27.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/150

—

points out that European transport policy should promote accessibility to the single market and sustainable development for all EU regions, together with the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European continent;

—

approves the regulatory approach proposed by the European Commission based on a dual-layer transport network, organised around 10 corridors and 30 priority projects;

—

approves the priority given to interoperability and intermodality and to missing links and bottlenecks;

—

is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport and smart traffic management;

—

stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects and calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’;

—

stresses the responsibilities of the local and regional levels in decision-making, planning and financing;

—

advocates making the presence of local and regional authorities in corridor platforms compulsory and calls for ‘programme contracts’ to be signed between the EU, each Member State and the regions concerned;

—

supports the principle of funding the core network with the Connecting Europe Facility and calls for the creation of new forms of European funding such as European bonds;

—

wishes to see the introduction of European transport taxation based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport.

Rapporteur

Bernard SOULAGE (FR/PES), Vice-president of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network

COM(2011) 650 final

1.

welcomes the European Commission's willingness to speed up deployment of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), whose achievements after 20 years appear to be mixed in terms of the ambitious and fundamental objectives it was set;

2.

supports the objectives of the European transport policy and the role given to TEN-T, which should promote, in particular:

3.

shares the European Commission's analysis that, despite the major advances made in establishing a trans-European transport network, the current infrastructure is still too fragmented, both geographically and between transport modes; this problem is even more acute in areas suffering from physical barriers, such as islands, mountainous areas and outlying areas;

4.

considers that the proposed transport policy should more explicitly integrate the more general objectives established in the European Union under the Europe 2020 strategy and encourage greater social and territorial cohesion in the whole of the European Union;

5.

shares the proactive, multimodal and pragmatic approach adopted by the European Commission which is based on scheduling investments to reflect a dual-layer transport network:

6.

would like to see the regional and local authorities being able to participate fully in preparing and implementing the proposed actions adopted as part of the TEN-T programming;

7.

wonders what funding can actually be mobilised for effecting the selected investments to strengthen cohesion and development throughout Europe, given the tight budgetary constraints currently straining the public finances of the Member States and regional and local authorities;

8.

welcomes the European Commission's choice of proposing a regulation with direct application. This option appears to be:

9.

approves the priority given to interoperability under the new regulatory framework. This provides a real opportunity for integrating the European transport system by encouraging the implementation of standards and procedures common to all European actors. Moreover, the Committee wishes to give intermodality a key role in creating any transport infrastructure, both freight and passenger (Article 34) to facilitate the continuity of traffic flows as far as possible and to make the concept of the transport chain a reality. Numerous improvements are possible, particularly for passengers, in terms of integrated ticketing, clearer timetables and better synchronised connections, and, for freight transport, in terms of reliability and high-quality services;

10.

supports the European Commission in the choice and wish to create the TEN-T network, whilst ensuring implementation of the current priorities: thirty priority projects and the horizontal priorities aimed at developing traffic management tools in favour of interoperability and also calls on the European Commission, with respect to the projects previously termed priority, to take account of the work already undertaken on the ground in order to properly maintain continuity and European involvement;

11.

is pleased that the infrastructure projects are based on the existing networks, whilst efforts are being made to improve and interconnect them (Article 7). The selected projects can thus create new transport infrastructures, but also maintain, repair and upgrade existing transport infrastructures and promote the most resource-efficient use;

12.

welcomes the fact that the projects selected for the TEN-T network are based on the principle of common interest (Article 7):

13.

welcomes the transversal actions deployed in favour of smart traffic management by promoting the ERTMS system for rail transport, SESAR for air transport, IFS for inland navigation, ITS for road transport and the Galileo European system for positioning and navigation, to encourage interoperability, an essential requirement for creating an extensive single European transport market;

14.

is still in favour of the idea of a ‘blue belt’, has doubts about the real importance the Commission has given to the principle of the motorways of the sea (Article 25) because of their very minor role in the ten corridors, and feels that maritime transport has not been taken sufficiently into account in the European Commission's draft guidelines;

15.

questions the Commission's and the Member States' real willingness to change demand for mobility as opposed to continually satisfying the growth in such demand;

16.

endorses the principle whereby this network should become the ‘circulatory system’ of the single market, enabling passengers and goods to move unimpeded throughout the Union, with the aim of ensuring that the majority of businesses and individuals are no more than a thirty-minute journey away from the comprehensive network by 2050;

17.

encourages the efforts made in favour of rail transport; there are numerous economic, financial and ecological reasons to support this priority;

18.

questions the effectiveness of covering the whole of the European Union's territory in line with the principle of territorial cohesion and the possibility opened up by the establishment of the core network of becoming the benchmark for regional development at European level;

19.

reiterates how much maintaining the comprehensive network is the only way for the peripheral regions without priority projects to benefit from transport infrastructure financed by the European Union, thereby ensuring that all regions are accessible;

20.

suggests that efforts be made to improve transport links to and within the island, outermost and mountain regions;

21.

supports the Commission initiative to have in place very soon (by 2030 at the latest) a strategic network generating significant European added value, particularly in terms of the growth and employment targets set out in the strategy Europe 2020:for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

22.

welcomes the importance placed on the concept of ‘multimodal corridors’, aimed at facilitating the coordinated implementation of the core network, based on the principles of modal integration, interoperability, and coordinated and effective resource management (Article 48); is disappointed that motorways of the sea have only been given a limited role to play in the proposed corridors;

23.

backs the Commission's choice of ten corridors marking the core network's priority routes and the methodology chosen for defining the core network and supports the Commission's choice to concentrate funding on the cross-border projects offering significant European added value, at least for the period 2014–2020;

24.

endorses the principle of giving responsibility for each corridor to a ‘European coordinator’ (Article 51) who will act in the name and on behalf of the Commission with a view to ensuring that the EU's interest is upheld, by overseeing the planned activities in order to respect the schedules and funding arrangements laid down, and reporting on the progress made and any possible difficulties encountered, working on the principle of consulting all the stakeholders involved;

25.

welcomes the importance placed on the ‘core network nodes’ (Article 47) with a view to achieving intermodality, but suggests adding further details and providing a broader definition for the concept of ‘urban nodes’, so as to include the relevant logistical and port areas (Article 3(o));

26.

feels that the core network should not only better integrate ports which play a key role in Member States' exports and imports but which are located outside urban nodes, but should also develop the infrastructure for connections with third countries – particularly accession candidate countries – by improving land-based synergies with the motorways of the sea;

27.

is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport;

28.

feels that regional and local authorities, acting jointly with the European Union, should support collective modes of transport in general and public transport in particular, and implement proper urban mobility plans to reduce city centre congestion;

29.

also feels that freight and passenger transport have quite distinct needs; separate management could ensure more efficient operation of these two areas;

30.

welcomes measures in favour of smart traffic management (ERTMS, SESAR, IFS, SafeSeaNet, ITS), which are essential for securing an integrated European transport system;

31.

stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects because it alone, in association with the other European institutions and bodies, can guarantee the European added value and consistency between all the projects across the whole of the European continent in order to create a truly European network that goes beyond merely interconnecting national infrastructures;

32.

notes that the regulation meets the subsidiarity principle and gives the EU the option of taking appropriate measures to implement what cannot be undertaken in a satisfactory manner at national and sub-national levels;

33.

endorses the tool for monitoring the activities undertaken by each country for the TEN-T network, which enables the Commission to be constantly updated by the Member States on progress in implementing projects of common interest and the investments approved for this purpose. The Committee also endorses the principle that the Commission publish a progress report every two years for submission to all the relevant EU bodies, as well as the option granted to the Commission to adopt delegated acts to take account of possible changes resulting from the quantitative threshold (Article 54);

34.

views as a positive step forward the governance principle chosen for the corridors(Article 52), which gives responsibility for governance to a ‘European coordinator’, the methods for his/her selection (Article 51(2)), the list of his/her responsibilities (Article 51(5)) and the option given to the Commission to adopt implementing decisions relating to the core network corridors (Article 53(3));

35.

nevertheless, in order to ensure that the projects included in the corridor are seamlessly taken forward, calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’, who must be able not only to mediate in the event of conflict, but also alert the Commission and the Parliament if he/she deems that something is preventing a project from progressing smoothly (Article 51(5)(b));

36.

welcomes the creation of corridor platforms and their remit of setting the general objectives and preparing and monitoring the corridor deployment measures (Article 52), but is surprised by the absence of local and regional authorities from the governance of core network corridors (Article 52) and advocates making their presence in corridor platforms compulsory. The reason for this proposal lies in the broad responsibilities entrusted to the corridor platform and the tasks and responsibilities of the local and regional authorities as key transport policy stakeholders, often major co-financers and repositories of a democratic legitimacy likely to help ensure that projects are undertaken;

37.

stresses the need for including cities and regions in defining trans-European transport networks and their priorities, so as to take account of each region's specific conditions; moreover, emphasises how much the local and regional levels must contribute to the initiatives planned for transport in terms of decision-making, planning and financing, particularly to ensure coordination with the local and regional development plans;

38.

wonders about the place given to cooperation with the regions concerned in establishing the corridor projects and recommends that cooperation with regional stakeholders should be part of the remit of the corridor platforms and be based largely on regional authorities' know-how in these matters. Hence the period of six months stipulated for drawing up the corridor development plans does not seem consistent with holding a proper cooperation and consultation process (Article 53);

39.

calls for the ‘programme contracts’, along the lines of the ‘territorial pacts’, to be signed between the European Union, each Member State and the regions concerned, setting out their reciprocal commitments relating to financing and the completion timetable; these contracts should not only cover the infrastructures making up the TEN-T, but also the secondary infrastructures that the countries and regions would undertake to build to ensure the smooth operation of the main networks;

40.

is aware of the strategic importance that the TEN-T network represents for the EU's vitality and the considerable financial effort involved in its completion; therefore calls for recourse to a European loan which, going well beyond the European Commission's proposal to create ‘project bonds’ to finance the EU's transport infrastructures, would make it possible to invest massively in the European transport system, which is absolutely essential for Europe's competitiveness, for attaining the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy (particularly the environmental goals) and for re-launching the European economy during this crisis period;

41.

is concerned about the level of funding ultimately adopted by the Council and the European Parliament as part of the EU's next multi-annual financial framework. The current budget difficulties should not result in the EU giving up its ambitions for these projects, which are building blocks for the future, as this would be detrimental in the long run;

42.

points out to what extent these huge investments in TEN-T call for strong and unwavering political will at the very highest level;

43.

stresses the need for giving financial priority to missing links (particularly the cross-border links) and bottlenecks;

44.

welcomes the level of European co-financing, which is generally up to a maximum of 20 % for work on the core network, up to 40 % for cross-border rail and inland waterway projects, up to 50 % of the costs for studies and up to 50 % for intelligent transport systems and for Member States in the transitional phase;

45.

points out the major contribution by many regional and local authorities to funding the TEN-T in addition to the funding from Member States and the European Union, which fully justifies their active participation in drawing up and implementing infrastructure projects;

46.

believes that when it comes to implementing very large projects, the European contribution should be contractualised as part of global financial plans. This is not possible under current procedures for allocating European subsidies, which are limited to a budgetary period of seven years (less than the completion period for very large projects);

47.

supports the principle of funding the core network from an infrastructure fund, and the comprehensive network from other national and regional resources, including the ERDF; nevertheless, points out that cohesion policy pursues its own objectives and that financing the comprehensive network as part of the integrated development strategies drawn up at regional level should under no circumstances lead to cohesion policy being implemented on a sectoral basis;

48.

wonders about the impact this regulation might have on regional and local authorities, and particularly on the funding they are allocating for co-financing TEN-T infrastructures. This impact has yet to be ascertained and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

49.

supports the principle of using new sources of funding to speed up implementation of TEN-T activities, spread the risks and secure more private investment, but points out that these new funding sources should in no way replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it;

50.

is in favour, to a certain extent, of expanding public/private partnerships (PPP), since they have the advantage of increasing funding transparency and helping stakeholders to keep to infrastructure completion deadlines; nevertheless, points out that PPPs are not the solution to every problem and stresses the need to be alert to the question of infrastructure ownership in the context of a PPP initiative;

51.

advocates the swift introduction of transport taxation at European level, based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport by means of a harmonised tax system whose revenues would then be allocated for creating more sustainable transport infrastructures (e.g. Eurovignette);

52.

calls for the role of the European Investment Bank not to be overlooked. Each year it finances transport-related projects to the tune of EUR 10 billion and remains a sound investment source for the most complex projects.;

53.

supports the new Union funding instrument, the Connecting Europe Facility, intended to finance priority European infrastructures, particularly in transport, energy and digital broadband, and welcomes its major leverage effect;