WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/02 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Harmonisation of driving-distance-dependent toll systems for commercial vehicles.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU publication, approximation of laws, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, intelligent transport system, new technology, satellite, telematics, toll

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/177

That article is open to different interpretations. What interpretation does the Commission place on it?

Are public railway undertakings required to provide training for staff, including non-in-house staff?

Are public railway undertakings only required to ensure training for staff, including non-in-house staff, if
the Member State instructs the railway undertakings to do so?

If the Member State instructs no other institution to provide training, are public railway undertakings then
effectively required to guarantee training for staff other than in-house staff?

(1) COM(2002) 21 final (cid:1) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p. 332.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

train staff

Training of
is in most Member States carried out by the railway undertakings and/or
infrastructure managers themselves. New entrants and railway undertakings from other Member States that
want to exploit the market for rail transport services have in reality very small possibilities to organise this
training by their own means. The purpose of Article 12 of the proposed Directive is to oblige Member
States to ensure that necessary training of train staff is available to all railway undertakings that seek access
to the network in question.

Once the Directive is adopted it has to be implemented in all Member States. The instruments for the
implementation have to be chosen by the Member States and may vary depending on the degree in which
the rail transport market is open and the availability of alternatives for training. The objectives of the
Article must be met and in the case referred to by the Honourable Member the training schools of the
state operator must be opened to the staff of other railway undertakings as described in the article if the
services are not available on the market.

(2003/C 155 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Harmonisation of driving-distance-dependent toll systems for commercial vehicles

In the EU states there are currently various types of toll charging for use of networks of major roads. In
some states, charges are collected at permanent toll booths; others are planning to introduce modern,
nationwide systems, or are about to do so, with the technical wherewithal to calculate and charge tolls,
e.g. microwave systems (as in Italy, for instance) or GPS-based systems (as has been decided upon in
Germany, for instance).

1.
Can the systems currently under discussion be regarded as technically equivalent in terms of their
performance ranges? Can all systems provide, for instance, information on traffic management and tailback
avoidance to individual drivers with the same degree of quality?

Against the backdrop of EU enlargement and the likely increase in heavy goods traffic, which system

2.
offers the greatest technical potential, from today’s perspective, of meeting these future requirements?

3.

Are there candidate country preferences?

C 155 E/178

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

4. Which system costs the least to introduce and with which system is the break-even point reached the
soonest?

5. With the systems currently under discussion, is there also a possibility of charging for the use of
certain information services (e.g. inquiries as to road conditions and weather conditions en route, and
accident and tailback reports, but also in-house transport
logistic arrangements) within the same
bandwidth? Have there been economic feasibility studies on the possible use of such services?

6. Will transnationally operating hauliers have to equip their heavy goods vehicles with different on-
board units according to the different national technical solutions adopted? If so, what would be the
financial impact of fitting the different systems needed on the haulage industry overall?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The systems mentioned, namely the microwave ‘Dedicated Short Range Communications’ or DSRC system
and the satellite solution (satellite positioning in conjunction with mobile telephony) are not equivalent.

In terms of toll charging, the satellite solution is the most promising system for the future since it enables
practical applications relating to the whole European road network, without roadside equipment or specific
infrastructure needing to be installed. The DSRC solution was originally designed to be used in existing toll
barriers in certain countries: it is therefore mainly adapted to this context.

With regard to other applications linked to road telematics (information for travellers, monitoring
hazardous materials, automatic emergency call in the event of an accident, etc.), the box used for the
satellite solution facilitates the implementation of all these services. The DSRC badge, however, does not
enable any of these services, as it was not designed for this purpose.

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no comprehensive economic feasibility
study on the deployment of these telematic services. The big unknown for all the forecasts is how many
customers will be interested in paying for the services on offer, and when. It seems that the number of
customers, which is low today, will increase when efficient and interesting services have been deployed,
not only for road transport, but also combining all modes of land transport.

Some candidate countries already have DSRC electronic toll systems. This type of toll will probably still be
used to finance the construction of new infrastructures. However, countries seeking to establish a toll
system for freight transport on their network will tend to prefer the satellite solution.

The costs of telematics systems stem from:

(cid:1) ground systems (infrastructure, roadside equipment, central systems),

(cid:1) on-board equipment.

With regard to the costs of the ground systems, the DSRC solution is much more expensive in terms of
installation and the maintenance of roadside equipment. For on-board equipment, the satellite solution is
currently more expensive than the DSRC solution. The Commission considers, however, that the price of
satellite equipment will fall by 2010 due to economies of scale.

By 2010, the costs of the satellite solution should fall considerably and the outstanding technical problems
should be largely resolved. This solution should therefore become optimal for all scenarios, and also offer
good opportunities to use the European satellite positioning system, Galileo, which will be operational
from 2008.

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/179

Despite the sustained efforts of the Commission to increase the interoperability of national systems, in
support of the Council resolution of 17 June 1997, there is the risk that there will be a multiplication of
incompatible equipment in heavy goods vehicles. In view of this, in its White Paper on transport policy
the Commission announced a draft European directive that will be proposed to the Council and the
European Parliament during the course of 2003.

(2003/C 155 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/02

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Cost of eliminating waste arising from the slaughter chain

What is the nature of the approach taken in each Member State since the BSE crisis to the elimination of
the (bone) waste arising from the slaughter chain? The Spanish state obliges producers to meet certain
costs which are then passed on to the consumer, who ends up picking up the bill in the form of higher
prices: the waste elimination is thus ultimately financed by the consumer.

It appears that certain other Member States are directly meeting these waste elimination costs, a practice
their
which translates into a comparative advantage for producers in those Member States over
counterparts in the Spanish state: for certain imports from the internal market, these costs are not
included in the price, and this creates a situation of comparative inequality between Member States.

Can the Commission state whether any EU legislation exists obliging all Member States to operate the
same practices, or whether this is a matter for the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Community legislation (1) currently requires slaughterhouses and cutting plants to extract specified risk
materials. However, the Member States can decide to authorise the removal of the spinal column from
carcases or part-carcases in butchers that are specifically approved, controlled and registered to do so.

After the entry into force (1 January 2003) of the Community guidelines for State aid concerning TSE
tests, fallen stock and slaughterhouse waste (2), the Commission will no longer authorise State aid to cover
the costs involved in eliminating the slaughterhouse waste produced.

However, as an exceptional measure and with a view to enabling the meat sector to absorb gradually the
higher costs resulting from the introduction of the legislation on TSE, the Commission will authorise State
aid of up to 50 % of the costs for the safe disposal of specified risk materials and meat- and bonemeal of
no commercial value produced in 2003.

For the same reason, the Commission will also authorise State aid of up to 100 % of the costs for
eliminating specified risk materials and meat- and bonemeal of no commercial value produced before the
entry into force of the guidelines.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention,

control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (cid:1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 324, 24.12.2002.