Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network" (COM(2001) 544 final — 2001/0229 (COD))
Date: 2002-03-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: committee (EU), common transport policy, economic and social cohesion, environmental protection, trans-European network, transport network

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/75

2.4.
Finally, the ESC notes that the current proposal does not
affect the proposal adopted on 20 June 2001. It has a wider
scope, aims at ensuring that scarce capacity of slots at congested

airports is managed and used efficiently, albeit without mod-
ifying fundamentally the current system of slot allocation built
around the so-called ‘grandfather’ or ‘historical slots’.

Brussels, 21 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Decision of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for
the development of a trans-European transport network’

(COM(2001) 544 final — 2001/0229 (COD))

(2002/C 125/16)

On 14 November 2001, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 February 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Kleemann.

At its 389th plenary session held on 20 and 21 March 2002 (meeting of 21 March) the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 54 votes to 0, with 5 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

transport. The Commission proposal now on the table
responds to this Council mandate.

In its proposal the Commission is seeking to tighten
1.1.
up and modify the priorities of the trans-European network
with a view to optimising network capacity by concentrating
investments in areas with existing bottlenecks. Three projects
have already been completed and the importance of certain
rail and trans-alpine projects confirmed. Six new projects and
new sections to two existing projects have been added.

The ESC has been involved in each development phase
1.2.
of the TEN and has from the outset fully supported the
TEN blueprint and advocated clear criteria and appropriate
encouragement.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Gothenburg European Council referred to the need
to shift transport from road to rail, water and public passenger

2.2. Many factors are responsible for the rise in EU traffic
levels, but the growth in car traffic — both work-related and
private — plays a major part in the use of transport systems.
On the one hand, traffic levels have risen considerably because
of the need to commute between home and work, changes in
consumer behaviour and the disproportionate growth in
leisure travel. On the other hand, traffic density has increased
greatly in recent years, with heavy lorries in many regions and
conurbations. However, the globalisation of the economy, the
increased functioning of
the internal market, changes in
production methods and the logistics associated with this
contribute, among other things, to changes in the structure of
the economy and inevitably generate increased traffic across
all transport modes. With the accession of the applicant
increasingly affect cross-border routes
countries this will
which, according to the Commission, are also currently the
weakest points.

C 125/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

2.3.
The ESC is convinced that environmental protection
requirements must be incorporated into transport policy,
but that appropriate environmental standards ensuring equal
treatment should be laid down for all modes of transport. Up
until now no consideration has been given to the current
absence of environmental protection standards (e.g. exhaust
standards for diesel motors in locomotives and ships compar-
able to those applying in road haulage), especially for new
acquisitions.

2.6.1.
In addition to the splitting-up of their operations
into infrastructure management and the provision of services,
the national railway companies have had to learn that their
supply side must be improved and that their timetables must
be geared to the needs of customer demand. Thanks to the
rapid rise of information technology, the dominant economic
thinking in Europe has become based on a division of labour
and deconcentration over numerous locations (in line with the
‘profit centre’ idea).

2.4.
Simply opening up new infrastructure is not enough.
Consideration also has to be given to existing infrastructure
and the scope to expand it. For new construction ventures, all
Member States are faced with a key issue: modern law as it
relates to area planning and land use designation must take
account both of
interests that require protection and of
necessary infrastructure projects. Hence, a balance is needed,
since residential areas adjacent to infrastructure have been the
source of conflicts, and such situations should be avoided in
the future. As part of the Community’s environmental powers,
the Commission should recommend that, throughout the EU,
those responsible for land-use planning at regional level should
in future plan industrial areas as far as possible in the
catchment area of infrastructure and take care that the burdens
of these are kept within limits in residential areas.

2.5.
The Commission notes that over the last 10 years the
excessive use of road haulage, the spectacular growth in air
traffic and the defects — particularly the infrastructure — of a
railway system unsuitable for goods traffic have contributed to
a considerable overloading not only of the roads, but also of
the railway system and of air space. Despite all the efforts
made up to now, bottlenecks continue to exist in Europe. The
most severely affected are the international traffic corridors
where trans-European north-south traffic is channelled, and
particularly the natural obstacles such as the Alps and the
Pyrenees, the fringe areas of large conurbations and some
frontier regions, particularly on the borders with the acceding
countries. The ESC can only agree with these statements,
and the recent accidents and subsequent tunnel closures in
Switzerland and Austria have made north-south traffic much
more difficult, overloaded alternative routes and had a detri-
mental impact on economic and social conditions, particularly
in Italy. Swiss transport policy, with very long planning stages
laid down by law, and the geographical difficulties of building
cost-effective alternatives to the existing network over/through
the Alps or of expanding existing routes, have meant that
projects of this kind have not been carried out. Moreover,
traffic flows that have been changed because of regional
circumstances (e.g. the Yugoslavia crisis) and restrictions that
have been created intentionally through transport policy
(driving bans, diversions, etc.) have also exacerbated bottle-
necks in the alpine region.

The use of

2.6.2.
transport across the continent has
increased because of diversified consumer behaviour (due to
their being better informed) the further decline of large families
based in one location, large out-of-town shopping centres, and
the increasing depopulation of the countryside.

2.6.3.
There never has been any alternative to roads as a
means of providing local and comprehensive national cover-
age. There is no objective justification for blaming road
transport firms, as customer-oriented service providers, for
this situation. Rather it is different transport policies which,
against this background, have failed to persuade transport
users to follow their lead and make more use of the railways.
The decline of warehousing in wholesaling and in industry has
led to extreme time pressure in the transport sector and given
a boost to road haulage because of
its greater flexibility
compared with the existing rail transport system.

The ESC agrees with the Commission’s call to promote
2.7.
investments in trans-European transport routes reserved pri-
marily for goods transport, consisting mainly of existing routes
on which priority is given to goods trains or where only goods
traffic is allowed. One can only endorse the Commission’s
arguments and proposals here.

2.8.
The ESC would point out that account should also be
taken of the transport of dangerous, extra large or extra
heavy goods when planning and converting railway lines to
predominantly goods traffic. This applies across the board, but
in particular to tunnels and bridges. Circumventing heavily
built-up areas could also minimise risks.

The ESC maintains that the last few years have been

2.6.
marked by major changes in behaviour.

2.9.
The more links there are between individual modes of
transport, the more acceptance there is of other alternatives
during decision-making. The changes suggested in Article 5
only partly take into account these considerations.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/77

3. Specific comments

The ESC agrees with the Commission that the possi-
3.1.
bilities of making new capacity available by extending the road
system are in part very limited. Only by traffic management
and information systems can optimum use be made of the
existing infrastructure. But that presupposes the existence of
alternatives to steer traffic on to other routes, inasmuch as
these are provided for in the relevant area plans.

Through an optimum use of

the
3.2.
environmental nuisances caused in some regions by road
traffic can be reduced. However, the ESC thinks care should be
taken here to see whether the transport of goods by road
should be judged more stringently, especially if one considers
that:

infrastructure,

3.2.1.
different emission limits;

different modes of transport are subject to very

3.2.2.
with the exception of certain regions and conur-
bations, the proportion of road haulage to overall traffic is, in
the main, small;

3.2.3.
age has so far been neglected;

an appropriate cost-benefit assessment of road haul-

3.2.4.
long-distance, cross-border or transit traffic (1);

a large part of road haulage is distribution, and not

3.2.5.
with the establishment of the EURO 4 and 5 limits,
sustainable development until 2008 at least has been ensured
for lorry engine technology.

3.3.
A fundamental change of mentality among road trans-
port users is desirable in favour of multimodal transport, with
the simultaneous promotion of the speed and cheapness of
alternatives based on the principle of sustainability. A policy
of simply raising the price of road transport is out of the
question without any accompanying measures to counteract
the negative economic impact, and other transport policy
instruments must also be considered. Also, with such consider-
ations, there would have to be guarantees that the fees, charges,
etc. were paid by the consignor, with the consequence that
such up front financial payments by the haulier would have to
be set out in detail later on the invoice for the consignor.

3.4.
For the ESC the basic question is whether the revision
of the project list alone is sufficient, since many of the basic
conditions have changed. This particularly applies to traffic to
and from the applicant countries, even if a radical revision of
the guidelines is planned for 2004.

(1) EU energy and transport in figures — Statistical pocket book

2001, p. 132, distance classes per cent.

3.5.
The White Paper and the Commission proposal make
little distinction between goods and passenger traffic. Thus
there are no remarks on the fact that a rail link would enable
airports to transport many goods for their own operation: not
so much air freight, which must always be delivered and/or
fetched by road because of the speed required, but rather fuel,
spare parts, equipment, food, commercial goods, etc.

3.6.
The ESC agrees with the changes and extensions in
Article 10 concerning the rail network, whereby not only air
transport services but also shipping and the road network
would be included in the interests of an efficient infrastructure.

3.7.
Intelligent traffic systems such as traffic management
systems and systems for the transfer of information to the
user, as well as satellite navigation and positioning systems,
offer considerable possibilities for the improvement of network
capacity and security. The action of the Community must
therefore aim at achieving a maximum of technical interop-
erability of all systems. For competitive reasons therefore, firm
support should be provided for systems for all modes of
transport, such as Galileo (satellite and radio navigation) or the
railway traffic management system (ERTMS). The ESC endorses
such support.

3.8.
The ESC agrees with the test criteria and methods for
selecting new projects used by the Commission. This also
applies to the examination of alternatives. It is recommended
that the Commission set concrete goals for these new projects,
such as capacity, safety and quality of service.

3.9.
The ESC can also agree with the amending and
adapting and/or updating of maps. However, the connections/
interfaces for linking with the traffic networks of the acceding
countries, which lie in the border areas of these countries,
should be specified.

Basically, the ESC welcomes a strategic environmental
3.10.
compatibility test. It must be remembered that these tests
should not prevent intended or planned projects by placing
subjective individual
interests above the overall social and
economic benefits involved. In order to guarantee efficient
application, it is necessary to establish clearly defined deadlines.
Additional guides for implementation are currently being
developed by the Commission.

3.11.
A shift in traffic and a new balance between the
different modes of transport along the lines envisaged by the
Gothenburg European Council can only succeed if rail and
shipping companies and operators offer high-quality, demand-
led services.

C 125/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

4. Conclusions

The revision of the guidelines essentially puts the
4.1.
emphasis on measures in the railway sector, and intermodal
transport, which do, however, urgently require major invest-
ment. Basically, the Committee backs the measures concerned,
despite the fact that other transport modes have a more
important position within the transport economy. In this
connection, attention is drawn to connecting Europe’s islands
to the TEN (1) and to possible infrastructure expansion.

Insofar as the Commission White Paper on European
4.2.
transport policy calls for an integrated approach, the ESC feels
that more weight should be put in the proposal as a whole on
combining measures. This particularly applies where different
modes of transport can offer their services on parallel routes
(coastal roads versus coastal shipping and rail traffic).

4.3.
As some of the countries bordering on the Community
are applying for accession, the ESC feels that account should
be taken of these traffic links in Member States’ spatial and
project planning.

4.4.
The ESC feels that bottlenecks, which continue to exist,
can only be eliminated or avoided over time through joint
efforts, decisions, measures and approaches. The essentials of
the Commission’s proposals should also be supported by the
Member States as part of a common European transport and
infrastructure policy.

4.5.
The ESC supports the Commission’s strategy, based on
the guidelines laid down in Essen in 1994, of focusing on the

abolition of existing bottlenecks on the major transport routes,
and only implementing a limited number of new projects.
Even if the Commission is planning a fundamental revision of
the guidelines in 2004, the ESC thinks that links with the
accession candidates should be given more consideration in
the present proposal, because plans have to be made now. The
expected increases in capacity must be given appropriate
consideration in all modes of transport.

4.6.
Since, in the last analysis, the biggest bottlenecks are
to be found in terminals, which serve as transhipment areas
for goods and as rail connections, public investments by the
Member States to upgrade marshalling yards and transhipment
facilities can play an important role in capacity development.
In this connection it is important not to overlook suitable and
efficient links with other modes of transport. Only then can
terminals fulfil their distributor function.

4.7.
The ESC wonders whether the projects should not be
restructured in the light of more recent political circumstances
(accession candidates). This applies in particular to Community
the
funding for transport networks outside the EU (i.e.
candidate countries) in order to close any gaps in the future
network (2). Our corridors only concern the current EU and
offer hardly any cross connections to and over the territories
of the applicant countries, which could provide diversions
around problem areas like the Alps. In this respect the White
Paper states that: ‘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.’ The ESC is of the same opinion, so attention should
be paid to these considerations in further discussions on the
guidelines.

(1) See the ESC own-initiative opinion currently in the pipeline on
‘The extension of the trans-European networks to the island
regions of Europe’ (TEN 086).

(2) Commission Communication COM(2001) 437 of 25 July 2001
deals with the connection of transport networks in the applicant
countries to the TEN.

Brussels, 21 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS