WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The SS 131 road linking Torres, Sassari and Cagliari.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Sardinia, environmental impact, rail transport, road building, road network, road safety, road transport

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2002/C 229 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: The SS 131 road linking Torres, Sassari and Cagliari

The SS 131 between Porto Torres, Sassari and Cagliari, the main road link between the north and south of
Sardinia, has for many years been inadequate and unsuitable to meet the present needs and is very
dangerous because the lanes are narrow and there is a great deal of heavy goods traffic.

The modernisation work being carried out on this road (1) is, however, highly controversial. The projects
entails the pointless total destruction of the existing carriageway (about 17 metres wide) and its total
reconstruction at a higher level, with new gradients, less steep slopes and a carriageway more than 34
metres wide (4 lanes 3,5 metres wide, two hard shoulders 3 metres wide, a central reservation 2 metres
wide, two service roads for local use, each with two lanes in both directions, accounting for another 12
metres). Furthermore, although the work has barely started, it is causing great inconvenience for road
users, with unexpected, badly sign-posted detours onto improvised single-lane roads, creating the
conditions for serious and even fatal accidents.

Can the Commission ascertain:

1. whether an environmental impact procedure has been carried out for the projects in question;

2. whether the records of this procedure indicate any concern for the devastating impact of the works,

which divert heavy traffic onto a temporary single-lane road;

3. whether at the planning stage the investigating authorities ever assessed the possibility of bringing the
road up to motorway standard by simply doubling the width of the existing road, without destroying
the existing carriageway, which has substantially increased the cost of the infrastructure for the local
authority? In other words, has the possibility of building the motorway on two separate carriageways,
only one of which would be newly built, the other being created from the four existing lanes, been
considered;

4. whether any Community funding was granted for this modernisation work? If so, does the
that an inquiry should be opened to ascertain why the existing

Commission not consider
infrastructure was destroyed;

5. with regard to the sections still at the planning stage, in particular beyond Oristano/Macomer and in
the vicinity of the Olbia junction, whether the Italian Government and ANAS (National Roads

C 229 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

feasibility of coordinated road-rail planning, allocating a
Authority) have assessed the technical
proportion of the new motorway carriageway to a completely new railway line, which could be built
at practically no extra cost and environmental impact, since they are already included in the cost of
the motorway (2)

(1) The Sardar-Villanovaforru section, from km 47 to km 58 A Lit 50 billion; the Mogoro section, from km 58 to
km 65 A Lit 58 million; the Uras stretch, from km 65 to km 69,5, first and second sections A Lit 39 + 35 billion;
the Uras-Macomer stretch, second section, from km 75 to km 79 A Lit 34 billion.

(2) Except for a 100 km section between Cagliari and Oristano, the Sardinian railways (belonging to the Italian State

Railways network) currently have commercial speeds of less than 70 km per hour!.

Supplementary answer
by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

Community part-financing for the road in question was granted under the Objective 1 Operational
Programme Infrastrutture di
the 1994-1999
programming period.

trasporto stradale (Road Transport

Infrastructure)

for

The Italian authorities, and in particular the Azienda nazionale autonoma strade (ANAS) as the authority
responsible for project implementation, have stated that the environmental impact procedure was properly
observed and did in fact cover the construction stage. Given the low traffic volume, these authorities
considered that the procedure need not cover the impact of diversion onto temporary routes. Further, it
has been possible to use some parts of the old road, thus permitting dualling of the infrastructure over a
the planning
number of stretches. No integrated rail/motorway infrastructure has been envisaged:
specifications for the project did not allow for this possibility.

For the current 2000-2006 programming period, at the meeting on 19 December 2001 of the Monitoring
Committee for the Transport OP the Commission asked the managing authority for the programme to
check on the safety and service implications of the construction sites for the new projects proposed for
part-financing. The Commission also strongly pressed for project selection to be based on better
integration of road and rail transport.

(2002/C 229 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: ERDF project ‘rehabilitation of the Los Filtros district of Manises’ (Valencia, Spain)

In the town of Manises (in the Region of Valencia) a project entitled ‘restoration of the environment in a
run-down area, with protection of a natural area A the urban surroundings of Los Filtros in Manises’. This
project, which benefits from Community funding via the ERDF, has led to the disappearance of
architectural features dating from the beginning of the last century, which were hitherto protected by the
competent authorities as part of the historic and artistic heritage, in accordance with the Manises PGOU
(general town-planning project).

Furthermore the project has received ERDF funding for supposed restoration of the district, whilst in fact
what is happening is that a wooded area is being replaced with modern design features which improve
neither the landscape nor the urban environment.

Both Regulation No 1260/99 (1) on the structural funds and Regulation 1783/99 (2) on the ERDF specify
that the Funds will not finance projects which interfere with the protection of the natural and cultural
heritage. Article 2(2)(d) of the ERDF Regulation specifically mentions the need to protect the cultural
heritage.