Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport"
Date: 2000-04-12
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common transport policy, provision of services, regional policy, trans-European network, transport policy

C 226/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions on Cohesion and transport’

(2000/C 226/09)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and transport
(COM(1998) 806 final of 14 January 1999);

having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and, in particular, Title XV (Trans-
European networks) and Title XVII (Economic and social cohesion);

having regard to the first official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) presented
at the informal meeting of EU ministers responsible for spatial planning held in Noordwijk on 9 and
10 June 1997;

having regard to the European Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 (1) on
Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, and the Proposal
for a European Parliament and Council Decision, currently under discussion, amending this decision (2);

having regard to the Bureau decision of 2 June 1999 to draw up an opinion on this subject in accordance
with the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to direct
Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion and Cross-Border
and Inter-Regional Cooperation to prepare this opinion;

having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Trans-European Networks, Transport and
Information Society (Commission 3) (rapporteur: Mr Tabakidis, mayor of Anargyron, GR/PSE),

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 390/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999
(rapporteur: Mr Valca´rcel Siso, president of the Autonomous Community of Murcia, ESP/PPE),

adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session of 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April).

1.

Introduction

consolidate and develop the synergies between cohesion and
transport needs to be approached with the utmost rigour and
caution.

1.1.
‘Economic and social cohesion’ is enshrined in Article
B of the Treaty on European Union as a key instrument for
achieving ‘economic and social progress which is balanced and
sustainable’ within the EU.

Furthermore, as is noted in the Communication on
1.2.
Cohesion and transport examined in the present opinion, it
has long been acknowledged that there is a correlation between
levels of economic and social development and availability of
transport infrastructure and services.

1.3.
However, the relationship between transport and over-
all development (and the basis for the latter, i.e. economic and
social cohesion) is extremely complex both in theory and in
practice. For this reason, any analysis or policy designed to

Against such a backdrop,

1.4.
the Communication on
Cohesion and transport, submitted by the European Com-
mission to the Council, European Parliament, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
should be unequivocally welcomed and favourably assessed.
This is the case not only because the communication demon-
strates the EU’s efforts to date in support of cohesion and
transport, but also, and in particular, because it reveals a
resolute will to make progress and overcome the limitations
which currently remain. To provide very specific examples, the
communication:

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.
(2) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 14.

— notes how sectoral policies liberalising transport services
could result in disadvantages for certain population groups
or regions;

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/23

— highlights how some disadvantages should be prevented

and corrected by a transport policy which;

— maintains certain services using public funding and

— reduces disparities between regions regarding accessi-

bility.

On this basis, the Committee of the Regions wishes to

1.5.
address the following issues:

— the instruments available for assessing results in the field

of cohesion and transport;

— the differentiation of modal and environmental policies in

heartland and outlying EU regions;

— remote and island regions, and the role which the EU’s

ports are to play in dealing with these;

— the effects of the abandonment and closure of secondary
transport networks on the process of depopulation of
disadvantaged inland mountain regions of Europe;

— progress towards greater internalisation of costs by gradu-

ally introducing infrastructure pricing systems;

— the coordination of policies and instruments.

1.6.
In tackling some of these specific points, and in the
final summary of conclusions, the COR stresses views and
proposals already put forward in its opinion on the Trans-
European transport network(1).
the COR
reiterates the line of argument and the views put forward in
this earlier opinion.

In all respects,

There are major geographical, economic, demographic,
1.7.
cultural and social differences within the European Union.
Regions with a high concentration of population and intense
economic activity usually enjoy a high standard of living while
at the same time there are regions which are lagging behind
in their development and experiencing ever more severe
depopulation.

Island and remote regions also have their own specific
1.8.
features. These differences directly affect the rates of growth of
each region and, ultimately, their ability to participate on an
equal footing in the wider socio-economic construct which is
the European Union.

1.9.
One of the most significant objectives of Community
policy is cohesion, i.e. the creation of conditions enabling the
various regions of Europe to have an equal stake in develop-
ment. This is referred to explicitly in the new Treaty (Treaty of
Amsterdam), specifically in Article 2 thereof.

1.10.
From as early as 1988, with the re-shaped Structural
Funds, the Community put into practice its intention to
promote social and economic cohesion politically and econ-
omically. Later,
in 1993, when the Cohesion Fund was
integrated into the Structural Funds, Community policy took
on even more specific objectives, namely investment in the
trans-European networks. At the same time, the European
Investment Bank has been working towards the same political
goal by providing loans for regional development works as a
matter of priority.

2. Transport and cohesion

2.1.
The role of transport, in terms of both infrastructure
and the provision of services, is clearly crucial to the develop-
ment of any region.

2.2.
The relationship between economic growth and devel-
opment of the transport system is scientifically attested even
though its exact form and variations have not been defined.

2.3.
It is nevertheless clear that a more comprehensive
transport system, both in terms of infrastructure and services,
is crucial to the development of the various regions, in both
the short and long term.

In the short term, the planning, construction, operation
2.4.
and maintenance of
the transport system help to create
jobs with direct implications for social integration and the
economic prosperity of people living in the various regions. In
the long term, the transport system has a direct influence on
basic production parameters (the type of production, transport
of raw materials, product distribution, storage arrangements
etc.).

2.5.
The overall stimulation of economic activity in both
the manufacturing and service sectors (e.g. tourism) is one of
the most important roles of transport.

(1) Opinion based on the European Commission’s 1998 report on
the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future
(COM(98) 614 final), (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293, 13.10.1999,
p. 9).

2.6.
Transport is particularly important in areas of farming
and fisheries owing to the perishable nature of fresh agricul-
tural and fishery produce which needs to be transported faster
than most manufactured goods.

C 226/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

2.7.
The important spatial dimension of transport is also
evident. Each region has different needs as regards the transport
in terms of both its technical
system to be developed,
characteristics and its economic dimension. In some regions
the transport system has to be designed in such a way that it
supports the production model (especially in industrial areas)
whereas in other regions, the development of public transport
is particularly crucial to promote the social integration of the
population (especially in remote or disadvantaged areas) and
to maintain the social and environmental balance (areas
surrounding large urban centres, concentration of traffic in the
EU core regions). The Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund
should be used to support investment in public passenger
transport systems which are environment-friendly and encour-
age intermodality, in order to facilitate sustainable mobility in
cities, with due regard also to the accessibility of and links
with trans-European networks.

2.8.
It is important to emphasise that any inadequacies in
the transport system have a direct impact on the cost of living
since an inadequate system can function as a kind of informal
taxation which increases the cost of products reaching the
consumer. These higher costs primarily affect the economically
weakest classes in society, and hence cohesion. In addition,
this informal taxation which is associated with an inadequate
transport system also affects exports of goods produced in
such regions.

In many cases, transport is associated with the concept

2.9.
of universal service and the public interest.

2.10.
Typical examples of this are transporting the sick
from remote areas to medical centres in urban areas, taking
children and young people to school, being able to respond
quickly to natural disasters in remote areas and fostering social
integration through contacts between different local cultures.

Against this background, transport should not be
2.11.
judged on strictly economic criteria (economic viability), but
considered in the context of a broader socio-economic and
environmental analysis. In this respect,
it is important to
highlight that if lack of or inadequate basic services are not
offset by an efficient transport network that diminishes the
adverse effects of such deficiencies by providing access for the
population of isolated or disadvantaged regions, this will serve
to increase depopulation and reduce economic activity, thus
hampering returns on transport investment. The result in these
regions is a vicious circle in which the growing lack of supply
generates a growing lack of demand and vice versa.

2.12.
The multiple effects of transport illustrate the import-
ance of taking local specifics into account in the planning and
infrastructure of transport in Europe. This is equally true
within Member States. It is therefore important to emphasise
the ever greater need to respect and implement the subsidiarity
principle in the transport sector too.

3.

Instruments for assessing results

3.1.
The direct relationship between Community transport
policy and economic and social cohesion is clear from a joint
analysis of Title XII (Trans-European networks) and Title XIV
(Economic and social cohesion) of the EC Treaty. Both titles
refer to the trans-European transport networks policy as an
instrument expected to provide a direct contribution to
strengthening economic and social cohesion. This task is
defined as ‘reducing disparities between the levels of develop-
ment of the various regions and the backwardness of the least
favoured regions or islands, including rural areas’ (the reference
to islands was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam).

3.2.
Other more general approaches long advocated by the
European Commission (White Paper on Growth, Competi-
tiveness and Employment, the challenges and ways forward
into the 21st century; 1993) and which have been duly
included in the Communication on cohesion and transport,
are those which tie in the establishment of transport infrastruc-
ture with job-creation.

3.3.
In this respect, it is the temporary creation of jobs
during the construction phases which first springs to mind.
However, it is more worthwhile to focus on the creation of
permanent jobs (tied in with new conditions of accessibility
and costs) because the perspective is more long-term and
because this type of new employment establishes an immediate
and permanent functional link between the competitiveness of
the productive machinery and economic and social cohesion.

3.4.
Lastly, one positive aspect of Community measures in
the transport field must surely be greater generation and better
distribution of income. This is the final outcome of reducing
disparities and generating employment which serves to suc-
cessfully complete the economic circle in furtherance of
economic and social cohesion.

However,

the COR takes the view that

3.5.
tying in
transport policy and economic and social cohesion will be no
more than a generic principle or wishful thinking if there are
no instruments to measure the specific impact of transport
policy on economic and social cohesion. In short, and in very
general terms, this means measuring the extent to which
Community transport policy and each of its individual instru-
ments contribute to achieving the following three key objec-
tives:

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/25

— boosting the competitiveness of the European economy;

4. Different policies for heartland, outlying, island and

landlocked areas

— establishing the conditions for sustainable mobility;

— and, of specific interest in this context, enhancing econ-

omic and social cohesion within the EU.

The lack of quantitative instruments (indicators and
3.6.
measuring variables, evaluation procedures, etc.) is evident
both in specific measures and at the wider level of infrastruc-
ture networks and transport services. According to the Com-
mittee’s information, the European Commission has in recent
years been striving to improve matters, but even so:

— for a specific infrastructure, service, measure or project, it

is difficult to

— ascertain ‘ex ante’ the level of Community interest in

line with the cohesion policies, and

— evaluate ‘ex post’ the extent to which the objectives

have been achieved; and

— for policies and overall infrastructure and service networks,

it is difficult to

— determine whether the effort is actually being chan-
nelled in the right direction, and how accurately (or
with which overall or specific exceptions), and

— identify instruments for strengthening or correcting

the effects obtained.

4.1.
On previous occasions, the Committee of the Regions
has emphasised the need for Community transport policy to
take account of the individual problems posed in the different
types of region within the EU, in each case seeking specific
solutions to specific problems:

— ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems are more related
to competitiveness and capacity and where the impact of
external factors (particularly environmental ones) is crucial;

— ‘outlying areas’, where problems relating to income and
employment, accessibility, depopulation and economic
and social cohesion, are unavoidable and where the impact
of external factors may be relatively minor.

4.2.
It is equally important to take into account the so-
called Northern dimension. The more Northern countries
differ from other EU regions in terms of their climate, situation,
economic geography and geopolitics. The sparse population
and sheer size of Northern regions lend them specific features
which need to be addressed by Community transport policy.
There are also specific transport problems in many mountain-
ous, landlocked and severely depopulated areas in the Southern
hinterland which should be given individual treatment.

4.3.
The Communication on cohesion and transport states
that the needs in outlying regions have been taken into account
in designing the trans-European networks (1). However, the
COR voices its concern that although the needs of peripheral,
landlocked and island regions have obviously been taken into
account, they have not been treated specifically or differently
to those of heartland regions. Such individual treatment, if
applied from the outset, would have been of considerable
value in helping to provide clear and quantifiable objectives in
terms of accessibility and economic and social cohesion.

3.7.
Consequently, the COR wishes to propose that the
‘horizontal’ R&D measures promoted under Community trans-
port policy include a careful consideration of the design and
preparation of quantitative indicators and appropriate methods
so that the contribution of Community transport policies to
the following areas may be continually assessed:

— enhancing
machinery;

the

competitiveness of

the productive

— achieving sustainable mobility and modal distribution;

4.4.
The COR feels that the self-same examples cited by the
communication in support of its theory (networks of airports
and ports) actually confirm the doubts expressed by the COR.
It is all very well, from the point of view of accessibility that
small airports in remote island regions (regional connecting
points and accessibility points in the airport system) have been
included in the trans-European networks. However, other
selection criteria linked to traffic thresholds and an extremely
loose definition of ‘landlocked area’ have meant that many
small regional connecting points and accessibility points in the
airport system have also been selected in heartland areas with
excellent land connections and none of the problems of
landlocked areas (in some cases, these points are less than
50 km apart).

— improving at least two basic factors of economic and social
cohesion, i.e. inter-regional accessibility and employment.

(1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 26.

C 226/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

4.5.
The concern voiced regarding the consideration of
outlying areas in designing the trans-European networks is
reinforced by the conclusions of some studies requested by the
European Commission. The following conclusions come as no
surprise and clearly reveal how the process works (1):

— medium-sized cities in centrally located regions and located
on the TEN nodes or corridors tend to obtain the major
accessibility gains;

5.5.
The European Commission honoured its commitment
by submitting a Proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Decision amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC (3).
The proposal
includes maps identifying specific ports of
Community interest, and ports and ‘intermodal transhipment
areas’ are incorporated into the trans-European combined
transport network. However, honouring the commitment
should be regarded as a purely formal exercise given that the
Commission chose to identify all minor ports.

— also, but to a lesser extent, the main metropolitan areas are

also major beneficiaries from TEN implementation;

— for outlying and remote regions to gain the maximum
in

from the TEN, complementary investment

benefit
secondary networks will be required.

5. The role of outlying ports

5.6.
From the point of view of outlying regions this
conclusion cannot be looked on favourably, as the inclusion
of a large number of small ports in heartland regions detracts
from the special importance of ports for transport in outlying
regions. Community resources are limited and if almost all
ports have access to them the overall effectiveness of their
implementation will be drastically reduced. The European
Commission’s approach may also run counter to current
trends in maritime transport, encouraging increasing specialis-
ation and function-based ranking of port systems.

5.1.
Ports and maritime transport networks, as pillars of
multimodality, are of particular interest to outlying regions,
most of which have extensive coastlines and some of which
are extremely remote island regions. For such regions, medium-
sized and small ports could play a crucial role in providing
economical transport capable of very successfully filling the
gaps in land transport (both the physically unavoidable and
the historically-based gaps).

5.7.
The COR considers that the best approach would be to
combine restrictive selection criteria relating to volume of
traffic or activity with open but well-defined criteria based on
the region’s specific needs and accessibility. Such an approach,
in theory applicable to any of the transport modes included in
the trans-European networks, would help to best reconcile the
objectives of competitiveness and of economic and social
cohesion.

5.2.
Although mentioned previously under policies suited
to outlying regions (see point 3: Different policies for outlying
and heartland areas), the case of ports within Community
transport policy merits specific comment in light of the special
treatment of ports in the process of defining the trans-
European transport infrastructure networks.

5.3.
At the outset, the European Commission and the
Council of Ministers decided not to identify any specific ports
and simply set the conditions for identifying ‘port projects of
common interest’. To justify this approach (2), the Commission
cited the special nature of port activity, which meant that free
competition could be affected if some ports were included in
the trans-European networks and other were not. Such reason-
ing was plausible, but could largely be applied to other
infrastructures for which the proposal did actually set out the
relevant plans.

5.4.
During the process leading up to the adoption of
European Parliament and Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC
on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-
European transport network,
the Parliament managed to
secure the inclusion of a formal declaration committing the
European Commission to submit a new proposal in 1997, so
that maritime ports would be treated in the same way as
airports (identification of specific ports on the basis of size and
spatial criteria).

6.

Infrastructure charges

6.1.
In 1998 the European Commission submitted a White
Paper on Fair payment
for infrastructure use: a phased
infrastructure charging
approach to a common transport
framework in the EU (4) advocating the general application of
the ‘marginal social cost’ charging principle (including a
definite internalisation of external costs). As is well known,
and with considerable differences remaining between EU
Member States, charges for the use of infrastructures are
currently levied only for roads (toll-paying motorways and
some large infrastructure works) and partially or not at all for
rail, ports, airports and inland waterways.

6.2.
The COR points out that building marginal costs into
charges assumes some crucial factors in the structure of cost
functions. This means that costs must rise with the volume of
production, and need to be steady and attributable in all
aspects, otherwise the concept of marginal costs is meaning-
less. Unfortunately, the capacity of almost all basic infrastruc-
ture and, in particular, the capacity of transport infrastructure
cannot be altered gradually. Consequently, the COR considers
that there are even shortcomings in the theory behind the
pricing policies advocated by the Commission.

(1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 27.
(2) COM(94) 106 final — paragraph 76.

(3) COM(97) 681 final — OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, pg. 14.
(4) COM(98) 466 final.

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/27

6.3.
Another theoretically debatable argument put forward
in the European Commission’s White Paper is the assumption
that ‘marginal social costs’ will result in an optimum price
ensuring the best allocation of resources. Such an assumption
works in theory but ignores the fact that in order to obtain the
optimum price the ‘marginal cost’ needs to match the ‘average
cost’. As a result of this oversight, which attempts to circum-
vent the problem of not being able to alter transport infrastruc-
ture capacity gradually, the White Paper becomes tangled up
in the problem of the capacity-price ratio without finding a
satisfactory solution.

6.4.
If, however, the theoretical and practical problems
posed by the possible inclusion of set-up capacity costs are
resolved,
infrastructure charges may provide an effective
instrument for addressing capacity problems in large, con-
gested infrastructures, problems of allocating resources within
the transport economy, and wider economic competitiveness
problems.

6.5. Much more debatable is whether infrastructure charges
constitute an effective instrument for or have an acceptable
impact on addressing generic shortcomings related to accessi-
bility and cohesion objectives.

6.6.
The Communication on cohesion and transport, refer-
ring to the White Paper (1) itself, maintains that ‘... there is no
reason to believe that, as a general rule, peripheral and
less developed regions would be adversely affected by the
application of a marginal cost charging scheme’. However, in
a footnote still referring to the White Paper, the communi-
cation then:

— recognises that such charges should be differentiated so
that regions with less congestion and pollution would be
less affected and;

— calls for flexible and gradual

implementation of price
reforms in those instances where there would be concern
that higher transport user charges would impede the
economic development of peripheral or less developed
areas.

The fact that the communication voices so many
6.7.
concerns, even opening the door to a possible subsidy or
compensation scheme for this purpose, demonstrates that
there are solid grounds for the COR’s caution. In short, the
possible impact of general charges for the use of infrastructures
on economic and social cohesion has not yet been adequately
studied. Furthermore, when appropriate, the impact should be
assessed in terms of transport costs and taxation.

6.8.
The COR considers that pricing could pose the problem
that economically developed regions would be better placed
to recoup costs through a future increase in economic activity

(1) COM(98) 806 final — paragraph 37.

and the resulting wealth. Less economically developed regions,
on the other hand, would be less able to recover costs in that
the potential benefits derived from pricing will be limited by
the relatively weak capacity of their economic systems.

6.9.
In conclusion, the COR considers that the issue of
charging for the use of infrastructure must be addressed with
rigour and caution.

7. Coordination of policies and instruments

7.1.
The Committee of the Regions takes the view that the
coordination of policies and instruments available in the
transport field poses a very wide range of complex problems.
The EU institutions have been examining these problems but
every effort must be made to facilitate solutions.

First of all,

7.2.
there is the theoretical and practical
coordination between liberalisation policies (seeking wide-
spread implementation of market practices in the sector) and
policies more directly linked to economic and social cohesion
objectives, including, in particular, public utilities and trans-
European networks policies.

Several paragraphs of the communication address this
7.3.
problem, with comments which are warmly welcomed by the
COR both for their specific content and for the underlying
concern they reveal.

7.4.
The COR welcomes the communication’s comments
and proposals on transport policies and the activity of the
European Commission. These should be further underscored
by the idea that competitiveness and cohesion are two equally
significant objectives to be jointly and equitably achieved.

7.5.
A second problematic aspect of coordination relates to
financial policies and instruments for spatial planning and for
transport infrastructure and services.

7.6.
The correlation between land occupation and use and
the structure of transport networks is even more self-evident
than the correlation between economic and social develop-
ment levels and availability of transport infrastructure and
services (paragraph 1.2). The communication shows that
most of
the Community resources invested in transport
infrastructure do not come from specific transport funds (the
budget line for trans-European networks and the Cohesion
Fund for trans-European networks), but rather from other
Structural Funds with the direct objectives of regional develop-
ment and spatial planning (ERDF, Regis, Interreg, etc.).

7.7.
In future, and as is rightly stated in various parts of
the communication, the problem of accessibility should be
resolved by taking joint account of the main trans-European
networks, the networks enabling access and distribution to
and from these, and local networks.

C 226/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.8.2000

7.8.
In this regard, the COR feels that it might now be
appropriate to establish a complementary sectoral instrument
similar to the current Community Support Frameworks (CSF).
Such an instrument would provide an overall view of all
transport networks and services and give an overall structure
to the corresponding Community policies and instruments.

7.9.
The third and final aspect of coordination relates to
the financing arrangements. Here the COR is particularly keen
that formulas be sought to involve private funding in the
development of infrastructure and public-private schemes.

7.10.
The COR assumes that the use of private resources to
fund infrastructure will be an inevitable fact-of-life in the
future. The COR also feels that the private sector’s involvement
in infrastructure funding poses many more difficulties in less
developed outlying, island and landlocked regions, where the
volumes of traffic and transport mean that the financial return
on investment provides little (or less) incentive.

In this respect,

the COR calls upon all

7.11.
the EU
institutions and players concerned to employ the maximum
creativity and effort in designing and fine-tuning joint schemes.
Such schemes should either involve the public and private
sector at once or combine entirely private intermediate funding
(construction and running) with a final payment which is
totally or partially public (shadow tolls, etc.).

8. Transport and cohesion in the run-up to the accession

8.1.
The Commission communication makes specific refer-
ence to Community policy towards the applicant countries.
This policy is based on the same criteria and proportions
as those so far applied within the Community. Particular
importance is attached to the fact that the new Member States
will have to be in a socio-economically cohesive relationship
with the present Member States. Transport will play a major
economic, environmental and social role in the enlarged
Europe.

8.2.
From the beginning of 2000, a new Community fund
(ISPA) will provide resources primarily to finance transport
infrastructure in the applicant countries, with particular
emphasis on extending the trans-European networks to these
countries. The aim of this policy is to ensure that the new
Member States have a level of services with a high socio-
economic value.

9. Summary of conclusions

to developing the most vulnerable regions and enhancing
opportunities for the least favoured groups.

9.2.
From this point of view, the Committee considers that
ensuring the different EU regions have an equal stake in
economic and social prosperity constitutes the cornerstone of
Community policy. In this respect, transport is an important
means of implementing regional policy and should be regarded
as such.

