Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and neighbouring countries - sustainable mobility - financing’
Date: 2004-01-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: enlargement of the Union, financing, sustainable development, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/35

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘preparing transport infrastructure
for the future: planning and neighbouring countries - sustainable mobility - financing’

(2004/C 108/05)

On 17 July 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning
and neighbouring countries – sustainable mobility – financing.

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 24 November 2003. The rappor-
teurs were Mrs Alleweldt, Mr Levaux and Mr Ribbe.

At its 405th plenary session on 28 and 29 January (meeting of 28 January), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to two, with three abstentions.

Foreword

On 8 April 2003, in a letter from Mr Umberto Vattani, Ambas-
sador and Permanent Representative of Italy to the European
Union, the Council asked the European Economic and Social
Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the Revision
of the list of Trans-European Network (TEN) projects up to
2004.

in European policy in this area. The TEN section was therefore
given the task of drawing up an own-initiative opinion on
Preparing transport infrastructure for the future: planning and
neighbouring countries – sustainable mobility – financing.
Owing to the complexity of
it was decided to
appoint three rapporteurs (1), each dealing with one of the
three aspects with reference to ongoing work on the growth
initiative and the work of the Van Miert group. The EESC's
work on the subject is constantly evolving and this opinion,
which is to be submitted before the end of the Italian presi-
dency at its final meeting in early December, constitutes its
current position.

the topic,

At the July plenary session, the Italian Minister for European
Affairs, Mr Buttiglione, on behalf of the Council presidency,
enlarged upon this request, explaining that it was one of the
priorities of the Italian presidency to give new impetus to Euro-
pean transport
infrastructure policy. He also expressed the
hope that trans-European transport networks would not only
facilitate the transport of goods, but would also strengthen ties
between the communities along their routes.

Alexander Graf von Schwerin

President of the Section for Transport, Energy,

Infrastructure and the Information Society

Meeting in Rome on 4 September 2003 at the invitation of the
Italian Economic and Labour Council
(CNEL) and in the
presence of Mr Buttiglione, the European Economic and Social
Committee's Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and
the Information Society adopted its exploratory opinion and a
joint resolution with Commission V of the CNEL on large-scale
infrastructure projects and networks, emphasising that

— the development of trans-European transport networks is
for economic and social cohesion in the new

essential
Europe; and

— coherent and sustainable development of European mobility
must be guaranteed so as to permit the balanced growth of
the continent's economic and social fabric.

Speaking on behalf of the Italian presidency, Mr Buttiglione
involved
also wished to see

EESC more

closely

the

1. Planning and neighbourhood policy – linking the trans-
European networks to the Helsinki pan-European corri-
dors

One of the priorities of the Italian presidency has been
1.1
to give new impetus to European transport
infrastructure
policy. Although Germany and France went on to point out
that the priority of this growth initiative for Europe could not
infrastructure alone, but should also include
be transport
energy networks, telecommunications and R&D, the focus on
transport
infrastructure is entirely warranted. A review of
implementation of trans-European transport networks (TEN-T)
over the last ten years makes for very sobering reading. Never-
theless, the European Commission responded in October with a
communication of its own taking appropriate account of the
broader approach and attempting to convert it into a strategy
for increasing employment (2).

(1) Mrs Alleweldt: Planning and neighbouring countries

Mr Ribbe: Sustainable mobility
Mr Levaux: Financing

(2) COM(2003) 579 final A European initiative for growth: Investing in
Interim

networks and knowledge for growth and employment.
Report to the European Council

C 108/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1.2
Faced with the forthcoming enlargement of the EU and
the changes to Europe's geostrategic situation, the forecasts for
transport trends as a whole and for individual modes, the
increasing sensitivity about the environmental impact and the
poor prospects for growth in the EU with their implications for
employment, the question must be whether we can meet the
challenges if we do not make a clear move towards a joint
European initiative on transport infrastructure development.
This cannot involve simply perpetuating old solutions; we must
have the courage to develop new instruments.

1.3
On 4 September 2003 in Rome, the EESC's TEN section
adopted a joint resolution with Commission V of the Italian
Economic and Labour Council (CNEL) on large-scale infrastruc-
ture projects and networks. Together they stressed the urgency
of developing the pan-European transport corridors in southern
and eastern Europe,
thereby improving the conditions for
managing transport trends in the Mediterranean region, which,
as pointed out in the ‘Naples Charter’, will take on a new
economic, social and strategic role following EU enlargement.
The network of existing corridors must be supplemented with
important links, such as the Adriatic link between corridors V
and VIII. At the same time, care must be taken to ensure
balance in addressing the interests of all regions,
including
depressed areas in the current Member States and Northern
Europe. The development of
this pan-European network
requires more technical and organisational support, as well as
financial backing.

Ten years after the first ground-breaking moves to
1.4
develop the TEN-T, the European Commission appointed a
group of experts headed by Karel van Miert to carry out a
review (3). It has emerged that not only is implementation of
planned projects way behind the deadlines set, but also total
public investment in transport has dwindled from 1.8 % of
GDP in 1980 to 1 % of GDP in the nineties. On 1 October
2003, the European Commission then submitted a proposal to
adapt the guidelines for the trans-European transport network
to the situation post-enlargement (4). The aim is to create a
coherent network between new and old Member States and to
speed up implementation of priority projects. The EESC wishes
to make a further contribution to these revamped TEN-T with
the following comments.

The

three Pan-European Transport Conferences

1.6
in
Prague (1991), Crete (1994) and Helsinki (1997) (5) both paved
the way for a network of trunk routes (corridors) and saw
agreement on transport policy objectives integrating principles
of energy, environment, social and economic policy so as to
create fair and balanced competition conditions. This principle
of transport policy cooperation beyond the EU will also be
needed in future and the European Commission should take
account of it and support it in its work.

Infrastructure projects with European implications only
1.7
fulfil their function if they respond to economic, political and
interests. This requires more than just cooperation
social
between transport ministers;
it requires the involvement of
business associations, transport companies, trade unions, and
environmental and consumer organisations working across
borders. And EU accession alone is not enough to achieve this.
Rather,
the
impetus for implementing ‘European’ transport routes can only
be sustained by a socially-rooted appreciation of ‘Europe’ and a
consensus which takes account of economic and social realities.
The EESC proposes applying the experience gained with the
corridor concept to the TEN-T so as to utilise this potential.

the reality of TEN implementation shows that

This implies the following concrete requirements for the
1.8
revision of the TEN guidelines, which includes further work in
the corridors:

TEN trunk routes and corridors must bind the internal
1.8.1
market together, reinforcing economic and social relations with
neighbouring countries. First and foremost, they must provide
optimum connections between economic centres and must also
be assessed on those criteria. This has rarely been done to date,
if at all, and not in a very clear way. In some cases, individual
scientific studies are cited as evidence, but controversial find-
ings and opinions are rarely mentioned. A realistic picture only
emerges when the opinions and experience of associations are
added to the equation. To date, this recourse has been much
underused by the Commission.

1.5
Trans-European transport routes are an essential prere-
quisite for economic and social cohesion in the enlarged EU
and beyond. The new and old EU neighbours must become
partners in this project, which embraces the whole European
continent and extends beyond.

(3) Report by the high-level group on trans-European transport
networks chaired by Karel van Miert, European Commission,
20.6.2003.

(4) COM(2003) 564 final of 1.10.2003

1.8.2
The intermodality of TENs and corridors must be
ensured, which requires comprehensible quality criteria. Each
trunk route/each corridor will have to develop and implement
this in its own way, so it is important to introduce a require-
ment for intermodality blueprints and action plans.

(5) cf. EESC opinion OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p.100.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/37

1.8.3
The environmentally friendly use of inland waterways
(cf. also 2.3.8) should be emphasised to a greater extent; this
also involves ports, promoting the inland waterway corridor
VII (6), the Danube, links to rail routes and appropriate tech-
nical and social
inland
waterways transport.

regulations governing cross-border

1.8.4
Enough is still not being done to promote short sea
shipping and its appropriate integration into the planning of
TENs and corridors. The greater prominence given to shipping
links in the new Commission proposal
is therefore very
welcome. For these transport services and their promotion in
particular, it is once again important to maintain safety stan-
dards and social conditions. Environmental implications should
also be borne in mind in the case of busy shipping links (e.g. in
the approaches to the Baltic) and coastal transport.

1.8.5
Ambitious, but feasible objectives must be defined for
developing rail transport, with particular attention to cross-
border cooperation projects and connections to seaports. The
implementation of these should also be evaluated. With new
toll arrangements for roads under discussion (7), it is essential
to create alternatives. There are good examples of major rail
transport cooperation initiatives in corridors IV (8) and X (9).

transport

1.8.6 We need growing investment for the acquisition and
infrastructure and improved EU
development of
funding, as well as a stricter obligation to keep to ‘European’
project planning. At
the same time, budget resources are
limited and care must be taken to ensure balanced development
overall. This means that developing existing infrastructure
should be given precedence over new building projects and
investment in the main transport routes must not be at the
expense of regional and local transport facilities to too great an
extent. Overall an assessment should be made of how effec-
tively regional transport networks are linked in along the TENs/
corridors.

importance – not

1.8.7
The success of TENs/corridors depends on environ-
mental, safety and consumer protection concerns being seen to
be addressed. Transport, safety and sustainability are inextric-
ably linked. For this reason, social concerns must be given
those relating to transport
equal
employees – in addition to economic necessities. This also
involves organising road transport
in an environmentally
friendly way and promoting public transport. These qualitative
criteria, such as service quality, safety, environmental impact,
and the working conditions and skills of transport workers,
should be appended to the TEN guidelines as originally
the creation of viable assessment
intended. This

requires

just

(6) Germany – Austria – Slovakia – Hungary – Croatia – Serbia –

Bulgaria – Moldova – Ukraine – Romania

(7) OJ C 32, 5.2.2004.
(8) Germany – Czech Republic – Slovakia – Hungary – Romania –

Bulgaria – Greece – Turkey

(9) Austria – Croatia – FYROM – Slovenia – Hungary – Serbia –

Bulgaria

mechanisms, such as a specific TEN/corridor environmental
report or similar.

1.8.8 When integrating the corridors into the TEN guide-
lines, positive elements of cooperation in the corridors should
be carried over and preserved. Corridors will continue to func-
tion as conduits to neighbouring countries and continents
beyond the territory of the EU. After enlargement there must
be no winding down of the remaining corridors; there must be
serious and geographically far-reaching cooperation opportu-
nities. Careful thought must be given to the repercussions of
decisions taken now concerning the TENs in the EU on the
cooperation which has grown up in the corridors.

The Commission's new proposal to appoint individual coordi-
nators to promote priority TEN projects is worth highlighting
as it shows the Commission is drawing on experience in the
corridors in a commendable way. The intention to conduct
joint cross-border planning procedures and environmental
impact assessments is also a step in the right direction. Up-to-
date reviews of progress are essential, so the proposed annual
reports are also a positive step. The monitoring function laid
down in the 1997 Helsinki Declaration has never been fulfilled,
although individual reports, such as that by the ECMT, the
regular status reports from the corridor steering committees or
the 1999 TINA report were available. The coordinators should
also work towards realising the above-mentioned political
objectives, and in this sense, the remit described in the new
Article 17a provides a good basis, especially for promoting
dialogue between operators, users, regional and local authori-
ties and the representatives of civil society with a view to the
optimum use of infrastructure and possible obstacles (10). The
EESC calls on the Commission to draw on its experience and
support in terms of consulting socio-economic interest groups,
creating transparency and holding hearings and dialogue
conferences. This was also endorsed in an exchange of corre-
spondence between the TEN section and Commissioner Loyola
de Palacio in Spring 2003 and could now be put into effect.

2. Transport infrastructure with reference to sustainable

development

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Mobility is an indispensable benefit of our modern
world. A wide range of leisure activities and the desire to
travel, as well as the world of work, which demands ever
greater flexibility, have made us into a society which sets great
store by mobility. For many, mobility is synonymous with
freedom, which is supposed to be as unrestricted as possible,
both literally and figuratively.

(10) COM(2003) 564 final, Article 17 a (4) c), p. 23

C 108/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.1.2 Mobility is also a crucial and fundamental prerequisite
for the functioning of major sectors of our economy. Invest-
ment in new transport routes, and the maintenance and moder-
nisation of existing ones, helps to boost the economy and to
create jobs.

But being mobile does not mean necessarily having to
2.1.3
travel
long distances. High transport performance is by no
means synonymous with high mobility in the positive sense.
On the contrary, excessive transport performance levels are at
their limit: traffic jams on our roads are turning mobility into
paralysis. To solve this problem, there are frequent calls for
transport infrastructure to be expanded further. At the same
time,
‘disconnected’ regions are to be opened up so as to
provide a prospect of economic development in outlying areas
too.

Yet it has not escaped the EESC's notice that there is
2.1.4
an ever-growing chorus of critical voices. For
transport
undoubtedly has its downsides, affecting both man and nature:

— Accidents, health hazards from noise and air pollution,
damage to the landscape and the consumption of natural
resources result in so-called ‘external costs’, which amount
to an annual figure of some 530 billion euro in the EU
(incl. Norway and Switzerland); this is equivalent to nearly
8 % of these countries' GDP.

— The countryside is torn apart, natural habitats destroyed,

wildlife migration routes disrupted.

— People in Europe are suffering with the increase in traffic
and its impact on the environment. A survey by the Euro-
the seven most
pean Commission shows that
frequently mentioned forms of environmental pollution are
mainly caused by transport: noise, destruction of the coun-
tryside and air pollution. Not surprisingly, car traffic tops
the poll as far and away the worst offender.

three of

Critics of

transport policy to date are increasingly
2.1.5
asking at what point the process of opening up a country with
roads and other transport infrastructure can be considered to
be either at an optimum level or complete. There is also
uniform criticism of the fact that the economy is often faltering
and unemployment high in regions which are well served by
transport, giving many critics increasing cause to question the
often cited causal
link between transport infrastructure and
economic development.

such) and the subsequent impact caused by operating or using
the infrastructure. This involves not only the environmental
and social
implications, but also the knock-on effects on
existing national or regional transport infrastructure. The Maas-
tricht Treaty states that trans-European networks are intended
to reinforce the economic and social cohesion of the European
Union. However, there are an increasing number of empirical
studies which attest to the fact that, contrary to the goals of the
Treaty, while the development of TENs does improve links
between Europe's
enhancing
the existing disparities in
Europe's global competitiveness,
accessibility and economic potential between central and
peripheral regions of Europe are exacerbated by giving priority
to centre-to-centre links.

economic

centres,

thereby

2.2 Transport infrastructure and sustainable development

2.2.1
The European Commission gives a very precise outline
‘Open frontiers and
of the apparent problem on its website:
affordable transport have given Europeans unprecedented levels
of personal mobility. Goods are shipped rapidly and efficiently
from factory to customer, often in different countries. The
European Union has contributed by opening national markets
to competition and by removing physical and technical barriers
to free movement. But today's transport patterns and growth
rates are unsustainable’ (11).

2.2.2
In the sustainability strategy decided on by the Euro-
rightly
pean Commission in Gothenburg in 2001,
explained that ‘The Common Transport Policy should tackle
rising levels of congestion and pollution and encourage use of
more
transport’. The
Commission announced that it would ‘give priority to infra-
structure investment for public transport and for railways …’.
The EESC has endorsed the goals of the Gothenburg strategy in
a number of opinions (12).

environmentally-friendly modes of

is

it

2.2.3
Transport is thus of great importance not only for
current economic policy. The decisions taken as part of the
growth initiative should not be evaluated only on short-term
criteria. The EU's transport policy must certainly be one of the
key areas of action in future as part of the EU's sustainability
the Commission
and climate protection policy,
describes, changes are needed for this to be possible. For
example,
transport currently contributes to climate change,
accounting for 28 % of greenhouse gases, with road transport
alone responsible for 84 % of this total. If nothing is done to
reverse the trend of traffic growth, CO2 emissions are expected
to rise by 50 % to 1.113 billion tonnes between 1990 and
2010 (1990: 739 million tonnes).

and as

2.1.6
It is clear to the EESC that, when assessing develop-
ment plans for European infrastructure, a fine distinction must
be made between the purely investment phase (building as

(11) Source: http://europa.eu.int/pol/trans/index_en.htm
(12) OJ C 048, 21.2.2002, p. 112 etc.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/39

2.2.4
The cause of the environmental and social problems is
the sharp increase in road and air transport while less environ-
mentally harmful transport modes are losing out (13). Transport
infrastructure policy has contributed to this trend. According to
Eurostat, the length of the motorway network in the EU grew
by more than 25 % between 1990 and 1999 while the rail
network contracted by 4 % over the same period (14).

2.2.5
The EESC points out that under virtually all environ-
mental headings (energy and land use, emissions etc.) rail has
proven to be the most environmentally friendly mode of trans-
port ahead of inland waterways navigation, while private cars
and planes (for passenger transport) and lorries (for goods
transport) have the worst environmental performance by far.
Further details are given in the appendix to this opinion.

During the deliberations involved in drawing up this
2.2.6
opinion, there was some discussion of the impact on jobs
arising from the building of different transport modes. Studies
from Germany, some of quite long standing,
indicate that
investment in railways has a more positive effect on jobs than
the
road building measures. The EESC recommends
Commission have separate studies drawn up on this question,
along the lines of those on external costs, to provide objective
evidence for the debate.

that

In many cases,

2.2.7
large-scale projects have triggered
public protest and it has not been possible to carry out some
projects at all, or at least not within the planned timeframe. In
the EESC's view, this experience must now be borne in mind,
especially with the growth initiative and EU enlargement and
the resulting increase in transport links. The Commission state-
ments quoted in 2.2.1 must at last be acted upon so that the
same negative impact on man and environment does not recur
in the accession countries. The EU could make a decisive
contribution towards preserving the still high, but now rapidly
falling proportion of
transport carried by environmentally
friendly means in those countries.

— fully preserves the capacity of the natural environment to
function and regenerate (and therefore which does not
pollute, either
the removal of
through emissions or
resources, in the production, use or disposal of vehicles and
infrastructure);

— does not lessen the quality of life of present and future

generations;

— is accessible to all.

2.2.10
objectives with a new, durable transport policy.

The EESC associates

the following sustainability

2.2.11
In the economic field, investment should be used to
help create jobs, improve regional net value added, develop an
all-round efficient
transport system and establish financial
sustainability.

2.2.12
In the social field, investment also takes care of the
protection of physical integrity, including effective noise reduc-
tion. The working conditions of transport workers should be
improved and investment conform to the principle of social
justice (epitomised in ‘mobility for all’). Towns and cities must
be designed for people, not for traffic, and account taken of the
mobility needs of all those who live in rural areas (and not just
car owners).

2.2.13
In the environmental field, investment decisions are
already made on the basis of the EU's climate protection objec-
tives. Land use must be reduced; the protection of nature,
cultural landscapes and the areas people use for recreation is of
greater concern than ever. The reduction of harmful substances
and lower resource consumption are becoming an integral part
of infrastructure policy.

2.2.8
The aim of European transport infrastructure policy
must not only be to help achieve the target of reducing CO2
emissions by 50 % by 2030. Rather, it must make a positive
contribution in all sectors of sustainability (economic, environ-
mental and social), which add up to sustainable mobility.

2.3 Specific comments

2.2.9
In the EESC's view,
understood to mean mobility which

‘sustainable mobility’ should be

— consumes no more energy in the long term than is

produced through regeneration;

(13) The EESC has several times mentioned regional bus transport as
being an important pillar of sustainable transport policy. However,
since this opinion is primarily concerned with European transport
infrastructure, no specific views are given on promoting bus trans-
port; a separate EU bus infrastructure policy is inconceivable for
the EESC.

(14) Eurostat News Releases No. 42/2002, 9.4.2002

The EESC is well aware that, in accordance with the
2.3.1
subsidiarity principle, transport policy falls largely within the
decision-making and funding remit of
the Member States.
However, every year, billions are paid out of the EU budget
specifically for transport
infrastructure development via the
Structural Funds (including the Cohesion Fund). These funds
should be deployed in accordance with the principles of
sustainability.

2.3.2
Transport policy must become an integral part of a
spatial development policy aimed at minimising the generation
of new, additional traffic and managing existing traffic with the
most environmentally friendly transport modes possible.

C 108/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.3.3
This also means that particular attention should be
paid to the fact that developing European transport infrastruc-
ture (TENs/TINA) may have direct and indirect repercussions
on national and regional infrastructure. The EESC points to the
danger that, with the budgetary situation in the Member States
and accession countries, concentrating investment on TEN or
TINA projects may result in regional and local infrastructure
being neglected. The EESC has pointed out in other opinions
that countries like Poland or Hungary currently spend well
below 1 % of their GDP on maintaining and rebuilding their
whole transport infrastructure; but the implementation of TINA
projects by 2015 as scheduled requires annual investment of
the order of some 1.5 % of GDP in the corridors alone. The
EESC calls on the Commission, Member States and accession
countries not to ignore the regional economic problems which
may arise from this.

The EESC welcomes the fact

2.3.4
links with local
transport infrastructure now also come in for support in the
context of TEN-T planning, but doubts that the high-speed
maglev link between Munich airport and Munich city centre,
which has been selected for such support, can be seen as a
suitable project.

that

2.3.5
The EESC therefore expects the EU to deploy funds in
a considerably more strategic manner in future. Precedence for
co-funding should be given to projects which comply with the
following principles:

— The principle of traffic reduction: As has already happened
with energy consumption, economic development must be
disassociated from transport growth. The aim should be to
reduce the amount of traffic while preserving mobility. This
means halting the trend towards ever greater distances in
passenger and freight transport by means of a consistent
transport,
this can be
achieved by means of a ‘short journey policy’, e.g. between
home, work or
shops, attractive living environments,
avoiding pointless journeys across Europe and reinforcing
regional economic networks (15) etc. In order to implement
this principle,
it will be important to internalise external
costs – as has frequently been called for by the EU (see
below).

land-use and economic policy:

— The principle of mode shifting. The aim here is to reduce
the dominance of private motor car transport and road-
borne goods transport. This can only be achieved if an
attractive alternative is provided. The key component of
such an alternative is rail transport, closely networked with
all other mobility providers in the environmental alliance
(public transport operators, cycle ranks, mobility centres,
car sharing, taxis, logistic service providers etc.), an impor-
tant task also being to provide attractive bus services, espe-
cially in regions where rail transport is not viable because
of low population density. The necessary expansion of the

(15) Promoting traffic-reducing regional economic networks plays a role
here. For example, creating a limited number of centrally located,
large-scale abattoirs (often with EU funds) has led to an enormous
increase in traffic (including the controversial transport of animals)
while wiping out regional jobs. If all the external costs incurred
were incorporated into the costing of slaughtering operations, their
‘economic viability’ would look quite different.

environmental alliance requires
to
modernise infrastructure, vehicles and new communication
and information technologies, thus opening up excellent
prospects for innovative small and medium-sized enter-
prises in particular.

targeted investment

— The principle of a ‘campaign for a new culture of mobility’:
Any measure is fruitless unless a new conception of mobi-
lity finds acceptance. There is a need in the EU to campaign
for a new culture of mobility and the infrastructure projects
co-financed by the EU should serve as models.

2.3.6
The guidelines for trans-European networks (TENs and
TINA) should thus be revised (cf. point 1.8) and improved to
comply with the principles of a transport infrastructure policy
which is sustainable both in environmental and financial terms.

2.3.7
The EESC is pleased to note in this respect that rail
links predominate in the selection of new priority TEN projects.
But, here again (as with all new building projects), the principle
applies that appropriate options should be sought which gain
greater acceptance from the public, thereby also preventing
stalled investment.

2.3.8
One example of a potentially imminent conflict as a
result of development standards proposed as part of TEN revi-
sion without taking account of national circumstances is the
development of the Danube between Straubing and Vilshofen.
Care must be taken to prevent the compromise hammered out
at national level between the federal government and environ-
to improve navigation conditions while taking
mentalists
account of conservation issues, which also guarantees compli-
ance with the FFH directive, being scuppered because of the
requirement for a year-round draught of 2.5 metres.

2.3.9 We can no longer afford to set different transport
modes against each other in sometimes cut-throat competition
investment. This means managing the
through parallel
economically and ecologically limited financial
resources
according to the EESC's sustainability criteria (cf. 2.2.9 to
2.2.13) and putting them to optimum use. What is needed in
future are integrated global transport concepts derived from a
sustainable policy of
Imple-
menting an integrated global transport plan means not just
planning infrastructure projects, but also first examining alter-
native forms of spatial and transport development, including
large-scale options. Innovation information and communica-
tions technologies are needed for these.

land use and urban planning.

2.3.10
This also means that a balanced relationship between
transport modes must be established following careful consid-
eration of detailed impact assessments. Preference should be
given to rail or water-borne transport where possible, particu-
larly over long distances.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/41

2.3.11
The EESC would like to stress that a new, sustainable
this order requires a huge investment
transport policy of
programme and will therefore help to kick-start the economy.
But changes are needed in the pattern of investment: less large-
scale new building projects, more
tailored development
programmes, more renovation work (e.g. to make the railways
more attractive).

2.3.12
As far as TENs are concerned, this means that the
available financial resources should be concentrated primarily
on the rehabilitation, modernisation and maintenance of the
rail and road networks, as well as ecologically acceptable parts
of the waterways network. The EESC assumes that existing TEN
and TINA projects will also be reviewed to ensure they meet
the standards and requirements outlined in this opinion. Need-
less to say, all new building projects must also be in line with
the EU's sustainability objectives.

2.3.13
In the case of environmentally friendly modes (rail
and some inland waterways), there is considerable reserve capa-
city available which could be put to use in the short term by
means of technical and organisational measures, particularly on
the railways. The ‘railways of the future’ must win back lost
ground and be an attractive mobility provider. This should be
one of the priority areas for EU investment.

transport users. Enforcing true pricing, i.e. the internalisa-
tion of external costs (530 billion euro per year in the EU),
is crucial for successful traffic reduction, transference to the
environmental alliance and the further development of
maximum efficiency vehicle technology and its market
penetration.
Instruments such as universal, performance-
related heavy goods traffic charges for lorries, the gradual
alignment and increase of taxes on mineral oils, a reorgani-
sation and wider range of taxes on motor vehicles based on
their emission levels – and taking account of the noise
criterion – and the alignment of taxation on shipping and
air transport with that on road and rail could be appro-
priate for ensuring the optimum use and full utilization of
existing transport infrastructure and the progressive and
accurate incorporation of external costs. The EESC feels it is
high time to stop merely talking about the internalisation
of external costs and to actually implement it in earnest.
The Commission should draw up concrete proposals as
soon as possible for discussion with the Member States and
civil society.

if necessary,

— Fair competition: Undesirable environmental and social
developments must also be prevented by observing, enfor-
tightening up existing rules and
cing and,
prohibitions such as driving and rest times for HGV drivers,
speed restrictions, and safety and noise regulations. Compe-
tition conditions must be harmonised at a high environ-
mental and social level as a prerequisite for liberalisation of
transport markets. This is particularly true in the case of
goods traffic and public passenger transport.

In the case of

2.3.14
in the construction of
investment
waterways which involve interference with the natural flows of
rivers and river estuaries, a new approach is needed; the floods
of recent years have demonstrated that the greatest care is
needed in such cases. If inland waterways navigation is to be
developed further as an environmentally friendly mode of
transport, the principle must apply that ships are adapted to
rivers and not rivers to outsized ships.

3. Financing

3.1 Introduction

2.3.15 With all new building plans it must be borne in
mind that satisfying man's desire for mobility can come into
conflict with that of wild (migratory) animals. Few people
realise that animals need ‘highways’ and ‘rest stops’
in all
sectors of sustainability (economic, environmental and social)
just as drivers do. For instance, the planned Via Baltica will cut
across important migration routes for wolves and lynx, ruining
a unique opportunity to facilitate a natural resettlement in
Western Europe.
impact
assessments of detailed plans should involve a far more
complex analysis than is the case today and allowance made
for the relevant extra costs, e.g. wildlife overpasses.

In other words, the environmental

In future, EU resources should only be used for
2.3.16
projects which the EU can convincingly demonstrate contribute
to the objective of creating a sustainable system of mobility. A
sustainable system of mobility requires appropriate framework
conditions, which the EESC has discussed in a number of
opinions. These include:

3.1.1
The free movement of people and goods within the
European area, which is the prime condition for fostering
exchanges, can only be guaranteed if there are suitable, effective
and reliable means of transport available.

Initially,

the development of

3.1.2
the networks focused
mainly on roads. Subsequently, a policy which was more
economical
in the use energy resources, combined with
increased consideration for the environment, necessitated the
search for alternative forms of transport. Today there is a clear
desire to shift the predicted increase in road haulage over the
coming decades to other modes of transport (rail, inland water-
ways and sea routes etc.). At the same time, the development
of collective passenger transport by bus or coach should be
encouraged.

— True pricing in transport: A key element of sustainable
transport policy is the creation of economic incentives for

3.1.3 More recently, enlargement of the European area, with
the transition in 2004 from 15 to 25 Member States, and
subsequently to 27, makes it necessary to interconnect the
networks and to develop them in the countries joining the EU.

C 108/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.1.4
The intentions, prospects and constraints are well-
known and shared. Over the last two decades they have given
rise to ambitious European-scale projects submitted by the
Commission in the form of master plans and White Papers,
followed by some concrete projects which constitute the begin-
nings of a European web of efficient transport networks.

Against this background,

3.1.5
it could be said that the
action initiated with these master plans in conjunction with
objectives reiterated in the White Papers is sufficient. The dead-
lines set are reasonable and, depending on the case, extend as
far as 2010, 2020 or beyond, incorporating as they do new
constraints and developments as they emerge. Pragmatism,
adaptability and flexibility are the qualities needed to succeed
provided that these objectives are met within the scheduled
timeframes. Unfortunately this is not the case, as deadlines are
very often put back.

3.2 Reasons for the failure to fulfil aspirations or commitments in

the field of transport infrastructure

Although global decisions are taken at the level of the
3.2.1
European master plans, the subsidiarity principle leaves imple-
mentation on the ground to the initiative of each Member
State, as well as the bulk of the financing (except for infrastruc-
ture supported by the Structural and Cohesion Funds).

Thus,

for every European government,

3.2.2
long-term
ambitions are conditional upon electoral commitments to be
realised within a short term of office (four to seven years,
depending on the case). Unfortunately, budget resources are
redeployed every year.

3.2.3
Under these conditions, the implementation of forma-
tive and continuous European transport networks remains
largely impossible to manage despite the good intentions of
political decision-makers and the EU's financial incentives.

3.3 How can the situation be improved?

In order to improve the current situation, it is neces-
3.3.1
sary to examine the conditions under which transport infra-
structure is currently implemented as regards financing.

3.3.2 When any state builds European network infrastruc-
ture on its territory, the EU gives it a very limited financial
contribution, i.e. 10 % of the total investment cost in the case
of subsidies granted under the Transport heading of the EU
budget. This contribution, which is made up of subsidies direct
from the EU budget, is insufficient to allow an immediate and
irreversible commitment
to the actual work. Only projects
receiving Structural or Cohesion Fund support are subsidised to
a higher level (30 to 50 %).

3.3.3
Increasing the EU's contribution to TEN projects to 30
to 50 % in the form of subsidies, or even very long-term loans,
assumes that the EU has sufficient resources at its disposal.

But the EU budget must not grow unchecked because:

— enlargement will necessitate a whole range of expenditure;

— resources are allocated to these projects over the long term

and must be permanent.

3.3.4
In the light of these criteria, the EESC has examined a
number of proposed financing solutions and will present its
various proposals thereafter.

3.4 The financing of European transport network projects

3.4.1 R a i si ng a Eu r op e a n loa n (1993 Commission

p r o p osa l )

it

that

In its White Paper on European transport policy for
3.4.1.1
2010 (16),
funding
the Commission tackled the question of
head-on in the section entitled ‘The headache of
funding’,
pointing out
‘raised the alarm’ as early as 1993,
suggesting that the EU be authorised to raise a loan, a sugges-
tion rejected by the Council. The Commission has since asked
for the proportion of Community funding to be raised from 10
to 30 % so as to provide a greater incentive for the Member
States and a degree of leverage. But 30 % is a maximum rate
applicable to certain priority and cross-border projects, and to
date the Council has still not ratified the list of TEN-T projects
eligible for this more attractive rate.

Against this background, for TEN or TEN-T projects
3.4.1.2
where the proportion of trans-European traffic is greater than
the proportion of national traffic, the Community contribution
to the project under consideration should be higher so as to act
as an incentive and, above all, fair (cf. the examples of the
in Austria and the high-speed line between
Brenner tunnel
Lyon and Turin in France and Italy). The EESC feels that raising
the level of subsidy from 10 to 30 % for such projects is unfair
on the countries concerned, provides insufficient incentive and
will only go part way towards removing the obstacles cited by
those countries.

3.4.2 T h e

Pu bli c-P r i v a te

P a r tne r sh i p

i nc lu di ng

Conc e ssi on s

3.4.2.1
In the same White Paper, the Commission proposed
developing ‘public-private partnerships’ to implement projects.
The EESC gave its view on this subject in its opinion on the
Revision of the list of trans-European network (TEN) projects
for 2004 (17):

‘As regards the public-private partnership (PPP), the Committee
agrees with the Commission's analysis of the limits of entirely
private funding of large-scale infrastructures. However, mixed
financing cannot provide the sole solution, insofar as private
investors quite legitimately require certain guarantees and prof-
itability from their investments. As a consequence, costs go up.
Moreover, other aspects should be taken into consideration:

(16) COM(2001) 370 – EESC opinion OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 168
(17) OJ C 10, 14.1.2004

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/43

— every priority TEN-T project involving several European
countries should be carried out by setting up a “European
company” legal structure, so as to secure the transparency
necessary for the financial arrangements for the project;

— a PPP can only reasonably be set up where there is a
balance between the financial
input from the public and
private sectors. It would be hard to imagine a PPP where
the private sector had only a very small input. It is therefore
not realistic to envisage the private sector contributing the
necessary funding for carrying out the majority of projects;

— limits must be set so as to avoid the unforeseen conse-
quences of a gradual abandonment of the sovereign power
traditionally held by Member States or public authorities in
matters pertaining to spatial planning and major public
infrastructures.

far as

the funding of

As
is
concerned, while PPPs represent an interesting option for
certain specific cases, they in no way constitute a panacea’.

infrastructures

transport

3.4.2.2
To avoid having to finance road infrastructure from
their own budgets, some countries have resorted to a financial
arrangement whereby the state concerned pays a private
concession-holder the sum of the ‘virtual’ tolls paid by vehicles
using the route. This innovative form of funding allows the
necessary loans to be raised within the private sector. Although
the cost
the work is carried out more
promptly.

is slightly higher,

3.4.3 Cofi na nc i ng
th e r e of

a r r a ng e me nts

a nd c oor di na ti on

On 23 April 2003 the Commission also submitted a
3.4.3.1
Communication entitled ‘Developing the trans-European trans-
port network: Innovative funding solutions: Interoperability of
electronic toll collection systems’ (18). In the above-mentioned
the Commission's approach
opinion,
pointing out that improving coordination of public funding
will facilitate optimum use of resources and prevent delays, but
will not create a new source of funding.

the EESC endorses

3.4.3.2
The creation of a European transport infrastructure
agency would facilitate the better coordination, optimisation
and flexibility of regional, national and Community public
funding for every project while ensuring that the criteria of
sustainable mobility are respected. As a result, the financial
resources available for transport should be put to better use in
the long run.

3.4.4 T h e i nte r op e r a b i li ty of toll sy ste ms

On the interoperability of electronic toll systems, the
3.4.4.1
Committee wonders what the technical objectives presented by
the Commission as part of a communication seeking to estab-
solutions
lish

innovative

funding

for the development of trans-European transport networks
actually are (19). Existing and future electronic toll systems are a
service provided for users to facilitate toll payment and to keep
traffic flowing, but they are by no means a new source of
funding for TEN-Ts. They merely offer a better
for
collecting tolls.

tool

3.4.4.2
However, unlike the tolls paid to a route concession-
holder which are mentioned in the concession contract, the
introduction of an automatic tonne/km toll only for heavy
goods vehicles on certain motorways which are currently free
(in Germany) will
indeed bring in new funds. But since the
Commission has not adopted a position on the allocation of
these new funds, it will probably be the case that, in accord-
ance with the subsidiarity principle and the budget deficit
criteria laid down in Maastricht, each state or region (owning
the road for which the toll is charged) will use the proceeds to
improve its network (road widening, maintenance). Therefore it
cannot be considered to be an innovative form of funding for
the new rail, road or waterway links planned in the TEN-Ts.

3.4.5 Cr e a ti ng a ‘ma jor w or ks fu n d’ fe d by E U b u dg e t

sur p luse s

The Committee noted the proposal by the European
3.4.5.1
Commissioner for regional policy and institutional reform,
Michel Barnier, stating that the EU budget, which often showed
a surplus, represented 1 % of Community GDP and could
provide European economies with some room for manoeuvre,
for example by means of a ‘major works fund’ set aside during
buoyant periods and used for priority investments in less
favourable times. The Commissioner also called for greater flex-
ibility in the use of funds, particularly the Structural Funds, so
that they could be redirected.

As

regards

such a fund,

the financing of

3.4.5.2
the
Committee obviously favours the Commissioner's proposal to
use part of the EU's budget surplus, systematically allocating it
to a ‘major works fund’. However, although this surplus could
serve as a back-up allowing a more effective approach to the
issues involved in implementing European transport networks,
the bulk of funding for these should come from permanent
resources not dependent on the underuse of the EU budget in
certain years.

The Committee feels that the transport heading of
3.4.5.3
the EU budget at only IJ700 million per year (2000/2006) is
woefully inadequate to achieve the objectives laid down and
confirmed by numerous European summits and should be
greatly increased.

Lastly, the Committee is pleased to see the principle
3.4.5.4
of creating a ‘dedicated’
fund fed by proceeds not initially
budgeted for being proposed by the Commissioner responsible
for institutional reform, which proves the feasibility of such a
project, thereafter making it dependent only on the political
will of the Member States.

(18) COM(2003) 132 final, 23.4.2003

(19) OJ C 32, 14.1.2004

C 108/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.4.6 Cr e a t i ng a E u r op e a n fu nd de di ca t e d t o t r a ns-

— very long-term loans (30-50 years);

por t i nfr astr uc tur e

3.4.6.1
Recently, the Committee pointed out that the imple-
mentation of European transport infrastructure is a matter of
crucial
importance for the EU. The EESC feels that the very
future of the EU is at stake and that the moment in history has
come to take the decisions which will ensure that
future
generations have effective means of interaction. The methods
used up till now, especially for funding infrastructure, are
proving to be ineffective and inadequate, depending on the
project, and are the cause of delays which will soon be impos-
sible to make up in the face of international competition. It is
therefore essential to put in place a truly innovative funding
mechanism which is unaffected by national political and
economic fluctuations.

3.4.6.2
The Committee points out that it proposed the crea-
tion of such a fund three times in 2003 (20), the features of
which would be:

— a European fund dedicated to priority TEN-T projects;

— permanent revenue from ‘one cent’ on every litre of fuel
(petrol, diesel, LPG) consumed in the EU-25 for all road
transport of goods and persons (public or private);

— collected by the Member States and paid in full every year
into the dedicated fund in the EU budget, i.e. about IJ3,000
million from the 300 million tonnes of fuel consumed;

— management of funds entrusted to the European Investment
Bank to spend on the priority TEN-Ts proposed by the
Commission and adopted by the Parliament and Council:

Brussels, 28 January 2004.

— interest rate subsidies for the loans;

— provision of financial guarantees for PPPs;

— on behalf of the EU, granting of subsidies of 10 to 50 %
of the work according to the type of project (natural
obstacles, trans-European character etc.).

This European transport infrastructure fund would
3.4.6.3
thus be drawn from a solidarity levy of one cent per litre on all
fuels consumed on EU roads by all private, public or commer-
cial vehicles carrying cargo or passengers.

3.4.6.4

The obvious advantages of such a levy would be:

— as an ongoing financing resource over 20 years;

— to meet the annual requirement of three to four billion
euro, the sum needed to finance the TEN-T according to
the Van Miert group of experts;

— its simplicity, as all Member States have a system of fuel tax

collection in place.

Nevertheless, there could be strong objections to the principle
of such a tax. The EESC will therefore examine this means of
financing TEN-T projects in more detail, and calls on the
Commission to carry out a concrete and exhaustive study on
this subject.

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH

(20) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003, p. 133 (opinion on the harmonisation of excise
duties on petrol and diesel
fuel), OJ C 220, 16.9.2003, p.26
(opinion on safety in tunnels on the trans-European road network),
OJ C 10, 14.1.2004.