Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-181"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.5.3-181"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as a result of a number of bottlenecks in the trans-European transport network, the movement of persons and goods gets snarled up at the crossing with the Alps, the Pyrenees and a few sea straits.
Not only the hauliers, but also the people living in mountains, valleys and coastal resorts complain about a huge traffic burden. Nobody took it upon themselves to build tunnels and bridges in order to remove those bottlenecks. Furthermore, for years, rail traffic did not keep up with demand for fast connections between the big cities in different countries. That is why we desperately need to work on maintaining, improving and extending the transport network in Europe, and in this the primary option should be for transport by rail and at sea, which are the least environmentally threatening forms of transport.
It would be narrow-minded to measure our prosperity, well-being and progress according to the rise in transport, or the surface area of asphalt and concrete for motorways and airports. On the contrary, preventing unnecessary transport contributes to a better environment and to the well-being of people and animals.
According to my group, a sufficient level of government spending is indispensable in the provision of public services, social security and the environment. Wasting government funds and megalomania, however, do not solve anything. We are opposed to the idea of endless investments of Community funds in asphalt being the best way of creating and maintaining jobs or of helping new Member States along. Neither are we taken with the intention of giving businesses overcapacity, thus enabling them to decide on every occasion which infrastructure, funded with Community support, can be used by them at the time in the most cost-effective manner.
When it was presented at the end of June last year, the Van Miert plan was immediately hailed by the Italian Transport Minister as transport's answer to the euro. Does he see transport as an unmanageable natural phenomenon which makes people reliant on it? We see transport as taking second place to people and the environment. That is why we consider the Van Miert plan too unwieldy, too threatening to the environment and far too expensive. A more selective plan, focusing on more direct and quicker rail transport is preferable. That will be our guiding principle when we amend this proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples