Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-151"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.5.3-151"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should like first of all to thank Mrs Sommer for the huge amount of work that has been done.
I should like to revisit the objective of this directive, which is, of course, the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems. It is, however, abundantly clear that the real objective goes deeper than this, namely the internalisation of the external environmental costs. Amendments have been tabled to that effect.
After all, the key problems surrounding traffic still exist. Now, more than four years after I entered this House, those discussions are still going on. The problems are obvious: the environment, noise, emissions, congestion, lack of safety – I could go on in this vein for some time. These problems are inextricably linked to economic growth.
Nearly all transport economists are in agreement that the use of tolls to restrict and influence traffic is the only way to tackle that problem. Today’s headlines in the Netherlands read: ‘Tolls at different levels help counter tailbacks’. This is the theory, but the heart of the problem, does, of course, lie to some extent with the Council of Ministers. At the beginning of this month, we received the report from the Council of Ministers that the ministers and transport ministers, at all levels, are hopelessly undecided about collection on a per-kilometre basis. I heard the proposals from Mrs Peijs, formerly an MEP, and currently Transport Minister in the Netherlands, which are tantamount to ‘flat-rate collection’.
What we need is collection based on price, location, and type of vehicle and on a whole list of other things. This requires modern technology. We nonetheless share the rapporteur’s view that, at present, we should not simply
ditch such things as microwave communication. That is taking matters too far. I also think that we are taking matters one step too far by using this so-called Galileo technology. Why do we insist on doing this? GSM and GPS technology already exists, and GPS2 is only around the corner. The discussion surrounding Galileo is sufficiently known; we have had it here too. What we are about to receive now, is a sort of truck system, which I do not regard as strictly necessary.
If we look at the examples in Switzerland, and at the
and so on, we conclude that we require an abundance of forward-looking technology. In my opinion, we should not only have Galileo, but also perhaps GSM. It should also be compatible, as we have agreed before. We would make a great deal of progress with this, and we hope that we can solve this future problem. I urge the transport ministers in any case to speak out about the way in which we use the money, whether we transfer money or not, what we collect for, for example, improving rail systems and so on, in other words ‘cross pricing’."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"autostradas"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples