Procedure : 2008/0247(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0220/2009

Texts tabled :

A6-0220/2009

Debates :

PV 22/04/2009 - 21
CRE 22/04/2009 - 21

Votes :

PV 23/04/2009 - 8.11
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2009)0285

REPORT     ***I
PDF 225kWORD 439k
2.4.2009
PE 418.273v02-00 A6-0220/2009

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight

(COM(2008)0852 – C6‑0509/2008 – 2008/0247(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Petr Duchoň

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight

(COM(2008)0852 – C6‑0509/2008 – 2008/0247(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0852),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0509/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0220/2009),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3a) Although liberalisation of rail freight traffic has made it possible for new operators to enter the network, market mechanisms are not sufficient to organise, regulate and secure rail freight traffic. Optimisation and ensuring its reliability imply in particular strengthening procedures for cooperation and allocation of the train paths between infrastructure managers.

Justification

There seems to be a need to envisage the development of rail freight in a cooperative approach between infrastructure managers.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The rail network for competitive freight should be set up in a manner consistent with the Transeuropean Transport Network ("TEN-T"). To that end, the coordinated development of the two networks is necessary, and in particular the integration of the international corridors for rail freight into the existing TEN-T. Furthermore, uniform rules relating to these freight corridors should be established at Community level. If necessary, the creation of these corridors could be supported financially within the framework of the TEN-T programme.

(7) The European rail network for competitive freight should be set up in a manner consistent with the Transeuropean Transport Network ("TEN-T") and the European Railway Traffic Management System ("ERTMS") corridors. To that end, the coordinated development of the networks is necessary, and in particular the integration of the international corridors for rail freight into the existing TEN-T and the ERTMS corridors. Furthermore, harmonising rules relating to these freight corridors should be established at Community level. If necessary, the creation of these corridors should be supported financially within the framework of the TEN-T, research and Marco Polo programmes, and other Community policies and funds, such as the Cohesion Fund.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(7a) The creation of a freight corridor should take into account the particular importance of the planned extension of the TEN-T network to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries with a view to ensuring better interconnections with the rail infrastructure of third countries.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Within the framework of a freight corridor, good coordination between the Member States and the infrastructure managers concerned should be ensured, sufficient priority given to rail freight traffic, effective and adequate links to other modes of transport set up and conditions created which are favourable to the development of competition between rail freight service providers.

(8) Within the framework of a freight corridor, good coordination between the Member States and the infrastructure managers concerned should be ensured, better and sufficient facilitation given to rail freight traffic, effective and adequate links to other modes of transport set up in order to develop an efficient and integrated freight transport network, and conditions created which are favourable to the development of competition between rail freight service providers.

Justification

The coordination of the freight corridors should encourage sustainability and efficiency of the rail freight transport and aim to integrate more closely the rail freight with other modes of transport.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) The creation of a freight corridor should be examined and approved at Community level in accordance with a clearly-defined and transparent procedure and criteria which allow Member States and infrastructure managers sufficient decision-making and management scope so that they can take measures adapted to their specific needs.

(9) The creation of a freight corridor should be based on proposals made by Member States in consultation with the rail infrastructure managers. In the second phase it should be approved at European level in accordance with a clearly-defined and transparent procedure. The criteria for the creation of freight corridors should be defined in a way adapted to the specific needs of the Member States and of the infrastructure managers that allows them sufficient decision-making and management scope.

Justification

The definition of the freight has to be based on the proposals of Member States in close consultation with the infrastructure managers concerned. The decision-making process has to be guaranteed as preserving the autonomy of the infrastructure managers.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) In order to stimulate coordination between the Member States and the infrastructure managers, each freight corridor should be supported by a governance body comprised of the various infrastructure managers who are involved with the freight corridor.

(10) In order to stimulate coordination between the Member States, infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, each freight corridor should be supported by a governance body comprised of the various infrastructure managers who are involved with the freight corridor.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) In order to meet market needs, the methods for creating a freight corridor should be presented in an implementation plan which should include identifying and setting a schedule for measures which would improve the performance of rail freight. Furthermore, to ensure that planned or implemented measures for the creation of a freight corridor meet the needs or expectations of all of the users of the freight corridor, the latter must be regularly consulted in accordance with clearly defined procedures.

(11) In order to meet market needs, the methods for creating a freight corridor should be presented in an implementation plan which should include identifying and setting a schedule for measures which would improve the performance of rail freight. Furthermore, to ensure that planned or implemented measures for the creation of a freight corridor meet the needs or expectations of the market, all user railway undertakings must be regularly consulted in accordance with adequate procedures defined by the governance body.

Justification

The procedure of consultation of users of the freight corridors has to be defined by the governance body, as this latter is the best level to determine the appropriate procedure.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) In order to guarantee the consistency and continuity of the infrastructure capacities available along the freight corridor, investment in the freight corridor should be coordinated between Member States and the infrastructure managers concerned, and planned in a way which meets the needs of the freight corridor. The schedule for carrying out the investment should be published to ensure that applicants who may operate in the corridor are well-informed. The investment should include projects relating to the development of interoperable systems and the increase in capacity of the trains.

(12) In order to guarantee the consistency and continuity of the infrastructure capacities available along the freight corridor, investment in the freight corridor should be coordinated between Member States, the infrastructure managers and railway undertakings concerned, as well as, if applicable, between Member States and third countries, and planned in a way which meets the needs of the freight corridor. The schedule for carrying out the investment should be published to ensure that railway undertakings that may operate in the corridor are well-informed. The investment should include projects relating to the development of interoperable systems and the increase in capacity of the trains.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) In view of the different programming schedules for timetables for the different types of traffic, it should be ensured that the requests for infrastructure capacity for freight traffic are not unduly restricted by requests for passenger transport, particularly in regard to their respective socio-economic values. Fees for using the infrastructure should vary according to the quality and reliability of the train path allocated.

(17) In view of the different programming schedules for timetables for the different types of traffic, it should be ensured that the requests for infrastructure capacity for freight traffic are compatible with the requests for passenger transport, particularly in regard to their respective socio-economic values. Fees for using the infrastructure should vary according to the quality and reliability of the train path allocated.

Justification

The requests for freight train paths have to be made in the most compatible way with passenger traffic, in order to create as little traffic disruption as possible for passenger trains.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Trains carrying goods which are very sensitive in terms of the journey time and punctuality should be able to enjoy sufficient priority if there are traffic problems.

(18) Trains carrying goods which are very sensitive in terms of journey time and punctuality, as defined by the governance body, should be able to enjoy sufficient priority if there are traffic problems.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) To guarantee the development of competition between suppliers of rail freight services in the freight corridor, it seems desirable to authorise applicants other than railway undertakings or their groupings to request infrastructure capacity.

(19) To guarantee the development of competition between suppliers of rail freight services in the freight corridor, applicants other than railway undertakings or their groupings should be able to request infrastructure capacity.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) In order to objectively measure the benefits of the measures aimed at the creation of the freight corridor and to guarantee efficient monitoring of such measures, performance indicators for the service along the freight corridor should be introduced and published regularly.

(22) In order to objectively measure the benefits of the measures aimed at the creation of the freight corridor and to guarantee efficient monitoring of such measures, performance indicators for the service along the freight corridor should be introduced and published regularly. The definition of performance indicators should be formulated in consultation with the stakeholders providing and using rail freight services.

Justification

Performance indicators are a useful to improve the quality of rail freight services at the European level. However, such a definition should be made in accordance with the needs of providers of rail freight services and of their customers, in order to agree on indicators shared by all stakeholders.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) With the aim of improving the dissemination of good practices and ensuring efficient monitoring of the management of the European rail network for competitive freight, it is desirable to enhance cooperation between all of the Community infrastructure managers with the support of the Commission.

deleted

Justification

This provision on the diffusion of best practice and on the enhancement of cooperation between infrastructure managers is redundant and could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(27a) The aim of this Regulation is to improve the efficiency of rail freight transport relative to other modes of transport, but this objective has to be pursued also through political actions and the financial involvement of the Member States and the European Union. Coordination should be ensured at the highest level between Member States in order to guarantee the most efficient functioning of freight corridors. Financial commitment in infrastructure and in technical equipment like ERTMS should aim at increasing rail freight capacity and efficiency in parallel with this Regulation.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Regulation lays down the rules for the creation and organisation of the European rail network for competitive freight which is made up of international rail corridors for competitive freight (hereinafter referred to as “freight corridors”). It sets out the rules for the selection and organisation of freight corridors and harmonised principles relating to investment planning, and capacity and traffic management.

1. This Regulation lays down the rules for the creation and organisation of the European rail network for competitive freight in international rail corridors for competitive freight (hereinafter referred to as “freight corridors”). It sets out the rules for the selection and organisation of freight corridors and cooperative principles relating to investment planning, and capacity and traffic management.

Justification

It seems necessary to envisage the development of rail freight in a cooperative approach between infrastructure managers.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a) stand-alone local and regional networks for passenger services using the railway infrastructure;

a) stand-alone local and regional networks for passenger services using the railway infrastructure, except where the services operate on part of a freight corridor;

Justification

It is possible that certain stand-alone local and regional networks for passenger services could use parts of the freight corridor. In this case the regulations governing the freight corridor must apply.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a) "freight corridor" shall mean all of the railway lines created on the territory of Member States and, where necessary, third European countries linking one or more strategic terminals to one or more other strategic terminals including a principal axis, alternative routes and paths linking them, and railway infrastructure and its equipment in the freight terminals, marshalling yards and train formation facilities, and branch lines to the latter;

a) "freight corridor" shall mean all of the railway lines created on the territory of Member States and, where necessary, third European countries linking two or more strategic terminals, including a principal axis, alternative routes and paths linking them, and railway infrastructure and its equipment in the freight terminals, marshalling yards and train formation facilities, as well as branch lines to the latter, including all rail related services as mentioned in Annex II to Directive 2001/14/EC;

Justification

Rail-related services are essential for providing rail freight market operations in all market segments (including single wagon business). So far, new entrants are almost completely excluded from this business and to a lesser extent from providing intermodal traffic because they have no/limited/unfair access to these services. Rail-related services have been the main subject of the “Servrail” study in 2006 commissioned by the EC and will be part of the Recast of the First Railway Package. Rail-related services are also important for new/independent rail passenger operators.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c) "heavy maintenance work" shall mean any intervention or repair to the railway infrastructure and its equipment which is necessary for running the trains along the freight corridor and involving reservations on the capacities for the infrastructure in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2001/14/EC;

c) "heavy maintenance work" shall mean any intervention or repair to the railway infrastructure and its equipment, planned at least one year in advance, which is necessary for running the trains along the freight corridor and involving reservations on the capacities for the infrastructure in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2001/14/EC;

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

e) "strategic terminal" shall mean the terminal of the freight corridor which is open to all the applicants and which plays an important role in the rail transport of freight along the freight corridor;

e) "strategic terminal" shall mean the terminal of the freight corridor which is open to all the applicants and which already plays, or is scheduled to play, an important role in the rail transport of freight along the freight corridor;

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

f) "one-stop shop" shall mean the joint entity set up by infrastructure managers of the freight corridor which offers applicants the opportunity to request in a single place and a single operation a train path for a journey crossing at least one border.

f) "one-stop shop" shall mean the joint entity set up by each infrastructure manager of the freight corridor which offers applicants the opportunity to request a train path for a journey crossing at least one border.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The freight corridor shall allow international and national rail freight services to be operated on the territory of at least two Member States. It shall have the following characteristics:

1. The freight corridor shall link at least two Member States and allow international and national rail freight services to be operated. It shall have the following characteristics:

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a) it shall be part of the TEN-T;

a) it shall be part of, or at least compatible with, the TEN-T or, where applicable, with the ERTMS corridors. If necessary, certain sections not included in the TEN‑T, with high or potentially high volumes of freight traffic, may also form part of the corridor;

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) it shall allow significant development of rail freight traffic;

(b) it shall allow significant development of rail freight traffic and take account of major trade flows and goods traffic;

Justification

The setting up of a network giving priority to freight should also correspond to the main European axes on which a significant demand for international freight transport has been noted.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

ca) it shall allow better interconnections between border Member States and neighbouring third countries;

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The creation or modification of a freight corridor shall be proposed by the Member States concerned. For this purpose they shall send the Commission a proposal drawn up with the infrastructure managers concerned, taking into account the criteria set out in the Annex.

2. The creation or modification of a freight corridor shall be decided by the Member States concerned, after they have notified the Commission of their intentions, attaching a proposal drawn up with the infrastructure managers concerned and taking into account the initiatives and opinions of railway undertakings that use the corridor or are interested in doing so and the criteria set out in the Annex. Interested railway undertakings may participate in the process, whenever substantial investments concern them.

Justification

As long as RUs are “economic subjects” i.e., they actively participate - from a financial point of view - in the creation or modification of a freight corridor, they may be part of the process.

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Regulation, the territory of each Member State which has at least two land borders with other Member States must allow at least one proposal for a freight corridor;

(a) at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Regulation, the territory of each Member State which has at least two direct rail links with other Member States must allow at least one proposal for a freight corridor;

Justification

The reference to direct rail links rather than land borders seems more relevant.

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) at the latest three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the territory of each Member State must allow at least:

b) at the latest three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the territory of each Member State must allow at least one freight corridor.

i) one freight corridor,

 

ii) two freight corridors if the annual performance of rail freight in the Member State concerned is greater than or equal to 30 billion tonne-kilometres,

 

iii) three freight corridors if the annual performance of rail freight in the Member State concerned is greater than or equal to 70 billion tonne-kilometres.

 

Justification

The Regulation should require every Member State only to create one corridor. It should be a matter for Member States whether to create more corridors, on the basis of market needs. The presence of a border (regardless of whether it is a land border or a coastline) with another country should be sufficient for a Member State to come forward with a proposal for a freight corridor.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The Commission shall examine the proposals for the creation of the freight corridors referred to in paragraph 2 and, in compliance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(3), adopt a decision relating to an initial network of freight corridors at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Regulation. As part of this examination, the criteria shown in the Annex shall be taken into consideration.

4. The Commission shall note the proposals for the creation of the freight corridors referred to in paragraph 2 and shall examine their consistency with the assessment criteria of the Annex. It may state objections or propose modifications in line with what it considers appropriate.

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The network of freight corridors referred to in paragraph 4 shall be progressively modified and supplemented on the basis of proposals for the creation or modification of a freight corridor, and after a Commission decision has been adopted in compliance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(3). The proposals from Member States shall be examined taking into consideration the criteria set out in the Annex.

deleted

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. For each freight corridor the infrastructure managers concerned, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC, shall create a governance body responsible for defining and steering the performance and updating of the implementation plan for the freight corridor. The governance body shall make regular reports on its activity to the Member States concerned and, where necessary, to the European coordinators of the TEN-T priority projects referred to in Article 17a of Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council involved in the freight corridor.

2. For each freight corridor the infrastructure managers concerned, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC, shall create a governance body responsible for defining and steering the performance and updating of the implementation plan for the freight corridor. The interested railway undertakings or groupings of railway undertakings using the corrridor regularly participate in this body on a consultative basis. The governance body shall make regular reports on its activity to the Member States concerned and, where necessary, to the Commission and the European coordinators of the TEN-T priority projects referred to in Article 17a of Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council involved in the freight corridor.

Justification

The freight oriented network is paramount to the future successes of rail freight and requires stronger monitoring from the EC from the very beginning.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. The Member States concerned may set up an executive board responsible for authorising the corridor implementation plan by the governance body and supervising its execution. In that case, the individual members of the executive board shall be mandated by the competent authorities.

Justification

The steering role and the respective responsibilities of Member States along a corridor should be clarified. Therefore we need to distinguish between a “governance body” of which only infrastructure managers and railway undertakings should be member and an "executive board" of which only Member State representatives can be member.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. A working group made up of managers and owners of the strategic terminals of the freight corridor, referred to in Article 9, shall be set up. It may issue an opinion on any proposal by the governance body which has direct consequences for investment and the management of strategic terminals. The governance body may not take any decision contrary to that opinion.

5. A working group made up of managers and owners of the strategic terminals of the freight corridor, including sea and inland waterway ports, referred to in Article 9, shall be set up. It may issue an opinion on any proposal by the governance body which has direct consequences for investment and the management of strategic terminals. The governance body may not take any decision contrary to that opinion.

Justification

It would be wise to include these managers at an earlier stage, e.g. when the proposal is drawn up by the infrastructure managers concerned and submitted to the Commission.

Amendment  33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The implementation plan, approved by the governance body, shall include:

1. The implementation plan, approved and regularly adjusted by the governance body, shall include at least:

Justification

Some flexibility in the definition of the implementation plan should be guaranteed to the governance bodies of the corridors, in order to allow them to define their needs and procedures.

Amendment  34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a) a description of the characteristics of the freight corridor, and the implementation programme for the measures necessary for creating the freight corridor;

a) a description of the characteristics of the freight corridor, including potential bottlenecks, and the implementation programme for the measures necessary for facilitating its creation;

Amendment  35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

c) the objectives of the governance body in terms of performance of the freight corridor expressed as the quality of the service and the capacity of the freight corridor in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 16;

c) the objectives of the governance body and its programme for improvement of performance of the freight corridor in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 16;

Justification

Some flexibility in the definition of the implementation plan should be guaranteed to the governance bodies of the corridors, in order to allow them to define their needs and procedures.

Amendment  36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

d) the programme for the creation and improvement of performance in the freight corridor, as referred to in paragraph 3.

deleted

Justification

Some flexibility in the definition of the implementation plan should be guaranteed to the governance bodies of the corridors, in order to allow them to define their needs and procedures.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The implementation plan shall be regularly adjusted taking into account progress made with carrying out the measures it contains, the rail freight market on the freight corridor and performance measured in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 16(2).

deleted

Justification

Some flexibility in the definition of the implementation plan should be guaranteed to the governance bodies of the corridors, in order to allow them to define their needs and procedures.

Amendment  38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. A market study shall be carried out relating to the observed and expected changes in the traffic in the freight corridor and those parts of the transport system which are connected to it. It shall examine changes in the different types of traffic, both regarding the transport of freight and the transport of passengers. It shall include the main features of the socio-economic analysis referred to in Article 3(c). It shall be updated at least once a year. The results of this study shall be used to adjust the implementation plan for the freight corridor.

3. A market study shall be carried out and periodically updated, relating to the observed and expected changes in the traffic in the freight corridor and those parts of the transport system which are connected to it, with a view to developing or adapting, if necessary, its implementation plan. It shall examine changes in the different types of traffic and include the main features of the socio-economic analysis referred to in Article 3(c), as well as the possible scenarios as regards costs and benefits and the long-term financial impact.

Justification

The content of and the procedure establishing the market study should be defined in a flexible way and should be adapted to the needs of the governance body.

Amendment  39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. A programme shall be drawn up for creating and improving performance in the freight corridor. In particular this programme shall include the common objectives, the technical choices and the schedule for necessary measures in respect of the railway infrastructure and its equipment in order to implement all of the measures referred to in Articles 7 to 16.

4. A programme shall be drawn up for creating and improving performance in the freight corridor. In particular this programme shall include the common objectives, the technical choices and the schedule for necessary measures in respect of the railway infrastructure and its equipment in order to implement all of the measures referred to in Articles 7 to 16. These measures shall avoid or minimise any restrictions affecting rail capacity.

Amendment  40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Applicants for the use of the freight corridor shall be consulted by the governance body before the implementation plan is approved and when it is updated. In the event of a disagreement between the governance body and the applicants, the latter may contact the Commission, which shall consult the committee referred to in Article 18(1), in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(2), on this matter.

2. Applicants, including rail freight operators, passenger operators, shippers, forwarders and their representative bodies, for the use of the freight corridor shall be consulted by the governance body before the implementation plan is approved and when it is updated. In the event of a disagreement between the governance body and the applicants, the latter may refer the matter to the regulatory bodies mentioned in Article 17.

Justification

The regulatory bodies, and not the Commission, must be the institutions in charge of solving the conflicts between the applicants and the governance body.

It is important to focus on the genuine stakeholders of the network and their expertise and added value in using the infrastructure.

Amendment  41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The investment plans shall list the projects planned for the extension, renewal or redeployment of railway infrastructure and its equipment along the corridor and the relevant financial requirements.

The investment plans shall list the projects planned for the extension, renewal or redeployment of railway infrastructure and its equipment along the corridor and the relevant financial requirements and sources of funding.

Justification

It is important to establish funding sources also.

Amendment  42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The investment plans referred to in paragraph 1 above shall include a strategy relating to the deployment of interoperable systems along the freight corridor which satisfies the essential requirements and the technical specifications for interoperability which apply to the rail networks as defined in Directive 2008/57/EC. This strategy shall be based on a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems. It must be consistent with national and European plans for the deployment of interoperable systems, in particular with the deployment plan for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).

2. The investment plans referred to in paragraph 1 above shall include a strategy relating to the deployment of interoperable systems along the freight corridor which satisfies the essential requirements and the technical specifications for interoperability which apply to the rail networks as defined in Directive 2008/57/EC. This strategy shall be based on a cost-benefit analysis of the use of these systems. It must be consistent with national and European plans for the deployment of interoperable systems, in particular with the deployment plan for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), as well as with cross-border interconnections and interoperable systems with third countries, where applicable.

Amendment  43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Where applicable, investment plans shall refer to the Community contribution envisaged under the TEN-T programme and prove that their strategy is consistent with it.

3. Where applicable, investment plans shall refer to the Community contribution envisaged under the TEN-T programme or any other policies, funds or programmes, and prove that their strategy is consistent with them.

Amendment  44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The investment plans referred to in paragraph 1 shall also include a strategy for the growth of the capacity of freight trains which may run in the freight corridor. The strategy may be based on increasing the length, gauge or axle load authorised for the trains running in the freight corridor.

4. The investment plans referred to in paragraph 1 shall include a strategy for the growth of the capacity of freight trains which may run in the freight corridor (in other words, for removing the identified bottlenecks, upgrading existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure). The strategy may include measures to increase the length, track gauge, loading gauge, speed management, load hauled or axle load authorised for the trains running in the freight corridor.

Amendment  45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – Title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Heavy maintenance work

Coordination of works

Justification

Infrastructure managers should coordinate all their works on the infrastructure as soon as these works may restrict the available capacity. Works should be coordinated according to multi-annual agreements (or multi-annual contracts) agreed by infrastructure managers in application of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Amendment  46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The infrastructure managers in the freight corridor shall coordinate at least once a year their schedule for carrying out heavy maintenance work on the infrastructure and its equipment.

The infrastructure managers in the freight corridor shall coordinate, in accordance with an appropriate manner and timeframe and in line with their respective contractual agreements as defined in Article 6 of Directive 2001/14EC, their schedule for carrying out all the works on the infrastructure and its equipment that would restrict available capacity on the network.

Justification

Infrastructure managers should coordinate all their works on the infrastructure as soon as these works may restrict the available capacity. Works should be coordinated according to multi-annual agreements (or multi-annual contracts) agreed by infrastructure managers in application of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Amendment  47

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. In agreement with the working group referred to in Article 4(5), the governance body shall draw up a strategy for the development of strategic terminals to enable them to meet the needs of rail freight running on the freight corridor.

1. In agreement with the working group referred to in Article 4(5), the governance body shall draw up an integrated strategy for the development of strategic terminals to enable them to meet the needs of rail freight running on the freight corridor, in particular as intermodal hubs along the freight corridors. This shall include co-operation with regional, local and national governments; the sourcing of land to develop rail freight terminals and facilitating access to funds in order to encourage such developments. The governance body shall ensure that sufficient terminals are created in strategic locations, based on the expected volume of traffic.

Justification

The freight corridors have to contribute to the creation of an integrated and intermodal transport system, in particular by focusing on the major role of strategic terminals in the development of intermodal transport and logistics.

This strengthens the Article and makes it clear what the role should be, as well as ensuring that terminals are strategically situated where the traffic is.

Amendment  48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The governance body shall put in place a one-stop shop for requests for train paths for freight trains crossing at least one border along the freight corridor.

1. The governance body shall put in place a one-stop shop to reply to requests for train paths for freight trains crossing at least one border along the freight corridor or using several networks.

Justification

The use of one-stop-shop should not be made mandatory for the requests of train paths for freight trains, but should remain optional.

This amendment is intended to clarify the role of the one-stop shop.

Amendment  49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Individual infrastructure managers of a corridor may be assigned to function as the front office of the one-stop shop for the applicants requesting train paths.

Justification

It is undesirable that the one-stop shop shall be a separate organisation outside the infrastructure managers. Key point is that all (potential) railway undertakings will have the same chance in booking all available international train paths in an efficient and transparent way.

This amendment is intended to clarify the role of the one-stop shop.

Amendment  50

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. All requests for train paths for a freight train crossing at least one border or using several networks along the freight corridor must be made to the one-stop shop referred to in paragraph 1 above.

deleted

Justification

The use of one-stop-shop should not be made mandatory for the requests of train paths for freight trains, but should remain optional.

Amendment  51

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Priority freight

Standard categories of train paths in the corridors

Justification

The categories of goods transported by rail should be defined in a broad and flexible way. The term "priority freight" is not appropriate and could lead to a misleading interpretation of the objectives of these categories.

Amendment  52

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The governance body shall define the standard categories of freight traffic, which shall be valid in the whole of the freight corridor. At least one of these categories (hereinafter referred to as "priority freight") shall include goods whose transportation is very time-sensitive and which therefore require an efficient transport time and guaranteed punctuality.

1. The governance body shall define and periodically update the standard categories of freight train paths, which shall be valid in the whole of the freight corridor. At least one of these categories (hereinafter referred to as "facilitated freight") shall include, among these categories of paths, a train path with an efficient transport time and guaranteed punctuality.

Justification

The categories of goods transported by rail should be defined in a broad and flexible way. The term "priority freight" is not appropriate and could lead to a misleading interpretation of the objectives of these categories.

Amendment  53

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The criteria defining the standard categories of freight traffic shall be adopted, where applicable, in compliance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(3).

2. The criteria defining the standard categories of freight traffic shall be adopted by the governance body after consultation of the applicants likely to use the freight corridor as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Justification

The definition of categories of freight should be defined at the most adapted level of decision, which is the governance body. This latter can better take into account the market needs of the rail freight sector along the corridor.

Amendment  54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Notwithstanding Article 20(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, the infrastructure managers of the freight corridor shall reserve the capacity needed for priority freight traffic for the coming financial year, prior to the annual exercise to define the working timetable referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/14/EC and using as a basis the freight traffic observed and the market study defined in Article 5(1).

1. In addition to the cases mentioned in Article 20(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, the infrastructure managers concerned shall reserve the capacity, on the basis of the evaluation of market needs for capacity reserve, and publish the working timetable of the route needed to meet the requirements of international facilitated freight traffic for the coming financial year, prior to the annual exercise to define the working timetable referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/14/EC and using as a basis the freight traffic observed and the market study defined in Article 5(1).

Justification

The reserve of capacity should not be made mandatory. Furthermore, it should be up to the infrastructure managers to analyse and decide whether such a reserve is necessary or not.

Amendment  55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The infrastructure managers shall keep a reserve of capacity within the final working timetable to allow them to respond quickly and appropriately to ad hoc requests for capacity as referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/14/EC. This capacity must be sufficient to allow requests for train paths to be met while guaranteeing a sufficient level of quality for the allocated train path in terms of journey times on the train path and timetables adapted to freight traffic.

2. The infrastructure managers shall keep, following the preliminary evaluation of the appropriate need to constitute a reserve of capacity for ad hoc requests, such a reserve, whilst guaranteeing a sufficient level of quality of the allocated train path for journey time and timetables adapted for international facilitated freight traffic within the final working timetable to allow them to respond quickly and appropriately to ad hoc requests for capacity as referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Justification

The reserve of capacity should not be made mandatory and it should be up to the infrastructure managers to analyse and decide whether such a reserve is necessary or not.

Amendment  56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Train paths allocated to freight operations may be of a different quality in terms of journey times. Fees for the use of the infrastructure relating to these train paths may vary according to the level of quality proposed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

deleted

Justification

Any path allocation should deliver what is agreed. One does not purchase a product or service at one fee and be asked to pay more to ensure it works.

Amendment  57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Save in the case of force majeure, a train path allocated to a priority freight operation may not be cancelled less than three months before its working timetable if the applicant concerned does not give their approval for such cancellation.

5. Save in the case of force majeure, a train path allocated to a facilitated freight operation pursuant to this Article may not be cancelled less than one month before its working timetable if the applicant concerned does not give their approval for such cancellation. The applicant may refer the matter to the regulatory body. As referred to in Article 27 of Directive 2001/14/EC, infrastructure managers may specify in their network statement conditions whereby they shall take account of previous levels of utilisation of facilitated freight train paths in determining priorities for the allocation process.

Justification

The term of "priority freight" is not appropriate and could lead to a misleading interpretation of the objective of this type of freight: freight transport should benefit from an improved process, which is not an absolute priority.

Amendment  58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Infrastructure managers in the freight corridor and the working group referred to in Article 4(5) shall put in place procedures to ensure optimal coordination of the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and strategic terminal capacity, as referred to in Article 9.

6. Infrastructure managers in the freight corridor and the working group referred to in Article 4(5) shall put in place procedures to ensure optimal coordination of the allocation of the capacity in line with this Article, taking into account access to the strategic terminals, as referred to in Article 9.

Justification

Article modified to make it clear that only international traffic covering a certain distance is concerned.

Amendment  59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

6a. Infrastructure managers shall include in their conditions of use a fee for paths that are allocated but ultimately not used. The level of this fee shall be appropriate, dissuasive and effective.

Justification

Rail paths are a scarce commodity, and it is equally important to services of general interest (such as public-service rail transport) that paths are allocated optimally. It is therefore important to ensure that requested paths are also used appropriately. The penalty should help prevent rail paths from ‘artificially’ becoming scarcer and thereby avert the associated loss of attractiveness of rail as a mode of transport.

Amendment  60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Notwithstanding Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, applicants other than railway undertakings and the international groupings that they make up, may request train paths for freight transport where the latter concern one or more sections of the freight corridor.

Notwithstanding Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, applicants other than railway undertakings and the international groupings that they make up, may request train paths for freight transport where the latter concern several sections of the freight corridor.

Justification

This article on the authorised applicant has to be made compatible with the provisions of the Directive 2001/14/EC. Article 16 of this Directive already allows Member States to authorise applicants to apply for infrastructure capacity on their territories. This provision should allow authorised applicants to stand as candidate on an international level.

Amendment  61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The infrastructure managers of the freight corridor shall draw up and publish the rules of priority between the different types of traffic in the event of traffic disruption in the freight corridor in the network statement referred to in Article 3 of and Annex I to Directive 2001/14/EC.

1. Following a proposal of the governance body of the freight corridor as well as respecting the principles and plans referred to in paragraph 2, the infrastructure managers of the freight corridor shall draw up and publish the rules of priority between the different types of train paths, in particular on the train paths allocated to delayed trains, in the event of traffic disruption for each part of the freight corridor in the network statement referred to in Article 3 of and Annex I to Directive 2001/14/EC.

Justification

The infrastructure managers have to determine, as much as possible in a coordinated way, the rules of priority applicable on their networks. Any definition at European level should be avoided, as the operational level in charge of the infrastructure is the most adapted level to take into account the rail freight needs.

Amendment  62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The rules of priority referred to in paragraph 1 above must at least provide that the train path allocated to a priority freight train complying with the initial provisions for its train path may neither be reallocated to another train, nor modified, except where the initial holder of the train path agrees to reallocation to another train or modification of the train path.

2. The rules of priority referred to in paragraph 1 above must at least provide that the train path allocated to a facilitated freight train complying with the initial provisions for its train path shall be respected as far as possible or at least minimise overall delays while focusing on facilitated freight train delays. The governance body shall, in conjunction with applicants, develop and publish:

 

a) train regulation principles that shall ensure that facilitated freight trains receive the best treatment possible regarding the allocation of the reduced capacity;

 

b) contingency plans in case of disruption on the corridor that are based on these principles.

Justification

In case of disturbance, infrastructure managers should give priority to “priority freight” trains. However, they must have enough flexibility to be able to minimise overall delays and the freedom to choose pragmatic solutions. Elaborating and publishing train regulation principles and contingency plans in case of disruption would provide useful guidelines for infrastructure managers, while assuring clarity and transparency to applicants.

Amendment  63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The infrastructure managers for the freight corridor shall ensure consistency between the performance schemes along the freight corridor, as defined in Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

1. The infrastructure managers for the freight corridor shall ensure consistency between the performance schemes along the freight corridor, as defined in Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC. This consistency shall be controlled by the regulatory bodies, which shall cooperate in this control in accordance with Article 17(1).

Justification

In order to guarantee a full consistency of performance schemes, the cooperation of infrastructure managers in order to ensure it should be under the control of the regulatory bodies which are responsible for the freight corridors. This control should be made in a cooperative manner as defined in Article 17(1).

Amendment  64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In order to measure the quality of the service and the capacity for international and national rail freight services in the freight corridor, the governance body shall define the performance indicators in the freight corridor and publish them at least once a year.

2. In order to measure the quality of the service and the capacity for international and national rail freight services in the freight corridor, the governance body shall consult applicants likely to use the corridors and customers of rail freight services on the performance indicators in the freight corridor. After this consultation, the governance body shall define and publish them at least once a year.

Justification

Performance indicators are a useful to improve the quality of rail freight services at the European level. However, such a definition should be made in accordance with the needs of providers of rail freight services and of their customers, in order to agree on indicators shared by all stakeholders.

Amendment  65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The implementation rules for these indicators shall be laid down, where applicable, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 18(3).

deleted

Amendment  66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The regulatory bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC which are responsible for the freight corridor shall cooperate to supervise the international activities of the infrastructure managers and applicants in the freight corridor. They shall consult each other and exchange information. Where necessary, they shall request the necessary information from infrastructure managers in the Member State for which they are responsible.

1. The regulatory bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC which are responsible for the freight corridor shall cooperate to supervise the international activities of the infrastructure managers and applicants in the freight corridor. They shall consult each other and exchange information. Where necessary, they shall request the necessary information from infrastructure managers in the Member State for which they are responsible. Infrastructure managers and other third parties involved in international capacity allocation are obliged to provide the regulatory bodies concerned without delay with all the information that is needed on the international train paths and capacity they are responsible for.

Justification

Presently regulatory bodies have difficulties getting the right information from infrastructure managers. It is important to ensure good access to information and transparency.

Amendment  67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. In the event of a complaint from an applicant regarding international rail freight services, or within the framework of a routine enquiry, the regulatory body concerned shall consult the regulatory body of any other Member State on the territory of which the freight corridor concerned passes and request the necessary information from them before taking its decision. The other regulatory bodies shall provide all the information that they themselves have the right to request under their national legislation. Where necessary, the regulatory body receiving the complaint or having initiated the routine enquiry shall transfer the file to the regulatory body responsible in order to take measures regarding the parties concerned.

2. In the event of a complaint from an applicant regarding international rail freight services, or within the framework of a routine enquiry, the regulatory body concerned shall consult the regulatory body of any other Member State on the territory of which the freight corridor concerned passes and ask it for the necessary information before taking its decision. The other regulatory bodies shall provide all the information that they themselves have the right to request under their national legislation. Where necessary, the regulatory body receiving the complaint or having initiated the routine enquiry shall transfer the file to the regulatory body responsible in order to take measures regarding the parties concerned in accordance with the procedure established in Article 30(5) and (6) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

Justification

The procedure for referring matters to regulatory bodies should be made compatible with the existing provisions in Directive 2001/14/EC.

Amendment  68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The infrastructure managers shall cooperate to implement this Regulation. They shall exchange information concerning best practices in order to coordinate them throughout the Community. The Commission shall support them in these tasks. For this purpose, it shall set up and chair a working group of infrastructure managers.

deleted

Justification

This article is redundant and creates unnecessary bureaucracy as the coordination and the exchange of best practice between infrastructure managers is obvious and does not need any intervention by the Commission.

Amendment  69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

If, where the guidelines for TEN-T are reviewed in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 18(3) of Decision No 1692/96/EC, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to adapt this Regulation to those guidelines, it shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal on amending this Regulation accordingly.

If, where the guidelines for TEN-T are reviewed in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 18(3) of Decision No 1692/96/EC, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to adapt this Regulation to those guidelines, it shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal on amending this Regulation accordingly. Similarly, certain decisions taken under this Regulation may entail the need to revise the TEN-T guidelines.

Amendment  70

Proposal for a regulation

Annex – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

b) the freight corridor must be part of the TEN-T;

deleted

Justification

The TEN-T as a criteria mentioned in the annex are redundant, as they are already a characteristic of the selection of corridors mentioned in Article 3.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The decreasing share of rail in freight transport in Europe

European policies in the field of transport have been characterised in the last decade by an increasing liberalisation. In parallel, transport growth has been constant, especially in the freight sector. An increase of the freight traffic volume (in tkm) by 50% in the EU-25 is expected between 2000 and 2020. In this context, despite the recognition of the key role of the rail transport in the European transport framework by the Commission in its White Paper published in 2001 "European Policy for 2010: Time to decide", rail market share declined continuously in the freight transport: in 2005 it represented only 10% of the freight transport market share against more than 20% in the 1970's.

These difficulties could be explained by the changing context in the transport sector in the last decade. Three Railway Packages have been introduced, opening the national markets and fostering the competition and transport efficiency. But this liberalisation was not supported enough by the harmonisation and the synergies between national rail systems, despite certain initiatives in the field of interoperability and of the integrated management of the railway infrastructure, like for example the development of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).

The rail freight market has now to face the challenge of the improvement of its quality of service. In 2007, according to statistics published on the web site of the UIRR (International Union of combined Road-Rail transport companies), only around 60% of the freight trains arrived on time. The same year, around 20 % of the freight trains arrived with more than 3 hours' delay and 8% with more than 24 hours' delay. As a result, this lack of compliance handicaps the rail in its competition against other modes of transport in the freight transport.

Among the various reasons responsible for this lack of quality, the European Commission has recently concentrated its analysis on the insufficient repartition of resources of the rail infrastructure in favour of the freight. Therefore, the Commission promoted the idea to give more priority to the transport of goods in the last years, for example through its Communication "Towards a rail network giving priority to freight" (COM(2007)0608), on which the European Parliament has adopted a resolution on 4 September 2008. Following this Communication, the Commission now proposes a legislation creating a competitive rail network for competitive freight.

The creation of European freight corridors

The Commission's proposal aims at organising and determining rules for international rail freight corridors, especially concerning their selection and their administrative organisation. It promotes also the harmonised management between infrastructure managers concerning the allocation of paths, the traffic management and the investments along this corridor.

Chapter 2 of the Proposal can be summarised as the chapter designing the freight corridors, presenting the criteria for the selection of freight corridors by Member States and defining their governance bodies. At least two Member States will be linked and the corridor shall be part of the TEN-T. These corridors shall aim at allowing a significant development of rail freight traffic, on the basis of a socio-economic analysis. An implementation plan shall be approved by the governance body.

Chapter 3 mentions the main elements concerning the investment in the freight corridor, in particular the investment plans for infrastructure. Heavy maintenance works have to be coordinated and strategic terminals are subject to a development strategy.

Chapter 4 contains the rules and instruments related to the management of the freight corridor, like the creation of a one-stop-shop for the requests for train paths. A specific category called "priority freight" for very time-sensitive good is also defined by the governance body on the basis of criteria defined in comitology. Rules for the traffic management, especially rules of priority for the "priority freight" in case of traffic disruption, are drawn up and published by the infrastructure managers.

Rapporteur's views on the proposal

Your rapporteur welcomes the fact that the Commission aims to improve the situation in the rail freight sector and shares several elements of its analysis. But your rapporteur has, however, certain doubts that some provisions of the legislative proposal are an adequate answer to the problems in the rail freight sector. Political actions of the Member States and of the Commission are also necessary in order to better coordinate the investments in rail infrastructure. Furthermore, financial investments are needed to increase the general capacity of the rail, which could only be achieved through Member States' commitments.

Coming back to the legislative proposal made by the Commission, your rapporteur believes, nevertheless, that the main reasons for introducing the freight corridor, which are a better synchronisation of the investments along the corridors and the improvement of the cross-border cooperation without the harmonisation of the management structures, are justified and adapted to the needs of the rail freight sector.

Moreover, your rapporteur would like to prevent against any possible misleading understanding inspired by the text of the Commission. Therefore the wording of the proposal needs to be more specified, as it creates various interpretations, especially on the potential negative impacts in the railways sector.

Concerning the specific provisions on the priority rules, they should not be interpreted as aiming to reduce dramatically the flexibility of the traffic management by the operators on the whole rail network. These rules aim on the contrary, from the point of view of the efficiency of the whole rail network, to find a better balance on these specific corridors between freight and passenger trains. Therefore, freight traffic would not have an absolute priority against all trains, including of course passenger trains. For these reasons, it is necessary to conciliate the necessity of rules with a guaranteed flexibility of the management of the rail system, in order to limit the potential impact on passenger traffic, to avoid any possible conflicts between the different types of traffic and to improve the continuity of the freight traffic. The definition of the rules at the most adapted level is crucial to guarantee the success of these corridors; these rules should preferably be defined by the infrastructure managers, and as little as possible at European level, in order to take into account the market needs of each corridor in the freight sector.

The Regulation does not propose to introduce a physical split between railway networks, but to set up rules solving the problem of the adequate allocation of slots for international freight. These rules need to be more transparent, especially for the customers of the infrastructure managers on the allocation of train paths and the management of traffic disruption concerning freight trains.

Finally, concerning the reference to the TEN-T network, your rapporteur estimates that this reference is an appropriate one, as the TEN-T network is of major significance across the European Union. But this link with the freight corridors should be better specified. Therefore, if your rapporteur supports the idea that the freight corridors can be a part of the TEN-T network, they should not be exclusively defined on this basis. The ERTMS corridors or other important freight traffic routes could be other elements of the constitution of rail corridors.

As a final word, your rapporteur wishes to conclude by mentioning that this legislation should be designed in a way to increase the efficiency of the whole rail network for all users. Furthermore, the objective should be to guarantee a better sharing-out of the capacity between all types of customers while preserving a flexible functioning of the rail system for operators.


PROCEDURE

Title

European rail network for competitive freight (text with EEA relevance)

References

COM(2008)0852 – C6-0509/2008 – 2008/0247(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

11.12.2008

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

TRAN

13.1.2009

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Petr Duchoň

5.1.2009

 

 

Discussed in committee

17.2.2009

30.3.2009

 

 

Date adopted

31.3.2009

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

32

1

0

Members present for the final vote

Gabriele Albertini, Inés Ayala Sender, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Erik Meijer, Seán Ó Neachtain, Reinhard Rack, Ulrike Rodust, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Michel Teychenné, Yannick Vaugrenard, Armando Veneto, Roberts Zīle

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Anne E. Jensen

Date tabled

2.4.2009

Legal notice - Privacy policy