LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Spring 2007

by Paolo Costa

Sir,

Jacques Barrot told us in his recent article in Europe’s World that he went back to the drawing board when preparing the mid-term review of the 2001 transport White Paper. It does a lot more than just assess progress towards the White Paper’s original objectives while fine-tuning additional policy measures, and signals a number of shifts in transport policy priorities that are worth discussing. Barrot is right to say that transport policies must be adapted to the dramatic changes of the last five years, but the question is whether that adaptation would strengthen or cancel the White Paper’s policy measures. There is no easy answer, not least because the Commission’s own evaluation of the effectiveness of current policies was not too clear. Its evaluation of rail performance was a striking example of this ambiguity; how can we say whether the 2001 White Paper’s rail policies have failed if technical interoperability, market liberalisation and network connection have none of them yet been accomplished? The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is only on the point of being deployed, freight rail markets are to be opened during the course of this year, with passengers rail markets to be opened only after 2010, while the technologically advanced TEN-T network is to be constructed between 2010 and 2020.

So far, there is no level playing field for inter-modal competition and the key issue remains how to reconcile mobility and sustainability. The White Paper suggested three lines of policy to solve the problem: transport demand management, which meant trying to decouple economic growth from transport growth; modal shifts from road and air transport to rail, sea and inland waterways; and new technologies for reducing energy consumption and “negative transport side-effects” like emissions and accidents.

Although it mentions the “revised European sustainable strategy”, the mid-term review de facto abandons all “decoupling” policies and shows less interest in introducing policies that attempt to shift transport modes. The few words it devotes to the strategic necessity of completing the rail TEN-T on time and ensuring that member states do their part in this colossal infrastructure project was a key sign in this direction.

Decoupling policies are mainly non-transport policies, but “modal shift” is quite another story. There have been no dramatic global changes that justify cancelling it; on the contrary, rising energy prices and global warming both mean we need more energy and environmental friendly transport modes like rail, sea and inland waterways. But the mid-term review instead seems to be going in a totally different direction apparently on the basis of two questionable – to say the least – arguments. The first is that during the last five years rail did not gain in transport share, and the second is that greener can only be obtained through the application of new technology to road transport. I am afraid it won’t be enough, and raises in my mind the major question of whether Europe can afford to shift its priorities from sustainability to mobility when we’re no more sustainable today than five years ago?