White Paper - European transport policy for 2010: time to decide
Date: 2001-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU publication, sustainable development, transport policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  12.9.2001 
COM(2001) 370 final 

WIDTEPAPER 

European transport policy for 2010:  time to decide 

-.., 

, 

• 

WHITE PAPER 

European transport policy for 2010:  time to decide 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE WHITE PAPER ................................................................ 6 

PART ONE: SHIFTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN MODES OF TRANSPORT ............ 20 

I. 

A. 

REGULATED COMPETITION ............................................................................. 21 

Improving quality in the road sector ....................................................................... 22 

1.  A restructuring to be organised .......................................................................................... 22 

2.  Regulations to be introduced ............................................................................................ 24 

3. Tightening up controls and penalties ................................................................................ 24 

B. 

Revitalising the railways ......................................................................................... 25 

1.  Integrating rail transport into the internal market ................................................ -.............. 26 

2.  Making optimum use of the infrastructure ........................................................................ 31 

3. Modernisation of services ................................................................................................. 33 

C. 

Controlling the growth in air transport .................................................................... 34 

1. Tack.ling saturation of the skies ........................................................................................ 35 

2.  Rethinking airport capacity and use .................................................................................. 37 

3.  Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment ........................... 39 

4.  Maintaining safety standards ............................................................................................ 40 

II. 

A. 

LINKING UP THE MODES OF TRANSPORT ..................................................... 40 

Linking up sea,  inland waterways and rail... ............................................................ 41 

1.  Developing "motorways of the sea" .................................................................................. 42 

2.  Offering innovative services ........................................................................ _ ..................... 44 

B. 

C. 

Helping to start up intermodal services: the new Marco Polo programme ............... 46 

Creating favourable technical conditions ............................ : ................................... 4 7 

1. Encouraging the emergence of freight integrators ............................................................. 4 7 

2.  Standardising containers and swap bodies .......................................................... : ............. 48 

PART TWO: ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS ................................................................. 49 

I. 

A. 

UNBLOCKING THE MAJOR ROUTES ............................................................... 51 

Towards multimodal corridors giving priority to freight ......................................... 51 

2 

B.  -

A  high-speed passenger network ............................................................................ 52 

C. 

D. 

Improving traffic conditions ................................................................................... 54 

Major infrastructure projects .......................................................... ." ........................ 54 

1.  Completing the Alpine routes ........................................................................................... 54 

2. Easier passage through the Pyrenees ................................................................................. 55 

3. Launching new priority projects .......... ; ............................................................................ 56 

4. Improving safety in tunnels ................................ : ............................................................. 57 . 

II. 

A. 

B. 

C. 

TIIE IIEADACIIE OF FuNDING ......................................................................... 58 

Limited public budgets ........................................................................................... 58 

Reassuring private investors ................................................................................... 59 

An innovative approach: pooling of funds .............................................................. 60 

PART THREE: PLACING USERS AT TIIE HEART OF TRANSPORT POLICY ............. 64 

I. 

A. 

B. 

UNSAFE ROADS .................................................................................................. 64 

Death on a daily basis: 40 000 f~talities a year ........................................................ 65 

Halving the number of deaths ......................... _ ........................................................ 66 

1.  Harmonisation of penalties ............................................ .-.......................................... ~ ....... 66 

2.  N~w technologies for improved road safety ...................................................... : ............... 69 

II. 

A. 

THE FACTS BEHIND THE COSTS TO THE USER ............................................ 71 

Towards gradual charging for the use of infrastructure ........................................... 72 

1.  A price structure that reflects the costs to the co~unity ................................................. 73 

2.  A profusion of regulations······························~································································· 75 

3.  Need for a Community framework .............................................................. .-.................... 76 

B. 

Ill. 

A. 

The need to harmonise fuel  taxes····························-~·-·~·········································· 78 

TRANSPORT WITH A HUMAN FACE .......................... ." .................................... 80 

Intermodality for people·············································································~··········· 80 

1.  Integrated ticketing ............................................................ : .............................................. 80 

2. Baggage handling ........................................................ _ ..................................................... 80 

3. Continuity of journeys ....................... ~·············································································· 81 

B. 

Rights and obligations of users ............................................................................... 82 

1.  User rights ...... _. ...................................... : .......................................................................... 82 

. 

. 

2. User obligations ................................................................................................................ 83 

3 

3.  A high-quality public service ................................................................................. ~ .......... 83 

IV. 

A. 

RATIONALISING URBAN TRANSPORT ........................................................... 85 

Diversified energy for transport .............................................................................. 86 

1. Establishing a new regulatory framework for substitute fuels ........................................... 86 

2.  Stimulating demand by experimentation ........................................................................... 87 

• 

B. 

Promoting good practice .................. : ...................................................................... 88 

PART FOUR: MANAGING THE GLOBALISATION OF TRANSPORT .......................... 90 

I. 

A. 

B. 

C. 

II. 

A. 

B. 

C. 

ENLARGEMENT CHANGES THE NAME OF THE GAME ................................ 90 

The infrastructure challenge ................................................................................... 91 

The opportunity offered by a well developed rail network ...................................... 92 

A  new dimension for shipping safety·········..:······················· .. ··································· 93 

THE ENLARGED EUROPE MUST BE MORE ASSERTIVE ON THE WORLD 
STAGE .................................................................................................................. 96 

A single voice for the European Union in international bodies .. : ............................. 96 

The urgent need for an external dimension to air transport ...................................... 98 

Galileo: the key need for a global programme ......................................................... 99 

CONCLUSIONS: TIME TO DECIDE ............................................................................... 101 

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 103 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

ANNEX I:  ACTION PROGRAMME ................................................................... 104 

ANNEX II:  INDICATORS AND QUANTITATIVE ILLUSTRATIONS ............. 110 

ANNEX III:  PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE :MEl\IBER ST ATES AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND BEING EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSION 
FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF "SPECIFIC" PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 116 

ANNEX IV: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOP1'IBNTS AND INTELLIGENT 
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ............................................ : ....................................... 118 

• 

4 

Table 1 

Permitted speed limits and blood alcohol levels in EU countries 

Table 2 

Table 3 

Fig.  1 

Fig.  2 

°Fig.  3 

Fig. 4 

Fig. 5 

Fig. 6 

External  and  infrastructure  costs  (euros)  of  a  heavy  goods  vehicle 
travelling  100 km on a motorway with little traffic 

Costs and charges ( euros) for a  heavy goods vehicle travelling  100 km 
on a toll motorway with little traffic 

Passenger transport: performance by mode of transport (1970-1999) 

Goods transport: performance by mode of transport ( 1970-1999) 

Container carrier~ and convoys 

· A VE traffic 

Reduction in road pollution as a result of Auto-Oil Directives 

International road haulage: cost/km ( 1998) 

List of maps 

Map of the main rail electrification systems in Europe 

Map of the trans-European rail freight network 

Map of Europe's main industrial ports 

Map of the inland waterway network in Europe 

Map _of "specific" projects adopted in  1996 ("Essen" list) 

Map of potential "specific" projects 

68 

73 

74 

20 

21 

44 

53 

86 

93 

30 

33 

42 

43 

57 

57 

• 

• 

• 

5 

POLICY GUIDELINES OF THE WHITE PAPER 

Transport  is  a  key  factor  in  modem  economies.  But  there  is  a  permanent  contradiction 
between society,  which demands ever more  mobility,  and public  opinion,  which  is  becoming 
increasingly  intolerant  of chronic  delays  and  the  poor quality of some  transport  services.  As 
demand  for  transport  keeps  increasing,  the  Community's  answer cannot  be just  to  build  new 
infrastructure  and  open  up  markets.  The  transport  system needs  to  be  optimised  to  meet  the 
demands  of enlargement  and  sustainabfo  development,  as  set  out  in  the  conclusions  of the 
Gothenburg  European  Council.  A 'modem  transport  system  must  be  sustainable  from  an 
economic and social as well as an environmental viewpoint. 

Plans  for  the  future  of the  transport  sector  must  take  account  of its  economic  importance. 
Total expenditure runs to some  1 000 billion euros, which is  more than  10% of gross domestic 
product.  The  sector  employs  more  than  ten  million  people.  It  involves  infrastructure  and 
technologies whose cost to  society is  such that there must be no errors of judgment. Indeed,  it 
is  because of the scale of investment in  transport and its determining role  in  economic growth 
that the authors of the Treaty of Rome made provision for a common transport  policy with its 
own specific rules. 

I. 

The mixed performance of the common transport policy 

For  a  long  time,  the  European  Community  was  unable,  or  unwilling,  to  implement  the 
common transport policy provided for by the Treaty of Rome.  For nearly 30 years the Council 
of Ministers  was  unable  to  translate  the  Commission's  proposals  into  action.  It  was  only  in 
1985,  when  the  Court  of Justice  ruled  that  the  Council  had  failed  to  act,  that  the  Member 
States had to accept that the Community could legislate. 

Later  on,  the  Treaty  of  Maastricht  reinforced  the  political,  institutional  and  budgetary 
foundations  for  transport  policy.  On  the  one  hand,  unanimity  was  replaced,  in  principle,  by 
qualified  majority,  even though  in  practice Council decisions  still  tend to  be  unanimous.  The 
European  Parliament,  as  a  result  of its  powers  under  the  co-decision  procedure,  is  also  an 
essential  link in the  decision-making process,  as  was shown in  December 2000  by  its  historic 
decision  to  open  up  the  rail  freight  market  completely  in  2008.  Moreover,  the  Maastricht 
Treaty included  the  concept  of the  trans-European  network,  which  made  it  possible  to  come 
up  with  a  plan  for  transport  infrastructure  at  European  level  with  the  help  of  ~ommunity 
funding. 

Thus the Commission's first  \Vhite Paper on the  future  development of the common transport 
policy  was  published  in  December  1992.  The  guiding  principle  of the  document  was  the 
opening-up  of the  transport  market.  Over  the  last  ten  years  or  so,  this  objective  has  been 
generally achieved,  except in the rail  sector.  Nowadays,  lorries  are  no  longer forced  to  return 
empty  from  international  deliveries.  They  can  even  pick  up  and  deliver  loads  within  a 
Member  State  other  than  their  country  of origin.  Road  cabotage  has  become  a  reality.  Air 
transport has  been opened up  to  competition which no-one now questions,  particularly as  our 
safety  levels  are  now  the  best  in  the  world.  This  opening-up  has  primarily  benefited  the 
industry and  that  is  why,  within  Europe,  growth  in  air  traffic  has  been  faster  than  growth  of 
the economy. 

The  first  real  advance  in  common  transport  policy  brought  a  significant  drop  in  consumer 
prices,  combined with  a  higher quality of service  and  a  wider range  of choices, .thus  actually 
changing the  lifestyles and consumption habits of European citizens. Personal mobility,  which 

6 

increased from 17 km a day in  1970 to 35 km in  1998, is now  more or less seen as an acquired 
right. 

The second advance of this policy, apart from the results of research framework programmes, . 
. was to  develop the most modem techniques within  a European framework of interoperability. 
Projects  launched at the  end of the  1980s are  now  bearing  fruit,  as  symbolised  by the  trans 
European high-speed rail  network and the  Galileo  satell_ite  navigation  programme.  However, 
it  is  a  matter  for  regret  that  modem  techniques  and  infrastructure  have  not  always  been 
matched by modernisation of company management, particularly rail companies. 

Despite  the  successful  opening-up  of the  transport  market  over  the  last  ten  years,  the  fact 
remains  that  completion  of  the  internal  market  makes  it  difficult  to  accept  distortions  of 
competition  resulting  from  lack  of fiscal  and  social  harmonisation.  The  fact  that  there  has 
been  no  harmonious  development  of the  common  transport  policy  is  the  reason  for  current 
headaches such as: 

unequal  growth  in  the  different  modes  of transport.  While  this  reflects  the  fact  that  some 
modes have adapted better to  the needs of a  modem economy,  it  is  also  a  sign that  not all 
external  costs  have  been  included  in  the  price  of transport  and  certain  social  and  safety 
regulations  have  not  been  respected,  notably  in  road  transport.  Consequently,  road  now 
makes  up 44%  of the  goods transport  market  compared  with  41 %  for  short  sea  shipping,-
8% for rail and 4% for inland waterways.  The predominance of road is  even more marked 
in passenger transport, road accounting  for  79% of the  market, while  air with 5% is  about 
to overtake railways, which have reached a ceiling of 6%; 

congestion on the main road and rail routes, in towns, and at airports; 

- harmful effects on the environment and public  health,  and of course the heavy toll of road 

accidents. 

II. 

Congestion: the effect of imbalance ·between modes 

During  the  1990s,  Europe  began  to  suffer  from  congestion  in  certain  areas  and  on  certain 
routes . .The  problem is  now  beginning  to  threaten  economic  competitiveness.  Paradoxically, 
congestion  in the centre  goes  hand  in  hand  with ·excessive  isolation  of the  outlying  regions, 
where  there  is  a  real  need  to  improve ·links  with  central  markets  so  as  to  ensure  regional 
cohesion within the EU. To paraphrase a famous  saying on centralisation, it could be said that 
the European Union is  threatened with apoplexy at the centre and paralysis at the extremities. 

This was the serious warning made in the  1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and 
Employment:  "Traffic jams are  not only  exasperating,  they also  cost Europe dear in  terms of 
productivity. Bottlenecks and missing links in the infrastructure fabric;  lack of interoperability 
between modes and systems.  Networks are the arteries of the single  market.  They are  the  life  . 
blood of competitiveness, and their malfunction is  reflected in  lost opportunities to create new 
markets and hence in a level of job creation that falls  short of our potential." 

If most  of the  congestion  affects  urban  areas,  the  trans-European  transport  network  itself 
suffers increasingly from chronic congestion: some 7 500 km,  i.e.  10% of the road network, is 
affected daily by traffic jams. And  16 000 km of railways,  20% of the network,  are classed as 
bottlenecks. Sixteen of the Union's main airports recorded delays of more than a quarter of an 
hour on  more than 30%  of their· flights.  Altogether  these  delays  result  in  consumption  of an 
extra 1.9 billion litres of fuel,  which is  some 6% of annual consumption. 

7 

Because of congestion, there is  a serious risk that Europe will  lose economic competitiveness. 
The most recent study on the subject showed that the external costs of road traffic congestion 
alone amount to 0.5% of Community GDP.  Traffic  forecasts  for the  next ten  years show that, 
if nothing  is  done,  road congestion  will  increase  significantly  by 2010.  The costs attributable 
to  congestion  will  also  increase  by  142%  to  reach  80 billion  euros  a  year,  which  is 
approximately 1 % of Community GDP. 

Part of the  reason for this  situation  is  that  transport  users  do  not  always  cover the  costs they 
generate.  Indeed,  the  price  structure  generally  fails  to  reflect  all  the  costs  of infrastructure, 
congestion,  environmental  damage  and  accidents.  This  is  also  the  result  of  the  poor 
organisation  of Europe's  transport  system  and  failure  to  make  optimum  use  of  means  of 
transport and n~w.technologies. 

Saturation  on  some  major routes  is  partly  the  result  of delays  in  completing  trans-European 
network infrastructure.  On the  other hand,  in  outlying  areas  and  enclaves  where  there  is  too 
little  traffic  to  make  new  infrastructure  viable,  delay  in  providing  infrastructure  means  that 
thes·e  regions  cannot  be  properly  linked  in.  The  1994  Essen  European  Council  identified  a 
number  of major  priority  projects  which  were  subsequently  incorporated  into  outline  plans 
adopted by the Parliament and the Council,  which provide a  basis  for EU co-financing of the 
trans-European transport network.  The total cost was estimated at around 400 billion euros at 
the  time.  This  method  of  building  up  the  trans-European  network,  as  introduced  by  the 
Maastricht Treaty,  has  yet  to  yield  all  its  fruits.  Only  a  fifth  of the .infrastructure projects  in 
the  Community guidelines  adopted  by  the  Council  and  Parliament  have  so  far  been  carried 
out.  Some  major  projects  have  now  been  completed,  such  as  Spata  airport,  the  high-speed 
train from Brussels to Marseille and the 0resund bridge-tunnel linking Denmark and Sweden. 
But in  far  too many cases, the  national  sections of networks  are  merely juxtaposed, meaning 
that  they can  only  be  made  trans-European  in  the  medium  term.  With  enlargement,  there  is 
also  the  matter  of  connection  with  the  priority  infrastructure  identified  in  the  candidate 
countries ("corridors"), the cost of which was estimated at  nearly  100 billion euros in  Agenda 
2000. 

It  has  not  been  possible  to  meet  these  significant  investment  requirements  by  borrowing  at 
Community level, as the Commission proposed iri  1993. The lack of public and private capital 
needs  to  be  overcome  by  innovative  policies  on  infrastructure  charging/funding.  Public 
funding  must  be  more  selective and  focus  on  the  major projects  necessary for  improving the 
territorial  cohesion  of the  Union  as  well  as  concentrating  on  investment  which  optimises 
infrastructure capacity and helps remove bottlenecks. 

However,  in  this  connection,  and  disregarding  the  funds  earmarked  for  the  trans-European 
network  which  are  limited  to  around  500 million  euros  a  year  and  have  always  given  clear 
priority to  the  railways,  it  is  clear that  more than  half the  structural expenditure  on transport 
infrastructure,  including  the  cohesion  fund  and  loans  from  the  European  Investment  Bank, 
have,  at  the request of Member States,  favoured  road over rail.  It has  to  be  said,  nonetheless, 
that  motorway  density  in  countries  such  as  Greece  and  Ireland  was  still  far  below  the 
Community average  in  1998.  In the new  context of sustainable development,  Community co 
financing should be redirected to give priority to rail, sea and inland waterway transport. 

III .  Growth in transport in an enlarged European Union 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of vigorous  economic  growth  which  can  create  jobs  and  w.ealth 
without  an  efficient  transport  system  that  allows  full  advantage  to  be  taken  of the  internal 
market. and  globalised  trade.  Even  though,  at  the  beginning  of  the  21st  century,  we  are 

• 

• 

entering  the  age  of the  information  society  and  virtual  trade,  this  has  done  nothing  to  slow 
down the need for travel; indeed, the  opposite is  true. Thanks to the Internet  anyone can  now 
communicate  with  anyone  else  and  order  goods  from  a  long  ~ay away,  while  still  enjoying 
the  option  of visiting  other places and  going to  see.  and choose  products or meet  people.  But 
information technologies  also provide proof that they can sometimes  help  reduce the demand 
for physical transport by facilitating teleworking. or teleservices. 

There are two key factors behind the continued growth in  demand for transport. For passenger 
transport, the determining factor is the spectacular growth in  car use.  The number ·of cars has 
tripled in the last 30 years, at  an increase of 3 million cars each year.  Although the level of car 
ownership  is  likely to  stabilise  in  most  countries  of the  European  Union,  this  will not be  the 
case  in the  candidate countries,  where car ownershlp  is  seen  as  a  symbol of freedom.  By the 
year 2010, the enlarged Union will see its car fleet increase substantially. 

-

As  far  as  goods  transport  is  concerned,  growth  is  due  to  a  large  extent  to  changes  in  the 
European  economy  and  its  system  of production.  In  the  last  twenty  years,  we  hav~ moved 
from a "stock" economy to  a "flow" economy. This phenomenon has  been emphasised by the 
relocation  of some  industries - particularly  for  goods  with  a  high  labour  input - which  are 
trying  to  reduce  production  costs,  even  though  the  production  site  is  hundreds  or  even 
thousands of kilometres away from the final assembly plant or away from users.  The abolition 
of frontiers  within  the  Community  has  resulted  in  the  establishment  of a  ')ust-in-time"  or 
"revolving stock" production system. 

· 

So  unless  major  new  measures  are  taken  by 2010  in  the  European  Union  so  that  the  fifteen 
can use the advantages of each mode of transport more rationally,  heavy goods vehicle traffic 
alone  will  increase  by  nearly  50%  over  its  1998  level.  This  means  that  regions  and  main 
through routes which are already heavily congested will have to handle even more traffic. The 
strong  economic  growth  expected  in  the  candidate  countries,  and  better  links  with  outlying 
regions,  will  also  increase  transport  flows,  in  particular  road  haulage  traffic.  In  1998"  the 
candidate countries already exported more than twice  their  1990 volumes  and  imported more 
than five times their 1990 volumes. 

Although,  from  their  planned  economy  days,  the  candidate  countries  have  inherited  a 
transport system which encourages rail,  the  distribution  between  modes  has  tipped sharply in 
favour of road transport  since the  1990s.  Between  1990 and  1998,  road haulage  increased by 
19.4%  while  during  the  same  ·period  rail  haulage  decreased  by  43.5%~ although - and  this 
could benefit the enlarged European Union - it  is  still on  average  at  a much  higher level than 
in the present Community. 

To take  drastic  action  to  shift  the  balance  between  modes - even  if it  were  possible - could 
very  well  destabilise  the  whole  transport  system  and  have  negative  repercussions  on  the 
economies of candidate countries.  Integrating the  transport systems  of these  countries will  be 
a huge challenge to which the measures proposed have to provide an answer. 

IV. 

The need for integration of transport in sustainable development 

Together  with  enlargement,  a  new  imperative  - sustainable  development  - offers  an 
opportunity,  not  to  say  lever,  for  adapting  the  common  transport  policy.  This  objective,  as 

9 

introduced  by  the  Treaty  of Amsterdam,  has  to  be  achieved  by  integrating  environmental 
considerations into Community policies. 1 

The Gothenburg European Council placed shifting the balance between  modes of transport  at 
the  heart  of the  sustainable  development  strategy.  This  ambitious  objective  can  obviously 
only be fully achieved over the next ten years.  The measures presented in  the White Paper are 
nonetheless a first  essential step towards a sustainable transport  system that  will  ideally be  in 
place in 30 years' time. 

• 

As  stated in  the  Commission's  November  2000  Green  Paper  on  security  of supply,  in  1998 
energy consumption  in  the  transport  sector was  to  blame  for  28%  of emissions  of C02,  the 
leading  greenhouse  g~s. According  to  the  latest  estimates,  if nothing  is  done  to  reverse  the  · 
traffic growth trend, C02 emissions from transport can be expected to increase by around 50% 
to reach  1 113 billion tonnes in  2010, compared with the 739 million tonnes recorded in  1990. 
Once  again,  road  transport  is  the  main  culprit  since  it  alone  accounts  for  84%  of the  C02 
emissions  attributable  to  transport.  However,  internal  combustion  engines  are  notorious  for 
their  low  energy  efficiency,  mainly  because  only  part  of the  combustion  power  serves  to 
move the vehicle. 

Reducing  dependence  on  oil  from  the  current  level  of 98%,  by  using  alternative  fuels  and 
improving the  energy efficiency of modes  of transport,  is  both  an  ecological  necessity. and  a 
technological challenge. 

In  this context, efforts already made, particularly in the road sector, to  preserve air quality and 
combat  noise  have  to  be  continued  in  order  to  meet  the  needs  of the  environment  and  the 
concerns of the people without compromising the competitiveness of the transport system and 
of the economy.  Enlargement  will  have  a  considerable  impact on demand  for  mobility.  This 
will involve great~r efforts in  order gradually to  break the  link between transport growth  and 
economic  growth· and  make  for  a  modal· shift,  as  called  for  by  the  European  Council  in 
Gothenburg. Such a shift cannot be ordered from one day to the next, all the less so after more 
than half a century of constant deterioration in favour of road, which has reached such a pitch 
that today rail freight  services are facing  marginalisation (8% ),  with international goods trains 
in  Europe  struggling  along  at  an  average  speed  of 18  km/h.  However,  this  is  by  no  means 
inevi~able in  modern economies, since in the USA 40% of goods are carried by rail. 

A  complex equation has to be solved in order to curb t~e demand for transport: 

-

-

economic  growth  will  almost  automatically  generate  greater  needs  for  mobility,  with 
estimated increases in demand of 38% for goods services and 24% for passengers; 

enlargement  will  generate  an  explosion  in  transport  flows  in  the  I)ew  Member  States, 
particularly in the frontier regions; 

• 

The Cardiff European  Council  in  June  1998  set  the  process  in  motion  by asking  a  number  of sectoral 
Councils  to  develop  concrete  integration  strategies.  The  Transport  Council  defined  its  strategy  in 
October  1999, highlighting fiv_e  sectors in  which measures should be pursued, namely (i) growth  iQ  C02 
emissions from  transport,  (ii) pollutant emissions and their effects on  health, (iii) anticipated  growth  in 
transport, in  particular due to enlargement, (iv) modal distribution and its development, and (v) noise in 
transport. 

10 

-

saturation  of the  major  arteries  combined  with  accessibility  of outlying  and  very  remote 
areas  and  infrastructure  upgrading  in  the  candidate countries  will  in  tum  require  massive 
. investment. 

This  is  the  context  in  which  we  have  to  consider  the  option  of gradually  breaking  the  link 
between economic growth and transport growth, on which the  White Paper is based. 

- A  simplistic  solution  would  be  to  order  a reduction  in  the  mobility  of persons  and  goods 
and  impose  a  redistribution  between  modes.  But this  is  unrealistic  as  the· Community  has 
neither the power nor the means to  set limits on traffic in cities or on the roads or to impose 
combined  transport  for  goods.  To  give  just  one  example  of the  subsidiarity  problems,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  several  Member  States  contest  the  very  principle  of a  general· 
Community-wide ban to keep  heavy goods  vehicles off the  roads  at  weekends.  Moreover, 
dirigiste  measures would urgently require  unanimous harmonisatio_n  of fuel  taxes,  but just 
a  few  months  ago  the  Member States took  diverging  paths  on  taxa!ion  in  response  to  the 
surge· in oil prices. 

Bearing  in  mind the  powers  of the  European  Union,  three  possible  options  emerge  from  an 
economic viewpoint: 

- The first  approach (A)2  would consist of focusing  on road transport through  pricing  alone. 
This option would not" to  be  accompanied by complementary measures  in  the  other modes 
of transport. In the short-term it  might curb the growth in  road transport through the better 
loading  ratio  of goods  vehicles  and  occupancy  rates  of passenger  vehicles  expected  as  a 
result  of the  increase  in  the  price  of transport.  But  the  lack  of measures  to  revitalise  the 
other modes of transport, especially the  low  gains in  productivity in  the  rail  sector and the 
insufficiency  of infrastructure  capacity,  would  make  it  impossible  for  more  sustainable 
modes of transport to take over the baton. 

- The second approach (B) also concentrates on road transport pricing but is  acc<?mpanied by 
measures to increase the efficiency of the other modes (better quality of services,  logistics, 
technology). However, this approach does not include investment in  new  infrastructure and 
does not cover specific measures to make for a shift of balance between modes.  Nor does it 
guarantee  better  regional  cohesion.  It  could  help  to  achieve  greater  uncoupling  than  the 
first  approach, but road transport would keep the lion's share of the  market  and continue to 
concentrate  on  saturated  arteries  and  certain  sensitive  areas  despite  being  the  most 
polluting  of the  modes.  It  is  therefore  not  enough  to  guarantee  the  necessary  shift  of 
ba~ance and does not make a real contribution to the sustainable development called for by 
the Gothenburg European Council. 

- The third approach (C), on which the White Paper is  based, comprises a series of measures 
ranging  from  pricing  to  revitalising  alternative  modes  of transport  to  road  and  targ~ted 
investment  in  the  trans-European  network.  This  integrated  approach  would  allow  the 
market shares of the other modes to return to their  1998  levels  and thus  make for a shift  of 
balance from 2010 onwards.  This approach  is  far  more  ambitious  than  it  looks,  bearing  in 
mind the historical imbalance in  favour of road for the  last  50  years.  It is  also  the  same  as 
the  approach  adopted  in  the  Commission's  contribution  to  the  Gothenburg  European 
Council  which called  for  a  shift  of balance  between the  modes  by  way  of an  investment 
policy  in  infrastructure  geared to  the  railways,  inland  waterways,  short  sea  shipping  and 

• 

See explanatory table in  Annex II. 

11 

... 

intermodal operations (COM (2001)  264 final).  By implementing the  60-odd measures  set 
out in  the  White Paper there  will  be  a  marked  break  in  the  link  between  transport  growth 
and  economic  growth,  although  without  there  being  any  need  to  restrict  the  mobility  of 
people  and  goods.  There  would  also  be  much  slower  growth  in  road  haulage  thanks  to 
better use of the other means of transport  (increase of 38% rather than  50%  between  1998 
and 2010).  This  trend would be even  more  marked  in  passenger transport  by car (increase 
in  traffic of 21 % against a rise in GDP of 43%). 

v. 

The need for a comprehensive strategy going beyond European transport policy 

The  objective  - never  yet  achieved  - of shifting  the  balance  of transport  involves  not  only 
implementing  the  ambitious  programme  of transport  policy  measures  proposed  in  the  White -
Paper by 2010,  but also taking consistent measures at  national or local  level  in  the context of 
other policies: 

-

economic  policy  to  be  formulated  to  take  account  of certain  factors  which  contribute  to 
increasing  demand  for  transport  services,  particularly  factors  connected  with  the  just-in 
time production model and stock rotation; 

- urban and land-use planning policy to avoid unnecessary increases in  the need for mobility 

caused by unbalanced planning of the distances between home and work; 

-

social and education policy,  with  better organisation of working  patterns and  school hours 
to  avoid  overcrowding  roads,  particularly by  traffic  departing  and  returning  at  weekends, 
when the greatest number of road accidents occur; 

- urban transport policy in major conurbations, to strike  a balance between modernisation of 
public  services  and  more  rational  use  of  the  car,  since  compliance  with  international 
commitments to curb C02  emissions will be decided in  the cities and on the roads; 

- budget  and  fiscal  policy  to  achieve  full  internalisation  of  external  -

in  particular 

environmental - costs and completion of a trans-European network worthy of the name; 

-

-

competition policy to ensure that opening-up of the  market, especially in  the  rail  sector, is 
not  held  back  by  dominant  companies  already  operating  on  the  market  and  does  not 
translate into poorer quality public services; 

transport  research  policy  to  make  the  various  efforts  made  at  Community,  national  and 
private level more consistent, along the lines of the European research area. 

Clearly,  a  number  of measures  identified  in  this  White  Paper,  such  as  the  place  of the  car, 
improving  the  quality  of public  services  or the  obligation  to  carry  goods  by  rail  instead  of 
road, are matters more for national or regional decisions than for the Community. 

VI. 

Principal measures proposed in the White Paper 

The White Paper proposes some 60 specific  measures  to  be  taken  at  Community level  under 
the  transport  policy.  It  includes  an  action  programme extending  until  2010,  with  milestones 
along  the  way,  notably  the  monitoring  exercises  and  the  mid-term  review  in  2005  to  check 
whether the  precise  targets  (for example,  on modal  split  or road  safety)  are  being  attained  or 
whether adjustments need making. 

12 

Detailed proposals,  which will have to  be  approved by.the  Commission,  will  be  based on the 
following guidelines:  · 

Revitalising the railways 

Rail  transport  is  literally  the  strategic  sector,  on  which  the  success  of the  efforts to  shift  the 
balance  ~ill  depend,  particularly  in  the  case  of  goods.  Revitalising  this  sector  means 
competition  between  the  railway  companies  themselves.  The  arrival  of  new  railway 
undertakings  could help  to  bolster competition  in  this  sector and  should  be  accompanied  by 
measures  to  encourage  company  restructuring  that  take  account  of social  aspects  and  work 
conditions.  The  priority  is  to  open  up  the  markets,  not only  for  international  services,  as 
decided i~ December 2000, but also for cabotage on the national markets (to avoid trains· 
running empty) and for international passenger services.  This  opening-up of the  markets 
must be accompanied by further harmonisation in the fields of interoperability and safety. 

Starting ·next  year, the Commission will propose a package of measures  which should restore 
the  credibility,  in  terms  of regularity  and  punctuality,  of this  mode  in  the  eyes  of operators, 
particularly  for  freight.  Step  by  step,  a  network  of  railway  lines  must  be  dedicated 
exclusively  to  goods  services  so  that,  commercially,  railway  companies  attach  as  much 
importance to goods as to passengers. 

Improving quality in the road transport sector 

The  greatest  strength  of road  transport  is  its  capacity  to  carry  goods  all  over  Europe  with 
unequalled flexibility and at  a low price. This sector is  irreplaceable but  its economic position 
is  shakier than  it  might  seem.  Margins  are  narrow  in  the  road transport  sector because of its 
considerable fragmentation  and of the pressure exerted on  prices  by  consignors  and industry. 
This  tempts  some  road  haulage  companies  to  resort  to  price  dumping  and  to  side-step  the 
social and safety legislation to make up for this handicap. 

The  Commission  will  propose  legislation  allowing  harmonisation  of certain  clauses  in 
contracts in order to  protect carriers from  consignors  and  enable  them to  revise  their 
tariffs in the event of a sharp rise in fuel prices. 

The changes  will  also  require  modernisation  of the  way in  which  road transport  services  are 
operated, while complying with the social legislation and the rules on workers' rights.  Parallel 
measures  will  be  needed to  harmonise  and  tighten  up  inspection  procedures  in  order to  put 
an end to the practices preventing fair competition. 

Promoting transport by sea and inland waterway 

Short-sea shipping  and  inland  waterway  transport  are  the  two. modes  which  could provide  a 
means  of coping  with  the  congestion  of certain  road  infrastnicture. and  the  lack  of railway 
infrastructure. Both these modes remain underused. 

The  ~ay to  revive  short-sea  sryipping  is  to  build  veritable  sea  motorways  within  the 
framework  ·of  the  master  plan  for  th~  trans-European  network.  This  will  require  better 
connections  between  ports  and  the  rail  and  inland  waterway  networks  together  with 
improvements  in  the  quality  of  port  services.  Certain  shipping  links  (particularly  those 
providing a way round  bottlenecks - the Alps,  Pyrenees  and  Benelux countries today and the 
frontier  betw~en Germany  and ·Poland  tomorrow)  will  become  part  of the  trans-European 
· 
network, just like roads or railways. 

13 

the  Commission, 

The  European  Union  must  have  tougher  rules  on  maritime  safety  going  beyond  those 
proposed  in  the  aftermath  of the  Erika  disaster.  To  combat  ports  and  flags  of convenience 
more  effectively, 
the  International  Maritime 
Organisation  and  the  International  Labour  Organisation,  will  propose  incorporating  the 
minimum  social  rules  to  be  observed  in  ship  inspections  and  developing  a  genuine 
European  maritime  traffic  management  system.  At  the  same  time,  to  promote  the 
reflagging of as  many ships as  possible to Community registers,  the Commission will  propose 
a  directive  on  the  tonnage-based  taxation  system,  modelled  on  the  legislation  being 
developed by certain Member States. 

in  collaboration  with 

To  reinforce  the  position  of  inland  waterway  transport,  which,  by  nature,  is  interinodal, 
"watenvay  branches"  must  be  established  and  transhipment  facilities  must  be  installed  to  · 
allow  a  continuous  service  all  year  round.  Greater,  fuller  harmonisation  of the  technical 
r~quirements for inland  waterway  vessels,  of boatmasters'  certificates  and  of the  social 
conditions for crews will also inject fresh dynaniism into this sector. 

Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment 

Today,  in the age of the single market and of the single currency,  there  is  still  no  "single sky" 
in Europe. The European Union suffers from over-fragmentation of its air traffic  management 
systems,  which  adds  to  flight  delays,  wastes  fuel  and puts European airlines  at  a competitive 
disadvantage.  It is  therefore imperative to implement, by 2004,  a  series of specific  proposals 
establishing Community legislation on air traffic and introducing effective cooperation both 
with the military authorities and with Eurocontrol. 

This  reorganisation  of Europe's  sky  must  be  accompanied  by  a  policy  to  ensure  that  the 
inevitable  expansion  of airport  capacity  linked,  in  particular,  with  enlargement  remains 
strictly subject to new regulations to reduce noise and pollution caused by aircraft. 

Turning intennodality into reality 

Intermodality  is  of fundamental  importance  for  developing  competitive  alternatives  to  road 
transport.  There  have  been  few  tangible  achievements,  apart  from  a  few  major .ports  with 
good  rail  or canal  links.  Action  must  therefore  be  taken  to  ensure  fuller  integration  of the 
modes  offering  considerable  potential  transport  capacity  as  links  in  an  efficiently  managed 
transport  chain  joining  up  all  the  individual  services.  The  priorities  must  be  technical 
harmonisation  and  interoperability  between  systems,  particularly  for  containers.  In 
addition,  the new  Community support programme ("Marco  Polo") targeted on  innovative 
initiatives,  particularly  to  promote  sea  motorways,  will  aim  at  making  intermodality  more 
than just a simple slogan and at turning it  into a competitive, economically viable reality. 

Building the trans-European transport network 

Given  the  saturation  of certain  major arteries  and  the  consequent  pollution,  it  is  essential  for 
the European Union to complete the trans-European projects already decided. For this reason, 
the Commission intends to propose revision of the guidelines adopted by the Council  and  the 
European  Parliament,  which  will  remain  limited  until  funding  is  secured  for  the  current 
projects.  In  line  with  the  conclusions  adopted  by  the  Gothenburg  European  Council,  the 
Commission  proposes  to  concentrate  the  revision  of  the  Community  guidelines  on 
removing the bottlenecks in the railway network, completing the routes identified as the 
priorities  for  absorbing  the  traffic  flows  generated  by  enlargement,  particulariy  in 
frontier  regions,  and  improving access  to  outlying areas.  To  improve  access  to  the  trans-

14 

European  network,  development  of  the  secondary  network  will  remain  a  Structural  Fund 
priority. 

In this  context,  the  list  of 14  major priority 'projects  adopted  by  the Essen European Council 
and  included in  the  1996 European Parliament and Council decision on the guidelines  for  the 
trans-European  transport  network  must  be  amended.  A  number  of large-scale  projects  have 
already  been  completed  and  six  or  so  new  projects  will  be  added  (e.g.  Galileo  or the  high-
capacity railway route through the Pyrenees). 

~ 

To guarantee  successful  development of the trans-European  network,  a  parallel  proposal  will 
be  made  to  amend  the  funding  rules  to  allow  the  Community  to  make. a  maximum 
contribution - up to 20% of the total cost - to cross-border railway projects crossing natural· 
barriers  but  offering  a  meagre  return  yet  demonstrable  trans-European  added  value,  such  as 
the  Lyon-Turin  line  already  approved  as  a  priority  project  by  the  Essen  European  Council. 
Projects  to  clear  the  bottlenecks  still  remaining  on  the  bqrders  with  the  candidate  countries 
could qu-alify for the full  20%. 

In  2004· the  Commission  will  present  a  more  extensive  review  of the  trans-European 
network aimed in particular at introducing the concept of "sea motorways", developing 
airport capacity, linking the outlying regions on the European continent more effectively 
and  connecting  the  networks  of  the  candidate  countries  to  the  networks  of  EU 
countries. 3 

Given  the  low  level  of funding  from  the  national  budgets  and  the  limited  possibilities  of 
public/private  partnerships,  innovative  solutions  based  on  a  pooling  of  the  revenue  from 
infrastructure charges  are  needed.  To fund  new  infrastructure  before  it  starts  to  generate the 
first  operating  revenue,  it  must  be  possible  to  constitute  national  or regional  funds  from  the 
tolls  or user charges  collected  over the  entire  area  or on  competing  routes.  The  Community 
rules  will  be amended to. open  up  the  possibility  of allocating  part  of the  revenue  from  user 
charges  to  construction  of the  most  environmentally  friendiy  infrastructure.  Financing  rail 
infrastructure  in  the  Alps  from  taxation  on  heavy  lorries  is  a  textbook  example  of  this 
approach,  together with the charges  imposed by  Switzerland,  particularly on  lorries  from  the 
Community, to finance its major rail projects. 

Improving road safety 

. 

Although  transport  is  considered -an  essential  for  the  well-being  of  society  and  of  each 
individual,  increasingly it is coming to be  perceived as  a potential danger. The end of the 20th 
century was  marred by a series of dramatic  rail  accidents,  the Concorde disaster or the  wr~ck 
of the Erika,  all  of which are  etched into  the  memory.  However, the  degree  of acceptance  of 
this  lack  of safety  is  not  always  logical.  How  else  can  the  relative  tolerance  towards  road 
accidents  be  explained  when  every  year .there  are  40 000  deaths  on  the  roads,  equivalent  to 
wiping  a  medium-sized  town  off the  map.  Every  day  the  total  number  of people  killed  on 
Europe's  roads  is  practically  the  same  as  in  a  medium-haul  plane  crash.  Road  accident 
victims,  the  dead  or injured,  cost  society  tens  of billions  of euros  but  the  human  costs  are 
incalculable.  For this  reason,  the  European  Union  should  set  itself a  target  of reducing  the 
number of victims  by half by  2010.  Guaranteeing  road safety in  towns  is  a  precondition  for, 
for example, developing cycling as a means of transport. 

Without  prejudice  to the outcome of the accession  negotiations,  the candidate countries'  netw<;>rks  will  . 
be  integrated into the Union's network via the accession  treaties. 

15 

It  must  be  said  that  the  Member States  are  very  reluctant  about  action  at  Community  level, 
whether  on  seat  belts  for  children  or  in  coaches  or  on  harmonisation  of  the  maximum 
permitted blood alcohol  levels,  which  they  have  been  discussing  for  12  years.  Up  until  2005 
the  Commission  intends  tc:>  give  priority  to  exchanges  of good  practice  but  it  reserves  the 
right to propose legislation if there is no drop in  the number of accidents,  all  the_ more so since 
the figures are still high in the candidate countries. 

In  the  immediate  future,  the  Commission  will  propose  two  measures  for  the  trans 
European  network only.  The  first  will  be  to  harmonise signs  at  particularly  dangerous 
black spots.  The second will  be  to  harmonise  the  rules  governing checks and penalties  for 
international commercial transport with regard to speeding and drink-driving. 

• I  

Adopting a policy on effective charging for transport 

It is  generally acknowledged that  not  always  and not everywhere do  the  individual  modes  of 
transport pay for the  costs they generate.  The  situation differs enormously from one Member 
State  and  mode  to  another.  This  leads  to  dysfunctioning  of the  internal  market  and  distorts 
competition  within  the  transport  system.  As  a  result,  there  is  no  real  incentive  to  use  the 
cleanest modes or the least congested networks. 

The \Vhite Paper develops the following guidelines: 

- harmonisation of fuel taxation for commercial users, particularly in i:oad transport. 

- alignment  of the  principles  for  charging  for  infrastructure  use;  the  integration  of 
external costs  must  also  encourage the  use  of modes  of lesser environmental impact  and, 
using  the  revenue  raised  in  the  process,  allow  investment  in  new  infrastructure,  as 
proposed by the European Parliament  in  the  Costa report.4  The current  Community rules, 
for  instance  Directive  62/99  on  the  "Euro vignette",  therefore  need  to  be  replaced  by  a 
modern  framework  for  infrastructure-use  charging  systems  so  as  to  encourage  advances 
such  as  these  while  ensuring  fair  competition  between  modes  of  transport  and  more 
effective charging, and ensuring that service quality is  maintained. 

This  kind  of reform requires  equal  treatment  for  operators  and  between  modes  of transport. 
Whether  for  airports,  ports,  roads,  railways  or waterways,  the  price  for  using  infrastructure 
should  vary  in  the  same  manner  according  to  category  of infrastructure  used,  time  of day, 
distance,  size and weight of vehicle,  and any other factor that  affects congestion and damages 
the infrastructure or the environment. 

In  a  good many  cases,  taking  external  costs  into  account  will  produce  more  revenue  than  is 
needed  to  cover  the  costs  of the  infrastructure  used.  To  produce  maximum  benefit  for  the 
transport  sector,  it  is  essential  that  available  revenue  be  channelled  into  specific  national  or 
regional  funds  in  order  to  finance  measures  to  lessen  or  offset  external  costs  (double 
dividend).  Priority  would  be  given  to  building  infrastructure  that  encourages  intermodality, 
especially railway lines, and offers a more environmentally friendly alternative. 

In  certain  sensitive  areas  there  might  be  insufficient  surplus  revenue  where,  for  example, 
infrastructure  has  to  be  built  across  natural  barriers.  It  should  therefore  be  made  possible  for 
new  infrastructure to  receive an "income" even before it  generates its  first  operating revenue. 

4 

AS-034/2000. 

16 

In  other  words,  tolls  or  fees  wo~ld be  levied  on  an  entire  area  in  order  to  finance  future 
infrastructure. 

One  final  point  for  consideration  is  that  different  levels  of taxation  apply to the  energy used 
by  different  modes,  e.g.  rail  and  air,  and  that  this  can  distort  competition  on  certain  routes 
served by both modes. 

Recognising the rights and obligations of users 

European citizens' right  to  have  access  to  high-quality  services  providing  integrated  services 
at  affordable  prices  will  have  to  be  reinforced.  Falling  fares  - as  witnessed  over the  last  few 
years - musi not signify giving up the  most basic  rights.  With the  air passenger rights charter 
the  Commission  therefore  set  an  example  which  will  be  followeei  for  other  modes.  In 
particular,  air passengers'  rights to  information, compensation for  denied  boarding due 
to overbooking and compensation in the event of an accident could be extended to other 
modes.  As  in  the case of the air passenger rights charter, the  Community legislation must  lay 
the  foundation  for  helping  transport  users  to  understand  and  exercise  their  rights.  In  return, 
certain safety-related obligations will have to be clearly defined. 

Developing high-quality urban transport 

In  response  to  the  general  deterioration  in  the  quality  of life  of European  citizens  suffering 
from  growing  congestion  in  towns  and  cities,  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle  the 
Commission  proposes  to  place  the  emphasis  on  exchanges  of  good  practice  aiming  at 
making better use of public transport  and  existing  infrastructure.  A better approach  is  needed 
from local public  authonties to reconcile  modernisation of the public  service  and rational use 
of the  car.  These  measures,  which  are  essential  to  achieving  sustainable  development,  will 
certainly be among the most difficult to  put into practice. This is the price that will have to  be 
paid to meet the international commitments made at Kyoto to reduce C02 emissions. 

Putting research and technology at the service of clean, efficient transport 

The  Community  has  already  invested  heavily  (over  €1  billion  between  1997  and  2000)  in 
research  and  technological  development  over  the  last  few  years  in  areas  as  varied  as 
intermodaJity,  clean  vehicles  and  telem~tics applications  in  transport.  Now  it  is  time  for  less 
concrete and more intelligence in the transport system. These efforts must  be continued in  the 
future,  targeted on the  objectives  set  in  this  White  Paper.  The European  Research  Area  and 
one  of its  main  instruments,  the new  research framework programme for 2002-2006.1  will 
provide  an  opportunity  to  put  these  principles  into  action  and  to  facilitate  coordination  and 
increase efficiency in the system of transport research. 

Specific ·action  will  have  to  be  taken  on  cleaner,  safer  road  and  maritime  transport  and  on 
integrating  intelligent  systems  in  a11  modes  to make  for  efficient  infrastructure  management. 
In  this respect thee-Europe action  plan  proposes  a  number of measures  to  be  undertaken  by 
the  Member  States  and  the  Commission,  such  as  the  deployment  of  innovative  information 
and  monitoring  services  on  the  trans:-European  network  and  in  towns  and  cities  and  the 
introduction of active safety systems in  vehicles. 

Based on  recent  results,  the  Commission  will  propose  a  directive  on  harmonisation of the 
means of payment for certai~ infrastructure, particularly for  motorway tolls,  plus  another 
directive on safety standards in-tunnels. 

· 

17 

In the case of air transport, the priority will  be to improve the environmental impact-of engine 
noise  and  emissions· - a  sine  qua  non  for  adoption  of stricter  standards  - and  to  improve  air 
safety and aircraft fuel consumption. 

Managing the effects of globalisation 

Regulation of transport has  long  been essentially international in  character. This  is  one  of the 
reasons  for the  difficulties  encountered  in  finding  the  proper place  for  the  common  transport 
policy  between  the  production· of international  rules  within  established  organisations  on  the 
one hand and often protectionist national rules on the other. 

As the  main  objective of these international rules  is  to facilitate trade and commerce,  they do 
not  take  sufficient  account  of  environmental  protection  or  security  of  supply  concerns. 
Consequently,  for  some  years  now,  certain  countries  such  as 
the  USA  have  been 
implementing  regional  transport  accords;  particularly  in  the  maritime  or  aviation  sector,  to 
protect specific interests. The European Union has followed closely in  their footsteps  in  order 
to guard against catastrophic accidents at sea or to  abolish inappropriate rules on aircraft noise 
or on compensation for passengers in the event of accidents. 

With enlargement on the  horizon,  and the  transport policy and trans-European  networks  soon 
to extend across the continent, Europe needs to rethink its  international role  if it  is  to succeed 
in  developing  a  sustainable  transport  system  and  tackling  the  problems  of congestion  and 
pollution.  As  part of negotiations  within  the  World Trade  Organisation,  the  European  Union 
will continue to act as  a catalyst to open up the markets of the  main  modes of transport while 
at  the  same  time  maintaining  the  quality  of transport  services  and  the  safety  of users.  The 
Commission  plans  to  propose reinforcing the position of the  Community in  international 
organisations, in particular the  International Maritime Organisation,  the International  · 
Civil Aviation  Organisation and the Danube Commission,  in  order to  safeguard Europe's 
interests  at  world  level.  The  enlarged  Union  must  be  able  to  manage  the  effects  of 
globalisation  and contribute to  international  solutions  to  combat,  for  example,  abuse  of flags 
of convenience or social dumping in the road transport sector. 

It is paradoxical that the European Union, which is  the world's leading commercial power and 
conducts  a  large  part  of  its  trade  outside  its  own  borders,  carries  so  little  weight  in  the 
adoption of the international rules which govern much of transport. This  is  because the  Union 
as  such  is  excluded  from  most  inter-governmental  organisations,  where  it  has  no  more  than 
observer status. This situation  needs to be  remedied without delay,  by  having the Community 
accede  to  the  inter-governmental organisations  which  govern  transport  so  that  the  thirty-odd 
members  of  the  enlarged  Union  not  only  speak  with  a  single  voice  but,  above  all,  can 
influence  those  organisations'  activities  by  promoting  a  system  of  international  transport 
which  takes  account  of  the  fundamental  requirements  of  sustainable  development.  A 
European Union  bringing all  its  weight to bear could,  in  particular,  see  that  raw  materials  are 
processed locally to a greater extent, rather than encouraging processing in other locations. 

Developing  medium  and  long-term  environmental  objectives  for  a  sustainable  transport 
system 

Numerous  measures  and  policy instruments  are  needed  to  set  the  process  in  motion  that  will 
lead to  a sustainable transport  system.  It  will  take time to achieve this  ultimate  objective,  and 
the  measures  set out in  this  doc1:1ment  amount  only to a first  stage,  mapping out  a more  Jong 
term strategy. 

18 

This sustainable transport system needs to be defined in operational terms in  order to give the 
policy-makers useful information to go on. Where possible, the objectives put forward need to 
be  quantified.  The Commission  plans  to  submit  a communication  in  2002  to  spell  out  these 
objectives.  A monitoring tool  has  already been put in  place by way of the TERM mechanism 
(Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism). 

* 

* 

* 

To support the  package of proposals to  be  implemented by 2010,  which  are  essential but not 
sufficient  to  redirect  the  common  transport  policy  towards  meeting  the  need for  sustainable 
development, the analysis in the White Paper stresses: 

-

-

-

-

-

the risk of congestion on the major arteries and regional imbalance, 

the conditions for shifting the balance between modes, 

the priority to be given to clearing bottlenecks, 

the new place given to users, at the heait of transport policy, 

the need to manage the effects of transport globalisation. 

So we need to decide between maintaining the status quo and accepting the need for change. 
The  first  choice - the  easy  option - will  result  in  significant  increases  in  congestion  and 
pollution, and will  ultimately threaten the competitiveness of Europe's economy. The second 
choice - which  will  require  the  adoption  of pro-active  measures,  some  of them  difficult  to 
accept - will involve· the implementation of new forms of regulation to channel future demand 
for  mobility  and  to  ensure  that  the  whole  of  Europe's  economy  develops  in  sustainable 
fashion. 

"Large sacrifices are easy:  it is the small continual sacrifices which are difficult. " 

Johann  Wolfgang  Goethe:  "Elective  Affinities"  (Minister  for  the  Rebuilding  of 
Ro-ads in the State of Weimar ...  and writer) 

19 

PART ONE: SHIFTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN MODES OF TRANSPORT 

There  is  a  growing  imbalance  between  modes  of transport  in  the  European  Union. 
The  increasing  success  of  road  and  air  transport  is  resulting  in  ever  worsening 
congestion, while, paradoxically, failure to exploit the full  potential of rail and short 
sea  shipping is  impeding  the  development  of real  alternatives  to  road  haulage.  But 
saturation  in  certain  parts  of the  European  Union  must  not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that 
outlying areas have inadequate access to central markets. 

• 

-

~· 

•  : 

ti 

3500 

3000 

2500 

j 
Q. 
c  2000 
~ 
:s 

1500 

1000  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

500  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

·---·-·-·---·-·---------------------·-·-·---·-------:~: 

- ..... 

.. 

..... 

.. 

.... - -- . .. --..... 

... 

.. -- ....  - .... . . . . ..... 

. ..  ....  -- - ....  -

..... - ......... - .... 

o~+-~--+--+---+---+--+--+--+--+--+-+-~--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+-+-~~-+--1 

1970 

1974 

1978 

1982  -

1986 

-

·1990 

· j - -ca r  - - Bus and  Coach  - - · - - Railway  - - · - - - - Air  , . 

?() 

.  -

. 
' ': -:.  1200 .  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' 

· ..  ~'  .  -

- - - -

·-.-.. : ·_1 OQO __ .  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·- - - - - - - - -/- - - - - - - - - - - -

,,.,, - _,, 

. '-

.,_. 

-J  

J 

-

~  -

-

•  • 

1 

-------------------------------------------_.;'-

"' 

J1 

~4' 

~ , 

----------------------------

---------------~-----

~ 

.../ 

----

400 

·r;• 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

- ··:.,'200 
' - .  .  . 
.  . 

-
.  -~ 

' 

-.. --· --. -.. - .. - . - .... - . ---.. ·- - ·- . -- . -- ... - ....  - ....... -. ----- -.. --· -........ .... 

.. · :1970_ ~... 

. 1_s~Q _ _.- ~P-·--\~~~- -.··  --~  · 1ssa ··. 
. o.+·-------------,--, -------------.-_l--i.~.~----------.-.~_...-...-.------------
..· . 
. · / - >~~_.:._' _. ___ . '::·;.. 
. - -

~s-14 -~:::·;·~-~ -~,j-~?s:_ ... _ "-~  f~~\ :.  ;-.:. fsss 
. .,_ 
.. -_" :·- :' -/·~ ~:~~-?, >-~-. ~-: ---·:  -~:./  .-

~; :··- - '.---.:·-.,  ':_:,· .
-'  . 

. ..  ',  """ ·- . -

·.-··  .. _ '  .-,c'  ;  • 

.. -1,. 

. • 

.  _;  .-

. --

·. 

o_, 

.· 

.. 

. 

. 

' 

-

---Road -

- - -Short-sea shipping.---Rail - · - · - - ·Inland waterways  ---Pipeline 

This  persisting  situation  is  leading  to  an  uneven  distribution  of traffic,  generating 
increasing  congestion,  particularly  on  the  main  trans-European  corridors  and  in 
towns  and  citi_es.  To solve  this  problem,  two  priority  objectives  need  to  be  attained 
by 2010: 

-

-

regulated competition between modes; 

a link-up of modes for successful intermodality. 

I. 

REGULATED COMPETITION 

Unless  competition  between  modes  is  better  regulated,  it  is  Utopian  to  believe  we 
can  avoid even  greater imbalances,  with  the  risk  of road  haulage  enjoying  a  virtual 
monopoly  for  goods transport in  the  enlarged European  Union.  The  growth  in  road 
and  air  traffic  must  _therefore  be  brought  under  control,  and  rail  and  ·pther 
environmentally friendly modes given the means to become competitive alte.matives. 

21 

A. 

Improving quality in the road sector 

Most passenger and goods traffic goes by road.  In  1998, road transport accpunted for 
nearly half of all  goods  traffic  ( 44% )5  and more  than  two-thirds  of passenger traffic 
(79% ).  The  motor  car  - because  of  its  flexibility  - has  brought  about  real  mass 
mobility,  and  remains _a  symbol  of personal  freedom  in  modem  society.  Nearly  two 
households in  three own a car. 

Between  1970  and  2000,  the  number  of cars  in  the  Community  trebled  from  62.5 
million to  nearly  175  million. Though this trend now seems to be slowing down,  the 
number of private cars in  the Community is  still fsing by more than 3 million every 
year, and following enlargement the figure will be even higher. 

Every day, another 10 hectares of land are covered over by new roads. Road-building 
has been particularly intense in  the regions and countries furthest  from  the centre, as 
a  means  of helping  their  economic  development,  and  particularly  in  the  cohesion 
countries,  where  motorway density increased by 43%  in  the  ten  years  from  1988  to 
1998,  though  it  remains  below  the  Community  average.  Taking  the  Union  as  a 
whole, the number of kilometres of motorway trebled between 1970 and 2000. 

Despite  all  these  new  roads,  saturation  is  still  a  serious  problem  in  industrialised 
urban  areas  such  as  th_e  Ruhr,  the  Randstad,  northern  Italy  and  southern  England. 
Failure to  control  road  traffic  has compounded the  situation  in  the  major cities.  The 
stop-start motoring characteristic of bottlenecks means higher emissions of pollutants 
and greater energy consumption. 

Studies  of climate  change  put  the  blame  on  fossil  fuels.  More  than  half  the  oil 
consumed by  transport  is  accounted  for  by  private  cars,  and  in  1998  transport  was 
responsible for more than a quarter (28%) of C02 emissions in Europe. Because road 
transport  is  totally  dependent  on  oil  (accounting  for  67%  of final  demand  for  oil), 
road transport alone accounts for 84% of C02 emissions attributable to transport. 

But the problem of congestion is  now spreading to major trunk roads and sensitive 
areas. 

Much of this growth is  due to international road haulage. Forecasts for 2010 point 
to  a  50%  increase  in  freight  transport  alone  unless  action  is  taken  to  counter  the 
trend.  Transport by lorry is  unavoidable over very short distances,  where there is  no 
alternative  mode  sufficiently  tailored  to  the  needs  of the  economy.  By contrast,  we 
might  ask  what  factors  are  sustaining,  indeed  encouraging,  the  expansion  of road 
transport  over middle  and  long  distances,  where  alternative  solutions  are  available. 
Part of the answer lies in the perpetuation of practices which distort competition. The 
ending of these practices will  call not so much  for further regulation  as  for effective 
enforcement of the existing regulations by tightening up and harmonising penalties. 

1.  A restructuring to be organised 

The greatest competitive advantage of road transport is its capacity to carry goods all 
over the European Union,  and indeed the entire continent,  with  unequalled flexibility 

Road's share of the goods  market has  been growing constantly, from 41 % in  1990 to  44% in  1998, and, 
if no action is  taken.  is expected to  reach 47% by 2010. 

22 

and  at  a  low  price.  But  this  capacity  has  been  built  up  in  highly  paradoxical 
circumstances. Haulage companies compete fiercely against other modes and against 
each other.  As operating costs (for fuel  and new equipment) mount, this  has  reached 
such  a  pitch  that,  in  order  to  survive  in  this  extremely  competitive  environment, 
undertakings  are  forced  to  side-step  the  rules  on  working  hours  and  authorisations 
and even the basic principles of road safety.  Such breaches  of the  law  are becoming 
too common. The risk is that,  operating costs being lower in  the candidate countries, 
enlargement could further_ exacerbate this price competition between undertakings. 

The  argument  that  road  transport  is  placed  at  a  competitive  disadvantage  by  the 
financial  advantages  the  railway  companies  supposedly receive  as  of right  from  the 
public authorities is becoming less and less true. It glosses over the fact that, in terms -
of infrastructure,  road  transport,  too,  receives  benefits  from  th~ public  authorities. 
For instance,  motorway maintenance would cost six  times  less  if cars  were the  only 
_vehicles  to  use  the  motorways.  This  benefit  is  not  offset  by  any  corresponding 
differential between the charges paid by heavy goods vehicles and by private cars. 

However,  the  market  share  captured  by  the  roads  cannot  conceal  the  extremely 
precarious  financial  position  of  many  haulage  companies  today,  particularly  the 
smallest,  which  are  finding  it  increasingly  difficult  to  maintain  often  even  a 
semblance.of profitability in the face  of the pressure exerted on prices by consignors 
and industry, especially in times of crisis such as the rise in diesel prices. 

The  tax  relief measures  taken  hastily  and  unilaterally  by  certain  Member States  to 
appease  the  truckers  discontented  by  the  sharp  rise  in  diesel  prices  in  September 
2000  are  no long-term .solution.  They  are  a  palliati_ve,  not  a  cure.  The danger is  not 
just that they will have only a limited impact on the sector's financial  health but also, 
and  above  all,  that  they  could  harm  other  modes  by  giving  road  transport  an  even 
greater competitive edge. These  measures  could possibly be interpreted as  disguised 
subsidies  and  could  eventually  destabilise  the  industry,  since  road  transport. prices 
would not reflect real costs. 

Despite this,  no real  plan  to  restructure  the  sector has  yet  been  produced in  Europe. 
The fear of industrial  action  and of paralysis of the  major routes  is certainly a factor 
here.  Given  the  current  context,  however,  it  would  seem  desirable  to  clean  up 
practices  and  put  companies  on  a  sounder  footing  by  encouraging  mergers  and 
diversification.  Undertakings  which  are  big  enough  and  have  a  large  enough 
financial  base _to  capitalise on  technological  progress  will  be  able  to stand up  - on  a 
sound footing - to the arrival on  the road haulage market of competitors from eastern 
Europe,  where  labour costs are  currently lower than  in  the west European countries. 
Support  must  be  provided  to  encourage  micro-businesses  or  owner-operators  to 
group  together  in  structures  better  able  to  provide  high-quality  services,  including, 
for  example,  logistics-related  activities  and  advanced  information  and  management 
systems, in line with competition policy. 
r--------------------------------------·---------------
! In  this context, harmonisation of transport contract minimum clauses regarding the passing-
! on  of  ~osts  should  help  protect  carriers  from  pressure  from  consignors.  In  particular, 
I  transport  contracts  should .include  clauses  allowing,  for  example,  revision  of tariffs  in  the 
I event of a sharp rise in fuel  prices.  It  must not be forgotten  that,  as  the dominant mode, it is 
; road transport which sets the price of transport.  In  the circumstances,. it tends to keep J?rices 
,  down, to th~ detriment of the other modes, which are less adaptable. 
'------------------------------------------------------

23 

2. Regulations to be introduced 

Very few  measures  have  been  taken  at  Union  level  to provide  a  basic  regulation  of 
social conditions in the road transport sector. This goes some way towards explaining 
the  sector's  high  competitiveness.  It  took  the  Council  of Ministers  until  December 
2000 finally to decide to harmonise driving time at _a  maximum of 48 hours per week 
on  average,  even  then  with  certain  exceptions,  as  in  the  case  of  self-employed 
drivers.  In  other modes  working  hours  have  long been  strictly limited,  starting  with 
train  drivers,  who are  restricted to  an  average of between 22  and 30 hours  per week 
in the main railway undertakings. 

A  large  number  of  Commission  proposals  are  designed  to  provide  the  European ; 
Union with full  legislation to improv_e working conditions and road safety and ensure 
compliance with the rules for the operation of the internal market.  In particular, they 
seek: 

-

to  reorganise  working  time;  though  self-employed  drivers  are  excluded,  this 
proposal  will  regulate  working  time  throughout  Europe,  establishing  an  average 
working week of 48 hours and a maximum of 60 hours; 

- ·to  harmonise  weekend  bans  on  lorries;  this  proposal  seeks  to  align  the  national 
rules in  this area and introduce an  obligation to give notification before such bans 
are imposed; 

-

-

to introduce a "driver's certificate"; this will  enable national  inspectors to conduct 
effective  checks  to  make  sure  that  the  driver  is  lawfully  employed  and,  if 
necessary, to record any irregularity (and impose penalties); 

to develop vocational  training; common rules have been  proposed on compulsory 
initial  training for a11  new  drivers  of goods  or passenger vehicles  and on  ongoing 
training at regular intervals for all professional drivers. 

Adoption of this package of measures is essential if we are to develop a high-quality 
road transport system in the enlarged European Union. This package could be backed 
up  by action  undertaken  by the employers' and employees' organisations represented 
on  the  Sectoral  Dialogue  Committee,  particularly  activities  focusing  on  worker 
employability  and  on  adapting  the  way  work is  organised in  haulage  companies.  If 
necessary, specific measures could be taken to combat the practice of subcontracting 
to bogus "self-employed" drivers. 

3. Tightening up controls and penalties 

EU regulations  on  road  transport,  particularly  on  working  conditions,  are  not  only 
insufficient;  they  are  also,  and  above  all,  extremely  poorly enforced.  This  laxity  in 
enforcing the regulations creates problems. For instance, it is not unusual for a driver 
whose driving licence is  suspended in one Member State to be able to obtain another 
in a neighbouring country. 

Extract from a mission report (Directorate-General for Energy and Transport) 

?4 

carried out checks. 

On  7 July  2000  a  total  of 800  lorries  and coaches  were  checked,  approximately  100  of 
which  were  found  to  have  committed  infringements  (this  proportion  of 1  to  8  was 
considered a normal average for checks such as this).  Half the  infringements detected were 
against  national  legislation  (irregularities  with  licences,  insurance,  road tax,  etc.),  while 
the  other  half were  breaches  of European  legislation,  the  most  common  offences  being 
against the rules on driving time. 

Consequently,  the  effectiveness  of Community  and  national  legislati<;m  depends  on 
correct, impartial application t~roµghout the Community. 

To  this  end,  by  the  enrll  of 2001  the  Commission  plans  to  submit  a  proposai  on 
harmonisation of controls and penalties designed to: 

promote  efficient,  uniform  interprefatfoni,  implementation  and  monitoring  of 
Community road transport legislation. This amendment to the existing legislation 
will  also  contain  provisions  to  establish  the  liability  of  employers  for  certain 
offences committed by their drivers; 

harmonise penalties and tthe condition§ fo1r  ummolbiiising vehicles; 

-

increase  the. number of checks  which  Member States  are.  required  to  carry out 
(currently on  1 % of days  actually worked) on  compliance with  driv~ng times  and 
· 
drivers' rest periods; 

encourage  systemat!c  exchanges  of  illlfoirmatfo:n,  such  as  the  scheme  in  the  · · 
Benelux  countries,  coordination  of  inspection  ~ctivities,  regular· consultation 
between  national  administrations  and  training  of  inspectors  to  ensure  better 
compliance with the legislation. 

New  technologies  will  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  this  context.  The  · 
introduction, by the end of 2003, of the drrgit~i fadmogir21pihl,  a device to record data 
such  as  speed  and  driving  time  over  a  longer  period  than  is  possible  with  the 
mechanical tachograph  of today,  will  bring significant improvements in monitoring, 
with better protection  of the recorded data than  is  offered by the current equipment, 
and  greater reliability.  Account will  also  have_ to  be  taken  of the  new  opportunities 
opened up by satellite radionavigation. The G~meo programme will make it possible 
to  track  goods  wherever the  lorry  is,  and  to  monitor  various  parameters  relating  to 
driving  and  other  conditions,  such  as  container  tempetature.  Where  appropriate, 
parameters  not  relating  to  vehicle  location  could  be  monitored  remotely  by  means 
othet than Galileo (for example, GSM or telecommunications satellite). 

B. 

Revitalising the railways 

Rail is a contrast:  a mixture of ancient and modern.  On the one hand, there are high 
performance high-speed rail  networks serving their passengers from modern stations; 
on  the  other,  antediluvian  freight  services  and  decrepit  suburban  lines  at  saturation 
point,  with  commuters_  jammed  into  crowded  trains  which  are  always  late  and 
eventually -release  their floods  of passengers  into  sometimes  dilapidated  and  unsafe 
stations. 

Between  1970 and  1998  the  share of the  goods  market carried by rail  in  Europe fell 
from  21.1 %  to  8.4%  (down  from  283  billion  tonnes  per  kilometre  to  241  billion), 

25 

even  though  the  overall  volume  of goods  transported  rose  spectacularly.  But  while 
rail  haulage  was  declining  in  Europe,  it  was  flourishing  in  the  USA,  precisely 
because  rail  companies  were  managing  to  meet  the  needs  of industry.  In  the  USA, 
rail  haulage  now  accounts  for  40%  of total  freight  compared  with  only  8%  in  the 
European Union, showing that the decline of rail need not be inevitable. 

The fact  is  that,  almost two  centuries  after the  first  train  ran,  the  railways  are  still  a 
means of transport with major potential, and it is renewal of the railways which is the 
key to achie_ving modal rebalance. This will require ambitious measures which do not 
depend on European regulations  alone but must be driven  by the stakeholders in  the 
sector. 

I 

The growing awareness on  the part of the operators who recently engaged on  a joint 
definition  of  a  common  strategy  for  European  rail  research  to  create  a  single 
European  railway  system  by  2020,  must  be  welcomed.  In  this  document  signed  by 
·the  International  Union  of Railways  (UIR),  the  Community  of European  Railways 
(CER),  the  International  Union  of  Public  Transport  (IUPT)  and  the  Union  of 
European  Railway  Industries  (UNIFE),  the  rail  stakeholders  agree  to  achieve  the 
following objectives by 2020:  · 

-

-

-

-

-

for  rail  to  increase  its  market  share  of passenger traffic  from  6%  to  10%  and  of 
goods traffic from 8% to  15%; 

a trebling of manpower productivity on the railways; 

a 50% gain in energy efficiency; 

a 50% reduction in emissions of pollutants; 

an increase in infrastructure capacity commensurate with traffic targets. 

What  is  needed  is,  therefore,  a  veritable  cultural  revolution  to  make  rail  transport, 
once again, competitive enough to remain one of the  leading players in  the transport 
system in  the enlarged Europe. The priority must be to resolve the problems holding 
back its development:  the  lack of infrastructure suitable for  modem  transport and of 
interoperability  between  networks  and  systems,  the  constant  search  for  innovative 
manufacturing 
the  patchy 
productivity and shaky reliability of the  service,  which  is  failing  to  meet customers' 
legitimate expectations. 

the  non-transparency  of  costs,  and 

technologies, 

1. Integrating rail  transport into the internal market 

Community involvement in  the sector came late, at the beginning of the  1990s, when 
it attempted to  breathe fresh  life into the railways6  and end the operating difficulties 
caused by geographical fragmentation of the networks by introducing a policy for the 
regulated opening-up of the markets. 

6 

If nothing is done rail's share of the  freight  market,  which has already fallen  from  11 % in  1990 to 
8% in 
1998, can be expected  to  slip to 7% by 2010.  Its  share of passenger traffic  stood  at  6%  in  1998  and  is 
expected to  hold steady until 2010. 

0

26 

The foundation  stone was laid in  1991  with a Directive requiring separate accounts to 
be kept for railway infrastructure management and the provision of railway transport 
services.  Amongst  other  things,  this  Directive  opened  the  way  for  independent, 
transparent  management  and  for  future  competition  between  rail  companies . 
. Building on  this  foundation,  several Member States now  have  separate undertakings 
to  operate railway services and to build and manage the network.  A second package 
of  measures  to  help  open  up  the  market  came  into  force  on  15  March  200!7 
following  an  historic  agreement  _between  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  November 
2000. 

a) 

Creating a genuine· internal market in  rail transport 

Opening  up  rail  transport  to  regulated  competition  - which  will  start  properly  in 
March  2003  when  international  goods  services  on  the  50 000-kilorrietre  trans 
European  rail  freight  network  are  opened  up  -
is  the  central ·precondition  for 
-revitalising  the  railways.  By 2008  the  entire  European  international  freight  network 
will have been opened up completely, thanks, in particular to the determination of the 
European  Parliament.8  The  arrival  of  new  railway  companies  from  other 
backgrounds,  with  solid  experience  of  logistics  and  intermodal  integration,  must 
make  this  sector  more  comp~titive  and  encourage  the  national  companies  to 
restructure while also taking social issues and working conditions into account.  This 
restructuring will thus need to include accompanying measures· to minimise its social 
impact. 

New operators 

BASF,  the German chemicals giant,  is becoming the first major rail freight operator to join 
the  traditional  companies,  with  the  aid  of "Rail4Chem",  a  joint  venture  which  it  has 
launched with Bertschi AG,  Hoyer GmbH and VTG-Lehnkering AG. 

The  Swedish group !KEA recently set up a separate company to  manage the transport of its 
own goods.  At the  moment,  18% of them are  carried by rail.  !KEA 's  management wants to 
raise  this  to  40% by 2006 (equivalent to  around 500 trains  a  week).  In  this  context,  !KEA 
plans  to  publish  a  call for  tenders  for  railway  companies  to  carry  goods  between  its 
different subsidiaries - at the  lowest cost and giving the  best guarantees.  In  the  long term, 
!KEA could seize the opportunity offered by this opening of the European market to  become 
a major rail company. 

If more room· is made for competition between operators, the rail industry as  a whole 
will  become  more competitive against other modes  of transport.  The  arrival  of new 
operators  on  an  opened-up  market  can  make  the  industry  more  competitive  by 
encouraging  healthy  competition  between  the  existing  operators  and  their  new 
competitors. The existing technical and regulatory barriers· work in favour of existing 
companies, and are continuing to hamper the entry of new operators. This is why it is 
. important that the Community competition rules  be  applied properly here to  prevent 
anti-competitive  practices  and  ensure  that  the  Community  rail  transport  market  is 
genuinely opened up. 

7 

8 

Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001114/EC. OJ L 75,  15.3.01. 
Jarzembowski report AS-0013/2201  and Swoboda report AS-0014/2001. 

27 

However,  in  too  many  cases  where  there  is  still  no  proper  separation  between  the 
body which owns the infrastructure and the  body which operates services. Moreover, 
companies  do  not  have  clear  commercial  objectives  allowing  them  to  make  a 
distinction  between  freight  services  and  passenger  services.  Indeed,  in  some 
countries, rail companies not only own the infrastructure; they also operate the trains, 
allocate the rights to use the network and conduct their own safety checks. 

Examples of malfunction 

Companies can't count: Some  rail companies admit that they would not be  able  to  say 
how many locomotives  or wagons  they  have  available  or give  the precise  location  of 
trains.  So  sometimes  trains  which  are  scheduled (usually freight,  but  also passenger 
trains)  have  to  be  cancelled because  there  is  no  locomotive,  or no  driver,  or because 
the driver has not been told 

Trains do11 't run properly: It takes thirty or forty minutes to replace the locomotive on a 
goods  train  and  to  check  that  the  train  is  in  proper  working  order  (changing  the 
locomotive,  filling  out  the  composition form,  checking the  brakes,  changing  over  the 
driver  and crew,  inspecting  the  train,  carrying  out  checks  on  dangerous  materials, 
checking documents,  making up  the  train,  labelling the  wagons,  train report,  checking 
the  rear  light).  All this  work is  obviously  wasted if the  locomotive  and crew  are  not 
ready  on  time.  According to  Werner  Kuiper,  President  of the  UJRR, 9  of 20 000 full 
c_ombined international transport trains investigated,  only half were on time. 

- Missing  information:  At  borders,  one  network hands  over  the  train  to  another.  They 
exchange  information  on  loads,  destinations,  and train  composition.  Computer  links 
between  systems  do  exist,  but  are  not  used  systematically  because  they  are  not 
particularly reliable,  so information is often exchanged on paper.  This information may 
arrive too late or it may not be accurate,  and will need to be checked 

"Ghost trains": A  goods  train  stops to  change  locomotive,  but  it may then  be  held up 
even longer while waiting/or a train path to become free  on the neighbouring network. 
A  locomotive  may have  to  wait for a train:  a train may have  to  wait for a  locomotive. 
Often there is no information on when they will arrive,  which just makes matters worse. 

One train - lots of drivers: Relief crew requirements also undermine the productivity of 
international rail  services.  Even  Louis  Gallois,  Chairman  of the  SNCF,  has  said  "I 
think the  Charleroi-Paris route  needs five  driving crew members:  two  in Belgium and 
three in France.  ,,Jo 
· 

With  all  the  various  delays,  the  average  speed  of international  rail  haulage  is  only 
18 km/hour,  which is slower than an ice-breaker opening up a shipping route through 
the Baltic Sea! 

To make international  freight  services competitive and reduce  movements  of empty 
wagons,  it  is  important  that  railway  companies  be  allowed  to  refill  trains  en  route, 
where appropriate between two points within the same Member State. For this reason 
the  Commission  will,  by  the  end  of 2001,  as  part  of the  second  railway  package, 
propose extending rights  of access  to  all  freight  services, including the possibility of 
cabotage. 

9 

10 

Preface to the 2000 report of the International Union of Rail/Road Transport Companies (UIRR). 
Addressing a meeting at the French National Assembly on 8 June 2000. 

28 

As  for  the  possibility of extending  access  to  international  passenger services,  which 
account  for  around  6%  of all  passenger-kilometres,  this  will  ~ave to  be  achieved 
gradually.  The  Commission  will  give  particular priority  to  opening  up· competition 
on lines where a monopoly exists and will see to it that the lack of competition which 
could eventually emerge on certain intra-Community routes does not end in  abuse of 
a dominant position and excessive fares. 

·, 

In this context, in 2001  the Commission will  submit a further package of measures 
to  create a  genuine internal rail market. The package will have to take account 
of general interest tasks and of economic and territorial cohesion, and will hinge 
around: 

- opening up _the  national freight markets to cabotage; 

I 

-

setting  high  safety  standards  for  the  rail  network,  based  on·  regulations 
established by an  independent body and on clear definition  of the  responsibilities 
of  each  player  involved  in  order  to  ensure  smooth  operation  of this  market  in 
which several operators will share the same stretches of the network (see below); 

- updating 

the 

technical 
requirements  and  provisions  on  use  of  all  components  of  the  high-speed  and 
conventional railway networks; 

Interoperability  Directives 

to  harmonise 

the 

- gradual opening-up of international passenger services; 

promotion  of  measures  to  safeguard  the  quality  of  rail  services  and  users' 
rights.  In  particular,  a  directive  will  be  proposed  to  fay  down  the  terms  of 
compensation  in  the event of delays  or failure  to  meet  service obligations.  Other 
measures  on  the  development  of  service  quality  indicators,  terms  of  contract, 
transparency  of  information  for  passengers  and  mechanisms  for  out-of-court 
settlement of disputes will also be envisaged; 

creation of a Community structure for safety and interoperability. 

In  addition, the Commission  will  start round-table talks  with  the railway- industry to 
examine  ways  of reducing  air  pollution  and  noise,  as  it  did  with  carmakers  in  the 
"Auto-Oil"  programme.  At  the  moment  13%  of rail  traffic. in  the  Union  is  diesel 
powered. 

No railway system can be fully competitive unless all  matters relating to the removal 
of technical barriers to trade in trains  and to their interoperability - i.e.  their ability 
to run on ariy stretch of the network - are resolved first.  In particular, although goods 
wagons  and  a  large  proportion  of  passenger  caqiages ·have,  for  decades,  been 
technically capable of travelling from  Sicily to Scandiriavia, the  same cannot be said 
of  locomotives,  which  suffer  numerous  constraints  concerning  electrification  and 
signalling systems. I I  Significant differences remain between the networks in Europe, 
most of which were built ·from a national perspective and which have long played on 
these  differences  to  protect  their  own  interests  or  those  of  their  national  railway 
industry. 

II 

The benefits of interoperability are estimated at 30% of the cost of rolling stock. 

29 

•  Main  electrification systems on  the trans-European rail  network in  Europe 

9/2001 

11/9/2001 

1:17500000 

*).:J 

:~----'~./·~ 

• 

.. , 

- --·--·  :~~~  ~ 

~. 

: -

c:J 750  V di~ect current 

D 

1.SkV dired current 

D 

D 

15kV 16  2/3  Hz alternating current 

c:J  25 kV 50 Hz alternating current 

3kV  direct current 

D  Not  electrifi~ 

••••200c===400••••600• . Kibrreters 

This  handicapped  the  development  of  rail  transport,  at  a  time  when  road  was 
capitalising on  its  freedom  from  technical  barriers  to  fuel  its  development.  The  net 
result  is  that  these  differences  have  perpetuated several  compartmentalised  markets 
instead  of  a  single  network.  The  wide  availability  of  multi-current  locomotives 
(capable of operating at  different  voltages)  is  already  making railway  services  more 
flexible,  but  not  all 
technical 
harmonisation will cost tens of billions of euros. 

the·  problems·  have  yet  been  resolved.  This 

• 

To help change national  traditions in  social  matters which could become an  obstacle 
to  interoperability,  it  would be  useful  to  provide  accompanying  social  measures  for 
staff  so  as  to  improve  the  general  level  of qualifications.  The  resulting  European 
level  solutions  on  working  conditions,  particularly  driving  time  and  rest  periods, 
would offer definite  added value  compared  with  the  national  rules.  Employers' an.d 
employees'  organisations  would  also  be  involved  in.  producing  the  technical 
specifications for interoperability wherever social aspects are involved. 

Since  the  end  of last  year  interoperable  type  BB  36000  (France)  and. E402  B  (Italy) 
locomotives capable of running on the French and Italian networks alike have been in use -
for the time being on an experimental basis - on the Lyon-Turin line.  This  new rolling stock 
has  cut  waiting  time  at  the  frontier  to  15  minutes for  some  trains,  compared  with  an 
average of an hour and a half for the rest.  However,  the potential of this new rolling stock 
is limited by a number of factors: 

-

two drivers are needed on the  Italian side,  against one on the· French side,  which forces 
the  train  to  stop  at  Modane,  even  though  the  transport  papers  are  now  processed 
electronically; 

- French train drivers are not authorised on the Italian network and vice versa; 

-

-

the passing tracks  are  of different  length,  which  sometimes  makes  it  necessary to  split 
trains  in  llt:a,  wasting considerable  time;  the  traffic  regulations  also  differ,  with  1 150 
tonnes authorised on the  Italian  railways,  compared with  1 000 tonnes  in  France,  with 
the same result; 

at the moment,  there are only a limited number of interoperable locomotives.  Because of 
their design,  Italian locomotives can operate at only half power on the  1 500 volt supply 
in France. 

, 

Maps of the main rail electrification systems in_Europe 

In  this context, deployment of the ERTMS system 12  developed since the early  1990s 
under the Community framework-programmes  of research marks a considerable step 
forward  in  network  and  system  interoperability.  Moreover,  use  of the  ERTMS  has 
been  made  a  condition  for  Community  co-financing  of  rail  infrastructure  and 
equipment.  Telematic  applications  such  as  interconnection  of  seat  reservation 
systems, real-time information systems or even the possibility of on-board telephone 
communications are all options which need to be developed on a larger scale in order 
to make the railway sector more competitive. 

12 

European Rail Traffic Management System. 

30 

Technological research  also needs to be carried out to  support rail  interoperability. It 
needs  to  focus  on  integrating  track  design  and  construction  characteristics  and  on 
rolling stock specifications, to ensure safe, clean, economically viable operations. 

b)  Guaranteeing rail safety 

Rail  has  always  been  far  safer than  road.  This -is  reflected  in  the  safety  statistics, 
which  show  a  very  marked  improvement  in  passenger  safety,  with  the  number  of 
fatalities falling from 381  in  1970 to 93  in  1996, when,  by way of comparison, there 
were some 43 500 deaths  on  the  roads.  Despite these encouraging figures,  a number 
of dramatic  train  accidents  over the  last  three  years  have  alerted public  opinion  and 
the  authorities  to  rail  safety.  The  growing  demand  for  international  services  in  the 
context  of network  and  system  interoperability  combined  with  the  opening  of the 
rail  safety  first. 
·market  has 
Interoperability must guarantee a  level  of safety at least equal to,  if not higher 
than, that achieved today in the national context. That is  why the Directive on the 
interoperability of the high-s~eed rail  system 13  and the recently adopted Directive on 
the  conventional  rail  system  4  both  list  safety  amongst  the  essential  requirements 
for operation of the trans-European railway system. 

therefore  meant 

the  approach 

rethinking 

to 

This entails simultaneous action at two levels: 

at  technical  level,  standards  need  to  be  set  for  each  component  of the  railway 
system (track, rolling stock, signalling system, operating procedures, etc.). This is 
the role of the "Interoperability Directives"; 

at  administrative  level,  duties  and  responsibilities  need  to  be  established  for  all 
stakeholders, from  the  infrastructure managers to the  Community authorities,  and 
including the railway undertakings  and the national  authorities. This is  the role of 
the  "Safety  Directive"  which  will  be  proposed  in  the  near  future.  In  this 
connection,  consideration  will  be  given  to  establishing  a  Community structure 
for rail safety to look after the technical coordination of all these measures. 

SAFETRAIN: passive safety technologies for rail vehicles 

The  SAFETRAIN project is a good example of technological research to  support transport 
policy.  Its results have been taken into account, following a dynamic  validation test,  by the 
European Association for Interoperability  in  the  Rail Sector  (AEIF),  which  is  responsible 
for  implementing Directive  96148/EC  of 23  July  1996  (the  "Interoperability  Directive"). 
SAFETRAIN has provided the  scientific  expertise  necessary for  the  mandatory  technical 
specifications on the  mechanical characteristics of rolling stock.  The project has produced 
significant  improvements  in  the  strength  of passenger  compartments  and of the  driver's 
survival  space  at  the  front  of trains,  without  any  adverse  effect  on  weight  or  energy 
consumption. 

\ 

13 

14 

Council  Directive  96/48/EC  C?f  23  July  1996  on  the  interoperability  of the  trans-European  high-;speed 
rail system. 
Directive 2001116/EC on the  interoperability of the  trans-European conventional rail  system.  OJ L  110 
of20 April 2001. 

31 

2. Making optimum use of the infrastructure 

A  sign  of the  decline  in  rail  transport  is  that  over  the  last  30  years  an  average  of 
600 km  of railway  lines  have  been  closed  each  year  in  Europe,  while  at  the  same 
time the motorway network was increasing by 1 200 km  a  year.  Of the thousands of 
kilometres  of lines  which  ha~e been  closed to  traffic,  or even  dismantled,  there  are 
branches  and  lines  which  today  would have  been  extremely  useful  for  coping  with 
saturation on parts of the rail network. 

~ 

With  an  interoperable  trans-European  network  gradually  being  put  together  and 
traffic  growth  expected to  rise,  we need to  look  again,  from  a  truly  trans-European 
perspective, at how the networks are organised and how they can be better integrated. -
The  rail  market  shows  the  greatest  potential  for  growth  _9ver  long  distances. 
Successful reorganisation means making optimum use of the existing capacity. 

Mu~h railway infrastructure was designed and built between the middle and the end 
of  the  19th  century,  with  an  eye  to  national  or  even  regional  requirements.  This 
infrastructure is no ionger able to cope with the growth in traffic  and, in recent years, 
more  and more  bottlenecks  have  formed  in  the  vicinity  of the  largest conurbations, 
where  trains  of  different  types  - goods,  local  or  long-distance  - share  the  same 
infrastructure.  Priority  is  given  to  passenger  trains,  with  the  result  that  goods 
consignors have lost confidence in the railways. 

If rail  transport  of goods  in  Europe  is  to  recover,  efficient  international  train 
paths will have to  be allocated to freight,  either in the form  of infrastructure or 
as time slots. Measures such as this can hardly be ordered at Community level in the 
short  term,  but  all  measures  taken  at  national_  level  should  be  directed towards  this 
objective. Construction of the high-speed net~ork, for instance, is helping attain thi.s 
·_objective:  the  new  lines  brought  into  service  will  absorb  some  of the  traffic  from 
conventional lines, which currently carry all the traffic. 

From opening-up the  market to building a dedicated Europeanfreight network 

Directive  2001112/EC  defines  a  Trans-European  Rail  Freight  Network  (TERFN) 
comprising  approximately  50 000 km  of line  open  to  European  freight  services  by  2003. 
Any  European  company  holding  a  licence  may  use  these  lines  and  compete  with  other 
companies  by  offering  new  services.  As  of 2008,  however,  the  European  freight  services 
market  will  be  opened  up  over  the  whole  150 000  km  network.  The  TERFN  is  just  an 
interim solution.  . 

Another  trans-European  rail  network  was  identified  in  the  guidelines  adopted  by  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  1996  in  Decision  No 1692/96,  which  the 
Commission proposes to revise in order to eliminate bottlenecks. This network provides the 
reference framework for European and national infrastructure funding. 

This infrastructure network must be distinguished from  the  specific  network defined in the 
Directive on opening up the market. The two networks are not strictly identical. As the map 
below  shows,  some  lines  that  will  shortly  be  opened  up  to  competition  are not part  of the 
trans-European infrastructure network (shown  in  blue).  In  the  same  way,  some parts of the 
infrastructure network, though potentially important to freight and port connections, such as 
the  Brest-Rennes  line  (France),  will  not  necessarily  be  opened° up  to  competition  by  2003 
(shown in green). The lack of consistency between the two is evident. 

The  above  mentioned  revision  includes  proposals  to  include  a number of TERFN  lines  in 

32 

• 

Transeuropean  Rail  Freight Network 

11/9/2001 

1:17500000 

Lines open to  European fret services  in  2003 and included in the  transeuropean rail network 

Other lines of the transeuropean rail network 

Other lines open to European services in 2003 

0 

200 

--c::::===---

400 

600  Kilometers 

the outline plan for the rail network to make them eligible for European aid. There are thus 
proposals, at  the  request of the  countries concerned,  to  include  approximately  2 000 km  of 
the  rail  network,  such  as  the  Boulogne-Reims  line  in  France  or  the  Rimini-Parma  line 
bypassing the Bologna railway junction in Italy. 

Some  of  the  regions  linked  to  the  trans-European  infrastructure  network,  particularly 
coastal regions, will find  it  useful to take advantage of the opening of the market as quickly 
as possible in order to develop their hinterland. Some countries would be well advised to go 
beyond the TERFN and open up lines in these areas to competition, particularly port access 
routes  to provide European  operators  with  easier port access.  Accordingly,  when  selecting 
.infrastructure  projects  to  receive  Community  support,  the  Commission  will  consider  the 
extent to which the line has been opened to competition. 

Map of the trans-European rail freight network 

Optimum  use  of  existing  infrastructure  also  means  taking  account  of  the  noise 
generated  by  railway  vehicles.  Recent  estimates  by  the  European  Environment 
Agency  put  the  number  of people  disturbed  by  train  noise  at  three  miliion. 15  The· 
Interoperability  Directives  therefore  provide  for  limits  on  noise  emissions  from 
rolling stock. 

3. Modernisation of services 

At  the  end  of the  1990s,  to  respond  to  the  challenge  of traffic  growth  by  offering 
integrated  services,  some  railway  companies  started  developing  the  principle  of 
international cooperation, particularly on international routes. This was only partially 
successful,  as  it  proved  impossible  to  solve  a  host  of  operating  problems  which 
prevented the continuity of traffic  across  borders.  Nor did these efforts  result in  any 
fundamental qualitative changes in company organisation. 

As  a result the standard of services which the railways can  provide for shippers is  in 
most  cases  considerably  below  industry's  requirements  in  terms  of  punctuality, 
reliability and speed -

requirements which can, however, be met by road transport. 

With  passenger  transport,  on  the  other  hand,  railways  were  able  to·  innovate  in 
order  to  face· up  to  cnmpetition  from  other  modes,  and  volumes  increased  from 
217 billion  passenger/kilometres  in  1970  to  290  in  1998.  Even  so,  the  railways' 
market share fell from 10% to 6% on account of the much larger increases in private 
in  terms  of 
car  and  air  transport.  Air  traffic  volumes  are  similar  to  rail 
passenger/kilometres. 

However,  the  success· of new  high-speed  rail  services  has  resulted  in  a  significant 
increase in long-distance passenger transport. Also the regional  development policies 
which  several  Member  States  have  implemented  over  the  last  decade  to  improve 
local  services  have  increased  train  use.  However,  in  some  countries  inter-city .rail 
users consider the quality of services to be mediocre. 16 

15 

16 

The same study estimated the _number of people disturbed by road and air traffic  noise at 24 milliqn and 
40 million respectively. 
Only 46. l % of German rail  users are satisfied  with  the  service;  the Community average is  around 57%. 
Source: Eurobarometer No 53, September 2000. 

33 

The  same  applies  to  rail  freight  services.  Over the  last  18  months,  there  have  been 
worrying developments in  freight movements from  the Iberian peninsula to  Northern 
Europe  via  France.  Large  numbers  of car part~ are  carried  on  this  route,  mainly by 
trucks.  Although  a number of competitive combined and rail-only transport  services 
were  set  up,  some  of them  have  been  compromised  by a  recent  deterioration  in  the 
quality of the rail  freight service, and a number of car manufacturers have reverted to 
road transport services.  On  top  of the  problem of track gauge  differences,  this  is  the 
result  of inadequate  numbers  of locomotives  and  drivers,  some  persistent  internal 
organisational  problems  and  a  number  of  social  disputes.  Any  compensation  for 
delays  is  proving  insufficient  to  offset  the  real  damages  suffered  by  clients, 
especially when  they have to shut down  a production  line  for hours  on  end or make 
last  minute  arrangements  for  the  urgent  delivery  of goods  by  air or road  instead  of· 
the  unreliable  rail  service.  The  only  way  to  gain  the  confidence  of  clients  when 
dealing with this type of high added-value product is to provide a reliable service. 

Fiction or prediction? Rail transport in 2010 

The railway companies enjoy access to the railway network on equal terms, published by 
the infrastructure  managers:  capacity  is  allocated  in  real  time  with  reference  to the  entire 
European network, and charging principles are harmonised. 

Railway  equipment  manufacturers  ought  to  be  benefiting  from  the  introduction  of 
Community  provisions  on  the  interoperability  of  the  railway  system  to  gain  non 
discriminatory access to the European market and enjoy the possibility of using innovative 
technology rapidly. 

Engine  drivers  can  drive  anywhere  on  the  trans-European  network  and  are  trained  for 
European routes at European training centres open to all railway companies. 

The national infrastructure managers are organised at European level and jointly decide 
the  conditions for access to  the  network.  Observing the competition rules,  they decide on 
investment priorities together and establish a dedicated infrastructure network exclusively 
for goods. 

The  railway  regulators  meet  regularly  to  exchange  information  on  the  development  of 
the rail market and propose measures to adapt to competition from other modes. 

All  rail  operators  offer  travellers  integrated  online  services  covering  information, 
bookings and payment for both leisure and business travel. 

The  European  network  offers  high  safety  standards,  backed  up  by  a  Community 
structure responsible for ongoing appraisal of safety levels in the European rail system and 
for  recommending  any  improvements  necessary.  An  independent  body  investigates  any 
accidents  or incidents  on  the  network and  makes  appropriate recommendations  to  reduce 
the risks. 

Train punctuality  is  guaranteed  and  passengers  and  customers  receive  compensation  if 
trains run late. 

Average  speeds  for  international  goods  trains  in  Europe  are  up  to  80  km/h,  four 
times faster than in the year 2000. 

14 

C. 

Controlling the grow_th  in air transport 

Of all the different modes, air transport has shown by far the largest increase over the 
last  twenty  years.  Expressed . in  passenger/kilometres,  air  traffic  has  increased  by 
7.4%  a  year on  average  since  1980,  while  the  traffic  handled by  the  airports  of the 
Fifteen has shown a five-fold increase since 1970. 17 

Every  day,  more  than  25 000  aircraft  fly  the  skies  above  Europe,  and  judging  by 
growth  trends  this  figure  can  be  expected  to  double  every  ten  to  fourteen  years. 
Though  the  skies  are  vast,_  this  traffic  density  poses  some  real  problems.  The 
increasing number of delays is a clear sign of saturation. 18 

Yet airlines expect air traffic almost to double by 2010. To sustain such grow.th,  a air 
traffic  management  will  need  to  be  reformed  and  sufficient  airport  capacity 
guaranteed in the enlarged European Union. 

I 

1. Tackling saturation of the skies 

The idea behind hub and spoke networks is  to  allow  a number of different flights  to 
arrive  at  an  airport  around the same time,  so as  to  allow  connections with  minimum 
delay. Replacement of direct flights by indirect flights via hub airports has resulted in 
a reduction  in  the  average size of aircraft,  since  airlines  prefer. to  run  more frequent 
flights  rather than  have a  more limited schedule  using larger aircraft.  Unfortunately, 
not only does this cause congestion on the ground; it also means that far more effort 
is necessary to control all the aircraft trying to use a limite.ci amount of space. 

Different problems are. caused by "en route"  traffic,  i.e.  flights  in  the upper airspace 
where aircraft reach their cruising speed.  Aircraft use corridors which give air traffic 
controllers  an  accurate view of the traffic  situation.  However, these corridors do not 
always  follow  the  most  rational  paths  because  they  reflect  constraints  arising  from 
national organisation of airspace, such as  the positioning of military zones, or lack of 
coordination  regarding  the  vertical  division  of  airspace  over  different  areas  of 
national territory. 

In  addition, air navigation services are responsible for national airspace. There is still 
considerable  diversity  between  air  traffic  control  systems  and  regulations,  which 
makes it extremely difficult to coordinate operations. 

Partitioning of Europe's skies 

A  plane flying from  the  United Kingdom  to  France  has  to fly  at  two  different  altitudes: 
over British  territory  it flies  at  24  500 feet  and then  has  to  drop  to  19  500 feet  when  it 
enters French airspace. 

· 

The  European  air traffic control system is divided up  into  26 subsystems consisting of 58 
en route control centres.  This is three times as many as for a comparable area in the  USA. 

The.  Union  is  handicapped  by  air  traffic  control  still  be_ing  insufficiently 
integrated.  It  is  true  that  effective  cooperation  between  the  various  services  via 

17 

18 

The proportion of passeng~r transport accounted for  by air is  set to double between  1990 and 2010 from 
4% to 8%  (it was 5% in  1998). 
There were bad delays in 2000: one flight  in six was late,  with  an average delay of 22 minutes. 

35 

9  has  eased  the  passage  of  aircraft  between  national  airspaces. 
Eurocontrol 1
Nonetheless, the current air traffic control system is limited by the intergovernmental 
nature  of  Eurocontrol,  itself  limited  by  a  decision-making  system  based  on 
consensus,  insufficient  means  of control,  lack  of powers  to  impose  sanctions,  and  a 
confusion  between  its  regulatory  responsibilities  and  its  responsibilities  as  service 
provider. Since the  organisation is both  umpire and player, there is  no guarantee that 
its decisions will always be impartial. 

Creation  of  the  Single  European  Sky  is  one  of  the  European  Union's  current 
priorities,  as  emphasised  by  the  European  Council  on  several  occasions,20 
particularly in Stockholm, and by the European Parliament.21 

A  High  Level  Group  of representatives  of the  civil  and  military  authorities  in  the 
Member  States  and  chaired  by  the  Commission  Vice-President  responsible  for 
energy and  transport  has  come  up  with  guidelines  for  a  fundamental  reorganisation 
-of air traffic control in Europe. 22 

To  overcome  the  current  over-fragmentation  of the  air  traffic  management  system, 
Community rules on air traffic control are needed. 

-

To follow  up  the  report from  the High Level  Group, the European  Commission will 
in  2001  propose  that  the European  Union should  create a  single sky  by 2004  by 
adopting: 

A  regulatory  framework  to  ensure  that  aircraft  crossing  the  airspace  of  the 
enlarged  Community  follow  harmonised  procedures,  use  regulation  equipment 
and  observe  common  rules  on  use  of  airspace.  A  Community  regulator  with 
adequate  resources  will  set  objectives  allowing  traffic  growth  while  maintaining 
safety. This regulator must have powers over a more uniform airspace, defined as 
a common resource and managed as a continuum, starting with the upper airspace. 

- A mechanism enabling the military to maintain defence capabilities while  using 
channels for cooperation to ensure more efficient overall organisation of airspace. 
The objective is to achieve genuine joint civil/military management of airspace. 

Social  dialogue  with  the  social  partners,  possibly  starting  with  air  traffic 
controllers,  based  on  experience  in  other  sectors,  allowing  concertation  on  the 
common  aviation  policy  where  the  latter  has  considerable  social  impact.  This -
dialogue could lead to agreements between the organisations concerned. 

Cooperation  with  Eurocontrol  to  draw  on  its  know-how  and  expertise  to 
develop and administer the  Community rules. The objective will  be to ensure that 
the  European  Union's  regulatory  powers  and  the  expertise  available  within 
Eurocontrol genuinely complement each other. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Eurocontrol is the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation,  which  was set up  in  1960. It 
is an intergovernmental organisation and currently has 30 members. 
European  Councils  in  Lisbon  (23-24  March  2000),  Santa  Maria  Da  Feira  (19-20  June  2000)  and 
Stockholm (23-24 March 200~). 
Report  by  Sir  Robert  Atkins  on  the  communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament on the creation of the Single European Sky, 26 May 2000 (PE 232.935). 
Report of the High Level Group on the Single European Sky, November 2000. 

. 

36 

A surveillance, inspection and penalties system ensuring effective enforcement 
of the rules. 

Legislation  will  be  proposed  on  the  provision  of  services  (particularly  on  mutual 
acceptance of authorisations granted by Member States, to guarantee provision of air 
traffic  control  services  and  to  keep  control  of charges),  on  organisation  of airspace 
(particularly  to  create  an  upper  airspace  region  and  optimum  cross-border  control 
sectors) and on equipment interoperability. 

Ultimately,  however,  the  real  capacity  gains  must  come  from  modernisation  of 
working  methods  and  equipment.  Besides  the  measures  needed  to  reorganise 
airspace,  investment in  research  and in- control  centre equipment must be  bac~ed up 
by  an  effort to rnake  sufficient human  resources  available.  For while  the  Union  has 
some very highly qualified air traffic controllers to deal  with  air traffic safety, it also 
has  a chronic shortage of control tower operators. 23  It is  often difficult to ensure that 
·there  are  enough  air  traffic  controllers  in  all  control  centres  to  handle  traffic 
management.  In  addition,  dispa.rities  in  procedures  and  training  rule  out  any  real 
mobility  of  A TC  staff  within  Europe.  One  solution  could  be  to  introduce  a 
Community licence for air traffic controllers. 

2. Rethinking airport capacity and use 

In response to the growth in traffic, it is time to rethink how  airports operate in order 
to  make  optimum  use  of existing  capacity.  However,  this  will  not  be  enough  and 
Europe will  not be able to  cope without new  airport infrastructure, including in 
the candidate countries, few  of which have sufficient capacity to cope with the traffic 
growth  which  enlargement  will  inevitably  bring.  This  is  also  one'" of  the  key 
conditions  for  saving  airlines  from  losing  competitiveness  against  their  rivals, 
particularly from  North  America.  The  turnover of the  largest European  company  is 
not as much as that of the fourth largest American company. 24 

The current struct~re of the air transport system prompts airlines to concentrate their 
activities  on major airports which  they tum  into hubs for  their intra-Community and 
international  activities.  Congestion then  centres  around the  big hub airports, with  all 
the consequent pollution and air traffic management problems. 

There  is  already  a  specific  action  plan  on  congestion  of the  sky,  but  congestion  on 
the  ground  is  not  yet  receiving  the  necessary  attention  or commitment.  Yet  almost. 
half of Europe's  50  largest  airports  have  already  reached  or  are  close  to  reaching 
saturation  point  in  terms  of  ground  capacity.  Such  airports  are  calling  for  further 
efforts  to  develop  integrated  management  _and  control  systems  to  ensure  airport 
efficiency and safety. 

23 

24 

There is  a current shortage of between  800  and  1600 air traffic  controllers  out of a  total  of 15 000 for 
the  whole -of the  Union.  The  number  of controllers  has  not  kept  keep  pace  with  traffic  increases.  One 
particularly disturbing aspect  is  that  a  third  of today's air traffic  controllers  are  expected to  be retiring 
between  now  and  2010  (report  by  the  High  Level  Working  Group  on  the  Single  European  Sky, 
November 2000. 
In 2000,  American  Airlines,  the  world's  largest  company,  recorded  a  turnover  of USD  19.7  billion, 
Federal  Express,  the  fourth  largest  company,  USD  15.6  billion,  and  Lufthansa,  the  largest  European 
group, made USD  13.3 billion. 

. 

. 

37 

More efficient use of airport capacity means defining a new regulatory framework: 

- While the single sky is being created, the rules on slot allocation at airports will  have to 
be amended,  as  recently proposed by  the Commission.  In particular,  measures  must be 
taken  to  ensure  consistent  planning  of  airspace  and  airport  capacity.  Airport  slots 
granting  the  right  to  take  off or land  at  a  specific  time  at  a congested  airport  must  be 
correlated  with  the  airspace  capacity  available.  If adopted,  the  Commission's  proposal 
should contribute to  time  slot management,  in  particular by  allowing  more transparent 
exchanges  of slots,  immediate  penalties  in  the  event  of non-use  of slots  and,  finally, 
clearer criteria for allocation priorities. The second stage  must be for the regulations to 
move  towards  greater  flexibility,  inter  alia  with  recourse  to  market  mechanisms.  To 
this  end,  the  Commission  will  in  2003  - following  a  new  study  and  consultation  oft 
interested  parties  - propose  further  revision  of  the  slot  allocation  system  to  allow 
greater  access  to  the  marke_t,  while  taking  account  of  the  need  to  reduce  the 
environmental impact of Community airports. 

- Airport charges must be adjusted to deter bunching of flights at certain times of day. 

- Environmental  rules  must  encourage  efforts  to  find  alternative  measures  before 

restricting operators at an airport. 

-

Intermodality  with  rail  must  produce  significant  Gapacity  gains  by  transfonning 
competition between rail and air into complementary between the two modes, with high 
speed train connections  between cities.  We can no longer think of maintaining air links 
to  destinations for  where there  is  a competitive  high-speed  rail "alternative.  In this  way, 
capacity could be transferred to routes where no high-speed rail service exists.25 
·------------------------------------------------------
More efficient, more rational use of airports will not obviate the need for increases in 
capacity.  The  fact  is  that  new  airport  projects  are  few  in  number  (Lisbon,  Berlin, 
Paris). 

. 

Today the stated priority is thus to limit the construction of new airports, for which it 
is hard to gain public support, and to seek to rationalise traffic  with the aid of the air 
traffic  management  regulations  and  the  use  of larger  aircraft.  In  so  doing,  there  is 
another  risk,  namely  of neglecting  the  sizeable  group  of users  of regional  lines  to 
destinations  with  no  high-speed  train  service.  To  cater  for  them,  the  current 
preference for major infrastructure must  be  adjusted to maintain  "air taxis"  between 
regional  centres and between such centres and hub airports  where no alternative rail 
services  exist.  More  generally,  it  is  clear that  the  policy-makers  will  not  be  able  to 
find  a  way  out  of  building  new  runways  or  new  airports,  long-term  investments 
which will require proper planning at European level over the next twenty years. 

In response  to  the congestion  at  most major European airports,  airlines  must seek to 
maximise  the  number  of  passengers  carried  per  flight  and,  hence,  aircraft  size. 
However, organisation around a  hub has  the opposite effect, with  airlines tending to 
opt  for  higher  frequency  with  medium-capacity  aircraft  in  preference  to  a  limited 
service with large planes. 

Medium-capacity aircraft can  be expected to continue to predominate on most intra 
Community flights.  By contrast, on high-density long-haul  flights  many airlines will 
probably opt for very large aircraft. The Airbus A380 is the first example of what the 

25 

For  example,  there  are  plans  for  the  new  Turin-Milan  high-speed  line  to  include  a  connection  to 
Malpensa airport. 

38 

industry  is  preparing  for 

next  generation  of  aircraft  will  probably  look  like:  large  carriers  capable  of 
this. 26
transporting  more  passengers.  The  aviation 
-
Nevertheless,  intensive  use  of such  large  carriers  will  pose  a  number  of problems. 
First,  airp9rts  must  be  adapted  to  cope  with  such  aircraft  - embarkation  and 
disembarkation of 500 to 600 passengers instead of 150 to 200 poses a greater strain 
on  organisation  of  baggage  delivery,  security  checks,  customs  formalities  and 
passenger  reception  at  airports.  And,  of course,  use  of  such  large  carriers  will  do 
nothing  to  reduce connecting traffic,  since  passengers  taking  these  new  aircraft will 
have  to  continue  their journey,  thus  creating  an  even  more  acute  need  for  efficient 
intermodality. 

Turning to the legal  status of airports, ·another factor to take into account !s the shift -
towards  privatisation  which  has  now  started  in  Europe.  At  this  stage  it  is  hard  to 
assess  what impact this  will  have  on  capacity.  In  any  event,  this  trend must be kept 
under control  given  the  de facto  monopoly  held  by airports.  In  particular,  care  will 
have  to  be  taken  to  make  airport  charges  actually  correspond  to  the  services 
provided.  For  thi~  reason,  the  Commission  has  long  been  proposing  a  framework 
laying down the principles governing airport charges. 

3. Striking a balance between growth in air transport and the environment 

Air transport is having growing problems gaining acceptance, particularly from local 
residents  who  suffer from  the  noise  generated by airports.  Introduction  of measures 
to reduce noise and gaseous emissions27  caused by air traffic  is a sine qua non if the_ 
industry  is  to  continue  to  grow.  However,  such  an  exercise  is  difficult  since  the 
European  Union  has  little  room  for  manoeuvre:  in  particular,  account  must  be 
taken  of  the  international  commitments  entered  into  by  the  Member- States 
within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 

The  Community  has  taken  specific  actio_n  by  adopting  the  "Hushkits  Regulation"28 
the_ simple purpose of which was to ban from Europe hushkitted aircraft (old aircraft 
whose  noise  performance  has  been  improved  but  still  falls  short  of  acceptable 
standards).  Nevertheless,  this  limited measure has  been contested by the USA and a 
dispute  settlement procedure  is  now  under way  before  the  ICAO.  Unless  ambitious 
new  noise  standards  are  rapidly  introduced  internationally  to  prevent  further 
degradation of the plight of local residents, there is  a great risk that airports could be 
deprived of any possibility of growth  (limitation of the number of flights  authorised) 
or  be  forced  to  apply  varying  local  bans  on  the  noisiest  aircraft.  The  next  ICAO 
Assembly in September/October 2001  should therefore adopt a new noise standard to 
apply to all  aircraft to be brought into service in future. 29 If such a standard is to have 
a tangible impact over the next few  years, it must be backed up by a plan to phase out 
the  noisiest  aircraft  in  the  world fleet,  starting with  hushkitted aircraft.  By 2002 the 
ICAO  will  also  have  to  take  specific  measures  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions, 
one of the priorities stated in the Sixth Action Programme on the Environment. 

26 

27 

28 

29 

''The  Future  of European  Aerospace:  A  Shared  Vision  for·  2020":  report  presented  by  Mr  Philippe 
Busquin, January 2001. 
Flying from  Amsterdam to New York, an average aircraft emits one tonne of C02 per passenger. 
Regulation No 925/1999 of 2~ April  1999. 
The  next  noise  standard  is  expected  to  lower  the  limit  set  in  1977  by  lOdB  in  2006,  although  the 
technology  is  available  to  reduce  noise  levels  by  18dB.  Moreover, as  the  service  life of engines  grows 
longer, so does the time which it takes for the most efficient technologies to penetrate the market. 

. 

39 

Should aviation kerosene continue to enjoy a tax exemption? 

Airlines  enjoy substantial tax  exemptions,  particularly from  all  taxes  on  kerosene,  under 
international agreements. 30 This exemption for kerosene applies to  international and intra 
Community flights  alike.  However,  the  USA  has introduced a iax limited to  cargo  carried 
on domestic flights. 

This  tax  exemption for  fuel  provides  no  incentive for  airlines  to  use  the  most  efficient 
aircraft and to  contribute  to  reducing C02  emissions  (of which  air transport accounts for 
13%).  It  also  creates  situations  where  the  competition  between  air  transport  and other 
modes  is  unfair.  Taxation  of kerosene  lzas  long  been  under consideration  at European 
level,  especially since  the  Commission  communication  on  taxing aviation fuel.  The  Eco.fin 
Council  subsequently  approved  a  recommendation  that  Member  States  should,  in  close . 
cooperation with the Commission,  work together more closely within the International Civil 
Aviation  Organisation  with  a  view  to  introducing  an  aviation  fuel  tax,  and  other 
instruments  with  similar  effect.  The  European  Union  has  requested  - thus  far  without 
success - that this  issue  be  discussed within the  International Civil Aviation  Organisation. 
It will renew its efforts in this direction at the next !CAO Assembly. 

Without  calling  into  question  the  international  rules,  consideration  might  be  given  to 
abolishing the  tax exemption/or kerosene  on  intra-Community flights. 31  This path is by no 
means free  of problems  since  it  will  demand  equal  treatment  vis-a-vis  non-CommunitY 
carriers operating intra-Community flights.  Another option which {:ould be  explored,  as is 
done  already  in  Sweden,  could be  to  tax flights  only  where  an  alternative, for example  a 
high-speed train  service,  exists,  since this would allow a switch to  another mode,  whereas 
an across-the-board tax would simply lead to higher fares. 

As  an  additional  or  alternative  solution  the  Commission  proposes,  as  part  of the 
programme  to  create  the  single  sky,  to  introduce  differential  en  route  air  navigation 
charxes to take account of the environmental impact of aircraft. 32 

4. Maintaining safety standards 

Air transport is one of the safest modes. Nevertheless, the experts expect one serious 
accident a week, somewhere in the world, in the years ahead. The media coverage of 
such  accidents  could  become  the  one  factor  curbing  air  traffic  growth  in  Europe, 
even if the European Union can proudly point to the best safety record in the world. 

The current cooperation  between  the  Community and  the  administrations  of a  large 
number of European states, within the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), has  reached 
its  limits,  particularly  on  the  legislative  front,  for  lack  of  real  power.  The 
Commission  has  therefore  ~roposed the  establishment  of  a  European  Aviation 
Safety  Authority  (EASA)3  which  will  provide  the  essential  machinery  for  all 
aspects of air transport activities, from aircraft certification to the operational rules. 

However,  air  safety  does  not  end  at  the  Community's  frontiers  and  it  is  vital  that 
European  citizens  who  travel  or who  live  close  to  airports  can  be  sure  that  aircraft 
from  non-Community  countries  also  offer  all  the  guarantees  required.  For  this 

30 

31 

32 

33 

The Excise Duties Directive exempts kerosene used in aviation, in line with international practice based 
on the Chicago Convention. 
Own-initiative report by And~rs Wijkman, adopted on 28 February 2001. 
It might also be stressed that VAT is generally not included in air tickets but is  added to the ticket prices 
paid by rail  passengers. This point too will  have to be considered. 
COM(2000) 144. 

40 

reason,  the  Commission  will  submit  a  proposal  to  guarantee  minimum  safety 
conditions in  aircraft from non-Community countries as well. 

II. 

LINKING UP THE MODES OF TRANSPORT 

Shifting  the  balance  between  modes  involves  looking  beyond  the  rightfu_l  place  of 
each particular mode and securing intermodality. The biggest missing link is  the lack 
of a close connection  between  sea,  inland waterways  and rail.  For centuries  sea and 
river dominated  goods  transport  in  Europe.  Major towns. were  built  on  rivers  or on 
estuaries and the large trade fairs in the Middle Ages were always held at river or sea 
ports.  Nowadays,  despite  a  slight  revival,  water  transport  is  the  poor relation  even 
though it is a mode whicl;i  is not expensive and does less  damage to the environment 
than road transport. 34 

The European fleet  has  shrunk to the benefit of flags  of convenience,  and fewer and 
·fewer people want to become seafarers. There is a growing shortage of sailors in  the 
European Union. Since the beginning of the  1980s, the European Union has lost 40% 
of its seamen. There is a desperate need for merchant shipping officers.  Betwee~ now 
and  2006  the  Union  will  be  some  36 000  sailors  short.  If  properly  trained  and 
competent, sailors ensure the safety of shipping, efficient operation of vessels, proper 
maintenance,  and  reductions  in  the  number  of  accidents  and  victims,  and  in  sea 
pollution.  Finally,  there  are ·strategic  implications  relating  to· the  Community's  oil 
supply;· the European  Union  requires  shipping know-how  in  order to  maintain  strict 
control over its tanker fleet. 

For all  that,  ships  carry over two-thirds  (70%)  of all  trade  between  the  Community 
and the rest of the world.  Each year,  some two billion tonnes of different goods pass 
through  European  ports.  These  goods  are  essential  for  the  European  economy  and 
trade  with  other  parts  of  the  world  (hydrocarbons,  solid  and  mineral  fuels,  and 
manufactured products). 

-

Paradoxically,  we  have  not  seen  the  same  growth  in  cabotage  between  European 
ports, even though this could ease congestion within the Community, particularly by 
bypassing  the  Alps  and  the  Pyrenees.  The  fact  is,  though,  that  short-sea  shipping 
cannot  offer  a  real  alternative  solution  unless  the  goods  can  then  be  carried  by 
waterway and rail  instead of by road.  Generally, intermodality must be given  a firm, 
practical shape; 

The  proposal  is  to  launch  a  large-scale  programme -(Marco  Polo)  to  support 
intermodal  initiatives  and  alternatives  to  road transport in  the  early stages  until  they 
become commercially  viable.  Intermodality  will  also  require  rapid  introduction  of a 
series  of  technical  measures,  particularly  on  containers,  loading  units  and  the 
profession of freight integrator. 

34 

Sea  transport  must  also  wor~ to  reduc~ emissions  of pollutants  from  ships,  particularly  SOx:  It  is 
regrettable,  in  this  connection,  _that  not  all  Member  States  have  yet  ratified  Annex VI  to  the  Marpol 
Convention, which  r~stricts emissions of used  sulphur and  introduces control  mechanisms in  the  North 
Sea and the Baltic. 

41 

A. 

Linking up sea,  inland waterways and rail 

Intra-Community  maritime  transport  and  inland  waterway  transport  are  two  key 
components  of  intermodality  which  must  provide  a  means  of  coping  with  the 
growing congestion  of road  and  rail  infrastructure  and  of tackling  air pollution.  Up 
until  now  these  two  modes  have  been  underused,  even  though  the  Community  has 
huge  potential  (35 000  km  of coastline  and  hundreds  of sea  and  river  ports)  and 
virtually unlimited transport capacity. 

The  way  to  revive  them  is  to  build  motorways  of  the  sea  and  offer  efficient, 
simplified  services.  To  help  to  establish  this  trans-European  shipping  network, 
priority should be given at national leveJ  to ports which have good connections to the 
inland network,  particularly along the Atlantic  and Mediterranean coasts,  and which 
could form part of an  authentic logistics chain. 

1. Developing "motorways of the sea" 

Short-distance shipping has been  around for a very long time:  there are thousands of 
wrecked  vessels  around  the  Mediterranean  dating  back  to  Roman  times.  Short-sea 
shipping carries 41 % of goods traffic within the Community. 35  It is the only mode of 
goods transport with a growth rate between  1990 and 1998 (+ 27%) approaching that 
of  road  transport  ( + 35% ).  In  millions  of  tonne-kilometres,· the  volume  of  trade 
carried  between  1970  and  1998  increased  by  2.5,  representing  44%  of  the  total 
volume and 23% of the total value of the goods transported within Europe. There are 
examples of efficient services between southern Sweden and Hamburg,  between the 
ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam, and between south-east England and the inland port 
of Duisburg.  But  the  current  volume  of  traffic  in  Europe  is  well  below  potential 
capacity.  Sea transport  is ·not  just a  means  of carrying  goods  from  one  continent to 
another; it is a real competitive alternative to land transport. 

For container traffic,  a year ago an Italian company launched a fast ferry service to  carry 
whole  lorries  (trailer plus traction  unit) from  Genoa  to  Barcelona  in  12 hours.  This  new 
service  offering  speed  and punctuality  has  been  a  marked  success,  allowing  haulage 
companies  to  avoid some  of the  busiest  motorways  in  Europe  at  a  competitive  cost.  This 
example  could be  followed for  other  destinations.  It  combines  the  capacity  of maritime 
transport with the flexibility of road 36 

For  this  reason,  certain  shipping  links,  particularly  those  providing  a  way 
around  the  bottlenecks  in  the  Alps  and  Pyrenees,  should  be  made  part of the 
trans-European  network,  just  like  motorways  or  railways.  At  national  level, 
shipping routes  between  European  ports  will  have  to be chosen  to  create  networks, 
for example between France and Spain or between France and the  United Kingdom. 
Similar  routes  will  also  have  to  be  encouraged  between  ·Poland  and  Germany. 
However,  these  lines  will  not  develop  spontaneously.  Based  on  proposals  from  the 
Member States,  they  will  have  to  be  "sign-posted",  notably  by  granting  European 

35 

36 

The percentage for  2010  is  estimated  at 40%.  Inland  waterway  transport,  which  was  5%  in  1990,  will 
drop from 4% in  1998 to 3% in 2010. 
A recent  study by Grimaldi  f9r  the European Climate Change Programme,  Working  Group  Traqsport, 
Topic  Group 3,  entitled  "Reducing  C02  emissions  in Europe  through  a  door-to-door  service  based on 
short-sea  shipping"  demonstrated  that  on  any  given  link  the  intermodal  option  based  on  short-sea 
shipping produced 2.5 times less pollution, in  the form of C02 emissions, than the road option. 

· 

42 

• 

Main Community ports 

619/2001 

1:19000000 

Ports >  13 million tonnes/year 

Total  freight tritfic 
(milbon tonnes /yeat) 

t>A.imber  of containers/year 

~  (m;Roo•) 

90 

30 

~ ~' 

0 

- -

100  200  300  Kibmeters 

~1,. 

-.  r 

'- .. .:..---~··  ~ 
;,...~:l'f· .. ;-:\(• 
-:,.--...... 

. 

~ 

' 

. -· . 
~-..· 
. ~ 
°1.." _ · .. ··~ 
:~ ..  -

' 

! 

·--· 

l 
..... , 

_.·\--...  -'-

·-. - ... 

.._ 

.... -

.. -

-.. 
~~!i 
.. , .... __ _ 

'·~:"_}·r/-

._._ •• -. •  '.'I. 

(·-'::_-. 

. ,. 

-

t 

.-

i 
l 

.... 

tf 
1· 
J.;. 
•.=iJJ 
~.!. 

funds (from the Marco Polo Programme and ~he Structural Funds) to encourage start 
ups and give them an attractive commercial dimension. 

Map of Europe 's main industrial ports 

The evidence shows that as  yet  this  is  not always  the case:  for example, 75%  of the 
timber exported by Finland to Italy crosses Germany and the Alps  although  it could 
be carried by sea. 

The European  Union  has  an  important  natural  asset:  a  dense  network  of rivers  and 
canals linking up the  basins of the rivers  which flow  into the  Atlantic  and the North 
Sea,37  and more  recently linked up to  the  Danube basin by the Rhine-Main-Danu1be 
Canal.  In  the  six  Member  States  which  can  use  this  network,  inland  waterway 
transport  carries  9% . of  goods  traffic.  If we  include  the  countries  preparing  for 
accession, and the Danube basin as  far as  the Black Sea, that brings the total number 
·of Member States  which  can  use  this  network  to  twelve  and  the  annual  volume  of 
goods carried to 425 million tonnes. 

Map of the inland waterway network in Europe 

Inland  waterway  transport  complements  sea  transport  perfectly.  It  is  being  used 
increasingly  by  the  major  North  Sea  ports,  which  use  the  inland  waterways  for  a 
large  part of their inward  and  outward container traffic.  And  some  of the  countries 
which  are  not  connected  up  to  the  North-West  European  network  have  their  own 
systems,  such  as  the  Rhone,  the  Po or the  Do~ro, which  are  becoming increasingly 
important at regional level, but also in  the development of river-sea transport thanks 
to technical progress in designing vessels suitable for both river and sea. 

Inland waterway transport is energy-efficient and quiet, and takes up lit_tle space. 

In  terms  of energy  efficiency  and the  weight  of goods  which  can  be  moved· one 
kilometre  by  one  litre  of fuel,  the  figure  for  road  haulage  is  50  tonnes,  for  rail 
haulage_97 tonnes and for inland waterways 127 tonnes. 38 

· 

Apart  from  anything  else,  this  is  a  very  safe  mode  of transport  so  it  is  particule:irly 
suitable  for  transporting  dangerous  goods,  such  as  chemicals.  In  terms  of  the 
volumes  carried,  the  accident  rate  is  virtually  zero.  River  transport  is  reliable  and 
ideal  for  the  carriage·  of  heavy  low-cost  commodities  over  long  distances  (heavy 
materials,  bulk  industrial  goods,  building  products,  waste,  etc.).  Vessels  can  travel 
fn;>m  Duisburg to Rotterdam,  a  distance  of 225 kilometres,  in  half a  day,  regardless 
of conditions which affect other modes. This makes inland waterway transport a very 
competitive alternative to road and rail  transport, on those routes  which  are  suitable. 
Following enlargement of the  European  Union,  this  mode could do  much  to  relieve 
traffic on east-west routes. 

37 

38 

Seine, Rhine, Meuse, Schelt, Elbe and Oder. 
Source  ADEME.  Agence  fram;aise  de  l 'environnement  et  de  la  maitrise  de  I' energie.  (French 
Environment and Energy Management Agency). 

43 

Contain er c arri er 
135 metres long and 17 metres  wide 

470X-

Pushed convoy of 4  barges 
193 metres long and 22.80 metres wide 

440 x mm:Ia 

_Moreover,  the  capacity of the  inland  waterways  is  considerably  underused in  tenns 
of infrastructure and vessels. They could handle much greater volumes of traffic than 
at  present.  This  is  because  national  infrastructure  investment  policies  have  given 
priority  to  other modes  of transport  without  maintaining  the  inland  waterways  and 
without eliminating existing bottlenecks on the network.  As  the  abandonment of the 
Rhii:ie-Rhone canal shows, any new canal construction project can have a potentially 
negative environmental impact and should be assessed in .very ~lose detail. 

2.  Offering innovative services 

Further  development  of  inland  waterway  services  and  short-sea  shipping  also 
depends on an efficient port service based on the principles of regulated competition. 

Throughout  the  1990s,  there  was  a  rapid  emergence  of feeder,  or hub,  ports  which 
serve  as  the  gateways  to  Europe,  where  the  ships  belonging  to  the  main  shipping 
companies  stop  for  as  short  a  time  as  possible  to  load  and  unload  their containers. 
The  predominance  of the  container  ports  of the  northern  range,  from  Le  Havre  to 
Hamburg, with  a hinterland of between  1 200 and  1 300 kilometres, has been one of 
the reasons for the increase in  north-south traffic in Europe on routes which are 
already  stretched  to  the  limit.  Ports  such  as  Antwerp,  Rotterdam  and  Hamburg 
were  used  - and  still  are  - principally  because  of the  high  quality/price  ratio  of the 
services  provided,  since  they  have  modem  equipment  and  better  developed  links 
with the rest of the world. 

Though Community mles already allow service-providers access to the port services 
market,  they are  often  unable  to  exercise this  right  satisfactorily.  For this  reason,  in 
February 2001  the  Commission  proposed  a  new  legislative  framework  to  lay down 
new,  clearer  rules  setting  high  quality  standards  for  access  to  the  port  services 
market (pilotage, cargo-handling and stevedoring) and laying down more transparent 
rules  of  procedure.  Steps  must  also  be  taken  to  simplify  the  rules  governing 
operation of ports themselves so that the  port authorities are  no longer both  umpire 
and player when it comes to port management. 

integrated 
Experience  has  shown 
commercial  services.  Thought  should be  given  to  bringing  together all  the  links  in 
the  logistics  chain  (consignors,  shipowners  and  any  others  involved in  the  shipping 
industry,  plus  road,  rail  and inland waterway operators) in  a  one-stop shop to  make 

that  short-sea  shipping  requires  efficient, 

44 

intermodal transport by sea and inland waterway as  reliable, flexible  and easy to  use 
as road transport. 

The  development  of  advanced  telematic  services  in  ports  can  also  improve 
operational reliability and safety. Active cooperation between the various partners, in 
particular  through  electronic  data  interchange,  enhances  both  the  quality  and  the 
efficiency of the intermodal transport chain. 

Various  Community measures  designed in  particular to  renew  the  fleet  and to  fully 
open up the inland waterway market have enabled the sector to achieve a growth rate 
of more than  10% over the last two years in most countries which have a large inland 
waterway network. The most dynamic  markets  are  those for  container transport,  but· 
also niche markets  such  as  waste transport,  which  could expand.  ~odemisation and 
diversification of the fleet have also made it possible to meet customers' needs better. 

There are limits to the system 

Coasting vessels  which want access  to  Europe's  inland waterways from  Belgian  or Dutch 
ports  ~ust first put in  at  the  coastal ports in  those  two  countries  to  complete  the  customs 
transit formalities.  They  have  to  stop  - thus  wasting  time· - and pay port  dues  without 
benefiting from  any  specific  services.  This  reduces  the  competitiveness  of these  vessels 
compared with  other modes which  are  not  bound by_ these  outdate.d rules.  -One pragmatic 
solution  would  be  to  develop  and  authorise  throughout  the  Community  the  use  of an 
advance electronic reporting system and the  inland customs clearance system already used 
in  Sweden  and Portugal.  These  electronic  data  interchange  (EDI)  systems  save  time  and 
reduce  costs.  There  are similar problems  h.  France.  Port authorities also  try to find other 
devious ways of requiring river and coastal vessels to pay port dues,  such as making them 
stop to take on board a pilot. 

Despite  progress  following  the  fleet  renewal  and  the  full  opening-up  of the  inland 
waterway market, better use could still  be made of the mode.  For example, there are 
still a number of infrastructure problems (bottlenecks, inappropriate gauge, height of 
bridges, operation of locks,  lack of transhipment equipment, etc.) which  prevent the 
uninterrupted passage of ve~sels throughout the  year.  The free  movement of vessels 
is also hampered by the diversity of legal systems with different rules, particularly on 
technical specifications for vessels and pilots certificates. 

This mode of transport needs to be made more reliable, efficient and accessible by: 

eliminating  bottlenecks,  correcting  gauges,  providing  missing  links,  revitalising  goods 
transport  waterways  which  have  fallen  into  disuse,  establishing  links  to  rivers  and 
installing transhipment equipment; 

installing highly  efficient  navigational  aid  and  communication  systems  on  the  inland 
waterway network; 

-

continuing  to  standardise  technical  specifications  throughout  the  Community's  inland 
waterway network; 

further  harmonisation  of pilot certificates  throughout  the  Community inland  waterway 
network, including the Rhine; the Commission will be making a proposal in 2002; 

harmonising the  rules  on  rest  times,  crew  members,  composition  of crews  and  sailing 
times of inland waterway vessels; the Commission will be making a proposal in 2002. 

45 

B. 

- Helping to start up intermodal services: the new Marco Polo programme 

The PACT39  programme introduced in  1992 has  Jed  to a great many initiatives, with 
167 projects launched between  1992 ~nd 2000, despite the modest budget (53 million 
euros over the period 1992-2001). 

A few PACT successes 

- A  new combined rail/sea link between Sweden and Italy,  via Germany and Austria.  This 
service takes some 5 00 000 tonnes a year off the busy roads and improves journey times 
significantly (by  up to 48 hours). 

- Ruillair services between Schiphol (Amsterdam)  and Milan  airports have already taken 
the  equivalent  of 45  air freight  pallets per  week  off the  roads  in  their first  year  in 
operation. 

- Every day a barge service between Lille and Rotterdam removes some 50 lorries from a 

heavily used road corridor. 

- A  shipping service  in  La Rochelle-Le Havre  and Rotterdam  has shifted 643 000 tonnes 

of cargo from road to sea in three years. 

- A  rail/sea  service  between  Spain  and  Germany  avoids  app,roximately  6 500  lorry 

journeys per year on congested roads. 

- An  information  system  for  freight  tracking,  accessible  via  PC  and  the  Internet, 
translates messages wrillen in different languages into a single,  common language. 

\Vhen  the  PACT programme  comes  to  an  end  in  December  2001  the  Commission 
plans  to  replace it  with  a  new  programme  to  promote  intermodality,- called "Marco  _ 
Polo".  As  the financial  programming currently stands,40  the  margin  available  would 
allow an  annual  budget of around 30 million euros, which could be  spread over four 
years. Marco Polo will be open  to all  appropriate proposals to shift freight from road 
to other more environmentally friendly modes. Efforts will  be made to harness the 
advantages of short-sea shipping. 

Three principal objectives have been set for this support: 

-

-

-

the first  is  to  support measures  proposed by players  on  the  logistics  market,  with 
particular  emphasis  on  starting  up  new  services  which  will  be  commercially 
viable  in  the  long  term  and  will  lead  to  substantial  shifts  from  road  to  other 
modes,  without  necessarily being  technological  innovations.  Community aid  will 
be limited to the start-up phase for these services; 

the second is to improve the operation of the entire intermodal chain; 

the third concerns innovation in  cooperation and dissemination of best practice in 
the sector. 

To back up the Marco Polo programme, the Commission will  take steps to make the 
Community fleets more competitive. 

39 

40 

Pilot Action for Combined Transport. 
Heading 3 (internal policies). 

46 

The  mounting  pressure  exerted  by  international  competition  has  prompted  the 
Member States  to  take  different  sequences  of initiatives  to  safeguard  their  shipping 
interests  and  jobs  in  this  sector.  The  1997  Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  to 
maritime  transport  have  allowed  the  Member  States  to  take  a  number  of measures 
which  have  generally  had  a  positive  impact  in  terms  of  "repatriation"  of  the 
Community  fleet.  After  learning  lessons  ·about  the  most  appropriate  action  for 
making the European fleet more competitive, the plan  is to revise these  guidelines in 
2002  to  smooth  the  way  for  action  by  the  Member  States  within  a  coordinated 
framework avoiding distortions of competition. 

C. 

Creatingfavourable technical conditions 

The principal limitation of modes such as rail, inland waterway or sea is that they are 
unable  to  carry freight  from  door to  door.  Unloading and reloading  wastes time  and 
adds  to  costs,  making  the  services  less  competitive,  to  the  benefit  of road  haulage, 
which  has  the  advantage  of  a  feeder  network  enabling  it  to  carry  goods  almost 
anywhere. 

Technological  research  has  produced  many  innovations  in  logistics .concepts  and 
systems.  Many,  however,  have  never  got  beyond  the  drawing-board  or  prototype 
stage,  because all  too often they have focused on just a single link in the intermodal 
chain.  From  now  on  it  is  imperative  to  target  research  and  development  on  the 
integration  and  consistent  validation  of the  most  innovative  concepts  and  systems. 
The  critical  technologies  developed  for  vehic~es  and  transhipment  equipment,  for 
communications  and  for  management  must  be  tested  in  ·real  conditions,  with 
technical coordination. 

If this research  is  to bear fruit,  it is  important to create the right technical conditions, 
for developing the profession of freight integrator, and to standardise loading units. 

1. Encouraging the emergence of freight integrators 

For goods transport, making the right use of the most efficient mode in the transport 
chain,  based  on  different  criteria  at  any  given  time,  is  the  job  of  transport  flow 
"organisers",  and  a  new  profession  is  emerging:  that  of freight  integrator.  Modelled 
on  what  has  been  done  at  world  level  for  package  distribution,  a  new  profession 
specialising in the integrated transport of full  loads  (exceeding  around  5 tonnes) 
should emerge.  These  "freight integrators"  need  to  be  able  to  combine  the  specific 
strengths  of  each  mode  at  European  and  world  l~vel  to  offer  their  clients  and, 
consequently,  society  at  large  the  best  service  in  terms  of  efficiency,  price  and 
environmental impact in the broadest sense (economic, ecological, energy, etc.). 

As  the  European  Parliament  has  already  stated,41  such  a  profession  must  develop 
within  a "single,  transparent scheme  which  is  easy to  enforce",  clearly defining,  in 
particular, where responsibility lies  all  along the  logistics chain  and laying down the 
corresponding  transport  documents.  The  Commission  will  make  a  proposal  along 
these lines in 2003. 

41 

Reports by Mr U.  Stockmann of 21January1999 and by Mrs A.  Poli Bortone of 27  November 2000. 

47 

2. Standardising containers and swap bodies 

Conventional  shipping  containers  cannot  meet  all  consignors' needs.  In  particular, 
they  are  too  narrow  to  accommodate  two  standard  pallets  side  by  side.  In  addition, 
the spread of the large containers  used by US  or Asian companies exporting all  over 
the  world would pose safety problems on European roads when  it comes to delivery 
to the final  destination. 

For this reason, European inland t~ansport operators have developed wider containers 
suitable for  palleti~ation and  posing no  problems  at  the  time  of final -delivery.  Most 
of these "swap bodies" are easily transferable from rail to road (and vice versa). They 
are  wider  than  containers  and  allow  easy  palletisation  but,  on  the  other  hand,  ar~ 
more  fragile  and  not  stackable.  Measures  must  therefore  be  taken  to  design  and 
standardise  new  loading  units  offering  the  advantages  of both  containers  and  swap 
bodies  plus  optimum  intermodal  transhipment.  This  subject,  already  highlighted  in 
·reports by the European Parliament,42  is one of the  issues the Commission wishes  to 
explore  in  the  sixth  RTD  framework  programme.  The  Commission  may  possibly 
make a proposal on harmonisation in this area in 2003. 

The Commission proposes the following work programme: 

-

-

-

include  the  concept  of  "motorways  of  the  sea"  in  the  future  revision  of  the  trans 
European networks; 

introduce a new  "Marco Polo" programme,  to come into operation in  2003  at  the  latest, 
to support intennodality; 

encourage the emergence of freight  integrators and standardise loading units (containers 
and swap bodies). Proposals to this end will be submitted in 2003; 

I 

improve  the  situation  of inland  waterway  transport  by  mutual  recognition  of boatmasters' 
certificates throughout the  Community's  inland  waterway  network and  discuss  with  the 
social partners the  minimum social  legislation  to  be  applied  on  crews,  time  at the  helm 
and navigation. 

t 
I 
• 
I ------------------------------------------------------

42 

See previous footnote. 

48 

·PART TWO: ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS 

With  the  transport  boom  outstripping economic  growth,  the  persistence  and  indeed 
the  very size of a number of bottlenecks on the  main  international  routes is posing a 
major problem for  the  transport  system in  Europe.  Whether located on  the  outskirts 
of conurbations or at natural barriers or borders, these bottlenecks affect all modes of 
transport. 

Unless infrastructure is  interconnected and free  of bottlenecks,  to  allow  the physical 
movement  of goods  and  persons,  the  internal  market  and  the  territorial  cohesion  of 
· 
the Union will not be fully realised. 

Foreseeable bottlenecks 

Jn  border areas,  the present infrastructure networks still reflect the  narrow national views 
(sometimes going back to  the  19th century),  which influenced their construction.  Wattre/os 
in France,  which  is  not  connected to  the  Belgian  motorway network,  which passes only a 
few  metres away,  is  a good example  of the  dysfunctions  that can  arise.  Between Germany 
and France,  the towns of Kehl and Strasbourg are still linked only by a /ow-capacity single 
track  over  the  narrow  bridge  which  crosses  the  Rhine.  Jn  the  Pyrenees.  a  single  track 
crosses  the  border  to  link  the  national  double-track  systems.  Ho~ever,  it  is  not  only  at 
borders  that problems  are  to  be found.  In  Bordeaux  a  double-track  bridge  which  is  well 
over a  century old has to be used by TGVs,  regional trains andfreight trains alike to travel 
from  Northern  Europe  to  Spain,  the  Pyrenees  or  the  Toulouse  region.. Similarly,  on  the. 
roads and motorways,  the lack of bridges means that the  meeting of local and interregional 
or  internatiOnal flows  creates  the  notorious  Bordeaux  bottleneck.  Little  has  been  done  in 
terms  of  traffic  management  and  user  information  on  these  routes.  Other  famous 
bottlenecks  include  the  one  due  to  the  delay  in  the  construction  of the  Lanaye  Lock, 
preventing the  linking of the  Meuse  and the  Rhine,  and the  ones on certain sections of the 
Danube (e.g.  Straubing-Vilshofen). 

The  paradox  is  that  these  bottlenecks  remain  even  though  the  European  Union  has 
adopted  an  ambitious  policy  on  the  trans-European  network.  The Maastricht Treaty 
gave the Community the powers and instruments to establish  and develop the trans 
European network. In  1993, the Commission endeavoured to give high priority to the 
trans-European  network,  as  highlighted 
the  White  Paper  on  Growth, 
Competitiveness  and  Employment.  The  conception  of the  transport  sector  network 
was  initially  based  largely  on  the  juxtaposition  of  national  infrastructure  plans, 
particularly  for  the  conventional  rail  and  road  networks.  The  Heads  of  State  and 
Government themselves gave a series of incentives to the development of this policy, 
particularly by sett~ng up,  in  1994, a group made up  of their personal representatives 
who, by focusing on existing national priorities, selected a series of priority projects, 
the  famous  projects of the Essen European Council,  which  attracted the  attention  of 
investors to some extent.43 

in 

In  1996,  the  first  guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European 
transport  network  were  adopted  by  decision  of Parliament and  the  Council, 
bringing  together  within  a  single  reference  framework  these  Essen  priority 

43 

. 

The method adopted by  the  Group of Personal  Representatives of the  Heads of State  and  Government, 
the "Christophersen" Group, was to  look at priorities at national  level  (bottom-up approach) rather than 
first of all  considering European priorities (top-down approach). 

. 

49 

projects  as  well  as  the  concepts  and  criter~a  for  each  mode  of  transport, 
enabling other projects of common interest to be identified. These guidelines thus 
identified those projects  into which  much of EU infrastructure funding  is  channelled 
(budget heading for the trans-European network, Cohesion Furid, Structural Funds),44 
as  well  as  that  of the  European  Investment  Bank.  The  priority  areas  identified  by 
these guidelines  also  serve  as  a  reference  for other Community legislation  aimed  at 
international traffic (bans on  weekend travel) or the interoperability of networks (rail 
interoperability). 

It  is  apparent  today that  the  development of the  trans-European  network is  not only 
far from  uniform  but also  very slow.  Scarcely 20"%  of the infrastructure planned 
in :the 1996 decision  has been finished.  It  is debatable whether it can be completed· 
by the planned deadline of 2010. It is true that significant progress has been achieved 
in  providing  regions  lagging  behind  and  countries  aided  from  the  Cohesion  Fund 
with  road  infrastructure  almost on  a  par with  that  of other regions  and  countries,  as 
acknowledged  by  the  Second  Cohesion  Report.  And  certain  major projects  such  as 
the 0resund fixed link and Malpensa airport have been completed according to plan. 
However,  much  remains  to  be  done  in  the  other  modes.  Barely  2 800  km  of new 
high-speed lines  are currently in  service.  At the present rate,  it  will  be more than  20 
years  before  the  12 600  km  of  high-speed  lines  planned  in  1996  have  been 
completed.  These  delays  are  due  to  local  opposition  to  the  building  ·of  new 
infrastructure, the lack of an  integrated approach during the planning, evaluation and 
funding of cross-border infrastructure, and also reduced public funding  as  a result of 
a  general  slowdown  of investment  in  transport  infrastructure,  which  fell  from  1.5% 
of GDP in  1970 to around 1%in1995. 

Nevertheless, whatever the delay to  certain projects, support should continue to. 
be  given  to  the  trans-European  network,  which  is  an  important  factor  in 
European  competitiveness  and  improves  the  links  between  the  European 
Union's outlying regions and its central markets. 

This is  why  the Commission  plans to  propose a  two-stage  revision  of the trans 
European network guidelines. 

The first stage in 2001  will  aim at a limited adaptation of the existing guidelines, in 
line  with  Article 21  of the  Decision  on  the  guidelines. 45  This  revision,  which  the 
Commission should already have proposed in  1999, must not be the occasion to start 
adding  a  lot  of new  infrastructure  routes  for  which  no  funding  has  been  secured.  It 
should  concentrate  on  eliminating  bottlenecks  on  the  routes  already  identified, 
completing the routes identified as priorities for absorbing the traffic flows  generated 
by  enlargement,  particularly  in  frontier  regions,  and  improving  access  to  outlying 
areas.  In  this  context,  the  list  of  14  major  priority  projects  adopted  by  the  Essen 
European  Council  needs  to  be  updated,  as  called  for  on  several  occasions  by 
Parliament and as the Commission has been trying to do since 1997. 

44 

45 

A  total  of€  18  billion  is  estimated  as  being  available  for  Community  funding  during  the  period  2000-
2006  through  the  various  financial  instruments  for  projects  of common  interest  relating  to  the  trans-
European network. 
Article 21  of Decision  1692/96/EC  provides  that  the  guidelines  should  be  adapted  to  take  account  of 
economic  developments  and  technological  developments  in  the  transport  field,  in  particular  in  rail 
transport. 

_ 

. 

50 

·The  second  stage  in  2004  will  involve  a  more  extensive  revision,  in  the  light  of 
reactions  to  the  White  Paper,  aimed  in  particular  at  introducing  the  concept  of 
"motorways of the  sea",  developing  airport capacity,  and  including sections  of pan 
European  corridors  situated  on  the  territory  of candidate  countries,  including  those 
which  will  still  not be  members  of the Union  at  that time. The idea is  to concentrate 
on  a primary network made  up  of the  most important infrastructure for international 
traffic and cohesion on the European continent.46 

. 

In  this context the  Commission  will  look at  the  idea of introducing the concept of 
declaration of European interest where specific  infrastructure is  regarded as  being 
of strategic  importance  to  the  smooth  functioning  of the  internal  market .and would 
help  reduce  congestinn,  but  is  of  less  interest  at  national  or  local  leve!.  This 
mechanism  will  be  designed  to  assist  arbitration to bring  the  points  of view  of the 
various local, national and European players closer together. 

For the time being, revision of the trans-European network47  means concentrating on 
unblocking  the  main  arteries.  Irrespective  of  the  issue  of  priority  infrastructure 
routes,  the  main  problem  is  to  solve  the  headache  of funding,  for  which  the  White 
Paper makes ·concrete proposals, notably the pooling of funds. 

I. 

UNBLOCKING-THE MAJOR ROUTES 

The revised Community guidelines on the trans-EUiopean network must form part of 
an  environmentally  sustainable  policy  which,  as  the  Gothenburg  European  Council 
underlined,  should  "tackle  rising  levels  of congestion  and  encourage  the  use  of 
environment-fr_iendly  modes  of  transport".  To  this  end, 
they  must  redirect 
Community action to allow the development of multimodal corridors giving priority 
to  freight  and  a  high-speed  network  for  passengers.  This  also  means  a  limited 
number of .new  major  i~frastructure projects.  The  most  important  European  routes 
will  also  need  to  be  provided  with  traffic  management  plans  to  make  better use  of 
existing  capacity.  The  Commission  will  ensure  a  general  balance  in  the  choice  of 
projects. 

A. 

Towards multimodal corridors giving priority to freight 

The  establishment  of multimodal  corridors  giving  priority  to  freight  requires  high 
quality  rail  infrastructure.  The physicar characteristics  of the  railways  in  Europe do 
not lend themselves to a mass transport system for freight.  Nor is  it possible to stack 
containers  or  make  up  long  trains,  and  generally  speaking  the  system  has  to  cope 
with dense passenger train traffic48  sharing the same i~frastructure as  freight trains. 

Though  it  will  not  be  possible  in  the  immediate  future  to  establish _a  complete  rail 
network  reserved  for  freight,  as  in  the  United  States,  investment  must  encourage 
the  gradual  development  of  trans-European  corridors  for  priority  or  even 
exclusive  use  by  freight  trains.  These  will  consist  mainly  of existing  lines  used 
. primarily  or  even  exclusively  by  freight  trains.  In  ·areas  with  intensive  traffic, 
particularly  urban  areas,  having  separate lines  for  freight  and passengers  will  be  the 

46 

47 

48 

See section on enlargement. 
Proposed in parallel with this White Paper. 
In  general,  the  lines designed  for ·high-speed  trains  (more  than  250 km/h)  are  used  only by  high-speed 
trains, the only goods transported being express freight. 

. 

51 

guiding  principle  in  the  development  of  the  network,  which  will  require  the 
construction of new  lines  or loop  lines  around rail  nodes.  In  other areas,  the gradual 
establishment  of  corridors  giving  priority  to  _freight  will  be  achieved  through 
improvements in capacity including the upgrading and rehabilitation of infrastructure 
on  altemati ve  low-traffic  routes  or through  the  development  of traffic  management 
systems  (programme  control  and  signalling)  capable  of  separating  trains  more 
efficiently. 

Rail  access  to  ports  provides  an  essential  link  in  multimodal  corridors  givmg 
priority  to  freight.  This  is  the  essential  condition  for  the  development  of short-sea 
shipping to reduce traffic through the Alps and the Pyrenees. 

I 

The terminals through which goods are routed to their final  destinations or at which 
trains are made up again constitute major bottlenecks. In the freight terminals open to 
all  operators,  public  incentive  investment  in  marshalling  yards  and  transhipment 
·equipment  can  play  an  important  role  in  increasing  capacity,  particularly  in 
intermodal terminals. 

B. 

A high-speed passenger network 

The increasing distances between centres at opposite ends of the Union as it enlarges 
mean  that  an  effective  high-speed  passenger  network  is  required.  Such  a  network 
comprises  the  high-speed  lines,  including  upgraded  lines,  connections  and  systems 
which will allow the integration of air and rail transport services and airports. 

The ambitious programmes to develop a high-:speed  rail network of the last decade 
have  to  be  continued  in  order to  achieve  this  objective.  This  does  not  mean  that  a 
freight network  cannot be  established,  however.  On the  contrary,  they  are  both  part 
of the same effort to increase the capacity of the rail  network as  a  whole.  That said, 
the difficulties in  finding  funding  encountered in the past dictate a degree of caution 
when it comes  to  setting objectives.  Aid for new high-speed lines  must be linked to 
the  development  of  freight  capacity  by  freeing  up  the  lines  previously  used  by 
passenger trains which freight trains will now be able to use much more easily. 49 

On  routes  where  it  is  impossible to  construct  new  lines,  the upgrading of existing 
tracks for  high-speed trains  is  a  solution  offering  an  adequate  level  of comfort  and 
service thanks to progress with tilting train technology. 

49 

To cover certain sections  where  it  is  difficult  to  construct several  tracks,  such  as  in  tunnels  or on  long 
bridges, it may be necessary to  have mixed freight and passenger rail  use. 

52 

100% 
90% .. ' 

80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0 % +=-o:.=.:.= 

o  coach 
ocar 

•air 
El rail 

before AVE 

after AVE 

On  many routes,  high-speed trains  are  a very  attractive  alternative to flying  in  terms 
of time,  price  and comfort,  particularly  if access  times  to  airports  from  city  centres 
are  taken  into  account.  Contrary  to  the  widely-held  view,  the  advantage  of high 
speed  trains  for  passengers  is  not  limited  to  journeys  of  less  than  three  hours. 
Between Paris and the Mediterranean, before the inauguration ~f the new high-speed . 
line,  the  market  share  claimed  by  high-speed  trains  exceeded  25%  although  the 
journey time  to  Marseilles  and other stations  on the  Cote d'Azur was  well  in excess 
of four hours. 50 

The  above  graph51  shows  that  the  market  share  for  flying  between  Madrid  and 
Seville  fell  from  40%  to  13%  with  the  entry  into  service  of  the  high-speed  line 
(A VE).  Similarly,  between  Paris  and  Brussels,  the  market  share  claimed  by  car 
journeys has fallen by almost 15% since Th~lys started its operations. 

Network  planning  should  therefore  seek  to  take  advantage  of the  ability  of high 
speed trains to replace air transport and encourage rail companies, airlines and airport 
managers not just to compete, but also to cooperate. 

-

Investment  geared  to  integrating  the  high-speed  train  network  with  air 
transport  needs  to  be  encouraged.  This  investment  could  be  channelled  into 
railway  stations  at  airports  and  terminals  for  passenger  and  baggage  check-in  in 
railway  stations.  Other  measures  could  encourage  the  integration  of  systems  and 
services  for  passenger  information,  reservations,  ticketing  and  baggage  transport 
which  make  it  easier  for  passengers  to  switch  from  one  mode  to  the  other. 52 
Otherwise,  over and  above  a limited  number of new  airport  hubs  planned for  some 
time  in the  future,  the  high-speed network for  passengers  in Europe is completed by 
smaller airports in regions not served by high-speed trains. 

50 

51 

52 

The  opening  of the  high-speed  line  over  it.s  entire  length  in  June  2001  has  reduced  the journey  time 
between Paris and Marseilles to 3 hours. 
A VE:  Alta Velocidad Espafiol_a. 
The  integration  of the  high-speed  rail  network  and  airports  should  also  benefit  rapid  freight  transport, 
particularly express courier services since at  present almost 50% of pre- and post-routing of air freight, 
a booming sector, is by road. 

. 

53 

C. 

Improving traffic conditions 

Specific traffic management measures coordinated at  European  level  can  produce 
an  overall  improvement in  traffic conditions on  the  major inter-city routes,  whatever 
the  causes  of  congestion  (accidents,  weather  conditions,  one-off  or  recurring 
incidents,  etc.).  There  are  many  road  infrastructure  managers  in  Europe  who  now 
have  experience  in  this  field.  For  a  number  of  years,  the  European  Union  has 
provided financial  incentives  to  introduce  such  measures  on  international  corridors. 
Such  measures  are  already  applied  between  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  (e.g. 
traffic  di versions  on  routes  between  Cologne and Eindhoven)  and  a number of tests 
are under way between the Benelux countries and their neighbours and  at  th~ Alpine 
(between  France  and  Italy  in  particular)  and  Pyrenean  crossings.  By  2006,  all  the 
main trans-European links should have traffic management plans. 

For  heavy  goods  vehicles,  precise  traffic  management  at  peak  times  will  make  it 
possible  to  offer  more  suitable  routes,  better  schedules  and  driver  assistance.  This 
could result in capacity gains while reducing the risks of accidents and pollution. 

D. 

Major infrastructure projects 

Of the fourteen  projects53  approved by ·the Essen European Council, three have 
now  been  completed  and  six  others,  which  are  in  the  construction  phase,  should  be 
finished  by 2005,  such  as  the  high-speed rail  link between  Barcelona  and  Figueras. 
As  regards  the  remaining projects,  the  Alpine  routes  which  require  the  construction 
of very long tunnels  such  as  Lyon-Turin  are  encountering numerous  difficulties  and 
delays  because  of technical  uncertainties  and  the  difficulty  in  finding  the  capital  to 
complete them.  Equally, a new European bottleneck will  appear across  the Pyrenees 
if nothing is done to ensure a trouble-free passage. There is  also a need to  launch or 
modify  other major  projects.  These  changes  are  the  reason  why  the  list  of priority 
projects  established  by  the  Heads  of State  and  Government  in  1994  needs  to  be 
updated  and  incorporated  into  the  guidelines  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament 
and  the  Council.  Implementation  of  these  projects  also  highlights  the  need  to 
improve tunnel safety. 

1. Completing the Alpine routes 

In  spite of the  difficulty of completing them  according to  schedule,  the  two  projects 
involving  rail  links  in  the  Alps  remain  priority  projects  of particular importance  in 
helping, as part of an  overall transport policy in the Alps, to switch part of the growth 
in  road  traffic  to  rail  in  this  region,  which  is  a  crossroads  in  the  trans-European 
network.  The growth  of traffic  in  the  Rhone  corridor shows  the  urgent  need  to  take 
measures. 

Financial  aid  from  the  Union  in  the  form  of direct  contributions  over  the  last  ten 
years  has  not  created  a  sufficient  lever  effect  to  commit  the  Member  States 
concerned  to  the  process  of  completing  _these  major  Alpine  projects  within  the 
timescale laid down by the Essen European Council, i.e. 2010. 

53 

The "Christophersen" Group  ~ad identified  26 major priority projects,  the  14  most  important of ~hich 
had  been approved by  the Essen European Council in  1994. The list of these  projects was subsequently 
incorporated  in  Annex  III  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  Decision  on  the  guidelines  for  the 
development of the trans-European network. 

54 

-It  may be exp_ected  that the  new  ways  of operating existing tunnels  will,  because of 
safety  requirements,  lead  to  a  not  insignificant  reduction  in  their  capacity,  which 
could rapidly be translated into  an  increase in  the  level  of congestion.  According to 
studies carried out by the  Italian  operator of the Frejus tunnel,  the  only  Alpine  road 
tunnel  between  France  and  Italy  is  already  20%  above  the  ma:x.imum  capacity 
authorised  by  these  new  safety  rules.  The  re-opening  of  the  Mont  Blanc  tunnel 
scheduled for the end of 2001  will reduce this pressure to -some extent. However, it is 
clear  that  the  rules  governing  heavy  goods  traffic  will  henceforth  be  much  more 
rigorous than those in force  before the accident in  1999·, quite apart from the fact that 
local  residents  are  increasingly  opposed  to  the  presence  of  these  heavy  goods 
vehicles.  The  adoption  of  bilateral  agreements  between  the  European  Union  and 
Switzerland and the completion of the Swiss programme of new Alpine rail links are · 
a step forward  in  the  process of improving Alpine transit.  However,  these  measures 
will  only do so much to ease what is a very difficult situation in terms of congestion: 
. the transport system in this region  does not need a placebo but a genuine solution to 
recurring problems. 

-

An  alternative to the Alpine road routes and a complement to_the present rail network 
is  needed in  the  next  ten  years,  which  means  that  the  firm  commitment to  establish 
this  new  rail  link  between  Lyon  and  Turin,  already  decided  on  at  the  European 
Council  in  Essen,  must  be  acted  upon  without  delay,  failing  which  the  regions 
their  economic 
concerned,  mainly  Rhone  Alps  and  Piedmont,  will 
competitiveness compromised. 

'see 

Similarly,  the· quality of life  of those  living in  the Tyrol  and Alto  Adige is  likely to 
deteriorate  further  as  a  result  of the  constant  and  growing  heavy  goods  traffic,  and 
the  question  of completing  the  new  Brenner  tunnel  between  Munich  ~nd Verona 
needs to be settled within a reasonable timescale. Beyond these regions, much of the 
east-west flows,  between  the  Iberian  Peninsula and  central  Europe  and  the  Balkans 
would be affected by these bottlenecks. 

2.  Easier passage through the Pyrenees 

If nothing  is  done  to  improve  the  passage through  them,  bottlenecks  could occur in 
the  Pyrenees,  which  are  crossed  by  long-distance  traffic,  half  of it  involving  trade 
between  the  Iberian  Peninsula  and  countries  beyond  France.  Studies  by  the 
Franco-Spanish centre  which  monitors  trans-Pyrenean  traffic  have  shown  that  more 
than  15 000 heavy  goods  vehicles  cross  the  two  ends  of this  mountain  range  every 
day and that this traffic is increasing all the time at a very high rate ( + 10% per year). 
In  1998, flows  between Spain and Europe already amounted to  144 million  tonnes  a 
year  (53%  by  road,  44%  by  sea  and  3%  by  rail).  The  centre  estimates  that  by. 
2010-2015  an  additional  100 million  tonnes  will  have  to  be  distributed  between  the 
various modes. The improvement of existing lines and completion of the HST South 
will enable capacity to be increased in  the medium term,  on top of which there is the 
-potential  of  short-sea  shipping.  The  capacity  of  short-sea  shipping  to  provide  a 
genuine solution depends,  however, on whether operators can gain the confidence of 
shippers. In this connection, new rail capacity will  have to be harnessed, in particular 
through  the  central  Pyrenees.  This  is  why  the  Commission  is  proposing  in  the 
revision  of the  guidelines  for  the  trans.-European  network  the  inclusion  of a 
major project for a  high-capacity rail crossing in  the Pyrenees (Annex III), the 
route being left to the interested countries to agree. 

55 

This  raises  the  issue  of upgrading  the  existing  line  between  Pau  and  Zaragoza  via 
Canfranc to  provide a  short-term improvement in  the passage through  the  Pyrenees. 
Despite· its  low  capacity in  terms  of anticipated  long-term  needs,54  the  point  is  that 
the  existing  tunnel  could  be  made  use  of  and  consignors  and  carriers  could  be 
encouraged  to  gear  their  logistics  chain  to  this  future  high-capacity  crossing.  It  is 
therefore  proposed  that  this  line  should  be  included in  the  conventional  rail  outline 
plan of the current revised guidelines,  given  that this  is what the governments of the 
two countries in  question  want.  Apart from  the positive environmental aspect of this 
project in the Pyrenees, the Commission will ensure that any financial  aid will  result 
in work on the project paving the way for a high-capacity link as part of a long-term, 
economically viable programme that is the produce of cross-border coordination. 

It  will  also  be  necessary  to  rethink  the  question  of a  future  road  link  through  the 
Pyrenees  which  for  reasons  connected  with  environmental  impact,  cost  and 
acceptance by local residents should ensure that piggyback transport is adopted as  of 
right. 

3. Launching new priority projects 

The  need  to  launch,  speed  up  or  modify  priority  projects  is  apparent.  The  list  of 
"specific"  projects  in  Annex ill to  the  Decision  on  the  guidelines  for  the  trans 
European  network ("Essen"  list)  can  be  amended by joint decision  of the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  Commission  is  therefore  proposing  that  projects 
which have  already been completed or are  nearing completion  be removed from  the 
list and that a very limited number of new major projects be added. 55 

Apart from  the  project  for  a  new  high-capacity  rail  crossing  in  the  Pyrenees 
mentioned above, the new or amended projects which the Commission is considering 
including in this future proposal are as follows: 

•  East  European  high-speed  train/combined  transport:  For  historical  reasons  there  has 
been little development of west-east links  to the candidate countries.  However, trade  with 
these countries is already generating significant traffic flows.  On the rail corridor along the 
Danube, more than 60% of traffic is already international. The forecasts  point to sustained 
growth  in  traffic.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  facilitate  the  development  of a  new  high 
capacity  west-east  rail 
link  for  freight  and  passeng~rs  from  Stuttgart-Munich  to 
Salzburg/Linz-Vienna.  This  project  involves  building  or  upgrading  780  km  of track  for 
high-speed  trains  and  lines  for  freight  transport.  With  a  view  to  enlargement,  it  could 
conceivably be extended to Budapest, or even Bucharest and Istanbul. As the line between 
Stuttgart and Mannheim is operational, the extension of the current TGV East (Project No 
4) linking Paris to Mannheim via Strasbourg by these  sections will  make for a  continuous 
trans-European rail corridor from Paris to Vienna. 

•  Fehmarn Belt: The bridge/tunnel crossing the natural barrier of the Fehmam Belt between 
Germany and Denmark is a key link which will complete the north-south route connecting 
Central  Europe  and  the  Nordic  countries  and  allow  the  development  of trade  between 
them.  This  project on  the  route  including the recently-opened 0resund fixed  link  aims  to 

54 

SS 

The line  can only  take  2.8  mi_llions  tonnes,  i.e.  barely  more than  1 % of the traffic  between the  lperian 
Peninsula and  the  rest  of Europe  by  2010-2015,  and  poses  serious  operating constraints  on  account of 
the steep inclines. 
See Annex III. 

56 

• 

"Specific" projects adopted in .1996 (so called "Essen list")* 

11/912001 

1:17550000 

1. Hi!ti - speed train/combined transport north/south 

8.  ML.Ctimodal lirit Portuga..Spai~Central Europe 

2.  Hi!ti - speed train PBKAL 

3 Hi!ti - speed train  sou1h 

4.  High - speed train east 

9. Conventional rail  Cork-OIJ>ln-8elfast-La-ne-Strairaer (completed) 

10  Malpensa airport (COfT1lleted) 

11.  Fixed  ink between  Oenrrarlc  aid SY.eden  (completed) 

Ral 

Road 

5.  Conventional raiL'combned  traisport: Betuwe li"le 

12.  Norcic Triangle (rail/roads) 

6  Hi!ti - speed train/combined transport,  France-Italy 

13.  lrelaicWnted Kingdorr/Benelux road Ink 

7. Gll!ek motoiways Pa the and  Via Egiatia 

14.  West Coast main hne  (rail) 

• Oecisicn 1Ell2196.EC mcdfiod by OecilllOn 13461ZID1(EC 

,-/ 

200 

.... --====---

400 

600  Ki b rre te rs 

• 

Potential "specific" projects 

13/9/2001 

1·11550000 

1. High·- speed trainA::omt:xned  transport north  - so\Jh 

17.  High - speed trainfcorrbined transport east-west 

3.  High - speed train south 

15. Galieo 

18.  River Dani.be improverrent between Vilshofen and Strauting 

19.  High speed rai interoperability on the  lbenan peninsula 

16. High capacity rail line aaoss the Pyrenees 

20  FIXed link Fehmam Belt 

0 

200 

400 

600  Kilometers 

cross  the  19  km-wide  belt.  Completion  of this  project,  which  is  still  at  the  preliminary 
study stage, should contribute to the development of the Baltic Sea region. 

•  Straubing-Vilshofen:  The  aim  is  to  improve  navigability  on  the  Danube  between 
Straubing and Vilshofen in Germany. This section, which is too shallow over some 70 km, 
does  not  allow  the  uninterrupted  passage  of  vessels.  Eliminating  this  bottleneck  on  the 
Rhine-Main-Danube route  linking the  North  Sea with  the Black Sea would enable  a great 
deal of freight traffic to be switched from  road to waterway in  this increasingly congested 
. corridor.  The  project,  which  has  to  be  conceived  and  implemented  in  accordance  with 
Community law  on the environment, would help to integrate the candidate countries more 
fully into the European Union and bring the Eastern Danube countries closer to the Union. 

1 • 

•  Satellite  radionavigation  project  (Galileo):  This  global  project  with  a  great  deal  of 
potential for traffic  management and information for users of the trans-European  network, 
as,  t~o,  for  numerous  applications  in  sectors  other  than transport,  requires  an  intensive 
development phase until  2005  and then  a deployment phase with a view to operation from 
2008 (see also Part 5). 

•  Interoperability of the Iberian  high-speed rail network: The difference in  gauge between 
the network of the Iberian peninsula and the rest of the trans-European network is  a major 
· o_bstacle  to effective operation of the European railway system as  a whole.  On the basis of 
the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  plans  for  high-speed lines,  which  incluae the  construction  of 
new  lines. and  the  upgrading  of existing  track,  the  alignment  of the  gauge  in  Spain  and 
Portugal with European standards by 2020 will  improve links between Spain and .Portugal 
and the rest of the trans..:European network. 

A number of existing projects also need to be redefined. The Verona-Naples rail link 
with  its  Bologna-Milan  branch  line,  for  example,  should. be  added  to  the  project 
including  the  Munich-Veron.a·Brenner  route  (project  No  1).  These  830  km  of new 
high-speed  lines  will  provide  b~tter  connections  between  this  north-south  rail 
corridor  and  the  major  towns  and  industrial  areas  on  the  Italian  Peninsula.  To 
improve  the  link  between  the  Mediterranean  branch  of  the  HST  South  Madrid 
Barcelona-Montpellier (project No 3) and the French network, it should be extended 
to  Nimes.  This  extra  50  km will  connect  this  project  to  the  Paris-Marseilles  route, 
improve the profitability of the  cros~-border section between Perpignan and Figueras 
and facilitate freight clearance. 

Map of "specific" projects adopted in  1996 ("Essen" list) 

Map of potential  "specific" projects 

4. Improving safety in tunnels 

Safety in long tunnels is  another vitally important aspect in  the development of 
the  trans-European  network.  A  significa_nt  number  of  road  or  rail  cross-border 
links, either at the project stage or under construction, inch.~de major tunnel  sections, 
sometimes  exceeding  50 km.  These  projects,  which  have  already  received  or  will 
receive Community financial  support, include the 8 km long Somport tunnel between 
France  and  Spain,  the  rail/road  link  between  Denmark  and  Sweden  (0resund),  the 
future Lyon-Turin trans~lpine rail link, the Brenner project and the Bologna-Flo~ence 
high-speed  line  currently  being·  constructed,  where  60  of  the  90  km  will  be  in 
tunnels.  Existing  infrastructure  in  some  parts,  both  rail  and  road,  also  has  ageing 

57 

problems  (80%  of  rail  tunnels  were  constructed  in  the  19th  century),  or  has 
increasing difficulty in coping with  the inexorable growth in  traffic.  Current national 
legislation  varies  greatly:  some Member States  have  legislation  on  safety in  tunnels 
while in  others it is  rudimentary or even non-existent. The European  Union can  help 
to  improve  safety  both  at  a  technical  level  and  in  the  way  in  which  tunnels  are 
operated. 

Consideration  should  therefore  be  given  to  European  regulations,  which  could 
take the form of a  directive on the harmonisation of minimum safety standards, 
so as to put in place the conditions guaranteeing a high level of safety for the users of 
road and rail  tunnels,  particularly those  forming  part of the trans-European transport 
network. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  will  be  very  vigilant  with  regard  to  the  safety  measures 
planned for infrastructure works  which  include sections in  tunnels and which receive 
·Community funding,  particularly under the budget for the trans-European network. 

II. 

THE HEADACHE OF FUNDING 

The  main  obstacle  to  carrying  out  infrastructure  projects,  apart  from  technical  or 
environmental  considerations,  remains  the  difficulty  of  mobilising  capital.  The 
Commission  sounded  the  alarm  in  this  connection  in  its  I.993  White  Paper  on 
Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. The suggestion of raising a loan through 
bonds issued by the  Union  to  help  funding  has  not  been  followed  up.  The headache 
of funding  remains.  To  overcome  this  problem,  not  only  must  public  and  private 
funding be equal to the task, but also innovative methods of funding must be applied. 

A. 

Limited public budgets 

Traditionally, transport infrastructure  has  been  built on  the  basis of public funding, 
whether regional, national  or Community.  Most of the road or rail  projects currently 
underway follow  this  pattern.  In  these  circumstances,  it is  society as  a  whole  which 
contributes.  The  funds  needed  to  develop  the  trans-European  transport  network 
exceed 110 billion euros for the major priority projects alone,  which meant that some 
projects  had  to  be  selected  ahead  of  others.  Public  funding  has  therefore  given 
priority to high-speed lines within Member States, such as the Paris/Strasbourg TGV, 
to  the  detriment  of projects  such  as  Alpine  crossings,  which  have  an  international 
vocation  mainly geared to  freight  and which  therefore,  because of their cross-border 
nature,  appear  to  be  less  cost  effective  than  other  projects.  The  logic  dictating 
national choices is not unconnected with the road/rail imbalance. 

Complementing  national  funds,  Community  funding  (Structural  Funds,  Cohesion 
Fund and budget for the trans-European network) is  available for studies or works in 
the  form  of  direct  subsidies.56  In  the  case  of  the  budget  for  the  trans-European 
network,  the  Community's  contribution  is  limited  to  10%  of  the  total  cost  of 
investment. The aim is  to facilitate  the  launch on a co-funding basis of the project or 
of  studies  prior  to  projects,  to  mobilise  and  coordinate  potential  investors  and  to 
stimulate  innovative  financial  packages.  For  projects  extending  over  several  years, 
the  Commission  has  suggested establishing  a  multiannual  indicative  programme for 

S6 

The budget for the trans-European network also offers interest rate subsidies and loan guarantees. 

58 

2001-2006,  which  will  make  for  better  scheduling  of  expenditure  and  ensure 

. continuity of Community financial  a~d from the point of view of the promoters. 

Experience  has  shown,  however,  that  in  some  cases,  particularly  those  involving 
cross-border priority projects such as Lyon-Turin or the future  central crossing of the 
Pyrenees, the present Community contribution rate  is  not a sufficient incentive to act 
as  a lever to mobilise and coordinate the required. investment. It is therefore proposed 
that  this  rate  should  be  raised  to  20%  for  "critical"  projects  with  a  high  added 
value  for  the  trans-European  network  but  a  low  socio-economic  return  at  national 
level.  Specifically,  this  will  concern  cross-border  rail  projects  crossing  natural 
barriers, such as  mountain ranges or stretches of water, requiring de facto  major civil 
engineering works such as  long tunnels or bridge~. Trans-European network proj~cts 
with  the  aim  of  eliminating  clearly  identified  rail  bottlenecks  at  borders  with 
candidate countries will also be eligible, on a one-off basis, for this 20% rate. 

·Although  for  some  projects  eligible  for  the  structural  funds  the  very  size  of  the 
Community contribution is  the  determining factor,  since  aid can be as  much  as  80% 
of the total cost in the case of the Cohesion Fund, Community funding in other cases 
is  granted sparingly  and  has  to  be  complemented by  substantial  funding  from  other 
sources. The €4  170 million available for the· period 2000-2006 under the budget for 
the trans-European network,  and allocated mainly to  the  major priority-projects, will 
cover only a  small  part of requirements.  This  means  firstly  that it is  necessary  to be 
more selective with the projects and secondly that 0ther public or private funding - or 
a combination of the two - is needed for implementing the projects. To maximise the 
return  on  Community  aid,  therefore,  a11d  without  waiting  for  the  revision  of  the 
guidelines,  the  aim  is  not qnly  to  tighten  up  the  selection  criteria but  also  to  ensure · 
that  Community  funding  is  much  more  conditional  upon  the  implementation  of 
projects  guaranteeing 
their 
interoperability,  their  contribution  to  the  development  of  intermodality,  greater 
safety, and the recovery of the aid where this principle is not met. 

infrastructure  concerned, 

interconnection  of  the 

B. 

Reassuring private investors 

When  the  Channel  Tunnel  was  built,  funding  was  provided  by  private  investors. 
While -this  project is  an  undeniable technical  triumph,  it  has  however proved to  be  a 
notorious  financial  failure  affecting  small  savers  and  major  financial  groups  alike. 
The main  weakness  of a financial  package  of this  type  lies  in  the  time  lag  between 
the  capital  expenditure  and  the  first  returns,  which  come  only  when  the  project 
becomes  operational.  This  first  returns  do  not  necessarily  mean  profits.  The  most 
tangible effect of this failure at the financial  level  has  been the lack of interest on the 
part  of  private  investors  to  fund  transport  infrastructure,  es.pecially  cross-border 
infrastructures on which profits, often low, are by no means certain. 

In  an  attempt  to  remedy  this  situation,  the  Commission  launched  a  consultation 
process  in  1995-1997  aimed  at  encouraging  the  developIPent  of  public/private 
partnerships.  Some  major projects  - the  0resund bridge/tunnel  for  example - have 
been funded by this partnership mechanism. The guarantees  are such that almost the 
entire  risk  is  borne  by  the  State.  In  spite  of  this  advance,  the  public/private 
partnership formula has still not been able to  attract private investors, just as  in  other 
cases the inflexibility sl)own  by some States has  not  encouraged the  developme.nt  of 
public/private partnerships. 

59 

By introducing  new  procedures  for  public  contracts,  the  Commission  is -hoping  to 
achieve greater involvement of private capital in  infrastructure funding.  The revision 
of  the  rules  on  public  contracts  already  proposed57  and  clarification  of  the  rules 
applicable  to  public  works  concessions  should  result  in  the  involvement  of  the 
private  sector  at  the  earliest  possible  stage  in  the  planning  of projects  and  greater 
legal certainty in  the  way in  which  they are  put together.  Experience has  also  shown 
that  setting  up  a  single  body  responsible  for  obtaining  and  utilising  funding  is  a 
precondition  for  the  success  of  projects  involving  the  private  sector.  Such 
mechanisms should therefore be encouraged. 

C. 

An innovative approach: pooling of funds 

For many major projects there is no return on investment for several decades. 

The Lyon-Turin link - a textbook example of a new funding mechanism 

The  difficulty  of financing the  international section  of the  new Lyon-Turin link between St 
Jean  de  Maurienne  and Busso/eno,  consisting of two  major tunnels,  one  54 km  in  length, 
the  other  12  km,  provides  an  ideal  opportunity for  applying a  new  approach  to funding 
which goes  beyond tried and tested forms.  The  new Lyon-Turin line  (mixed rail line,  high 
speed and combined transport)  is one of the  14 projects sanctioned by the Essen European 
Council  in  1994.  This  project  had been  identified as  the  missing  link for  connecting,  by 
2010, 
to  its  French 
counterpart. 

the  Italian  high-speed  network,  currently  under  consf!:uction, 

the 

'"Maurienne" (Chamhiry-Modane-Susa-Turin), 58  which  links 
The  present  line, 
France to Italy through the Mont Cenis tunnel (almost  13 km)  and dates from the  1870s,  is 
used by  long-distance  passenger  trains  but  is  of strategic  importance  above  all for  the 
transport of freight  between Italy and its  neighbours  (France  - Benelux - Spain).  Even at· 
the  beginning of the  1990s,  it  was  near  to  saturation  with  traffic  (in  both  directions)  of 
around 8 million tonnes,  and this figure has now reached 10 million.  Over the period 1994-
2000,  Community financial aid/or studies on the construction of the new link amounted to 
some €60  million,  which  accounts for approximately 50%  of total expenditure.  Thus,  so 
far,  the Community has been by far the biggest provider of funds/or the project. 

Between  2001  and  2005,  the  existing  line  will  be  upgraded  and  operating  conditions 
improved (use  of dual-current  locomotives  to  reduce journey times)  in  order to  cope  with 
the  expected growth  of traffic  over the  next few years  and launch  a  trans-Alpine  "rolling 
road".  The  bilateral traffic as well as flows  between Atlantic Europe and a Balkan Central 
Europe in the throes of change should soon saturate this upgraded route.  The  11  000 or so 
heavy goods vehicles which travel daily through France or Switzerland to Italy are a major 
source  of nuisance  that  is  becoming  less  and less  tolerable  and less  and less  tolerated 
Ultimately,  we are heading towards total paralysis of the region.  Everything must be done 
to ensure that this project comes into operation  at the beginning of the next decade.  To 
avoid any further  delay,  sources  off unding  other than  budget contributions from  the 
Member States and the Community must he found. 

New  infrastructure  projects  should  therefore  benefit  from  an  "income"  even 
before  the  first  operating  revenue  is  generated.  The  income  from  charges  on 
competing routes - once these have been amortised - could provide a  reserve of 

57 

58 

COM(2000)275 and COM(2000)276. 
The  line  has  gradients  of almost  35  per  1000 on  the  French  side  and  30 per  1000 on  the  Italian  side, 
sometimes requiring three locomotives to pull  the heaviest trains. 

60 

surplus  financial  resources. 59  Some  of this  income  could  therefore  be  used  to 
make up the shortfall in funds needed to complete other infrastructure projects, 
particularly rail, in the region in question. 

In  other  words,  the  toll  or charge  is  applied  to  the  area  as  a  whole  to  finance  any 
future infrastructure.  We can no longer expect, as  with  the  Channel Tunnel, to  repay 
investment  by  charging  users  once  the  infrastructure  has  been  opened  to  traffic.  If 
this  approach  were  applied  to  the  Alpine  crossings,  the  Alpine  motorways  and 
tunnels  would  contribute  to  the  funding  of  construction  work  on  new  crossings 
before they opened. Switzerland has  adopted the radical  solution of funding this type 
of major work almost entirely through charges on heavy goods vehicles, starting with 
EU lorries. 

'· 

Switzerland: a special case 

Switzerland is  the first  country to  adopt a programme of rail infrastructure projects which 
is  more  than  50%  funded from  roads.  The  Swiss  do  not  take  lightly  the  question  of 
transferring goods from  road to rail:  the  method of fimding major rail projects for the  next 
twenty years is enshrined in a specific article in the Federal Constitution (Article  196). 

This  Article  governs  the  funding  of rail  infrastructure,  including  modernisation  of the 
conventional  rail  network  and the  new  rail  links  through  the  Alps,  which  are  the  most 
ambitious  infrastructure  projects  in  the  Alpine  region  (Lotschberg  and Gothard  tunnels 
which  are  due  to  open  in  2007  and  2012  respectively).  The  total  cost  of more  than 
€19  billion over twenty years is funded by: 

- A  charge  paid by  heavy  goods  vehicles  to  use  the  Swiss  road network  which  should 
account for  almost  half of the  total  cost  of the  planned infrastructure.  Road hauliers 
from  third countries will fund almost 20% of the costs of constructing the  infrastructure 
through the payment of a charge on transit through Switzerland. 

- Part  of the proceeds from  the  mine.ml  oil tax,  which  will fund 25%  of the  costs  of the 

new rail links through the Alps. 

- A  0.1%  increase  in  VAT together  with  loans from  the  Swiss  Confederation  and private 
lenders,  which  will provide  the  remainder.  The  railway  companies  will  have  to  repay 
these loans with interest. 

The  novelty of the  Swiss approach lies essentially in  the creation of a special fund made up 
of the charge on Swiss and foreign heavy goods vehicles.  The  Federal Law of 19 December 
1997 relating to  this  charge  is clear in this respect:  "the payment-related charge on heavy 
goods  traffic  is  intended  to  cover  in  the  long  term  the  infrastructure  costs  and  costs 
incurred by the local community as a result of such traffic,  insofar as it does not offset such 
costs through other payments or charges.  The  introduction of this charge is also intended to 
help improve  the framework  conditions for  railways  on  the  transport  market and to  route 
more goods by rail. " 

It  is  not  necessary  for  the  corresponding  funds  to  be  administered  at  Community 
level;  this  is  better done  by  the  countries  or infrastructure  managers  concerned,  on 
the -basis  of bilateral  agreements.  Replenished  by  a  contribution  from  _the  income 
from  road  pricing  on  routes  with  dense  traffic,  these  funds  would  offer  sufficient 
guarantees to  borrow  rapidly  and under favourable  conditions on  the capital  market. 

.. _ 

59 

See also the chapter on charging. 

61 

This  system  could  provide  an  even  more  interesting  solution  in  that. it  would 
encourage  the  countries concerned  to  improve  cross-border coordination  and  would 
pool  the  risks  associated  with  traffic  trends  between  road  and  rail  infrastructure 
managers. 

Motorway concessionaires,  who  could  become  full  partners  in  the  construction  and 
management  of these  future  rail  links,  would  benefit  from  this  in  the  long  term,  by 
helping  to  relieve  the  congestion  which  is  already  badly  affecting  their  own 
networks.  Nor  would  such  a  system  penalise  the  regions  concerned.  The  financial 
burden  would  be  borne  by  the  users,  including  vehicles  in  transit  and  from  other 
countries,  and  would  replace  traditional  funding  from  taxes  paid  only  by  the 
inhabitants and businesses in the countries or regions crossed. 

- This  new  approach  ties  in  with  many  of the  ideas  to  emerge  at  national  level  since 
the basic principle is to allocate part of the surplus income from charging for existing 
infrastructures  to  funding  the  completion  of missing  links  in  the  network  and  this 
principle  is  already  applied  or is  under  discussion  in  various  forms  in  a  number of 
Member States.  It  is  also  highlighted  in  the  Parliamentary  report  by Paolo  Costa,60 
which  points  out  that  "it should be  considered that  if there  is  any  surplus  revenue 
over infrastructure -construction  and maintenance costs,  the  revenues could be  used 
for reducing external costs within the  mode of transport from  which they arise  or in 
other modes. " 

Precedents and projects in Member States 

In  Germany,  the  government  is  currently  examining  the  suggestions  of the  independent 
commission  (Piillmann  Commission)  to  introduce  a  new system  of rights  of use  based on 
kilometres covered,  the revenue from  which could be  used to fund transport. infrastructure, 
including other modes,  by way of derogations to be  examined on a case-by-case basis.  This 
possibility of derogations proposed by a commission made  up mainly of leading figures  in 
the  road industry - representatives  of public  works  and constructors  - is  clearly aimed at 
projects such as the Brenner. 

In  France,  the Investment Fund/or Land Transport and Inland Waterways,  which has been 
in  existence  since  199561  is  replenished  by  a  ta"C  of 0. 69  (euro)  cents  per  km  paid  by 
motonvay  concessionaires  ("Land  Planning  Ta"C ").  This  fimd  can  be  used  to  finance 
irifrastructure projects,  more than half of which are on the railways. 

This  approach  also suggests  a  revision  of current  Community legislation,  which  not 
only fails  to  encourage  transfers  of revenue  from  road  tolls  to  railway infrastructure 
projects,  but can  even  be  interpreted  as  obstructing such  transfers.  The Directive  on 
the  charging  of  heavy  goods  vehicles  for  the  use  of  certain  infrastructures62  thus 
restricts  toll  amounts to  the  costs  of constructing,  operating  and developing the  road 
network.  Although  the  Directive  states  that  it  does  not  "prevent  the  Member States 
from  attributing  to  environmental  protection  and  the  balanced  development  of 
transport networks  a percentage of the  amount of the  user charge or of the  toll",  it  is 
nonetheless  true  that  the  method  of calculating the  toll  laid  down  by this  legislation 
limits  its  amount  to  the  costs  of  constructing,  operating  and  developing  the  road 
network.  As  the  European  Parliament  has  emphasised,  there  is  then  an  intrinsic 
contradiction in  this  provision, as  the amount of the toll  cannot be related both  to  the 

_ .. 

60 

61 

62 

AS-0345/2000. 
For technical reasons, this fund  was budgeted in 2001. 
Directive  1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the  use of certarn infrastructl!res. 

62 

costs of constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure network concerned 
and  be  used  for  environmental  protection  and  balanced  development  of  transport 
networks. The possibility of using part of the tolls to fund,  for example, rail  projects 
is therefore legally ambiguous, and·this legal  uncertainty should be removed as  soon 
·as possible. 

The  introduction  of the  new  Community  framework  for  infrastructure  charging  as 
announced in Part Three will bring in  the changes and adjustments to allow Member 
States to use income frorri infrastructure charging to fund this type of project. 

As  regards  the  guidelines  for  trans-European  networks,  the  Commission  plans  to 
propose: 

In 2001, an adaptation of the current guidelines with the aim of: 

.eliminating bottlenecks to encourage rail corridors with priority given to freight, greater 
integration  of  high-speed  lines  with  air  transport,  and  the  introduction  of  traffic 
management plans on the main road arteries 

amending the· list  of "specific" projects  (the  "Essen" list)  adopted  by  the  Community 
in  1996 by adding major projects. By way of illustration:  · 

the high-capacity freight rail route through the Pyrenees; 

East European high-speed train/combined transport:  Paris-Stuttgart-Vienna; 

the Fehmam Belt bridge/tunnel between Germany and Denmark; 

the Galileo satellite radionavigation project; 

improved navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen; 

the Verona-Naples rail link, including the Bologna-Milan branch; 

interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network. 

In  2004,  major  changes  to  the  guidelines  on  the  trans-European  network  aimed  at 
integrating the networks  of candidate countries,  introducing the concept of "motorways of 
the sea", developing airport capacity and improving links with outlying regions. 

As  regards the financing of infrastructure, the Commissiorr plans to propose: 

a  change, to  the funding  rules  for  the  trans-European  network,  increasing  to 20%  the 
maximum Community  c~ntribution for  cross-border  projects  crossing  natural  barriers 
and projects at the borders of candidate countries; 

the  establishment  of a  Community framework  to  channel  revenue  from  charges  on 
competing routes towards the building of new infrastructure, particularly rail. 

As  regards technical regulations, the Commission plan~ to propose: 

-

-

harmonisation of minimum safety standards for road and rail  tunnels forming part of the 
trans-European transport network; 

a  directive  designed  to  guarantee  the  interoperability  of toll  systems  on  the  trans 
European road network. 

63 

PART THREE: PLACING USERS AT THE HEART OF TRANSPORT POLICY 

\Vhether  they  be  members  of the  public  or transport  sector  professionals,  everyone 
should enjoy a transport system that meets their needs and expectations. 

Users therefore need to be put back at the heart of transport policy: 

Users'  prime concern is road safety, which they feel  is constantly under threat. 

They also  want to know exactly what they are  paying for when  they use motorways 
or public transport.  Using infrastructure and tackling pollution and congestion comes 
at  a cost.  It  is  time  to  say exactly what these  costs  are so  that  future  decisions  on 
modes of transport can be taken with complete transparency and coherence. 

People  do  not  just  want  to  be  transported  in  ever  greater  safety;  they  also  expect 
straightforward and flexible conditions of transport, especially when they have to use 
several modes of transport. They also want more account taken of their rights. 

Finally,  users  expect  more  rational  transport  in  towns  and  cities.  Noise  and  air 
pollution  and  its  effects  on  health  are  of greater concern  in  towns  and  cities,  and  a 
clear line needs to be drawn urgently between the respective roles of private cars and 
public  transport.  Given  the constraints  of the Treaty,  and in  particular the  principle 
of subsidiarity,  the  Commission  intends  essentially  to  encourage  the  exchange  of 
good practice.  In  achieving sustainable  transport  development,  it is  undoubtedly the 
measures which need to be  taken  in  urban  transport which  will  be  the  most difficult 
to implement. They fall  within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. 

I. 

UNSAFE ROADS 

Of all  modes  of transport,  transport by road is  the most dangerous and the most 
costly  in  terms  of human  lives.  Viewed  as  something  of a  fact  of life,  it  is  only 
recently that  road accidents  have  aroused  any particularly strong reaction.  How else 
can  the relative  acceptance  of road  accidents  be  explained when  every day the  total 
number  of  people  killed  on  Europe's  roads  is  practically  the  same  as  in · a 
medium-haul plane crash? 

And  yet  road safety is  a  major concern  of the  people of Europe,  possibly even  their 
prime concern.63 

Studies indicate  that  drivers  in. Europe  expect  stricter road  safety measures,  such  as 
improved road quality,  better training  of drivers,  enforcement of traffic  regulations, 
checks on vehicle safety, and road safety campaigns.64 

Until  the  1990s, the Community's lack of explicit  powers  with  regard to road safety 
made it hard for it to  formulate  action  in  that  area.  Nonetheless,  the  Community has 
long  been  contributing  to  road  safety.  The  creation  of the  internal  market  made  it 

63 

A  BVA  poll  in  France  published  in  Journal  du  Dimanche  on  21  January 2001  showed  it  to  t:>e  the 
number one concern of the French, ahead of serious diseases, food  scares, etc. 
SARTRE (Sociar Attitudes  to  Road Traffic Risk in  Europe)  projects; SARTRE  1 involved  15  countries 

·  in  1992 and SARTRE 2  19 countries in  1997. 

64 

possible,  especially  via  technical  standardisation,  to  develof  safe  motor-vehicle 
equipment  and  accessories  by  means  of  over  SQ  directives6 
(compulsory  use  of 
seatbelts,  transport  of dangerous  goods,  use  of speed  limitation  devices  in  lorries, 
standardised driving licences and roadworthiness testing of all  vehicles). 

The  Maastricht  Treaty  finally  provided  the  Community  with  the -legal  means  to 
establish a framework and introduce measures in the field of road safety. 66 

Yet  even  today,  despite  these  new  powers  in  the  Treaty,  some  Member States  still 
fail  to  recognise  the  obvious  need  for  a  proper  European  road  safety  policy,  and 
invocation of the principle of subsidiarity is making Community action difficult.67 

I 

The European Union must, over the next 10 years, pursue the ambitious goal of 
reducing the  number of deaths  on  the  road  by  half;  this  by way  of integrated 
action taking account of human and technical factors  and designed to  make the 
·trans-European road network a safer network. 

A. 

Death on a daily basis: 40 000 fatalities a year 

The price paid for  mobility in  Europe is  still  far  too  high.  Since  1970, for  example, 
more than  1.64 million  of our fellow  citizens  have  been  killed  on  the  road.  Though  . 
the number of deaths  in road accidents  dropped significantly at  the  beginning of the 
1990s, the trend has been less marked in recent years. 

In 2000, road accidents killed over 40 000 people in the European Union and injured 
more than  1.7 million. The age group most affected is the  14-25  year olds, for whom 
road accidents are the prime cause of death.  One person in three will be injured in 
an  accident  at  some  point  in  their  lives.  The  directly  measurable  cost  of  road 
accidents  is  of the  order  of 45 billion  euros .. Indirect  costs  (including  physical  and 
psychological  damage  suffered  by  the  victims  and  their  families)  are  three  to  four 
times higher. The annual figure is  put at 160 billion euros, equivalent to 2%  of the 
EU's GNP.68 

The sums  spent on  improving road safety fail  to reflect the  severity of the  situation. 
Efforts to prevent road accidents  are  still  woefully inadequate, corresponding to  less 
than  5%  of  the  total  cost  of  those  accidents,  including  the  amount  the  insurance 
companies spend on compensation and repairs, which totals 60 billion euros. 

The scattering of responsibilities  anc;l  resources over a large number of organisations 
and  authorities  responsible  for  road  safety,  both  centrally  and  regionally,  tends  to 
rule out large-scale action and discourage the introduction of coordinated policies. 

65 

66 

67 

68 

For instance, provisions standardising the fitting of laminated windscreens, the fitting of seatbelts for all 
passengers, ~tandardised lateral and frontal  protection, standardisation of bra king systems. 
. Article 71  of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty on European Union. 
Witness the fact that a proposal first put forward  in  1988 to set a legal blood alcohol limit has remained 
a  dead  leuer  on  the  agenda  of  24  Council  presidencies.  It  has  never  been  brought  to  a  successful 
conclusion.  On  17 January 2001  the  Commission  adopted  a  recommendation  including  and  improving 
the main objectives of the original proposal. 
Report  by  Ewa  Hedkvist  Pet~rsen on  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Councp,  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on 
"Priorities in EU road safety - Progress report and ranking of actions"  (COM(2000)125 - CS-0248/2000 
- 2000/2136(COS)), adopted by Parliament on 18 January 2001. 

· · 

65 

The programmes  set in  motion  are  often  no  more  than  forerunners,  containing  little 
in  the way of substance. Faced with the  difficulty of achieving real  results,  Member 
States sometimes cite cultural particularities to justify their fatalistic  attitude. Certain 
technical  measures,  e.g.  involving  the  safety  of  the  infrastructure,  call  for  major 
investments that Member States have thus far been dilatory in making. 

If all the Member States were to achieve the same results as  the United Kingdom and 
Sweden, for example, the  numbers killed would be cut by 20 000 a year.  In  1998 the 
ratio between the number of persons killed·in road accidents in Sweden and Portugal, 
two  countries  with  comparable  population  figures,  was  1 to  4.5.  The  ratio  between 
the  United  Kingdom  and  France  was  1  to  2.5.69  There  is  also  huge  scope  for 
improvement  in  the  countries  applying  for  accession,  whose  v~hicle fleets  are  on 
average older than  those  of the  EU Member States  and  are  not fitted  ~ith the  latest 
technology (ABS, airbags, etc.). 

In  1997 Sweden  adopted an  ambitious plan  of ''zero  deaths  and zero  serious  injuries  in 
road accidents" for  the  country as a  whole.  The  programme  addresses all areas  in  which 
local authorities and companies have a leading role to play.  They were asked, for example, 
to  introduce safety criteria into their public contracts for vehicles and transport services in 
order to  increase the  supply of safe vehicles.  Systematic improvements to  the road network 
bave  been  undertaken  to  reduce  the.  severity  of accide_nts,  and  incentives  have  been 
provided,  in  conjunction  with the private sector,  to  reduce  the  derrzand for  road transport 
and thus the exposure of road users to risk. 

B. 

Halving the number of deaths 

In  the  battle  for  road  safety,  the  European  Union  needs  to  set  itself  an  ambitious 
goal  to  reduce  the  number  of  people  killed  between  2000  and  2010.  The · 
Commission plans to marshal efforts around the target of halving the number of 
road  deaths  over that  period.  Though  responsibility  for  taking  measures  to  halve 
the  number  of  road  deaths  by  2010  will  fall  chiefly  to  the  national  and  local 
authorities,  the  European  Union  too  needs  to  contribute  to  this  objective,  not  just 
through the exchange of good practice, but also through action at two levels: 

- harmonisation of penalties, and 

-

promotion of new technologies to improve road safety. 

The  Commission  may,  following  a  review  of  the  situation  in  2005,  propose 
regulatory measures. 

1. Harmonisation of penalties 

It  is  a  fact  that  controls  and  penalties  vary  considerably from  one  Member State  to 
another.  Car and  lorry drivers  know that they have to "take their foot  off the gas" in 
some  countries  but  that  they  can  drive  almost  with  impunity  in  others.  This  is 
worrying inasmuch as  anyone behind the wheel can move easily from  one country to 
another. For a given infringement, the penalty (immediate immobilisation of vehicle, 
loss of licence) should be the same regardless of the driver's nationality and the place 

69 

The number of road deaths in  1998 was 531  in Sweden, 2 425  in Portugal, 3 581  in the United Kingdom 
and  8 918 in France. 

66 

where the infringement occurs.  Yet it is  possible for a  lorry driver disqualified from 
driving in one Member State to obtain another licence in a neighbouring country. 

A  motorist driving from  Cologne to London on the E40 and El 5 motorways has to restrict 
his speed to  120 km/h on crossing the Belgian frontier,  then to  130 km/h  in France  before 
slowing down  to  the  speed limit of 112  km/h  in  the  United Kingdom.  Once  there  he  can 
drink alcohol up to a blood alcohol level of 0.8 mg/ml,  but on the way back he will have to 
observe a maximum limit of 0. 5 mg/ml. 

The  French  authorities  have  the  power  to  take  away  the  driving  licence  of a  motorist 
driving with a_  blood alcohol level of over 0. 8 mg/ml or exceeding the speed limit by more 
than 40 km/h  In neither case,  however,  does French law allow this to  be done  to  a  driver 
who is not of French nationality.  1 

-

Dangerous driving is  a  s_courge  on  a  par with  crime,  and  the  Commission  plans,  as 
.Part  of the  Community's  justice  policy,  to  take  initiatives  aimed  not  just  at  lorry 
drivers but at all motorists. 

By way of example,  the Belgian  association  RED has  come  up  with  innovative  and 
effective road safety initiatives including: 

organising  defensive  driving  courses,  i.e. -teaching  drivers  how  to  regain  control  of  a 
vehicle  during  an  emergency  stop  in  wet  conditions,  how  to  sit  properly  at  the  steering 
wheel, etc. (these are not courses in skidding); 

in  collaboration with  the  Ministry of Justice,  organising  alternative  measures  to  deal  with 
offences,· i.e.  instead of paying  a  fine  or losing  their  licence,  offenders  would,  subject  to 
their agreement, receiye defensive driving  tuition  and spend time helping multiple trauma 
·victims of road accidents in special institutions. 

Work  is  needed  on  the  problem  of  harmonising  certain  regulations,  penalties  and 
controls (particularly regarding speeding and drink-driving), first and foremost on the 
trans-European  motorway  network,  which  enjoys  Community  co-financing  and  is 
used by growing numbers of people from different Member States, and starting with 
technical 
road  haulage.  This  will  mean  approximating 
international 
characteristics  of  the  infrastructure,  but  will  also  involve  basic  harmonisation  of 
signs and road markings. 

the 

The great diversity  of road  markings  and road  signs  on European  routes; especially 
directional signs which have  not  been  harmonised by UN conventions, is  a constant 
hazard  to  drivers.  The  rules  for  indicating  direction  can  differ  from  one  country  to 
another for  the  same type  of road.  For instance,  five  countries  use  green  to  indicate 
~otorways, while the others use blue. Language rules for indicating place names also 
vary,  as.does  route numbering.  Plans ought therefore to  be made for the gradual 
introduction  of harmonised  signs  and  signals  throughout  the  trans-European 
network,  with  the  same  signals  to  be  used  on  board  vehicles.  In  the  long  term,  a 
common  system  for  identifying  stretches  of  the  trans-European  road  network  is 
bound  to  be  required  in  order  to  make  things  clearer  and  guarantee  continuous 
network quality for users. 

Proper sign-posting of black spots - including an indication of the number of victims 
they have claimed - should make  them  more apparent to European  motorists  driving 
on major routes through the various countries. 

67 

The scope ought to be examined for road safety impact studies and audits  (along the 
lines  of environmental  impact  studies) to  be  made  systematic  on  the  main  routes  of 
the  trans-European  road  network,  particularly  for  projects  for  which  European 
funding is requested. 

Efforts  must  also  continue  to  combat  the  scourge  of  drink-driving  and  find 
answers to the question of the  use of drugs or medicines that affect people's ability 
to  drive  safely.  On  17  January 2001  the  Commission  adopted  a  recommendation 
urging the Member States to prescribe a general limit of 0.5 mg/ml as  the maximum 
permitted  blood  alcohol  level  of drivers  and  0.2 mg/ml  for  commercial  drivers, 
motorcyclists and inexperienced drivers. 

In  an  effort  to  combat  drink-driving  in  Belgium,  the  "Bob"  campaign  (i.e.  the  person 
driving does not drink)  launched in  1995 has been a great success.  Groups are encouraged 
to  select one person from  among them  who  will refrain from  drinking  and can  thus  drive 
the others home safely. 

I 

In  France,  in  addition  to  awareness  campaigns,  other practices  have  been  developed to 
reduce  the  number  of deaths  among people  leaving  night  clubs.  Some  establishments  ask 
people to hand in their car keys on arrival and only return the keys after checking the blood 
alcohol level of the driver. 

Also,  to  encourage  motorists to  drive  more  carefully on  some roads,  several regions  have 
marked the places where people have been killed in  accidents by tracing silhouettes by the 
roadside.  Seeing them,  some 37% of motorists say they take more care and 20% slow down. 

Several  Member  States  have  introduced  a  range  of  initiatives  to  prevent  risky 
behaviour, particularly with warnings to the  young about the dangers of alcohol. It is 
important to encourage the spread and exchange of these good practices. 

Table 1 Permitted speed limits and blood alcohol levels in EU countries 

B  DK  D 

EL 

E 

F 

IRL 

I 

L  NL 

.A 

p 

FIN  s  UK 

Built-~p areas 

Trunk roads 

Motorways 

' ·  

50 

90 

50 

80 

50 

50 

100  110 

50 

90 

50 

90 

48 

96 

50 

90 

50 

90 

50 

80 

50 

50 

100  100 

50 

80 

50 

90 

48 

96 

120  110 

see  120  120 

note70 

130  112 

130  120 

120  130  120  120  110 

112 

Blood  Alcohol  -level 
mg/ml  :_ 

.,  . .. ' 

·• 

in 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.8 

0.8 

0.8 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.2 

0.8 

Source : European Commission and Member States. 

In  addition,  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  are  currently  discussing  a 
proposal  for  a  Directive  which  would  require  coach  passengers  to  use  safety  belts, 
where fitted.  An existing Directive on "safety belts for coaches" lays down technical 
standards  for  belts  but  does  not  require  manufacturers  to  fit  them.  To  make  this 
measure effective, action needs to  be taken to  require coach manufacturers, like 
car manufacturers before them, to fit all seats with safety belts. A directive along 
these lines will be proposed in  2002. 

70 

Motorways:  no  speed  limit,  recommended  limit of 130 km/h,  more  than  half the  network  with  speeds 
limited to  120 km/h or less. 

68 

2.  New technologies for improved road safety . 

Technological  developments  will  also  enhance  the  usual  methods  of  control  and 
penalties,  with  the  introduction  of automatic  devices  and  on-board  driving  aids.  In 
the same context,_ the  eventua~ fitting in  road vehicles, as  in  other forms  of transport, 
of black boxes to  record parameters which  help explain the causes of accidents,  will 
make  motorists  more  responsible,  speed  up  court  proceedings  following  accidents, 
lower the cost of court proceedings and enable more effective prevention measures to 
be  taken.  In  June 2001  the  Commission  also  adopted  a  proposal  to  make  it 
compulsory  to  fit  speed  limitation  devices  in  vehicles  of more  than  3.5 tonnes  or 
vehicles carrying more th'1n  9  passengers  (the maximum speed is  90 km/h  for utility 
vehicles and 100 km/h for buses). 

The need for independent investigations 

There  is  a  particular  problem  regarding  the  investigations  which  follow  accidents.  At 
present,  the  chief concern  in  investigations  conducted  by  the  authorities  or  by  insurance 
companies  is  to- compensate  for  any  damage  caused  by  the  accident  and  to  determine 
liability  under  the  codes  established  by  the  legislator.  However,  such  investigations  are 
unable  to  stem  the  growing  need  felt  in  Europe  and  the  United  States  for  independent 
technical  investigations  geared  towards  revealing  the  causes  of  accidents  and  ways  of 
improving the law. 

For  some  years  now,  European  law  has  provided  for  this  type  of investigation  for  civil 
aviation.71  A  similar  obligation  has  now  been  provided  for  in  the  rail  sector.72  The 
Commission is already planning to propose the same kind of investigations for the maritime 
sector73  and in the longer term the same should be done for road accidents. 

Independent  investigations  such  as  these  need  to  be  conducted  at  national  level  but 
following a European methodology. The results should be communicated to a committee of 
independent experts  within  the  Com.mission,  whose job would  be  to  improve  the  existing 
legislation and adapt the methodology inter alia to techriical developments. 

As  Mr  P.  van  Vollenhoven 74  reminded  the  3rd  Conference  on  accident  investigation 
organised  by  the  European  Transport  Safety  Council  (ETSC),  "a permanent  independent 
organisation  not  only  guarantees  independence  of  investigation;  it  also  ensures  that  its 
recommendations are followed up by action." 

71 

72 

73 

74 

Directive 94/56/EC provides a model for the other modes of transport.  It establishes the basic principles 
governing  the· investigation  of civil  aviation  accidents  and  incidents.  In  addition  to  that,  in  December 
2000  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  occurrence  reporting  in  civil  aviation. 
Supplementing  the  existing  Community  legislation,  the  proposal  deals  with  analysis  of incidents  and 
occurrences that are usually precursors of accidents. 
The  amendment  to  Directive  911440/EEC,  adopted  last  December  as  part  of the  "railway  package'', 
requires  Member States  to  ensure  that  all  accidents  are  followed  by  investigations.  Before  the  end  of 
2001  the  Commission  will  adopt a proposal for  a Directive on railway  safety requiring Ntember States 
to  set  up  wholly  independent  national  bodies  to  be  responsible  for  investigating  accidents.  A 
cooperation mechanism will  be put in place at'Community level,  possibly as  part of the  future  Railway 
Safety Agency. 
Directive  1999/35/EC  on  a  system  of mandatory  surveys  for  the  safe  operation  of regular  ro-ro  ferry 
that  . objective 
and  high-speed  passenger  craft  services  requires,  as  from  1 December  2000, 
. investigations be conducted in_ the event of accidents on any such  vessels and craft bound for or l~aving 
Community ports.  The Commission  intends to  propose a  harmonised  system for  all  maritime accidents 
by 2004. 
C~airman of the Dutch Transport Safety Board. 

69 

The introduction of electronic  driving licences could also help  with  the  enforcement 
of penalties,  such  as  the  immobilisation  of vehicles  whose  drivers  have  lost  their 
licences. 

the  market. 

The European  Union  has  considerable,  even  sole,  responsib~lity for  encouraging  the 
deployment of innovative technologies  which  should lead to  the  introduction  of safe 
new  vehicles  on 
Intelligent  transport  systems  are  another 
opportunity, and broad provision for them is  made in the eEurope plan adopted 
by  the Feira European  Council in  June 2000  and confirmed  by  the  Stockholm 
European Council in March 2001. In  this context,  it would be useful  to encourage 
the  introduction  of active  safety  systems  for  all  new  vehicles,  the  generalisation  of 
which  could  be. facilitated  by  a  Community-level  agreement  with  the  automobile· 
industry.75  Fitted with innovative technologies, e.g. in the area of traffic management 
and collision-avoidance  systems,  such  vehicles  hold out  the  prospect  of road  safety 
being  improved  by  50%.  Technological  progress  should  also  increase  vehicles' 
impact resistance thanks to the development of new materials and the introduction of 
new advanced design processes for structural integrity. 

In  the  same context,  current progress  with  tyres  (reduced water projection  for  HGV 
tyres, improved road holding on slippery surfaces, warning system to indicate under 
inflated  tyres)  should  in  the  short  term  make  for  reduced  fuel  consumption  and 
rolling  noise  while  maintaining  a  high  level  of safety.  This  should  produce  a  10% 
saving on fuel  and around one thousand fewer deaths per year. 

Protection  of vehicle  occupants  in  the  event  of impact  is  progressing  remarkably. 
Electronic systems will enable new smart protection devices (airbags for example) to 
adjust for  the  number of vehicle  occupants,  their  morphology  and  the  nature  of the 
impact  so  as  to  provide  more  tailored  protection.  Reminders  to  put  safety  belts  on 
must become standard vehicle equipment. 

In Sweden,  95% of car occupants wear their seatbelts.  However,  half of all those killed in 
accidents were not wearing their seatbelts at the time of the accident. 

To make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists,  safety standards  for  the  design  of 
car fronts  could  help  save  up  to  2 000  Ii ves  a  year.  A  voluntary  agreement  on  the 
application of such standards is currently being discussed with the industry.76 

Finally,  as  the  volume of traffic  increases,  better vehicle-speed  management is  an 
essential  aspect  of  safety  that  will  also  help  tackle  congestion.  In  addition  to 
improved  road  safety,  observation  of speed  limits  will  also  reduce  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  significantly.  The  most  promising  prospects  here  are  offered  by  new 
technologies  that  can  determine  optimum  speed  at  any  moment  with  reference  to 
traffic  conditions,  road  features  and  external  conditions  (such  as  weather)  and  pass 
the  information  on  to  drivers  by  way  of  information  display  boards  or  on-board 
communication  systems.  Roads  and  vehicles  throughout  the  Union  need  to  be 
equipped  with  these  new  technologies  as  soon  as  possible,  and  information  systems 
made accessible to everyone. 

75 

76 

This  agreement,  which  the  Commission  is  currently  working  on,  will  include  systems  for  distance 
control, for collision prevention and for monitoring driver alertness. 
Commission Communication of 11July2001 proposing a voluntary agreement with the industry. 

-

. 

70 

- A  new  road  safety  action  programme  covering  the  period 2002-2010  will  identify 
what measures need  to be taken  to achieve the  ov~rall objective of 50%  fewer deaths 
on  the  road,  and  will  provide  follow-up  for  all  national  and  European  measures  that 
help reduce the number of fatalities. 

- Member States will  be asked to step up their cooperation and exchange of experience 
on accident  prevention  and analysis,  notably  by  means  of common  tools  developed 
via the CARE database77  or the creation of a European road safety observatory bringing 
all  support  activities  under  one  roof  for  the  benefit  of  road  safety  experts  and  the 
general public. 

- Harmonisation  of current ·rules  and  penalties  (in  particular for  disregarding  road  signs 
and signals, drink-driving and speeding) will be proposed for international transport oh 
the trans-European motorway networ~. 

- A  list  of black  spots  where  there  are  particularly  significant  hazards  will  be  compiled 

with a view to appropriate sign-posting. 

· 

A  committee  of  independent  experts  specialising  in  accident  investigations  will  be 
·established  within the  Commission  to  provide  it  with information  on  the  development 
of rules and regulations in all areas of safety. 

Should improvements  not  be  significant within  three  to  four  years,  the  Commission 
might _also  submit regulatory proposals as of 2005. 
1 
------------------------------------------------------
THE FACTS BEHIND THE COSTS TO THE USER 

II. 

Transport  users  are  entitled to  know  what  they  are  paying  for  and  why.  Containing 
congestion  in  Europe,  tackling  the  greenhouse  effect  and  building  infrastructure 
while  at  the  same  time  improving  safety  on  the  road  or  in  public  transport  and 
minimising environmental <;iisturbance  all comes at a price.  And on  top of this  social 
cost  comes  the  cost  of investment  to  provide  better  control  of transport,  put  new 
trains on  the  tracks  ~nd build new  infrastructure  (e.g.  airports).  The quid pro quo  of 
these benefits for society and transport users is that they ought in future to be more or 
less  reflecte~ in  the  price  users  pay for  transport,  but  without  affecting  access  to  a 
good quality, continuous service throughout the Community. 

Though a global  increase in  transport prices may be on the cards, the biggest change 
will  nonetheless  be  in  price  structure.  In  its  earlier  White  Paper  on  a  common 
transport  policy  the  Commission  already  concluded  that  "one  of the  important 
reasons  why  imbalances  and  inefficiencies  have  arisen  is  because  transport  users 
have not been adequately confronted with the full costs of their activities  .:.  As prices 
do  not reflect  the full social cost •Jf transport,  demand has  been  artificially high.  If 
appropriate  pricing  and  infrastructure  policies.  were 
these 
inefficiencies would largely disappear over time.  ,, 

to  be  pursued, 

· The paradox is that transport has too many taxes:  registration tax, road and insurance 
tax,  fuel  taxes and infrastructure  charges.  But while transport may be heavily  taxed, 
it is  above  all  badly  and  unequally  taxed.  Users  are  all  treated  alike,  irrespective_ of 
the infrastructure damage, bottlenecks and. pollution they cause. 

77 

CARE: Community database on Accidents on the Road in Europe. 

71 

This  failure  to  spread  the  burden  fairly  between  infrastructure  operators,  taxpayers 
and  users  causes  considerable  distortion  of  competition  both  between  transport 
operators and between modes of transport. 

For the  modes  to  enjoy  a  level  playing field,  taxation  should  work  according  to  the 
same  principle  regardless  of mode  and  ensure  a  fairer  distribution  of the  burden  of 
transport  costs,  which  are  generally  borne  more  by  society,  i.e.  taxpayers  and 
companies, than by users.  Applying the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, it 
should be the case,  as  Mr Paolo Costa, MEP,  so rightly said in  a recent report, 78  that 
"transport  users  should  pay for  the  quantifiable  components  of transport  costs 
arising from the  use,  the quality and the safety of infrastructure ... " 

The  Gothenburg  European  Council,  too,  pointed  out  that  "a  sustainable  policy 
should tackle  ...  the full  internalisation  of social and environmental costs.  Action  is 
needed to bring about a significant decoupling of transport growth and GDP growth, 
-in  particular  by  a  shift from  road to  rail,  water  and public passenger  transport. " 
The  thrust  of  Community  action  should  therefore  be  gradually  to  replace 
existing transport system  taxes with  more effective  instruments  for integrating 
infrastructure costs and external costs. These instruments are,  firstly,  charging for 
infrastructure  use,  which  is  a  particularly  effective  means  of managing  congestion 
and reducing other environmental impacts, and,  secondly, fuel  tax, which lends itself 
well  to  controlling  carbon  dioxide  emissions.  The  introduction  of  these  two 
instruments,  which  will  allow  greater  differentiation  and  modulation  of taxes  and 
rights of use,79 needs to be coordinated, with the first being backed up by the second. 

A. 

Towards gradual charging/or the use of infrastructure 

The  fundamental  principle  of  infrastructure  charging  is  that  the  charge  for  using 
infrastructure  must  cover not  only infrastructure  costs,80  but  also  external  costs,  i.e. 
costs connected with accidents,  air pollution, noise and congestion.  This goes for  all 
modes of transport and all categories of user, both private and commercial. 

In  the  case  of  private  vehicles,  cross-border  traffic  is,  however,  limited,  and 
"infrastructure  charging  raises  issues  of freedom  of movement  and  the  need  not  to 
reintroduce  frontiers.  It  would  not,  therefore,  be  expedient  for  the  Community  to 
intervene  in  the  arbitration  handled  by -national  and  local  authorities,  such  as  the 
setting of charges  for  the  use  of utilities  such  as  transport infrastructure.  Instead,  the 
Community  can  act  most  usefully  by  identifying,  disseminating  and  encouraging 
good  practice,  e.g.  through  research  programmes.  In  the  case  of  commercial 
transport,  on  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  avoid  distortion  of  competition  the 
Community  needs  to  establish  a  framework  that  will  enable  the  Member States 
gradually to  integrate  external  and  infrastructure  costs  and  guarantee  consistency in 
their initiatives. 

78 

79 

80 

EP report - AS-0345/2000. 
Taxation  of  vehicles,  including  passenger  vehicles,  on  the  basis  of environmental  criteria  may  also 
encourage  people  to  purchas~ and  use  cleaner  vehicles  (see  part  IV.A  of  this  Section:  Dive{sified 
energy for  transport). 
These  various costs are  detailed  in  Chapter 3 of the  White Paper on fair  payment for  infrastructure  use 
(COM( 1998) 466). 

72 

Price  structures  must  better reflect  the costs  to  the  community.  Given  the  profusion 
of  current  regulations  in  this  field  and  the  risk  of  distorting  competition,  a 
Community framework for infrastructure charging seems to be required in all  modes. 

1.  A price structure that reflects the costs to the community 

Costs to the  community can  be  assessed in  monetary terms.  The  table  below  shows 
the cost levels  generated by a heavy goods  vehicle covering  100 km on  a motorway 
in  open  country  at  off-peak  times.  Estimates  are  made  of the  costs  of air  pollution 
(cost  to  health  and  damaged  crops),  climate  change  (floods  and  damaged  crops), 
infrastructure,81  noise  (cost to health), accidents (medical costs) and congestion (loss 
1of time). 

, 

Table 2  External  and  infrastructure  costs  (euros)  of  a  heavy  goods  vehicle 
travelling 100 km on a motonvay with little traffic 

External and infrastructure costs 

Average range 

Air pollution 

Climate change 

Infrastructure 

Noise 

Accidents 
Congestio_n 

Total 

2.3 - 15 
0.2-1.54 

2.l - 3.3 

0.7 -4· 
0.2-2.6 
2.7 -9.3 

8-36 

Source: Directorate-General for Energy and Transport 

Some  of these  external  and  infrastructure  costs  are  already  covered  by  the  charges 
imposed on  the  goods  vehicle itself,  as  shown by the table below indicating average 
charges,  comprising  fuel  and  vehicle  taxes  and  infrastructure  charges.  Also  shown 
are average infrastructure charges, in the countries that levy them in the form of t,olls 
or user charge  stickers,  and the  rates  planned in  Germany and those  already  applied 
in Switzerland. 

· 

Whatever option is currently applied for motorway charging, the average charge for a 
heavy goods vehicle covering 100 km varies between  12 and 24 euros~ of which little 
more than 8 euros corresponds to infrastructure charges. 

