Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-18-Speech-4-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031218.4.4-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The abolition, in the recent past, of centuries-old road tolls was, at the time, regarded as modernisation that was necessary in the name of freedom of movement. The road network has meanwhile grown tremendously. Installation and maintenance costs of ever wider and crossroad-free roads are becoming too prohibitive to be able to pay for them out of taxpayers’ money without the need for huge tax increases or without cuts in other government provisions. Without road tolls, the car driver is very much at an advantage compared to the train user, and environmentally-unfriendly freight transport is given preferential treatment on the roads. As a result, the old road tolls are being re-introduced after all, accompanied by new electronic technology. The Commission has created the impression of wanting to use this toll collection as a means of enhancing EU interference and promoting EU projects. Is this about establishing a central toll service, promoting new technology at the expense of existing technology and finding new justification for Galileo, a prestigious project that guzzles money? Or is this about removing the irritations about long waiting times for cash payments, about needing to clutter up each car with electronic registration gadgets and about continuously having to pay for bills from different Member States? A majority in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism has changed the tone of the proposal from interference to practical solutions. I support this change."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples