Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Transport in urban and metropolitan areas
Date: 2007-04-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, common transport policy, environmental protection, means of public conveyance, metropolis, town planning, urban centre, urban transport

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/77

Hence,

5.11
thanks to
the Commission's statement
greater competition, accomplishing the postal services internal
market will unlock job creation potential in the sector to offset
job cuts by the traditional operators has yet to be substantiated.

that,

As far as the sector's growth potential is concerned, the
5.12
only option suggested by the proposal
is to manage what is
apparently seen as irreversible decline in conventional postal
services, without placing them in the context of communication
needs arising from the Lisbon strategy and the knowledge-based
society, and without analysing the impact in terms of energy
efficiency.

The Commission's proposals envisage regulation essen-
5.13
tially as a Member State responsibility, which would ultimately
mean 27 national organisations and markets existing alongside
one another in the postal services internal market, without

Brussels, 26 April 2007.

Community cohesion. The EESC reiterates its support for a
Community postal service with community-wide rules on both
competition and universal service provision.

5.14
Given the uncertainties and risks associated with
complete liberalisation of the postal market, the EESC cannot
agree that there is an urgent need to fix right now a deadline of
1.1.2009, especially in view of the fact that postal operators in
Member States which only joined the EU in 2004 would have
insufficient time to adapt to the new circumstances.

5.15
The EESC urges that the current Directive be extended,
with plans for possible full liberalisation of the postal sector by
1.1.2012, provided that credible options which represent and
improvement on the reserved sector have been found by then,
in close consultation with all those concerned.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Transport in urban and metropolitan
areas

(2007/C 168/17)

On 19 January 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 29(2)
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 7 November 2006, shortly before completion of work on the Committee's own-initiative opinion, the
German presidency requested it to draw up an exploratory opinion on Transport in urban and metropolitan
areas.

The EESC Bureau decided that five of the total of twelve issues which had been raised should be dealt with
by the TEN section, which for its part felt that it would be useful to incorporate these into ongoing work on
The situation of public passenger transport and local rail passenger transport in Europe, especially the new
Member States, and to expand the subject accordingly.

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 22 March 2007. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 435th plenary session, held on 25 and 26 April 2007 (meeting of 25 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 106 votes to 2, with 30 abstentions:

1. Conclusions and recommendations

unresolved problems; concerted action by the Commission, the
Member States and local authorities is therefore needed to
reverse this trend.

1.1
The EESC is very concerned to note the sharp decline in
the share of local public transport (LPT) in total urban transport
volume, which is growing fast; this decline is not confined to
EU-15 but is also proceeding at an especially rapid pace in the
new Member States.

Traffic flows,

1.2
from cars in particular, are placing an
increasing burden on cities, causing a large number of mostly

1.3
40 % of all traffic-related emissions of greenhouse gases
come from Europe. Thus, the repercussions of urban transport
policies are felt far beyond city limits.

C 168/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

1.4
life and
The EESC feels that improving the quality of
environmental protection in cities and achieving climate change
and energy efficiency objectives are doubly necessary:
in the
Committee's view, top priority for any urban planning or trans-
port policy should be, first, to prevent traffic ‘arising’, or at least
to limit it; a second priority should be meeting or enabling the
meeting of mobility needs wherever possible through environ-
mental means of transport such as LPT, cycling or walking.

1.10
The EESC asks the Commission to submit an appro-
priate package of political measures setting out clear guidelines
and programmes promoting the achievement of the requisite
objectives, as part of its planned Green Paper on urban trans-
port. Such a package should also make a reappraisal of the
reasons why many of the good measures which were announced
in the ‘citizens' networks’ failed to be implemented.

1.5
Cities must remain liveable; car-oriented cities are not an
option. Given the scarcity of funding and space, the time when
equal support could be given to all forms of transport has gone.
The EESC therefore calls on local authorities, national govern-
ments and the Commission to ensure that this principle is taken
into account in all legislation and support programmes.

In future, urban and land-use planners in local authorities
1.6
must curb continued uncontrolled development and functional
separation of urban areas, so that, wherever possible, traffic can
be prevented. To this end, higher-level regional and land-use
planning instruments should also be used, with coordination of
housing in cities and surrounding areas enabling prevention of
traffic from the outset.

1.7
The Committee also calls for clear prioritisation of objec-
tives, with precedence for LPT, walking and cycling over car
infrastructure. This is the only way to improve living and envir-
onmental conditions in metropolitan areas.

1.8
The Committee therefore feels that extending the supply
of public transport services is a key area in which action should
be taken by the Commission, the European Parliament, national
governments and local authorities. There are a number of
reasons
the need to take precautionary
measures to safeguard the environment and public health; the
need to ensure basic mobility; and the need to provide essential
services for all groups in the population, in particular for handi-
capped persons.

this, namely:

for

1.9
‘If further consequences for our quality of life and for the envir-
onment are to be avoided then the development of public passenger
transport systems must be given higher priority as part of an integrated
approach. This is true for everyone and particularly, the estimated 40 %
of European households which do not have private cars.’ This realisa-
tion and awareness on the part of the European Commission,
formulated almost ten years ago in the Communication entitled
Developing the citizens' network (1) have, up to now, regrettably
had virtually no influence on actual policy. The EESC is indeed
forced to conclude that there are yawing gaps between the
many pronouncements in favour of LPT and the translation of
these pronouncements into real political action.

(1) Developing the Citizens' network — Why local and regional passenger
transport is important and how the European Commission is helping
to bring it about; COM(1998) 431 final of 10.7.1998.

local authorities

1.11
The Member States should be aware of their obligation
to contribute financially to the social services which they require
transport enterprises to provide (such as lower fares for school
children, pensioners, persons with disabilities, etc.), and to
support
investment projects. As
in their
discussed in the ‘Thematic strategy on the urban environment’,
municipalities should draw up transport plans for sustainable
urban transport, with a binding objective of a modal shift to
environmentally friendly transport
transport,
cycling, walking),
in accordance with minimum European
requirements, which have not yet been established. Among
for
other
increasing the shares of LPT, walking and cycling in total traffic.
If they fail to draw up such plans, they should be barred from
receiving support from Community funds.

should include quantitative goals

(local public

things,

these

1.12
Also with a view to meeting EU target values and
complying with EU rules on inner-urban air quality and redu-
it is essential to give
cing fine-particle and noise pollution,
priority to the development of an attractive public transport
system incorporating information systems and offers based on
new technology (such as mobile phone ticketing, dial-a-bus and
dial-a-taxi
services) and mobility advisory and marketing
services. There is an urgent need for strengthening of the envir-
onmental alliance (e.g. bus,
train and bike) and for closer
synchronisation of timetables.

1.13
The EESC would recommend that the Commission, the
Council, and in particular the Committee of the Regions investi-
gate the reasons why some cities have succeeded in progressing
towards sustainable urban transport, whereas in others the situa-
tion continues to deteriorate. What is clear to the EESC is that
this is not just a matter of money, but also to a very large extent
of political awareness and of decisions taken in the fields of
transport and housing policy. Working on this is at least as
important as the compilation and dissemination of best practice,
as in the case of the EU's Civitas Project.

2. Main elements of the opinion and the background to

the opinion

Both within and outside urban areas, the last few years
2.1
have witnessed a generally strong growth in traffic and often a
dramatic change in the modal split, with car journeys constantly
on the increase and those by public transport constantly

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/79

declining in relative or absolute terms. This applies to the vast
majority of cities and conurbations throughout Europe. In this
opinion, local public transport (LPT) refers to bus, tram and rail
transport organised or outsourced by the public sector and
provided by private, municipal or State companies,

2.6
Numerous official papers and scientific studies have been
written over the past few years, most of which argue that cities
must remain liveable; therefore, important as cars are in modern
society, car-oriented cities are neither possible nor desirable.
Instead, public transport and environmentally friendly private
transport (e.g. cycling or walking) should be the mainstays of
modern urban transport planning.

2.2
From the 1950s up to the 1990s, the transport policy
strategy pursued by the majority of western European states and
many municipalities was geared almost exclusively to the devel-
opment of the road infrastructure and increased use of motor
vehicles, whilst much of
the public transport sector had to
contend with significant cut-backs. Numerous additional factors
such as differing land prices in urban and rural areas,
inap-
propriate land-use and regional planning, tax law, and corporate
decisions on siting industrial and commercial premises on the
outskirts of cities have resulted in growing volumes of traffic
and longer journeys between workplaces, schools, services and
leisure facilities.

The consequences of this are manifold, in both economic
2.3
and social as well as health and environmental terms: jobs have
been lost, those unable to have their own cars or choosing not
to be car-owners find it more difficult to get around, in many
largely excluded from
European cities the disabled are still
impact has become
public transport, and the environmental
intolerable — this includes global climate change, which threa-
tens to have both environmental and economic consequences.

2.4
The situation is particularly apparent in many urban and
metropolitan areas, with deteriorating living conditions due to
increasingly heavy traffic; local residents complain of noise and
air pollution, while large areas have been sacrificed to cars and
the accompanying infrastructure, at the expense of quality of
life. The EESC would point out that about 80 % of Europeans
live in urban areas, and are therefore very much affected.
Drivers are also dissatisfied: to take just two common problems,
long traffic jams have become part of daily life, and parking
places are difficult to find.

2.5
40 % of all transport-related greenhouse gas emissions
originate from European cities (2), mainly from cars. During
rush hours, when traffic problems in urban areas are at their
worst, local public transport is ten times more energy-efficient
(and therefore generates fewer emissions) than driving (3). A
shift from cars to LPT, cycling and walking could help consider-
there are more efforts to
ably to relieve pressures. Only if
prevent traffic and to bring about a modal shift from private
motor vehicle transport to public transport will Member States
and the EU be able to meet their commitments to reduce emis-
sions under the Kyoto Protocol and any future agreements.

‘A well

2.7
functioning European transport system needs good,
sustainable local and regional passenger transport. This contributes to
economic development and employment and reduces congestion.
It
helps to clean up the environment by using less energy, making less
noise and producing fewer pollutants. It reduces social exclusion by
allowing people without the use of a car to gain access to jobs, schools,
shops, medical
facilities and leisure activities — recognising that
women, the young, the elderly, the unemployed and disabled people are
particularly dependent on public transport. Good, sustainable passenger
transport
in the urban areas.’ These remarks from the
Commission's communication on Developing the Citizens'
network (4) dating back almost ten years basically sum up every-
thing that needs to be said politically. At the time, the Commu-
nication met with the EESC's approval, and the Committee still
stands by the arguments set out in that document; it acknowl-
edges the importance of
local public transport and of zero-
emission transport modes.

is vital

2.8
Hardly any changes have, however, taken place. On the
contrary, the car-centred road-building trend, which has lasted
for decades, has in many cases since led to the development of
physical and economic structures in and outside cities which
are, to a maximum degree, geared to or dependent on car trans-
port and which would be hard to change. In view of these
entrenched structures — which are now also emerging in the
new Member States — and also because of the fact that there is
no real political will to initiate structural changes in transport
policy (5), there is a challenge, which has up to now remained
largely unresolved, as regards halting or even reversing negative
transport development trends. The successful reversal of the
trend noted in a small number of cities (e.g. Freiburg and
Münster in Germany and Delft in the Netherlands) and achieved
by means of a clear ‘push and pull’
transport policy does,
however, demonstrate that it is possible to bring political influ-
ence to bear on developments and to reverse them.

In its document on ‘citizen's networks’ (6), the Commis-
2.9
sion declared its intention to give priority to the development of
LPT and local and regional passenger rail transport and even

(2) GD TEN Roadmap 2006/TREN/029.
(3) See UITP: ‘The role of public transport to reduce greenhouse gas emis-

sions and improve energy efficiency’, March 2006.

(4) COM(1998) 431, 10.7.1998.
(5) Inter alia because of the importance of the motor vehicle industry to

the overall economy of the EU.

(6) See COM(1998) 431 final.

C 168/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

drew attention to the need to introduce a ‘push and pull’
strategy designed to deliberately displace cars from conurbations
and to strongly promote the use of LPT. In the light of current
and continuing developments, it must, however, be concluded
that the Commission has not been very successful in translating
its own demand into action. The EESC deplores the failure of
the policy to go much beyond making pronouncements and
introducing research projects and pilot schemes.

3. General comments

3.1 The current situation as regards public transport in the new EU

Member States and the acceding states

In comparison with the countries of western Europe,
3.1.1
many Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) enjoy a
more favourable situation as regards environmentally compatible
and socially acceptable traffic management. The development of
the transport sector in the CEECs has, for historical and political
reasons, been organised along different lines than in west Euro-
pean countries. For many years, far more passengers travelled
by public transport than by car; this applied equally to urban,
regional and long-distance transport.

3.1.2
Despite the fact that, following the removal of the ‘Iron
Curtain’ in Europe, an extremely sharp trend towards following
the western European pattern of development became apparent,
a series of environmental
indicators linked to land utilisation
and transport do, at present, demonstrate that, in comparison
to western European countries, the CEECs still remain in a
better situation.

Nonetheless,

trends in the transport sector of

3.1.3
the
CEECs are giving rise to concern. The level of car-ownership is
constantly increasing, whilst uncontrolled development and
suburbanisation, which also have a damaging effect on public
transport and the maintenance of existing city centres, are
reaching alarming proportions. The EESC feels that action by
local authorities, Member States, the European Commission and
the European Parliament is urgently needed in order to counter
these unwelcome tendencies in the CEECs too.

they now feel

The transport policy pursued by CEEC governments
3.1.4
has focused mainly on the building of new express roads and
motorways. In the case of urban transport, it may be noted that
most central governments have completely disengaged them-
selves from LPT, which used to be centrally organised and state-
run;
from
any responsibility.
the type granted in
Germany, e.g. under the Municipal Transport Financing Law,
with funding from the federal budget supporting local authori-
ties in developing public transport and making it more attrac-
tive, does not exist in many CEECs. The EESC feels that it would
be useful to develop such support systems. In comparison with
the situation in EU-15, most CEECs are also lagging far behind

themselves
Investment aid of

completely exempt

in the fields of customer guidance, comfort,
marketing in respect of public transport; a solution is needed.

information and

3.1.5
The allocation of such limited EU funding for LPT
projects as is available from the ERDF and other sources can
also create problems. One difficulty is that central governments
have their own priorities, which they present in Brussels as part
of their operational programmes; these do not necessarily tie in
with the priorities set by municipalities. Moreover, the study
group has been reliably informed that application procedures
for funding are much more difficult and complicated in the case
of LPT and regional rail passenger transport than for investment
in road infrastructure. In addition, not only are LPT projects
fairly limited in number, but there is sometimes competition
between, on the one hand,
large-scale projects such as the
construction of underground railway systems, and, on the other,
tram and bus systems, which are significantly cheaper.

3.1.6
The EESC feels that as public funding becomes scarcer,
the costs and benefits of public transport options should be
weighed up, and funds should be used to ensure that as many
as possible attractive transport options are available, with
numerous stops, a dense route network and good connections
between urban and regional networks. Tram networks are often
just as effective as underground railways, but only require 10 %
as much investment and have lower maintenance costs. The
mistakes of many western European cities such as Nantes in
France, which dismantled an excellent
tram and trolleybus
system and is now spending millions of euros to bring trams
back as a solution to traffic problems, must not be repeated in
CEECs.

3.1.7
The abovementioned developments in the CEECs are
therefore resembling, to an ever increasing extent, the develop-
ments in EU-15 which for years have been recognised as being
unsustainable and irresponsible.

3.2 Urban transport developments over the last few decades

3.2.1
place in cities, with LPT facing fiercer competition.

Over the last few decades, a huge change has taken

— Cars have long ceased to be a luxury;

instead, they have
become widely available
and increasingly comfortable
consumer durables; at the same time, the EESC would point
out that 40 % of households in the EU do not have a car or
do not wish to have one.

— A very influential

lobby has developed around cars and

accompanying economic sectors.

— Travelling by car is very convenient: a car is practically
always to hand, getting to one's destination does not involve
any changes, while the increasing tendency to air-condi-
tioning in cars means that one is to all effects and purposes
protected from the weather; thus, cars have many advantages
over LPT, and are a lot more comfortable.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/81

— Undoubtedly the growth in traffic has a lot to do with the
division of roles between various urban districts; people
tend to live in one area of town (or even out of town), work
in another, do their shopping somewhere else, and spend
their leisure time in yet another area. This tendency is clearly
illustrated by the emergence of shopping centres on the
edge of cities.

— For many years, considerable investment was made in cities
to meet the growing needs of the car: roads were widened,
multi-storey car parks were built, and technical systems were
put in place in an effort to keep pace with the constant
growth in traffic.

natingly dense tram network, purchasing new trams, moder-
nising the bus fleet and bus stops, beginning work on routes
where LPT has priority, creating separate bus and tram lanes,
together with coherent efforts to transform and partially re-
orient LPT management and operations have begun to bear
fruit. Cost recovery is approaching 90 %, well above average
levels. This figures could even be improved, but for the signifi-
cant losses in revenue facing municipal transport companies
due to the central government's decision to reduce fares for
certain groups of passengers
students,
pensioners, the disabled, etc.) without providing compensation
for the resulting loss in revenue.

children,

(school

— At the same time, many large cities (such as Hamburg, West
Berlin or Nantes) got rid of their trams; LPT systems as well
as the needs of cyclists or pedestrians were neglected in
many metropolitan areas.

3.2.4
Of course, the EESC is not opposed to reduced fares
for such passengers, but it does feel that transport companies
should not be saddled with the resulting costs.

— In most cities, there was not enough investment in LPT or in
pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to develop attractive
alternatives to driving.

— Urban and regional transport systems are often insufficiently
coordinated or interconnected; equally,
in many cities the
lack of inter connections means that the only way of getting
by public transport from one part of town or suburb to
another is via the city centre, which is unattractive in terms
of speed compared to driving.

Of course, the EESC is aware that there are no universal
3.2.2
solutions which are equally valid for all European cities; different
cities and regions develop in different ways. Over the last few
years or even decades, some cities have focused very intensively
on supporting LPT systems as well as cyclists and pedestrians.
For example, Brussels is clearly very different from Amsterdam
or Münster
in terms of cycling infrastructure, and this is
reflected in the share of bicycles in total traffic. New tram routes
in Freiburg, Mulhouse and recently Paris, as well as other cities,
have persuaded many motorists to switch.

There are also a few positive examples here and there
3.2.3
in the new Member States of municipalities successfully over-
coming the transition and placing a positive emphasis on LPT.
The
such
city of Krakow in Poland is undeniably one
example (7). A visit to Krakow by the study group in charge of
drafting this opinion made this abundantly clear. In Krakow,
transport planners and environmental groups
independent
succeeded in convincing the city council
to modernise and
improve LPT, working within very tight financial constraints.
Maintaining, modernising and to some extent expanding a fasci-

(7) Measures in Krakow were supported by the Caravelle programme as

part of the Commission's Civitas initiative.

However, analysis of Krakow's success also highlights
3.2.5
the problems faced by municipalities as well as LPT operators: a
frequent lack of awareness in political circles (unfortunately this
applies at all hierarchical
levels), the social status of various
transport modes (cars are perceived as modern, whereas LPT is
old-fashioned, and is used by people with limited financial
resources, who cannot afford a car), neglect of the technical
impact of urban development on transport, and insufficient
coordination between urban transport and transport
in the
surrounding areas.

3.2.6
In some cities there have been clear signs of at least a
partial change in attitude, with investment in more environ-
mental modes of
transport, a development which the EESC
welcomes. The Committee feels it should emphasise that, given
the scarcity of public funding and the serious negative impact of
traffic in city centres, the time when equal support could be
given to all forms of transport has gone. In keeping with the
ideas that were put forward almost ten years ago in the docu-
ment on ‘citizens' networks’, the role of the car in cities needs
to be curtailed; this will not only involve huge efforts to make
LPT and the cycling and pedestrian infrastructure more attrac-
tive, but also disincentives to driving. There is neither money
nor space enough to develop infrastructure for both cars and
LPT.

3.2.7
Thus, only by clearly prioritising objectives, with prece-
dence for LPT, walking and cycling over car infrastructure, can
living and environmental conditions be improved in metropo-
litan areas. In policy-making and planning processes as well as
in financing, LPT concerns should therefore be taken into
consideration before decisions are taken on zoning plans and

C 168/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

on establishing other transport links.

meeting or enabling the meeting of mobility needs wherever
possible through environmental means of transport such as LPT,
cycling or walking.

3.2.8
The measures local authorities should take are so
varied that an exhaustive list would go beyond the scope of an
EESC opinion. Making LPT more attractive is not simply a
matter of qualitatively and quantitatively improved services in
terms of frequent departures, speed, cleanliness, safety, informa-
tion, etc.; availability and accessibility (especially important for
persons with disabilities, mothers with children, etc.) should be
incorporated as essential elements of planning. Particular atten-
tion should be paid to accessibility with a view to providing
attractive intermodal connections that enable all users to travel
seamlessly from one locality to another. Affordable ticket prices
have a significant effect on how people choose to travel. Political
decision-makers should be provided with even more specific,
practical ideas than is currently the case on how to achieve the
required improvements in quality. Other measures to achieve a
modal shift include fewer (and expensive) parking spaces in city
centres compensated by more and cheaper parking at local rail
and tram termini, as well as separate bus and tram lanes —
which obviously should mean that less space is available for
cars. (When drawing up plans to cut back on parking spaces,
care should be taken to ensure the continued availability of
spaces meant specifically for people with severely reduced mobi-
lity who cannot get about without using their own specially
adapted cars.) London and Stockholm (following a popular vote)
have begun to levy charges on drivers entering city centres (or
using particular routes), and the results have been good. Madrid
and some other European cities are considering such an option.

For example, most of

3.2.9
the revenue from congestion
charges in London is invested in the city's bus network. This
measure alone has resulted in substantially improved public
transport, as well as lower greenhouse gas emissions (down by
10 %), energy consumption (-20 %) and nitrogen oxide and
particle emissions (-16 %) (8)

3.2.12
For this to happen, a wide-ranging mix of planning
and organisational measures must be taken together with the
appropriate investment decisions. There are many individual
examples in European cities to show that sustainable urban
transport planning can work, and that it enhances urban living
conditions without
performance.
However, it is also clear that many cities have so far failed to
take such measures, due to a lack of expertise or to other poli-
tical priorities.

undermining

economic

3.2.13
The EESC would recommend that the Commission,
the Council, and in particular the Committee of the Regions
investigate the reasons why some cities have succeeded in
progressing towards sustainable urban transport, whereas in
others the situation continues to deteriorate. What is clear to
the EESC is that this is not just a matter of money, but also to a
very large extent of political awareness and of decisions taken in
the fields of transport and housing policy. Working on this is at
least as important as the compilation and dissemination of best
practice.

3.3 The questions posed by the German presidency

3.3.1 Coordinating the planning of

transpor t and
housing str uctures (how can housing and LPT
network s
one
another?)

step with

developed

be

in

3.2.10
However, despite such examples of good practice —
which have been promoted and document through initiatives
such as the EU's Civitas Project — and widespread awareness of
them, the overall trend has unfortunately not been towards a
genuine renewal of urban transport policy. Day after day,
western European cities are paying a high price for their trans-
port policy mistakes; and now, it is the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe which are in the course of repeating those very
mistakes.

3.3.1.1
There can be no doubt that in most cases there is a
need for more effective coordination of planning. Clearly, trans-
port and housing structures are mutually interdependent; this
correlation has been well known for a long time. Hence, zoning
and land-use planning, which are essentially municipal compe-
tences, are factors determining the type and volume of future
traffic. In future, better coordination of regional and land-use
planning should promote housing which is more closely geared
to reducing traffic, while preventing uncontrolled development
and the siting of industrial and commercial premises on the
outskirts, at the expense of city centres.

In the EESC's view, top priority for any urban plan-
3.2.11
traffic
ning or transport policy should be,
‘arising’, or at least to limit it; a second priority should be

to prevent

first,

(8) See UITP (FN2).

3.3.1.2
Transport connections — for example by means of
efficient LPT networks — make new and existing housing and
It is relatively
business districts significantly more attractive.
straightforward to measure the impact in terms of changing
land prices. However, such connections are also essential
in
order to prevent excessive new environmental impacts.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/83

3.3.1.3
For the EESC, there can be no doubt that not only
metropolitan areas but also all other urban areas must pay more
attention than hitherto to ‘inward development’, with the
emphasis on using inner city sites before turning to new sites
on the outskirts or outside cities. This approach is consistent
with the objectives of the EU's soil strategy.

include the internalisation of external costs. Politicians have
often announced their intentions to internalise the external
costs of
transport; doing so would obviously enhance the
competitive position of LPT.

In order to regenerate urban living areas, it is impor-
3.3.1.4
tant
to develop transport-efficient, concentrated, multi-use
housing structures with the requisite shopping and business
facilities, and also to accept and develop much slower-moving
motor vehicle traffic adapted to other road users. This requires
the development of comprehensive traffic-calming measures,
together with the development of ‘play streets’ in which cyclists
and pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles, and of pedes-
trian zones. Socially and culturally enhanced urban areas with
decentralised shopping and leisure facilities are particularly effec-
tive in reducing traffic.

3.3.2 Ensur ing effective and attractive local public
to relieve the pressure on
transpor t
urban areas
transpor t
(regulating markets, funding, customer satisfac-
tion)

from pr ivate

in order

ar ising

It will only become possible to ease the pressure
3.3.2.1
arising from private transport on urban areas if travellers have
access to attractive and efficient LPT systems.
‘Attractive’ and
‘efficient’ in this context means ensuring that the quantity and
quality of services are such as to make travelling as simple and
pleasant as possible.

3.3.2.2
In such an opinion the Committee cannot be
expected to enumerate the full range of necessary measures
relating to market regulation, financing and customer satisfac-
tion. However, the attractiveness of transport modes is clearly
determined not only by the quantity and quality of services, but
also by price. Politicians have often announced their intentions
to internalise the external costs of transport; doing so would
obviously enhance the competitive position of LPT.

3.3.2.3 With public transport competing with cars, custo-
mers will only opt for LPT more often if it offers good value for
money in the sense of providing high-quality services at a
this to happen is by
reasonable price. The only way for
constantly making LPT more efficient. Optimising efficiency will
also enable higher levels of cost recovery. However, full recovery
of LPT investment and operating costs from fares cannot be a
political objective, as it is a one-sided approach to measuring
the
running costs which does not reflect
external costs of urban traffic. The EESC therefore considers it
extremely important
round to
reflecting the time cost of transport and inevitably this would

that policy finally comes

internalisation of

level (e.g.
Infrastructure decisions taken at national
3.3.2.4
highways used for local and regional transport in competition
with LPT) and fiscal measures (transport subsidies, fuel taxes,
green taxes to finance public transport, etc.) together with EU
policies (e.g. in relation to trans-European networks) are factors
which significantly affect choices as regards means of transport
and therefore the prospects for developing financially viable and
customer-oriented LPT with a dense network and frequent
services.

3.3.2.5
Ensuring effective and attractive LPT and easing the
burden on urban areas arising from private motor vehicle trans-
port (as distinct from private transport by bike and on foot,
which is to be encouraged) and road haulage requires integrated
spatial and traffic planning; such planning should take the
various types and purposes of transport into account and eval-
uate them in regional cooperation with outlying areas. Once
objectives have been prioritised in a coordinated way and strate-
gies have been worked out accordingly, a wide range of
measures should be implemented through a process of political
decision-making and communication. For this to happen, it is
important to integrate planning and financing competences. In
order to regenerate urban living areas, it is important to develop
transport-efficient, concentrated, multi-use housing structures
with the requisite shopping and business facilities, and also to
accept and develop slow-moving transport.

To ensure attractive and convenient links between
3.3.2.6
urban transport networks and individual
traffic — whether
long-distance or from the surrounding countryside — econom-
ical and convenient parking facilities should be provided at
suitable transport interchanges on the outskirts (Park and Ride)
(see also point 3.2.8).

3.3.2.7
As a guiding measure to prevent traffic and promote
a modal shift, the EESC would like to see gradual upwards align-
ment of EU fuel taxation, thus ensuring uniform conditions for
competition and creating financing sources for LPT.

3.3.3 Encouraging people to cycle and walk

3.3.3.1
In terms of the number of trips (as opposed to the
distance covered), one in three journeys are entirely covered on
foot or by bicycle, which clearly reflects the key role of cycle
and pedestrian traffic in European cities. On the other hand,
over half of all journeys of less than 5 kilometres are done by
car, even though this distance could often by covered more

C 168/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

quickly by bicycle. By making LPT stops more easily accessible
and improving parking and lift sharing options, even longer
distances could be covered in city centres using a combination
of environmentally friendly transport modes, bringing about a
change in the modal split. (The issue of promoting cross-border
cycle traffic at European level
is covered in a separate
opinion on Promotion of cross-border cycle transport TEN/277,
R/CESE 148/2007.)

As a means of public transport,

‘Citybike’ makes it
3.3.3.2
possible to cycle throughout the city.
‘Citybikes’ can be hired
from public bike terminals in the city and returned to any term-
inal. All that is required is to log in, for example by using a
credit card. Hire charges should be very reasonable.

3.3.3.3
Cycling and walking are not only extremely environ-
mental, but also healthy. Given the high healthcare costs arising
in our society from a lack of exercise, there are also very strong
health policy reasons for promoting cycling and walking.

3.3.3.4
It is readily apparent that appropriate, high-quality
infrastructure must be in place for this to happen. Cycling infra-
structure includes not only urban cycle paths, but also secure
bike parking facilities and other services (e.g. the option of
taking bikes on LPT and trains). The best example in Europe of
how to develop cycling infrastructure is probably the Nether-
lands. In view of this, the question we need to ask is not so
much what municipalities can do, but why they have not yet
managed to use and implement relatively cheap options to
make cycling and walking more attractive.

3.3.3.5
Above all, it is urban areas which are most in need of
improved residential and visiting conditions and where the
implementation of EU directives on air quality and environ-
mental noise is longest overdue; it is here that the promotion of
cycling and walking is of particular relevance. In comparing the
modal split in various European metropolitan and urban areas,
it becomes clear that the state of cycling and pedestrian infra-
structure together with the accompanying measures to promote
such transport and enhance its image are of crucial relevance to
ensuring that it accounts for a high proportion of everyday
trips: such measures include expanding traffic-restricted and
traffic-free zones, dense networks, right of way for cyclists and
pedestrians at crossings and traffic lights, making pavements
wider, road signs, visiting and resting facilities, bike stands and
‘bike stations’, publicity campaigns (‘walk to school’ days, ‘cycle
to work’ competitions for commuters, car-free days, the possibi-
lity of transporting bikes on LPT). It is also helpful to appoint a
local government officer with specific responsibility for cycle
paths and footpaths.

3.3.4 Using moder n infor mation, communication and

control technologies

3.3.4.1
Transport telematics can help to bring about a modal
shift to LPT and ensure better use of existing capacities, thus
making transport safer and reducing its environmental impact.
However, environmental concerns and modal shift have not in
the past played a major part in the development and use of
transport
telematics. The EESC is concerned to note that
millions of euros of research and development grants and other
funding in this field have tended to focus more on keeping
motor vehicle traffic moving, without any easing of pressure on
the environment.
releasing additional capacity
through a more even flow of traffic has done nothing to curb
the building of new roads or the development of the existing
road network. Shifting car transport in congested conditions to
LPT does not help to ensure a more even load on public trans-
port systems, and therefore, from the perspective of LPT, it has
more of a counter-productive effect.

In addition,

3.3.4.2
The EESC is in favour of prioritising the use of trans-
port telematics in LPT to provide comprehensive transport and
passenger information. The Committee also feels that transport
telematics has potential in terms of managing fleets of vehicles
and urban logistics (ensuring that vehicles do not travel empty,
and combining individual trips). At the same time, telematic
systems could be used as part of integrated transport planning
to achieve greater efficiency by preventing the expansion of
existing infrastructures and new building. Generally speaking,
using telematics in the field of transport only makes sense if it
translates into fewer trips by motor vehicles.

3.3.5 Reducing urban pollution

3.3.5.1
The pressures on the urban environment from traffic
— whether moving or at a standstill — such as fine particulate
matter, noise and land use can only be reduced by means of the
proposed measures to give clear priority to the environmental
alliance of cycling, walking and LPT, enabling implementation of
the relevant EU directives on health and on making cities more
technical
Important and useful as they often are,
attractive.
measures such as soot filters will not suffice to reduce the pres-
sures on the urban environment. Local authorities will not be
able to avoid making structural changes to transport policy.

4. The Committee's proposals

Meaningful development of LPT is only possible if the European
Commission, Member States and local actors take coordinated
action to develop an active public transport policy, which will
also involve questioning the dominance of the car.

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/85

Calls for action at EU level

4.1
The Commission should revise the rules for allocating
funding for regional development measures. The EESC proposes
to make it obligatory to dedicate a defined, high proportion of
from the ERDF to public transport
transport
projects, as in the case of the Cohesion Fund.

investments

4.2
Until such time as the actual costs incurred are covered
by road pricing charges and other charges, there is no justifica-
tion for seeking to fully recoup the costs involved in main-
taining railway lines.

The internalisation of external costs in the transport
4.3
sector, together with measures to guide choice as regards means
of transport by using the price mechanism (motor-vehicle taxa-
tion, fuel taxes, parking charges, road pricing charges) are essen-
tial basic conditions for bringing a halt to the downward trend
with regard to public transport and bringing about a sea change
aimed at extending the supply of services, achieving integration,
boosting demand and enhancing the level of cost recovery in
the public transport sector. The EES has repeatedly advocated
the internalisation of external costs and the Commission has
made pronouncements along these lines on numerous occa-
sions. No action has, however, been taken. Among other things,
in its planned Green Paper on urban transport the Commission
should finally adopt an appropriate position and take action
without delay.

The EESC asks the Commission to formulate a concrete
4.4
EU support programme, along the lines of
the Marco Polo
Programme, for promoting the shifting of traffic away from
private motor vehicle transport and towards public transport;
among other things, such a support programme could be used
to finance pilot projects for futuristic local and regional public
passenger
transport, particularly in the CEECs. Such pilot
projects should be introduced on routes having a large pool of
potential passengers which has hitherto remained untapped and
they should involve modernising infrastructure (including new
building work where advisable), modernising rolling stock,
introducing attractive timetables and bringing about an optimal
level of
local and regional public
passenger transport services. Pilot initiatives in cities should also
receive support.

integration with other

It would also be worthwhile to introduce a specific EU
4.5
support programme to promote mobility and urban develop-
ment/regional planning. Under the proposed programme, pilot
projects could be promoted which do not lead to random,
uncontrolled development but rather serve to promote existing
settlement areas and the development of a graduated system of
central areas, and define settlement axes, which could then be
opened up, in practice, through the provision of attractive local
passenger rail transport or LPT services.

4.6 With a view to improving basic statistical data, the EESC
also recommends the introduction of a reporting obligation in
respect of selected public transport parameters in the individual
Member States and the systematic dissemination of examples of
best practice in public transport. The European Local Transport
Information Service (ELTIS), together with its internet portal
(www.eltis.org), an initiative launched by the European Commis-
sion, provide a good basis for implementing the abovemen-
tioned proposals. The cases listed by ELTIS as examples of indi-
vidual measures should be systematically extended by setting
out examples from the new Member States and the candidate
states.

4.7
should
The European Commission and the Council
consider making it compulsory for local authorities to draw up
sustainable urban transport plans, with a binding objective of a
modal shift to environmentally friendly transport (local public
transport, cycling, walking). Such plans should comply with
minimum European requirements, which remain to be estab-
lished. In the event of municipalities failing to draw up such
plans, they should be barred from receiving support from Com-
munity funds.

Calls for action by the Member States

4.8
The EESC calls on the new Member States to take on
their responsibility for local passenger rail transport and LPT,
and to support it, for example by means of legislation on finan-
cing municipal
let municipalities
transport. They must not
down in terms of financial and organisational support.

4.9
It is unacceptable that operators have to bear the finan-
cial burden arising from — however enlightened — social
policy decisions (such as reduced fares for socially disadvantaged
groups). The EESC feels that this represents a irresponsible atti-
tude on the part of governments towards LPT.

4.10
The Member States should be aware of their obligation
to contribute financially to the social services which they require
transport enterprises to provide (such as lower fares for school
children, pensioners, persons with disabilities, etc.).

4.11 Member States should press ahead with the internalisa-
tion of the external costs arising from private motor vehicles, so
that the resulting revenue can be used for large-scale develop-
ment of public transport services, thus encouraging a modal
shift.

4.12
If necessary, Member States could work together with
the European Commission to disseminate best practice as widely
as possible in promoting positive development of LPT. Although
lack of money is one of the problems faced by LPT, it is not the
only one; in the absence of awareness, new ideas or relevant
benchmarks, even large sums of money will not always help.

C 168/86

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.7.2007

Calls for action by the municipalities

4.13
Ensuring effective and attractive LPT and easing the
burden on urban areas arising from private motor vehicle trans-
port and road haulage requires integrated spatial and traffic
planning, which on the one hand is geared to preventing traffic
and on the other emphasises environmental transport modes.
To this end, it is essential to take the various types and purposes
of transport into account and evaluate them in regional coop-
eration with outlying areas.

4.14
Once objectives have been prioritised in a coordinated
way and strategies have been worked out accordingly, a wide
range of measures should be implemented by municipalities
through a process of political decision-making and communica-
tion.

Brussels, 25 April 2007.

Local authorities should set

4.15
themselves goals clearly
defining the means and the extent to which they intend to
increase the share of LPT and the environmental alliance of
cycling and walking, with a reduction in absolute terms of
private motor vehicle transport. For this to happen, it is impor-
tant to integrate planning and financing competences.

4.16
Forward-looking public transport planning as part of
interest must also take into
municipal services of general
account land acquisition policies e.g. for public transport routes
and stations.

citizens

Involving

and user

in planning
4.17
for successful public transport
processes is very important
systems. The EESC therefore recommends that local authorities
closely involve local people in developing their local public
transport systems.

groups

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Promotion of cross-border cycle
transport

(2007/C 168/18)

In a letter dated 7 November 2006, the German Federal Ministry of Transport, in the context of the German
EU Presidency, asked the EESC, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to
draw up an opinion on The promotion of cross-border cycle transport.

On 21 November 2006 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure
and the Information Society to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Simons
as rapporteur-general at its 435th plenary session, held on 25 and 26 April 2007 (meeting of 25 April),
and adopted the following opinion by 128 votes to two, with eight abstentions.

1. Conclusions

1.3
In Europe every train, including high-speed international
trains, should be obliged to make space available for trans-
porting, among other things, bicycles.

1.1
There is (still) no European cycling policy. The European
Commission does support, by means of subsidy programmes,
research, development and the implementation of projects as
part of policy on sustainable mobility and energy use.

1.4 Minimum quality standards should be introduced for
cycling infrastructure built with the aid of European subsidies.

The EESC recommends that cycling be integrated into
1.2
transport and infrastructure policy in general and in particular
be given substantial attention in the forthcoming Green Paper
on urban transport.

The EESC recommends that EU subsidy budgets also be
1.5
made available for the development and maintenance of cycling
infrastructure. Good-quality infrastructure already exists in some
European cities and countries.