Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "White Paper European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide"
Date: 2002-03-13
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU publication, sustainable development, transport policy

C 192/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.8.2002

21.
calls on the European Commission to incorporate the
issues raised in this opinion when presenting the draft Joint
Report on Social Inclusion to the Laeken summit in December
2001;

22.
calls on the European Council and the European
Parliament to ensure that the local and regional role is properly
recognised in this important policy area.

Brussels, 13 March 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘White Paper European Transport Policy for
2010: time to decide’

(2002/C 192/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on European transport policy for
2010 (COM(2001) 370 final);

having regard to the decision by the Commission on 14 September 2001, under the first paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions
on the matter;

having regard to the decision of its Bureau on 12 June 2001 to direct Commission 3 (Trans-European
Networks, Transport and Information Society) to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the
implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future’ (COM(98) 614 final) (CdR 60/1999 fin) (1);

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘the common transport policy: sustainable mobility: perspectives
for the future’ (COM(98) 716 final) (CdR 189/1999 fin) (2);

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘developing the citizens’ network’ (COM(98) 431 final) (CdR 436/
98 fin) (3);

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘spatial planning in Europe’ (CdR 340/96 fin);

having regard to its earlier opinion on ‘a sustainable transport strategy for local and regional authorities
and the European Union’ (CdR 225/97 fin) (4);

having regard to its earlier opinion on ‘the green paper towards fair and efficient pricing in transport’
(COM(95) 691 final) (CdR 364/96 fin) (5);

(1) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 9.
(2) OJ C 374, 23.12.1999, p. 76.
(3) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 8.
(4) OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 1.
(5) OJ C 116, 14.4.1197, p. 52.

12.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 192/9

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘the structure and goals of European regional policy in the context
of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate’ (CdR 157/2000 fin) (1);

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘cohesion and transport’ (COM(98) 806 final) (CdR 390/1999
fin) (2);

having regard to its earlier opinions on ‘a second set of Community measures on maritime safety,
following the sinking of the oil tanker Erika’ (COM(2000) 802 final — 2000/0325-0326-0327 COD)
(CdR 50/2001 fin) (3);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 3 on 23 November 2001 (CdR 54/2001 rev.)
(rapporteur: Mrs Muriel Barker-UK/PES);

whereas the role of transport, in terms of both infrastructure and the provision of services, is crucial to
the development of all regions;

whereas all the spheres of government — European, national, regional and local — need to collaborate
when developing transport policy, but in line with the principle of subsidiarity, local and regional
authorities, are the level of government closest to the citizen;

whereas in the future European regional policy will also have to pursue the goals of strengthening
economic and social cohesion and promoting the overall harmonious development of the Community;

whereas freight transport is a vital factor in achieving European integration and furthering the economic
and social development of the regions;

whereas the Community does not have competence in the area of spatial planning, but
the
Commission can propose ‘soft’ policies which could have a significantly positive effect for the environment
and sustainable development;

whereas local and regional authorities have a vital role in planning and implementing integrated spatial
development;

whereas every mode of transport has an impact on the environment and human health, on the cost of
providing and maintaining public infrastructure, and to some extent on the safety and travelling times of
other transport users;

whereas congestion and pollution in our cities and regions lead to increased costs to businesses and
damage the effectiveness of the transport system;

whereas the EU is obliged under Article 3c of the Amsterdam Treaty to integrate environmental protection
requirements into the definition and implementation of Community policies with a view to promoting
sustainable development;

whereas the Gothenburg European Council placed shifting the balance between modes of transport at the
heart of the EU’s sustainable development strategy;

whereas it is generally acknowledged that individual modes of transport do not always pay for their full
internal and external costs and this distorts the transport market;

whereas a separate opinion is being prepared on the revisions to the TENS guidelines,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 43rd plenary session of 13 and 14 March 2002
(meeting of 13 March).

(1) OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 25.
(2) OJ C 226, 8.8.2000, p. 22.
(3) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 1.

C 192/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.8.2002

The Committee of the Regions

Introduction

law. The directive on transport infrastructure costs must make
it possible to include external costs — i.e. to reflect the real
costs involved — in order to fund infrastructure that provides
a more environmentally-friendly alternative. Rules governing
state aid should not frustrate the use of public support where
it is essential for the introduction of innovative schemes to
promote intermodality;

welcomes the steps being taken by the Commission to
1.
establish a European transport policy which will add value to
the policy initiatives in Member States, which already share
many common elements. A sustainable transport policy must
meet the potential problems of rising car usage in the European
Union as a whole as well as in the accession countries as
Community membership brings higher incomes;

2.
generally welcomes the approximately sixty measures
proposed for action at Community level but emphasises the
need for local and regional authorities to be involved in all
stages of the development of European Transport Policy; and
seeks an indication of the timetable for their achievement
(with set targets being prepared to assist with their delivery);

considers, however, that this initiative must not have the
effect of marginalising regions unable to benefit from these
alternative methods including those island regions which are
reliant on roads for the transport of goods;

5.
recommends that full use be made of assessment meth-
odologies to evaluate the sustainability of new proposals for
development or infrastructure. This will ensure that
the
objectives of spatial planning policies are not undermined by
individual decisions which may appear to have pressing
merit; The environmental impacts of transport need special
consideration and it will be important to implement effectively
the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive;

3.
highlights the value of engaging the citizen in the
development of potentially controversial policies. It is essential
not to create sets of ‘winners and losers’ when introducing
radical policies. Policy-making must be transparent and
decisions seen as being taken close to the individual citizen.
This is a role which local and regional authorities are uniquely
able to fulfil;

Modal Shift

Sustainability

4.
welcomes Marco Polo as the successor to the PACT
initiatives, but at the same time points out that, given the
importance of intermodal
linkage in boosting the use of
transport by rail, sea and inland waterway, the resources
earmarked for the next two years are considered too low.
Promoting greater use of short-sea transport, rail and inland
navigation as alternatives to road haulage, will provide an
important element of the proposals for modal shift in the
communication. It is essential that the more sustainable modes
are developed to offer the flexibility, versatility and speed of
the dominant road mode. In order to meet the need for a door-
to-door service, road transport should be fully integrated into
an intermodal chain. For particularly costly infrastructure
projects to permit intermodality, for example rail tunnels,
cross-financing measures must be permitted under Community

emphasises that changing the usage of particular modes
6.
is intended to contribute to wider objectives of reducing
congestion and pollution. In all measures, care should be taken
to ensure that the transport sector makes an appropriate
contribution to meeting the EU’s climate protection commit-
ments. The means and the ends should be clearly distinguished.
The CoR observes that progress towards a more sustainable
modal balance is to be assessed using an ambitious programme
of monitoring across all modes; and this should recognize the
varying modal opportunities in different regions;

7.
considers that public transport has great value to society
and its overall management is first and foremost a public
service and it is essential to support sustainable development.
Wherever possible, control over the provision of public
transport should be overseen by democratically-accountable
bodies, either directly or through effective regulatory bodies;

12.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 192/11

8.
welcomes the proposal by the Commission to review the
competition law provisions in transport policy, especially
when granting state aid. This will help to recognise that many
regions have particular transport difficulties, some of which
are due to geographical factors, such as regions’ remoteness,
mountainous terrain or the fact that they are islands;

ives such as Marco Polo, which will enable railfreight to
interface directly with other more sustainable modes such as
water-borne transport. Clearly there will be problems in also
meeting the capacity requirements of the rail networks if rail
passenger services are to achieve their potential for effecting
modal shifts. There must be a commitment to upgrading
gauging capability so as to permit the handling of the larger
freight containers and unaccompanied road trailers;

9.
accepts that measures to promote the interests of the
travelling public by new contracts for public transport may
offer a means of raising standards, but the re-tendering period
must be appropriate, given the costs of re-tendering and the
inability of short-term contracts to generate the confidence
required to make long-term investments in infrastructure;

TENS

Urban transport

10.
emphasises that many of the most severe impacts of
transport arise in urban areas and agrees that excessive use of
private cars is one of the main causes of congestion. The
development of integrated transport systems involves many
actors, but the lead role must be taken by local authorities and
regions. The UK system of Local Transport Plans is commended
is
as a holistic approach to local
acknowledged that where transport provision is privatised,
the commitment of transport firms is ultimately subject to
commercial considerations;

transport, although it

11.
refers to its previous opinion proposed to the Com-
mission that a benchmarking scheme be established, which
would set standards for public transport and other alternatives
to the single-user private car such as car-sharing or pooling.
Progress on the Citizens’ Network Benchmarking Initiative is
welcomed, but the principle should be extended, as rec-
ommended by the CoR;

12.
emphasises that mobility management should be seen
as a positive way of addressing the travel needs of individual
citizens as well as contributing to more sustainable travel
patterns. It should apply to all new developments and be
progressively introduced to established centres of personal
movement;

14.
notes that the TENS guidelines are to be the subject of
a separate opinion. The communication includes proposals for
additional major TENS projects but the process of defining
In this
these priorities should be made fully transparent.
connection, steps must be taken to prevent continuing delays
in implementing the Essen projects; in addition, points of
conflict and of interest in the different modes of transport
should be made clear and prioritised. These priorities would
provide the basis for extending the programme of major TENS
projects. The CoR emphasises that good local and regional
connections to the long distance links are essential if the full
benefit of the TENS are to be achieved. There is a need to
address the ‘missing links’ which occur where trans-European
traffic meets regional traffic and serious congestion, thus
defeating the flow and purpose of the TENS;

15.
emphasises that in order to address these problems,
regional and local authorities, who are largely responsible for
local
transport systems, should also be involved in the
management of trans-European transport infrastructure. The
communication includes a requirement for the most important
European routes to be provided with traffic management plans
to make better use of existing capacity. As an example of good
practice, the UK Highways Agency, which is responsible for
trunk roads and motorways, is currently developing Route
Management Strategies for all its routes. The development of
these strategies engages the local and regional authorities
through which the routes pass;

Revitalising the railways

13.
endorses the concept of revitalising the railfreight
sector, particularly in conjunction with complementary initiat-

urges that the review of the Trans-European Transport Net-
works take account, in the short and medium term, of the
need to ensure balanced development of the EU geographical
area. It must therefore be pursued in a manner consistent with
the implementation of EU regional policies and European
Spatial Development Perspective options;

C 192/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.8.2002

transport

intermodal

16.
reminds the Commission that in April 2000 it stressed
the importance of recognising the difference between the
needs of peripheral, landlocked, upland and island regions and
those of the heartland regions when designing the TENS
networks. This must extend to the infrastructures needed if the
European transport network structure is to cover the island
regions of the Member States, and if a boost is to be given to
tailored to the
the development of
specific needs of islands. Hopefully these distinctions will be
taken into account when the TENS guidelines are reviewed.
The CoR also notes that In previous opinions it has called for
the TEN-T to include an ‘inter-regional accessibility map’ which
would lay down minimum accessibility thresholds which
should help to reduce disparities between regions. The CoR
considers that the drive for a balance between the central
European core and the outlying regions is not sufficiently
traffic growth by
the same rates of
clear, given that
geographical area are maintained, congestion at the centre will
continue to grow, leading to increasing problems for peripheral
regions wishing to access the Single Market;

if

Shipping

welcomes the proposal by the Commission to include
17.
‘motorways of the sea’
in a 2004 revision of the TENS
guidelines. Many of Europe’s regions have the potential to use
short-sea shipping served by rail or inland waterway, to reach
other parts of the Single Market and to contribute to the new
demands of an expanding Community. As an example, the
NETA Interreg project recommends new sea connections
between the UK and Poland which would help to relieve the
motorways of the Netherlands and Germany of heavy traffic.
The definition of ‘waterways of the sea’ must be framed in
consultation between the states and the regions. The Interreg
IIIB Operational Programmes can make a major contribution
to such a joint reflection;

A resolute Community policy is needed to develop transport
on all seaboards. The tools proposed in the White Paper —
motorways of the sea and proposed review of the regional aid
framework in this sector — are not up to the task. The
Committee of the Regions awaits more ambitious proposals
from the European Commission;

Spatial Planning

welcomes the communication’s recognition of the need
19.
for measures extending beyond the transport sector. It has
previously stated that European regional policy should be
based on the European Spatial Development Perspective
(ESDP), which provides a valuable policy framework for the
development of the EU and recognises the growing importance
of regional authorities in spatial planning. It observes that
some of the economic factors, such as the dependence of
industry on just-in-time logistics, are beyond the direct influ-
ence of the regions, but spatial planning capabilities should be
used to integrate ever more closely land-use policies and
transport policies. This principle should be extended to cover
locational decisions for health, education and other policy
sectors which have an impact on transport. The ESDP and the
emerging Common Transport Policy provide the frameworks
needed to bring together sectoral policies which have too often
operated independently; the need to integrate land-use and
transport policies is essential if the aims of the White Paper are
to be fully achieved. Linked to this is the need to ensure that
structural fund programmes (e.g. Interreg, Objectives 1 and 2)
directly complement and contribute to the White Paper
policies;

18.
welcomes the emphasis on innovation in shipping
services. Regions participating in Interreg have already carried
out extensive research into applications of electronic data
exchange to handling the formalities associated with the use
of ports. Further developments of these and of ‘one stop shops’
are being proposed under the Interreg III Programme.

20.
emphasises that planning regulations can be used to
safeguard disused rail lines or waterways for future re-use.
There is a particular role for regional authorities to identify
potential routes which may cross the boundaries of individual
authorities and then ensure that a strategic view is taken to
protect the full route from piecemeal development. An exercise
under the Interreg Programme led by authorities in the
Netherlands, identified the importance of strategic protection
if individual development sites are to be accessible by more
sustainable modes such as waterways and rail, which do not
have the same network densities as road;

12.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 192/13

considers that the contribution of transport policies to spatial
development requires a change in European legislation on
public service obligations. These are of particular importance
to the regions and because the White Paper does not give
sufficient attention to this issue, a study should be made of the
application of PSO’s to intra-community links;

considers that the problems of accessibility to public
24.
transport must be addressed, primarily by investment
in
vehicles which are fully accessible to the elderly, passengers
with small children, as well as those with disabilities. Limited
travel opportunities present barriers to participation in society.
This is usefully summarised in the ESDP: all citizens should
have appropriate access to basic services and facilities, open
spaces, general and professional education and healthcare;

Charging for transport infrastructure

21.
considers that where external charges are to be internali-
sed, they must be differentiated depending on time, place and
mode. This must be achieved as transparently and simply as
possible; the methods used must be clearly understood —
extending this understanding to the individual citizen as far as
possible;

22.
is concerned that since the more peripheral and less
accessible areas of the EU inevitably face longer hauls for their
imports and exports, charges relating to distance travelled may
have a disproportionate impact on local economies. There
must be more research into the impact of road pricing on the
transport system. The impacts on different areas of the EU
must be considered when devising a system for charging across
the EU. An additional complicating factor is that regions which
may be peripheral many of which have a significant proportion
of rural communities, also suffer from congested routes which
may be the subject of new charging regimes. From the financial
point of view, an additional option to the two measures
envisaged in the White Paper, of increasing the maximum
contribution to funding and the introduction of a road-use
charge, might be proper encouragement of opportunities for
private participation in funding public infrastructure, which
would also facilitate mixed public-private initiatives and optim-
ise investment complementarity;

25.
considers that there are a number of specific threats to
health which should be addressed, for example increasing
concerns over long-haul flights and the particular problems of
ferry services. For our citizens who live in urban areas transport
has a number of negative impacts on health and safety and
most of these would be addressed by an effective shift towards
the use of more sustainable modes. For particularly sensitive
areas, special principles should be laid down to ensure the
sustainable management of traffic flows while taking account
of human health and the environment. The agreement between
the EU and Switzerland could serve as a model;

Air transport

26.
welcomes the emphasis on developing intermodality
between air and rail. However these policies must not mar-
ginalise those regions which do not have the benefit of high-
speed rail links, especially island regions. When connecting air
services from these regions continue to be essential, their slots
at hub airports must be protected and not sold off for more
profitable long-haul routes, denied to regional services on the
basis of aircraft size or lost for new services which may not
maintain regional linkages;

Meeting the customer’s needs

emphasises the key principle of EU policy of putting
23.
the citizen at the centre of transport planning. This process
must recognise the different decision — making processes in
the regions and local authorities of individual Member States.
Regional and local authorities are better placed than any
other body to listen to grass-roots opinion and engage in a
constructive dialogue with the people they represent;

emphasises the importance of the development of
27.
regional airports which could secure better transport choice
and more direct links between the regions of Europe. They
may take the pressure off major hub airports and direct
scheduled services are regarded as an incentive for inward
investment. Airports also act as engines for local economic
growth but their development must be carefully planned and
managed so that the immediate population enjoy the benefits
while minimising the drawbacks of their proximity to the
airports. It is the opinion of the Committee that regional
airports should not be disadvantaged by proposals for any
joint Transatlantic Aviation Agreement;

C 192/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.8.2002

Safety

considers that the communication quantifies the scale
28.
of the problems, but appears to offer rather limited measures
to address the unacceptable levels of road accidents in the
Community, focused only on TENS routes, whereas most
accidents occur on local roads. Some Member States have
already achieved significant reductions in the numbers killed
and seriously injured on their roads. This shows that, with
the right measures, road safety programmes can succeed.
Campaigns which target specific offences — speeding or drunk
driving — will help to change attitudes to car use. Targeted
funding of measures which offer demonstrable returns on
investment can address safety deficits on the existing network;

29.
considers that there are important safety implications
in the drive for more sustainable modal balance. Heavy vehicles

cause more severe accidents and authorities must enforce the
safety-related regulations concerning drivers’ hours, driver
training, and vehicle standards. However, although higher
standards are desirable, the proposals should not be over-
prescriptive and impose successive layers of bureaucracy;

The Galileo programme

30.
endorses the proposal to establish a European satellite
navigation system. The ability to remotely pinpoint transport
elements such as public service vehicles or freight containers,
and to manage information systems, is already introducing a
new dimension to the management of transport. A dedicated
satellite array will remove the uncertainties associated with
systems which remain subject to military considerations and
also increase the precision available to users.

Brussels, 13 March 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE