DOCSLIB.ORG

CPMR Comments and Proposals on the European Commission's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CPMR Comments and Proposals on the European Commission's CPMR comments and proposals on the European Commission’s proposal dated 1st October 2003 concerning revision of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Note for the Political Bureau, draft, 15 December 2003 1 - THE CONTEXT The proposal for a revision of the TEN-T has been published almost three months to the day after publication of the conclusions of the Van Miert Group (VMG), which comprised high level representatives of the 25 national transport ministers. It identifies 29 major European projects to be completed by 2020. The speed with which this has been done bears witness to the Commission’s laudable concern not to prolong the process of revising the 1996 guidelines any further, as it has already suffered from too many setbacks and delays. On the other hand, the short time span and the high degree of convergence between the “ministers’ report” and the Commission’s proposal raise a number of concerns about: - the lack of time given, over the summer period, to allow other European players to carry out a detailed assessment of the ministerial proposals and to draw up well-argued counter proposals; - whether the Commission can really have taken account of the qualified opinions that have nonetheless been expressed during the three-month period; - lastly, and most importantly, how far the Commission took account of the results of the studies it paid a consortium of experts to produce, with recommendations on how to introduce more territorial consistency and greater consideration of sustainability in the TEN-T (the TEN-STAC project). However, the results of this work, which are now in the hands of the Council of Transport Ministers and the European Parliament, do have the merit of being clear. They come at the very time when there is a convergence of opinions (between the Italian presidency of the EU, the Commission’s President, groups of Member States, etc.) on the need to launch a major European growth initiative. The CPMR has taken stock of events concerning this matter over recent weeks, namely: - on 11 November 2003, the Commission’s publication of the a list of quick-start projects, in the context of the European Initiative for Growth. This covered 30 transfrontier sections which may feasibly be launched within three years, including the 29 priority ones listed in the proposal made on 1 October. The list includes sea motorways; - at its meeting on 25 November 2003, the ECOFIN Council’s opposition to allowing the level of co- funding by the TEN-T budget for the transfrontier sections of projects to go up from 10% to 30%. On the other hand, ECOFIN did give its agreement to a level of 20%, which was confirmed by the European Council on 12 December; - at its meeting on 5 December 2003, the Transport Council’s unanimous approval of the list of 29 priority projects, to which it added the Seine/Escaut rivers link. A list of 30 priority projects is now being proposed for a second reading by the European Parliament; - the decision taken at the same Transport Council meeting to reduce the duration and rate of community co-funding for sea motorways (see the CPMR’s reaction to this alteration in Part 3 of this note) - on 12 December 2003, the European Council’s encouragement for launching the 30 priority projects, and for speeding up work in order to ensure the Transport Council’s agreement on the new Eurovignette directive by March 2004. This should help to finance infrastructure projects by promoting greater user of tolls and other road user charges. Over and above its comments on the methods for preparing the Commission’s proposal and on the selection criteria used, and following an internal consultation process and identification of priorities, the CPMR and its geographical commissions are using this document to propose their ‘alternative list’ of priority corridors (see Part 4). They will draw on this document over coming weeks when contributing to the public debate which is going on in parallel to the co-decision process (meetings with the rapporteur designated by the European Parliament and transport ministers, development of a partnership with the Committee of the Regions, etc.). 2 – GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE ‘PHILOSOPHY’ OF THE PROPOSAL The following remarks are based on the principles which the CPMR has established on various occasions since October 2001 (when the Commission made its first proposal for revising the TEN-T, which was ultimately rejected by the Council). These principles were made explicit in the Naples Declaration, which was adopted by the Political Bureau on 21 July 2003. On first analysis, this proposal for a revision of the TEN-T seems to be more in line with a somewhat ‘ancient’ era of European integration which we thought had ended: - the intergovernmental method displays a lack of community added value. Transport ministers agree on a European map of infrastructure which is acceptable in budgetary terms. In the way it has been drawn up, the new TEN-T retains the same flaw as its predecessor, and this is likely to remain the case for as long as this policy is not rated as a shared competence: it continues to represent the addition, albeit coordinated, of national priorities; - insufficient consideration of territorial cohesion and the Regions which can help to promote it and bring it about As long as it lacks real community added value, the proposed TEN-T cannot truly aspire to be a response to the objectives set out in the current Treaty, and even less does it fulfil the ambition of territorial cohesion, which is expected to be included in the forthcoming constitution; - good intentions on coordination between States, but here again, the Regions are forgotten, and we know that it is the latter who are developing links in this area, because they are more advanced in the terms of transnational cooperation (notably thanks to achievements under Interreg); - equally virtuous intentions to break with the shocking lack of coherence between the different community instruments which co-finance transport infrastructure. Without formal obligations, what would prevent the directorate-generals concerned from ignoring each other, or transport ministries from losing interest in Interreg (for example)? - Concerning sea motorways, a high level of priority is given to avoiding distortions in competition, which will hamper the success of the initiative in maritime areas which are ‘less profitable’ for transport operators. If care is not taken, this new instrument could ultimately reinforce the dominant position of big ports located at the heart of current shipping routes. - Lastly, this document remains tainted by a lack of imagination, with the exception of sea motorways, which are a major innovation; The TEN-T is of course just one part of community transport policy, but scrutiny of this proposed revision gives an impression that the Commission has not tabled a major contribution in line with the major objective of its 2001 white paper, which was to ensure that by 2010 the share of maritime and rail transport would stabilised at its 1998 level. 2 Lastly, how can the matter of infrastructure projects be dealt with without tacking the issue of how they can be funded by changes in pricing? The Commission’s proposal for modifying the Eurovignette directive, which it published in July 2003, is not on its own sufficient. Even though this is not the subject of this note, the CPMR is worried about the European Union’s delay in legislating in this area, when toll charging initiatives are being introduced by some Member States. Can one really imagine a massive change in haulage companies’ habits, which would entail them putting their lorries on ferries using the sea motorways, without imposing strong financial constraints in the form of discouraging road tolls? If nothing is done in this area, Regions in transit areas would, at their own initiative, start imposing their own tolls. Would this be desirable if it was done illegally in terms of community law? 3 – SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE GUIDELINES Priority projects for an enlarged Union: a selective methodology The Commission based itself on the two types of selection criteria used by the VMG: - a restrictive criteria, which could be described as being based on budgetary realism. Only ‘mature’ projects, which Member States intend to start work on before 2010, should be taken into account; - among such projects, preference should be given to those which demonstrate “their added value in facilitating the mobility of goods and people between the Member States”, “their contribution to territorial cohesion” and “their contribution to sustainable development of transport”. While the Commission points out that the VGM “has proved the worth of this methodology”, this does not mean that it cannot be contested. For its part, the CPMR would have added the criteria of contributing to balanced development across the Union’s territory, and would have given more importance to the sustainability and accessibility criteria. Tomorrow’s infrastructure projects should not only and essentially be those which respond to current congestion problems or those which are likely to emerge in an enlarged Union. All transport and regional development economists know that, to a certain extent: – the availability of infrastructure and services of course reflects current mobility needs, but it also has an impact on future flows. The improvement of accessibility between two centres of activity generates new flows between them, or increases flows which were previously smaller due to structural reasons (for example, “the high speed train effect”, the expected impact of sea motorways, etc); – infrastructure projects stimulate economic development and therefore contribute to a redistribution of the balance between Regions over the long term. Priority projects for an enlarged Union: a limited number of new projects The notion of a ‘limited number’ should be considered with caution, due to the fact that a list of 30 projects (29+1), including the 11 of the 14 uncompleted Essen projects, will happen in a budgetary context which will continue to be characterised by the scarcity of resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tren-2003-01588-07-00-En-Tra
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 1 October 2003 COM (2003) 564 final Amended proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending the amended proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty EN EN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. Introduction and summary ........................................................................................... 3 2. Priority projects for an enlarged Union........................................................................ 4 2.1. A selective methodology.............................................................................................. 5 2.2. A limited number of new projects................................................................................ 5 2.3 Declaration of European interest.................................................................................. 6 3. The mechanism for supporting motorways of the sea ................................................. 7 4. Increased coordination between Member States.......................................................... 9 4.1. European coordinators for individual projects or groups of projects......................... 10 4.2. Coordinated procedures prior to the authorisation of projects................................... 11 5. Components of impact assessment ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Motorways of the Sea – from Concept to Implementation Within the Baltic Sea Area
    Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7/8.2012 381 Motorways of the sea – from concept Maciej Matczak to implementation within the Baltic Sea area 1 The concept of Motorways van Miert Report) in 2003. The Report con- of the Sea sidered the concept as one of the eighteen new infrastructure projects in the European A free movement of commodities, citizens Union. The fact that the Report defines four and financial resources are pillars of the main areas of concept implementation is European Union. For that reason, an ef- also of great significance. The four main ar- ficient and effective transport system is a eas are as follows (High Level Group TEN-T necessary element for the functioning and 2003): development of the EU. A variety of geogra- (1) Motorway of the Baltic Sea phical and special structures of cargo flows as well as environmental concerns require (2) Motorways of the Sea of Western Europe modern and friendly transport and logistics (leading from the Iberian peninsula via the solutions for Europe. The Motorways of the Atlantic Arc to the North Sea and the Irish Sea (MoS) concept aims at introducing new Sea) intermodal maritime-based logistics chains (3) Motorways of the Sea of South-East Eu- in the EU. These chains should be more rope (connecting the Adriatic Sea with the sustainable and more efficient in commer- Ionian Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean cial terms than road transport. including Cyprus) The qualification “motorways of the sea” (4) Motorways of the Sea of South-West Eu- was for the first time defined in the White rope (Western Mediterranean) connecting Paper “European transport policy for 2010: Spain, France, Italy including Malta and time to decide” (European Commission linking the Motorways of the Sea to South- 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • EIB Financing of the Trans-European Networks
    Sectoral brochure European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank EIB financing of the Trans-European Networks European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank • European Investment Bank EIB support for TENs The need to provide freedom of movement of goods, persons, energy and information underpins the fundamental developmental and integra- tion aims of the European Union (EU). At the heart of European policy, the expansion of the Trans-European Transport and Energy Networks (TENs) remains a key objective for the European Investment Bank (EIB), alongside other lending priorities, such as reinforcing economic and social cohesion in the EU, supporting EU energy objectives, forging links with EU partner countries and protecting the environment. European transport networks European policy aims to build an inte- grated network of basic transport infra- structure, transforming the networks built under national considerations into an efficient and sustainable Europe-wide infrastructure system. This network of motorways, railways, waterways, ports and airports is intended to link the 27 Member States to one another and with the countries of the European Neigh- bourhood. Capacity problems and consequent con- gestion along long-distance routes in the EU are restraining factors for both trade and mobility. Better use of existing infra- structure is paramount in order to reduce Transport Networks (TEN-T) is the need to area that will be supported by EU exter- mounting costs and contain the environ- integrate the poorly endowed transport nal policy, the EU has identified 30 pri- mental impact of transport.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Towards the North Sea-Baltic Corridor Work Plan
    1. Towards the North Sea-Baltic Corridor work plan Background Transport is a vital element of European integration and smooth and effective cross border transport is a key element in the effectiveness of the Single Market and the creation of jobs and growth. Moreover, the construction of new transport infrastructure can provide many of those jobs. Similar to the environment, transport is a policy that is easily understood and can find support among the citizens of Europe at a time when the concept of European integration is under heavier criticism than ever before. Transport clearly requires cooperation between Member States on policies created by the Union to facilitate the smooth transit of goods, services and people throughout the European Union (EU) for the benefit of all its citizens. In 1994 the EU initiated the trans-European transport network policy. In the first years, the policy concentrated on supporting 30 priority projects across the EU. With the reform of the TEN-T guidelines in the years before 2014 the concept of a dual layer structure was introduced, consisting of a comprehensive network and a core network based on a common and transparent methodology. Regulation No 1315/2013 of 11 December 2013 established the core network through nine core network corridors involving all the member states and covering the whole of the enlarged EU. The core network corridors enable the Member States to achieve a coordinated and synchronised approach with regard to investment in infrastructure, so as to manage capacities in the most efficient way. It should be multimodal; that is to say it should include all transport modes and their connections as well as relevant traffic and information management systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Project Contribution to the Common European Transport Space
    Individual project contribution to the Common european transport space Papadimitriou, Stratos Chlomoudis, Costas Koliousis, Ioannis Department of Maritime Studies University of Piraeus Today’s agenda .Introduction –the general context .A single European Transport Area .The Connecting Europe Facility .The Corridors: Introduction and how these contribute to the general concept .Q+A Introduction . The transport industry is globalized (in terms of functional, business and regulatory terms) . But also has local issues to address (administrative procedures, customs, taxation, immigration, safety and security, waste, health protection,…) . EU has a vision to automate, improve and upgrade the industry A single European transport area 1. A true internal market for rail services 2. Completion of the single European sky 3. Capacity and quality of airports 4. A framework for inland navigation 5. Road freight issues 6. Multimodal transport of goods: e‐Freight Create the appropriate framework to allow for tracing goods in real time, ensure intermodal liability and promote clean freight transport Promoting a European maritime transport area without barriers • Unlike road transport, which has been reaping the benefits of the internal market since 1993, shipments of goods by sea between the ports of the European Union are treated in the same way as shipments to third countries. • Maritime transport between Member States red tape (many documentary checks and physical inspections by the customs, health, veterinary, plant health and immigration control,
    [Show full text]
  • CEF Support to Scandinavian - Mediterranean Corridor May 2020
    CEF support to Scandinavian - Mediterranean Corridor May 2020 Innovation and Networks Executive Agency Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Action portfolio: State of play .................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Operational implementation ........................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Maritime........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2. Air .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3. Rail ................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.4. Road............................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Financial Progress ...........................................................................................................................12 3. Challenges affecting the implementation of Actions ............................................................................13 4. Conclusion and Outlook .........................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Scholl, Bernd Book Part Introduction Provided in Cooperation with: ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft Suggested Citation: Scholl, Bernd (2019) : Introduction, In: Scholl, Bernd Perić, Ana Niedermaier, Mathias (Ed.): Spatial and transport infrastructure development in Europe: Example of the Orient/East-Med Corridor, ISBN 978-3-88838-095-2, Verlag der ARL - Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Hannover, pp. 5-13, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0156-0952007 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/213371 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen
    [Show full text]
  • 2014B12 Enn1.02.Emar
    Subscribe to the bulletin Select Language Pow ered by Translate I n d u s t r y N e w s Commission appoints eleven European coordinators for the new transport infrastructure policy The European Commission today appointed European coordinators for each of the nine core network corridors of the trans-European transport network (or TEN-T), as well as for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and for Motorways of the Sea. The core TEN-T transport network creates two North–South corridors, three East–West corridors; and four diagonal corridors. The core network will transform East–West connections, remove bottlenecks, upgrade infrastructure and streamline cross-border transport operations for passengers and businesses throughout the EU. It will improve connections between different modes of transport and contribute to the EU's climate change objectives. The coordinators will be responsible for coordinating priority transport projects and reporting back to the Commission. Vice-President Siim Kallas said: "The appointment of these coordinators marks further progress in implementing the core TEN-T network. Their role will be essential to make the corridors a success and start a new era of participation. The new EU transport infrastructure is off to a good start." Most of the coordinators have already gained wide experience of EU transport policy implementation over the last eight years working on the TEN-T priority projects: Pavel Telička (North Sea–Baltic corridor) Pat Cox (Scandinavian–Mediterranean corridor) Carlo Secchi (Atlantic Corridor) Péter Balázs (North Sea–Mediterranean corridor) Laurens Jan Brinkhorst (Mediterranean corridor) Karel Vinck (ERTMS) Karla Peijs (Rhine–Danube corridor) have been reappointed for a period of four years.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectives and Mandate of the Group
    NETWORKS FOR PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries and regions Report from the High Level Group chaired by Loyola de Palacio November 2005 European Commission Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries and regions Pictures of the cover of the HLG report courtesy of: British Rail, Egnatia Odos A.E, ESA and Port Autonome de Marseilles. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OPERATIONAL CONCLUSIONS 1. OBJECTIVES AND MANDATE OF THE GROUP........................................................................ 10 2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1. NEED TO CONNECT BETTER THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS NEIGHBOURS .................................... 11 2.2. TAKING STOCK OF COMPLETED AND ON-GOING EXERCISES ........................................................... 12 2.2.1. Revision of the trans-European transport network ................................................................. 12 2.2.2. Recent international conferences and regional exercises ....................................................... 13 3. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AXES AND PROJECTS ........... 15 3.1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2. STEP 1: CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING MAJOR AXES.........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download (529Kb)
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 20.1.2009 SEC(2009) 18 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORK GUIDELINES 2004 – 2005 Pursuant to Article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC {COM(2009) 5 final} EN EN ANNEX ANNEX 1: IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS INTRODUCTION Part 1 considers the main developments on the TEN-T modal networks as outlined in Annex I of the guidelines Decision i.e. road, rail, inland waterways, ports, airports and combined transport. Part 2 looks in more detail at the horizontal issues of interoperability, research and development, and environmental protection. In part 3 there is a general assessment of the development of the TEN-T during the period in question and a more detailed section on the TEN-T priority projects. The part 4 on Community funding, provides an overview of the financing of TEN-T with particular reference to financial support from the EU during the reference period. PART 1 IMPLEMENTATION IN GENERAL Total investment in the TEN-T network in the EU-27, which amounted to EUR 101.74 billion in the 2004 – 2005 period (EUR 50.4 billion in 2004 and 51.3 billion in 2005),has increased in comparison with the investment of 2002 -2003. Table 1 shows the investments in TEN-T infrastructure in the years 2004 and 2005 per country and per mode of transport in millions of EUR and in % of the GDP per country.
    [Show full text]
  • Possibilities for Motorways of the Sea Development in the Eastern Part of the Adriatic Sea
    POLISH MARITIME RESEARCH 1(77) 2013 Vol 20; pp. 87-93 10.2478/pomr-2013-0010 Possibilities for Motorways of the Sea development in the eastern part of the Adriatic Sea Bojan Beškovnik, Ph.D. Intereuropa, Global logistics service, Ltd. Co., Slovenija ABSTRACT This article presents a wider perspective on possibilities of Motorways of the Sea development in the Adriatic Sea, with a special emphasis on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. A complete overview of Motorways of the Sea development has been presented, and key elements influencing the development of Motorways of the Sea were analysed. It has been ascertained that there exist a lot of bottlenecks in the connection to the transport infrastructure in South East Europe. Superannuated port infrastructure, unsuitable inland connections, and nonexistent IT tools for electronic data exchange between all participators in the logistics chain hinder dynamic development of Motorways of the Sea. All these elements were thoroughly analysed, and a proposal for a macro transport strategy suitable for South East Europe has been exposed. It has been accentuated that there is a future for Motorways of the Sea introduction but all described bottlenecks have to be further analysed and removed in a short period of time, to stimulate private sector for financial investments. Key words: Motorways of the Sea; port infrastructure; intermodality; inland connections; South East Europe; Adriatic Sea INTRODUCTION Europe, as Grimaldi introduced the service between Genoa and Palermo, and the International Association of Turkish hauliers Today, intermodality and the use of sea transport route is introduced a RO-RO (roll on–roll off) service between Turkey an important topic of European transport policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Work Plan of the European Coordinator Pat Cox
    Scandinavian DECEMBER 2016 Mediterranean Second Work Plan of the European Coordinator Pat Cox Mobility and Transport DECEMBER 2016 This report represents the opinion of the European Coordinator and does not prejudice the official position of the European Commission. Second Work Plan of the European Coordinator Scan-Med Table of Contents 1 Towards the sec ond Scandinavian-Mediterra nean Corridor work pla n..................3 1.1 General Introduction ...........................................................................3 1.2 Technical Introduction .........................................................................4 2 Characteristics of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corridor ..............................6 2.1 Corridor alignme nt ..............................................................................6 2.2 Corridor c harac teristic s ........................................................................8 2.3 Compliance with technical infrastructure parameters of the TEN-T guidelines (inc l. KPI ana lys is results) .............................................................................8 3 Results of the transport market study ......................................................... 19 4 Capac ity issues ....................................................................................... 20 5 The identified planned projects .................................................................. 21 6 Financ ing issues and tools......................................................................... 24 7 Critic al issues
    [Show full text]