Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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 the trans-European network"
Date: 2002-05-15
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common transport policy, organisation of transport, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/7

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions 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 the trans-European network’

(2002/C 278/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to 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 the trans-European transport
network [COM(2001) 544 final — 2001/0229 (COD)];

having regard to the decision taken by the European Council on 14 November 2001, under Article 156
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the
matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 13 June 2000 to direct Commission 3 for Trans-
European Networks, Transport and the Information Society to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Report from the Commission to
the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines
and priorities for the future.’ (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision No 1692/96/EC) (COM(98) 614 final)
(CdR 60/1999 fin) (1);

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community
financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (COM(98) 172 final — 98/0101 SYN) (CdR 217/98
fin) (2);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (3) on
5 March 2002 (CdR 284/2001 rev.) (rapporteur: Mr Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (E/EPP) President of the
Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 44th plenary session of 15 and 16 May 2002 (meeting
of 15 May).

1. General comments

Accordingly it recognises and welcomes recent efforts in this
area, in particular the White Paper, which is an important
contribution to the debate.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the move by the
Parliament and Council to introduce new policies to make the
TEN-T a reality and to resolve the imbalances caused by its
construction, although it must again point out with regret that
an opportunity has been missed to bring a single, organised
and coordinated focus to bear on European transport policy.
Although the TEN-T is an important part of this,
is
nonetheless only one part and cannot single-handedly resolve
the serious problems in the European transport system.

it

The CoR reiterates its request that the necessary efforts be
made to bring together future European policies to promote
freight and passenger transport in a single instrument.

( 1) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 9.
( 2) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 29.
( 3) Re-organisation of the commissions and their terms of reference,

6 February 2002.

Consideration must be given to the forthcoming revision of
the amended Community guidelines, scheduled for 2004,
bearing in mind the certain updating of the transport system
as proposed in the White Paper, the changes to transport
the national plans, and future EU
flows,
enlargement.

the revision of

The CoR reiterates its view that a situation as complex as
transport cannot be analysed from one angle alone. The
imbalances between modes of transport and different parts of
the network cannot be solely responsible for the varying
degrees of capacity and accessibility in the TEN-T; while this is
certainly a key factor, we must also take account of the many
other policies that have had an impact, such as — without
going into the matter in detail here — the liberalisation of
transport, which sways the interests of
certain modes of
operators towards a particular mode of transport
to the
detriment of others.

C 278/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

The Committee of the Regions therefore recommends that this
time the forthcoming revision of the guidelines must be part
of an integrated blueprint for the European transport system.

This leads us to the second aspect that needs addressing, i.e.
that without intermodal platforms the functionality of the
railway system is seriously reduced.

1.1. Comments concerning the priorities

The stated intentions behind the new TEN-T guidelines are not
always reflected in the new list of priorities.

1.1.1. N e w p r i o r i t i e s p r o p o s e d

The main priority is to build up a new, interoperable rail
network giving precedence to goods transport, and connected
to sea and inland ports and to airports.

The CoR fully supports these proposals as it has repeatedly
called for such measures in previous opinions and expressed
concern about the lack of investment in rail transport com-
pared to road transport. Interconnections with sea and air
transport are also essential if we are to stimulate passenger
and, above all, freight rail transport.

The proposed new Article 5(c) ends with the phrase ‘including
measures in intermodal terminals’. The CoR would like the
Parliament and the Commission to discuss this subject; the
idea that terminals are no more than limited areas integrating
different modes of transport is an outdated concept that is
largely responsible for the bottlenecks that currently exist.

The CoR considers it necessary to build comprehensive
logistics platforms, equipped with all the required services and
installations, as an essential TEN-T component to serve as a
major means of diversifying modes, and backed up by new
intelligent transport systems, facilitating management. This is
the only way of minimising the main disadvantage of intermo-
dal transport — i.e. trans-shipping — which until now has
been a considerable hindrance to its effective implementation,
but which intermodal
logistics platforms should help to
eliminate.

For these infrastructures to function as efficiently as possible,
a new and as yet unused term must be introduced to the field
of transport systems: ‘the interoperability of intermodality’.

