Opinion of the Committee of the Regions - Extension of the major trans-European transport axes
Date: 2007-10-10
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: common transport policy, cooperation policy, exchange of information, financing, technical standard, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network

C 305/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.12.2007

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the

— ‘Annual report of the six European TEN-T coordinators’ and

— ‘Trans-European Networks: Towards an Integrated Approach’

— ‘Extension of the major trans-European transport axes’

(2007/C 305/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— first of all recalls the importance of TEN-T, which make a significant contribution to the Lisbon goals;

— also emphasises that the coordinators can play a key role in securing agreement among Member
States on consistent parameters for the various national sections of each TEN-T axis; with this aim in
mind, the Committee of the Regions calls on the Commission to make such an agreement a precondi-
tion for EU financial support;

— believes that the European Commission could also encourage the networking of the various local and
regional stakeholders affected by TEN-T priority projects, inter alia by means of an annual forum. The
Committee of the Regions would, moreover, be interested in working together with the Commission
in this area;

— yet again regrets the blatant inconsistency between, on the one hand, the crucial importance of TEN
networks for the EU, once again highlighted in this communication, and the key role that can be
played by financial incentives from the EU, and, on the other, the very small budget allocated, even if
this is concentrated on the cross-border sections and bottlenecks, and therefore stresses the need for
synergy among all the funding sources available at EU level;

— stresses the importance of extending the transport axes beyond the Union so as to expand trade in
goods and movement of people, not only to and from neighbouring countries, but also with the rest
of the world;

15.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/7

Reference documents

Annual report of the six European TEN-T coordinators

COM(2006) 490 final

Trans-European Networks: Towards an Integrated Approach

COM(2007) 135 final

Extension of the major trans-European transport axes

COM(2007) 32 final

Rapporteur: Bernard SOULAGE, First Vice-President of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council (FR/PES)

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A. TEN networks

General points

first of all recalls the importance of TEN-T, which make a
1.
significant contribution to the Lisbon goals. They are conducive
to strengthening regions' territorial cohesion and competitive-
ness by facilitating the movement of goods and people.
European citizens living in the regions will notice the difference
that TEN-T make to their daily lives, which can only be a plus
for the legitimacy of the European Union;

On the coordinators' repor ts

2.
would particularly like to thank the coordinators for their
effective work in moving forward the implementation of
priority TEN-T projects, thereby demonstrating just how useful
their role is;

3.
welcomes the fact that this work and the information
provided on it by the Commission do much to enhance trans-
parency of the projects concerned and their implementation,
and would thus like to see an active continuation of
this
dialogue between the Committee of
the Regions and the
Commission, as many regions are directly affected by these
investments being made on their territory;

draws particular attention to the strong points of the coor-

4.
dinators' work, which have made for:

— better awareness of the projects and their actual stage of
advancement, which should enable informed choices to be
made when allocating the TEN-T budget;

— a real

improvement

in the coordination between stake-
holders, in particular as regards cross-border sections, which
are recognised as the most delicate; this has in turn led to
greater efficiency in the processes of studying and planning
projects, especially where no formal international structure
existed (for example between Slovenia and Italy);

— the identification of each project with one person, which,
for cross-border projects, can smooth the often complex

workings of IGCs and lend the EU's weight and indepen-
dence to promoting or defending a project (for example, the
case of Ms de Palacio in relation to the Lyon-Turin route);

5.
notes that these missions have also facilitated coordination
among ministries within a given country, which have been
subjected to the scrutiny of an outside observer;

agrees with the Commission about the need to make an
6.
adequate contribution (critical mass, often estimated by the
coordinators as the maximum permitted by the regulation) to
cross-border projects to get them moving and thus create the
greatest possible leverage effect, with a knock-on impact on
national networks;

highlights the key issue of

7.
interoperability, which is a
major factor in getting an economic return on investments, and
draws particular attention to the decision made when deploying
ERTMS to focus on six priority freight corridors, which will
encourage the effective use of investments in new infrastructure
these axes and make such investments more attractive;

8.
also emphasises that the coordinators can play a key role
in securing agreement among Member States on consistent
parameters for the various national sections of each TEN-T axis;
with this aim in mind, the Committee of the Regions calls on
the Commission to make such an agreement a precondition for
EU financial support;

9.
emphasises, as most of the rapporteurs have done, the
need for countries themselves to take steps to make best use of
these investments: modal shift, good management of priorities
for infrastructure use, optimisation of the timing of investments
in a particular axis;

10.
proposes that coordinators also intervene in discussions
regarding various different projects with a view to ensuring, if
not consistency of approach, then at least an exchange of views
and good practice in the area of studying, setting up and finan-
cing projects. The European Commission could also encourage
the networking of the various local and regional stakeholders
inter alia by means of an
affected by TEN-T priority projects,
annual forum. The Committee of the Regions would, moreover,
be interested in working together with the Commission in this
area;

C 305/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.12.2007

11.
in the light of positive experiences to date and in parallel
with this expansion of the role of the existing coordinators,
would like to see, where appropriate, the appointment of other
coordinators for priority projects funded by the Union, in par-
ticular for those areas which require a strong, often political
incentive in order to overcome difficulties in the planning and
construction phase, and for priority projects; the Committee of
the Regions anyway points out that so far the coordinators have
been appointed only for six projects that are in their advanced
stages while other priority axes are in need of such support
since they involve more Member States (e.g. project No 22,
which covers 8 Member States);

notes that the various coordinators' reports, which date
12.
from July 2006,
identify the stages of advancement that are
urgently needed to make the projects credible, and the commit-
ments that Member States need to make to optimise the main
investment; and therefore

would like an assessment to be made of the extent to
13.
which these stages have actually been reached — and the
commitments met — in order to secure a better basis for deci-
sion-making on the allocation of TEN-T appropriations for
2007-2013. Proper account should be taken of the coordina-
tors' analyses and recommendations when making decisions on
the awarding of grants, particularly from the multiannual TEN
programme;

14.
notes that the uncertainty over Community financing
beyond 2013 may be a hindrance to projects that would involve
little expenditure during the current budget period, and there-
fore calls for mechanisms to reduce this handicap;

15.
the Commission has more precise, detailed and complex
information about the state of the preparation of the priority
projects supported by the coordinators. This must not compro-
mise the equal treatment of the projects;

16.
nonetheless regrets that no comparative analysis of these
projects, their state of progress, or of their mutual synergies was
carried out, and recommends that the Commission conduct
future analysis on the basis of current and relevant statistical
information gathered in appropriate form from the Member
States concerned. Although the communication highlights the
need for the best possible coordination between projects with a
view to optimising the timeframe for implementing the TEN-T
network, no such analysis has yet been carried out. This could
be done by the TEN steering group. Such an analysis could
provide additional information useful in relation to the — very
restricted — allocation of European support for the period
2007-2013;

ment (lower costs, less impact on the territory) and in terms of
the effectiveness of the projects themselves;

18.
given the difficulties of combining projects that are very
different in nature (railway tunnel and high-voltage connection,
for example), would like to see this objective of synergy brought
within the coordinators' remit, above and beyond the planned
handbook of good practice;

yet again regrets the blatant inconsistency between, on
19.
the one hand, the crucial importance of TEN networks for the
EU, once again highlighted in this communication, and the key
role that can be played by financial incentives from the EU, and,
on the other, the very small budget allocated, even if this is
concentrated on the cross-border sections and bottlenecks, and
therefore stresses the need for synergy among all the funding
sources available at EU level. The European Commission should
also explore new sources of funding that might be possible in
the future. With this in mind, a medium-term review of the
Eurovignette directive seems necessary in order to factor in
external costs;

20.
notes that the completion of the thirty priority axes will
slow the rise in transport-related CO2 emissions by just 4 %, a
very modest result, and would therefore like to see appropriate
consideration being given to external costs during a review of
the Eurovignette directive so that measures can be taken to
encourage modal shift, specifically but not exclusively in sensi-
tive regions and areas, for which more direct, more targeted
measures should also be planned. The use of new information
technologies, suggested in the communication, could play a part
here, as could the development of intelligent transport systems,
an area in which Asian countries, for example, are far more
advanced than Europe;

21.
supports the proposed development of PPPs, in particular
by ensuring greater legal certainty and by developing innovative
financial instruments at the EIB. However, the undeniable advan-
tages of these arrangements should always set against the extra
costs that they may generate initially, and it is also important to
spell out clearly the transfer of risks that will be entailed;

stresses that since the advantages of opening markets to
22.
competition are well recognised in the telecommunications
sector, it should also be possible to reap these beneficial effects
in the rail transport sector as well. Whilst it is unrealistic to
expect that private financing of railway investment will be at the
same level as for telecommunications, one should at least be
able to expect that opening the railways to competition might
lead to better use being made of the investments provided by
the public sector;

On the work of the TEN steer ing group:

17.
agrees with the Commission about the importance of
ensuring synergy between TEN projects along a given axis and
about the potential benefits involved in terms both of invest-

23.
requests that the rules on deconsolidation (within the
meaning of the Maastricht convergence criteria) be clarified, and
possibly made more flexible, for loans taken out for investments
in TEN projects. This issue should certainly be looked at in rela-
tion to every strategic investment for the development of the
Union;

15.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/9

B. Extension of the major trans-European transport axes

— improved interoperability;

General points

— exchange of good practice;

24.
stresses the importance of extending the transport axes
beyond the Union so as to expand trade in goods and move-
ment of people, not only to and from neighbouring countries,
but also with the rest of the world;

25.
adds that improving links with countries neighbouring
the Union will also make the significant investments made in
the TEN-T network more effective;

26.
recognises that the managed development and integra-
tion of the transport sector between the EU and its neighbours
make a major contribution to the implementation of the Lisbon
agenda by encouraging trade, sustainable growth and social
cohesion;

notes that such extensions are significant

27.
factors for
stabilising democracy and the economy in the neighbouring
countries and also contribute to the European neighbourhood
policy and help share the Community's achievements,
thus
facilitating cooperation on all levels with the EU's neighbours, in
some cases preparing them for possible future membership;

Concer ning the repor t of the high-level group

28.
first of all stresses the very high quality of the report of
the high-level group chaired by Ms Loyola de Palacio, to whose
memory it pays tribute;

highly valued the consultation process, which gave

29.
credibility and added value to the high-level group's work;

30.
would like this very comprehensive and detailed report
to serve as a basis for determining the precise action to be taken
in the short and medium term;

highlights the relevance of the transnational axes identi-

31.
fied:

— the five ‘transnational axes’ fully meet transport link require-
ments by extending the priority TEN-T axes and grouping
them into large sectors;

— the motorways of the sea, a key part of current develop-
ments in world trade, are properly taken into account as an
axis in their own right;

— notes that the avenues for possible improvement are very
similar to those identified within the Union for imple-
menting TEN-T:

— better coordination between countries along a given

axis;

— removal of bottlenecks of all kinds;

32.
in this context, welcomes the Commission's initiative in
launching ‘an exercise to identify bottlenecks and their solutions
in Freight Transport Logistics’;

33.
notes that the report proposes firm deadlines that are
not taken up in the communication: examining and updating
the main axes, projects and horizontal measures by 2010, with
a mid-term review in 2008;

Regarding the communication from the Commission
itself:

endorses the recommendation made to the Council and
34.
the Parliament to accept the proposal to revise the concept of
the Pan-European Corridors/Areas in line with the guidelines
contained in the report;

35.
nonetheless regrets that, although the axes are described
as concerning all transport modes, no general guidance is given
regarding which modes of transport are to be promoted, except
for the motorways of the sea, whose importance the Committee
of the Regions stresses; such general guidance would in particu-
lar provide an opportunity to promote the shift towards envir-
onmentally friendly transport modes;

36.
recalls on this occasion the key points of its opinion of
14 February 2007 on the mid-term review of the Transport
White Paper:

— the extension of

the TEN-T network into neighbouring
the
countries is one of
important goals of
the most
European transport policy, nevertheless finishing off
the
TEN-T in the EU27 must remain of higher priority for the
EU;

— one of the aims of European transport policy must be to
soften the impact that transport has on the natural environ-
ment, e.g. by honouring commitments made under the
Kyoto protocol on CO2 emissions (point 1.4);

— it is a matter of priority to rebalance the modal distribution
of land transport, and it is necessary to deploy strategies to
promote intermodality and multimodality (point 2.1);

therefore,

37.
in line with the concern expressed during
public consultations, would like to see a firm emphasis placed
on environmental aspects, and the establishment of the prin-
ciple of modal choices consistent with Kyoto commitments and
sustainable development goals;

stresses

the importance and urgency of horizontal
38.
measures to promote interoperability; such measures are indeed
included in the communication, which also sets out the princi-
ples for establishing action plans;

C 305/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.12.2007

endorses the proposed institutional structure, consisting

39.
of three levels:

— regional steering groups, coordinated amongst themselves;

— ministerial meetings to take strategic decisions; and

— a secretariat providing administrative and technical support,

and furthermore urges in the future that:

— firstly, the secretariat be funded jointly by the countries
involved and the European Commission so as to guarantee
the quality and continuity of its work and;

— secondly, the secretariat be involved prior to the award of

grants for projects;

40.
regrets a certain reticence in the communication as
regards action to be taken, in terms both of investment and of
implementing the institutional proposals;

Brussels, 10 October 2007.

would therefore like exploratory discussions to be held
41.
very soon with neighbouring countries,
in parallel with the
establishment of the regional steering groups, with a view to
laying down the measures to be implemented in the short and
medium term;

42.
asks for confirmation, from the earliest stages of this
process, of the financial implications, which are set out in the
high-level group's report but not mentioned in the communica-
tion;

that

also asks

43.
the regional and local governments
concerned be widely involved in planning and implementing
actions so as to achieve effective synergy with local develop-
ments in terms both of the economy and of spatial planning.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE