Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-142"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Reopening of Mont Blanc Tunnel2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011025.3.4-142"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-25-Speech-4-1432
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie Anne Isler Béguin2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2000-10-05--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, the St Gotthard disaster, which has caused many victims, incontrovertibly belies the arguments that prevailed in Mr Gayssot’s decision to reopen the Mont-Blanc tunnel. We cannot limit ourselves to lamenting the victims. We must finally take action to definitively stop this flood of disasters and we have good reasons for demanding this in Parliament. From the environmental point of view, reopening the Mont-Blanc tunnel goes against the commitments given by the European Union and its Member States on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What is the point of our voting in favour of sustainable transport and switching from road to rail if, at the first opportunity to show determination to reverse the ‘everything by road’ trend, this option is removed? In the two years of work on the tunnel, rail freight transport has not increased. It has remained static at 10.5 million tonnes per year, whereas additional rail capacity does exist and the 13.5 million tonnes that transit every year through the Mont-Blanc tunnel could have been absorbed by rail if capacity had been doubled for transit through Mont-Cenis, through the link that runs south of Lake Geneva and through the Dijon-Valorme link. It is incomprehensible that this rail solution should have been ignored, since it represents a transit capacity of up to 20 million tonnes per year via trans-Alpine routes. I should like the Commissioner to take note of this point, because I am giving him very practical proposals. It seems, however, that he is not interested. I would, therefore, like to say to him that we completely disagree with his analysis of the safety of the Mont-Blanc tunnel. This is another reason why we do not accept that it should be reopened. The EUR 200 million’s worth of work that has been undertaken, without an impact assessment or a public inquiry, does not meet the highest safety requirements. The tunnel is still a narrow (seven metres wide) single-direction tube that has no tarmac-covered and, therefore, fire-resistant surface, central escape hatch or parallel evacuation tunnel. The old ventilation duct will be used for evacuation. Safety must be of primary importance for all forms of transport and not only, as you stated, for air transport. The Commission must, therefore, reject the reopening of the Mont-Blanc tunnel and accept the proposals that the Commissioner has ignored, but which are perfectly appropriate alternative proposals, which seek to use the railways for transit through the Alps."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph