Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union: A Systems Approach to Freight Transport - Strategies and Actions to Enhance Efficiency, Services and Sustainability"'
21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/25 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled “Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union: A Systems Approach to Freight Transport — Strategies and Actions to Enhance Efficiency, Services and Sustainability”’ (98/C 19/07) On 3 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Kielman. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to 1, with 1 abstention. 1. The Commission document 1. 1. The objective is to develop a framework for an optimal integration of different modes so as to enable an efficient and cost-effective use of the transport system through seamless, customer-oriented door-to-door ser- vices whilst favouring competition between transport operators. This will promote a greater use of environmen- 1. 2. tally-friendly modes of transport with spare capacity. By improving the potential of rail and water-borne transport, intermodality will help to overcome congested road networks. Performance improvements in railways, the full internalization of external costs and the pro- motion of intermodality are part of an overall strategy for sustainable mobility. intermodal transport (1). In its own-initiative opinion of 22 November 1995 (2) on the legislative Commission programme for transport/the common transport policy action programme 1995-2000, the ESC stressed the crucial importance of intermodality and interoperability for the development of trans-European networks. 2. 3. Further economic growth will boost demand for transport, as developments in production and logistics require systems that are more and more flexible and efficient. So far road transport has been the best placed to satisfy such demand and growth there has been more than reasonable. Growth is still expected to be strong in road transport in the near future. Given that such growth cannot go on indefinitely is an important reason for the development of intermodality. 2. Introduction 3. General comments 2. 1. The ESC supports the integrated approach to developing intermodal transport in the EU. The way in which this is described in the communication shows insight into a complex issue and points the way for concrete action. However, the ESC feels that many problems are involved in carrying out the actions described in the communication. While it appreciates the Commission’s ambitious approach to these unusually complex issues, it feels that the approach should also be realistic and practical. 3. 1. The Commission communication targets the removal of obstacles to the use of intermodal transport on a wider scale. But the technical, economic and, above all, political obstacles to the market-oriented operation of the railways in particular are hardly mentioned. The ESC therefore feels that one of the most serious, if not the most serious stumbling blocks to the development In its opinions the ESC has always attached great 2. 2. importance to the improvement and extension of (1) OJ C 19, 25. 1. 1993, p. 29; OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996, p. 32; OJ C 39, 12. 2. 1996, p. 100. (2) OJ C 39, 12. 2. 1996, p. 43. C 19/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 of intermodality is missing from the communication. Mention should also be made here of the ESC opinion on the White Paper on European railways (1). 3. 2. Road transport is leading the way on the new technology front. Ever-cleaner and more economical engines are constantly being developed, while new logistical concepts and systems are soon brought on line. The development and application of new information technologies, such as communications, navigation and planning systems, is also widespread in road transport. Intermodal transport is losing more and more ground here. One should focus on improving technology and finding solutions to present obstacles (such as bottle- necks caused by cumbersome administrative procedures and lack of infrastructure investment) in rail, inland waterway and coastal transport, so they can maintain their advantage in the fields of energy consumption, emissions and noise prevention. 3. 3. ‘Intermodality’ is an interesting principle to use as a quality indicator of the efficiency of the total transport system. But the Commission’s communication does not elaborate this idea or give it any concrete foundation. It is also unclear what the consequences of intermodality will be for jobs and society as a whole. 3. 4. Anyway, the ESC doubts whether policy regard- ing ‘intermodality’ is a complement to other EU policies. For instance, support is sometimes given to regional economic developments that may hamper the develop- ment of an integrated intermodal transport network, or encourage road transport. In addition, the disappearance of internal frontiers and the liberalization of road transport have led to strong growth in that sector. The development of Trans-European Networks of motorways and ‘Freeways’ for rail traffic will directly have a big impact on the use of road, rail and water-borne transport and may greatly influence the development of ‘intermodality’. 3. 5. When one compares the quality of road, rail, water (including short sea) and road/rail and road/ waterway intermodal transport, it is clear that road transport can achieve a high quality-to-price ratio, but often scores lower on social aspects (safety, space and infrastructure use, energy efficiency, noise prevention and emissions) or causes higher social costs. So, an active policy by the public authorities on intermodality is justified, because the government is now responsible for calculating external costs, and market participants can count on having to take account of total costs when doing their sums. 3. 6. In the short and medium term road transport will continue to have a big lead over intermodal transport as long as the total costs of transport are not fully taken into account. The creation of a level playing field and the inclusion of external costs (fair pricing) are important Commission tools for stimulating intermodal transport. It is not clear to what extent this will actually lead to a change in the modal split. In addition, it is still difficult to attribute external costs correctly to the different transport modes. For this reason the effects of such internalization on international competition between locations is still insufficiently clear. (2) Moreover, it will probably be a long time before external costs are internalized in all transport modes, as the Commission itself admits. 3. 7. The development of ‘intermodality’ often calls for huge investments, especially in equipment, terminals and information systems. Government support for new services is only possible to a limited extent, while subsidies for operating losses, for example, are on the whole impossible, even in the initial phase. As many parties in intermodal transport can only invest very limited sums, this is a considerable barrier. 3. 8. The ESC thinks that red tape should be kept to a minimum when implementing the Commission’s action programme and further developing intermodality. In its view there is no need for a whole new set of administrative regulations. Right from the start of the implementation of the action programme the Commission should consult closely with all those involved, both market operators and social partners. (1) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 23. (2) Cf. the Economic and Social Committee’s Opinion on the Green Paper — Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport — Policy options for internalizing the external costs of transport in the European Union; OJ C 56, 24. 2. 1997, p. 31. 21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/27 3. 9. The ESC feels that the Commission communi- cation does not give sufficient credit for what has already been achieved in the field of intermodality. For example, the liner shipping industry has for many years been operating through intermodal services all over Europe and this has developed greatly since the advent of containerization. 4. Specific comments 4. 1. It is very ambitious to try and build up an integrated European intermodal transport system in which transport policy is coordinated at all levels. Regional and local authorities in particular often play a decisive role in the development of intermodal infrastruc- ture. Mention has been made earlier (see under point 3. 4) of the different areas of policy that can be better coordinated within the European Commission. This problem is even more apparent at national, regional and local level. The communication gives no indication of how the Commission intends to coordinate policy, nor of where and how decisions are to be taken in practice. 4. 2. Attention should be paid to the interaction between passenger and goods transport both by road and on the railways. In many countries passenger transport places such demands on available infrastruc- ture that it hampers the continuous development of intermodal goods transport by rail. One solution may be to have separate infrastructures for passenger and goods traffic on the railways, but this will require huge investments and very long planning and construction lead times. A comparable separation of passenger and goods traffic on the roads is also conceivable and has already been tried out in a number of European countries. Such developments will have a big influence on the quality of road and rail transport and on the oppor- tunities for intermodal transport. 4. 3. In a free transport market it will be, to a large extent, the market participants themselves (carriers, operators and users) who manage such things as infor- mation networks and rates structures. From the com- munication it is not sufficiently clear what role the Commission can play here. 4. 4. Obviously, the further development of intermo- dality will have repercussions on jobs, training require- ments and working conditions. An increase in intermodal transport will lead to an increase in road transport feeder services, which will affect drivers’ working conditions such as working hours. As the ESC has pointed out earlier, the liberalization necessary in rail transport will have enormous consequences for railway jobs and company organization. The ESC considers that special attention should also be paid to the social aspects involved in implementing intermodality when working out the overall blueprint. The Commission should have the necessary studies undertaken beforehand in collaboration with the committees and social partners involved. This should also be incorporated into the action programme. systems 4. 5. It is also worth looking at new concepts and systems of technological development in intermodal transport. Bimodal (such as RoadRailer, CODA-E and Kombirail) may lead to a new extensive market segment for intermodal transport and the devel- opment of multiple unit cars for intermodal transport (such as the German Cargosprinter) is very promising. With such systems whole new market segments can be served, but they may also ‘threaten’ existing intermodal transport markets. Fragmentation of supply must be guarded against, so attention should be paid to differ- ences in systems and techniques when further developing the framework for intermodality described in the com- munication. 4. 6. The ESC would stress the need to integrate transport techniques to promote door-to-door intermo- dal transport. The Commission’s point of departure is that undesirable developments in road transport (congestion, emissions and accidents) can be avoided by promoting intermodal transport. The Commission’s supposition that (existing) reserve capacity on the railways can thereby be used must, in the ESC’s view, be doubted. First, it is not certain that there is reserve capacity everywhere, while in addition passenger trans- port is mostly given priority on the railways. Further rationalization of rail traffic should lead to additional transport capacity becoming available. Otherwise there is still plenty of capacity in a number of countries and transport links for combined road/water transport both by inland waterway and by short sea transport. It is also very important to list which of the infrastructures used in the past for one of the transport modes can be modernized quickly and incorporated into the existing network. C 19/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 4. 7. The problem of transalpine traffic is of great importance to the development of intermodality in Europe. But some of this sector falls outside the EU’s sphere of influence. This can stand in the way of an effective European policy on intermodality. A new, ‘intermodality-based’ approach to trans- 4. 8. port will require a re-organization of the transport chain. New actors will be active, logistical concepts and systems will change. This in turn will alter the level and structure of transport costs. It is not clear whether or in what way such developments will influence the price of transport and quality of service, and perhaps with it the competitive position of Europe. Whatever happens, it is important to learn from the experiences of existing intermodal transport services and build on them as much as possible. Solutions should be found for existing obstacles so that intermodality becomes more efficient and attractive. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission regarding the consultation on the Green Paper on a Numbering Policy for Telecommunication Services in Europe’ (98/C 19/08) On 26 May 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Mobbs. At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes for, one vote against and two abstentions. 1. Introduction The Economic and Social Committee issued its 1. 3. opinion on 28 May 1997 (1). 1. 1. The Commission issued a Green Paper on a Numbering Policy for Telecommunication Services in Europe (COM(96) 590 final) on 20 November 1996. This resulted in a period of wide ranging consultation with all interested parties within the EU on a variety of options for a common approach towards certain numbering issues in order to reach the agreed goals of a competitive and liberalized telecommunications market. 1. 4. The Committee welcomed the Commission’s initiative and recognized it as playing an important part of the process towards full liberalisation since the Green Paper on Telecommunications (2) was issued in 1987. 1. 2. In addition, the Commission organised a public hearing in February 1997, attended by over 100 partici- pants. Over 80 written submissions were received by the closing date of 21 February 1997. (1) OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, p. 15. (2) Towards a dynamic European Economy — Green Paper on the development of the common market for telecom- (COM(87) 290 services and equipment munications final) — ESC Opinion: OJ C 356, 31. 12. 1987, p. 46