Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-413"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.57.2-413"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, for many years, everyone has been saying that, in relation to the transport of goods in all European countries, rail is losing the battle. The same applies even to cross-border, long-distance transport. The railway system is suitable for mass transport and, in some cases, special goods lines have been built for this purpose, mainly in and around industrial areas in Germany. Similarly, the recently opened Betuwe line in the Netherlands, which forms part of freight corridor No 1 from Rotterdam to Genoa via Germany and Switzerland, is a special line of this kind which is totally unsuited for the transport of passengers.
Despite this favourable starting position for rail, the proportion of goods transported by rail has decreased and, in some cases, even the volume is declining. Much of this transport has been taken over by the lorry, and the huge increase in the volume of goods is largely being handled by motorway, as a result of which these are increasingly becoming congested.
This shift is, to a considerable extent, related to infrastructure. Before, rail boasted a very intricate network, opening up both villages in the countryside and ports and factories in the cities. Apart from goods lines, there were also container stations where goods carriages came together and were redistributed across different trains. As many companies had their own connections to the railway network, goods carriages were able to shuttle directly between a harbour quay and a remote company without any interim transhipment of goods. Everything people want to achieve these days using multi-modal systems was already in place then. Unfortunately, the governments have decided to shrink the railway network, because it is deemed loss-making. Many small railway lines have been discontinued and many connections to companies have disappeared. Billions have been invested, on the other hand, in extending the space-guzzling motorway network.
In many cases, door-to-door goods transport is only possible by lorry these days. It is indispensable for pick-up and delivery, and it seems the easiest option then to use the motorways for the much longer, in-between section as well. If the company connections and container stations were restored, this could make a considerable contribution to reinstating goods transport by rail.
The first railway package is partly based on the assumption that rail transport should adopt the working methods of transport by road and air. In this case, it is international companies that arrange cross-border transport from beginning to end, and this is the most attractive option for those people with a transport requirement. My group has always pointed out that this is not the only possible solution. There is an alternative, namely better cooperation between national railway companies. They should not see each other as competitors, but as partners in a comprehensive European railway network. It is precisely by encouraging them to enter into competition with each other that cooperation runs less smoothly. To date, we have not yet seen any positive results in respect of the course taken. The free market is often not a solution to a problem, but its very cause.
The rapporteur is right in always arguing in favour of the new standard safety system, European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). We see eye to eye with him on this. We also notice that the launch of this system is far less swift than had been expected and that, alongside the new system, a second old system should remain in place. Thanks to the average low speed in freight transport, ERTMS makes for fewer problems compared to the high-speed lines for passenger transport.
Finally, we share Mr Cramer’s view that transport by air and road are kept artificially cheap and that transport by rail is kept artificially dear. If we do not change this in any way, the least environmentally friendly mode of transport will continue to prevail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples