Debate begins on future of transport

Publication date: 19 June 2009

Debate begins on future of transport

What is the reaction to the communication published by the European Commission, on 17 June, on the future of the Common Transport Policy? On the whole, everyone in the transport sector finds it somewhat to their advantage but at the same time everyone also finds fault with it. The criticisms sometimes concern what is left unsaid. The railway sector, for instance, regrets the Commission’s silence over ways of shifting freight transport from road to rail. It is clear that the difference is obvious with the 2001 white paper, but the update of this document in 2006 had already laid its cards on the table by backing ‘comodal’ transport (ie taking account of the advantages of each mode of transport, including road) rather than modal shift.

The tendency may be even more obvious this time (practically the only mention of rail is the Commission’s announcement that it will continue its liberalisation policy) but it has to be kept in mind that the communication is not a white paper and that it merely outlines the main thrust of policy, without going into detail. The reference to the environmental challenge and the necessity of putting in place a sustainable transport system appears in several places in the communication. The CER, the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies, appreciates the fact that the Commission recognises that transport prices must reflect external costs.

For different reasons, the Fédération internationale de l’automobile (FIA) also appreciates the Commission’s references to external costs. What stands out for the FIA is that the Commission practically draws a parallel between the taxes and excise duties paid by road users (2.5% of GDP) and the external costs generated by this same mode of transport (2.6%). Of course, this is not stated as clearly as in a preliminary version of the communication, but the Commission suggests that the external costs generated by road are already covered by the different forms of taxation.

The International Road Transport Union (IRU) “welcomes” the Commission’s overall objective, which is to put in place a transport system “that meets
society’s economic, social and environmental needs”. The text conveys the determination to place the needs of users, workers and companies at the heart of policies on the same footing as environmental ambitions. The strongest criticisms come from environmentalist NGOs, which find the ‘green’ dimension too weak. Transport and Environment (T&E) finds only one positive aspect in the communication: the importance it attaches to environmental technologies and the recognition that they will benefit the European economy.

Source: Europolitics