WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Regular rail transport in cities becoming unviable due to competition from minibuses offering expensive, unsafe and obscure services.
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, cooperation policy, means of public conveyance, public transport, service, sustainable mobility, transport policy, urban transport

C 78 E/694

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

As mentioned in previous replies to similar Written Questions E-3166/02 (1) by Mrs Bonino, and
E-3319/02 (2) and P-0108/03 (3) by Mr van den Berg, the Government of Senegal has not submitted any
request to the Commission in respect of raising the ship.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 105.
(2) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 29.
(3) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 72.

(2004/C 78 E/0742)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject: Regular rail transport in cities becoming unviable due to competition from minibuses offering

expensive, unsafe and obscure services

1.
Is the Commission aware that in the city with the biggest tram company in the world, St Petersburg
in Russia, public transport has been in rapid decline for several years due to inadequate maintenance, the
need to spend all the available money on restoring an underground-railway tunnel which has been flooded
since 1995, and motor vehicle congestion on tram tracks, which are not reserved to prevent use by other
traffic?

Is the Commission aware that this situation has been aggravated by the advent, since 1998, of
2.
thousands of competing privately operated buses and minibuses which are more expensive but quicker, are
now operating on nearly 400 routes in the city and account for an estimated 40 % of public transport, and
that the cash-strapped city authorities regard the growing role of these operators as grounds for ceasing to
invest in improvements to and renewal of regular public transport?

3.
Is the Commission furthermore aware that this situation in St Petersburg is not some bizarre local
aberration but that the public transport system in Odessa, Ukraine, was previously destroyed in the same
way and that minibus operators are similarly in the process of eliminating regular public transport in cities
in possible future EU Member States in the Balkans?

4.
Does the Commission share the fear that the continuation of this trend in Europe would create chaos
on the roads, on a par with that which exists in some Third-World cities which do not yet have public
transport systems that are affordable for most potential users or comprehensible to outsiders but which do
have fleets of minibuses which try to squeeze through the growing traffic jams quickly and without regard
for safety?

5.
Is this trend, which wastes land, promotes gridlock and makes few transport services available to the
lower paid, beneficial to the quality of life in cities and does it promote access to facilities in densely
populated city centres where there is little room for traffic?

6.
How will the Commission help to protect regular public transport in the EU Member States against
destructive competition from businesses which incur few costs themselves but pass costs on to the
community at large and which, by providing unreliable services which cause major damage to the
environment, impair the quality of public transport?

Source: ‘Tramfan Magazine’, vol. 2, no 10, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Community has Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCA) (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/
external_relations/ceeca/pca/index.htm) with both the Russian Federation and with Ukraine that provide
the basis and instruments for co-operation in many domains including transport. The Commission’s

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/695

strategy is, above all, to use the instruments of the PCAs to support the partner countries in better utilising
transport infrastructure, to exploit modern management and appraisal techniques in a competitive market
place. This will help them to define their strategic options and policies towards the transport sector, assess
infrastructure development proposals and decide on their own priorities.

The Commission is not in a position to ascertain some of the information that the Honourable Member
reports under points 1, 2 and 3 of the question, concerning Russia and Ukraine. Nor would it be
appropriate for the Commission to get involved in purely internal matters of the countries concerned.

The Commission is supporting reform policy in the transport sector within the framework of broader
support for macroeconomic and structural reforms. However, Union TACIS policy priorities do not include
specific interventions in the public transport sector since this is not a priority of the relevant National
Programmes, as approved by Member States.

The Commission recognises that cities need good, attractive public transport. The Commission’s analysis of
different methods for organising urban public transport, of the kind referred to in the question, within the
Union has shown that deregulation has tended to cut costs and improve productive efficiency but made
services less attractive to passengers. By contrast, ‘controlled competition’ tends to deliver more attractive
services at a lower price. Under controlled competition, the services are provided on the basis of fixed term
exclusive contracts let after a competitive bidding process. Service quality, including reliability, frequency
and price, are subject to continuous monitoring by the contracting public authority. This is the model
which most Member States have tended to follow in opening their markets at national level and it is also
the model favoured by the Commission in its draft regulation on public services in the road, rail and
inland waterway sectors (1). Moreover, the Commission is developing a thematic strategy on the urban
environment in accordance with the 6th Environment Action Programme which will address the issue of
sustainable urban transport as a priority theme. A communication on the Strategy will be issued by the
end of the year 2003.

(1) COM(2002) 107 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0115/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Malta’s accession to the EU: Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

Further to the answer given to my Written Question E-2554/02 (1) on 11 November, can the Commission
confirm that any spring hunting would also only be acceptable if ‘there is no other satisfactory solution’
(79/409/EEC (2) Article 9.1) and can it explain why, when these species both migrate through Malta in the
autumn, when hunting of them would be legal under the Directive, this is not a perfectly satisfactory
solution?

Can the Commission confirm that any spring hunting would also only be acceptable if the use was
judicious (79/409/EEC Article 9.1(c)) and will it explain how it could be judicious to kill individuals of two
species, whose populations are declining in Europe, in the few weeks immediately prior to their breeding?

Moreover, can the Commission confirm that Malta did indeed establish its Ornis Committee by
31 December 2002, and will it list those individuals who sit on this Committee?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.