2017/2285(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)

– having regard to the Decision No 1386/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
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 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for transport infrastructure investments; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport, always taking into consideration environmental and health issues related to the specific building site(s);

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for transport infrastructure investments; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport; reminds in this context, the importance of building the missing links at borders between EU member-states and along the main European routes, removing bottlenecks and interconnecting transport modes in terminals;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Emphasises the need to integrate climate protection into cohesion policy as regards the sustainable transport objective and hence pursue the Community's objectives for reducing CO2 emissions; calls on the Commission to require the Member States to integrate Community environmental legislation into the process of adopting and planning projects eligible for funding, and especially Natura2000, strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, air quality, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and Birds Directives, and the European Environmental Agency's Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM);

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for closing the transport infrastructure gaps with the Western Balkans by focusing on further investment in connectivity and on tackling transport bottlenecks, especially in view of Commission’s communication on the European perspective for the Western Balkans; considers in this regard the importance of the European Territorial Cooperation and the macroregional strategies involving the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro;

Amendment 104 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the role of macroregional strategies for integrated transport projects which bring added value for EU and non-EU member states; calls on the Commission and Member States for better coordination of transport plans and projects with candidate and neighbouring countries in order to achieve more effective and efficient use of EU resources under ESIF, pre-accession and other programmes and funding instruments;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for facilitating preparations for and implementing transport infrastructure projects under the EU cross-border cooperation programmes that are being implemented with candidate countries and other European neighbourhood countries in support of their European integration processes;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that more attention should be given to greening the transport fleet, in particular in the public sector, and to support the shift towards clean energy, in particular by promoting the expansion of electric vehicles charging infrastructure;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the importance of the modernisation and improved use of the internal and cross-border waterways in the EU, while reducing existing bottlenecks, such as different legislation to the use and modernisation of locks, tonnage and operational hours;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Stresses that increased energy efficiency should be one of the key priorities of European transport policy and, therefore, of cohesion policy in that field; emphasises the importance of promoting electro-mobility and electric public transport systems, alongside the introduction of renewable electrical energy sources, awarding priority to continuing electrification of the railway network;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Underlines the clear complementarity between the thematic objectives 7 and 4 (supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors); emphasises that most Member States lagging behind in meeting the EU target of using 10% of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) in transport by 2020; calls for a stronger focus on sustainable forms of transport such as rail and waterways; reaffirms that development of their infrastructure should be the priority by the ERDF, CEF and CF;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
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; whereas despite these investment efforts, road and rail infrastructure across the EU has been degrading because of too little maintenance, as maintenance budgets in several Member States have often experienced severe cuts since the economic crisis and have not evolved in line with the increasing extent of infrastructure and ageing of crucial links;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Considers that soft measures aimed at promotion of public transport, including partially or fully subsidizing its services in most congested locations at least at peak times, could significantly contribute to decrease in road congestion and ensure better utilization of existing transport infrastructure;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Member States to better implement the EU macro-regional strategies for priority transport infrastructure connections and to ensure the deeper involvement of the regional and local authorities in their implementation;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Calls for the resolution of cross- border transport bottlenecks between Member States on regional transport routes that are characterised by daily migration and that have a clear seasonal or tourism-related character;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Emphasises that more support should be given to promote smart traffic management including through digitalisation by making more efficient use of existing infrastructure and redirecting towards off-peak times;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for an adequate and ambitious common European 8. transport policy, which can contribute decisively for the single market completion and to the connection of European companies with external markets, 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 procurement and state aid compliance procedures through standardised public procurement; in this context, believes that CEF should be properly financed in order to achieve EU ambitious objectives regarding TEN-T;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for athe common European transport policy, whose overriding objectives should be environmental sustainability and territorial and social cohesion, to be 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 procurement and state aid compliance procedures through standardised public procurement;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for a common European transport policy ~~bas~~underpinned onby 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’ adapted to the challenges faced by the regions; considers it necessary to streamline and accelerate procurement and state aid compliance procedures ~~through standardised public procurement~~;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
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; ~~propos~~invites the ~~creation of~~Commission to explore 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 procurement and state aid compliance procedures ~~through standardised public procurement~~as much as possible;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
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’ without increasing the number and the scope of already existing regulations and sets of rules; considers it necessary to streamline and accelerate procurement and state aid compliance procedures through standardised public procurement;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
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 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework is marked by increased ESIF and CEF budgets, along with the adverse effects of the economic and financial crisis- particularly in its first years, and, despite the delayed implementation of the programming period, there is no major impact on transport investments; whereas EU transport infrastructure investments are one of the policies that provide the highest EU added value due to the spill-over effects within the single market, which effectively make all Member States net beneficiaries of the investment;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses the importance of improving transport connectivity assessing first and foremost, however, whether existing networks can be renovated and/or expanded; calls on the European institutions and the Member States not to endorse infrastructure projects that contribute to the impoverishment of the Union’s natural capital and to the deterioration of air quality, do not meet the needs expressed by citizens and by local communities, are not sustainable from an economic and financial point of view and increase the uncertainty surrounding the achievement of the objectives of the 7th Environmental Action Programme;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses the importance and usefulness of integrated transport master plans prepared by Member States as ex- ante conditionality for receiving ESI funding; believes that further improvements and efficiency gains in transport investment could be achieved if those master plans increase their ambitions in view of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector and strengthening multi-modality and interoperability of transport; calls on the Commission to assist Member States in the preparation of those master plans and to ensure that green-washing is avoided;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Demands that the utmost attention be paid, in all the transport infrastructure projects financed by the European Union, to quality of employment and dignified working conditions for workers, with a specific focus on compliance with occupational safety standards;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Urges national, regional and local authorities to choose and implement projects, in the framework of relevant Operational programmes, based on mobility and transport plans that take into duly account environmental sustainability and economic and financial rationality and that thus aim to actually fulfil the Thematic Objective n.7; calls, in this regard, on cities and regions to encourage the inter-modality and decarbonisation of transport, to discourage the use of private cars, to encourage walking and the expansion of networks of cycle paths and to promote integrated, low-emission systems of collective public mobility, preferably on rails;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Recalls that the development of transport infrastructure must not violate the Union acquis, in particular on nature protection; urges Member States to fully apply EU law when planning and implementing transport projects and to avoid infringement procedures as a result of breaching EU law; is of the opinion, that unlawful use of ESI Funds is counterproductive for a successful cohesion policy close to the citizens; therefore, calls on the Commission to closely monitor EU funding for transport and not to allow for splitting a project into sections in view of avoiding ecological disruptions;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
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); 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 municipal~~local, regional and national authorities at an earlier stage in the identification and pre-assessment of those projects with an EU-added value;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
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); 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; invites and calls for exchange of good practices and experiences among national, regional and local authorities;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that EU transport policy should encourage modal shift from road to sustainable modes of transport, such as e-vehicles accompanied with adequate infrastructure of charging stations, as well as rail and waterways, to contribute to the EU's climate goals; regrets that no European scheme respecting the principles of free competition has been introduced to replace the Marco Polo programme; therefore, asks the Commission to speed up the preparation of such a programme to provide support for transport demand based on the Eco bonus principle, and to include it in the post-2020 CEF toolbox; also calls for support for modal shift to be included in the necessary review of the 2011 Transport White Paper;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Underlines that EU policies- particularly cohesion policy, have helped to reduce the accessibility gap (and its costs) to the outermost regions, due to the investments supported by EDRF and CF, which have been essential for improving transport infrastructure and facilities; in addition, CEF is supporting projects related to the Motorways of the Sea programme and to green shipping, among others;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas 2014-2020 is marked by increased ESIF and CEF budgets and, despite the delayed implementation of the programming period, there is no major impact on transport investments; whereas EU transport infrastructure investments are one of the policies that provide ~~the highes~~significant EU added value due to the spill-over effects within the single market, which effectively make all Member States net beneficiaries of the investment;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the new Regulation(s) for the post-2020 cohesion policy, to propose a bigger earmarking of funds available for cities to bid jointly for infrastructure or technologies that would contribute to decarbonising urban transport and reducing air pollution from road vehicles;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Is in favour of promoting rail transport, inland as well as cross-border, to shift freight transport from road to rail, as well as supporting measures that reduce the impact of rail transport on the environment through intelligent planning, elimination of cross-rail level crossings and the erection of noise reducing panels;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas 2014-2020 is marked by increased ESIF and CEF budgets and, despite the delayed implementation of the programming period, there is no major impact on transport investments, however the railway investments are lagging behind; whereas EU transport infrastructure investments are one of the policies that provide the highest EU added value due to the spill-over effects within the single market, which effectively make all Member States net beneficiaries of the investment;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas success stories of road, rail and port projects backed by the EU budget contribute to economy, growth, industry, export, tourism, trade, creation of jobs, revival of regions and reversal of depopulation trends; whereas there are examples of EU added value such as: the modernisation of railway line E30/C-E30, Kraków – Rzeszow in Poland or Sofia- Plovdiv railway in Bulgaria; Leipzig City Rail Tunnel (Modules 5 and 6) in Germany or the track modernisation Votice to Benešov u Prahy in the Czech Republic; Reconstruction of Ülemiste Junction in Tallinn, Estonia or the rehabilitation of national road DN6Alexandria – Craiova in Romania; Madrid-Valencia-Murcia High Speed Rail in Spain or the completion of Trakia motorway from Sofia to the Black Sea port of Burgas; Budapest Metro Line 4 in Hungary or Sofia Metro Lines in Bulgaria and many others;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas TEN-T and transport infrastructure such as road, ~~high-speed~~ rail, waterways, cycling and air are ~~EU priorities,~~to contribute to EU priorities such as cohesion, economic development, job creation and climate change adaptation; and if European investment were to lag behind, increased FDI could fill the gap while relocating profits, taxes and job opportunities outside of the EU, perhaps increasing the dependence and macroeconomic instability of the regions; whereas such a process would undermine the Union’s regional presence and policies in the long term and would lead to fragmentation and divergence;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas TEN-T and transport infrastructure such as road, ~~high-speed~~ railways, waterways and air are EU priorities, and if European investment were to lag behind, increased FDI could fill the gap while relocating profits, taxes and job opportunities outside of the EU, perhaps increasing the dependence and macroeconomic instability of the regions; whereas such a process would undermine the Union’s regional presence and policies in the long term and would lead to fragmentation and divergence;

Amendment 18 #

Marc JOULAUD, Franck PROUST, Renaud MUSELIER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas TEN-T and transport infrastructure such as road, and rail infrastructure, particularly high-speed rail, ports, water~~ways~~ and airways are EU priorities, and if European investment were to lag behind, increased FDI could fill the gap while relocating profits, taxes and job opportunities outside of the EU, perhaps increasing the dependence and macroeconomic instability of the regions; whereas such a process would undermine the Union’s regional presence and policies in the long term and would lead to fragmentation and divergence;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas TEN-T and transport infrastructure such as road, high-speed rail, waterways and air ~~are EU priorities,~~, notably through stations, ports and airports, especially those with a regional focus, are priorities for the Union and connectivity within its territories and if European investment were to lag behind, increased FDI could fill the gap while relocating profits, taxes and job opportunities outside of the EU, perhaps increasing the dependence and macroeconomic instability of the regions; whereas such a process would undermine the Union’s regional presence and policies in the long term and would lead to fragmentation and divergence;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)

– having regard to its Resolution of 6 July 2017 on promoting cohesion and development in the outermost regions of the EU: implementation of Article 349 of the TFEU,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas there is an urgent need for transformation of certain parts of the transport sector in order to address the need to drastically and rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in this way mitigating climate change;

Amendment 21 #

Ángela VALLINA, Martina MICHELS, Martina ANDERSON

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas the current state of transport generates air pollution, noise, traffic congestion and land consumption with negative impacts on the quality of life of citizens; whereas sustainability in the transport sector needs to be improved;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas smart, sustainable and fully interconnected transport, energy and digital networks are a ~~necessary condition for~~key factor in the completion and smooth operation of the ~~European single market and for linking Europe with the world market; whereas these are genuine arteries for European economic growth and~~economy and in the well-being of itEurope's citizens;

Amendment 23 #

D. whereas smart, future-proof, sustainable and fully interconnected transport, energy and digital networks are a necessary condition for the completion and smooth operation of the European single market and for linking Europe with the world market; whereas these are genuine arteries for European economic growth and the wellbeing of its citizens;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas smart, sustainable and fully interconnected transport, communications, energy and digital networks are a necessary condition for the completion and smooth operation of the European single market and for linking Europe with the world market; whereas these are genuine arteries for European economic growth and the wellbeing of its citizens;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas smart, sustainable and fully interconnected transport, energy and digital networks are a necessary condition for the completion and smooth operation of the European single market and for linking Europe with the world market; whereas these are genuine arteries for European economic growth, strengthening cohesion and the wellbeing of its citizens;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas removing bottlenecks can have additional benefits such as dramatically improving air quality locally; whereas effective investment can also result in modal shifts, encouraging - for example - people to move from air travel to rail travel, especially over distances where rail travel is much more sustainable;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas transport is an important building block in the EU energy-climate policy, and whereas EU target minimum share for renewable energy and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reached without a significant contribution from transport;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas efficient transport infrastructure and services, through servicing the other economic sectors, are a crucial stimulus to jobs creation, economic growth, sustainable development and competitiveness;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas transport currently accounts for 32% of EU’s total energy consumption and transport emissions are responsible, according to the EEA report "‘Approximated EU greenhouse gas inventory 2016", for 27% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, representing an important environmental concern in terms of air pollution; whereas, furthermore, its energy demand relies almost entirely on (imported) oil, leading to energy dependency and vulnerability to price fluctuation;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 b (new)

– having regard its resolution of 13 of March 2018 on "lagging regions in the EU",

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas investment in transport infrastructure will increasingly need to take into account the effect of transitions towards more environmentally friendly vehicles, greener transport networks and will have implications for investment in enabling power network infrastructures;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas a recent European Commission document demonstrates that in low-income regions of Europe, investments targeting improved accessibility are proving their worth as catalysts for growth;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas in European Regions – both in rural and urban areas, transport infrastructure is an important tool to effectively increase the size and broaden qualifications of a local labour market and therefore improve the productivity of local firms and organizations, contributing to the EU objectives of job creation and economic growth;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)

Dd. whereas further improvement of port services and port hinterland connections by rail is essential to the strengthening of EU’s economic, social and territorial cohesion;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D e (new)

De. whereas improved transport mobility is vital for helping to reduce the outermost regions “accessibility gap” caused by remoteness from continental Europe-essentially insularity and difficult topography;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should remain, in the next programming period, the core EU sources for transport infrastructure investments under the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’; proposes that, due to the high European added value and the extensive spill-over effects generated, these funding sources should remain available for all eligible EU regions;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should remain the core EU sources for transport infrastructure investments under the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’', which through promoting more efficient and more sustainable transport services, will maximise the economic strengths of all EU regions, supporting the internal market, trade and reinforcing EU’s economic, social and territorial cohesion; proposes that, due to the high European added value and the extensive spill-over effects generated, these funding sources should remain available for all eligible EU regions;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should remain the core EU sources for transport infrastructure investments under the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’; proposes that, due to the high European added value and the extensive spill-over effects generated, these funding sources should remain available for all eligible EU regions, without detracting from the need to award priority to the less developed regions and regions clearly lagging behind in terms of transport infrastructure;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Underlines that the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should remain the core EU sources for transport infrastructure investments under the thematic objective of ‘promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures’; proposes that, due to the high European added value and the extensive spill-over effects generated, these funding sources should remain available for all eligible EU regions; in order to contribute to the implementation of basic goals of EU cohesion policy;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

– having regard to the communication from the Commission of 24 October 2017 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank on “a stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions”,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that infrastructure and transport policy must be based on a social and economic model that reduces demand for goods haulage and passenger transport without impacting on the economic welfare and needs of the public; therefore sees a need, on the one hand, for a more decentralised and balanced economic system that avoids massive transfers of goods and workers, and which enables endogenous regional development, and, on the other hand, a new approach and praxis in regional planning which narrows the gap between cities and rural areas and segmentation between over-populated areas and depopulated ones; also sees a need to promote measures such as prioritising the use of public and community transport, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, the consumption of local and seasonal products, and sustainable local for tourism and leisure models, etc. Considers this to be the only way to achieve genuinely sustainable development that is environment-friendly, economically viable and delivers territorial and social cohesion;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reiterates the urgent need for an actual sustainability of transport throughout the EU; in this regard, notes with concern that, if the transition to low- emission alternative energy in transport has begun, greenhouse gas emissions in transport did not show the same decline as in other sectors, also because of lack of strong incentives to innovate in energies and technologies needed for the long-term decarbonisation and energy diversification of transport;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that the European added value of investment in transport infrastructure in more developed and transition regions needs to be re-assessed, taking also into account shrinking budgetary options; believes that regions sufficiently equipped with transport infrastructure, in particular highways, should no longer use EU funding for additional road construction, as the added-value is questionable and the contribution to EU priorities low;

Amendment 43 #

Norica NICOLAI, Victor BOŞTINARU, Daniel BUDA, Dan NICA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Motion for a resolution
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 have~~has 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 44 #

Motion for a resolution
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 have a strong regional dimension that responds to ~~local demand~~regional and local needs 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 45 #

Motion for a resolution
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 have 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 a~~n even~~ balanced manner in order to avoid asymmetric distribution of investment between the levels;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
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 core TEN-T corridors, including safety and environmental aspects; recalls also that the ERDF and CF have a strong regional dimension that responds to local demand (urban and peri- urban areas) and they support the connectivity to TEN-T and mobility through secondary and tertiary nodes and multimodal terminals (comprehensive TEN-T network); 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; Calls on the Commission to facilitate simplified, timely and flexible procedure for transferability of resources between regions, operational programmes and programme axes under ESIF in order to adequately meet changing economic reality and regional demand.

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
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, technological innovation and environmental aspects; recalls also that the ERDF and CF have 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 48 #

Motion for a resolution
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 as well as paying due attention to regional specifics; recalls also that the ERDF and CF have 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

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 have~~has 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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)

– having regard to the Commission Staff Working document of 10 April 2017 on “Competitiveness in low-income and low-growth regions: the Lagging Regions report” SWD (2017) 132,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
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 have 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; also recalls that in Article 4 of the TEN-T Regulation, this network is attributed the aim of providing a balanced coverage of all European regions; 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 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to present, within six months, a detailed and up-to-date country-by-country and project-by-project report on financing in the periods 2007-2014 and 2014-2020 under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, with a breakdown for each of the tangible objectives under Article 5(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and Article 4(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 on the Cohesion Fund; that report should cover the cost of the projects, the EU financing involved and the effective use of the infrastructure completed, and include an analysis of their economic and social benefits;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the urgent need to enhance the road infrastructure network along the eastern border of the EU; calls therefore for the 'Via Carpatia' project to be incorporated into the TEN-T core network; stresses that with the construction of the Via Carpatia outlying regions of the EU will have the opportunity of accelerated development through stimulation of investment and business growth;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; ~~notes in thi~~stresses that doubts linger as to the need for the EFSI and its effectiveness and finds it regrettable that public guarantees are~~gard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching~~ provided for private sector operations when it is the private sector operator who reaps the rewards of successful projects; stresses that in any event the EFSI must prioritise sustainable transport and essential transport infrastructure projects that offer high social, economic and environmental added value, and focus on those projects that foster quality job creation, long-term growth, innovation and territorial cohesion, including sustainable urban transport and railway projects, meaning that it must maintain a territorial balance in investments; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve to match financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the ERDF, CF or CEF;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that ~~the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the~~bankable infrastructure projects should primarily be supported by loans, EU guarantee or blending, in addition to co- financing by ERDF, CF or CEF;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the ~~ERDF, CF or CEF~~private sector; is concerned that resources from ERDF and CF are used to bear the highest risk taking tranche in case EFSI is combined with them;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and financial instruments needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public- private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the ERDF, CF or CEF;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes that the 2017 CEF Transport Blending Call has also been designed to strengthen those synergies, but exchange of best practices between Member States and further support to capacity is needed; highlights in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the ERDF, CF or CEF;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the role of additional sources such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) needs to be defined in view of their complementarity to the ERDF and CF and their additionality to EIB lending operations; notes in this regard that EFSI should serve as a platform for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in matching financial instruments to private investment and to national/regional financing at project level; notes that the support available through the EU guarantee should be provided to bankable infrastructure projects which would not otherwise be supported through the ERDF, CF or CEF; believes that grants should continue to be the main financial source of investments in transport infrastructure; however, points out, that in order to increase investments and to achieve fully European and national goals, synergy between structural funds and European Fund for Strategic Investments should be used when appropriate;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Points out that, in all circumstances, grants should be the key tool for funding sustainable public transport infrastructure, and especially railways;

Amendment 6 #

Norica NICOLAI, Daniel BUDA, Dan NICA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)

– having regard to the report of European Environment Agency ‘Approximated EU Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2016”,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that infrastructure requires objective quantification of demand and future use, 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 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that infrastructure requires objective quantification of demand and justified needs 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 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that infrastructure requires objective quantification of demand prior to setting the budget and the delivery methods; believes that one priority should be to upgrade existing infrastructure by increasing its capacity, quality and safety; underlines that it should be possible for the ERDF and CF eligibility criteria to consider existing demand at NUTS 3 level;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
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; Notes also that cross– European, regional and local transport network modelling can be effective in demonstrating where investment would best deliver European added value;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Emphasises that, in order to ensure better interoperable integration between transport modes and stronger focus towards the Trans-European Networks 2020, the EU transport infrastructure investments should be carried out in full consistency with existing comprehensive transport plans; notes that complexity of such infrastructure investments requires sufficient institutional capacities in Member states and regions for the implementation; calls for adequate capacity-building funding for planning, implementing and managing investment projects;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Believes that all transport infrastructure should be subject to broad public debate, in-depth investigation into its actual necessity and economic and social benefit, and to an exhaustive environmental impact study; considers that only infrastructure on which there is public consensus, which is necessary and socially beneficial and which does not occasion major and/or irreparable environmental damage should be implemented and financed through EU instruments;

Amendment 68 #

Ivana MALETIĆ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need for more integrated approach to the investments in transport infrastructure, to improve work on multimodal connectivity and to increase investments in inland waterways and ports; calls on the Commission and Member States to encourage the evolution towards more active public sector involvement in innovation led transport solutions at national, regional but also at local/urban and rural level with the aim to develop smart transport solutions;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Underlines the importance of public consultations prior to project implementation, in particular in case of major projects, in order to ensure ownership on the ground and compliance with local and regional public interest as well as local and regional development goals;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 24 a (new)

– having regard to the Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans COM(2018) 65 final,

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls for a pivotal decision-making role to be played by the local and regional authorities, and by civil society and local community representatives, in the adoption, planning and financing of transport infrastructure, including in European cross-border coordination and cooperation;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Believes that EU transport infrastructure funding should be geared primarily to sustainable means of transport such as conventional railways, waterways and short-sea shipping; stresses that projects in receipt of co-financing should reflect the need for infrastructure which benefits the EU from a perspective of social, economic and territorial cohesion, which minimises the impact on the environment, which is resistant to the potential impact of climate change and which protects health and ensures user safety; emphasises that EU funding for such means of transport through cohesion policy and the Connecting Europe Facility should be increased, since it is these types of transport which best ensure that the stated aims of transport policy and cohesion policy are achieved;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Emphasises in particular regarding railways that special attention should be paid to revitalising and maintaining branch lines that connect with national main lines and European corridors, provide cross-border connections between Member States and relieve bottlenecks; that local, regional and nations railway connections that have been abandoned despite their economic and public worth, and especially cross- border connections, should be rejuvenated as a matter of urgency; and that initiatives to find new uses for disused lines, such as goods transport or new tourism services, should be promoted. Calls on the Commission also to ensure that the use of railways for goods transport is stepped up with a view to greater network efficiency and more sustainable and safe transport;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
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; 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;deleted

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
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; proposes that the index help determine the overall envelope of transport investment~~s as well as the co-financing rate~~s; suggests that the EU transport scoreboard could be the basis for the proposed index with complementary elements such as ~~road~~ safety, regional specifics, availability of alternative modes of transport and environmental impact, which could contribute to the accuracy of the assessments;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for tha study to be conducted on the possible creation of an EU transport infrastructure index as an additional eligibility criterion in order to accurately reflect regional and local demand; 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; calls on the Commission to present to Parliament, within six months, a communication on this transport infrastructure index;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
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; 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 ~~safe~~and rail safety, multimodal connectivity, regional specifics and environmental impact, which could contribute to the accuracy of the assessments;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
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; 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 and local specifics and environmental impact, which could contribute to the accuracy of the assessments;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
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 79 #

Motion for a resolution
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 region~~if the EU-added value is provided by an adequate cost-benefit analysis;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas in the 2007-2013 period, EUR 81 billion, or almost one third (31 %) of the ESIF Funds was invested in transport infrastructure,; wh~~ich had a clear impact on GDP, business creation, industry, employment, exports and tourism; wh~~ereas the strongest positive impact of EU transport infrastructure investment ~~was recorded~~is particularly visible in Eastern Europe and, more ~~particular~~specifically, in the new EU Member States, to which 69 % of the total transport funding was allocated;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 81 #

Norica NICOLAI, Daniel BUDA, Dan NICA, Maria Gabriela ZOANĂ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Expresses the view that~~Notes 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

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 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses the view that the less developed regions with negative demographic trends, a serious lack of transport infrastructure, which is a basic requirement for economic development, 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 84 #

Motion for a resolution
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- emphasising in this context, that improving accessibility in these regions becomes a precondition for economic development, while additional sources and delivery methods should be expanded in the transition and more developed regions;

Amendment 85 #

Georgi PIRINSKI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Expresses the view that the less developed regions with negative demographic trends, mountainous 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 86 #

Motion for a resolution
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, CEF and CF transport infrastructure investments, while additional sources and delivery methods should be expanded in the transition and more developed regions;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
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; regrets the lack of geographical balance of transport investments in western and eastern parts of the EU; moreover, stresses the need to strengthen infrastructure development in northern and southern parts of the EU;

Amendment 88 #

Marc JOULAUD, Franck PROUST, Renaud MUSELIER

Motion for a resolution
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; notes that in some cases the most effective way to benefit less developed regions may be to invest in reducing bottlenecks that occur in better- off regions on key TEN-T corridors or strategic linking routes; bottlenecks in more developed regions can significantly impact the ability of people in less developed regions to travel and move goods efficiently and gain access to markets;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

