European Parliament Calls for 40% of EU Transport Appropriations for Railways and Freight
06 September 2008
The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to allocate at least 40% of EU transport infrastructure appropriations to the railways and prioritize freight to reduce the need for road transport.
Members of Parliament (MEPs) urged the Commission to concentrate EU co-financing on improving the efficiency, interoperability and upgrading of rail infrastructure, inter-modal hubs and other freight transport modes. The report was adopted with 541 votes in favor, 6 against and 15 abstentions.
The transport sector is responsible for almost 30% of CO2 emissions in the EU—and as much as 40% in cities. Despite technology improvements, the sector’s CO2 emissions grew by 26% between 1990 and 2005, while in other sectors they were cut by 10%.
Freight transport in Europe is expected to grow by some 50% (in tonne-kilometers) between 2000 and 2020; it grew about 30% faster than GDP between 1995 and 2005. The growth has mainly been the result of an increase in road and air transport relative to other modes of transport.
Members of Parliament (MEPs) stressed that freight transport must meet pressing challenges to increase effective integration and sustainability, doing more to improve mobility and energy efficiency and to reduce oil consumption, polluting emissions and external costs. In an enlarged European Union, the use of more efficient logistics systems is part of the gradual integration of priority cross-border freight corridors, hubs and conventional networks, they said.
The report suggests that the Commission should define “green corridors”, as exemplary inter-modal projects and encourage the shift to intelligent and environmentally-friendly transport modes so as to reduce accidents, congestion, noise, local toxic and non-toxic pollution, CO2 emissions, landscape and energy consumption.
To improve the transport system, the House advocated standardizing and simplifying the administration of freight transport market authorities and simplifying customs rules at borders. It welcomed the decision to establish a maritime space without barriers and urged the Commission to ask the appropriate international associations and organizations to develop a single inter-modal document, with the assistance of the relevant associations and organizations.
MEPs also urged the Commission to propose, no later than the end of 2008, a program for strengthening cooperation between the Member States responsible for transport projects. This should assess and facilitate solutions to the current blockages, with particular attention to goods transport, taking due account of the added value of logistics. The Commission is also asked to support projects seeking the differential use of existing high-speed lines, e.g. for freight transport.
Resources
Over the years much railway traffic has appeared to have moved on to the roads.
Part of the reason could be that roadway maintenance is from the public purse, only a fraction of which is picked up by the trucking industry, whereas track maintenance is borne totally by the railroad operator.
Another part of the reason is that rail companies prefer to manage large contracts with just a few shippers. If 20% of your clients provide 80% of your business why bother with the rest ?
Consequently some railway corridors see miniscule use compared to the traffic passing on adjacent parallel roadways. The cure is to nationalise the track so that access by trucking companies with their own rolling stock is possible. Perhaps these lines could be operated like roadways but with maximum speeds to 40mph and no more than ten trailers on each rail tractor unit.
A pal in the industry tells me that delays of hours at intermodal facilities due to poor scheduling have discouraged trucking companies from using them more.
T2
Posted by: T2 | 06 September 2008 at 09:06 AM
It would be far better cheaper and sensable to just expand the roads and add in alot of recharge stations to support electric trucking. Hell if they made some freaking over road at speed recharging structures every 50-80 miles they could make it bloody rock. A simple whip electrode and a metal plate above and below the truck and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAP all the power one might need without any wait at all.
Posted by: wintermane | 06 September 2008 at 11:55 AM
If the truckers have to ammortize the cost of roads, bridges, tunnels and repairs into their costs a lot of traffic would automatically shift to rail. It's one of those lttle "hidden subsidy" truths people don't want to talk about.
As the frequency of trains increases and the intermodal nodes improve efficiency, the transit time will improve.
Heavy axle weight trucks are responsible for the bulk of road repairs.
Rail is intinsically more energy efficient, it can be electrified, it can deploy regenerative braking. In most European countries the infrastructure is largely present and under utilized.
China is developing seperate high speed passenger and freight transportation systems. They may be able to get their goods to China interior to west coast ports cheaper than road from US east coast. (I haven't done the math, so you can take a cheap shot at me for that) In any case both Europe and China will be more energy efficient and thus more competetive than the US.
Posted by: 10-10 Good Buddy | 06 September 2008 at 06:14 PM
Goo and drivel.
There are no private railroad operators. The State owns and operates the rails everywhere in
Europe.
The simple reason for the transfer is that a truck will take the goods from point A to Point B the origin and destination.
A rail road requires that you get your goods to a rail yard, Point A' near your origin, and then delivers it to a point only near your final destination, Point B'. You must then get it from B', to the destination B.
So there are a minimum of four loads and unloads, with rail versus two with a truck. The loading and unloading costs time and money, wipes out the fuel efficiency of the rail system and then some.
There is no "CONSPIRACY".
Posted by: stas peterson | 07 September 2008 at 09:29 AM
Spend some time in reality, Wintermane.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 07 September 2008 at 10:57 AM
@Stan & Wintermane
One idea the euros are working on would allow quicker and easier movement of cargo between rail and road and back. It's called Blade Runner; simply put it uses dualmode trucks [trucks with both steel & rubber wheels].
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/bladerunner1.htm
Posted by: ai_vin | 07 September 2008 at 12:22 PM
Spas,
Amtrak is a government owned company. Some European rail networks are privatised (e.g. UK.)
Who said there is a conspiracy. Railway track is a more energy efficient way to move goods around. May not be optimum for all routes today but it could be made viable for a lot more heavy goods traffic than it is used for today.
Infrastructure is lacking due to under funding. Too much money was spent developing interstates and roads to nowhere. Would have been better to spend some of that money expanding and improving rail.
Most European destinations could be less than 50 miles from a transmodal depot if the infrastructure is put in place. I envisage efficient electric dray trucks for first and final legs. It will be slower than direct A to B, but speed is not most critical for goods transit.... Cost is!
Posted by: Andrew | 07 September 2008 at 07:42 PM