9 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2017/2285(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas in the 2007-2013 period, EUR 81 billion, or almost one third (31 %) of the ESIF was invested in transport infrastructure, which had a clear impact on GDP, business creation, industry, employment, exports and tourism; whereas the strongest impact of transport infrastructure investment was recorded in Eastern Europe and, more particularly, in the new Member States, to which 69 % of the total transport funding was allocated;, despite which investment in the European transport network has brought similar user benefits to all Member States.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the intervention logic behind EU transport infrastructure investment should remain a well-balanced construction of centrally managed and shared management sources in order to address policy and funding needs; recalls that the CEF aims to address centrally the EU-wide priority of TEN-T corridors, including safety and environmental aspects, with additional CF assistance for cohesion countries lagging significantly behind other Member States in terms of development and infrastructure; recalls also that the ERDF and CF havehas a strong regional dimension that responds to local demand and they support the connectivity to TEN- T and mobility through secondary and tertiary nodes and multimodal terminals; underlines, in this context, that the relevant budgetary envelopes for the three funding sources need to be strengthened in an even manner in order to avoid asymmetric distribution of investment between the levels;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the intervention logic behind EU transport infrastructure investment should remain a well-balanced construction of centrally managed and shared management sources in order to address policy and funding needs; recalls that the CEF aims to address centrally the EU-wide priority of TEN-T corridors, including safety and environmental aspects; recalls also that the ERDF and CF havehas a strong regional dimension that responds to local demand and they support the connectivity to TEN-T and mobility through secondary and tertiary nodes and multimodal terminals; stresses the importance of intermodal transport in terms of greater economy, sustainability and adaptability to local and regional needs and calls on the Member State authorities to support the development thereof; underlines, in this context, that the relevant budgetary envelopes for the three funding sources need to be strengthened in an even manner in order to avoid asymmetric distribution of investment between the levels;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that infrastructure requires objective quantification of demand prior to setting the budget and the delivery methods; underlines that it should be possible for the ERDF and CF eligibility criteria to consider existing demand at NUTS 3 level;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the creation of an EU transport infrastructure index as an additional eligibility criterion in order to accurately reflect regional and local demand; calls for account to be taken, in principle, of regional traffic volumes and the economic, social and environmental impact thereof in establishing infrastructural investment priorities. proposes that the index help determine the overall envelope of investments as well as the co-financing rates; suggests that the EU transport scoreboard could be the basis for the proposed index with complementary elements such as road safety, regional specifics and environmental impact, which could contribute to the accuracy of the assessments;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses the view thatNotes the need for investment in basic transport infrastructures in the less developed regions with negative demographic trends or remote ones with low accessibility, which should also be targeted more intensively by ERDF and CF transport infrastructure investments, while additional sources and delivery methods should be expanded in the transition and more developed regions;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Expresses the view that the less developed regions with negative demographic trends or remote ones with low accessibility should be targeted more intensively by ERDF and CF transport infrastructure investments, while additional sources and delivery methods should be expanded in the transition and more developed regions;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for a common European transport policy based on a funding framework that is integrated and coordinated with the EU transport instruments; considers that thematic concentration should be preserved in order to permit synergies between different funding sources at project level; proposes the creation of a single set of rules for all financing sources related to the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’; considers it necessary to streamline and accelerate both procurement, in particular by reducing delays and expediting complaints procedures in this connection, and state aid compliance procedures through standardised public procurement;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the work of the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS), the European Public- Private Partnership Expertise Centre (EPEC) and the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH); urges the national authorities to avail themselves of the Commission and EIB support programmes ; expects, however, that the transport infrastructure operations of the EIB Group within the EU devote significantly more resources to providing comprehensive advisory assistance to authorities locally and to smaller municipalities at an earlier stage in the identification and pre-assessment of projects;