Nonetheless, the CoR wishes to point out that two further
aspects should be added, without which the proposal’s objec-
tive could be seriously compromised.

it

In the CoR’s view,
is essential that local and regional
authorities play an active part in creating and managing these
platforms, since their location and efficient operation are of
vital importance to their own spatial planning requirements.

The first is to prevent competition arising between rail and
road because of parallel, unconnected networks, as this would
spell disaster for the railway network. One solution could be
to introduce higher tariffs for road users. However, this very
complex measure is beyond the scope of this opinion and its
consequences, inflationary and otherwise, would need to be
analysed in depth, in particular where peripheral, island and
less accessible regions are concerned.

It must not be forgotten that one of the major weaknesses of
its
the railway network is its inflexibility and, as a result,
unavoidable dependence on other modes of transport,
in
particular roads, for connection to the place of origin and final
destination.

The CoR therefore proposes creating a railway network that is
connected and integrated with the road network, as is the case
for all other modes of transport.

1.1.2. O n g o i n g p r i o r i t i e s

The CoR welcomes the fact that priority continues to be given
to the development of infrastructures linking island,
land-
locked and peripheral areas, and hopes this priority will receive
proper consideration and support.

It should be borne in mind that, in addition to providing an
effective guarantee of real freedom of movement for goods and
persons across European territory, completion of infrastructure
directly linking peripheral and island regions to the TEN-T also
merits support with a view to a strategic connection between
Europe, neighbouring countries and island regions. From this
point of view, the island regions offer the Union an outstanding
strategic opportunity for boosting Euro-Med relations policy.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/9

The CoR therefore strongly supports the amendment made to
the wording of Article 5(b), as it gives priority to linking these
regions directly to the TEN-T, rather than simply providing
means of access to it. It is not unreasonable to propose that
the necessary efforts be made to connect these isolated regions
to the rest of the European territory as effectively as possible.

Regional and local networks that feed into the central network
also have bottlenecks
that need resolving. Furthermore,
intermodal nodes will also rely on feeder regional networks if
they are to function properly.

This proposal also continues to give priority to eliminating
bottlenecks by completing major routes, filling in missing
sections (in particular in cross-border areas) and developing
key links and interconnections.

At this point, the CoR would stress that while reducing TEN-T
bottlenecks by optimising capacity is an absolute necessity, the
plight of many regions that are lacking accessibility must
not be overlooked. These regions are, furthermore, urgently
requesting the implementation of Article 154(1) of the Treaty,
which stipulates that to enable regional and local communities
to derive full benefit from the setting-up of an area without
internal
the Community will contribute to the
establishment of trans-European networks. While competi-
tiveness factors threatened by bottlenecks certainly merit
Community attention, consideration should also be given to
economic and social cohesion, as this could be jeopardised if
we do not ensure the accessibility of all regions, in particular
those most in need.

frontiers,

The Committee would stress that the TEN guidelines should
give equal weight to tackling the traffic congestion problem in
the core regions of Europe and improving the access of the
Community’s peripheral regions to the single market area.

The CoR also reiterates previous calls for a new ‘inter-regional
accessibility map’ to eliminate the access constraints suffered
by many regions and which hinder the effective and harmoni-
ous development of
the internal market, by achieving a
minimum degree of accessibility (quantified by means of
objective time and cost indicators) throughout the European
Union.

The CoR welcomes the fact that priority continues to be given
to intelligent transport systems, and that steps have been
taken in this direction by supporting interoperability in the
Community territory.

Likewise, the CoR fully agrees with the need to integrate
environmental concerns in the design of the network, as we
have an overriding obligation to establish the necessary
corrective measures to reduce as far as possible the environ-
mental
their
impact of projects chosen on the basis of
importance for European transport.

1.1.3. A d d i t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s

The CoR suggests reconsidering the removal from the text of
Decision 1692/96 of the indent referring to ‘establishment of
and improvement in interconnection points and intermodal
platforms’.

As mentioned above, these are an essential component of the
TEN-T; without them its functionality would be seriously
jeopardised, as it relies on an adequate and extensive network
of intermodal nodes. This is even more important given that
the objective of
freight
transport.

is to promote rail

the proposal

The CoR supports the inclusion of transport safety among
the priorities. Although safety is already mentioned in the
paragraph on the promotion of intelligent transport systems,
safety must also be a fundamental priority when establishing
and developing infrastructures. Safety problems in the TEN-T
have been increasing in recent years owing to the increase in
congestion points and the lack of adequate infrastructures in
many parts of the network.

The CoR also proposes stepping up local and regional authority
involvement in creating infrastructures; it suggests that, as part
of the revision of the guidelines, consideration be given to
ways of securing the cooperation of districts and regions in
designing local and regional access to the TEN-T. The lack of
such access compounds the present congestion problems.

1.2. Comments on the specific projects

The CoR welcomes the list of specific projects in Annex III,
which are fully justified, viable and of unarguable importance
to the objective of developing the TEN-T.

C 278/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

The CoR is particularly pleased that the project to improve the
navigability of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen
has been included as a ‘specific’ inland waterway project, as
the Committee has been calling for this mode of transport to
be promoted for some time, and it would also call
for
improvements in navigation on the Danube to the east of
Vienna.

The CoR also welcomes the inclusion of the global satellite
radio navigation and positioning system (Galileo), as a way
of effectively reinforcing the new technologies facilitating
transport.

the CoR warmly welcomes

Lastly,
to
Article 18, where the ‘Committee for the exchange of infor-
mation and report’ is renamed the ‘Committee for monitoring
and the revision of the guidelines’, although the wording fails
to clarify what the change of title implies in terms of its remit.

the amendment

Thought should also be given to including a representative of
the CoR on the Committee for monitoring, so that the voice
of cities and regions can be heard regarding the many future
aspects of the TEN-T which affect them.

Nevertheless, the CoR calls for the adoption of measures
enabling local and regional authorities to be involved in the
design and configuration of infrastructure.

2. Recommendations

The CoR regrets the delays in the implementation of the
projects announced in 1996 and expresses its concern and
interest in finding ways of speeding up the necessary pro-
cedures. These delays are largely due to the lack of co-
participation by regions in their development, which has
caused controversies and social reservations that cannot be
easily resolved by Community and national authorities. The
involvement of local and regional authorities may — indeed
must — help resolve these conflicts, as these bodies are closer
to citizens.

1.3. Comments concerning the remaining amendments

The CoR welcomes the replacement of Article 8 concerning
environmental protection, as it requires the Member States to
execute specific environmental impact assessments, pending
the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC, which stipulates
the procedures to be followed.

Local and regional authorities have the best knowledge of their
local environment and must therefore be actively involved in
the process of assessing and establishing corrective measures
where appropriate.

The CoR also welcomes the amendments made to Articles 9,
10, 11, 13 and 18, but considers the list drawn up in
Article 10(4) concerning the rail network to be poorly
structured. The CoR is also surprised by the removal of the
reference to goods (point 1), the addition of a reference to
introducing trunk routes dedicated to freight (point 4), and the
removal of the reference to an intermodal interconnection
between the rail network and other transport networks
(point 6).

The CoR requests that the following changes be made to 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 the trans-European transport
network.

2.1. Recommended changes
No 1692/96/EC

to the recitals of

the Decision

Add the following recital 2(a):

‘In accordance with the Treaty of Maastricht, the trans-
European transport network must help reinforce economic
and social cohesion, improve the accessibility of peripheral
and island regions and contribute to the sustainable man-
agement of traffic flows on European transit routes. It must
be designed and implemented with due consideration for
Structural Funds programming, Objectives 1 and 2 and
Interreg, and the European Spatial Development Perspec-
tive.’

Add the following recital 5 (a):

‘The TEN-T must be a key instrument in an ambitious
European maritime policy, helping to develop short sea
shipping, as recommended in the Commission’s White
Paper. It must also allow all the sea basins of Europe to
participate fully in world trade by encouraging medium-
and long-distance sea shipping.’

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 278/11

2.2. Recommended changes to Article 3 of the Decision No 1692/

96/EC

and the infrastructure and facilities required for
air, sea and rail
transport services, wherever
territorial circumstances so permit;’

The CoR believes the guidelines in Article 3 of Decision 1692/
96/EC should be amended further, by incorporating a new
point worded as follows:

Intermodal logistics platforms are necessary elements
‘4.
for the effective integration of
the various modes of
transport, their infrastructures, installations and additional
services, as well as their local and regional access.’

— Include a new point in Article 5:

‘design and development of intermodal logistics plat-
forms, as regards both their infrastructures (such as
installations and auxiliary services), and their adequate
access to local and regional networks.’

2.3. Recommended changes to Article 5 of the Decision No 1692/

2.4. Recommended changes
No 1692/96/EC

to Article 10 of

the Decision

96/EC

— Point a)

The wording of Article 10 should be revised as follows:

Amend as follows:

‘Point 4.

The network shall:

‘a)

establishment and development of the key links
and interconnections needed to eliminate bottle-
necks, fill in missing sections, notably their cross-
border parts or parts connecting regions with
poor communications, and improve interop-
erability on major routes, with a view at all times
to improving safety;’

— play an important role in long distance passenger and

freight traffic,

— promote interconnection with other transport mode
networks, in particular air transport, sea shipping and
inland waterways,

— Point b)

Amend as follows:

— facilitate access to regional and local rail networks,

— play an important role in combined transport, essen-

tially through intermodal logistics platforms,

‘b)

establishment and development of infrastructure
making it possible to link island,
landlocked,
peripheral and outermost regions with the central
regions of the Community and with each other
to encourage the balanced and polycentric devel-
opment of the European Union; while showing
appropriate concern for areas of particular eco-
logical sensitivity;’

— Point d)

Amend as follows:

— promote

freight

and
transport by
developing additional and alternative routes to road
transport and by giving priority to freight trains in
certain rail corridors.

identifying

— also be compatible with regional development objec-

tives and contribute to their achievement.’

An additional insert should be added at the end of Article 10(4)
to read as follows:

‘d)

establishment of rail
infrastructures to ensure
connections to ports in order to foster long and
short sea and inland shipping services;’

‘— provide value added in ecological terms when com-

pared to the trans-European road network.’

— Point e)

Amend as follows:

Amend Article 10(6) as follows:

‘e) measures to link rail and sea shipping to air
transport, including rail and sea access to airports

The network shall include the infrastructures
‘Point 6.
and the facilities allowing the integration of rail, sea and air
transport services.’

C 278/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.11.2002

2.5. Recommended changes
No 1692/96/EC

to Article 13 of

the Decision

network, where appropriate. The network shall include the
infrastructures and the facilities allowing the integration of
air, sea and rail transport services.’

Article 13(3) should be amended as follows:

‘1.
The trans-European airport network shall comprise
airports situated within the territory of the Community
which are open to commercial air traffic and which comply
with the criteria set out in Annex II. These airports shall be
classified differently according to the volume and type of
traffic they handle and according to their function within
the network. They shall permit the development of air links
and the interconnection of air transport and other modes
of transport. The involvement in airport management of
regional authorities will be crucial
to achieving these
objectives.

2.

unchanged.

3.
International and Community connecting points shall
be gradually linked to the high-speed lines of the rail

2.6. Recommended changes
No 1692/96/EC

to Article 18 of

the Decision

Article 18(2) should also be amended, as follows:

‘2.
A Committee on the Trans-European Transport Net-
work, hereinafter called “the Committee”, is hereby set up
at the Commission; it shall be composed of representatives
of the Member States and a representative of the cities and
regions proposed by the Committee of the Regions, and
chaired by a representative of the Commission. The Com-
follow-up and assess the revision of the
mittee shall
guidelines for the development of
the trans-European
transport network, exchange information on the plans and
programmes notified by Member States and may consider
any question relating to the development of the trans-
European transport network.’

Brussels, 15 May 2002.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE