Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Roadmap to a single European transport area — progress and challenges’ (exploratory opinion requested by the European Parliament)
Date: 2015-04-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, cross-border transport, intra-EU transport, job creation, polluter pays principle, public transport, rail transport, sustainable development, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport market








C_2015291EN.01001401.xml










4.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/14





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Roadmap to a single European transport area — progress and challenges’
(exploratory opinion requested by the European Parliament)
(2015/C 291/03)







Rapporteur:




Raymond HENCKS






Co-rapporteur:




Stefan BACK





On 13 January 2015, the Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Roadmap to a single European transport area — progress and challenges

(exploratory opinion).
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 8 April 2015.
At its 507th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 April 2015 (meeting of 22 April), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 96 votes in favour, with 2 votes against and 2 abstentions.
1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC reiterates its support (1) for the aims set out in the 2011 White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ (hereinafter ‘the Roadmap’). The single European transport area remains an important item on the agenda. Major challenges still hamper the establishment of the single European transport area from achieving sustainable growth and job creation, quality jobs and working conditions.












1.2.


Considering the Juncker Commission’s ten priorities for 2015-19, the Commission 2015 Work Programme and the aims of the Roadmap, the EESC points out the following:












1.3.


Efficient implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) can leave more Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) resources available where private investment or charging will not work. In any case, the EUR 2,7 billion to be transferred from the CEF transport budget to the EFSI must be earmarked for transport. The EESC reiterates the need for real cross-border infrastructure planning when implementing the TEN-T in order to ensure optimal resource efficiency.












1.4.


Simultaneous use of the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘user pays’ principles will weaken financing based on the latter. Simpler and clearer charging concepts are needed. Options are needed to adjust charges to guarantee cohesion, avoid social exclusion and ensure coherence with taxes and charges in general.












1.5.


Much remains to complete the internal transport market. The Committee’s opinion (2) of 11 July 2013 on the fourth railway package supports the aim to complete the implementation of a common single rail market in Europe to provide high-quality transport with no problems at borders. The EESC, as stated in its 2011 opinion on the Roadmap (3), requests a balanced impact assessment of new steps planned in that direction. The European Commission’s intention to clarify market access rules in road transport to facilitate implementation and compliance control is welcomed.












1.6.


The EESC supports the Juncker Commission’s focus on social dumping. It asks the Commission to propose preventive measures. Member States should strengthen compliance control also through improved cross-border cooperation — including exchange of information and adequate sanctions in particular regarding letterbox companies and bogus self-employment. Loopholes in legislation on access to transport professions/operation licenses and on the coordination of social security must be eliminated. Control measures must be proportionate and not put an unnecessary administrative burden on the parties concerned.












1.7.


Modal shift requires flexibility and adaptation to local conditions, particularly the 300 kilometre limit sought on road transport, which will not work in remote and sparsely populated regions with a limited rail network.












1.8.


Adequate infrastructure and transport services are needed, also in remote regions. A new initiative should be added to Annex I to the Roadmap: to double public transport use in urban areas by 2030 through installations and infrastructure that facilitate the mobility of pedestrians, cyclists, and the elderly or persons with reduced mobility as part of urban mobility plans.












1.9.


The EESC stresses the importance of passenger rights, in view of the emergence of new concept transport organisers such as Uber.












1.10.


The EESC suggests that a participatory dialogue be used when preparing the revised version of the Roadmap and refers in that connection to its opinion of 11 July 2012 (4).












1.11.


The EESC suggests a general reassessment of the action plan of Annex I to the Roadmap in terms of its current political feasibility.




2.   Revision of the 2011 Roadmap — general overview









2.1.


The European Parliament is planning an own initiative report on the implementation of the Roadmap and in that connection has asked the EESC for an explanatory opinion on the subject.












2.2.


In its opinion on the Roadmap (5), the EESC welcomed the Commission’s efforts, but found a significant gap between the objectives and the means by which they might be achieved and financed.












2.3.


The EESC notes that most of the observations made in its opinion on the Roadmap remain pertinent. This applies to the following items in particular (6):






—


The problem of funding the investments needed to reach objectives on, for instance, infrastructure, alternative fuels and propulsion systems and the infrastructure they need. Charging and private funding will not work everywhere.










—


Better coordination between Member States on infrastructure planning.










—


Recognition of the vital role of transport as a factor of competitiveness and prosperity and the need to create an integrated European transport system. Support for the development of a strategy to provide Europe with transport that is efficient, genuinely sustainable and takes economic, environmental and social challenges into consideration. Developments in all modes of transport must take greater account of — and strengthen — social dialogue. In road transport in particular, this goes hand in hand with measures to prevent abuse of disparities in wages and social protection standards.










—


The rigid approach to the modal shift from road in respect of distances over 300 km, which is unrealistic in certain cases (for instance, in large countries with a sparse rail network).










—


The importance of the optimised use of available resources, including infrastructure and vehicles, and ensuring optimised transport flows through efficient logistics, including resources such as e-freight and green corridors.










—


The need to ensure continued competence through education and recruitment efforts; adequate social conditions for mobile workers.










—


There is insufficient focus on the importance of urban transport, including for goods transport (first mile/last mile).
















2.4.


Four years into the implementation of the Roadmap, the EESC notes that there have been a number of initiatives, but with fairly limited results so far. Nevertheless, steps have been taken towards this implementation, in the form of both legislative proposals and policy initiatives. These include the new TEN-T Guidelines Regulation (7) and the Regulation on a Connecting Europe Facility (8) (both adopted in 2013), the legislation on deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and measures to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles.












2.5.


Little has been achieved, however, in preparing the ground for a further market opening, compliance monitoring and facilitation of cross border road transport. The European Register of Road Transport Undertakings, for example, which was intended to support monitoring of compliance with road transport market regulation, has suffered implementation delays. The same is true of the European Electronic Road Toll System, created to facilitate cross-border traffic but still to be implemented. Likewise, the problem of varying social conditions for mobile workers and their repercussions on competition remains largely unsolved. When it comes to the directive on the posting of workers, diverging interpretation among Member States, some of which may not apply the legislation correctly, poses a serious problem for the smooth operation of the internal market.












2.6.


With respect to funding, the EESC notes that, although CEF funding is far from sufficient, the transport sector is one of the main priorities of the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), which the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are in the course of setting up. This is made clear, inter alia, by the report of the joint EIB and Commission working group tasked with fixing the selection criteria for projects to be financed. The EESC notes in this connection that EUR 2,7 billion of the funding available for the CEF regarding transport is being redirected toward the EFSI. It is important that those funds are used for the benefit of the transport sector when implementing the EFSI.












2.7.


The EESC would like to stress in this connection the importance of ensuring that these investments not be limited solely to the extension of infrastructure, but also support projects to modernise and improve sector performance, as well as measures to provide for a well-trained and skilled workforce.




3.   Transport in the Commission work programme









3.1.


The EESC notes that the single European transport area is not mentioned in the political guidelines for the next five years nor in the ten priorities set out by President Juncker and included in the Commission’s 2015 work programme (9).












3.2.


Considering both the importance of transport as an economic sector and its specific character, which often necessitates dedicated solutions, the EESC thinks that it would have been appropriate to mention it as a specific issue in relation to, for example, Priority 1 (growth and jobs) and Priorities 3 and 4 (energy union and deeper internal market), all of which deal with transport. This is particularly the case in relation to the internal market, given that transport policy is dealt with in a specific chapter of the TFEU and separately addressed in both the Europe 2020 strategy and the two Single Market Acts.












3.3.


Bearing in mind the overarching political direction set out in the political priorities of the Juncker Commission — namely, that the European Union’s policy agenda should be decided in close partnership between the European Commission and the European Parliament and in cooperation with the Member States — the EESC would suggest that the list of initiatives set out in Annex I to the Roadmap be reassessed in the light of their political feasibility.




4.   Territorial cohesion









4.1.


The Roadmap makes no reference to territorial cohesion.












4.2.


Under Treaty Articles 90 and 91, common transport policy is intended to help promote territorial cohesion — i.e. secure access to the transport network for sparsely populated rural regions that are often devoid of public transport services and whose inhabitants are thus deprived of an alternative to road transport. The EESC notes in this connection an earlier EU objective, namely that of ensuring that the majority of the EU’s public and businesses are no more than 30 minutes’ journey time from that network. This objective seems to have been forgotten (10).












4.3.


Although the Roadmap states, in relation to accessibility, that there is a risk of the gap between central and peripheral areas widening, its fourth goal — ‘to maintain a dense railway network in all Member States’ — has come to nothing, since no practical initiative is linked to that goal, while increasing numbers of regional routes are slashed on grounds of profitability.












4.4.


The EESC would refer in this connection to its comment regarding the Roadmap’s recommendation on the mandatory award of public service contracts by competitive tendering. The EESC requested that ‘before presenting proposals on this matter and no more than six months after 3 December 2014, the European Commission produces a report on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, as provided for in Article 8(2) of that document’.












4.5.


The EESC therefore considers that, in line with Article 174 of the Lisbon treaty, which stipulates that special attention should be paid to regions that suffer from severe and permanent handicaps, other passenger transport that is not solely tourism transport should be classified as a service of general interest and therefore meet criteria for universality, accessibility, including accessibility for persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility, continuity, quality and affordability.




5.   Sustainable transport









5.1.


As early as 2007, mid-way through the 2001-10 White Paper programme, the Commission had to admit that ‘Europe is not yet on a sustainable transport path’
 (11). The EESC considers that the approach has not really evolved at all since then.












5.2.


In its exploratory opinion ‘A sustainable future for transport’ (12) the EESC pointed out that, while transport is key to many of our freedoms (freedom to work and live in different parts of the world, to enjoy different products and services, to trade and to establish personal contacts), one of the basic aims of the policy must be to define a framework for these freedoms and even to impose boundaries where they may affect, or even threaten, other freedoms or needs, such as human health, the environment, the climate, or the needs of generations to come.












5.3.


The Roadmap is based on the premise that ‘curbing mobility is not an option’. The EESC reiterates what it said in point 3.9 of its 2011 opinion on the Roadmap (13) — namely, that this must not be interpreted as working against measures that will make transport more resource efficient and sustainable. Nor does it run counter to encouraging a change in behaviour favouring the use of more sustainable means of transport or transport avoidance.












5.4.


Therefore, it cannot be denied that mobility is a right that guarantees every citizen access to and the right to enjoy economic, social and cultural activities. One can nevertheless not ignore the behaviour, too often unsustainable, of individual use of private cars to go from ‘one place to another’, or by the refusal, for reasons of convenience, to use available public transport. Restraining pointless individual travel and reducing traffic congestion, in particular through appropriate dissuasive measures, or measures to encourage use of public transport, or through innovations in the form of organisation of work (for instance flexible hours), are all certainly options to be considered.












5.5.


The EESC therefore believes that particular emphasis should be placed on research and innovation in the field of clean, particle-free and safe vehicles, including the reduction of noise from vehicles without compromising high safety standards, for all modes of transport, and alternative fuels, including the necessary infrastructure.












5.6.


To achieve this, it will be necessary to accelerate technical standardisation and regulation (action on prices, subsidies and tax), especially in the automobile sector, which accounts for over half of all emissions from the road sector.












5.7.


Although there is convergence among the EU Member States on long-term objectives and guidelines, fundamental differences remain when it comes to development and the sensitivities of each country.












5.8.


For example, some countries attempt to promote clean vehicles by means, for instance, of subsidies to the automobile industry, sometimes generous grants for the purchase of such cars, remission of tax on biofuels, discounts on motorway tolls, taxation of cars that pollute and grants for scrapping old cars.












5.9.


However, it is clear that there is still a very long way to go to achieve the objectives set. The effects of the subsidies are very limited, to the point where they have already been significantly reduced or even abolished. Sales are struggling to take off, causing serious problems for manufacturers who chose the full electric option. The EESC considers it important to maintain and extend incentives to achieve decarbonisation, but takes the view that support must be given not only to the development of clean vehicles, but to all clean means of transport.




6.   The polluter pays and user pays principles









6.1.


In the view of the Commission, pricing and taxes should be restructured in order to take better account of the polluter-pays and user-pays principles and to reflect total costs, including infrastructure and external costs.












6.2.


The EESC would stress that a clear distinction must be made between these two principles, as they are completely different in nature and purpose.












6.3.


The EESC endorses the polluter-pays principle, given the economic cost of non-sustainability, but points out that often, and in particular in rural or sparsely populated regions, no alternatives exist to polluting means of transport; the undertakings and citizens concerned cannot be punished or have their competitiveness diminished on that account. Likewise, taxes on pollution must not simply be added to the price of goods and services and charged to consumers without achieving any change in behaviour.












6.4.


The Committee is, however, against across-the-board application, without differentiation, of the user-pays principle, since public transport is a service of general economic interest and Protocol 26 on such services, appended to the Lisbon treaty, calls on the Member States to ensure that these services are of a high quality and affordable.












6.5.


Affordability must not be sacrificed on the altar of cost-based pricing. Moreover, any such measure would be counterproductive to attempts to decarbonise transport and the measures taken by many urban transport authorities that have chosen to offer free public transport to certain age groups, social categories or even to everyone, and would primarily hit the most vulnerable people.




7.   Urban mobility









7.1.


The gradual phasing out of conventionally-fuelled vehicles is not in itself enough to achieve integrated and sustainable mobility in urban areas.












7.2.


The EESC reiterates the emphasis it placed in its 2011 opinion on the Roadmap (14) on the huge need to develop urban public transport, as well as urban logistics, as part of a sustainable transport policy (see the discussion in points 31, 33 and 41 of the Roadmap). However, the Commission seems to be starting from the premise that the main solution to urban problems is technological innovation in the area of clean vehicle production. This is really a long-term view, when what is now needed are short-term measures to reduce air pollution and urban noise pollution. In any event, the only way to resolve urban traffic congestion is to promote public transport.












7.3.


The EESC is disappointed that increased public transport usage in urban areas is not clearly stated as an objective, for instance under point 2.3 in the list of initiatives appended to the Roadmap. It calls on the Commission to complete the White Paper to this end and set the goal of doubling urban public transport use by 2030, while also providing for facilities and infrastructure to facilitate mobility of pedestrians, cyclists, and the elderly and persons with reduced mobility. Intelligent transport systems are indispensable to provide users with the information required about the means of transport at their disposal. However, these systems need suitable radio frequencies and wavelengths, a subject that is not brought up in the White Paper.












7.4.


The EESC therefore reiterates its support for the Commission’s 2013 communication on competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility (15) and the measures now being taken to implement it.












7.5.


The EESC reiterates its regrets, voiced in its 2011 opinion on the Roadmap (16), that urban transport is outside the EU’s legislative mandate and considers that the measures regarding the criteria for the installation and operation of urban road tolls and access restriction schemes for polluting vehicles should be harmonised and become an integral part of urban mobility plans, which, in turn, should also be made mandatory for larger cities. Harmonising these elements would be beneficial both to the environment and to the functioning of the internal market.




8.   Passenger rights









8.1.


In its opinion on the Communication regarding passenger rights in all transport modes (17), the EESC argued that three additional rights should be added to the ten specific rights listed in the communication, namely: the right to safety (including both the technical safety of the transport equipment and the physical safety of passengers), the right to minimum standards of service quality, comfort and accessibility, and the right to protection of the environment.












8.2.


In its comments on the EESC’s opinion, the Commission acknowledged that the proposed rights were important factors that should be taken into account in future legislation on passenger rights. The EESC therefore proposes that the Roadmap’s ninth goal, which aims to make sure that the EU is a world leader in safety and security of transport in all modes of transport, be put into practice and that current rights be extended accordingly.












8.3.


The EESC draws attention to the emergence of companies mediating passenger services, such as Uber, which seems to consist in a kind of brokerage of transport services where the broker — driver — passenger relationship seems unclear in several aspects. The EESC would ask the Commission to analyse the situation with respect to safety, the responsibility of Uber and/or drivers and the rights of passengers with respect to the provisions of the TFEU, social legislation and consumer rights.




9.   The social dimension of the Roadmap









9.1.


The EESC thinks that if the transport sector is to operate smoothly and on a level playing field, social standards need to be improved, social and working conditions harmonised, and social and wage dumping practices eliminated.












9.2.


It must be said, however, that many transport sectors suffer from abusive practices, including circumvention or breach of labour and/or social legislation. As regards posting of workers and undeclared labour, the EESC welcomes Directive 2014/67/EC EU on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers, to be transposed into national legislations by June 2016, and the pending proposal for a decision on the establishment of a European platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work which are intended to improve surveillance and cross-border cooperation to prevent illegal practices (18).












9.3.


As the Commission points out in its communication (19) on the state of the Union road transport market, the failure to fully uphold labour legislation may be the result of the absence of binding measures on the number and frequency of checks. The EESC therefore welcomes Directive 2014/67/EC EU and reiterates its support for the forthcoming proposal for a Decision on a European platform to prevent undeclared work mentioned in the preceding paragraph (20).












9.4.


Given that the EU has no mandate to harmonise labour law standards fully and that it can only introduce minimum standards, it is the task of sectoral dialogue to provide for a harmonised set of labour, occupational health and safety standards, applicable in a uniform way across the Member States. The necessary resources and support for implementing the result should be guaranteed.












9.5.


The Commission should therefore take steps to improve the implementation of the sector’s legal framework and consolidate it so that it can rise to the challenges. This must include surveillance measures and effective sanctions to eliminate abusive practices and infringements of social legislation. Loopholes in legislation on access to the different transport professions/operation licenses, on the coordination of social security, on temporary agency workers and sub-contracting for the purpose of social dumping have to be eliminated. Other issues that need to be addressed include adequate measures to deal with letterbox companies and bogus self-employment, and a better definition of home base and temporary base for mobile transport workers. The EESC wishes to see coordinated action by the Member States in this field.




10.   Procedure









10.1.


The EESC would suggest that a participatory dialogue be used when preparing the revised version of the Roadmap and refers in that connection to its opinion of 11 July 2012‘Transport White Paper: getting civil society on board’ (21).





Brussels, 22 April 2015.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE




(1)  EESC Opinion on Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area (White Paper) (OJ C 24, 28.1.2012, p. 146).

(2)  EESC Opinion on the Fourth railway package (OJ C 327, 12.11.2013, p. 122).

(3)  See footnote 1.

(4)  EESC Opinion on the Transport White Paper: getting civil society on board (OJ C 299, 4.10.2012, p. 170).

(5)  See footnote 1.

(6)  See footnote 1, in particular points 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.11, 1.12 and 3.15 of the opinion mentioned therein.

(7)  EU 1315/2013.

(8)  EU 1316/2013.

(9)  COM(2014) 910 final.

(10)  Leaflet from the European Commission: Comprendre la politique européenne — Transports, p. 2.

(11)  COM(2007) 642 final.

(12)  EESC Opinion on A sustainable future for transport — European transport policy after 2010 (OJ C 255, 22.9.2010, p. 110).

(13)  See footnote 1.

(14)  See footnote 1, particularly points 1.11, 1.12 and 4.29 of the opinion mentioned therein.

(15)  COM(2013) 913. EESC Opinion on Competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility (OJ C 424, 26.11.2014, p. 58).

(16)  See footnote 1.

(17)  COM(2011) 898. EESC Opinion on Passenger rights in all transport modes (OJ C 229, 31.7.2012, p. 122).

(18)  COM(2014) 221 — 2014/0124 COD

(19)  COM(2014) 222 final.

(20)  EESC Opinion on Undeclared work — European platform (OJ C 458, 19.12.2014, p. 43).

(21)  See footnote 4.