Date: 2009-04-21
− Mr President, since the trans-European transport network policy was established 15 years ago, it has contributed significantly to the functioning of the internal market and to economic, social and territorial cohesion. It now needs to be adjusted to new challenges. The green paper on the TEN-T policy review addresses these challenges and proposes measures to tackle them at both the network planning and the project implementation stages. The Commission appreciates very much that the European Parliament is following this revision process from the outset, as reflected in this resolution. This underlines the determination of both institutions to develop a future-oriented TEN-T policy. There is a high degree of conformity between our proposals and the objectives and calls set out in Ms Lichtenberger's report as adopted by the Committee on Transport: that is, a more integrated and coherent network approach is necessary, in which intermodal connections such as rail connections to ports and airports and intermodal terminals, the link between long-distance and urban transport systems as well as interoperability must be strengthened so as to improve the basis for efficient, safe and high-quality services for passengers and for freight transport. The Commission also shares the view set out in the report that in particular in the freight sector it is vital to facilitate co-modal chains in which waterborne and rail transport play an important role and intelligent transport systems help to optimise infrastructure use. In the draft report, the Transport Committee has chosen option three, a dual layer consisting of a core and a comprehensive network. By supporting this option, Parliament confirms the need to combine traditional transport infrastructure policy with an appropriate consideration of new conditions and circumstances; the need for more flexibility and responsiveness to changing situations and more openness for the identification and support of infrastructure measures resulting for transport service requirements; and the economic and environmental challenge to promote a coordinated improvement of transport corridors through a series of small infrastructures and ITS projects. We note that, after the vote on the draft report by the Transport Committee, an alternative resolution has been proposed which supports option two, a single-layer network with priority projects or a priority network only, and therefore without a comprehensive network. This is, as we see it, in contradiction with some other points of the draft resolution. I would also like to recall on this occasion the advantages and disadvantages of the comprehensive network. While being too large to allow for clear priority-setting and the focus of Community instruments to stimulate its implementation, it contributes to ensuring the TEN-T access function and to facilitating cohesion. It has also proved to be vital as a reference framework for various transport policy actions and legislation: in particular, interoperability in the railway sector and road safety. Elimination of the comprehensive network would therefore have some perverse effects. On the network implementation side, we fully agree with the view set out in the report that Member States have a crucial role in deciding, planning and financing transport infrastructure. Sufficient financial resources are needed under the TEN-T budget and coordination of territorial development objectives and TEN-T policy need to be enforced, whereas public/private partnerships have to be further promoted. The Commission also underlines that TEN-T investment is key to sustainable economic development and thus is an essential way of helping to overcome the current crisis. To conclude, we are very grateful for the motion for a resolution on the future of the trans-European transport networks policy. We would like to thank the Transport Committee for its constructive debate on it, and in particular Ms Lichtenberger for her comprehensive work. It will constitute a valuable contribution to the next steps of the process in the debates with the other institutions.