The Committee reiterates the line of argument and the
9.3.
views put forward in its opinion of 3 June 1999 on the
trans-European transport network(1), containing a detailed
examination of subjects which are only briefly or indirectly
considered in the present opinion.

The Committee takes the view that Community trans-
9.4.
port policy,
in particular trans-European network policy,
should help to create a new ‘inter-regional accessibility map’
for the EU. This map should reduce disparities between regions
and lay down minimum accessibility thresholds for travel to
and from all parts of the EU.

9.5.
The Committee believes that rigorously measuring the
impact of Community transport policy on the competitiveness
of EU industry and EU economic and social cohesion, is vital
for evaluating this policy and for devising and applying
supportive or corrective measures; the problem of increasing
environmental pollution in the core regions should be included
here.

9.6.
The Committee urges the institutions, and the Euro-
pean Commission in particular, to ensure that the immediate
planning of Community transport policy includes provision
for fleshing out the requisite indicators and methods, with a
view to continual assessment of Community transport policy’s
contribution to competitiveness and economic and social
cohesion (accessibility and employment).

9.7.
The Committee considers that the problems to be
addressed by Community transport policy vary somewhat
throughout the different parts of the EU, as there are:

— ‘heartland areas’, where the key problems relate to competi-
tiveness, capacity and pollution problems and where the
impact of external factors is crucial;

— ‘outlying, island and landlocked areas’, where problems
relating to income and employment, accessibility, depopu-
lation and economic and social cohesion, are unavoidable
and where the impact of external factors may be relatively
minor.

9.1.
The Committee of the Regions broadly welcomes
the concern and willingness demonstrated by the European
Commission’s Communication on Cohesion and transport,
with a view to boosting the contributions of these policies

(1) 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities
for the future, COM(98) 614 final, (CdR 60/99 fin — OJ C 293,
13.10.1999, p. 9).

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/29

9.8.
The Committee believes that acknowledging the spec-
ific nature of the problems faced by individual regions and the
need to find appropriate solutions demonstrates how vital it is
to implement the subsidiarity principle more effectively at
local and regional level.

9.9.
The Committee takes the view that such circumstances
should be taken into account by Community transport policy
so that the most appropriate solutions are implemented in
each region.

The Committee stresses that under no circumstances
9.10.
should the quest for the most appropriate solution in each
region be allowed to undermine equal opportunities for the
least favoured EU populations and regions.

9.11.
The Committee asks the European Commission, in
its transport policy reports, assessments and action, to be ever
mindful of the need for a differentiated approach tailored to
match the characteristics of each region.

9.12.
The Committee calls upon the institutions most
directly involved — i.e. the European Parliament, Council of
Ministers and European Commission — in the forthcoming
review of the Community guidelines for the development of
the trans-European transport network:

— to adopt a more committed stance on

— the overall planning of infrastructure and transport

services,

— the need to specialise and rank unimodal networks,

Brussels, 12 April 2000.

— the need to make best use of Community resources in
keeping with criteria and objectives striking a balance
between environmental repercussions, competitiveness
and cohesion;

— to introduce demanding selection criteria in relation to

capacity and volume of traffic and transport;

— to introduce more open but well-defined criteria regarding

accessibility and spatial planning.

9.13.
The Committee urges the European Commission to
press ahead with the analysis and propose specific solutions
and measures for the theoretical and practical problems which
may result
from infrastructure pricing policies based on
‘marginal social costs’, particularly with regard to:

— the repercussions on modal distribution and transport

costs in heartland and outlying areas;

— the creation of capacity and accessibility in less developed

regions;

— the tax-related repercussions and their presumably differ-

ent impact on ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ regions.

The Committee asks all parties concerned at Euro-
9.14.
level to ensure the
pean, national and regional and local
coordination of policies and financial instruments for regional
development and spatial and transport planning. A useful basis
for this could be a global overview of all transport networks
and services.

9.15.
The Committee urges all European institutions and
socio-economic players to give thought to appropriate specific
formulas for involving private capital
in the financing of
infrastructure in outlying and less developed regions.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT