WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/03 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission. Safety on the Madrid-Lleida high speed train link.
Date: 2003-03-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, high-speed transport, product design, rail network, traffic signs, transport safety

C 268 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

from publishing sensitive information relating Israeli security these are no longer grounds for him to be
kept in isolation. The Community regularly raises the issue of human rights in Israel in its dealings with
the Israeli authorities, as well as at official Association Committee and Association Council meetings. The
Commission has followed Mr Vanunu’s case particularly closely, and will continue to do so, in particular
through its Delegation in Tel Aviv.

(2003/C 268 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0838/03

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Safety on the Madrid-Lleida high speed train link

(18 March 2003)

On 24 February 2003, the Ministry of Development opened Spain’s second high speed rail link, joining
Madrid and Lleida, with the first of a series of promotional trips, marred by a whole series of technical
problems which led to the sudden sacking of the project’s top technical manager and the immediate
suspension of the programme of events designed to introduce the service to the public.

With regard to the problems detected particularly alarming are reports confirming that one of these trips
was made when neither the security nor the control systems for the new lines had been completed and
tested. Workmen were posted along various sections of the line using mobile phones to check the trains as
they passed, since the signalling and safety systems, based on the European Rail Traffic Management
System, had not yet been tested and passed. It has also been reported that the trains on the line, which
should be travelling at over 350 km an hour, were able to travel only at 200 km an hour (cid:1) and even so,
there were problems with vibration and defective air pressure.

All of this has led to a perfectly understandable concern that there may be major defects endangering the
safety of potential users of a very necessary transport link, co-funded with European money, whose
completion and entry into service are already behind schedule.

What control, monitoring and assessment measures can the Commission apply to guarantee maximum
safety in the building and entry into service of the Madrid (cid:1) Lleida high speed rail link?

Does the Commission believe that all the signalling system and traffic control mechanisms on the line are
ready for use?

How does the Commission view the fact that the Spanish Ministry of Development can decide on and
carry out promotional trips under the conditions indicated above, with signalling and safety mechanisms
not yet guaranteed as fully operational, and thus putting passengers at risk?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The past track record of high-speed railway projects in Europe shows that in their huge majority these
have been affected by technical, operational and/or logistic constrains. These often have an input to their
planned start date for commercial service. This fact is rooted in the complexity of the task as well as the
need to manage a myriad of contractors with quite different specialities (civil, electrical, signalling,
software).

This manifold complexity always creates teething problems that are expectable and that require a fine-
tuning of the whole installation (track, train and other ancillary equipment) once this is deemed complete,
as a necessary condition for its opening-up to commercial exploitation. Based on past experience such a
tuning requires field-testing to iron-out not only the technical but also the operational processes that
underpin the commercial operation. It is up to the national safety authorities, and not to the Commission
to ascertain that such principles are fully adhered to.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/155

Regarding the signalling solution selected for the Madrid-Lleida project this is based on a combination of
conventional (sideline signals) and train protection systems (cid:1) the latter including an overlay of both the
national Federation of French motorway and toll facility companies (ASFA) and the European ERTMS
systems.

(2003/C 268 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the end-of-life vehicles directive

(18 March 2003)

In reply to questions raised in the Environment Committee on 27 January 2003, the Commission said that
only five Member States had notified it of
the necessary legislation and
administrative provisions to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of
18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles. This means that ten Member States are not in compliance.

the entry into force of

Article 7(2)(b) of this Directive says that no later than 1 January 2015, for all end-of life vehicles, the reuse
and recovery shall be increased to a minimum of 95 % by an average weight per vehicle and year. Within
the same time limit, the re-use and recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 85 % by an average
weight per vehicle and year.

Member States are also required to send a report to the Commission on the implementation of this
Directive at three-year intervals. The report is to be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire (Article 9,
first paragraph). The first report covers the three-year period beginning on 21 April 2002.

In the questionnaire that the Commission drew up by decision of 17 October 2001, the Member States are
invited, among other things, to indicate whether the necessary measures have been taken to ensure that
undertakings set up systems to collect all end-of-life vehicles and, as far as technically feasible, waste from
used parts removed during car repairs (question 1.7).

Can the Commission say whether undertakings in each of the Member States have already introduced

1.
systems for the collection of all end-of-life vehicles, and if so what systems?

Have any Member States adopted stricter environmental measures for recycling than the provisions

2.
of the Directive require, so as to achieve the percentages stipulated in the Directive before 2015?

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

1.
Only six Member States (Denmark, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden) have
officially communicated their transposition measures to the Commission. Therefore, at this moment the
Commission has no clear overview of the specificities of the collection systems set up in each Member
State. The Commission is currently assessing the communicated national transposition measures, including
the transposition of Article 5 on their conformity with the Directive. In case of incorrect implementation,
the Commission will of course address this with the Member State concerned, in line with the powers
conferred to it by the EC Treaty.

2.
Some Member States have adopted more stringent national measures for recycling than the Directive
requires. The Netherlands, for example, requires producers and importers to attain a 95 % reuse/recovery
instead of 1 January 2015 as stated by the
rate and a 85 % reuse/recycling rate by 1 January 2007,