Amendment 90 #

Marc JOULAUD, Franck PROUST, Renaud MUSELIER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Urges that an integrated approach to the objective of sustainable transport be adopted under the cohesion policy, which is to say that it should prioritise interoperability, interconnectivity and intermodality, ensuring an optimum use of all means of transport and fostering the compatibility of interconnections between different means of transport; also favours an intermodal TEN-T approach based on means of transport which are more environmentally friendly, less fuel- expensive and safer, ensuring an optimum use of all means of transport and fostering the compatibility of interconnections between different means of transport;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need to give special attention and adequate support to maritime, island, peripheral and outermost regions located away from priority corridors, whatever their level of development, to improve the accessibility and connectivity of all regions of the Union and ensure a balanced coverage of EU territory;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that lagging regions (particularly low income regions), have considerable deficits in basic infrastructure; considers all investment in basic infrastructure to therefore be of strategic importance, particularly in transport infrastructure, as these investments are most likely to continue to contribute positively to economic development in the future;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes, that sustainable innovations in transport require synergies and additionally between three main instruments - ESI Funds, CEF, Horizon 2020 and its successor;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Recommends that national administrations and regional authorities upgrade intermediate stations and local connections as well was linkages with the TEN-Ts, in order to minimise the costs associated with the existence of peripheral areas; calls on the Commission to promote necessary projects of this type;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to 7. European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through the securing of additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis in cross-border programmes for transport infrastructure investments; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border infrastructure investments, in transport;

Amendment 96 #

Marc JOULAUD, Anne SANDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for sustainable transport infrastructure investments; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; ~~calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport;~~ welcomes EU Enlargement strategy and its provision on increasing connectivity; reiterates the importance of cross-border connectivity within EU and between the EU and the Western Balkans, in line with Transport Community Treaty and EU operational standards; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport; recalls in this regard that seaports and waterways are very often cross-border entities and hence – contrary to the current regulation – should benefit under the CEF from the same co-financing rate as cross-border rail and road projects;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for transport infrastructure investments; calls for a CEF axis, with an adequate budget, to be dedicated to filling the missing links in transport infrastructure in border regions; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, and in particular on the missing transport links, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for transport infrastructure investments while not undermining other priorities of ETC; underlines that all transport modes need to be tackled including public transport and cycling; understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport;

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for ERDF support to European Territorial Cooperation to be strengthened through additional resources, and for the establishment of a dedicated priority axis for transport infrastructure investments (such as ports, bridges, railways etc.); understands that the focus should be on connectivity in cross-border regions, including EU external borders, as well as advisory assistance and capacity building at project level; calls for barriers to be dismantled in order to facilitate investments, and notably cross- border investments, in transport;

source: 618.311

2018/03/01 TRAN 54 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the transport sector and the infrastructure for that sector are central and essential to the development of any country;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the total budget for Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Transport is 24.05 billion Euros for the period 2014-2020, of which 11.305 billion is made available specifically for projects located within the territories of Member States that are eligible for the Cohesion Fund;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas sustainable investment plays a critical role in not only tackling capacity constraints and deteriorating infrastructure, but also in providing long- term maintenance;

Amendment 12 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas ~~Member States face the common challenge of financing transport infrastructure with a very tight budget and creating a network that better integrates and connects the different transport modes;~~most of the EU funds allocated for transport are managed inside EC by other DGs than DG Move and this is not in favour of a harmonized approach in completion of TEN-T.

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Member States face the common challenge of financing transport infrastructure with a ~~very~~ tight budget and creating a network that better integrates and connects the different transport modes;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas Member States face the common challenge of financing transport infrastructure with a very tight budget and creating a network that better integrates and connects the different transport modes, as well as ensuring efficient transport services and passenger safety;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas all Member States were obliged by the Regulations and the Partnership agreements completed with the EC to present till the end of 2016 transport strategies till 2030.

Amendment 16 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the still limited progress made in the completion of the strategic TEN-T networks through projects planned under the ERDF and the CF, with a very low rate of project selection; invites the Commission to investigate how presentBelieves that the consolidation of a supranational strategy must be based on and conform to the strategic needs and guidelines of each Member State, following an approach that revolves around sectoral public policies and the provision of public services; believes that cohesion funds should be stepped up, with a view, in particular, to carrying out projects planned under the ERDF and the CF; invites the Commission to present proposals which make it possible to overcome limitations in implementation ~~could be overcome~~;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes theat still ~~limited~~ progress is to be made in the completion of the strategic TEN-T networks through projects planned under the ERDF and the CF~~, with a very low rate of project selection~~; invites the Commission to investigate how present limitations in implementation could be overcome;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the still limited progress made in the completion of the strategic TEN-T networks through projects planned under the ERDF and the CF, with a very low rate of project selection; ~~invites~~regrets the delayed implementation of the current programing period which has had a significant negative impact on the railway transport investments, invites therefore the Commission to investigate how present limitations in implementation could be overcome;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to propose ways of increasing the project selection rate;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas cohesion policies need to be stepped up to reverse the growing differences between Member States, including by increasing the budget of the European Union;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to make available a TEN-T map including the projects completed or under implementation during 2007 – 2013financial period together with connected relevant information (timing for project approval, implementation period, costs, economic efficiency etc.);

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Deplores the countless constraints imposed by the European Union on the Member States, particularly through the privatisation of infrastructure and transport operators, which lead to the deterioration of services and an increase in costs for the public and to the inability to exploit the development potential which the sector could provide;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to elaborate and make public an informal strategy for transport based on the national strategies elaborated by Member States under the Partnership Agreements.

Amendment 23 #

1b. Strongly criticises the investment in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), which have been terrible financially for Member States, as they bore the costs while private companies reaped the profits, at the expense of the public purse and causing serious damage for their populations and workers: services have been weakened and reduced and their costs have gone up; companies have been privatised; infrastructure-maintenance services have been weakened; employment in the sector has been deregulated and employment conditions and ties have become more precarious;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Calls on the Commission to elaborate and make public a TEN-T map including the transport projects under implementation or proposed under the MS Operational programmes for both 2007- 2013 and 2014-2020financing periods; calls on the Commission to provide a real time update of this information including all relevant info (period for project approval, implementation period, costs, economic efficiency etc.);

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Calls on the Commission to provide to the EP on evaluation of the proposals from national strategies, national Operational programmes and TEN-T.

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Calls on the Commission to provide to the EP on evaluation of the implementation of projects across Member States regarding period of projects preparation, procurement procedures, cost of feasibility studies and engineering, cost of the construction; moreover, calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of sharing the best practices in order to arrive to an harmonisation of procedures and of elaboration of standard costs to allow a better EU money spending .

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the internal administrative rules in order to provide a better implication and decision participation of the DG Move in transport connected projects and procedures; moreover calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of better and stronger implication of responsible DGs regarding operational programs referred to transport in order to better implementation of the TENT regulation;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)

1g. Calls on the Commission to use the findings of the evaluation mentioned before for 2014 – 2020 transport policy regulations.

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that many Member States are still lagging behind as regards meeting basic EU common transport policy targets, especially when comparing central and eastern Member States with western ones; points out that their specific needspoints out that the specific needs of each Member State are not always aligned with the EU’s investment priorities and calls, therefore, for the necessary flexibility in financing transport projects under the ERDF and the CF;

Amendment 3 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas cohesion policies have been thwarted as a result of the consolidation of the polices to implement the single market strategy, in their varying sectoral approaches, particularly in the transport sector; whereas the consolidation of the single market contributed to the worsening of public services and to increased privatisation and sectoral concentration, particularly with regard to transport and infrastructure; whereas TEN-T integrates that strategy and pursues those objectives;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that ~~many~~several Member States are still lagging behind as regards meeting basic EU common transport policy targets~~, especially when comparing central and eastern Member States with western ones~~; points out that their specific needs are not always aligned with the EU’s investment priorities ~~and calls, therefore, for the necessary flexibility in financing transport projects under the ERDF and the CF~~;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that many Member States are still lagging behind as regards meeting basic EU common transport policy targets on climate protection, modal shift towards rail and sustainable inland waterways, especially when comparing central and eastern Member States with western ones; points out that their ~~specific need~~claimed interests are not always aligned with the ~~EU’s investment priorities~~ir obligations inter alia on respecting environmental legislation, the EU’s investment priorities as well as the European added value and calls, therefore, for the necessary ~~flexibility~~support and help from the Commission in financing transport projects under the ERDF and the CF;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that many Member States are still lagging behind as regards meeting basic EU common transport policy targets, especially when comparing central and eastern Member States with western ones; points out that their specific needs are not always aligned with the EU’s investment priorities and calls, therefore, for the necessary flexibility in financing transport projects under the ERDF and the CF and for support to the medium- to long-term investment programs;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recommends that the Commission allocate technical assistance to countries falling behind with regard to the achievement of fundamental EU objectives in the transport sector;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for continued and balanced support to the TEN-T core, comprehensive networks and horizontal priorities, taking into account the need to maintain, upgrade and renovate existing infrastructure and to better integrate national transport networks, in~~cluding road infrastructure~~to cross-border connections in terms of interconnectivity, intermodality and interoperability; stresses in this context the need for adequate budget envelopes and clearly structured funding programmes under the transport and cohesion policies post 2020, with a focus on dismantled and abandoned regional cross-border rail missing links, particularly those that were destroyed during the last world war;

Amendment 35 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for continued and balanced support to the TEN-T core, comprehensive networks and horizontal priorities, taking into account the need to complete the core network of infrastructure for all kinds of transport, upgrade and renovate existing infrastructure and to better integrate national transport networks, including road infrastructure; stresses in this context the need for adequate budget envelopes and clearly structured funding programmes under the transport and cohesion policies post 2020;

Amendment 36 #

Jill SEYMOUR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for continued and balanced support to the TEN-T core, comprehensive networks and horizontal priorities, taking into account the need to upgrade and renovate existing infrastructure and to better integrate national transport networks, including road infrastructure; stresses in this context the need for adequate budget envelopes and clearly structured funding programmes under the transport and cohesion policies post 2020. However stresses that the requirements of Member States take precedence over any set targets or implementing pressures set by the EU;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for continued and balanced support to the TEN-T core, comprehensive networks and horizontal priorities, taking into account the need to upgrade and renovate existing infrastructure and to better integrate national transport networks, including road infrastructure; stresses in this context the need for adequate ~~budget envelopes~~ and clearly structured funding programmes under the transport and cohesion policies post 2020;

Amendment 38 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls for continued and balanced support to the TEN-T core, comprehensive networks and horizontal priorities, taking into account the need to upgrade and renovate existing infrastructure and to better integrate national transport networks, including road infrastructure; stresses in this context the need to develop EU financing instruments and for adequate budget envelopes and clearly structured funding programmes under the transport and cohesion policies post 2020;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Invites the Commission and Member States to use fully the potential of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund for European cross-border infrastructure projects, in order to complete the core and comprehensive Trans-European Transport Network;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) should provide support for the development ~~of the TEN-T network and of~~policies of each Member State, particularly with regard to regional and local transport infrastructure not located on the TEN-T, in particular in less developed Member States and regions where considerable effort is still needed to close missing links, remove bottlenecks and modernise rolling stock; whereas those funds should contribute to the development of infrastructure in line with the strategic guidelines of each Member State, and whereas the definition of supranational needs should be set by the Member States working together and should fully conform to the needs and policies set by each Member State; whereas those funds may not be conditional on the Member States’ policy choices for the sector;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recommends that the Commission budget strategy and the post-2020 cohesion policy take into account the large amount of investment needed for priority TEN-T projects, and the modernisation, renovation and new construction works necessary to ensure more integrated national transport networks;

Amendment 41 #

Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Observes disproportion and lack of geographical balance in project selection within the EFSI whilst this new fund has been largely strengthened by the CEF fund to which EUR 11.3 billion have been transferred from Cohesion Fund;

Amendment 42 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Supports ~~a wider application of the blending approach; calls, however, for~~ an increase in the exchange of best practice, technical assistance and preparatory toolkits for Member States to disseminate information on financial instruments; also recalls that financial instruments are not always appropriate to finance railway, inland waterways or cross-border projects ~~and that smaller countries face diffic~~; believes that public investment plays a key role in the delivery of public policies which serve the needs of the populati~~es in implementing PPPs~~on and in economic development; stresses, therefore, the need to reinforce the grant ~~part of the~~s from EU funds as grants remain an essential tool in ~~attracting private financing and~~ closing gaps between Member States.

Amendment 43 #

4. Supports a wider application of the blending approach; calls, however, for an increase in the exchange of best practice, technical assistance and preparatory toolkits for Member States to disseminate information on financial instruments; also recalls that financial instruments are not always appropriate to finance railway, inland waterways or cross-border projects and that smaller countries face difficulties in implementing PPPs; stresses, therefore, the need to reinforce the grant part of the EU funds as grants remain an essential tool in attracting private financing and closing gaps between Member States.

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Supports a wider application of the blending approach; calls, however, for an strong increase in the exchange of best practice, technical assistance and preparatory toolkits for Member States to disseminate information on financial instruments; also recalls that financial instruments are not always appropriate to finance ~~railway, inland waterways or cross-border~~pure national road projects and that smaller countries face difficulties in implementing PPPs; stresses, therefore, the need to reinforce the grant part of the EU funds as grants remain an essential tool in attracting private financing and closing gaps between Member States. as well as guaranteeing a fair balance between public and private investors in sharing profits and losses.

Amendment 45 #

Matthijs van MILTENBURG, Pavel TELIČKA, Dominique RIQUET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Supports a wider application of the blending approach; calls, however, for an increase in the exchange of best practice, technical assistance and preparatory toolkits for Member States to disseminate information on financial instruments; also recalls that financial instruments are not always appropriate to finance railway, inland waterways or cross-border projects and that smaller countries face difficulties in implementing PPPs; stresses in this context the need to catalyse public and private finance towards the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030; stresses, therefore, the need to reinforce the grant part of the EU funds as grants remain an essential tool in attracting private financing and closing gaps between Member States.

Amendment 46 #

Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. 1. Emphasises however that new EU financing instruments or new EU funds cannot be created at the expense of the transport policy funding or any transport-devoted financial envelops.

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Invites the Commission and Member States to continuing co-financing projects in the next programming period with the principle of "use it or lose it";

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Encourages the Member States and the Regions to apply the user and polluter pays principle for charging their road networks, in order to encourage green logistics as well as generate revenues that can compensate the different public budgets involved;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recommends that the Commission identify new financial instruments tailored to a given type of transport and the needs of individual Member States, so as to ensure interconnectivity throughout the EU, coupled with more efficient and safer transport services;

Amendment 5 #

Enrico GASBARRA

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the transport sector remains a key investment area contributing to growth and competitiveness through strengthening the economic potential of all EU regions, by supporting the internal market and thereby facilitating ~~economic and social cohesion~~cohesion, integration and social and economic inclusion, countering imbalances between regions, facilitating access to services and training in the most remote regions currently at risk of depopulation, and strengthening business start-up and development networks;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Supports the allocation of adequate resources to research, programmes and projects promoting road safety in Europe, in line with the Valletta Declaration on Road Safety;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Encourages the Commission, the Member States and the Regions to intensify their support in favour of bicycle infrastructure, such as the further development of the EuroVelo network, in combination with the European Railway connections.

Amendment 52 #

Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. In the light of the future challenges the EU transport policy will face in the global market particularly with regard to the new technologies, ITS and growing market competitions emphasises the necessity to maintain at least the same level of funding for the EU transport investment projects;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls for cohesion policy funds to be allocated to the development of multi-modal infrastructure, including support for the design of multimodal terminals and the development of ITS systems for combined transport.

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Stresses the need to ensure that resources are made available to support sustainable urban mobility, the development of intelligent transport systems, projects for cyclists and pedestrians and improved accessibility to transport for persons with a disability;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the development of the Core Network Corridors includes, as integral part, components such as alternative fuels infrastructure (charging equipment), intelligent and innovative transport systems and it plays an indispensable role as enabler for the decarbonisation of the transport system as a whole;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas, in the context of national policies, the transport sector should be a key investment area, contributing to growth and development by boosting the economic potential of every EU region, thus furthering economic and social cohesion;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. wWhereas around EUR 7024 billion in EU co-funding from the ESIF have been programmed for the period 2014-2020 through the CF and the ERDF, with EUR 34 billion allocated to TEN-T infrastructure and EUR 36 billion to transport projects connecting or complementing TEN-T projects, including investments in clean transport, alternative fuels, sustainable urban mobility, smart transport, and cycling and walkinghave been allocated under 2014-2020 financing period through the CEF, especially for rail projects;.

Amendment 9 #