1 / 11

10 Years of TEN Policy – 1/2

A Trans-European Network at the service of Europe’s citizens José Papí Secretary General European Union Road Federation (ERF). 10 Years of TEN Policy – 1/2. Since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, TEN policies have rested on three pillars :

cfernandez
Download Presentation

10 Years of TEN Policy – 1/2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Trans-European Network at the service of Europe’s citizensJosé PapíSecretary GeneralEuropean Union Road Federation (ERF)

  2. 10 Years of TEN Policy – 1/2 Since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, TEN policies have rested on three pillars : • Promoting socio-economic cohesion through well-interconnected Transport Networks, • Identifying stable mechanisms of funding to meet the EUR 600 billion required for strategic projects of European relevance in an enlarged EU, • Addressing sustainable development preoccupations linked to transport (road safety, emissions, etc).

  3. 10 Years of TEN Policy – 2/2 These considerations have shaped EC actions : • 1996 TEN Guidelines established 20 “specific projects” of priority interest (3 completed in 2004) revised in 2003 by Van Miert group recommendations, • “Innovative funding solutions for the TEN” proposes measures to increase private sector participation and a pan-European electronic toll system applicable to both commercial (2005) and private vehicles (2010), • Direct road user charges are once again on the cards (2003 revision of the “Eurovignette Directive”).

  4. Building Tomorrow’s TEN Do the Van Miert Group recommendations provide an adequate answer to the EU’s transport challenges ? • Priority projects feature an overwhelming majority of rail links despite lack of clear economic horizon and negative feedback on 1996 TEN Guidelines, • TEN proposals reflect a territorial approach over more “rational” approaches : cost-benefit analysis, integration of transport modes, technically adapted solutions, service levels, etc. (“magma of national interests”)

  5. The Question of Funding – 1/2 The European Commission’s investment choices will be paid for by the European taxpayer • On paper, measures to promote PPPs have merit : higher degree of cost recovery from users, transparent income/costs, better services provided… • EC recognises it can only hope to raise 20% of needed amount from private sources, leaving 80% to the taxpayer (direct charges or general taxation), • “Eurovignette” clear illustration of the blanket road user charges in preparation.

  6. The Question of Funding – 2/2 The European Commission’s investment choices will be paid for by the European taxpayer • Revenues to be earmarked for infrastructure development and maintenance in the same mode, • Governments invited to compensate their new income with decreases in annual vehicle taxation, • “Mark-ups” (fund deviations from road-raised income to other transport modes) are authorised in “sensitive” regions and within the same “corridor and area” (the “Pandora box”)

  7. Financing, Taxpayers & the Environment – 1/2 Everybody agrees it is high time Europe finds a solution to its sustainable development concerns • TEN proposals perpetuate myth that widespread road charging is an answer to environmental concerns, congestion and even road safety: • Building new rail lines will not solve exhaust emissions or congestion, which are predominantly concentrated in urban areas, • The so-called “environmentally-friendly” modes of transport get their energy by seriously emitting C02 and represent massive land use, • Implementation of technological progress is improving transport environmental performances.

  8. Financing, Taxpayers & the Environment – 2/2 • Debate should concentrate instead on establishing most appropriate and sustainable transport alternatives and identifying stable mechanisms of funding: • Have stakeholders been adequately consulted? • Ideological approaches that only hide artificial public support to inefficient sectors should be abandoned: • Why not setting up costs and deadlines to move to free competition/liberalisation?

  9. The ERF’s proposals – 1/2 Time for a real debate on the objectives of the Trans-European Network • Project selection should be based on efficiency (C/B), sustainability (EIA) and cohesion criteria (accessibility, job creation, social cohesion…), • New road taxes require prior assessment of 1) existing charges (10-20% of fiscal income in EU Member States) and 2) impact on periphery economies,

  10. The ERF’s proposals – 2/2 Time for a real debate on the objectives of the Trans-European Network • Treatment given to transport modes should be uniform (eg. set deadlines for a progressive shift to free market competition), • High levels of services and safety along the TEN must form the basis of Europe’s transport policy (private operation vs. public operation).

  11. Thank you for your attention European Union Road Federation (ERF) E-mail:info@erf.be http://www.erf.be

More Related