Where  costs  are  increased  by  an  infrastructure  charge  or fuel  tax  there  is  a  drop  in 
traffic,  which  h_as  the  effect  of  reducing  external  and  infrastructure  costs  all  the 
quicker,  leading  ultimately  to  a  balance  between  costs  and  charges.  The  goal  of 
effective and fair pricing must be to find that balance. 

The  said  balance  will  be  achieved  all  the  more  easily  by  having  fair  and  effective 
charging systems on all transport networks. 

81 

Ibid. 

73 

Table 3  Costs  and  charges (euros)  for  a  heavy  goods  vehicle  travelling  100 km 
on a toll mot~nvay with little traffic 

Total costs 
(external and 
infrastructure) 

Average 
charges82 

Average 
infrastructure 
charges 

Charges 
planned in 
Germany 

Charges 
already 
applied in 
Switzerland 

8-36 

12-24 

8.3 

13 

36 

Source: Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (1998 figures) 

A  number of measures  already in  the  pipeline  should  help  narrow  the  gap  between 
costs  and  cliarges;  for  instance,  the  gradual  tightening  of  motor  vehicle  emission 
standards  should reduce  air pollution.  Pricing that  takes  account of the  real  level  of 
costs  generated  by  different  types  of  engine,  congestion  and  other  external  cost 
-factors  will  not  therefore  mean  a  uniform  rise  in  charges  across  the  board.  Charges 
are  likely  to  be  higher  in  areas  with  high  traffic  density  than  in  less-developed 
regions. 

Contrary  to  popular  thinking,  such  integration  would  not  work  against 
European competitiveness. It is  not so much the overall level of taxes that needs 
to  change  significantly,  but  rather  their  structure,  which. needs  to  be  altered 
radically  to  integrate  external  and  infrastructure  costs  into  the  price  of 
transport.  If some  Member  States  wanted  to  raise  the  overall  level  of  transport 
taxes, this policy could,  as  Mr Costa underlined,83  be  "designed in such a way as to 
avoid a net increase  in  taxation  (including charges)  in  the  economy as a whole", for 
instance  by  offsetting  any  increase  in  infrastructure  charges  by  lowering  existing 
taxes,  such  as  taxes  on  labour,  or  by  allocating  revenue  to  the  financing  of 
infrastructure. 

through 

the  use  of  information  and 

Systems  to  locate,  identify  and  monitor  vehicles  and  their  loads  will  become 
increasingly  reliable 
telecommunication 
technologies,  especially  satellite  navigation  systems  (Galileo).  Tariff schedules  can 
then be more targeted and be drawn up according to infrastructure category (national, 
international)  and  use  (distance  travelled,  length  of  time  used).  Other  objective 
factors  can  also  be  taken  into  account,  e.g.  vehicle  catef.ory  (environmental 
performance,  factors  influencing  infrastructure  deterioration,  4  even  the  loading 
ratio),  level  of congestion  (period  of the  day,  week  or  year)  and  location  (urban, 
suburban, interurban or rural). 

International  standards  are  being  adopted  on  short-range  communication  automatic 
toll  systems,  and  work is  under way to establish the contractual  and legal  aspects  of 
network interoperability. Other aspects also need clarifying (how to  handle users not 
possessing automatic equipment, fraud,  etc.).  Despite its efforts the Commission has 
not managed to convince operators to achieve operability on  a voluntary basis and in 
the  short  term.  It therefore  plans,  on  the  basis  of the  current work,  to  present 
Community  legislation  in  2002  in  the  form  of  a  directive  to  guarantee  the 
interoperability  of toll  systems  on  the  trans-European  road  network.  This  will 

82 

83 

8~ 

Not including VAT. 
See footnote 78. 
In  road transport, the number of axles and type of suspension, for example. 

74 

ensure  users  have  a quick  and  easy  way  of paying  infrastructure  charges,  using  the 
same.  means  of  payment  throughout  the  network  without  losing  any  time  at  toll 
stations.  At present, for  example,  a  motorist driving from  Bologna to Barcelona has 
to pay tolls at more than  six  stations without the ''electronic- payment" systems being 
harmonised, even within individual countries. 

It  should  be  noted that  infrastructure  charging that  allows  external  costs,  especially 
environmental  costs,  to  be  internalised  in  the  price  of transport  could,  in  sensitive 
areas,  replace  the  system  of rationing  transit  rights,  such  as  Austria's  "eco-points" 
system whereby goods vehicles wishing to access the Austrian network are  allocated 
points according to their environmental performance. The Commission will look into 
the  expediency  of  proposing  a  transitional  system  to  apply  to  sensitive  mountain 
areas  should  it  not  be  possible  to  bring  the  general  modification  of  charging 
legislation into force at the beginning of 2004. 

2.  A profusion of regulations 

Most modes  of transport  already  have  infrastructure  charging  systems,  such  as  rail, 
port  and  airport  t~xes,  air  navigation  charges  and  motorway  tolls.  These  systems 
were conceived individually for each mode of transport and for each country,  which 
sometimes leads to anomalous  situations that can  hamper international  transport and 
even  discriminate  between  operators  and  modes  of transport. ·For  instance,  a  goods 
train passing though heavily congested urban  areas  might have to pay charges to the 
infrastructure  manager  whereas  a  lorry  can  pass  through  an  entire  conurbation 
without paying any road charges. 

In  its  1998  White  Paper  on  Fair  Payment  for  Infrastructure  Use,  the  Commission 
proposed a programme for a Community approach  in  stages. This programme is  still 
far from  taking concrete shape and the  Community framework in  this respect is  still 
incomplete,. 

In  the  road  haulage  sector,  the  Commission's  proposal  to  take  better  account  of 
environmental costs in the Community framework for charging heavy goods vehicles 
--- for  infrastructure  use  achieved  only  partial  success,  and  even  then  only  under ·the 
pressure of negotiations on  the transport agreement between the European Union and 
Switzerland.  The  current  Community  framework  for  heavy  goods  vehicles  simply 
establishes  minimum  vehicle  charges,  sets  maximum  limits  on  motorway  network· 
access  rights  and  governs  calculation  of toll  amounts. 85  The  European  Union  is 
currently  made_  up  of  a  Europe  of  tolls,  .where  users  have  to  pay.  on  toll 
motonvays,  a  Europe  of  "Eurovignettes"  paid  by  heavy  goods  vehicles 
throughout  the  entire· network,  generally  by  the year,  and  a  Europe where  no 
-charges are applied at all. The result is therefore a disappointment, in terms of both 
the harmonisation of national systems and the inclusion of environmental costs. 

85 

Directive  1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for  the  use of certain infrastructures. 

75 

Current road pricing legislation 

European  law  does  not  allow  Member  States  to  levy  road  charges  above  the  level  of 
infrastructure costs. 86  Moreover,  while charges have the  advantage of being a system more 
in proportion with  the  intensity of use,  they are  usually only applied to  motorways.  In  the 
Eurovignette system,  heavy goods vehicles have to pay an annual charge according to  the 
damage they cause to  the environment and roads.  Charges are  based on emissions (EURO 
standard)  and the size  of the  vehicle  (number  of axles)  and range from  750  to  1550 euros 
per  year.  The  system 
is  restricted  to  six  Member  States  (Belgium,  Netherlands, 
Luxembourg,  Germany,  Denmark and Sweden).  Nonetheless,  this system ties in only partly 
with the principle of fair and efficient pricing (i.e.  that external costs should be paid in full 
by users)  since it is a fixed cost not linked to  the  distance  covered by a  vehicle  in  any one 
year. 

I 

In maritime transport, the Commission is  looking at the tariffs currently applied in 
Sweden in this sector, particularly port taxes and taxes to reduce pollutant emissions, 
in order to see whether this  approach might encourage greater account to be taken of 
external  costs  elsewhere  in  the  Community.  In  the  light  of  this  examination  a 
Community framework may be proposed which links port taxes to these costs. 

In rail transport, existing Community legislation already allows for rail  traffic costs 
to  be  internalised  where  this  does  not  affect  the  railways'  corppetitiveness  vis-a-vis 
other  modes  of transport.  In  other  words,  Member  States  may  introduce  rates  that 
take account of environmental costs only where the latter are  also paid by competing 
modes of transport. The possibility of noise-related charges still needs to be looked at 
and,  if need be,  a  new  pricing  system  introduced  which  takes  account  of this  social 
cost. 

In air transport, the  proposal  to  regulate airport  charges  has  not  been  followed  up. 
Nonetheless, several other options are being examined in  this sector, such as taxes on 
ticket  prices,  charges  based  on  the  distance  covered  and  the  type  of aircraft  engine 
used, and charges for take-off and landing. 87 

Generally  speaking,  the  Member  States'  arrangements  for·  the  various  transport 
modes  vary appreciably," are  fragmented  and  lack coherence on  a  Union-wide  scale, 
which makes it difficult to take external costs into account. 

3. Need for a Community framework 

Several Member States have expressed their willingness  to  spread the  external  costs 
of transport infrastructure more equitably. Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, for 
example, plan to set up a system of charges based on distance covered instead of on a 
sticker issued for a given period of time or on tolls. 

The  current  Community  rules 
therefore  need  to  be  replaced  by  a  modem 
infrastructure-pricing scheme which encourages advances of this kind while ensuring 

86 

87 

In  its judgment of 26  September 2000 concerning  the  Brenner  motorway,  the  Court  of Justice  of the 
European Communities drew attention to  a number of obligations arising out of Community law in this 
area (C-205/98:  Commission~ Austria). 
The  1999  Communication on  air  transport  and  the  environment  analyses  the  various  possible  types  of 
environmental charges, examines  kerosene  taxation  and  puts  forward  a  more  general  strategy covering 
the full  range of environmental impacts produced by aviation. 

76 

fair competition between the different modes of transport and more effective-pricing. 
This  kind  of reform  requires  equal  treatment  for  operators  and  between  modes  of 
transport.  Whether  for  airports,  ports,  roads,  railways  or  waterways,  the  price  for 
using  infrastructure  should  vary  in  the  same  manner  according  to  category  of 
infrastructure  used,  time  of day,  distance,  size and  weight  of vehicle,  and  any  other 
factor that affects congestion and damages the infrastructure or the environment. 

This kind of change will require a root and branch review of accounts in the transport 
sector,  including  a  close  look  at  all  taxes,  rates  and  State  aid  in  each  mode  of 
transport as  well  as external costs. 

On  the  basis  of  the  current  work,  the  Co:µimission  plans  to  propose  a 
framework  directive  in  2002  to  establish  the  principles  of  infrastructure 
charging and a pricing structure for all modes of transport. 

·The  proposal,  which  will  leave  each  Member  State  wide  scope  in  terms  of 
implementation,  will. incl~de a  common  methodology  for  setting  price  levels 
which  incorporate  external  costs,  and  will  specify  the  conditions  for  fair 
c~mpetition between modes. 

This  methodology  is  already  well  advanced,  and  the  principal  external  costs  it  will 
take into account are those shown in Table 3. 

For  road  transport,  charges  will  vary  according  to  the  vehicle's  environmental 
performance. 88  They  will  also  be  based  on  the  type  of  infrastructure  (motorways, 
trunk  and  urban  roads),  distance  covered,  axle  weight  and  type  of suspension,  and 
degree  of congestion.  These  charges  will  be  introduced  gradually  and  tie  in  with  a 
reduction  in  other charges  such  as  vehicle  tax  so  as  to  minimise  the  impact  on  the 
sector. 

This  directive  should  gradually  be  applied  to  the  other  modes  of transport.  In  rail 
transport, for example, charges will include mechanisms for allocating time slots and 
will  be  graduated  according  to  scarcity  of  infrastructure  capacity  and  adverse 
environmental  effects.  Maritime  transport  will  need  to  integrate  charges  which 
incorporate costs relating to maritime safety (especially assistance to shipping at sea, 
buoyage,  availability  of  tugs  such  as  "l 'Abeille").  All  ships  sailing  in  European 
waters should pay such charges. 

In  a good many cases,  taking external costs into  account will  produce more revenue 
than  is  needed to  cover the  costs  of the  infrastructure used.  To  produce maximum 
benefit  for  the  transport  sector,  it  is  essential  that  available  revenue  be 
channelled into specific national or regional funds  in  order to -finance measures 
to lessen or offset external costs  (double dividend). Priority would be given to  the 
building  of  infrastructure 
intermodality  and  offers  a  more 
environmentally friendly alternative. 

that  encourages 

There  might  be  insufficient  surplus  revenue  in  some  cases  where,  for  example, 
transport  policy  considerations  call 
to  encourage 
intermodality,  such  as  railway  tunnels.  The  framework  directive  will  therefore 

infrastructure 

for  major 

88 

In addition  to Euro standards  1 to  5  used  for emissions, this classification  might reflect performance in 
terms of noise emissions. 

77 

have  to  authorise  exceptions  allowing  an  element  to  be  added  to  the  amount 
needed  to  offset  the  external  costs.  This  element would  be  for  the  financing  of 
alternative, more environmentally friendly, infrastructure. This option would be 
reserved  for  infrastructure  essential  for  crossing  natural,  environmentally 
fragile  barriers,  and  would  have  to  be  examined  in  advance  and  closely 
monitored by the Commission. 

B. 

The  need to harmonise fuel taxes 

Taxes  on  fuel  complete  the  transport  infrastructure  charging  picture  by  adding 
external costs to the  prices  paid by users.  In  particular,  they incorporate the external 
cost component  linked  to  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  With  the  road  transport  sector 
now  fully  opened  up  to  competition,  the  absence  of harmonised  fuel  taxes  seems 
increasingly to be an obstacle to the smooth functioning of the internal market.  . 

Fuel  tax  is  to  a  large  extent  made  up  of excise  duty.  The  Member States  decided 
unanimously  in  1992  to  introduce  a  Community  system  of taxation  on  mineral  oils 
based  on  two  directives  providing  for  a  minimum  rate  of tax  on  each  mineral  oil 
according to its use (fuel, industrial  and commercial use,  heating).  In  practice, excise 
duties  are often  way above  the  Community's minimum  values,  which  have  not  been 
reviewed  since  1992,  and  differ  enormously  from  one  country  to  another,  ranging, 
for  example,  from  307 euros  per  1 000 litres  on  unleaded· petrol  in  Greece  to 
783 euros in  the United Kingdom. 

Moreover,  several  special  arrangements  alJow  Member States  to  waive  or  reduce 
excise duty on  oil  products.  For instance,  Community legislation  allows  exemptions 
to be made for fuel  used in commercial aviation. 

Community law also allows Member States to submit specific requests for exemption 
from,  or  reduction  in,  excise  duties  provided  this  is  consistent  with  Community 
policy,  notably  on  environmental  protection,  energy  and  transport,  but  also  on  the 
internal market and competition. These exemptions have encouraged the introduction 
of new technologies and clean fuels  (e.g. unleaded or with low sulphur content). 

Towards harmonised taxation of commercial road transport fuel 

When fuel prices took off in the middle of 2000 the  Community's road hauliers came  under 
severe  economic pressure.  The fact  is  that fuel  accounts for  around 20%  of the  operating 
costs  of road haulage  companies.  Also,  the  structure  of the  sector,  especially  the  large 
number of micro-businesses,  weakens their negotiating power with customers,  making them 
adjust their rates more slowly to  increases in the cost of raw materials.  Furthermore,  excise 
duty  on  diesel  varies  considerably  from  one  Member State  to  another,  ranging  from 
246 euros to  797 euros per 1 000 litres,  adding to tensions on a liberalised market. 

The  Commission  also  notes  that  excise  duties  on  diesel  are  on  average  about  140 euros 
{per 1 000 litres) lower than on unleaded petrol. 

The principle of sustainable development also requires transport users to  be presented to  a 
greater  extent  with  "real" prices,  i.e.  including adverse·  external  effects,  particularly  the 
effects of greenhouse gases.  Taxation  also  clearly serves to  offset the  effect of fluctuations 
in the price of crude oil. 

Uncoupling  the  taxation  arrangements  for  fuel  for  commercial  uses  from  the  tax 
arranKements forfuelfor private use would enable 1Wember Stales lo  reduce the differences 

78 

in tax on cars using petrol and cars using diesel. 

What  ought to  be proposed in  the short term,  therefore,  is  harmonised taxation  off uel 
used for commercial purposes.  The  aim  would be  to  introduce  a  harmonised Community 
excise  duty  on  diesel for  commercial  uses  which  in  practice  would  be  higher  than  the 
current average tax on diesel.  This approach would: 

- meet the requirements of Community policy on transport,  the environment and energy by 
moving,  thanks  to  increased  excise  duties,  towards  modal  rebalance  and  greater 
internalisation of external costs, . 

·• 

-

-

improve the functioning of the  internal market by restricting distortions  of competition, 
and 

give the road transport sector a major edge in terms of greater retail price stability. 

Jn  the  medium term,  it would be desirable for petrol and diesel to  be  taxed similarly for all 
consumers of fuel. 

It  should  be  pointed  out  here  that  Directives  92181/EEC  and  92182/EEC  provided for 
different  excise  duties  on  petrol  (337 euros  per  1 000 litres)  and  diesel  (245  euros  per 
1 000 litres)  used as fuel.  Examination shows this petrol/diesel differentiation to  have been 
clearly linked to  the  economic  needs  of road transport.  At the  end of the  1980s,  when  the 
Directive was  being drawn  up,  there  was a  need to  impose  less  taxation  on  road hauliers, 
the main consumers of diesel,  so as not to jeopardise their businesses. 

The  Commission  notes,  finally,  that  when  the  price  of crude  increases  significantly 
additional  budgetary  resources from  greater  VAT revenue  could,  if need be,  provide  the 
basis for a cyclical adjustment mechanism. 

Lastly,  substitute  fuels  often  enjoy  tax -exemption  or  reduction,  but  to  different 
degrees within the Member States. These substitute fuels are of particular importance 
both to the security of energy supply and to lessening the impact of transport on  the 
environment.  The  Green  Paper on  the  security  of energy  supply  proposes  that 
20%. of total  consumption  by  2020  be  made  up  of substitute  fuels.  The future 
proposal for a  directive on .energy products, which will allow tax exemption for 
hydrogen and biofuels, should therefore be adopted as soon as possible. Another 
key element in this programme of gradual introduction of different types of substitute 
fuels  is  the directive now  being drawn up by the Commission which sets a minimum 
percentage of biofuel to be added to diesel and petrol placed on the market. 

Aside from fuel  taxes, problems are also raised in certain countries by different VAT 
arrangements  for  air,  rail  and  coach  travel.  These  problems  of  unfair  competition 
between  modes,  not  to  mention  the  risk  of upsetting  the  proper functioning  of the 
internal  market,  will  need to be examined. In  particular, ai( transport could be  made 
liable to VAT. 

In  addition,  there  are  considerable  difficulties  in  determining. the  place  in  which 
transport service provision is  to be taxed,  difficulties  which  the Commission intends 
to  resolve  with  new  proposals  put  forward  as  part of its  new  VAT  strategy.  Lastly, 
the deductibility rules for the purchase of company cars vary from one Member State 
to  another,  resulting  in  differences  of treatment  which  also  need  to  be  corrected.  It 
should be noted here that a proposal  harmonising entitlement to  deduction  is  already 
before the Council. 

79 

III. 

TRANSPORT WITH A HUMAN FACE 

The enormous changes wrought in  the transport sector by opening up to competition 
and by technological  progress should not obscure the  fact  that transport is  not only a 
commodity  subject  to  market  rules;  it  is  also  a  service  of  general  interest  for  the 
public  benefit.  This  is  why  the  Commission  wants  to  encourage  measures  in  favour 
of intermodality  for  people  and  pursue  its  action  on  users'  rights  in  all  modes  of 
transport,  while  also  considering  whether  in  future  it  might  not  also  introduce  user 
obligations. 

A. 

lntermodality for people 

In  passenger  transport,  there  is  considerable  scope  for  improvements  to  make 
travelling  conditions  easier  and  facilitate  modal  transfers,  which  are  still  highly 
problematic.  Far too  often  passengers  are  put off using  different  modes  of transport 
·for a single journey. They have  problems obtaining information and ordering tickets 
when  the  journey  involves  several  transport  companies  or  different  means  of 
transport,  and  transferring  from  one  mode  to  another  can  be  complicated  by 
inadequate infrastructure (lack of parking space for cars or bicycles, for example) .. 

The  principle  of subsidiarity  notwithstanding,  priority  should  be  given  in  the  short 
term to at least three fields of action: 

I. Integrated ticketing 

To facilitate transfers from one network or mode to  another, encouragement needs to 
be  given  to  the  introduction  of  ticketing  systems  which  are  integrated  (and  thus 
ensure transparency of fares)  between rail  companies or between  modes of transport 
(air - coach·_ ferry - public transport - car parks). 

Some  railway  companies,  as  in  the  Netherlands,  are  already  offering  an  integrated 
"train &  taxi" service in a single ticket. This same could be done for public transport 
or for  train/air  services  and  car rentals.  Integrating  the  services  offered  by. different 
operators within  a single tariff band and with  a single ticket,  as  has  existed in  Ile de 
France  since  1976  and  in  Naples  since  last  autumn,  offers  users  greater  flexibility 
and so makes public transport more attractive. 89 

2.  Baggage handling 

Intermodality  also  means  providing  related  services,  especially  baggage  handling. 
While it is currently possible to  check in  for  a flight  at  a station, passengers  have  to 
look after their baggage themselves and hold on to it during transfers. 

Air-rail: a combination that works 

An  innovative  way  of promoting  intermodality  for  travellers  has  been  developed  in 
Germany and between Belgium and France. 

Lu thansa has concluded an a  eemem with  Deutsche Bahn to o 

89 

1976:  introduction  of the  Carte  Orange  combining  SNCF-RATP-APTR  and  FNTR.  Since  November 
2000  Naples  and  43 municipalities  have  had  a  single  transport  ticket  called  UNJCO.  The  experiment 
was due to run for a year, but consideration is already being given to extending it. 

-

. 

80 

journey  between  Stuttgart  and Frankfurt  with flight  connections  in  Frankfurt  to  or from 
anywhere in the world  Passengers can  book a single rail-air ticket in a single transaction. 
They can check in  their baggage when arriving at the station and in the  event of a problem 
enjoy the  same rights  as  ordinary  air passengers,  regardl~ss of whether  they  are  dealing 
with Deutsche Bahn or Lufthansa. 

Should this service,  which is currently at the  test stage, prove a success,  the  two  companies 
could conclude  similar  agreements for  other  connections  where  the  train journey- time  is 
under two  hours.  Estimates_ point to  10%  of Lufthansa's short and medium-haul domestic 
flights  eventually transferring to  rail.  The  capacity this  creates  would be  to  the  benefit  of 
medium and long-haul flights. 

Similarly,  Air France  and Thalys  have  concluded an  agreement  whereby  all  Air  France -
customers travelling from  Brussels to  catch a  medium/long-haul flight  in  Paris  will travel 
to  Paris on the  Thalys  train.  For this purpose, Air France directly charters two coaches on 
the five  Thalys trains which serve Charles  de  Gaulle  airport each day,  and has provided a 
ticket  counter  and train  crew  at  the  railway  station  in  Brussels.  The  reservation  system 
treats the  Thalys journey as  an.Air France flight,  and customers  do  not need to  make any 
additional reservation,  but travel with just their plane ticket,  as previously.  Passengers and 
baggage  undergo preliminary  check-in  at  the  station  in  Brussels;  in future,  full  baggage 
check-in will be possible at the station of departure. 

Innovative  and efficient  services  of this  kind should help  reduce  congestion problems  in 
some  of Europe's  main  airports  and  improve  the  punctuality  and  quaiity  of passenger 
transport. 

3. Continuity of journeys 

J oumeys  have  to  be  thought  of  as  continuous,  which  means  land-use  and  town 
planning policies will play a vital role. The main metrQ, train and bus stations and car 
parks should be geared towards exchanges between the  car and public  transport and 
should  offer  related  services  (e.g.  shops),  and  so  encourage  the  use  of  public 
transport,  which causes  less  pollution.  Providing car parks on  the  outskirts  of towns1 
(and  also_  near  railway,  underground,  bus  and  tram  stations)  where  motorists  can 
leave their cars and link up with the main means of public transport (including taxis) 
is  an  option already implemented in  a number· of cities,  such  as  Munich and Oxford. 
Adapting public  transport  to  carry  bicycles  is  another way of encouraging  a  certain 
form of intermodality over short distances.  It should be recognised that the bicycle is 
still  too  often  neglected  as  a  mode  of  transport,  even  though  som~ 50 · million 
journeys  (i.e.  5%  of  the  total)  are  made  by  bicycle  each  day  in  Europe.  The 
proportion is as high as  18% in Denmark and 27% in the Netherlands. 

The  success  of intermodality  also  requires  recognition  of  the  role  of  taxis,  a  role 
which  goes  far  beyond  merely  carrying  passengers,  but  al_so  includes  additional -
services (minor carriage of goods, express deliveries, etc.).  Equally, the development 
of  intelligent  traffic  systems  to  inform  passengers  of  tran_sport  conditions  should 
eventually  help  reduce  the  time  lost  on  transfertjng  between  modes.  Successful 
intermodality  obviously  depends  also  on  easy  access  to  all  t:ansport  modes.  In  this 
context, it is important that account be taken of the difficulties encountered by people 
with  re~:luced mobility who use public transport,  for  whom changing from  one mode 
to another can sometimes be a real obstacle. 

81 

B. 

Rights and obligations of users 

The  gradual  opening-up  of  m~kets  in  the  various  transport. modes  has  placed 
operators  at  the  centre  of transport  development.  Though  users  may  have  derived 
certain  benefits  in  terms  of  prices,  this  is  not  a  reason  to  overlook  their  rights. 
Passengers must  be  able to  invoke  their rights,  both  vis-a-vis  the  transport company 
and vis-a-vis  the  public service.  The Commission's  aim  over the  next  ten  years  is  to 
develop and define the rights  of users,  to  which end it will  work with  consumer and 
user organisations. In this context it will also consider whether user rights need to  go 
hand in  hand with user obligations. 

1. User rights  1 

It  is  on  air  transport  that  the  Commission  has  thus  far  concentrated  its  efforts  to 
accompany  the  opening-up  of  markets  and  protect  passengers  against  conflicting 
national ·rules  and  regulations.  Several  texts  have  defined  the  rights  of p~ssengers. 
All  of  these  rights  have  been  published  in  a  Charter  which,  thanks  to  their 
collaboration,  is  displayed  in  most  airports  in  the  Community.  The  Charter 
specifies the national authorities which users can contact in order to  assert their rights 
and  inform  the  Commission  of how  they  have  been  treated.  It  will  be  adapted  to 
reflect legal developments and voluntary agreements. 

New  proposals  have  been  made  to  increase  the  airline  companies'  liability  in  the 
event  of  accidents,  delays  or  loss  of  baggage.  The  Commission  will  shortly  be 
proposing  a  reinforcement  of passenger  rights,  including  compensation  where 
travellers  are  delayed  or  denied  boarding  due  to  overbooking  by  airlines. 
Measures  will  also  be proposed which  give  passengers the benefit  of service quality 
indicators.  In  line  with  current  practice  in  the  United  States,  and  following  up  the . 
commitment  it  has  already  made,  the  Commission  is  therefore  going  to  publish  a 
classification  of  airlines  according 
their  performance  (or  . lack  of 
performance)  in  terms  of punctuality,  number of passengers  denied  boarding, 
baggage loss levels, etc. Users will thus be given objective criteria for comparing the 
various  airlines  and  this  transparency  will  without  any  doubt  be  the  best  way  of 
putting pressure on airlines to improve their services. 

to 

Passengers  are  also  entitled  to  be  properly  informed  of the  contract  they  enter  into 
with  the  air carrier;  the  clauses  of that  contract  must  be  fair.  The  Commission  will 
take initiatives along these lines in 2001. 

At  the  same  time,  working  in  conjunction  with  the  European  Civil  Aviation 
Conference  (ECAC),  the  Commission  has  launched  initiatives  to  bring  European 
airlines  and airports  to an  agreement on  voluntary codes to round off and clarify the 
regulatory framework. 

Lastly,  the  Community  must  address  the  problems  all  passengers  encounter  in 
enforcing  whatever rights  they  have:  how  to  identify  the  party  responsible;  how  to 
start  proced~res in  other Member  States;  how  to  obtain  compensation  for  damage. 
This is  necess.ary inasmuch as in airports, unlike in ports, no-one seems to  be in 
charge and all the parties involved  (airport operators, service providers, police, 
airlines, etc.) pass the buck for any problems encountered by passengers. This  is 
why  air  passengers  need  to  be  given  greater  protection,  as  well  as  access  to  rapid 
means of redress. 

82 

The next  step  is  to  extend  the  Community's· passenger protection  measures  to 
the other modes  of transport,  notably  rail and  maritime navigation  and, as  far 
as possible, urban transport services. Specific  new  measures  are  needed on  users' 
rights  in  all  modes  of transport  so  that,  regardless  of the  mode  of transport  used, 
users can both know their rights and enforce them. These measures need in particular 
to  meet  users'  requirements  as  referred  to  in  the  Commission  Communication  on 
services of general interest in Europe.90 

· 

2. User obligations 

It  would  nonetheless  be  oversimplifying  matters  and  even  unfair  on  transport 
professionals  not tp  point out that users  also  have  obligations  during  their journeys. · 
Irresponsible  behaviour,  especially  as  encountered  on  aircraft,  can  have  ·serious 
consequences for  safety. The risk of fire  on board from  a cigarette smoked furtively 
in the toilets of an  aircraft is  a serious in.flight problem. If a fire  breaks out stewards 
·only have one and a half minutes before the toxic fumes  spread. 

Air France .classifies on-board incidents according to three degrees. of severity 

1.  Simple verbal altercation, passive resistance 

2.  Unruly and insulting behaviour,  aggression,  cigarettes smoked in_  toilets 

3.  Flight safety threatened, physical violence 

Passenger  aggression,  sometimes  fuelled  by  alcohol  consumption,  has  prompted 
some  airlines  to  provide  psychological  training  for  their  staff  on  how· to  defuse 
situations.· In  fact,  this  aggression  is  also  encountered  against  drivers  and  ticket 
inspectors  on  publiG  transport  and  trains.  Penalties  for  such  acts  of indiscipline  run 
first of all into practical problems, but also raise legal problems. Thought needs to be 
given at European level to finding answers to these legal problems. 

The  Commission  will  publish  a  new  version  of  the  air  transport  Charter 
covering  the  rights  and  obligations  of  passengers  ·and  including  the  latest  legal 
developments,  and  will  start producing a charter of users'  rights  and obligations for 
all  modes of transport. 

3. A high-quality public service 

Providing a physical link in  both social cohesion and balanced regional development, 
transport.  is  a  major component  of public  service.  It  is,  moreover,  the  only  area for 
which  the  Treaty  of  Rome  expressly  enshrines  the  notion  of  public  service. 
Article 73  of the EC Treaty stipulates that  "Aids shall be compatible with this  Treaty 
if they meet the needs of coordination of transport or if they represent reimbursement 
for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service. " 

In  a declaration on  services of general economic interest, the Nice European Council 
in  December 2000  specifically stressed the  importance of such  services, considering 
inter  alia  that  "there  is  a  need here  especially for  clarification  of the  relationship 
between methods of funding services of general economic interest and application of 

90 

Paragraph  11  of the Communication "Services of general interest in Europe" COM(2000)580. 

83 

the  rules  on  State  aid  In particular,  the  compatibility of aid designed to  offset the 
extra  costs  incurred  in  performing  tasks  of general  economic  interest  should  be 
recognised,  in compliance with Article 86(2). " 

This  public  service  role  may  therefore  involve  special  arrangements  regarding 
competition law or the freedom  to provide services, but it must also comply with the 
principles of neutrality and proportionality. The role of the  public service is to serve 
the  interests  and  needs  of its  users,  not  its  officers  and  officials,  and  to  ensure  that 
services operate smoothly at  all  times.  Nonetheless,  recent industrial  action  in  some 
countries  has  led  operators  that  were  using  rail  transport  to  have  second  thoughts 
because of its lack of reliability and to switch to road·transport. 

I 

. 

The  public  service  requirement  (e.g.  frequency  and  punctuality  of  services, 
availability of seats, preferential fares  for certain categories of user) is the  main  tool 
for  ensuring that  services  of general  economic interest are  provided in  the  transport 
·sector.  Thus  a  Member  State  or  any  other  public  authority  can,  under  certain 
conditions and without impeding competition, require, or reach  an  agreement with,  a 
private  or  public  undertaking  to  meet  public  requirements  which  that  undertaking 
would  not  take  on  (or  at  least  not  in  the  same  way)  if it  were  only  considering  its 
commercial interests. 

The Commission recently  proposed a  new  approach  to  inland· transport,  to  open  up 
the  market  while  guaranteeing  the  transparency,  quality  and  performance  of public 
transport  services  by  means  of  regulated  competition.  The  draft  regulation91 
stipulates  that  the  national  or  local  authorities  must  see  to  it  that  a  suitable  public 
transport  service  is  put in  place,  based  on  minimum criteria  such  as  the  health  and 
safety  of passengers,  accessibility  of services,  level  and  transparency  of fares  and 
limited contract duration. To this end, the authorities'  initiatives will take the form of 
public  service  contracts  awarded  by  tender  for  periods  of five  years.  Nonetheless, 
public transport operators will,  by way of derogation from  this procedure, be able to 
conclude public service contracts with  a specific operator below an  annual  threshold 
of 800 000 euros and to take account of safety considerations in certain rail  services. 
Provisions are also planned which  will  control mergers and protect employees in  the 
event of a change of operator. 

Generally  speaking,  experience  has  shown  that  li~ted amounts  of  aid  have  not 
threatened to distort competition or affect trade. Nonetheless, and contrary to practice 
in the other economic sectors, all aid to transport still has to be notified in advance to 
the Commission. This general obligation seems disproportionate, especially when 
the aid is  intended to compensate for public service obligations on links with the 
Community's  outlying  regions  and  small  islands.  The  Commission  will  be 
proposing an alignment of procedures in this area. 
1------------------------------------------------------1 
the  • 
• To  guarantee  users  a  high-quality,  affordable,  continuous  service 
! Community,  and  one  which  complies  with  the  Community  competition  rules,  the  ! 
! Commission  will  continue  its  work  to  ensure  that  transport  services  of general  economic ! 
I  interest are governed by a series of general principles, notably: 
I 
------------------------------------------------------· 

throughout 

I 

I 

91 

Proposal  for  a  regulation  of the  European Parliament  and  of the  Council  on  action  by  Member States 
concerning public service requirement_s  and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport 
by rail, road and inland waterway. COM(2000)7. 

84 

- use  of the  tendering  procedure  within  a  clear  legal  framework  defined  at  Community 

level; 

. .  granting of exceptions or exclusive rights where necessary; 

-

awarding financial  compensation to  operators responsible for  performing puqlic  service 
tasks. 

IV. 

RATIONALISING URBAN TRANSPORT 

The  expanding  urban  fabric,  lifestyle  changes  and  the  flexibility  of the  private  car 
combined with  not  always  adequate  public  ~ransport provision  have over the  last 40 
years caused a huge upsurge in traffic in towns. Though decentralisation of activities 
or housing  may occasionally  have  been  flanked  by  the  development  of appropriate 
. public  transport  infrastruct~re or services,  the  lack  of an  integrated policy approach 
·to town  planning and transport is  allowing the private car an  almost total  monopoly. 
Omnipresent and a burden though it may be in  the town centres, it is above all  in the 
peripheral areas of towns  and cities that traffic  growth  has been fastest.  But in these 
areas,  where  transport  needs  are  harder to  determine  and  satisfy,  public  transport  is 
not proving flexible enough in  its present form.  And to make matters worse a feeling 
of insecurity  puts  people  off using  public  transport  in  certain  areas  and  at  certain 

. times of day. 

Increased  traffic  and  urban  congestion  go  hand  in  hand  with  more  air  and  noise 
· pollution  and accidents.  Frequent short journeys made  with the engine cold increase 
fuel  consumption  exponentially,  and  emissions  may  be  three  or  four  times  higher 
while  traffic  speed  is  three  or four  times  slower.  Urban  transport  thus  accounts  for 
40%  of  the  C02  emissions  responsible  for  climate  change,  as  well  as  the  other 
pollutan~s which have a worrying impact on the  health of town dwellers, particularly 
the  nitrogen  oxides  which  trigger  peaks  in  ozone  concentration,  and  non-regulated 
micro-particles. The most vulnerable sections of the population, such as children, the 
~lderly and  the  ill  (with  respiratory,  cardiovascular or other diseases),  are  the  chief 
victims  and some studies  have  put the  cost  to  the  community  at  1.7%  of GDP. 92  In 
terms  of safety, one fatal  accident in  two takes  place  in  urban  surround~ngs, and the 
highest casualties are among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. 

Even if the  subsidiarity principle  dictates  that  responsibility for  urban  transport  lies 
mainly  with  the  national  and  local  authorities,  th~ ills  besetting  transport  in  urban 
areas  and  spoiling  the  quality  of  life  cannot  be  ignored.  The  big  problem  these 
authorities  will  have  to  resolve,  sooner  than  might.  be  thought,  is  that  of  traffic 
management  and  in  particular  the  role  of  the  private  car  in  large  urban  centres. 
However  one  looks  at  the  problem  (pollution,  congestion,  lack  of  infrastructure), 
society  is  taking  the  line  that  it  has  to  be  curbed .. The  alternative  is  to  promote 
clean vehicles and develop good-quality public transport. 

The  subsidiarity  principle  allows  the  European  Union  to  take  initiatives,  including 
regulatory initiatives, to  encourage the  use  of diversified energy in  transport.  On the 
other  hand,  the  Union  cannot  use  regulation  as  a  means  of  imposing  alternative 

92 

World  Health  Organisation.  Health  Costs  due  to  Road  Traffic  related  Air  pollution.  An  impact 
assessment project for Austria, France and Switzerland. June  1999. 

85 

solutions  to  the  car  in  towns  and  cities.  That  is  why  the  Commission  is  confining 
itself to promoting good practice. 

A. 

Diversified energy for transport 

Conventional  heat-engine  vehicles, whose energy efficiency is  far from  optimal,  are 
one  of the  main  sources  of urban  pollution  and  greenhouse  gases  and  contribute  to 
the  European  Union's  excessive  energy  dependency.  Important  progress  has  been 
made  thanks  to  aryti-pollution  standards  for  motor  vehicles  and  fuel  quality.  The 
tougher standards  already  adopted will  gradually deliver results,  as  the  graph  below 
shows. 

Reduction in road pollution as  a result of the Auto-
0 ii directives 

120 ,0 

100,0 

Cl 
Q 
~ 

Q 
c:n 
c:n 

~ 

80,0 

60,0 

40,0 

20,0 

0,0 

•NOx 
0802 
oCO 
•PM10 
eNMVOC 
ii Benzene 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2015 

2020 

This  genuine progress  should not overshadow the  inadequacy of the measures  taken . 
to  date  both  to reduce  greenhouse gas  emissions  from  motor vehicles  and to  reduce 
the  European  Union's  energy  dependency.  The  agreement  with  the  Association  of 
European Carmakers should produce a 25% reduction in average emissions of carbon 
dioxide  from  new  cars by 2008.  On  top of this  agreement,  for which  new  emission 
reduction  objectives  ought  to  be  set  for  after· 2008  and extended  to  utility  vehicles, 
additional  measures  should  be  taken  at  Community  level  to  introduce  substitute 
fuels, especially biofuels, and to stimulate demand by experimentation. 

1. Establishing a new regulatory framework for substitute fuels 

R&D work has also  brought progress in the  development of new  vehicles which run 
on  lower-emission alternative energies. Urban transport is already providing a useful 
market for  expanding the  use  of alternative energies.  Several  European  cities  have 
already  set  things  in  motion:  Paris,  Florence,  Stockholm  and Luxembourg,  to  name 
but  a  few,  are  already  using  buses  which  run  on  natural  gas,  bio-diesel  or  zero 
sulphur  diesel.  In  future,  private  cars  and  heavy  goods  vehicles  too  could  run  on 
alternative energy. 

The most promising forms  are  biofuels in  the  short and medium term,  natural  gas  in 
the medium and long term and hydrogen in  the  very long term.  In the Green Paper on 

86 

the  security  of  the  European  Union's  energy  supply  the  Commission  therefore 
proposed  that  the  objective  for  road  transport  be  to  replace  20%  of conventional 
fuels with substitute fuels by 2020. 

The  spread  of biofuels  will  help  reduce  the  European  Union's  energy  dependency, 
improve  the  environment  and  also  di versify  production  and  jobs  in  agriculture. 
Indeed,  the  production  of raw  materials  for  biofuels  may  be  of particular  interest 
under  the  Common Agricultural  Policy  for  creating  new  economic  resources  and 
preserving employment in the rural community. 93 

To  promote  biofuels  the  Commission  intends  to  put  forward  two  specific  measures  in 
2001: 

A  directive  on  the  gradual  introduction  in  each  Member  State  of  a  mm1mum 
percentage  of compulsory  biofuel  consumption:  a  2%  rate  will  be  proposed  as  a  first 
stage, with total flexibility  as  to whether this objective  is  achieved by  mixing biofuels with 
fossil  fuels  or by  using  pure  biofuels.  In  this  way,  unforeseen  effects  on  engines  and  the 
environment  will  be  avoided.  At  the  same  time  it  will  create  a  stable  market  and  should 
increase fivefold the production capacity of existing biofuels. The second stage will need to 
aim at achieving a biofuel penetration rate of almost 6% by 201 O; 

New  Community  rules  on  tax  reductions  for  biofuels:  while  meeting  the  need  to 
approximate  the  national  arrangements  on  biofuel  taxation,  the  proposal  will  also  help 
Member States create the necessary economic and legal conditions for achieving, and even 
exceeding,  the  objectives  laid  down  in  the  above  mentioned  proposal  for  a  regulatory 
directive. This proposal would give Member States the option of introducing tax reductions 
consistent  with  their  budgetary  constraints,  with ·local  circumstances  (e.g.  for  agricultural 
crops) and with the technological choices they make. 
·------------------------------------------------------
A review  will  also  be needed of the  overall consistency of automobile taxes  and the 
scope  for  creating  a broader framework  at  Community level  for the  introduction  of 
mechanisms  for  differentiating  passenger  vehicle  taxes  according  to  environmental 
criteria.  This  new  approach,  which  can  be  designed  to  have  no  impact  on  the 
Member States'  budgetary revenue,  would make car taxes "greener" by encouraging 
people to buy and use more environmentally friendly vehicles. 

2. Stimulating demand by experimentation 

For natural  gas  and  hydrogen,  work is  still  needed  to  single  out the  most  effective 
approach  for  encouraging  the  spread  of  these  fuels  to  an  extent  consistent  with 
achieving  the  ambitious  target  of  20%  of  all  fuels  being  substitute  fuels.  As  the 
Green Paper on  the  security of energy supply has  already emphasised,  the available 
new  clean  car technologies  will  in  future  need  to  be given. greater Community 
support,  especially  under  the  6th  framework  programme  of research.  For  the 
immediate future,  the Commission has brought together several sources of financing 
in  the  CIVITAS initiative.  Launched  in  October  2000,  CIVITAS's  aim  is  to  help 
realise innovative projects on clean urban transport. A budget of 50 million euros has 
been  allocated  under  the  5th  framework  programme  of research  and  development. 

93 

If biofuels accounted for  l % of the Union's overall consumption of fossil  fuels,  this  would result in jobs 
being created for s~me 45 000 to 75  000 people. 

· 

87 

Fourteen pioneering cities have been pre-selected. 94 Five cities in the countries which 
are candidates for accession have been associated.95 

Great promise is held out by the development of a new  generation of hybrid electric 
cars (electric motor coupled with a heat ~ngine), 96 cars which run on natural  gas  and, 
in the longer term, cars which run on a hydrogen fuel  cell. The battery-driven electric 
car  is  also  an  example  of directly  applicable  technology.  However,  with  its  range 
currently  restricted  to  around  100 km,  sales  are  confined  to  niche  markets  usually 
made up of captive fleets of municipal vehicles, or public services (water, electricity, 
gas, postal services, etc.) which only cover short distances each day. 

Jn  La Rochelle,  the  "Liselec" experiment is  enabliµg  the public transport operator to  offer 
its  customers  a fleet  of 50  electric  vehicles  available  on  a  self-service  basis  at  high-use 
locations.  Over 400 subscribers are  already taking advantage  of this new offer.  Following 
the  example set in  Genoa,  the  municipal authorities have  established zones  where priority 
for access/parking is given to  clean cars.  For experiments such as these to  bear fruit,  they 
need to  be  encouraged  on  a  scale  large  enough  to  have  an  appreciable  impact  on  air 
quality.  The  vehicles  involved need to  use  non-petroleum fuels  so  as  to  lower  greenhouse 
gas emissions and reduce our dependency on oil. 

Thought might  therefore be given  to developing  the  use  in  towns  and cities  of taxis 
and  utility  vehicles  which  run  on  electricity  or  natural  gas  or even  hydrogen  (fuel 
cell) to perform deliveries (including services of public interest). Under the principle 
of subsidiarity, any incentives would come under national or regional jurisdiction. 

B. 

Promoting good practice 

Traffic congestion  and pollution - the  two are closely linked - are  among the  things 
that detract from  town living,  and one of the main  causes of congestion is excessive 
use pf private vehicles. 

We therefore need to make the alternatives to the car more attractive in terms of both 
trams  - cycle  tracks 97 
infrastructure  (metro  lines  -
- priority  lanes  for  public 
transport)  and  service  (quality  of  service,  information  given  to  users).  Public 
transport  needs  to  achieve  levels  of  comfort,  quality  and  speed  that  come  up  to 
people's  expectations.  This  quality  option  has  been  the  choice  of many  European 
cities  which  have  decided  to  innovate  by  bringing  into  service  new  metro  or  tram 
lines or new buses with easier access for  people with reduced mobility. It is essential 
for  public transport to  adapt to societal  changes: journeys are becoming increasingly 
staggered  throughout  the  day  and  may  make  the  separation  between  peak  and  off 
peak  hours  a  thing  of  the  past.  Similarly,  the  construction  of  new  housing  or 
shopping centres on city outskirts needs  to  involve a change in  the routes and means 
of transport used by public transport operators. 

Light rail  vehicles running on segregated track - highly valued today by many towns 
and cities - are an  economic form of transport that is also popular among passengers, 

94 

95 

96 

97 

Aalbord, Barcelona, Berlin, Bremen, Bristol, Cork, Gothenburg, Graz, Lille, Nantes, Rome, Rotterdam, 
Stockholm and Winchester. 
Bucharest, Gdynia, Kaunas, P¢cs and Prague. 
One  might also cite hybrid  vehicles  which  have  a small-capacity heat engine  which  acts  as a  generator 
to recharge the batteries. This gives them a greater range than conventional electric vehicles. 
Protected, so that cyclists are not risking their lives every time they use them. 

88 

as  the  designers  have  revitalised  the frams  with  a  decidedly  futuristic  look.98  Cities 
such  as  Vienna,  Stuttgart,  Freiburg,  Strasbourg  and· Nantes  have  made  tangible 
progress in shifting the balance between their transport modes by opting for this form 
of transport.  They have  put the brakes on  car use by investing in  non-road transport 
modes, and have shown that the proportion of car use can be reduced by 1 % per year, 
whereas in most city centres it is growing by more than that. 

Some  cities  have  adopted  by-laws  to  keep  to  the  strict  minimum  the  number  of 
parking  spaces  to  be  provided  with  each  new  office  building,  making  car  use  less 
practical. 

"  . 

Some  local  authorities  are  planning  to  allocate  priority  la:nes  to  public  means  of· 
transport (buses and taxis) and also to private vehicles being used for car pooling, for 
example,  while  increasing  the  number  of  lanes  reserved  for  cyclists  and  even 
motorcyclists. In cities and conurbations, initiatives could be encouraged to persuade 
the  largest  employers  (firms  or  administrations)  to  help  organise  their  employees' 
journeys  or  even  to  pay  for  public  transport.  This  has  been  done  in  Vienna,  for 
example, where the metro is partly funded by the city's companies. 

Recent  years  have  seen  a  development  promising  an  innovative  form  of mobility, 
associating "car sharing" with other means of transport.99  Alongside the development 
of  new  means  of  public  transport,  the  reduction  of  urban  congestion  must  also 
involve  setting  up  urban  infrastructure-charging  schemes,  the  most  simple  form  of 
which  is charging for parking.  Some cities,  including London; are  envisaging other, 
more  elaborate  forms  involving  road  charging  based  on  electronic  vehicle 
identification  technology  and  an  electronic  payment collection  system,  which  could 
be  harmonised  at  Community  level 100  (see  section  on  charging).  However,  urban 
road-charging schemes are  well  received by the local  population only if competitive 
altemati ves  are on off er in  terms of public transport services  and infrastructure. This 
is  why  it  is  essential  to  use  the  revenue  to  helR  finance- new  infrastructure  for  all-
round improvement of urban transport services. 1  1 

. 

98 

99 

100 

101 

Accessibility  has  been  improved,  for  people  with  reduced  mobility  too,  thanks  to  the  introductic~n of 
purpose-built  low-floor  trams.  New  projects,  financed  in  part  from  Community  funds,  have  made  it 
possible to develop other innovative solutions which are going to revolutionise the image of the tram. 
Notably in cities such as Bremen and Vienna. 
See the eEurope Action Plan P.roposed by the C~mmission to the Feira European Council. 
Cities  such  as  Rome,  Genoa,  Copenhagen,  London,  Bristol  and  Edinburgh  are  studying  and  testing 
urban  road  charges as. part of an integrated  programme to  reduce  congestion  and  significantly  improve 
their public transport networks. 

. 

89 

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, and aware that  most measures  will  fall  within the 
jurisdiction  of  the  national,  regional  or  local  authorities,  the  Commission  intends  to 
promote the following: 

support (using Community funds)  for pioneering towns and cities, 102  with each Member 
State remaining responsible for coming up with national plans; 

increased  use  of clean  vehicles  and  of forms  of public  transport  accessible  to  all  users, 
including  people  with  reduced  mobility  (especially  those  with  disabilities  and  the 
elderly); 

identification and dissemination of best urban transport system practice, including urban 
and regional rail services, and best practice in management of the relevant infrastructure. 
------------------------------------------------------

I 

102 

CIVIT AS  initiative. 

90 

PART FOUR: MANAGING THE GLOBALISATION OF TRANSPORT 

< 

Much  of  transport  is  regulated  at  international  level.  The  beginnings  of  transport 
regulation  are  found  in  Roman  law.  Since  the  Renaissance,  international  law  has 
developed  in  part  around  principles  governing  transport,  especially  shipping  law. 
Over  the  last  two  centuries,  the  regulatory  framework  has  been  built  up  within 
intergovernmental organisations, from the Central Commission for Navigation on the 
Rhine (the first of its kind) to the International Civil Aviation Organisation. 

This is one reason why it is hard for the common transport policy to secure a position 
between,  on  the  one  ha:pd,  the  production  of international  rules  within  established 
-organisations  and,  on  the  other,  national  rules  which  often  seek to  protect  domestic 
markets. 

The main objective of the international  rules being to facilitate  trade  and commerce, 
they fail  to take sufficient account of key environmental protection concerns, security 
of supply requirements or the industrial  and social  dimensions. For some  years now, 
this  has  been  leading  certain  countries  such  as  the  USA  to  implement  regional 
transport accords, particularly in the shipping and aviation sectors, to protect specific 
interests. The European Union has followed suit in order to guard against disasters at 
sea and to do away with  inappropriate rules on aircraft noise or on compensation for 
passengers in the even{ of accidents. 

In  addition,  transport  services  -. particularly  in  air  and  sea  transport  - should  be 
included  in  the  negotiations  being  conducted  within  the  World Trade  Organisation. 
The  Community  could  act  as  a  catalyst  in  opening  up  markets  that  are -still  too 
closed. 

With  enlargement  on  the  horizon,  and  the  transport  policy  and  trans-European 
network soon to extend across the continent, Europe needs to rethink its international 
role if it  is  to  succeed  in  developing  a  sustainable  transport  system and tackling  the 
problems of congestion and pollution. 

I. 

'ENLARGEMENTCHANGESTHENAMEOFTHEGAME 

The  unprecedented  enlargement  of the  next  few  years  will  give  the  Union  a  truly 
continental  dimension.  Though  its  maximum extent  already  exceeds  4 000 km,  e.g. 
between  the  south  of Spain  and  the  north  of Finland,  enlargement  will  extend  the 
Union's  uninterrupted  landmass  to  more  than  3 000 km,  e.g.  between_ Lisbon  and 
·Constanza in Romania.  Its fleet is  set to increase substantially, given that the flags  of 
Cyprus and Malta alone represent  a  tonnage  almost equivalent to  that  of the current 
Comml:mity fleet. 

Adoption of the Community transport acquis does not appear to be posing any major 
problems fo_r  the candidate countries. The latter are already linked to the EU Member 
States  by  international  agreements,  notably  covering  the  international  carriage  of 
goods  and  air  transport.  One  problem,  however,  which  is  not  specific  to  transport, 
concerns  their  administrative  capacity  to  apply  the  acquis  and  more  particularly  to 
recruit sufficient numbers of inspectors. 

, 

91 

The  first  challenge  in  making  enlargement  a  success  will  be  to  connect .the  future 
Member  States  to  the  trans-European  network;  this  is  a  precondition  for  their 
economic  development,  based  on  anticipated  growth  in  transport,  as  was  the  case 
with the accession of Spain, Portugal and Greece. 

-.. 

However,  the  substantial  role  played  by  rail  transport  in  the  candidate  countries 
means that enlargement is above all  a prime opportunity to restore the modal balance 
of transport. 

Last but not least, enlargement will help step up maritime safety. 

A. 

The  infrastructure challenge 

As identified in Agenda 2000, the trans-European transport network of the candidate 
countries amounts to some  19 000 km of roads,  21  000 km of railways, 4 000 km of 
-inland waterways, 40 airports,  20 sea ports and 58 inland ports. The ratio of network 
length  to surface area is  generally much lower in  the  candidate countries than in  the 
Union, while the ratio of network length to population is generally about the same. 

In  this  context,  enlargement  is  set  to  trigger  a  veritable  explosion  in  exchanges  of 
goods and people between the countries of the Union. 

In  1998, exports from  the candidate countries  to  the  Union  were  already  running  at 
112 million  tonnes,  i.e.  2.2  times  the  1990  level,  and  were  worth  68 billion  euros. 
Their imports  stood  at  50 million  tonnes,  more  than  five  times  the  1990 level,  and 
were worth 90 billion euros. Bottlenecks are already forming at the borders and there 
is  a  real  risk  of saturation  on  the  major  East-West  corridors.  It  is  not  unusual  for 
queues of lorries more than 50 km in length to form at the German-Polish border. 

The  lack  of efficient  transport  infrastructure  networks  to  cope  with  this  anticipated 
growth in  movements is  still  greatly underestimated.  And yet  that infrastructure is  a 
key element of the strategy for the economic development of the candidate countries 
and their integration into the internal market. 

For historical  reasons,  the  links  between  the  EU  Member States  and  the  candidate 
countries are poorly developed.  Intensive technical  cooperation  between  the national 
experts  of  the  various  countries  and  the  Commission  has  already  led  to  the 
identification  of several  corridors,  as  agreed  by  the  Pan-European  Conferences  in 
Crete  in  1994  and  Helsinki  in  1997,  and  the  launch  of a  global  assessment  of the 
candidate countries' infrastructure needs (TINA 103). 

It  has  emerged  from  this  that  public  budget  resources  fall  manifestly  short  of the 
91  billion euros  needed to build the  priority transport  infrastructure  in  the  candidate 
countries of Central  and Eastern Europe by 2015, i.e.  1.5% of their GDP during this 
period. Moreover, the aid scheduled under the instrument for structural pre-accession 
policies  (ISPA)  is  also  extremely  limited  (520 million  euros  per  annum  for 

103 

Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA). Final report published in October 1999. 

92 

transport). 104  This  is  an  . issue  of  key  importance  in  the  context  of  the 
Community's future financial perspective. 

It  is  therefore  essential  for  private  funding  to  be  mobilised,  particularly  through 
European  Investment  Bank  loans.  As  far  as  possible,  the  countries  concerned  will 
have  to  tap  non-traditional  sources  of financing,  based  on  funds  derived  from  fuel 
taxes and infrastructure charges, as some of them are already doing.  . 

Priority  must  be  given  to  funding  infrastructure  that  eliminates  bottlenecks, 
particularly  at  the  frontiers,  and  modernises  the  railway  network.  In  addition  to 
restoring  or building  infrastructure,  it  is  essential  to  connect  it  to  the  current  trans 
Eµropean  transport network.  Consequ~ntly, the revision of the TEN guidelines which 
the  Commission  will  propose  for  2004  will  have  to  take  account  of the  candidate · 
countries. 

B. 

The  opportunity offered by a well developed rail network 

Rail  still  retains  over  40%  of  the  freight  market  in  the  countries  of  Central  and 
Eastern  Europe  (not  including  maritime  cabotage),  a  level  similar  to  that  in  the 
United States,  as  compared with  8%  in the European  Union.  On  the  basis of current 
trends,  this  modal  share  could  fall  to  30%  by  2010.  Commodity  flows  began  to 
tumble in  1990, reaching their lowest point in  1995  when  they. stood at 65% of their 
1989  levels.  This  drop  followed  the  collapse  of traditional  heavy  industry  and  the 
economic  crisis  that  hit  these  countries.  The  rail  companies  have  pad  to  cope  with 
radical c~anges in the economy, for which they were ill-prepared. The freight service 
they  operated  essentially  involved  moving  heavy  goods - with  low  value-added -
between mining areas  and industrial combines. This "traditional" type of transport is 
steadily  disappearing  from  these  countries  as  modem  economies  develop.  "Just  in 
time" and intermodality were unknown concepts only a few  years  ago,  and the entire 
rail  transport  system  will  have  to  be  reviewed:  the  whole  thing  is  outdated, 
investment in infrastructure and new rolling stock having plummeted in recent years. 

The  existence  of this  particularly  extensive,  dense  rail  network  and  of  significant 
know-how  is  a  unique  opportunity,  however,  which  must  be  seized  in  order  to 
rebalance the transport modes in  an  enlarged Europe. Every effort must therefore be 
made to convince the countries in question of the need to maintain the railways' share 
of the freight market at a high lev_el,  with a target of around 35% for 2010. 

One way of averting this decline is  to reform rail  transport in the candidate countries 
(separating  operation  of services  from  infrastructure  management,  restructuring  the 
railway  companies,  etc);  this  need  to  be  accomplished  before  road  transport 
completely gains the upper hand. 

Maintaining  the  modal  share  of  the  railways  in  the  candidate  countrie_s  will  also 
require  even  firmer  action  on  road  transport  to  ensure  fair  competitive  conditions 
between  the  different  transport  modes,  inasmuch  as  road  transport  will  find  itself 
even  more competitive once it is  integrated into the  Community market.  The impact 
of  the  ro_ad  haulage  markets  being  opened  up  upon  accession  should  not  be · 

104 

On accession,  the candidate countries  will  also qualify for  the structural  aid  already provided for .under 
the  ''enlargement"  heading  of the  financial  perspective  adopted  at  the  Berlin  Summit.  Th~ proportion 
reserved for  transport is not known, however. 

93 

overestimated,  however,  given  the  small  proportion  of the  candidate  countries' fleet 
likely  to  be  authorised  (technical  standards)  to  carry  out  international  transport 
operations,  and  the  relative  convergence  in  terms  of operating  costs,  including  pay, 
that  is  gradually  taking  place  (see  table  below).  East-West  traffic  represents  3%  by 
value of total  international  road haulage in  the European  Union.  For this  ~eason, the 
Member States  are  on  the  whole  in  favour  of opening  up  the  road  haulage  market 
immediately upon  accession,  provided the  candidate  countries  effectively  apply the 
Community acquis. However, there is a considerable difference in costs owing to the 
low  rates  of drivers' pay  in  these  countries,  which  could  have  an  adverse  effect  on 
certain markets in the short term. 

Costs per km of international road haulage ( 1998) 

1.00 

0,00 

0,00 

0,70 

0,00 
-~  O,&l 
e 
iii 

0,4) 

O.:ll 

O,'..ln 

0,10 

o.ro 

•Overheads 

•Other 
a  Rep airs .iMI inte nan c e 
•Tyres 
c  F'uel 

•  hterest 
a  hsurance 
c  TaxAoll11censes 
•  Depreci<iion 
c  Personnel 

BG 

CZ 

en 

H 

LV 

LT 

PL 

RO 

SLO 

SK 

EU 

CEEC 

Source:  Cost  and  Benefit  of Enlargement  Study  for  Phare  MCTP,  Halcrow/NEI, 
1999. 

Effective  application  of  the  Community  road  haulage  acquis  should  also  bring 
significant environmental and road safety benefits (less polluting lorry fleets). 

C. 

A new dimension for shipping safety 

The  extension  of  the  Community's  seaboard  upon  enlargement  will  allow  it  to 
organise  the  monitoring  of shipping  more  effectively  and  to  minimise  the  risk  of 
accidents,  particularly those caused by ships  carrying  dangerous  or polluting  goods. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  90%  of oil  trade  with  the  European  Union  is  seaborne 
and that almost 70% of imports pass the shores of Brittany and the English Channel. 

To  reduce  these  risks,  the  Commission  has  proposed  a  package  of major measures 
designed principally to: 

reinforce port State controls; 

-

tighten  up  the  legislation  on  classification  societies to  ensure  that  only competent 
societies  meeting  strict  quality  criteria  will  be  authorised  to  act  on  behalf  of 
Member States; 

- gradually phase out old single-hull tankers; 

94 

-

-

introduce a compensation system for victims of marine pollution; 

create a European Maritime Safety Agency. 

Yet  even  when  all  these  - urgently  required  - measures  have  been  adopted,  the 
Community will still have few  means at its disposal to tackle the risks inherent in the 
substandard fleets  of some candidate countries  and the inadequate safety in~pections 
in  certain  ports.  Enlargement  should  enable  more  stringent  controls  of  the  type 
proposed by the Commission after the Erika accident to be carried out on ships in  all 
ports, which should lead to the gradual disappearance from the European continent of 
ports of convenience with their notoriously inadequate controls. 

Enlargement  must  also  be  the  occasion  on  which  to  include  not  only  technical 
requirements regarding ships'  structure and maintenance in  the criteria to  be  met by 
ships  calling  at  European  ports,  but  also  social  standards,  starting  with  the 
-Inten:iational Labour Organisation's standards for seafarers. 

, 

I 

The  blacklist  of substandard  ships  which  will  soon  enable  the· European  Union  to 
close  its  ports  to  dangerous -ships  should  logically  include  ships  whose  crews  are 
underqualified and underpaid. To this end, the European Union should rapidly define 
the  minimum  social  conditions  it  intends  to  enforce  for  crews.  The  Commission  is 
proposing105  to  initiate  a  dialogue  am<?ng  all  the  international  maritime  actors  to 
examine  the  issues  of  training  and  shipboard  living  and  working  conditions.  This 
should make it easier for the enlarged Europe with double the tonnage of the present 
fleet  to  take  steps  against  ships  flying  flags  of convenience and  the emergence of 
ports of convenience. 

Whatever the  European  Union's  firmness  of purpose in  this  respect,  one of the  key 
problems  is  the  lack  of any  powers  of inspection  or enforcement  on  the  part  of the 
International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO),  the  body  which  makes  the  rules.  The 
IMO  needs  control  instruments  to  make  flag  States  assume  their  responsibilities. 
Taking  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation  as  a  model  and  in  view  of 
enlargement,  the  European  Union  should support Japan's  initiative  to  give  the  IMO 
the  power  to  audit  flag  States.  Internationally  acknowledged  inspectors  could  thus 
carry out audit missions enabling States to identify shortcomings in  ships flying their 
flag.  This  would  be  the  first  step  in  verifying  compliance  with  the  international 
obligations  entered  into  by  all  States  party  to  the  IMO  conventions.  While  the 
recommendations  emerging  from  these  audits  might  not  be  internationally  binding, 
they  could  nevertheless  be  incorporated  into  the  blacklist  .of  ships  banned  from 
Community ports. 

In  addition,  best  social  or  fiscal  practices  developed  at  national  level,  such  as  the 
tonnage-based taxation system, should be emulated to promote the reflagging of as 
~any ships  as  possible  to  Community  registers.  Under  this  system,  shipowners 
pay a  tax  based on the tonnage they operate, regardless  of the actual  earnings of the 
business. The Commission plans to present a proposal on this subject in 2002. 

Stricter  control  of  flags  of  convenience,  particularly  from  the  point  of  view  of 
compliance  with  minimum  social  standards,  is  imperative  not  only  to  prevent 

105 

COM (2001)  188 final. 

95 

accidents  involving ships  carrying polluting  substances,  but  also  to  combat  the  new 
form  of  organised  illegal  immigration.  Recent  events  have  shown  that  illegal 
immigration  is  developing  around  the  deliberate  beaching  of  entire  ships  on 
European  shores.  Targeted  checks  on  certain  flags  of  convenience  need  to  be 
combined  with  measures  taken  in  the  framework  of Community  policy  on  judicial 
cooperation. 

Illegal immigration 

The  transport  sector  is  not  immune  to  the  problem  of illegal  immigration.  A  number  of 
rules  and  administrative  practices  (civil  liability  of carriers,  border  checks)  are  already  in 
place to curb the  inflow of illegal  migrants,  but  they  need  to  be reinforced as  the  scale  of 
the problem is unlikely to diminish in future. 

1 

The civil  liability of carriers,  an  important  tool  in  the  battle  against  illegal  immigration, 
has  yet  to be  fully  harmonised  at European  level.  The  strict  provisions  on  carrier liability 
that  exist  in  some  Member  States  are  the  subject  of various  criticism.  The  issues  raised 
relate,  in  particular, to the question of whether delegation  of inspection  tasks  to carriers  is 
an  appropriate political  instrument,  the degree of diligence that can be expected of carriers 
and  whether  the  effects  of  such  legislation  are  compatible  with  the  provisions  of 
international law. 

A  round table of interested parties, including the Member States, the transport industry and 
humanitarian organisations,  should pave  the  way  to  a  possible subsequent initiative  by  the 
Commission, an initiative that will need to be  built up on the basis of a  reasonable political 
balance. 

· 

Strict controls at the external borders are another key- element in the battle against illegal 
immigration.  In order to compensate for  the  abolition  of controls  at  the  internal  borders,  a 
common,  comparable  level  of  controls  at  the  external  borders  is  required  and  strict 
compliance  with  existing  obligations  in  the  Schengen  framework  is  essential.  Border 
controls  can  of  course  result  in  delays,  to  which  sophisticated  inspection  equipment, 
recourse to new technologies  and cooperation and  the exchange of personnel  may  provide 
an answer. 

Lastly,  the  Community  should  gradually  establish  a  management  system  for 
shipping  off  its  coasts.  At  present,  ships'  movements  are  regulated  by  bilateral 
agreements concluded in the framework  of the IMO, e.g.  for the English Channel or 
the  "Ushant  traffic  separation  scheme".  These  local  controls  focus  on  traffic 
(spacing,  speed,  routes).  If the  proposals  already  tabled  by  the  Commission  (in  the 
"Erika II"  package)  are  adopted,  they  should  also  concern  the  dangerous  nature  of 
cargoes and permit the re-routing of ships in  stormy weather, including those sailing 
outside ·territorial  waters.  Irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the  controls,  however,  the 
information  collected  is  generally neither  used  nor  transmitted  to  the  other centres, 
authorities or bodies along the route taken by a ship. 

The future European Maritime Safety Agency will  facilitate  systematic exchanges of 
information,  the  more  so as  the  appearance of identification  systems  (transponders), 
the  obligation  to  carry black boxes on  board and,  soon,  the  Galileo  programme  will 
make  it possible  to  establish  a  ship's  position  to  within  a  few  metres.  By 2010,  the 
enlarged Union  could thus,  as  in  the  air transport  sector,  have  a  traffic  management 
system in  place to  prot~ct itself against dangerous or suspicious movements of ~hips, 
in particular by diverting them to ports of refuge.  A harmonised system of this nature 
for the management of shipping from  the  Bosphorus to  the  Baltic,  taking in  the Bay 

96 

of Biscay  and  the  English  Channel,  will  give  the  European  Union  the  means  to 
coordinate intervention and contro_l  and thereby, without going -so  far as setting 
up  a  common  coastguard,  to  take  effective  action  on  the  US  model  against  all 
hazards  on  its  seaboard  (particularly  drug  trafficking,  illegal  immigration  and  the 
transport of dangerous goods). 

The success of enlargement will depend on: 

- making  provision  in  the  Community's  post-2006  financial  perspective  for  adequate 
public funding of infrastructure in the new member countries and connecting the future 
Member  States  to  the  Union's  trans-European  network  by  means  of  high-quality 
infrastmcture  while  aiming  to  maintain  the  modal  share  of  rail  transport  in  the 
candidate countries at 35% in 2010 and mobilising private sector finance to that end; 

I 
I 
I 
_, 
I 
I 

-

-

developing  the  administrative  capacities  of the  candidate countries,  notably  by  training 
inspectors and administrative staff responsible for enforcing transport legislation; 

promoting  the  reflagging  of  as  many  ships  as  possible- to  Community  registers  by 
following  the  best  national  practices  in  terms  of social  and  fiscal  policy,  such  as  the 
tonnage-based taxation system; 

: -
, 

enhancing  maritime  safety  controls  by  establishing  a  European  traffic  management 
system. 

I 
I 
---------~------------------~-----------------------------------------·--------------------------------------

II. 

THE  ENLARGED  EUROPE  MUST  BE  MORE  ASSERTIVE  ON  THE 
WORLD STAGE 

It is paradoxical  that  the European Union,  which  is  the  world's leading commercial 
power and conducts  a large part of its trade outside its  own borders, has  so little say 
in  the  adoption  of the  international  rules  which  govern  much  of transport._ This  is 
because  the  Union  as  such  is  excluded from  most  intergovernmental  organisations, 
where  it  has  no  more  than  observer  status.  This  situation  needs  to  be  remedied 
without  delay,  by  having  the  Community  accede  to  the  inter-governmental 
organisations which  govern  transport so that the thirty-odd members of the  enlarged 
Union  not  only  speak  with  a  single  voice  but,  above  all,  can  influence  those 
organisations'  activities  in  the  common  interest  and  in  support  of  sustainable 
development. 

The  need  for  Europe  to  speak  with  a  single  voice  in  defence  of its  industrial  and 
environmental interests is particularly urgent in the field of air transport. 

The  clearest  demonstration  of  the  Union's  higher  profile  in  the  global  transport 
market is the challenge it has  set itself with the Galileo programme.  Until it achieves 
independence in  the  field  of satellite  radionavigation,  Europe  risks  losing  out o_n  an 
effective tool to manage transport modes. 

A. 

A single voice for the European  Union  in international bodies 

The  Cqmmunity  has  built  up  a  considerable  body  of  law  over  the  last  ten  years, 
especially in  air and  sea transport.  This  legislation  no  longer  simply  reproduces  the 
text of international conventions, as in the past. The Community has  adopted specific 
regulations which do not always coincide with the recommendations and agreements 
made in international organisations. 

97 

In  the field  of maritime safety, the  Community has  agreed to  ban  single-hull  tankers 
from its ports by 2015. This determination on the part of the European Union has led 
the  International  Maritime  Organisation  to  change its  planned  timetable for  phasing 
out  such  ships.  The  Commission's  efforts  to  achieve  a  progressive  reduction  in 
aircraft noise  have  also  helped speed up  the  multilateral  discussions  on  the  revision 
of aircraft noise standards in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). 

This  shows  that  carefully  coordinated  action  by  the  EU  has  a  real  impact  on  the 
decisions taken in international bodies. 

However, the fact is that the Member States do not always adopt a consistent position 
within these organisations in relation to what has been agreed at Community le'{el. 

Enlargement reinforces the need for the European Union to send out a positive signal 
of  consistency  between  the  standards  adopted  py  the  15  and  those  applied  in 
-international bodies of 150 members. The Union needs to increase its ability to assert 
itself in the international arena and speak with a single voice in defence of its social, 
industrial  and  environmental  interests.  In  the  negotiations  within  the  World  Trade 
Organisation,  the European  Union  will  continue  to  push  for  the  transport  market  to 
be  opened  up,  while  at  the  same  time  maintaining  the  quality  of transport  services, 
the accomplishment of tasks of general economic-interest, and passenger safety. 

I 

r-----------------------------------------~-----------
1 The  Community  needs  to  provide  itself with  the  means  of exerting  real  influence  in  the 
I international  organisations  which  deal  with  transport,  in  particular  the  International  Civil 
• Aviation Organisation and  the International Maritime Organisation.  At the end of 2001  the 
! Commission will  propose that the Council  open negotiations  with  these organisations  with 
I  a  view  to  the  European  Union  becoming  a  full  member.  In  the  same  context,  the 
1 Commission has already proposed that the Community accede to Eurocontrol. 
·------------------------------------------------------
The forthcoming enlargement poses a specific problem concerning the Community's 
status in the intergovernmental organisations responsible for navigation on the Rhine 
and  the  Danube.  For historical  reasons,  the  Central  Commission  for  Navigation  on 
the  Rhine  has  been  responsible  for  drawing  up  the  rules  governing  shipping on  the 
Rhine  and  its  tributaries,  i.e.  70%  of the  European  tonnage.  The  Community  has 
generally  endeavoured  to  incorporate  these  rules  in  the  Community  legislation 
applicable  to  the  entire  inland waterways  network.  Nevertheless,  the  coexistence  of 
these  two  judicial  systems  poses  problems  concerning  the  issue  of  certificates, 
protection of crews and gaseous emissions. 

This discrepancy is likely to increase with enlargement. If nothing is done to alter the 
situation,  when 
the  Community's 
the  six  candidate  countries  connected  to 
international network of inland waterways have adopted the acquis there will  be one 
system in  force  on  the  Rhine  and  a  Community system in  force  on  the  other inland 
waterways  such  as  the  Upper  Danube,  the  Oder  and  the  Elbe,  and  yet  all  these 
waterways  will  be  interlinked  on  Community  territory.  The  new  Member  States 
would  thus  be  asked  to  adopt  the  Community  legislation  and  to  issue  Community 
certificates  that  were  not  valid  on  the  Rhine.  This  would  be  incompatible  with  the 
single market. 

The  Commission  will  therefore  propose  that  the  Community  become  a  full 
member  of  the  Central  Commission  for  Navigation  on  the  Rhine  and  the 
Danube Commission. 

98 

B. 

The  urgent need for an external dimension to air transport 

Air transport,  more  than  other modes,  is  particularly  dependent  on  the  international 
context.  To  hold  their  own  alongside  the  big  world·  players,  the  major  European 
airlines  need to  operate worldwide.  As  long-haul  and,  more  especially,  transatlantic 
flights  are  some of the  most profitable, it is  vital  to the competitiveness of European 
airlines  to  participate  fully  in  this  market,  especially  as  domestic  traffic  will  be 
exposed  to  growing  competition  from  high-speed  trains.  Bilateral  agreements, 
including  the  "open  skies"  agreements  between  certain  Member  States  and  the 
USA, 106  limit the exercise of air transport rights to national airlines. In the event of a 
merger  between  two  airlines  from  different  countries,  both  would  risk  losing  their 
portfolio of traffic rights. When agreements are negotiated between the USA and EU 
Memb~r States,  the  US  administration  only  recognises  the  companies  of  each 
Member State, not the European airlines.  One reason  for this is the lack of a suitable 
legal  statute  that  would  enable  such  a  nationality  clause  to  be  removed.  The 
·European company statute should be a driving force  in the abolition of these clauses, 
which limit market access to "purely" national carriers.  In  other words, the objective 
is  to  give  European  airlines  "Community"  nationality  in  relations  with  third 
countries. 

All  in  all,  this  situation  whereby each  Member State  separately,  and not  the  Union, 
negotiates  access  conditions  with  third  countries  is  a  handicap.  To  take  but  one 
example,  the  European  airlines  have  only  been  able  to  obtain  160  slots  at  Tokyo's 
Narita airport, while the American carriers have 640. 

Despite the  liberalisation  of air transport in  the  Community,  'the  airlines can  only operate 
from  their  national base  and do  not have  the  same  merger possibilities  as  other sectors. 
The  transatlantic routes are divided up between more than 20 airlines on the European side 
as opposed to seven  US companie~, which might soon be reduced to four or five as a result 
of the  ongoing mergers in  the  United States.  The  European airlines are  limited to  a single 
market for their intercontinental services and often to  a single hub.  A French company, for 
example,  can  offer flights from  Berlin  to  Malaga,  but  not  a  service from  Berlin  to  New 
York.  Their  competitors,  notably the  US  airlines,  have  several hubs from  which  they  can 
propose  intercontinental services  not only to  their final  destination  in  the  Community  but 
also to other destinations on the basis of inter-company alliance. 

This international context goes a long way towards explaining the current situation in 
the air transport sector:  the three leading American airlines each carry an  average of 
90  million  passengers  every  year compared with  between  30 and 40 million  for  the 
biggest European carriers. The smallest among them do  not have a sufficiently large 
domestic market to guarantee their competitiveness. 

There  is  thus  an  urgent. need  to  develop  an  external  dimension  for  air  transport 
commensurate  with  the  importance  of  the  internal  acquis.  This  is  why  the 
Commission  has  contested  the  compatibility  of the  "open  skies"  agreements  in  the 

106 

Sweden,  Finland,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  Austria,  Italy  and 
Portugal  have  all  signed an open skies agreement  with  the  USA.  These agreements  give  free  access  to 
all  carriers designated by each of the parties and  which  meet nationality conditions (majority of capital 
held by nationals of the coun~y concerned). The agreement between the United Kingdom and  th~ USA 
differs, in that it is  ~ free access agreement for all destinations in the UK except Heathrow airport and to 
a  lesser  extent  Gatwick.  Specifically  as  regards  Heathrow,  the  agreement  only  authorises  two  British 
and  two US carriers ~o use that airport on flights  to and from the ·us A. 

99 

European Court of Justice. Without awaiting the outcome of these cases, the Member 
States  should,  as  a  matter  of urgency,  accept  the  Community  as  negotiator  of  air 
transport  agreements,  especially  with  the  USA,  a  role  it  has  already  played  in 
negotiations with N01way, Switzerland, Iceland and the candidate countries. 

The  Community  must  base  these  agreements  with  its  main  partners  on  principles 
guaranteeing free  access to traffic  rights, equal conditions of competition,  protection 
of safety and  the  environment  and  the  elimination  of property  rights.  These  are  the 
principles  underpinning the concept of a  common  transatlantic  area in  air transport, 
which  the  Commission  wishes  to  see  replace  the  current  transatlantic  agreements. 
The  common  transatlantic  area  will  create  the  biggest  liberalised  airspace  in  the 
world:  any  airline,  European  or  American,  will  be  able  to  operate  freely  without· 
restrictions on traffic rights, subject to compliance with the rules agreed between the 
parties on competition, safety and the environment. These rules  will  be administered 
by common  bodies.  It  will  also  be  necessary to  examine  the  possibility  of opening 
aviation negotiations with other major partners, in particular Japan and Russia. 

C. 

Galileo: the key need for a global programme 

Satellite radionavigation  is  a  technology enabling anyone  with  a receiver to pick up 
signals transmitted by an  array of satellites and at  any given moment obtain not only 
an  exact  time  reading  but  also  their  precise  position  by  longitude,  latitude  and 
altitude. 

This  technology  is  meeting  with  increasing  success,  and  new  applications  are 
constantly  being  discovered.  Their  market  and  uses  cover  a  whole  range  of public 
and private activities and already include transport (location and measurement of the 
speed of vehicles,  insurance,  etc),  telecommunications  (network integration  signals, 
bank  interconnections,  electricity  grid  connections),  medicine  (e.g.  telemedicine), 
law  enforcement  (e.g.  electronic  tagging),  the  customs  service  (field  investigations, 
etc.) and agriculture (geographical inf<;>rmation  systems). 

It  is  therefore  clearly  a  strategically  important  technology  and  likely  to  generate 
considerable profits. 

Only the  USA  (GPS)  and  Russia  (GLONASS) currently have  this  technology,  both 
systems  being financed  for  military  purposes~ with  the result  that the  signals can  be 
blocked  or jammed  at  any  moment  to  protect  these  countries' own  interests.  This 
happened during the Kosovo war,_ when the United States cut the GPS signal. Neither 
system is totally reliable:  for example,  users  are  not  immediately informed of faults 
and  transmission  is  sometimes  unpredictable,  particularly  in  the  towns  and  regions 
situated in the far north of Europe. 

Europe  cannot  afford  to  be  totally  dependent  on  third  countries  in  such  a  strategic 
area. 

The  Commission  has  therefore  presented  an  independent  satellite  radionavigation 
programme,  Galileo,  involving  the  launch  of an  array  of 30  satellites  covering  the 
entire planet, with local ground transmitters to provide universal services available to 
all  users  in  any  location,  including  sheltered  areas  (tunnels,  underground  car parks, 
etc.). 

.. 

· 

100 

the  necessary 

frequencies  at 

the  procurement  of 

The  success of the  Galileo programme depends  to  a large extent on  the  Community 
adopting  a  unified  position  in  international  negotiations.  A  first  important  step  was 
taken  with 
the  World 
Radiocommunications  Conference  in  Istanbul  in  May  2000.  The  Community  also 
needs  to  conduct  international  negotiations  to  develop  Galileo's  complementarity 
with the  Ameri~an and Russian  systems and ensure their synergy. The possibility of 
being  able  to  use  both  a  GPS  and  a  Galileo  signal  will  enhance  the  respective 
performance of the  two systems. Negotiations are  under way with the  American  and 
Russian  authorities  on  system  interoperability  and  on  the  frequencies  needed  to 
develop  the  project.  The  negotiations  with  the  United  States  have  not  yet  been 
completed,  though  Russia,  at  the  Paris  summit  with  the  European  Union  on 
30 October 2900,  expressed its  willingness to  achieve  complementarity between  the 
Glonass and Galileo systems . 

. By  2008  this  project  will  provide  the  European  Union  with  a  system  with  global 
cover over which it will have full control and which will meet its accuracy, reliability 
and  security  requirements.  It  will  thus  have  at  its  disposal  a  tool  essential  to  its 
transport _development policy. For instance, it will be possible using Galileo instantly 
to trace goods carried on the railway network,  facilitating  the development of a just 
in-time  policy.  Galileo  will  permit  highly  accurate  positioning  of  ships  carrying 
dangerous  cargoes  and  give  the  maritime  authorities  the  means  to  ensure  safe 
navigation,  particulady in  areas  of high  traffic  density such  as'  the  Ushant TSS.  The 
emergency, search and rescue and civil protection services are  other applications for 
which  Galileo  will  offer  reliable,  guaranteed  solutions  to  the  strictest  standards. 
Galileo  will  open  up  access  to  a potential  market  of 9 billion  euros  a year in  return 
for an investment equivalent to approximately [250 km] of high-speed railway track. 

Galileo could thus  revolutionise transport,  much  as  the  liberalisation  of air transport 
did before it by creating  a niche for low-cost airlines  which  opened up  new  markets 
for tourism; or mobile telephony, which has radically changed people's daily lives. 
------------------------------------------------------
The four phases of the GALILEO programme are: 

. 

. 

-

-

-

-

a study phase which ends in 2001; 

a development and test phase for the launch of the first satellites in 2001-2005; 

a deployment phase for an array of 30 satellites: 2006-2007; 

an operational phase from 2008 onwards. 

Following  the  decision  by  the  Stockholm  European  Council  to  launch  this  programme 
without  delay,  its  future  depends  on  mobilising  the  private  sector  to  provide  funding 
primarily for tpe deployment phase. The Commission has therefore proposed establishing a 
joint  undertaking  under  Article  171  of  the  Treaty  to  complete  the  current  development 
phase and prepare the pooling of public and private fmanc~. 

The  European  Space  Agency  (ESA)  will  be  charged  by  the  joint  undertaking  with 
implementing  the  system's  space  and  terrestrial  segment  for  the  development  phase.  A 
European company could take over from the joint undertaking in the deployment phase. 
'---------~--------------------------------------------

101 

CONCLUSIONS: TIME TO DECIDE 

A  large  number of political  measures  and  instruments  will  be  needed  to  launch  the 
process  which,  over ·the  next  30 years,  will  lead  to. the  kind  of sustainable transport 
system we  might  hope  to  achieve.  The measures  advocated  in  this  White Paper are 
merely the first stages of a longer-term strategy. 

We  will  not  be  able  to  adapt  the  common  transport  policy  to  the  requirements  of 
sustainable development unless a number of problems can be rapidly resolved: 

-

a9equate funding :Of the infrastructure needed to eliminate bottlenecks and to link · 
the  Community's  outlying  regions  to  its  central  regions.  Creation  of  the 
trans-European  network  remains  one  of the  preconditions  for  the  rebalancing  of 
transport modes. That is why it is fundamentally important that external costs, and 
in  particular  environmental costs,  be  internalised  into  the  infrastructure  charges 
that all users will have to pay; 

- political determination to get the sixty-odd measures proposed in the White Paper 
adopted.  The  EU  will  avoid  congestion  only  if it  remains  very  attentive  to  the 
question  of regulated  competition,  in  which,  when  it  comes  to  freight  transport, 
the railways are playing their last card; 

-

-

a new approach to urban transport by local public authorities which reconciles the 
modernisation of public services with rationalisation of private car use;  this is part 
of  what  it  will  take  to  comply  with  the  international  commitments  to  reduce 
pollutant C02 emissions; 

satisfying  the  needs  of  users  who,  in  return  for  the  increasingly  high  cost  of 
mobility,  are  entitled  to  expect  a  quality  service  and  full  respect  for  their rights, 
irrespective of whether the  service is  provided by public  enterprises or by private 
companies;  this  will  make  it  possible  to  place  the  user  at  the  heart  of transport 
organisation. 

However, the common transport policy alone will not provide all the answers. It must 
be part of an overall strategy integrating sust~nable <:Jevelopment, to include: 

economic policy and changes in the production process that influence demand for 
transport; 

-

land-use planning policy and in particular town planning - we must avoid any unnecessary 
increase in mobility needs caused by unbalanced urban planning; 

-

social  and education  policy,  through  organisation  of working patterns  and  school 
hours; 

- urban transport policy at local level and especially in large cities; 

budgetary and  fiscal  policy,  to  link  the  internalisation  of external,  and  especially 
environmental, costs with completion of the trans-European netwG>rk; 

102 

-

-

competition  policy,  to  ensure,  in  line  with  the  objective  of  high-quality  public 
services, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market is not 
hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market; 

research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the various 
research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line with the concept 
of the European research area. 

A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car and 
the  quali_ty  of public  services,  will  involve  choices  and  action  decided  at  national 
level,  in  the  context of clearly  delineated  subsidiarity.  The  proposals  put forward  in 
the  White  Paper  (Annex I)  focus 1on  sixty-odd  measures  to  be  taken  at  Community 
level.  Along  the  lines  of  what  is  happening  in  other  areas  such  as  energy, 
telecommunications  and  financial  services,  there  is  a  need  for  ·a  new  form  of 
.  regulation  to  be  developed  in  relation  to  transport  at  European  level,  whereby  the 
·national regulatory authorities now being setting up act in  a coordinated fashion,  e.g. 
for  allocating slots in  aviation  or train paths on  the railways,  or for road safety .This 
is a characteristic phenomenon of the new governance. 107 

As  already emphasised, these measures are more a:rp.bitious  than they may seem.  We 
should be  aware  that  in  terms  of the  adoption  process  - which  more  often  than· not 
entails  European  Parliament/Council  co-decision  - we  need  to  break  with  the 
Transport Ministers'. present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We must 
fully exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended by the 
Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority. 

To  speed up  the  decision-making  process  and assess  progress,  the  Commission  has 
decided  to  draw  up  a  timetable  with  dates  for  achieving  specific  objectives,  and  in 
2005  it  will  make  .an  overall  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  measures 
advocated  in  the  White  Paper.  This  assessment  will  take  account  of the  economic, 
social  and environmental  consequences  of the  proposed measures. 108  It  will  also  be 
based  on  a  detailed  analysis  of those  effects  of enlargement  liable  to  change  the 
structure of the  European transport  system.  As  far  as  possible, the  Commission will 
also  continue  to  quantify  the  stated  objectives  and  to  this  end  intends  to  produce  a 
communication in 2002 to specify those objectives. 

107 

108 

"European Governance:  A White Paper": COM(2001)428. 
Monitored in the framework o~ "TERM": Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism. 

103 

-

-

competition  policy,  to  ensure,  in  line  with  the  objective  of  high-quality  public 
services, and particularly in the rail sector, that the opening-up of the market is not 
hampered by the dominant companies already present on the market; 

research policy for transport in Europe, to bring greater consistency to the various 
research efforts at Community, national and private level, in line with the concept 
of the European research area. 

A number of measures identified in this White Paper, such as the place of the car and 
the  quali_ty  of public  services,  will  involve  choices  and  action  decided  at  national 
level,  in  the  context of clearly  delineated  subsidiarity.  The  proposals  put forward  in 
the  White  Paper  (Annex I)  focus 1on  sixty-odd  measures  to  be  taken  at  Community 
level.  Along  the  lines  of  what  is  happening  in  other  areas  such  as  energy, 
telecommunications  and  financial  services,  there  is  a  need  for  ·a  new  form  of 
.  regulation  to  be  developed  in  relation  to  transport  at  European  level,  whereby  the 
·national regulatory authorities now being setting up act in  a coordinated fashion,  e.g. 
for  allocating slots in  aviation  or train paths on  the railways,  or for road safety .This 
is a characteristic phenomenon of the new governance. 107 

As  already emphasised, these measures are more a:rp.bitious  than they may seem.  We 
should be  aware  that  in  terms  of the  adoption  process  - which  more  often  than· not 
entails  European  Parliament/Council  co-decision  - we  need  to  break  with  the 
Transport Ministers'. present practice of systematically seeking a consensus. We must 
fully exploit the opportunities offered by the Maastricht Treaty (and extended by the 
Amsterdam and Nice Treaties) for taking decisions by a qualified majority. 

To  speed up  the  decision-making  process  and assess  progress,  the  Commission  has 
decided  to  draw  up  a  timetable  with  dates  for  achieving  specific  objectives,  and  in 
2005  it  will  make  .an  overall  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  measures 
advocated  in  the  White  Paper.  This  assessment  will  take  account  of the  economic, 
social  and environmental  consequences  of the  proposed measures. 108  It  will  also  be 
based  on  a  detailed  analysis  of those  effects  of enlargement  liable  to  change  the 
structure of the  European transport  system.  As  far  as  possible, the  Commission will 
also  continue  to  quantify  the  stated  objectives  and  to  this  end  intends  to  produce  a 
communication in 2002 to specify those objectives. 

107 

108 

"European Governance:  A White Paper": COM(2001)428. 
Monitored in the framework o~ "TERM": Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism. 

103 

I. 

ANNEX I: ACTION PROGRAMME 

The measures proposed in the White Paper may be summarised as  follows: 

1.  SHIFTING  THE  BALANCE  BETWEEN  MODES  OF 
TRANSPORT 

1.1.  Improving quality in the road sector 

•  Harmonise inspections and penalties by the end of 2001  in order to: 

- promote  efficient,  uniform  interpretation,  implementation  and  monitoring  of 

existing road transport legislation; 

-

establish the liability of employers for certain offences committed by their drivers; 

- harmonise the conditiqns for immobilising vehicles; 

-

increase· the  number  of checks  which  Member  States  are  required  to  carry  out 
(currently on  1 %  of days  actually worked) on compliance with  driving times  and 
drivers' rest peri~ds. 

•  Keep  the  road  transport  profession  attractive  by  promoting  the  necessary  skills 

and ensuring satisfactory working conditions. 

•  Harmonise the minimum clauses in contracts governing transport activity in order 

to allow tariffs to be revised should costs increase (e.g. a fuel price rise). 

1.2.  Revitalising the railways 

•  Gradually  open  up  the  railway  market  in  Europe.  By  the  end  of  2001  the 
Commission  will  submit a  second package of measures  for the  rail  sector with  a 
view to: 

- opening up the national freight markets to cabotage; 

-

ensuring a high level safety for the railway network based on rules and regulations 
established  independently  and  a  clear  definition  of  the  responsibilities  of  each 
player involved; 

- updating  the  interoperability directives  for  all  components  of the  high-speed  and 

conventional railway networks; 

- gradual opening-up of international passenger transport; 

- promoting  measures  to  safeguard the  quality  of rail  services  and  users'  fights.  In 
particular,  a directive  will  be proposed to  lay down  the  terms of compensation in 
the event of delays or failure  to meet service obligations.  Other measures relating 
to the development of service quality indicators, terms of contract, transparency of 
information  for  passengers  and  out-of-court  dispute  resolution  mechanisms  will 
also be proposed. 

. 

105 

•  Step up rail  safety by proposing a directive and setting up a Community structure 

for Railway Interoperability and Safety. 

•  Support the creation of new infrastructure, and in particular rail freight freeways. 

• 

to reduce adverse environmental impact. 

•  Enter into dialogue with the rail  industries in the context of a voluntary agreement 

1.3.  Controlling the growth in  air transport 

•  Propose the introduction by 2004, in the context of the Single Sky, of: 

-

-

-

a  strong regulator with  adequate resources  independent of the  various  interests  at 
stake,  and  capable  of  setting  objectives  allowing 
to  grow  while 
guaranteeing safety; 

traffic 

a  mechanism  enabling  the  military  to  maintain  defence  capabilities  while  using 
the scope for cooperation to ensure more efficient overall organisation of airspace; 

social  dialogue  with  the  social  partners,  which  could  begin  with  the  air  traffic 
controllers,  allowing  consultation,  following  the  experience  in  other  sectors,  on 
aspects  of the  common  aviation  policy  that  have  a  considerable  social  impact. 
This dialogue could lead to agreements between the organisations concerned; 

cooperation  with  Eurocontrol  to  draw  on  its  expertise  and  know-how  to  develop 
and administer the Community rules; 

a  surveillance,  inspection  and penalties  system ensuring effective  enforcement of 
the rules. 

•  In  the  framework  of  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation,  rethink  air 
transport  taxation  and  negotiate  the  introduction  of a  kerosene  tax  by  2004  and 
differential en route air navigation charges. 

•  Launch a debate in 2002 on the future of airports in order to: 

- make better use of existing capacity; 

-

-

review the airport charges systems; 

integrate air transport into a logical system with the other modes of transport; 

- determine what new airport infrastructure is required. 

' 

•  Present  a  revision  in  2003  of  the  slot  allocation  system,  in  order  to  improve 
market  access  while  taking  account  of the  need to  reduce  environmental  impacts 
at Community airports. 

•  Negotiate  with  the  United  States  a  Joint  Transatlantic  Aviation  Agreement  to 

replace the current open skies agreements. 

106 

1.4.  Adapting the maritime and inland waterway transport system 

•  Develop the infrastructure needed to build veritable "motorways of the seas". 

•  Simplify the regulatory framework for maritime and inland waterway transport by 
encouraging  in  particular  the  creation  of one-stop  offices  for  administrative  and 
customs formalities  and by linking up all the players in the logistics chain. 

• 

•  Propose a  regulatory framework  for  safety controls  for passengers embarking  on 
ships  offering European  cruises  in  order to  combat the  risk  of attacks,  along  the 
lines of what is done in air transport. 

•  Tighten  up  the  maritime  safety  rules  in  cooperation  with  the  International 
Maritime Organisation and. the Internation_al Labour Organisation, in particular: 

- by incorpor~ting the minimum social rules to be observed in  sh~p inspections, and 

- by developing a genuine European maritime traffic management system. 

•  Encourage the  reflagging of the  greatest possible number of ships  to  Community 
registers,  based  on  the  best  practices  developed  in  social  and  fiscal  matters,  by 
proposing  in  2002  measures  on  tonnage-based  taxation  and  the  revision  of  the 
guidelines on State aid to maritime transport. 

•  Improve the situation of inland waterway transport through: 

-

the  current  standardis(,ltion  of technical  requirements  for  the  entire  Community 
waterway network by 2002; 

- greater  harmonisation  of  boatmasters'  certificates  throughout  the  Community's 
inland  waterway  network,  including  the  Rhine.  The  Commission  will  present  a 
proposal on this subject in 2002; 

- harmonisation  of  conditions  in  respect  of  rest  periods,  crew  members,  crew 
composition  and  navigation  time  of inland  waterway  vessels.  The  Commission 
will present a proposal on this subject in 2002. 

1.5.  Linking up the modes of transport 

•  Establish  by  2003  a  new  programme  to  promote  alternative  solutions  to  road 
. transport  (Marco Polo),  which  could have  a  b.udget  of some 30 million euros  per 

year in help launch commercial projects. 

•  Propose  by  2003  a  new  Community  framework  for  the  development  of  the 
profession  of  freight  integrator. and  the  standardisation  of  transport  units  and 
freight loading. techniques. 

2; ELIMINATING BOTTLENECKS 

•  In  2001  revise  the  trans-European  network  guidelines  in  order  to  elirnjnate 
bottlenecks  by  encouraging  corridors  with  priority  for  freight,  a  rapid  passenger 

107 

network and traffic management plans for major roads,  and adding to the "Essen" 
list such projects as, by way of illustration: 

a high-capacity railway route through the Pyrenees for freight; 

- East European high-speed train/combined transport Paris-Stuttgart-Vienna; 

-

-

-

-

the Fehmam bridge/tunnel between Germany and Denmark; 

the Galileo satellite navigation project; 

improvement of the navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen; 

the Verona-Naples rail link, including the Bologna-Milan branch; 

the interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network. 

•  In 2001  increase to 20% the maximum funding under the trans-European network 
budget  for  the  main  bottlenecks,  including  those  still.  remaining  on  the  Union's 
frontiers  with the accession candidate countries, and then introduce conditionality 
rules. 

•  In 2004 present a more extensive revision of the trans-European network aimed in 
particular  at  integrating  the  networks  of  the  accession  candidate  countries, 
introducing the concept of "motorways of the seas", developing airport capacities 
and improving territorial cohesion on the continental scale. 

•  Establish  a  Community  framework  for  allocating  revenue  from  charges  on 
competing  routes  to  the  construction  of  new  infrastructure,  especially  rail 
infrastructure. 

•  Harmonise  minimum  safety  standards  for  road  and  rail  tunnels  belonging to  the 

trans-European transport network. 

3.  PLACING  USERS  AT  THE  HEART  OF  TRANSPORT 
POLICY 

3.1.  Unsafe roads 

•  Set  a  target  for  the  EU  of  reducing  by  half  the  number  of  people  killed  on 
· 

European roads by 2010. 

•  By  2005  harmonise  the  rules  governing  checks  and  penalties  in  international 
commercial  transport  on  the  trans-European  road  network,  particularly  with 
regard to speeding and drink-driving. 

•  Draw  up  a  list  of  "black  spots"  on  trans-European  routes  where  there  are 

particularly significant hazards and harmonise their sign-posting. 

•  Require  coach  manufacturers  to  fit  seat  belts  on  all  seats  of  the  vehicles  they 

produce. A directive -to  this end will  be proposed in 2003. 

108 

•  Tackle  dangerous  driving  and  exchange  good·  practices  with  a  view 

to 
encouraging responsible driving through training and education schemes aimed in 
particular ·at  young drivers. 

•  Continue efforts  to combat the  scourge of drink-driving  and find  solutions  to  the 

issue of the use of drugs and medidnes. 

•  Develop  a  methodology  at  European  level  to  encourage  independent  tec.hnical 
investigations,  e.g.  by setting  up  a  committee  of independent  experts  within  the 
Commission. 

3.2.  The facts behind the costs to the user 

•  In  2002 propose a framework directive setting out the principles  and  structure  of 
an  infrastructure-charging  system  and  a  common  methodology  for  setting 
charging  levels,  offset by for  the  removal  of existing  taxes,  and  allowing  cross 
financing. 

•  Make  the  tax  system  more  consistent  by  proposing  uniform  taxation  for 

commercial road transport fuel by 2003 to round off the internal market. 

•·  In 2002 propose a directive guaranteeing the interoperability of means of payment 

on the trans-European road network. 

3.3.  Rights and obligations of users 

•  In  2001  increase air passengers' existing rights through new proposals concerning 
in particular denied boarding. due to overbooking, delays and flight cai:icellations. 

•  In  20.01  put forward a regulation concerning requirements relating to air transport 

contracts. 

, 

•  By  2004,  and  as  far  as  possible,  extend  the  Community  measures  protecting 
passengers'  rights  to  include  other  modes  of  transport,  and  in  particular  the 
railways, maritime transport and, as far as  possible, urban transport services. This 
concerns  in  particular service  quality  and  th~ development  of quality  indicators, 
contract  conditions,  transparency  of information  to  passengers  and  extrajudicial 
dispute settlement mechanisms. 

•  Propose an  adjustment of procedures  for notifying  State aid,  particularly in  cases 
the 

to  compensation  for  public  service  obligations  on 

links 

relating 
Community's outlying regions and srriall islands. 

to 

•  ·Clarify the  general  principles  which  should govern  services  of general  economic 
interest in the field of transport in order to provide users with a service of quality, 
in keeping with the Commission communication on services of general interest in. 
Europe. 

109 

4.  MANAGING  THE  EFFECTS  OF  TRANSPORT 
GLOBALISATION 

•  Link the  future  Member States  to  the EU's  trans-European  network by means  of 
infrastructure  of  quality  with  a  view  to  maintaining  the  modal  share  of  rail 
transport  at  35%  in  the  candidate  countries  in  2010  by mobilising  private-sector 
finance. 

•  Make  provision  in  the  Community's  future  financial  perspective  for  adequate 

public funding of infrastructure in the new member countries. 

•  Develop  the  administrative  capacities  of  the  candidate  countries,  notably  by 
training  inspectors  and  administrative  staff  responsible  for  enforcing  transport 
legislation. 

•  Full  membership  for  the  European  Community  in  the  main  international 
organisations,  in  particular  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation,  the 
International  Maritime  Organisation,  the  Rhine  Navigation  Commission,  the 
Danube Commission and Eurocontrol. 

•  By 2008  develop for the EU a satellite navigation  system with  global  cover,  over 
which  it  will  have  control  and  which  will  meet  its  accuracy,  reliability  and 
security requirements (Galileo) . 

., 

110 

II. 

ANN~X II: INDICATORS AND QUANTITATIVE ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure  1:  Length of motorways and rail track (EU 15) 

180 

160 

140 

120 

CJ 
CJ  100 
II 
CJ 
co 
m 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

-;., 
•  '  ~  - :> 

.....  ;1,.,..  & 

-- Motorvv ays 
-- Rail  tines 

1980 

1985 

1990 

1995 

Source: Eurostat, 2001 

Figure 2:  Average external costs  1995  (EUR  17)  by  transport mode and type of cost: 
passenger transport (without congestion costs) 

Etio I  1DDD  Pkm 

Average External Costs:  Passenger  1995 

100  . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,  

87 

Cu P'trt am  P roce u 
CU1t>a1  Entcts 
•  N at11e  &  uicacape 
cc 1rna•  c•a1ge 

lS  +------1---~-------------------------iCAlr Poll1tl0t 

Cl N Ollt 
•Accl:le its 

J8 

SD-+----~ 

.  25  + - - - - ,  

o-t-----

Car 

IU 

Rall 

AUliltlOI 

Source: INFRAS,IWW for the IUR, 2000 

T 

111 

Figure 3:  Average external costs  1995  (EUR  17) by  transport mode and type of cost: 
freight transport (without congestion costs) 

., 

uro /  1000 lk m 

Average External Costs:  Freight  1995 

205 

i-----~C Upstream Process 

C  Urban Effects 
•Nature &  Landscap 
1C1  C Ii mate  Change 
C  Air P oDution 

- - - - - to  Noise 

• 

50 - - - -1  

Road Freight 

Rail 

Aviation 

Waterborne 

Source: INFRAS, op. cit. 2000 

Figure 4:  Average  external  costs  of congestion,  1995,  euros  per  1 000 passenger-km 
and tonne-km 

fl.JR 11 

UK 

Swit;:crl;i,nd 

0 
0 
0 

Sweden 

Portug;il 

E 
~ ..., 
... 
"' 
c 
~  Ncthcrl;)nd:: 
E  Luxcmb0<1r9 
~ 
Q. 
0 
0 
0 

Norw;i,y 

lrcl;i,nd 

lt;i,ly 

... ... 
~ 
Q. 
... 
0 
:::s 
w 

Greece 

Germ ;i,ny 

Fr;i,nce 

Finl;i,nd 

Oc111m;i,rk 

Belgium 

•freight 
o passengers 

0 

10 

20 

' 

Source: ECMT,  1998; INFRAS, op. cit, 2000 

112 

Figure  5:  Passenger-km  et  vehicle-km  in  France,  Portugal,  Finland  and  the  United 
Kingdom,  1980-19~8 

200  -.--~~~~~--,--~---~,..._,~.......,.,..__,,_--,.--....,......,,~ 

; ~-,~t;~~ ~:· ·.  ~;~. \~ ·-~· ·· · _:  · -~- ~--.·'." .: ; .\\~\~:f ~~~T~~~~~~~~/£;~tk~-; · :_\? :-~ :~~<:,~~::~; ~~ 

180 

160~---~------~-----=-~~~~~=--~~~ 

140~~~---.,..---~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

19 
80  120  +-~~__,...-,..._..,,, ....... ~~~~~~~;;;.,-,.;,~~~ - - - - - - - .  

=1.  100  ~~~~~...,,;.,--.~~.;;...;,;;.:~;;...;;..;;..~~~.;.;:...::;:~ 
Off 

80 

-+-Vehicle-km 
--Passenger-km 

60 

1980 

1985 

1990 

1995 

Source: Eurostat, 2001 

Tables  I  (summarised) and 3 (in detail) illustrate the results of the approaches. 

Table 1:  Comparison  of options  according  ~o their  increasing  impact  between  1998 
and 2010 

1998=100 

Passenger 

Tonne 

Vehicle 

C02 emissions 

EU 15 

Kilometre 

Kilometre 

Kilometre 

Anticipated 
trend 

Option A 

~ption B 

Option C 

GDF 

124 

124 

124 

124 

143 

138 

138 

138 

138 

143 

126 

115 

115 

112 

143 

127 

117 

115 

110 

143 

Table 2  is  a  rough  attempt  to  classify  the  main  measures  which  could  be  taken  to 
reconcile transport with sustainable development. The programme of measures· set out 
in the White Paper needs to be backed up by cross-sectoral action, i.e. in sectors of the 
economy  other  than  transport, ·to  ensure  the  success  of the  options  being  proposed, 
particularly option C. 

113 

Table 2: A typology of link-breaking 

Area of link-
breaking 

Economic activity 

Transport system 

Environmental impact 

) 

Indicators 

GDP (passenger 
and tonne 
kilometres) 

Vehicle-kilometres 

Polluting emissions 

Link-
br~aking 
measures 
(examples) 

•  Town planning 

•  Charging 

•  Less polluting vehicles 

and fuels 

•  Intelligent 

transport systems 

•  Modal transfer 

•  Better rates of 
vehicle loading 
and occupancy 

•  Speed control 

•  Energy-efficient 

engines 

•  Work 

organisation 
(e.g. 
teleworking) 

•  lridustrial 
production 
system 

•  Land-use 
planning 

Source: 5th Commission research prowamme - SPRITE: "SePaRating the Intensity of 
Transport from Economic growth". 

Explanation: 

Passenger kilometre: transport of a passenger over one kilometre 

Tonne kilometre: transport of one tonne over one kilometre 

Vehicle kilometre: number of kilometres covered by a vehicle 

C02:  estimates  of carbon  dioxide  emissions.  These  take  account,  in  the  anticipated 
trend and the three options,  of the gains in vehicle energy efficiency expected from  the 
voluntary agreement with the automobile industry (ACEA,  KAMA,  JAMA). 

GDP: hypothetical growth of GDP of 3% per year. 

114 

Table 3:  Illustration of results of approaches 

EU  15 

1998 

2010 Anticipated trend 

20 I 0 -Option A 

2010- Option B 

2010 -Option C 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

· 

Bn 

Mio 

Pkm-

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Pkm-
Tkm 

Vehkm  Tonnes  Pkm-· 
C02 

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Pkm-
Tkm 

Vehkm  Tonm:s.  Pkm-
Tkm 
C02 

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Tkm 

Tkm 

1 

Cars 

3776 

2221.2 

434.2 

4650 

2735.3 

453.4 

4650 

2486.6 

412.2 

4650 

2486.6 

412.2 

4559 

2438 

404.1 

Bus-coach 

415 

24.4 

18.7 

441 

25.9 

19.8 

441 

25.9 

19.8 

441 

23.6 

18:0 

501 

26.8 

20.5 

Metro-Tram 

Railway 

Air transport 

Total 
Passengers 

Growth 
1998-2010 

Road 

Railway 

Inland 
waterways 

50 

290 

241 

0.5 

1.5 

0 

53 

6.4 

327 

0.5 

1.7 

0.0 

7.2 

53 

327 

0.5 

1.7 

0.0 

7.2 

1.9 

59.3 

458 

3.7 

112.7 

458 

3.7 

112.7 

53 

327 

458 

0.5 

1.5 

0.0 

6.5 

61 

400 

0.5 

1.8 

0.0 

8.0 

3.3 

102.4 

408 

3.0 

91.2 

4772 

2249.5 

518.6 

5929 

2767.1 

593.l 

5929 

2518.4 

551.9 

5929 

2515.5 

539.1 

5929 

2470.l 

523.8 

24% 

23% 

14% 

24% 

12% 

6% 

24% 

12% 

4% 

24% 

10% 

1% 

1255 

313~8 

271.l 

1882 

470.5 

406.5 

1882 

427.7 

369.6 

1882 

427.7 

369.6 

1736 

394.5 

340.9 

241 

121 

1.3 

0.3 

1.9 

3.6 

272 

138 

1.5 

·o.4 

2.2 

4.l 

272 

138 

1.5 

0.4 

2.2 

4.1 

272 

1.4 

138 

. 0.4 

2.0 

3.8 

333 

167 

1.7 

0.4 

Pipelines 

· 

87 

1.0 

100 

1.0 

100 

1.0 

100 

1.0 

100 

"4,1 

115 

r"; 

... : 

2.4 

4.6 

1.0 

~ 

u 

.,, 

EU  15 

1998 

2010 Anticipated trend 

2010 -Option A 

2010- Option B 

2010 -Option C 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Bn 

Bn 

Mio 

Pkm-

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Tkm 

Pkm-
Tkm 

Vehkm  Tonnes 

Pkm-

C02 

Tkm 

Vehkm  Tonnes  Pkm-
Tkm 
C02 

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Pkm-
Tkm 

Vehkm  Tonnes 

C02 

Short 
shipping 

sea 

1166 

0.3 

23.3 

1579 

0.4 

31.6 

1579 

0.4 

31.6 

1579 

0.4 

28.7 

1635 

0.4 

29.7 

Total Goods 

2870 

315.76 

300.9 

3971 

472.8 

445.4 

3971 

430 

408.5 

3971 

429.8 

405.1 

3971 

397.0 

378.6 

Growth 
1998 

over 

Total 

Growth 
1998-2010 

Growth 
GDP 
2010 

in 
1998-

38% 

50% 

48% 

38% 

36% 

36% 

38% 

36% 

35% 

38% 

26% 

26% 

2565.2 

819.5 

3239.9 

1038.5 

2948.4 

960.4 

2945.3 

944.2 

2867.1 

902.4 

26% 

27% 

15% 

17% 

15% 

15% 

12% 

10% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

43% 

Source:  For the  1998  data on  passenger-km and tonne-km, "EU Transport in  Figures, Statistical  Pocketbook, European  Commission  2000". The data 
on  C02 emissions and vehicle-km are estimates produced by the Commission's departments. 

116 

III. 

ANNEX  III:  PROJECTS  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MEMBER  STATES  AND 
THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  BEING  EXAMINED  BY  THE 
COMMISSION  FOR 
IN  THE  LIST  .  OF  "SPECIFIC" 
PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 

INCLUSION 

( 

117 

...., 

...... 

""' 

~· 

PROJECTS  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  MEMBER  STATES  AND  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  BEING  EXAMINED  BY  THE 
COMMISSION FOR INCLUSION IN THE LIST OF "SPECIFIC" PROJECTS ("ESSEN" LIST) 

Project 

1 

IT  Milan-Bologna and 
Verona-Naples 

Length (km) 

Type 

Completion 
date 

Remaining 
investment 
(million euros) 

830  Mixed high-speed line 

2007 

13 994 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 

F  Montpe11ier-Nimes 

____________ ... __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ 

50  Mixed high-speed. and freight  line 

2012 

790 

15 

16 

17 

18 

EU  Galileo 

European satellite navigation system 

2008 

EIF  High-capacity Pyrenees crossing 

180 

Rail  freight line 

DI A  Stuttgart-Munich-Salzburg-Vienna 

713  Mixed high-speed and freight line 

2020 

2012 

D  Vilshofen-Straubing 

70 

Improving 
Danube 

the  navigability  of 

the 

19 

· EIP 

Interoperability  of 
high-speed rail network 

the 

Iberian 

7 800  New and upgraded high-speed lines 

20  D/DK  Fehmarn fixed link 

50 

Rail and road bridge/tunnel 

2013 

Total 

3 250 

5 000 

9 501 

700. 

29600 

3 650 

66 485 

118 

IV. 

ANNEX  IV:  TECHNOLOGICAL  DEVELOPMENTS  AND  INTELLIGENT 
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS 

Technological innovation provides an excellent opportunity to integrate the transport 
modes,  optimise  their  performance,  make  them  safer  and  help  make  the  European 
transport  system  compatible  with  sustainable  transport  development.  The  European 
Union is very actively involved in  technological innovation in  transport.  Its research 
and  development  programmes  are  promoting  innovation  upstream,  while  the  trans 
European  networks  lend  themselves  perfectly  to  large-scale  application.  The 
technologies_  emerging  from  the  Information  .Society  can  make  an  outstanding 
contribution here. 

'•( 

t 

1) Technology development 

. Over  the  period  1998-2002  the  EU's  contribution  to  national  and  industrial  RTD 
efforts in the transport field is estimated at around 1.7 billion euros, in areas as  varied 
as  intermodality,  energy  and  the  technology  of means  of transportation,  including 
telematics  applications.  Instead of expanding this  Community effort, it would in 
future be better to keep it at a  constant level while focusing it more specifically 
on  the  obJectives  of  the  common  transport  policy.  The  new  framework 
programme  of  research  for  2002-2006  will  provide  the  opportunity  to  put  these 
principles  into  effect  in  the  field  of transport.  The  Commiss.ion 's  new  proposal 109 
includes  among its  priority  objectives  those  of perfecting new  technologies  to  back 
up  the  development  of  safe  and  clean  modes  of  transport  and  developing  the 
European transport system. In the framework programme proposal, the priority areas 
of  thematic  research  that  are  the  most  promising  for  supporting  the  common 
transport policy set out in the White Paper are: 

1.  Aeronautics and space 

RTD  priorities  in  the  aeronautics  field  will  focus,  on  the one hand,  on  lessening the 
·environmental  impact  of engine  emissions  and  noise  and  improving  aircraft  safety 
and,  on  the  other,  increasing  the  capacity  and  operating  safety  of  the  air  traffic 
management  system so  as  to  facilitate  the  achievement  of the  Single  European  Sky 
initiative. 

Regarding space, the development of Galileo is one of the priority research activities 
and its  goal  is  to  help  build up  the necessary expertise  and knowledge in Europe to 
exploit this emerging technology as effectively as possible. 

Safer and less polluting aircraft 

The  aim  of research  and  development  in  the  safety  field  will  be  to  achieve  a  five-fold 
reduction  in  accident rates  in  order to compensate for  the  growth  in  traffic.  Research  will 
focus  on  the  development  of technologies  which  give  the  crew  constant  and  controllable 
situation awareness. 

As  regards  the  environment,  the  aim  is  to  compensate  for  the  increase  in  air  traffic  by 
reducing C02  emissions by 50%.  and NOx by  80%  and by reducing aircraft noise by  10 dB 
in order to cut the perceived noise level by 50%. Research will focus on aircraft technology, 

~ 

109 

COM(2001) 279. 

119 

low-drag aerodynamics and flight operating procedures. 

2.  Sustainable development and global change 

The  research  activities  proposed  within  this  pnonty  area  aim  to  enhance  the 
scientific  and  technological  capacities  Europe  needs  in  order  to  implement  its 
sustainable development strategy, especially by applying new technologies. 

j 

The strategic objectives deal  in  particular with the reduction of greenhouse gases and 
pollutant emissions, the security of energy supply and the balanced use of the various 
transport  modes,  all  of these  being  priority  research  themes  with  a  contribution  to 
make to the implementation of the transport policy recommended in the White Paper. 

With  regard  to  short  and  medium-term  research  activities  aiming  to  reduce 
greenhouse gases and pollution and ensure a secure energy supply, the proposal is to 
focus  research  on  action  to  develop  renewable  energy  sources  and  on  cleaner  and 
more  efficient  energy  use,  especially  in  urban  areas,  and  to  develop  new  transport 
concepts that are cleaner and more energy efficient. 

Clean urban transport 

Rationalising  conventional  private  car  use  in  town  centres  and .promoting  clean  urban 
transport are also priority objectives, as  are  the efforts being made towards using hydrogen 
as  the  fuel  for  tomorrow's  vehicles.  Projects  envisaged  include  supporting  demand 
management measures, integrating urban transport services and promoting the marketing of 
low-polluting  or non-polluting  vehicles.  The  development  of a  new  generation .of hybrid 
electric cars (electric motor combined with a heat engine) and cars which run on natural gas 
or, in the longer term, hydrogen fuel cells, looks very promising. 

With regard to  short and medium-term research  activities aimed at making transport 
modes sustainable, the proposal is to focus research on cleaner and safer road and sea 
transport,  the  integration  of intelligent  transport  systems  for  efficient  infrastructure 
management,  railway  interoperability  and  the  development  of  intermodality  for 
passengers and freight. 

Railway interoperability 

Research  and  development  must  help  with  the·  design· and  introduction  of a  framework 
guaranteeing  full  interoperability  between rail  infrastructures,  vehicles,  cabs  and  crews.  It 
will focus  on technologies  which  will  help  improve the capacity of means of transport and 
traffic  management  systems  (longer  trains,  optimal  allocation  of  slots,  maintenance 
procedures)  and  introduce  more  competitive  services  (operating  systems  such  as  freight 
tracking, crew training). 

The  long-term  research  objective  is  to  develop  new  sources  of renewable  energy: 
hydrogen technologies and fuel  cells which  are intrinsically clean and can be used in 
transport. 

3. Anticipating the EU's scientific and technological needs 

Activities  in  this  priority  area  will  consist  of  specific  research  or  research 
complementing  that  in_  the  abovementioned  priority  thematic  areas  in  support  of 
policies of EU interest, such  as  the common  transport policy presented in this White 
Paper. 

120 

Monitoring a_nd  evaluating the White Paper programme 

Harmonised data,  forecasting  tools and indicators will be  used  to monitor and  evaluate the 
action  programme  and  the  guidelines  for  transport  and  the  trans-European  networks 
contained· in this White Paper. 

2) eEurope 

The need to provide new  services was underlined by the  eEurope 2002 Action Plan, 
adopted  by  the  Heads  of State  and  Government  at  the  Feira  European  Council  in 
June  2000.  Specific  objectives  have been  set for  2002  to  speed up  the  development 
and deployment of intelligent transport systems, for instance: 

- 50%  of Europe's  major  towns  and  cities  ought  to  be  provided  with  traffic  and 

travel information services, 

- 50% of Europe's major motorways ought to be equipped with  systems to manage 

traffic and to detect accidents and congestion, 

-

all  new  vehic~es sold  in  Europe  should  be  equipped  with  more  effective  active 
safety systems, 

all  Europe's  mobile  c1t1zens  should  have  access  to  location  determination  of 
e~ergency calls on the  112 number, -with  multilingual  assistance  and a  full  range 
of eme~gency services, 

-

legislative initiatives should be taken to promote the Single European Sky, mobile 
communications  for  trains,  maritime  information  and  control  systems,  and 
Galileo. 

The eEurope Action Plan  provides  a  framework for efforts  to  research,  develop  and 
deploy  intelligent  transport  systems.  The  role  of  the  Action  Plan,  which  is  to  be 
implemented  by  the  Member States  and  industry,  is  to  facilitate  the.  deploymen~ of 
new solutions and to speed up their development. The private sector has a key role in 
the  developm~nt  of  intelligent  transport  services.  In  implementing  the  eEurope 
initiatives, Member States should ensure that obstacles to the development of private 
services are removed. 

3) Deployment of intelligent transport systems 

The  potential  impact  of intelligent  transport  systems  has  been  assessed  both  during 
research and in the early stages of deployment. Journey time reductions of up to 20% 
and  increases  in  network  capacity  of  5-10%  have. often  been  achieved  in  various 
combinations. Safety improvements have often-been estimated at around  10-15% for 
certain  specific  types  of  accident  (rear-end  collisions)  thanks  to  coordinated 
information and control strategies, while survival rates have  also  inc~eased thanks to 
automatic  incident  detection  systems  for  the  management  of emergency  situations. 
Only  6%  of  road  accidents  appear  to  be  unavoidable  and  beyond  the  reach  of 
improved  technology.  Lastly,  integrated  strategies  for  pollution  control  and  traffic 
limitation  have  led  to  initial  estimates  of  reductions  in  ground-level  emissions. 
Intelligent transport's most significant impact is probably on  road transport, though it 
helps make other modes safer and more efficient, too. 

121 

f 

c-

1 

The  trans-European  transport  network  is  an  ideal  candidate  for  the  deployment  of 
intelligent transport.  It  is  not  limited to  large  traditional  infrastructure  such  as  roads 
and  motorways,  railways,  ports  and  airports,  but  also 
traffic 
management  systems  and  information,  positioning  and  navigation  systems  and 
services  which  make  it  possible  to  operate  such  infrastructure  to  best  effect. 
Galileo, 110  which  the  Commission is considering for inclusion  on  the  list  of specific 
projects  ("Essen"  list),  is  an  example  here  of a  project  acting  as  a  catalyst  for  the 
development of intelligent transport.  In  1998-1999, some  100 million euros, i.e.  over 
10% of the TEN budget, was allotted to traffic management systems. 111  The financial 
support  provided  through  the  multiannual  indicative  programme  for  2001-2006  for 
the  trans-European network has  been increased to the unprecedented level  of around 
800 million euros:. 

includes 

the 

Such co-financing should focus  on projects which encourage large-scale, coordinated 
. deployment,  stimulating  the  synchronisation  of  investment,  which  is  particularly 
critical for this  type of project in  view  of the multitude of players involved.  Without 
such  coordination  a  veritable  mosaic  of  fragmentary  services  on  a  regional  or 
national  scale  might  emerge,  compromising  continuity  of  service  beyond  the 
geographical  frontiers  of States  and  the  organisational  frontiers  of  operators.  For 
users,  this  would  ultimately  be  a  major new  obstacle  to  the  smooth  working  of the 
internal market. 

The private sector has  a key role to  play in  the  launching of new services:  from  this 
point of view, the Commission strongly recommends the development of a legal  and 
commercial framework for the participation of the private sector and for partnerships 
between public  and private operators in  order to  facilitate  the  development of value 
added services for traffic information and travel. 

Apart  from  the  Galileo  programme  described  earlier  in  this  White  Paper,  the  main 
projects already under way or due to be launched are: 

1. Large-scale deployment of intelligent road transport systems 

Six  Euro-Regional  initiatives  involving  the  main  players  in  traffic  management  in 
Europe  have  been  receiving  EU  financial  support  since  1996;  these  initiatives  are 
already  accompanying  the  deployment  phase  in  14 Member States  and  are  placing 
particular  emphasis  on  the  needs  of European  users.  It is  essential  that  the  trans 
European  network  be  equipped  with  telematic  infrastructure/systems  for  data 
collection  and  with  traffic  control  and/or  road  information  centres  in  order  to 
guarantee  the  quality  and  reliability  of  information  (e.g.  journey  times),  just  as 
cooperation  between  managers  is  indi.spensable  if  users  are  to  be  offered  an 
uninterrupted  high-quality  service,  whether  for  local  or  regional  journeys,  mass 
departures  during  the  holiday  season  or  at  weekends,  or  medium  or  long-distance 
heavy  goods  traffic.  On  this  basis,  traffic  management  plans,  information  services 
provided  before  or  during  journeys,  freight  management  services,  breakdown  and 
emergency  rescue  services  and  electronic  road-charging  systems  need  to  be 
introduced as  a matter of priority  and  their take-off should  help  greatly  to  alleviate 
the effects of road network saturation. 

110 

Ill 

European project for a satellite positioning system for civilian use. 
Plus subsidies of around 45  million euros for rail  traffic management projects, which are not included. 

122 

A European network of traffic management and road information centres 

. Work  is  under  way  to  set  up  a  European  network  of  traffic  management  and  road 
information centres  by  2003;  this  network,  which  should  cover the  whole  of the  EU,  will 
provide  users  with  traffic  management and  road  information  services  on  a fully  European 
scale. The network is central  to the European programme for  funding  deployment (around 
200 million euros between 2001  and 2006), which will mobilise around  1.2 billion euros of 
investment of European interest and generate complementary projects at the local, regional, 
national, cross-border and European levels. 

4-

f, 

Electronic  road-charging  systems  and  any  other  automatic  fee-collection  systems 
appear particularly  useful  for  r~storing balanced  prices.  The  fact  that  they  are  now_· 
being  deployed  or  are  planned  in  several  countries,  though  not  necessarily  on  a 
technically  interoperable  basis  as  yet,  shows  how  useful  it  would be  for  Europe  to 
introduce  standards.  An  interoperability  directive  needs  to  be  accompanied  by 
·community aid for the deployment of such systems. 

2. The European Rail Traffic Management System112 

This system, developed since the start of the 1990s with constant Community support 
through  the  framework  research  programmes,  represents  an  unprecedented  leap 
forward.  The project is completing its tests  and certification procedures and has now 
reached the stage of pilot testing on the trans-European network. 

The  main  function  of this  automated  system  is  to  monitor  and  ensure  a  minimum 
distance between trains.  It will  allow  a train to run ori  all European lines with only a 
single  command-control  system  on  board,  while  at  present. more  than  11  different 
systems are in service in Europe. 

While  several  countries  are  already  beginning  the  operational  deployment  phase,  in  the 
years  ahead  it  will  be  necessary  gradually  to  equip  the  main  lines  with  this  system.  The 
actual 
the 
development of freight transport by rail will rely are still in the development stage and may 
receive aid under the research framework programme. 

traffic  management  and  operational  assistance  applications  on  which 

This  system  will  be  all  the  cheaper to  deploy  for  the  fact  that  the  Directive  on  the 
interoperability  of the  high-speed  rail  system requires  common  ~pecifications to  be 
used for this type of system in the const~ction of all new lines. 113 

3. Air traffic 

Operating  and  pre-operating  tests,  especially  in  the  North  Atlantic  and  the 
Mediterranean  sectors,  have  shown  the  potential  for  improving  safety _by  means  of 
more  precise  positioning  information  and  better  communications.  The  use  of data 
transmission  links  also enables  airlines  and other operators  to  obtain  operating  data 
. from  aircraft during flights.  Such systems will  facilitate the adoption of "free flight" 
solutions by enabling certain air traffic  management functions  to be carried out from 
the  cockpit.  Airport  operations  require  greater  integration  and  management  of 
information so that the different controllers involved in  the  various flight phases can 

1 

112 

113 

ERTMS. 
Any  request  for  funding  of  high-speed  lines  from  the  trans-European  networks  budget  needs  a 
guarantee from the national authorities that ERTMS will be iristalled on those lines. 

123 

• 

· .. 

" '· 

exchange  data and  plan  their operations  and  aircraft  movements.  Such  management 
and  planning  systems,  along  with  advanced  guidance/command  systems  for  ground 
movements  in  airports,  will  increase  the  airports'  capacity,  especially  during  bad 
weather, while relieving the pressure on air traffic controllers . 

Proper  use  of  new  technology  is  essential  for  increasing  the  available  airspace 
(reapportioning  civil  and  military  use)  and  allowing  genuinely  European 
management (sector and route planning). In  the past, decisions to invest in intelligent 
systems  have  often  been  taken  on  the  basis  of national  industrial  interests,  resulting 
in  limited technical  and operational  compatibility between  the  different  centres  and 
restricted  interoperability.  This  lack  of  interoperability  has  severely  impaired 
efficiency,  from  the  fragment;:ttion  of  controller  training  to  major  operational 
coordination problems, and has pushed up investment and maintenance costs. 

Interoperability is  central to the Single European Sky 

Interoperability will  become a major criterion in selecting and evaluating projects for trans 
European  network  support.  Upstream,  the  demonstrators  produced  through  the  research 
programme will need to be large-scale. 

4. Maritime traffic safety 

The  risk  of  accidents  due  to  traffic  concentration  in  Europe's  main  sea  lanes  is 
particularly high in  bottlenecks  such  as  the  Straits of Gibraltar or the Ushant Traffic 
Separation Scheme. 

Traffic  monitoring  aJ?.d  management  by  coastal  or  port  authorities  is  still  often 
handled  at  a  local  level,  and  the  information  gathered  is  generally neither used  nor 
passed on to the other centres,  authorities or bodies along the ship's route. However, 
technologies  are  developing  in  the  maritime  sector:  automatic  vessel  identification 
and  monitoring  systems,  the  development  of standardised  telematic  exchange,  the 
availability on  the  market of black boxes,  and so  on.  These developments  suggest a 
whole range of applications,  not only in  the  areas of safety and pollution control but 
also for a general improvement in traffic conditions at sea and in ports. 

A trans-European network of shipping management and information 

The  Commission  has  adopted  a legislative  proposal  for  a Community  system  to  monitor 
and  manage  traffic  information  which  will  make  it  possible  to  identify  and  track  ships 
entering  European  waters  and  to  promote  the  systematic  exchange  of  ship  and  cargo 
information among the different players in  maritime transport (traffic control centres of the 
different Member States, sea rescue or pollution control bodies, port authorities, etc.). 

Setting  up  a  trans-European  shipping  management  and  information  network  such  as  this 
should  improve  the  management  and  supervision  of traffic  and  reduce  the  administrative 
burden  on  ships'  captains,  while  improving  the  preparedness  and  response  of maritime 
authorities faced with accidents or pollution risks. 

124 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(2001) 370  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07  06  04  08 

Catalogue number: KT-C0-01-557-EN-C 

Office for Official ~ublications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg