Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)
Date: 2022-10-11
Institutions: Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: carbon neutrality, carriage of passengers, combined transport, common transport policy, project of common interest, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning




C_2022498EN.01006801.xml










30.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 498/68






Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)
(2022/C 498/12)












Rapporteur:



Isabelle BOUDINEAU (FR/PES), Member of the Regional Council of Nouvelle-Aquitaine





Reference documents:



Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013
COM(2021) 812 final
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Action plan to boost long distance and cross-border passenger rail
COM(2021) 810 final
Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013
COM(2022) 384 final









I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS


Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013


COM(2021) 812 final


Amendment 1

Recital 4






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(4)


The realisation of the trans-European transport network creates the enabling conditions in terms of infrastructure basis allowing to make all transport modes more sustainable, affordable and inclusive, to make sustainable alternatives widely available in a multimodal transport system and to put in place the right incentives to drive the transition, notably by ensuring a fair transition, in line with the objectives presented in the Council Recommendation (EU) […] of […] on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality.












(4)


The realisation of the trans-European transport network creates the enabling conditions in terms of infrastructure basis allowing to make all transport modes more sustainable, affordable and inclusive 
in all of the EU’s regions
, to make sustainable alternatives widely available in a multimodal transport system and to put in place the right incentives to drive the transition, notably by ensuring a fair transition, in line with the objectives presented in the Council Recommendation (EU) […] of […] on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality.









Reason

No region in the European Union should be left behind in the transition efforts.

Amendment 2

Recital 16






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(16)


The interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the public concerned by a project of common interest, 
should
 be appropriately taken into account in the planning and construction phase of projects.












(16)


The interests of regional and local authorities, as well as those of the public concerned by a project of common interest, 
must
 be appropriately taken into account in the planning and construction phase of projects.









Reason

It is imperative that regional and local authorities be fully involved in project planning. The use of the conditional is therefore not justified.

Amendment 3

Recital 52






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(52)


Member States should establish a national SUMP support programme aimed at promoting the uptake of SUMPs and improving coordination among regions, cities and towns. It should support regions and urban areas to develop high-quality SUMPs and reinforce monitoring and evaluation of the SUMP implementation through legislative measures, guidance, capacity building, assistance and possibly financial support.












(52)


Member States should establish a national SUMP support programme aimed at promoting the uptake of SUMPs and improving coordination among regions, cities and towns. It should support regions and urban areas to develop high-quality SUMPs and reinforce monitoring and evaluation of the SUMP implementation through legislative measures, guidance, capacity building, assistance and possibly financial support. 
To complement the support provided by national support programmes, the European Commission facilitates exchanges between nodes in ‘corridor forums’.











Reason

The European Commission must support local authorities that do not have experience in developing SUMPs, in particular by facilitating the sharing of experience.

Amendment 4

Recital 66






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(66)


European Transport Corridors should help to develop the infrastructure of the trans-European transport network in such a way as to address bottlenecks, enhance cross-border connections and improve efficiency and sustainability. They should contribute to cohesion through improved territorial cooperation. They should also address wider transport policy objectives and facilitate interoperability, modal integration and multimodal operations. The corridor approach should be transparent and clear and the management of such corridors should not create additional administrative burdens or costs.












(66)


European Transport Corridors should help to develop the infrastructure of the trans-European transport network in such a way as to address bottlenecks, enhance cross-border connections and improve efficiency and sustainability. They should contribute to cohesion through improved territorial cooperation. They should also address wider transport policy objectives and facilitate interoperability, modal integration and multimodal operations. The corridor approach should be transparent and clear and the management of such corridors should not create additional administrative burdens or costs. 
It should also encourage the establishment of integrated management structures aimed at speeding up the implementation of cross-border sections, such as the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation. The European Commission and the Member States consult the regions and these stakeholders when making decisions concerning the implementation of the trans-European transport network.











Reason

Integrated management structures such as the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation have proven that they can help address the challenges encountered in the field of cross-border cooperation, particularly in implementing cross-border sections of the TEN-T network. The regulation should make reference to this.

Amendment 5

Article 3(f)






Text proposed by the European Commission


Amendment










(f)


‘urban node’ means 
an
 urban area where elements of the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network, such as ports including passenger terminals, airports, railway stations, bus terminals, logistic platforms and facilities and freight terminals, located in and around the urban area, are connected with other elements of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic;












(f)


‘urban node’ means 
a functional
 urban area where elements of the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network, such as ports including passenger terminals, airports, railway stations, bus terminals, logistic platforms and facilities and freight terminals, located in and around the urban area, are connected with other elements of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic;









Reason

A functional urban area better reflects an integrated transport system of a city and its commuting zone and plays a key role in planning urban areas and decarbonising its transport system. Adding ‘functional’ to the definition of urban nodes matches better with the logic of SUMPs in article 3(o).

Amendment 6

Article 3(l)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(l)


‘multimodal passenger hub’ means a connection point between at least two transport modes for passengers, where travel information, access to public transport and transfers between modes, including Park and Ride stations and active modes, are ensured and which act as an interface between urban nodes and longer-distance transport networks;












(l)


‘multimodal passenger hub’ means a connection point between at least two transport modes for passengers, where travel information, access to public transport and transfers between modes, including Park and Ride stations and active modes, are ensured and which act as an interface between 
and within
 urban nodes and longer-distance transport networks;









Reason

This amendment would mean multimodal passenger hub projects between and within urban nodes would receive financing.

Amendment 7

Article 3(o)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(o)


‘sustainable urban mobility plan’ (SUMP) means a document for strategic mobility planning, aiming at improving accessibility to and mobility within the functional urban area (including commuting zones) for people, businesses and goods;












(o)‘


sustainable urban mobility plan’ (SUMP) means a document for strategic mobility planning, aiming at improving accessibility to and mobility within the functional urban area (including commuting zones) for people, businesses and goods; 
Sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) may be included in existing plans and/or in broader plans that also integrate land use plans for instance given the interlinkages between land use and mobility.











Reason

This amendment makes sure SUMPs may build on existing and/or broader plans on local and regional level.

Amendment 8

Article 3(z)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(z)


‘maritime port’ means an area of land and water made up of such infrastructure and equipment so as to permit, principally, the reception of waterborne vessels, their loading and unloading, the storage of goods, the receipt and delivery of those goods and the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, crew and other persons and any other infrastructure necessary for transport operators within the port area;












(z)


‘maritime port’ means an area of land and water made up of such infrastructure and equipment so as to permit, principally, the reception of waterborne vessels, their loading and unloading, the storage of goods, the receipt and delivery of those goods and the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, crew and other persons and any other infrastructure necessary for transport operators within the port area 
and which serves as a gateway for trade, industrial clusters and energy hubs
;









Reason

The regulation should define maritime ports using all the roles their infrastructure plays in order to best meet the challenges they face.

Amendment 9

Article 4(2)(c)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment




 










(viii)






the adaptation of regulatory standards to territorial realities;











Reason

To provide continuity of the network and ensure that it is implemented within the deadlines set out in Article 6 of the regulation, it is essential to adapt the technical measures to the challenges their application may pose in certain regions, particularly those mentioned in recital 26 of the regulation: outermost regions and other remote, insular, peripheral and mountainous regions or in sparsely populated areas, or for isolated or partially isolated networks.

Amendment 10

Article 8(2)(b)






Text proposed by the European Commission


Amendment










(b)


be economically viable on the basis of a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis;












(b)


be economically viable on the basis of a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis 
and the interpretation of viability should also take into account the socioeconomic circumstances of the Member States and the projects’ wider economic impact
;









Reason

In Member States with a lower than average flow of persons and goods, rail projects appear generally unviable when strictly examined using a cost-benefit analysis only. The interpretation of viability should take into account the circumstances and the wider impact of the projects.

Amendment 11

Article 15(3)(b)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(b)


at the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, other exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements referred to in paragraph 2. Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.












(b)


at the request of a Member State, 
a regional authority or group of competent authorities,
 in duly justified cases, other exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements referred to in paragraph 2. Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability 
and contribution to the fight against climate change
. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.









Reason

In order to ensure that the network is implemented effectively within the deadlines set forth in Article 6 of the regulation, the administrative burden should be lifted and the granting of derogations should be facilitated.
Progress in implementing the comprehensive TEN-T network is not sufficient to foresee that all requirements referred to can be met in 2050. This would require a much too significant budgetary mobilisation, as some sections are not adapted to meet certain requirements, such as electrification of all railway lines. It is therefore appropriate to promote the progress of the network and to facilitate the identification of sections where it will be more relevant to adapt the requirements of the regulation.

Amendment 12

Article 16(2)(c)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(c)


allows for a prevailing minimum line speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains on the passenger lines of the extended core network;












(c)


allows for a prevailing minimum 
average
 line speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains on the passenger lines of the extended core network;









Reason

Implementing this technical requirement, which would be much too expensive, does not bring significant added value. It would seem more appropriate to promote a more realistic and efficient approach to ensure punctual completion of the network and to provide network users with efficient and effective connections.

Amendment 13

Article 16(5)(b)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(b)


at the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, other exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4. Any exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.












(b)


at the request of a Member State, 
a regional authority or group of competent authorities,
 in duly justified cases, other exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 to 4. Any exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability 
and contribution to the fight against climate change
. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.









Reason

In order to ensure that the network is implemented effectively within the deadlines set forth in Article 6 of the regulation, the administrative burden should be lifted and the granting of derogations should be facilitated.
Many railway sections of the core network and the extended core network are not suitable for implementing the established requirements. It will not be possible to implement them due to specific geographical constraints or significant physical constraints that prevent them from being put in place or generate additional costs which cannot be justified.

Amendment 14

Article 17(6)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





6.   At the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of requirements referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5. Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.




6.   At the request of a Member State, 
a regional authority or group of competent authorities
, in duly justified cases, other exemptions may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements referred to in paragraph 1 to 5. Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the impact on interoperability. An exemption shall comply with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council, be coordinated and agreed with the neighbouring Member State(s) where applicable.






Reason

The ERTMS cannot be deployed on time on certain sections of the network, particularly given the scale of the investments it would require. In order to ensure that the network is implemented effectively within the deadlines set forth in Article 6 of the regulation, the administrative burden should be lifted and the granting of derogations should be facilitated, as long as they do not affect the interoperability of the network at European level.

Amendment 15

Article 19(g)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(g)


developing innovative alternative fuels technologies for railways, such as hydrogen for sections that are exempted from the electrification requirement.












(g)


developing innovative alternative 
rolling stock and
 fuels technologies for railways, such as hydrogen, biofuels or battery-powered trains
 for sections that are exempted from the electrification requirement.









Reason

Sections exempted from the electrification obligation should be considered spaces for developing innovative technological solutions that contribute to the fight against climate change. To this end, the European Union must adopt a technology-neutral approach to ensure that the technologies developed are more climate-efficient and economically efficient.

Amendment 16

Article 28(1)(a)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment




 










(xi)






pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;











Reason

High-quality road infrastructure for long-distance traffic needs to be accompanied by the development of infrastructure for cycling and walking, especially in urban nodes.

Amendment 17

Article 33(2)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





2.   At the request of a Member State, the Commission may, in duly justified cases, grant exemptions by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements set out in paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c) and (g). Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis or related to the specific geographic or significant physical constraints, including the non-existence of a railway system on the territory.




2.   At the request of a Member State, 
a regional authority or group of competent authorities,
 the Commission may, in duly justified cases, grant exemptions by means of implementing acts in respect of the requirements set out in paragraph 1, points (a), (b), (c) and (g). Any request for exemption shall be based on a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis or related to the specific geographic or significant physical constraints, including the non-existence of a railway system on the territory.






Reason

To provide continuity of the network and ensure that it is implemented within the deadlines set forth in Article 6 of the regulation, it is essential to adapt the technical measures to the challenges their application may pose in certain regions.

Amendment 18

Article 35(3)






Text proposed by the European Commission


Amendment




Member States shall consult shippers, transport and logistics operators which operate on their territory. They shall take into account the results of the consultation in their analysis.


Member States shall consult 
local and regional authorities of urban nodes,
 shippers, transport and logistics operators which operate on their territory. They shall take into account the results of the consultation in their analysis.





Reason

Local and regional authorities have a comprehensive responsibility on multimodal freight terminals and its TEN-T transport infrastructure requirements (art 37) and should therefore be consulted when Member States prepare their action plans for a multimodal freight terminal network.

Amendment 19

Article 37(5)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





5.   At the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, exemptions from the obligations under paragraphs 1 to 4 may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts where investment in infrastructure cannot be justified in socioeconomic cost-benefit terms, in particular when the terminal is located in a spatially restricted area.




5.   At the request of a Member State, in duly justified cases, exemptions from the obligations under paragraphs 1 to 4 may be granted by the Commission by means of implementing acts where investment in infrastructure cannot be justified in socioeconomic cost-benefit terms, in particular when the terminal is located in a spatially restricted area
, especially in urban nodes
. 
Exemptions should also be possible in urban nodes if market demand does not allow the terminal requirements to be met.








Reason

Platforms located in urban nodes (as stated in Article 40) have to deal with very high land pressures and limited space. Their situation makes implementing certain technical requirements laid down in points 1 to 4 of this Article more complicated. In these cases, priority should therefore be given to urban logistics missions whose implementation does not require too much expansion.

Amendment 20

Article 40(b)(ii) and last paragraph






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment






collection and submission to the Commission of urban mobility data per urban node covering at minimum greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, accidents and injuries, modal share and access to mobility service, as well as data on air and noise pollution. Thereafter these data shall be submitted every year;


[…]


The Commission shall adopt, no later than one year after the entry into force of this Regulation an implementing act establishing a methodology for the data to be collected by the Member States referred to under point (ii) of paragraph (b). That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 59(3).






inform the Commission of developments in the implementation of SUMPs on an annual basis;


[…]





Reason

While it is understandable that the Commission wants to put in place thorough monitoring of the implementation of SUMPs, carrying out an annual data collection operation on such a scale seems inappropriate. In addition, compiling them will lead to inflation of studies, which is far too burdensome for local and regional authorities. Care should be taken to ensure that the preparation of SUMPs and related indicators does not create unnecessary administrative burdens for achieving TEN-T objectives. It is therefore suggested to simplify the procedure for monitoring the implementation of SUMPs, while maintaining a duty to provide information on their progress.

Amendment 21

Article 40(d)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(d)


by 31 December 2040: the development of at least one multimodal freight terminal allowing for sufficient transhipment capacity within or in the vicinity of the urban node.












(d)


by 31 December 2040: the development of at least one multimodal freight terminal allowing for sufficient transhipment capacity 
to ensure urban logistics and the last mile
 within or in the vicinity of the urban node.









Reason

It seems risky to prescribe the establishment of multimodal freight terminals without taking into account the traffic dynamics at regional level and responding as well as possible to the needs of businesses while taking into account the land and technical possibilities of the territory. It is therefore suggested to emphasise the urban logistics role of these platforms.

Amendment 22

Article 44(a)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(a)


support and promote the decarbonisation of transport through transition to zero- and low-emission vehicles, vessels and aircraft and other innovative and sustainable transport and network technologies such as hyperloop;












(a)


support and promote the decarbonisation of transport through transition to zero- and low-emission vehicles, vessels
, rolling stock
 and aircraft and other innovative and sustainable transport and network technologies such as hyperloop;









Reason

Technological innovation for all modes of transport should be encouraged in order to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal. Innovations are also possible and desirable in the railway sector, particularly in the sections exempted from the implementation of technical standards.

Amendment 23

Article 44(a)
(new point)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment




 




encourage research and development of green and innovative alternatives in territories exempted from TEN-T technical measures, such as islands and outermost regions;








Reason


If the exemptions granted to certain territories under the regulation or upon request make it possible to ensure the proper implementation of the TEN-T network by adapting to territorial challenges, the emergence of alternative technological or energy solutions should be encouraged by making those territories into innovation laboratories.

Amendment 24

Article 52(2)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





2.   The ‘Corridor Forum’ shall be formally established and chaired by the European Coordinator. The Member States concerned shall agree on the membership of the Corridor Forum for their part of the European Transport Corridor and ensure representation of the rail freight governance.




2.   The ‘Corridor Forum’ shall be formally established and chaired by the European Coordinator. The Member States concerned shall agree on the membership of the Corridor Forum for their part of the European Transport Corridor and ensure representation of the rail freight governance 
as well as regional and local authorities, business and industry, and urban TEN-T nodes
.







Reason


Regional authorities provide a significant share of the co-financing of TEN-T projects and have competences in terms of network planning and management of collective transport services at regional level. They are also an indispensable channel for conveying the mobility needs of the population. They should therefore be fully involved in the governance of the TEN-T corridors.

Amendment 25

Article 52(6)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





6.   The European Coordinator 
may consult regional and
 local authorities, infrastructure managers, transport operators, in particular those which are members of the rail freight governance, the supply industry, transport users and representatives of civil society in relation to the work plan and its implementation. In addition, the European Coordinator responsible for ERTMS shall closely cooperate with the European Union Agency for Railways and Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking and the European Coordinator for the European Maritime Space with the European Maritime Safety Agency.




6.   The European Coordinator 
shall consult
 local authorities, infrastructure managers, transport operators, in particular those which are members of the rail freight governance, the supply industry, transport users and representatives of civil society in relation to the work plan and its implementation. In addition, the European Coordinator responsible for ERTMS shall closely cooperate with the European Union Agency for Railways and Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking and the European Coordinator for the European Maritime Space with the European Maritime Safety Agency.







Reason


The coordinators have all put mechanisms in place for consulting all relevant actors within their scope of action. This has to be taken into account.

Amendment 26

Article 53(2)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment





2.   The work plan shall be prepared in close cooperation with the Member States concerned and in consultation of the Corridor Forum and rail freight governance, or consultative forum of the horizontal priorities. The work plan of the European Transport Corridors shall be approved by the Member States concerned. The Commission shall submit the work plan to the European Parliament and the Council for information.




2.   The work plan shall be prepared in close cooperation with the Member States 
and regional authorities
 concerned and in consultation of the Corridor Forum and rail freight governance, or consultative forum of the horizontal priorities. The work plan of the European Transport Corridors shall be approved by the Member States concerned. The Commission shall submit the work plan to the European Parliament and the Council for information.






Reason

Given their role in implementing the work plan and its impact on their territories, regional authorities must be involved in preparing it.

Amendment 27

Article 56(1)(b)






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment










(b)




exclude
 maritime ports and airports from the comprehensive network, if it is demonstrated that the average of their traffic volume over the last six years is below 85 % of the relevant threshold;












(b)




initiate a monitoring procedure before any exclusion of
 maritime ports and airports from the comprehensive network, if it is demonstrated that the average of their traffic volume over the last six years is below 85 % of the relevant threshold; 
As part of the monitoring procedure, the Commission, in close cooperation with the competent authorities, shall take into account qualitative indicators and any cyclical factors which may explain the decline in infrastructure traffic. Changes in transport volumes due to temporary or exceptional factors shall not justify exclusion from the network;











Reason

Given the investments involved in TEN-T integration and the virtuous cycles it entails, particularly in terms of greening infrastructure, it is considered preferable to avoid the exclusion of seaports or airports from the comprehensive network. However, as the traffic dynamics are constantly evolving, the network needs to remain adaptable. Therefore, rather than exclusions, it is recommended to launch a monitoring procedure allowing for a more detailed assessment of the dynamics in effect at the relevant sea port or airport in order to decide whether or not to exclude it from the network.

Amendment 28

Article 57






Text proposed by the European Commission


CoR amendment






Article 57

Engagement with public and private stakeholders
National procedures regarding the involvement and consultation of regional and local authorities and civil society concerned by a project of common interest shall be complied with
, where appropriate,
 in the planning and construction phase of a project. The Commission shall promote the exchange of good practice in this regard, notably as regards the consultation and inclusion of people in situations of vulnerability.





Article 57

Engagement with public and private stakeholders
National procedures regarding the involvement and consultation of regional and local authorities and civil society concerned by a project of common interest shall be complied with in the planning and construction phase of a project. The Commission shall promote the exchange of good practice in this regard, notably as regards the consultation and inclusion of people in situations of vulnerability.






Reason

Regional and local authorities must be involved when the development of a project of common interest is relevant to them.

Amendment 29

Annex V, point 4






Text proposed by the European Commission


Amendment










4.


Effective functioning of TEN-T: A SUMP should duly take into account the impact of various urban measures on the traffic flows, both passenger and freight, on the trans-European transport network with the aim to ensure seamless transit, bypass, or interconnection through and around the urban nodes, including of zero-emission vehicles. It shall in particular include actions to alleviate congestion, improve road safety and remove bottlenecks affecting the traffic flows on the TEN-T.












4.


Effective functioning of TEN-T: A SUMP should duly take into account the impact of various urban measures on the traffic flows, both passenger and freight, on the trans-European transport network with the aim to ensure seamless transit, bypass, or interconnection through and around the urban nodes, including of zero-emission vehicles. It shall in particular include actions to alleviate congestion, improve road safety and remove bottlenecks affecting the traffic flows on the TEN-T. 
At the same time, TEN-T measures should take into account effects on regional and local traffic flows, both for passengers and freight.











Reason

How regional and local traffic flows for passengers and freight interact with traffic flows on the international TEN-T corridors is a two-way street where the impact of measures should be taken into account mutually to ensure a seamless traffic system with efficient first and last mile connections.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),








1.


supports the general nature of the Commission’s proposal; considers it essential to have a regulation to establish a strategy for planning transport infrastructure at European level. Only this can ensure a satisfactory level of cohesion, coordination and interoperability;












2.


believes that the transnational dimension of the TEN-T network provides strong European added value. Regional and local authorities can attest to the socioeconomic benefits of cross-border projects in their territories;












3.


notes the geopolitical consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the need to address the vulnerability of the European transport system, which is now partly disconnected from the global market, particularly the food market; supports the suspension of European investments under the TEN-T network for projects involving Russia and Belarus, but calls for the development of better rail connections with Ukraine, in particular to promote the transport of essential raw materials. To this end, the planned increase in the CEF budget is welcome;












4.


welcomes the objectives assigned to TEN-T; stresses the importance of the regulation’s contribution to combating climate change, particularly by supporting the development of the most climate-friendly modes of transport; at the same time, stresses the need to ensure that transport infrastructure is adapted to the effects of climate change and to the emergence of new risks;





Territorial cohesion









5.


welcomes the reaffirmation of territorial cohesion as a priority objective of the regulation for the whole core network, extended core network and comprehensive network; notes, therefore, that the TEN-T network follows the recommendation from the 8th Cohesion Report that every EU policy should contribute to European cohesion;












6.


recommends that the Commission define the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle developed in the 8th Cohesion Report, in order to make it possible to monitor how it is applied to TEN-T and in particular to projects of common interest;












7.


believes that the TEN-T must take into account the diversity of challenges facing EU regions. In this regard, welcomes the attention paid to rural, remote, mountainous, sparsely populated, peripheral, island and outermost regions and points out that regions not included in these categories also have to deal with a wide variety of territories and challenges arising in them;












8.


points out that achieving the territorial cohesion objective requires the network as a whole to establish a strong and efficient connection with secondary transport networks beyond the TEN-T framework;












9.


recognises the relevance of common and ambitious technical measures that make it possible to ensure the continuity and interoperability of the network; points out, however, that the diversity of European regions makes it difficult to maintain the timetable for implementing the technical standards laid down in the Commission proposal, in particular the minimum speed, electrification and gauge requirements for railway sections, the implementation of which would require far too much investment;












10.


points out that, alongside the large European transport axes of the core and extended networks, bridging missing links at regional level can also make a significant contribution to the development of cross-border rail connections. By connecting border regions more effectively, Europe will become more integrated in a tangible way and offer citizens the possibility of enjoying climate-friendly, cross-border mobility;





Governance









11.


stresses that regional and local authorities actively contribute to the planning and financing of transport infrastructure in their territories, some of which are part of the TEN-T network, and calls, therefore, for them to be better involved in the TEN-T governance structure, in particular by fully involving them in the corridor forum beyond the mere observer role currently assigned to them;












12.


recognises, however, that, despite these potential improvements, the European Commission’s proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity: the trans-European transport network brings undeniable European added value across the borders of the Member States by aligning the planning efforts of states, regions and cities, particularly through the increased role of urban nodes in the draft regulation;












13.


notes many examples of cross-border sections where implementation is adversely affected by a lack of political attention at national level, a lack of coordination and cumbersome uncoordinated administrative procedures;












14.


calls for the governance of the TEN-T network to be significantly strengthened in order to facilitate its implementation, in particular for missing cross-border links; welcomes, in relation to this, the Commission’s proposals to strengthen the role of coordinators and encourage the coordination of national plans with European policies;












15.


considers that the merging of the core network corridors and the rail freight corridors within the European transport corridors has significantly improved network governance and should lead to better coordination and implementation. Is surprised that the alignment effected by the Commission in its proposal does not cover seaports located on rail freight corridors;





Urban nodes









16.


points out that the sustainability of urban mobility, together with that of long-distance travel, is a key element in achieving the TEN-T objectives, and more broadly those of the European Green Deal;












17.


stresses that the third IPCC report identifies urban development policies, including urban mobility, as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Points out, in this regard, the importance of active mobility, the development of which requires coherent infrastructure across urban nodes;












18.


notes the need to put in place sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs). Is of the view that SUMPs help to strengthen a multilevel governance model by integrating mobility planning and spatial planning strategies at local and regional level within the TEN-T;












19.


notes that for sparsely populated and island regions, an approach that is more tailored to their characteristics should be adopted;












20.


suggests that the criteria for sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) should emphasise flexibility so that these plans can be integrated successfully into existing plans. Urban nodes should not be burdened by large-scale data provision and related procedures. As the number of urban nodes increases, EU funding for such nodes needs to be increased accordingly;





Modes of transport









21.


points out that waterborne and rail transport are climate-friendly modes of transport, and therefore encourages their development within the framework of TEN-T;












22.


welcomes the significant improvements in the management of railway infrastructure, but stresses the efforts still to be made in terms of interoperability and continuity in order to achieve an efficient rail network for freight and passengers at European level;












23.


welcomes the strengthening of the TEN-T maritime pillar and in particular the extension of eligibility for funding to all maritime sections between TEN-T ports, which should facilitate the development of coastal trading in order to encourage a modal shift from road to sea and the connectivity of island and outermost regions;





Financing the TEN-T network









24.


points out that completing the TEN-T network on time is a priority for regional and local authorities, but stresses that the budget of the Connecting Europe Facility is still minuscule in view of the scale of the amounts that need to be mobilised, and regrets that it is impossible for many regions to use structural funds to help fill this funding gap; Furthermore, the assessment of the economic viability of projects of common interest should take into account, in addition to the benefit-cost analysis, the different socioeconomic and geographical circumstances of the Member States, such as distances and traffic volumes, as well as the projects’ wider economic impact. Consideration must also be given to the feasibility of the requirements imposed on the Member States in terms of time and financial conditions;












25.


notes that the third IPCC report recommends encouraging more climate-efficient mobility choices. Regrets, therefore, that there is no mechanism to encourage a modal shift towards the most climate-friendly modes of transport;












26.


stresses the necessity of financial support for maintaining the TEN-T network throughout the project lifecycle and the need to guarantee the long-term sustainability of funding in transport infrastructure;





Action plan to boost long-distance and cross-border passenger rail









27.


is pleased that the action plan encourages the establishment of a uniform European framework and the removal of remaining barriers to cross-border and long-distance rail services;












28.


stresses the key role of night trains in achieving the objectives of the action plan;












29.


believes that in order to promote long-distance and cross-border rail passenger transport, European incentive and funding tools must be developed and a level playing field with air transport must be ensured;












30.


stresses the interest of regional and local authorities in achieving these objectives, and will therefore pay attention to the legislative proposal planned by the Commission to facilitate the use of rail tickets by users.





Brussels, 11 October 2022.


The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO