negotiations must
address the issue of safety standards in the maritime registers
of certain applicant countries (e.g. Malta and Cyprus). Matching
existing EU standards must be a condition of their accession
to the EU.

4. General issues

Previous Committee opinions (3) drew attention to the

4.1.
following points, certain of which remain unresolved:

4.1.1.
The need to pay more attention to structural shifts
in the economies of Member States and the implications for
transport use and modal development.

4.1.2.
The difficulty in reconciling liberal economic policies
to ensure choice and competition in transport with subsidies
to promote particular types of transport.

4.1.3.
The failure of the Commission to publish data on
consumption and impact of transport modes across the EU
now and forecasts for the supply of and demand for transport
within and external to the EU in the future.

4.1.4.
The need for the Commission to give detailed
guidelines on the issues of external costs and green taxation
associated with transport.

4.2.
Since then the Commission has made considerable
progress with its pricing initiatives. Work on improving
transport data statistics is well advanced; the Committee now
hopes to see them in wider use. The White Paper on Fair and
Efficient pricing of transport (4) is welcome, but its timetable
assumes very slow progress.

(1) COM(1999) 182 final, Communication from the Commission to
the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘The European
airline industry: from single market to world-wide challenges’;
ESC opinion in elaboration.
(2) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 92.

(3) OJ C 39, 12.2.1996, p. 43 — OJ C 352, 30.12.1993, p. 11.
(4) COM(1998) 466 final, Commission White Paper Fair Payment for
Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport
infrastructure charging framework in the EU; ESC opinion,
OJ C 116, 28.4.1999.

C 258/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.9.1999

4.3.
The effectiveness of the Common Transport Policy
depends on ensuring the competition rules and legislation
are applied properly. The ESC welcomes the Commission’s
intention to pursue this. At the same time it is important to
ensure that competition between modes of transport is kept
free and fair.

Integration

Integration between different modes of transport is
4.4.
essential to an efficient transport system. The Committee
welcomes the Commission’s Fifth Framework programme (1)
research on intermodality. It is also important that technical
systems supporting transport across Europe are better inte-
grated.

4.5.
Also within the Fifth Framework programme, the ESC
welcomes the key actions to investigate ways of improving the
efficiency and environmental performance of individual means
of transport, notably aircraft, ships, rail systems and road
vehicles. There should also be a concern for noise pollution (2).

Intelligent

4.6.
transport systems and electronic tolling
systems are close to widespread adoption in Europe. The
Commission’s communication states the need to ensure techni-
cal compatibility but this is presented as a longer-term aim. It
needs to be treated more urgently.

The pros and cons of road and air transport were
4.7.
discussed in paragraph 3.1. While for surface transport road is
often the most user-friendly and economic solution for
passengers and freight, the long-term threat to the environment
is considerable. Any increases in the cost of road transport
must be implemented in a way consistent with the implications
for competitiveness and broad public consent. The ESC
favours the options of technological improvement and the
development of alternative modes.

Technological

4.7.1.
involves the internal
improvement
combustion engine, including both efficiency improvement
and the introduction of substitute fuels. The CTP so far has
achieved more reduction of emissions by technical regulations
than by pricing, and the progress on fuel cell technology
suggests that regulators should continue to press for techno-
logical improvements.

4.7.2. Modal development includes intermodal integration
and modal adaptation to modern surface freight and passenger
travel patterns so that, in particular, private motor transport
as the default option is less and less important. The ESC
welcomes the Commission’s focus on intermodal transport

(1) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 123.
(2) OJ C 206, 7.7.1997.

but is concerned by the lack of evidence as to the results
obtained. Spatial planning and collective urban transport
systems are of fundamental importance here.

4.8.
Fair and efficient pricing is necessary to optimize the
efficiency of each mode of transport and to achieve a better
balance. In direct economic terms the obvious gap is road
pricing. However this will only work to the benefit of Europe
if it avoids, on balance, unduly pushing up the overall cost of
transportation, and deals with passenger car congestion, not
just commercial freight.

4.9.
Taking all of the above issues into account, a case in
point is ‘freight freeways’. Options could be examined for
establishing ‘seamless’ international road, rail (and air) freight
freeways, using market mechanisms to allocate freight between
each mode and technological
innovation to improve the
capacity of each system.

Economic and Social Cohesion

4.10.
Transport has a vital role to play in bringing Europe
together. The communication applies this to economically
weaker regions but should also give attention to the import-
ance of transport in peripheral and ultraperipheral regions.

4.11.
Better transport systems are also important for social
cohesion by giving people better access to jobs and giving
employers access to a wider and deeper pool of workers.

4.12. Where public services are liberalized, provision still
needs to be made to ensure that there is no social exclusion.
The ethos of public service at the margins of society should
not be lost.

4.13.
in most transport sectors,
dialogue is fully developed.

Particularly in view of the liberalization taking place
it is important that the social

4.14.
The extension of working hours regulation to pre-
viously excluded transport sectors must be done in a way
that ensures safety without damaging employment through
excessive regulation and inflexibility. (3)

(3) COM(1998) 662 final, Proposal for a Council Directive amending
Directive 93/104/EC, 23.11.1993, concerning certain aspects of
the organization of working time to cover sectors and activities
excluded from that Directive, Proposal for a Council Directive
concerning the organization of working time for mobile workers
performing road transport activities and for self-employed drivers,
Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the enforcement of
seafarers’ hours of work on board ships using Community ports;
OJ C 138, 18.5.1999.

10.9.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 258/11

4.15.
economic and employment issue in the context of
country transport links.

Abolition of duty free sales within the EU is an
inter

safety must then be maintained in future policy and should be
given greater prominence in the Commission’s document.

External effectiveness

The communication gives little emphasis to the wider
4.16.
issues of international transport links with the rest of the
world, and the economic importance of efficient trade routes.

Investment support

4.17.
The Commission rightly gives prominence to the
transport implications of enlargement. There are major chal-
lenges here that will need work on legal and technical
compatibility.
in Central and Eastern
Europe needs to extend beyond major inter-urban routes to
helping applicant countries avoid the spatial planning prob-
impact of
lems that have aggravated the environmental
transport in EU countries. Attention is needed to halt the
decline of the railways and improve (urban) public transport.

Policies pursued with candidate countries can also be
4.18.
applied to neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean and
Black Sea zones.

Safety

the

The

emphasis

given to evaluating

4.19.
cost-
effectiveness of safety measures is welcome as a way of
achieving the most benefit with available resources. The ESC
welcomes the continued focus on safety issues in the civil
aviation, maritime and road transport sectors. The develop-
ment of
the European New Car Assessment Programme
(EURO-NCAP) should be continued, and further attention
focused in particular on vehicle safety for cyclists and ped-
estrians. The Committee would also like to see renewed
emphasis on measures to prevent road traffic accidents.

5. Conclusion

5.1.
The ESC welcomes this opportunity to review the status
of the Common Transport Policy. However, the Committee has
a number of proposals:

5.1.1.
The Committee would like the Commission to
refocus the CTP around economic, social and environmental
objectives, as explained in section 2.

5.1.2.
Given this change in focus, the ESC believes that the
action plans will acquire the urgency and vitality that the
importance of transport policy demands. If this is done, then
its considerable potential for job
transport will also fulfil
creation.

5.1.3.
The Committee is encouraged by the progress on
transport statistics, and hopes to see them more widely
deployed in support of transport policy. It is likely that a
factually-based progress report would inject a useful sense of
urgency. In the same context, the appraisal and monitoring of
EU financed projects can be improved.

that a number of

The ESC recognizes

issues,
5.1.4.
especially urban and suburban transport, are governed by
subsidiarity. However, they are so central to the general
evolution of transport policy, and to meeting the economic,
social and environmental objectives laid down in 2.2.1 to
2.2.3, that the Council as well as the Commission must give
them top priority.

5.1.5.
The development and volume of personal private
transport (the motor car), whether or not powered by the
internal combustion engine, is a major strategic issue to be
taken into account in the future CTP.

4.20. With tens of thousands of people killed on the
European Union’s roads every year, safety must be one of the
principal considerations in all aspects of transport policy. Past
policies have been very successful, but more assessment is
needed to determine what has worked best. This focus on

5.1.6.
One of the most important issues, and again a matter
of Member State discretion, is spatial planning policy. Unless
land use is planned in a way consistent with the principles of
sustainable mobility, it is unlikely that the CTP goals will ever
be met.

Brussels, 7 July 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI