Interview with MEP Adriana Ţicău, Vice-chair of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) of the European Parliament
The ongoing air crisis outlines a set of challenges to European railway transport. We wanted to see how Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union, testifies to this crisis, from the point of view of decision-making institutions and rail associational environment. Several MEPs recognised railways as being able to offer a viable and effective alternative to air transport, while making clear that improvements to interoperability is required, whereas CER has called on decision makers to consider rail as a key pillar of European transport. All aspects of the air crisis which are closely linked to rails are discussed simultaneously between all stakeholders.
Railway Pro: In the EP debate on the disruption of air traffic in Europe at the end of April you declared that “the eruption of the volcano in Island has proved the fragility of European transport system (…) we must allocate the necessary funds to modernise rails”. Do you consider that your opinion, shared by other MEPs, had the desired echo? Did the air traffic crisis put emphasis on the importance of rails?
Adriana Ţicău: Most certainly, the eruption of the volcano in Island has pointed to the lack of intermodality at the level of European transport system. There is no suitable combination between the modes of transportation. Even if there is, since 2004, a list of 30 high priority projects, these are not subject to interconnected utility. In the second half of this year we are going to revise the TEN-T guidelines. We will analyse the development stage of each project and try to introduce new projects.
We all agreed the EU must develop railway transport, provide better connections between the different modes of transportation and develop a high-speed railway network which would cover all capital cities of the member states. For instance, our Greek colleagues could have returned home using European interior navigable water ways, but this was not the case as we don’t have enough interconnections to cover a certain indisponibility of air transport services, not even for medium distances. Both TRAN Committee and the European Commission reached the conclusion that railway transport should be given higher priority.
RP: How does TRAN Committee see the project of a high-speed railway in Eastern Europe, reaching Budapest and Bucharest – the idea, the advantages, the costs and its efficiency?
A.T.: Romania needs freight corridors to reach Bucharest and Constanta, in order to valorise its Black Sea coast, but also a high-speed line to connect Budapest, Bucharest and Constanta. At present, there are two priority high-speed projects, no. 6 and no. 17; one ends in Bratislava and the other in Budapest. My opinion is that the two projects should merge in Budapest and continue with a connection to Bucharest and Constanta. This is the first stage. This would be followed by high-speed lines towards Brasov and Iasi, in order to cover most of Romania’s surface. What is urgent is to modernise Romania’s railway infrastructure.
The costs of a project of this kind are enormously high, but the EU conditions at present favour investments into railway infrastructure and make them attractive. Unfortunately, rails have decreased percentage in the total of European transport. Rail freight transport is only 10% of the total freight transport, while rail passenger transport is only 7% of the total passenger transport in Europe. The figures are very low, mainly because of lack of infrastructure: high-speed rails from south to north, from east to west. Rail freight transport is less prioritary than passenger transport which determines bigger time account and makes it less attractive. Only by developing international freight corridors rail freight transport will have the priority it deserves and provide a competitive time account.
RP: Referring to the activity of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN), what legislative proposals have been made? What about other projects related to rails?
A.T.: At present, TRAN considers the legislative proposals regarding the freight corridors and those that would amend the TEN-T. Also, we have asked the Transport Commissioner to give us solutions for allocating the funds necessary to transport development. Rails need generous financial resources to cover the necessary of investments. Furthermore, we are going to revise First Railway Package. Unfortunately, there are 21 member states that have not correctly implemented the directives of First Railway Package. We have initiated a debate in the European Parliament (motion for a resolution B7-0204/2010) where TRAN requests the Commission to pursue the implementation of First Railway Package. Priorities concern the independence of the infrastructure managers, the regulatory bodies’ lack of resources and powers and the infrastructure charging.
RP: You also stressed the importance of developing naval transportation on interior navigable water ways. On this background, which is the importance of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region?
A.T.: EUSDR has great importance both to EU and Romania. As far as EU is concerned, we have to mention that there is a long history of cooperation in the Danube region: the European Commission for the Danube, founded on 30 March 1856 and originally based in Galaţi (Romania), was one of the very first European institutions. Its main aim was assuring free navigation on the Danube River. Romania and the Danube River were therefore important within the European construction. As far as the Danube basin is concerned, the region concentrates approximately 100 millions of European citizens. The Danube links ten European countries, six of them EU Member States, over its 4 000-km course to the Black Sea, but its basin covers a much bigger surface on the territory of 18 states. EUSDR will provide Danube region with greater visibility, facilitate free navigation and boost economic and social development. Finally, environmental protection is going to be an important target of this strategy. It concerns Romania very much as all waste water from the Danube reach the Black Sea, which is quite a polluted sea.
Unfortunately, naval transportation is not developed either. I hope EU will develop a strategy concerning naval transportation as well. There is priority project no. 18 which links Rotterdam and Constanta harbours and shortens the distance between the two with 4000 km by using interior navigable water ways. I consider that developing naval transportation will also allow promoting the high potential of the Danube region which lies in tourism.
RP: How can transnational railway transport in Eastern Europe become more efficient? As far as links with Eastern neighbour states, Russia and Asian transport networks, intermodal solutions seem to be the best. How should we prompt for the developing of intermodal centres on the Romanian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian coasts to the Black Sea?
A.T.: The revision of the TEN-T does not refer only to the projects within the EU. One of the goals is to ensure better integration of European and non-EU neighbour countries’ transport networks. In order to achieve this, we have to modernise current infrastructure on each of the three sectors – rail, road and naval. We need to modernise ports and airports. This modernisation implies developing new capacities but also upgrading the current ones.
Intermodality is the key word. It is very important to have high-speed rails, but they should be linked to the other modes of transportation. Reaching Constanta port by high-speed line, you should be further able to take the ferry-boat upwards on the Danube River and so on. Unfortunately, these connections are not enough developed. Romania needs investments into the naval sector as well, as far as harbour infrastructure and fleet are concerned.
RP: Does Constanta harbour maintain its advantages or Bulgarian harbours at the Black Sea have started to become more sought?
A.T.: Constanta harbour is one of the most important maritime harbours in Europe. Recent statistics issued from a study of the European Parliament show that Constanta harbour is ranked 16th as the largest freight volume transported and the 10th as the highest volume of containers transferred. Constanta harbour is among top positions.
RP: The inflexibility of the railways has also been brought into discussion, as well as the lack in a performing information & communication system towards the passengers. Lately, we have been confronted with massive social protests (rail strike in France, general strike in Greece) which shut down rail transport. Are railways a form of transport that can be relied upon at times of crisis?
A.T.: Railway transport system must be a transport system that we can rely upon. Henceforth, we need substantial investments and intermodality. Workers have all the right to social protests and improved work conditions but what is more important is that decision-makers at European and national level become aware of the fact that investments mean maintaining current jobs and creating new ones, as well as increasing the volume of transported goods and passengers. An increased volume of passengers and goods will make railway transport become more attractive from the economic point of view, as a bigger amount of passengers can contribute to the reduction of ticket price. Goods will reach their destination faster and cheaper.
RP: Is the “ash cloud crisis” the consequence of unfair and bad policies at the level of promoting a means of transportation to the deficit of the other?
A.T.: No. I consider that railway transport had already been one of the priorities in developing European transport. The proof is that 70% of the 30 TEN-T projects were dedicated to rail and naval transport. But the amount of necessary investments is way larger, which has a direct impact on the duration of the project. Substantial financial resources are necessary. Not long ago, EU had many barriers to an integrated railway transport and to interoperability– there was no unique train control system for Europe. These barriers are being eliminated through the implementation of ERTMS system.
RP: Were you personally affected by the “ash cloud crisis”? Did you consider rails as an alternative?
A.T.: Yes, of course. During the air crisis I was attending a seminary on EUSDR in Brussels. I couldn’t fly to Romania and I gave up returning for the weekend. I chose train for travelling to Strasbourg. Trains are viable and preferred alternatives for travelling in North-Western Europe. The duration of the voyage is smaller and prices are cheaper compared to planes. There is no need to travel to the airport, to pass the check-in operations, which means time saving.
Interview recorded by Delia Elena Lazăr
Share on:
