2.4.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/53

—

supports the European Commission's approach to opening up railway markets, while stressing that the objective is not unbridled competition but competition designed to improve the railway sector's productivity and service to customers. Competition is nevertheless a means and not an end, and should be carried out under conditions that ensure an absolutely level playing field for all railway operators;

—

supports the development of specialised networks (high-speed, freight), but stresses the European cohesion objectives and the need to avoid creating a multi-speed Europe;

—

considers that the future proposal for a common financial framework should be clarified, especially with respect to how it differs from a ‘single fund’, which the Committee of the Regions rejects. A midway solution would be to include in the new Structural Funds regulations an earmarking mechanism for funds allocated to sustainable transport which would give preference to the financing of sections of priority TEN-T projects as well as to urban mobility action plans;

—

in principle, welcomes the link that the Commission has established between noise-differentiated charges for railways and adoption of the ‘Eurovignette’ levy on the internalisation of the external costs for lorry transport;

—

with regard to financing infrastructure, regrets that it is not mandatory for Member States to consult local and regional authorities when developing national rail infrastructure strategies;

—

regrets that the Commission does not make any binding legislative commitments regarding the total separation of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings.

Rapporteur

:

Mr Michel Delebarre (FR/PES), Mayor of Dunkirk

Reference document

:

Communication from the Commission concerning the development of a Single European Railway Area

COM(2010) 474 final

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area

COM(2010) 475 final

1.

supports the European Commission's approach to opening up railway markets, while stressing that the objective is not unbridled competition but competition designed to improve the railway sector's productivity and service to customers. Competition is nevertheless a means and not an end, and should be carried out under conditions that ensure an absolutely level playing field for all railway operators;

2.

reaffirms its support for improving the interoperability and safety of EU railway systems, and for removing any legal and/or infrastructure-related obstacles hindering rail transport between Member States. These should be the priority focus of Community rail transport policies, in order to develop transnational transport between the Member States and help achieve a real single market. The European Railway Agency's role should be geared to implementing these priorities; furthermore, the European Railway Agency should have the power to mediate and, if need be, to substitute the Member States' national safety authorities in certification disputes;

3.

is in favour of applying the Polluter Pays Principle and external cost internalisation to all modes of transport in order to create a genuinely level playing field;

4.

supports the development of specialised networks (high-speed, freight), but stresses the European cohesion objectives and the need to avoid creating a multi-speed Europe. The Community institutions must therefore ensure that freight corridors in regions that are peripheral in comparison with core European areas are not marginalised and are strengthened, thereby providing a level playing field, and real and effective single market cohesion;

5.

supports the idea of harnessing appropriate resources for developing the rail infrastructure;

6.

considers that the future proposal for a common financial framework should be clarified, especially with respect to how it differs from a ‘single fund’, which the Committee of the Regions rejects. Indeed, the Committee is opposed to the establishment of a single fund which, relying mainly on resources allocated under the Cohesion Fund, would group together all the EU financial instruments used to fund transport infrastructure. Not only could the ‘transfer’ of funds result in a net loss of resources allocated to transport policy, but it could also call into question the integration of transport projects in regionalised development strategies; a midway solution would be to include in the new Structural Funds regulations an earmarking mechanism for funds allocated to sustainable transport which would give preference to the financing of sections of priority TEN-T projects as well as to urban mobility action plans;

7.

with regard to exclusions from the scope of application of the law (Article 2), points out that the Commission has retained the exclusion of railway undertakings which only operate urban, suburban or regional services (Article 2) and that this exclusion is consistent with the regulation on public service obligations for rail passenger transport as it currently stands;

8.

recognises that regional railways make a substantial contribution to local and regional development, enhancing the attractiveness of Europe's regions, strengthening sustainable freight transport, promoting more environment-friendly tourism and creating new employment opportunities;

9.

with regard to railway services (Article 13, Annex III), welcomes the fact that the use of electrical supply equipment for traction current and refuelling facilities have been included as part of a minimum access package in order to ensure non-discriminatory access to these essential services. It is important in managing infrastructure to ensure that electrical supply is adequate for expected volumes of traffic and to encourage the use of traction energy sources with a low environmental impact;

10.

welcomes the mandatory separation between the operator holding the dominant position and the operator of service facilities for the services listed in Annex III. This separation will facilitate the development of local and even international railway markets;

11.

welcomes the inclusion of port facilities linked to rail activities among the service facilities for which more transparent and open access is required;

12.

would like a more precise definition of the viable alternatives that would allow an operator of service facilities to deny access if a similar service existed ‘on the same route under economically acceptable conditions’;

13.

believes that the regulatory body should be in a position to determine the allocation of capacity for railway services;

14.

calls for an addition to Article 47(5) giving seaport hinterland traffic the same basic status as international freight services;

15.

believes that service facilities should be subject to a ‘use it or lose it’ policy (obligation to publish a call for tenders to find a new operator) as soon as there is any intention to close operations. Likewise, maintenance and technical facilities introduced for specific rolling stock should not be reserved for a particular user for five years;

16.

with regard to freight train noise (Article 31(5) and Annex VIII), notes that noise is the environmental Achilles heel of rail transport. It is a source of numerous complaints from people living along railway lines;

17.

confirms that equipping wagons with ‘silent’ brake blocks is the most effective way to fight rail noise. Funding and technical specifications for this equipment nevertheless present a problem;

18.

welcomes in principle the link that the Commission has established between noise-differentiated charges for railways and adoption of the ‘Eurovignette’ levy on the internalisation of the external costs for lorry transport, but points out that, under the current proposal, charging for external noise costs is compulsory for rail and optional for road, which could lead to distortions of competition;

19.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to make it an obligation to apply charges as incentives to reduce rail noise but regrets that this obligation is not made contingent upon a similar obligation for road freight transport; furthermore considers it necessary to ensure that low-noise rolling stock is not permanently subject to a heavy administrative procedure. Once the noise reduction target has been reached and there is no significant further public benefit to continuing the procedure, any system of noise-differentiated infrastructure charges should be adapted to a given situation, or done away with altogether;

20.

with regard to financing infrastructure (Article 8, Article 30, Annex VII), regrets that it is not mandatory for Member States to consult local and regional authorities when developing national rail infrastructure strategies. These authorities could also devise local rail infrastructure strategies covering a minimum five-year period;

21.

is in favour of adopting mandatory multi-annual contracts between states and infrastructure managers to fund the maintenance and renewal of railway tracks. It must, however, be insured that the relevant Member State remains responsible for decisions on the public interest relating to the infrastructure and its required characteristics;

22.

regrets, however, that local and regional authorities are not explicitly involved in negotiating these agreements, which will have a strong impact on their rail networks;

23.

with regard to authorised applicants (Article 3(12), Article 44), welcomes the fact that the concept of authorised applicants has been broadened. Entities that are not licensed railway undertakings, such as shippers or ports, will find it easier to reserve train paths. This should also allow the development of short rail freight operators;

24.

with regard to opening up markets and regulation, is generally in favour of measures to strengthen the regulatory body's role in order to enable it to improve its monitoring of non-discriminatory access to railway markets and provide incentives for infrastructure managers to deliver services efficiently. This also means retaining the option for Member States to introduce such incentives through regulatory measures. Bearing in mind the increasingly multinational nature of the challenges facing the railway sector, the establishment of a European regulatory body should be considered, fully respecting the subsidiarity principle and the remits of national regulators, for matters that concern several Member States; the Commission could initially set up a European committee of railway regulators that would settle national network regulation disputes at the appeal stage, and which would have access to legal procedures to enforce the implementation of its decisions by Member States; also believes that the Commission should take more active steps to introduce a common management terminology, common working rules and a common traffic management system in order to improve traffic efficiency;

25.

regrets that the Commission does not make any binding legislative commitments regarding the total separation of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. Indeed, such separation gives better assurances of non-discriminatory access to infrastructure by avoiding conflicts of interest between the manager of a natural monopoly and one of its users. There is also a need for clear guidelines on who is responsible for access to the network, and to platforms, terminals and other infrastructure;

26.

emphasises that the total separation of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings must under no circumstances call into question the principle set out in Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, according to which ‘[t]he Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’;

27.

with regard to transparency and pricing, welcomes the greater separation of accounts for freight and passenger services and for infrastructure management and transport services (Article 6);

28.

notes that the performance schemes and performance improvement systems (nevertheless already compulsory) for ascertaining responsibility for train delays are still not properly in place in the European Union;

29.

is nevertheless uncertain about the appropriate level of detail regarding the causes for delays listed in Annex VIII; suggests beginning by setting up compulsory performance improvement schemes geared to the needs and resources of each infrastructure manager;

30.

welcomes the additions to the network statements, especially with regard to rail-related services (Article 27, Article 56(2));

31.

with regard to delegated acts, notes that the European Commission has suggested that it be granted significant powers, considering that most of the annexes to its proposal may be amended by delegated acts (Article 60). These annexes nevertheless contain ‘fundamental’ aspects of the railway regulatory framework.