Committee on Transport and Tourism Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsKristian Schmidt
And the red line is the current average for the European Union of 27, 43 million road fatalities, 43 million fatalities per million population. And as you can see, the yellow line was the old average five years ago, down. But what I really want to draw your attention to is the difference between the white and the blue graphs, because in white, you see in 2019 where those countries stood. And what you can see is that countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, having been above the average, have made impressive improvements. So it's possible.
You also see countries like Denmark, Estonia below the average, already good performers, that they continue to make significant improvements. And what that tells us is that, yes, there is diversity, different starting points, but there's not a natural level of road fatalities that one should accept. There's not a common law of nature that you cannot go lower than this or that. What you see is the result of varying levels of political will, commitment, resources, and effort to implement the common framework. And that translates into those very different results.
Don't want to name and shame anyone, but take an important member state like France. Of course, big countries are more difficult to make significant statistical change. But if you look at France, for instance, in the graph, you see them around the European average, and stagnating. Now this report comes with the Chair, this package of country reports. So if you want to dig into your member state, what happened there and why are we doing very well or why are we stagnating, or etcetera, then you have all the detailed in the country reports using KPIs so you can compare, but also with specific observations and recommendations on what a particular member state needs to do. And before you ask the question, France, it's about speed, and it's about alcohol, and it's about drugs and distractions.
So you can find that in those country reports. Next slide, please. You may have seen this matrix before. That answers the question, okay, 19,400 fatalities. Who and how and where are these people killed? And that you see from here.
And of course, if you take the car occupants and look at the fifth row, what you see there is that fatalities, 44 percent are car occupants, so people in cars and having accidents. That's, of course, proportionate to the density and the representation of cars in our traffic ecosystem. But I'd also draw your attention to the high figures for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcycles. Those are the vulnerable road users. And here, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of pedestrians killed, 900 fewer over the last four years.
But unfortunately, a rather sticky situation with cyclists and motorcyclists and the emerging new problem with e-scooters that is in this table only 148, but I can assure you future additions of this matrix, unless something is done, that figure will be growing. So we see the risk categories being very much car occupants driving on rural roads, and then people living in cities, in towns that are vulnerable. And therefore, it speaks to our ability to organize our cities and the urban environment in a manner where vulnerable road users are safe. Next slide, please. I want to recall, you know this, but just to hammer it in, those results, there's no silver magic solution.
It's a combination of various approaches. Human error is inevitable. Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes. But the system, the policy very clearly says, if you have a safe systems approach, then that human error does not need to be fatal.
So if you are legislating and enforcing on human behavior, but also on vehicle technology, on road infrastructure, and on post crash care, then you have the recipe of success. Let me just remind you of some of the key behavioral risk factors, to be followed by some of the other ingredients. Drink driving, that's still 25 percent of all road fatalities. So there, for all member states, a need for action. Speeding is directly responsible for about 30 percent of fatal road crashes in the European Union.
And some of the member states that I showed you earlier have made significant progress, have acted on speeding, either by setting 30 kilometers an hour as the default speed limit in cities and towns or by strengthening enforcement, traffic fines, cameras, etcetera. And just one very important figure that you probably all know, but it's worth recalling. If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30 kilometers an hour, there is a 90 percent survival chance. If the same crash happens at 50 kilometers an hour, suddenly your survival chances as a pedestrian drop to 20. So from 90 to 20, this is why speed matters.
Third point, of course, is distraction, which is 10% to 30% of all facial crashes. I think I'm not revealing any secrets by saying that it can be projected to grow with mobile phone use, touch screens and whatnot. So here, there are measures for member states to detect that and enforce no mobile use while driving. And then you have the classical seatbelt issue that's been with us for decades. Awareness campaigns are very useful here.
So these are all causes of human, let's say, errors or behavior, and they are all preventable by different means. Let me go to the next slide, which talks more about road use and vehicles. Well, first of all, JR, you mentioned yourself the road safety package, the driver license directive, again, with the support of parliament and Europauteur, Jutopalus on the driver license directive. We have now much stricter penalties for novice drivers. It's important, I've said this to this committee before, that when you learn the right habits early on, it's a good investment, and they stay with you for life, not drinking and driving, and respecting rules, learning that early on.
Harmonized fitness checks, these are all things we expect to play out over the coming years. Of course, this parliament passed the cross border enforcement directive that will also add driver disqualification, that will also have effect over the coming years. Then we should also record the better vehicles, really, that are saving lives already today with advanced technologies. The General Vehicle Safety Regulation is in force. It mandates intelligent speed assistance systems, detecting blind spots, etc.
And the EU system in general on this is meant to ensure that vehicles are approved for circulation if they are safe, not just for the car occupant, but also safe for the vulnerable road users surrounding the car. And that is, I think, unique to our European system. Then infrastructure, which I will come to now. Here, we are making significant progress, maybe best illustrated with the next slide, please. What you see there is our new network-wide safety assessment map, just taking examples from Italy and the Czech Republic.
When you access and zoom in, this is a lot more granular. You go down to specific roads, cross sections, this direction or that direction. So this is under the Road Infrastructure Safety Management directive. And member states have been reporting the safety levels of their various pieces of road. So you can see green, orange, red, where is the problem?
Where should I enforce? What speed should I set? Where should I invest and improve to tackle the black spots, even if they are not black in the maps, but the places where people are likely to be killed? I want to add here that we are working very closely with colleagues within the commission to make sure that in the next month's annual financial framework, under the National Partnership Agreements, investments in road safety will be expected from the member states where road safety infrastructure is a problem. So that will give the road safety community in those member states where improvements are needed a lot of leverage to invest in the infrastructural improvements.
Next slide, please. This is about what I mentioned earlier, the response to when there is a crash. A very clear figure here. If you reduce the response time by 10 minutes, there is an increased survival chance of one third. So E COLL and all these technological systems that are mandatory and will become available in all cars this and next year will certainly also ensure that we will see less fatalities.
I mentioned infrastructure. I should also, again, new mobility personal mobility devices. The current situation, as some of you may know, is fragmentation. Whether you rent or you buy, there is no type approval legislation in place in Europe, which is why you will see Puna and Porte Cois on our streets in e-scooters. And I'm not talking only about the rental scooters, much about the privately owned e-scooters you can buy online here.
It escapes EU legislation for the moment. And I do expect, unfortunately, more casualties from that source. Next slide, please, which is a sort of more concluding overview of the challenges that we face. And it's more or less directly quoting from the implementation report. Insufficient funding, but as I said, we expect in the next material financial framework, national sources of funding will be there.
Fragmented governance. This applies to, for instance, the personal mobility devices, but it also very much applies to how to tackle automated and connected mobility, where, as mentioned, humans make mistakes, machines sometimes are better. And connected mobility, autonomous driving in certain use cases, in my view, certainly has great potential for reducing accidents. But for that to be possible, and for Europe to roll it out, we need joint-up governance for our manufacturers, for the European car industry. It's in the automotive action plan, highlighted as an area of competitiveness, one area where Europe can lead the way and make sure we reap the benefits of connected mobility.
But I think we still have to address the question of the institutional setup for doing so. And then, of course, inconsistent political will. You are politicians, I am not. You will know that it can be difficult to tell the public that going a little bit slower or paying your fines is good for road safety. And then, of course, the call for well-functioning governing structures and dedicated funding to road safety programs.
I mentioned the work of civil society. But next slide, please. I also want to mention this area where it's not the Commission telling member states what they should do. It's member states with EU support, exchanging peer lessons learned in what is called the EU Road Safety Exchange Program, an extremely successful program where member states learn from each other, visit success cases, and bring them back. And the national reports, as I mentioned, are tracking results over the years.
Next and last slide, again repeating the message. We are making progress. It's a shared responsibility, and the success that has been recorded is certainly the result of collective action. I'd also like to repeat that, of course, road safety is linked to sustainable mobility, but also to economic competitiveness. Consider for a while that the road crashes that we have in Europe can be estimated to cost us the equivalent of 2% of GDP annually.
Now you prevent that and invest the money in health and education, awareness, whatever, better urban centers, it's certainly a virtuous cycle rather than having the human and economic cost of road safety problems. The commission, of course, will continue to coordinate to fund and support legislation technology. But as I said, action is only partially at the European level. A lot of the results that have been achieved have been achieved by member states at political level and national level doing a lot of good things. With that, Madam Chair, I've lost time, but I hope not more than 20.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
I think not. Thank you for the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt. Now we open the debate. I will give the floor first to our coordinators or to the colleagues who replace them. So we start for three minutes with Mister Giseke of the EPP.
Thank you.
Jens Gieseke
Yes. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Mister Schmidt, for that presentation. Finally, we work on a vision, and I think we are on a good track. We started in '21 with more than fifty thousand fatalities. And in the COVID, we reached a number of eight thousand eight hundred.
Okay? It went up a little bit, but, nevertheless, between 2019 and 2025, as you very well elaborated, three thousand lives were saved, with growing traffic. I think this shows that finally we work in the right direction. Of course, the commission is not only responsible, but we work together. We are committed.
We want to collaborate. Of course, the key risk factors you've managed are speed, alcohol, and human error. We just cannot ban it. We have to find smarter solutions. I think we did a lot of accompanied driving, for example, to bring younger people to the car. We're 17 with the oversight of the parents.
That is something where it helps. On the roadworthiness package, we work hard. We have to see that progress should be made. First part has been voted today. We will make progress in May as well.
But, of course, we already discussed it. If you, for example, go to the check of the cars on an annual basis, it is difficult in Germany. We would need another 6,000 engineers who are simply not there. So we have to see. It's not just a wish, but it has to be practically possible.
So my question is, which further legislative measures do you plan? And on the very interesting point of the exchange of best practice between member states, are there ideas in the commission to deepen this exchange of best practice in a way following the Denmark model, the best practice, and the low performer should not be accused, but the best practice should serve as a model. And, of course, there's always a question of the most vulnerable, the children and the people using escooters, for example. Then my question is, are there special data on these escooters? Some cities already banned it.
And are there plans in the commission to do further protection, for example, to make a helmet mandatory or something like that? That would be interesting. What is your take on protecting the most vulnerable in the system? But in general, a very positive report because the numbers go down, and we still work hard on Vision Zero. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you, mister Gizikke. Now Missus Serrano Sierra for the
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Thank you, chair. We've achieved, we haven't achieved ideal security, but not at the speed that would be sufficient to attain the 2030 objectives. Countries like Spain have demonstrated that specific measures work, especially with the speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour in urban areas. And in this context, the commission has announced an upcoming European guide on speed management. So I'd like to know what format it would come in, when it would be published, and what types of roads it would apply to?
Also, on the basis of your report, traffic accidents cost approximately 2% of European GDP, in addition to the inestimable human cost. So how can we support member states' efforts to comply with the 2030 objectives in the area of road safety, especially when it comes to maintaining and improving infrastructure? Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. From the patriots, any colleague? No. Mister Zile is not here as well. For a new Mr. Christensen, please.
Asger Christensen
Thank you very much. I don't speak Danish. Tag for.
Thank you. Thank you very much for this midway report, and it's a good thing to drop a balance sheet. There are three things, as far as we're concerned, that are perfectly clear. The management of data, traffic safety requires reliable data, and it's important to stress the digitalization of registration data and the comparability between member states. The other thing is we need occasional servicing and monitoring of cars, control systems that work properly, are absolutely decisive.
We also need new requirements based on benefits such as safe cars themselves. I mean, if a car is safe, that itself can contribute to fewer people being killed in traffic on the roads. Then we need to target our efforts where we can achieve the biggest number of reductions or the biggest reduction in the number of casualties. So I think not only should we note progress, but we should also think about where we need to go with the initiatives for the future. And that brings me on to two questions for the commission.
What does the commission think would be the two initiatives that would have the biggest effect in reducing road fatalities? And where do you think the biggest challenges are when we prioritize the existing rules? And what can we do to make sure that safety rules are actually applied? Now I've got an anecdote. I was on ski holiday in Norway in January, and my car slid down the slope.
It was written off the car. It was totally destroyed. I was okay. I mean, some people say I was damaged to start with, but as a joke. So I that's just an anecdote to illustrate the fact that safe cars are essential.
Thank you.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for your presentation. And you said that reaching the goals is still realistic, but you also showed the numbers and the graphs. And I think the midterm review sends a clear message. We are right now not on track to meet the 2030 target of halving road deaths.
Progress is there, but far too slow and very uneven across the member states. So at the same time, the report also shows that the problem is not a lack of solutions. We already know what works in terms of speed enforcement, infrastructure, or the protection of vulnerable users, but these measures are not being implemented consistently. The challenge is no longer about identifying the right actions, but about ensuring that they are actually delivered on the ground. So I have two questions for you.
First, on speed or as we say in German, the everlasting question about the tempo limit. The report announces guidance for member states on speed management, which is welcome, but there are no details. At the same time, the International Energy Agency notes that reducing motorway speed limits by 10 kilometers per hour can cut an individual driver's oil use by 5 to 10%, reduce national oil use for private cars by 1 to 6%, and cut oil use per heavy freight truck by around 5%. So this is about road safety, but it is also about energy security and the cost of living. Just to give some additional arguments to take decisive action on this topic.
When will this guidance be presented? What will it contain? And will it also reflect this broader perspective? And the second question is on governance. The report shows that we are off track.
And at the same time, the challenges are becoming more complex, especially with the rollout of automated or connected mobility and vehicles. Parliament has already called for the commission to examine the creation of a stronger EU structure for road safety. And in your presentation, you also just had the call for establishing well-functioning governance structures. So my question is, does the commission still believe that the current governance framework is sufficient, or is it time to move towards a dedicated EU road safety body or agency with a clearer coordination role? Thank you.
Elena Kountoura
Thank you very much indeed, for me too, for your presentation. In 2024, 20,000 decimal roads in Europe is a lot. In 2025, we anticipate the figures being marginally better. So at least that is a step in the right direction. 3% as opposed to 4.6% is certainly an improvement, but I would strongly urge that we focus on reducing road deaths to zero by 2050, at the latest.
These standards that we have may be exemplary, but we are still far from achieving what we need to achieve. And I think that if we were to have more coordination at the agency level, such as is the case for maritime or aviation transport, then it might be easier for us to coordinate across the member states and work together to cut the
number
Elena Kountoura
of accidents more rapidly. So I would argue the case for an agency which would be promoting smart initiatives to deliver greater safety on the roads. What we're doing is certainly welcome, but it is not yet sufficient. We therefore need to ensure that we find a better way of working together and a way of getting better, more comparable data, and using all the smart techniques and intelligent systems that we can in order to achieve better results. It's interesting what the commission is saying, and it's good that there is an environmental impact study, but I would say that we still have some way to go.
I wonder why you think we haven't made faster progress, and I wonder what specific things she would recommend for us to speed up our action. And I wonder too whether you think a single agency would be useful.
Nikolina Brnjac
Nicolina Bernak, for one minute, please. Thank you, chair. First of all, thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for your presentation. And, I would like to ask a question regarding the CITS. And the main idea is to improve road safety by enabling real-time communication between road infrastructure and between vehicles.
So do you foresee further legislative or policy initiatives at EU level to accelerate the implementation of CITS across member states? Thank you very much. Thank you all. Mister Schmidt, now I pass the floor to you for three to five minutes to answer the questions. Thank you very much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Excuse me. Sorry. I hadn't seen you. Mister Gonzales has the floor. Sorry.
I apologize.
Sérgio Gonçalves
Thank you, chair. I thought you had my name. Sorry. I want to start by thanking the European Commission, Mr. Schmidt, for this report and presentation.
Indeed, as you mentioned, deaths on European roads remain too high. My home country, Portugal, is in the top 10 of deaths per million in the European Union, and we just had a record number of deaths on the road during Easter. This is therefore a topic of key importance that we must carefully consider. I wanted to ask you two questions. First, could you develop a bit more on the role of the roadworthiness package in reducing deaths on European roads, especially in regards to your proposal to increase the periodicity of inspections of certain vehicle types as well as the introduction of mandatory periodic inspections for motorcycles?
Second, your report mentions that the gradual introduction of automated vehicles presents both opportunities and challenges. Could you develop this? Are there challenges that we can already prepare for, for example, in the context of the roadworthiness package? And how do you envision liability regimes across member states will deal with accidents that are caused by automated vehicles? Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. Any other colleague want the floor? Okay. Now, Mister Schmidt, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Kristian Schmidt
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Wow, you've given me very difficult questions and three minutes to answer. Let me try. First of all, legislation is coming. Well, thank you.
First of all, look to my team to the left, and I can tell you that what has been on the table for the last few years has exhausted resources in my Directorate. But I think also in this house, we've done a lot. We've done a lot of legislation, and you still have the roadworthiness package before you. I think the time is now for implementation. We are working on the secondary legislation on the digital driver license, cross-border enforcement, and on the driver disqualification.
The digital driver license, all these things certainly are keeping my team very busy. But I cannot, of course, ignore the challenges that we ourselves have put on the table, that are still there. So to answer your question on speed, the implementation report says very clearly, and I just said this is a key factor. We know it. We cannot ignore it.
And we have announced that we will issue guidance on this. I stress guidance, not legislation, because, Mr. Teigenhof, the last thing we should do is to tell member states how fast they can drive, because that will never pass, not this house, not council. And the evidence is actually stronger than anything. And we count on you to help us carry out the message to member states.
So we will issue guidance. We will put the facts and the evidence on the table. I gave some today. But then it is a political discussion of risk appetite and political will to do the right thing. Madame Contura, you speak of Greece.
Greece is one of the countries that took action and said it's 30 kilometers by default. And the progress you see in Greece is directly linked to that. So the evidence is there, if the political will is there. And we will reinforce that with guidance. Mr.
Giseke, you also talked about member states learning from each other. I highlight the European Road Safety Exchange. I sincerely believe that this is one of the most efficient tools we have of member states showing to each other that it actually works. So going, for instance, to Sweden and see how the two plus one road works for overtaking, etc., Lithuania went and did the same coming back. Cameras was at Spain, that we know Slovakia that went to Ireland, etcetera.
So this is organized by the commission but managed as a standalone project. And we will continue to that, because that is extremely efficient. Mr. Giesige, you also talked about the infrastructure. I mentioned in my introduction that this is an area where certainly there is a lot of progress to be made.
And the situation, if you are to look at the maps that I illustrated, is very different, not only between countries, but within countries. And as I said, with the next financial framework, we hope to make it a quasi-conditionality for EU funding that those black spots are tackled with investments in infrastructure. And I hope you will support that, because we have the evidence. You also asked Mr. Gisege, what more legislation?
Well, I'm trying to find a balance between overdoing it and tackling the issue. But I mentioned personal mobility devices. Here, certainly, my department will produce guidance on that. But what really would matter would be type approval, which depends on another department within the commission, equally overworked, I should say. But here, I will certainly push for that.
And then there's the question of autonomous vehicles, and that also addresses the question raised by Mr. Gonsalves. The report is very clear. There is a lot to be gained by rolling out connected mobility. A very obvious example, when cars are connected, you are informed that a car is coming with excessive speed to your right, and you are told to slow down, or you detect obstacles that you wouldn't otherwise see, and not relying on the driver reacting if it's not quickly out, the car slows down, etcetera.
Of course, this is a potential we can't ignore. And therefore, the report says that. But it also says that we do not yet have the governance and the institutional architecture to develop this. And the question, Mr. Gonzalez, on liability, it's being discussed between the member states.
And they are all, for the moment, struggling with answering this question one by one. If we did have an agency, these are the kind of issues that would be prepared there. DG Move has prepared an impact study on the agency, and that's where we stand at the moment. Mrs. Serrano Sierra, Spain indeed is one of the countries, again, that has acted on speed.
You asked about the possibility of doing something on road safety under the new Connecting Europe facility. For sure. That is there. So the bigger the SEF, the more we can do. Mr.
Christensen, I hesitate to answer in English or in Danish, but I stay with you as you wish. But I agree with you. Reliable data, absolutely. What can be done under the roadworthiness package before you? Quite a lot.
Quite a lot. I mean, the figures, Mr. Giesige, you have it in the report that you are working on. There is a clear road safety impact by checking the older cars. There is a disproportionate amount of accidents caused by elderly drivers.
By checking them on an annual basis above a certain age, you would certainly improve road safety. You asked also, Mr. Christensen, what about the priorities? Because I've listed along what's most important. I'm sorry, I will not be able to answer that because everything is important, and the strategy is deliberately you have to do all these things at the same time.
And it's when it has been done all of it at the same time in the member states that you've seen dramatic improvements. So reducing speed is important, but it's no less important than the improved vehicle design, for instance, the general vehicle regulation and what that does. All of these have produced results. I'm happy you survived your crash. And indeed, our statistics, the matrix shows, if you look at it proportional to the number of cars circulating, that people die less and less in their cars.
And unfortunately, more and more vulnerable road users are killed by cars, not in cars. And this is a clear trend. Mr. Tiegenhof, I unfortunately have to agree with you that the report shows that we are not on track. I want to be optimistic.
But if it is to half by 2030, then we need to go faster, to quote a President of a Member State. Sometimes Europe is too slow, for sure, and needs to be reformed. This is the case. We need to step up road safety. You highlight speed and guidance.
I answered the question already. We will be issuing guidance on governance. You mentioned, I replied, I think. Madam Kontoora, and again, I agree with you, and I know that you have been supporting this in the past. On the agency, you asked about the CITS.
We are exploring the member states and stakeholders currently on how to foster further deployment across the European Union. So this is not off our radar screen, quite the opposite. And I think Mr. Gonsalves, I addressed your questions, except perhaps on motorcycles, where we are following the developments in Portugal. We are sorry to hear that Easter was bad.
It is one of the countries for which we have concerns. And motorcycles, for sure, are part of the issue. The country report has the information that Portuguese decision-makers would need in order to target actions in this area. So again, I refer to the country reports for anyone of you who wants to see what is the commission's proposal for a specific member state that wants to and needs to improve their record. Madam Chair, thank you for the extra time.
I have tried to answer all the questions.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt, for the very interesting exchange of views on the road safety policy framework. I'm sure very soon we will come back to this issue in our committee. Thank you very much. We should upload.
Okay. Yes. Now, mister Schmidt, you will help us. You kindly said you are available to cover our next point too. We would like to hear from you on the state of play with regards to the EU Switzerland land transport agreement, specifically with regards to Swiss obligations under the agreement on one hand and the consequences of the unilateral measures adopted by Switzerland following the Gotthard base Tunnel accident in 2023.
These measures, as we understand, put several parts of the land transport agreement at risk, namely the healthy competition between and within the various modes of transport, the facilitation of the use of more environmentally sound means of transporting goods, and the principle of avoidance of any distortion of traffic flows in the Alpine regions. Switzerland plays a central role as a European rail transit country of the Reign Alpen corridor, and we would like to hear more about the situation and how the commission is addressing these concerns. In addition, our change will instruct our opinion to the report of Affect on the consent procedure on conclusion of a broad package of agreements to consolidate, deepen, and expand the bilateral relations with the Swiss Confederation. So now, without further ado, mister Schmidt, you have the floor, sir, for ten minutes, please. Thank you.
Kristian Schmidt
Thank you, madam chair. And I should have said on the previous point, we would be delighted if parliament would produce a report on the midterm implementation to give us guidance on how to take it forward. Very good. Addressing now Switzerland. Let me start by saying that relations between my team in Switzerland and are excellent.
I co-chair with my Swiss counterpart, the EU Switzerland Land Transport Agreement Joint Committee. And in general terms, cooperation is excellent. I also echo your words, Madam Chair, that Switzerland plays a very important part, of course, in the single European railway area with its central location. And Switzerland, in many ways, is also a leading player in rail freight and on rail in general. So this is sort of the positive message, but let me now maybe balance that a little bit because we were on the Gotthard, of course. First of all, very sad when the accident happened in 2023.
It led to the tunnel being blocked, with significant economic impact. But I must be honest with this committee and say we were quite disappointed when the Swiss Federal Office for Transport then, in September 2025, announced that they would implement a national rule in response to the Gotthard Tunnel accident. I would say it's normal when you have an accident, you take measures, you take steps. We see that, of course, in the European Union as well. And we've had rail accidents as well.
But what must not and should not happen is that you take measures that then have a knock on effect, and a very negative one, on the entire ecosystem, and putting in place national rules that are either disproportionate or simply so different that it impedes traffic on what is a very important European artery. We believe that it's important that within the sector, we work together, and we have been working with the Swiss authorities together with the European Railway Agency as the coordinator in the context of what is called the joint network secretariat for the last year to obtain a shared approach on how to deal with the checking, in this particular case, the wheel sets of freight wagons because that is the course of the Gotthard Tunnel, a wheel broke at a very critical point of the network. Now I do welcome the commitment of the Swiss authorities to engaging. They have engaged with the different processes of ERA, and they are participating in the joint network secretariat. And we firmly expect that when that work is concluded with a European solution to the matter, Switzerland will then withdraw the national rule immediately.
That first package of harmonized measures is expected to be adopted still this year. And I know that the Swiss experts are taking part in these discussions, and I think a basis for a consensus will be found. And then when that is the case, that, of course, the Swiss unilateral national measures are withdrawn. Finally, it's perhaps normal that member states are different, and so are third countries. They have different risk appetites.
But just to give the committee here a sense of proportion, ERA's impact assessment of the various measures shows that for the Swiss measures, the cost to the sector would be between €150,000,000 and €1,000,000,000 per year, whereas the harmonized measures we are looking at, at European level, would be €40,000,000 to €100,000,000 per year. And so we believe, first of all, a common solution is both cheaper, but also, of course, much less disruptive to European rail freight traffic. The last thing the rail freight sector needs in Europe is fragmentation, national rules, and impediments to cross-border traffic. So, Madam Chair, we are on it. We are in direct contact with the Swiss.
And at the next joint committee in June, where I will be traveling to Bern, I will certainly be pushing this message very strongly to the Swiss partners. Thank you for your attention.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt. Now we open the debate with our coordinators, or those colleagues who replace the others. So mister Giseke, you have first the floor for three minutes, please.
Thank.
Jens Gieseke
Thank you very much for taking this on board, Mister Schmidt. Let me give you a brief update. In August 2023, the accident in the Gotthard Base Tunnel was very serious, and the Swiss were very concerned. Then in 2025, there was unilateral adoption with regard to the wheel diameters and the frequency of checks, and this was done without involving your partners. That being a problem, the European era process is still underway, and the coordinated outcome was only available in January 26, which therefore was after the implementation.
So the question to the commission is what requirements from the land transport agreement have been violated, and what steps is the commission now taking? In parallel, at this point, we are talking with the Swiss parliament on a toll for the passes that would affect foreign travelers. Now there are tolls, which don't formally violate the agreement, but they violate the spirit of the agreement. And this isn't in the interest of either Switzerland or the EU. I'm quite sure looking ahead, and this is something that we, in March, saw in the bilateral agreements, the three agreements that we signed, that we got better instruments.
We've got better and closer cooperation now with ERA. So the question is, how are we gonna be quite sure that the new institutional instruments will prevent the Swiss going alone in the future? And how quickly will these new measures come into being?
Mr. Danielson.
Johan Danielsson
Thank you, Cher. Also, thank you to Mr. Smith for the presentation of this year. And of course, it's good that the commission was disappointed and has concern about these unilateral measures because, as you said, if we raise concern with interoperability, we might end up in a situation where we have rolling stock that cannot be used across borders. We are really undermining one of the core objectives of the European transport policy and also our ability to increase rail freight transport within Europe.
I'm also happy to hear that you will push this hard in June at the next meeting of the Land Transport Agreement, because I think this is essential. But perhaps I'm also a little bit interested to hear more because you said that you firmly expect in the end the Swiss to adopt the common European approach and not to stick to the unilateral positions and adopted safety measures. Do we have any commitment whatsoever from the Swiss authorities that it will be the outcome in the end? And then on the current Land Transport Agreement, according to the commission, are there enough safeguards in the Land Transport Agreement to resolve issues like this, and to ensure a uniform approach? Or is there something that should be changed in the agreement?
Because also to give the ability to the commission to ensure that we can avoid these unilateral measures being adopted in the future. I mean, this can happen not only with Switzerland. It could also, in theory, happen by the member states of the European Union. So do we need something else to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future?
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. From the Patriots, no. From the ECR? Yes.
You have.
Charlie. Hello.
Carlo Ciccioli
So the accident in the Saint-Gothard Tunnel was an unfortunate and unpredictable event, but it does show how fragile our Transalpine connections are. Of course, the Alps work for Italy as a barrier which cannot be overcome or certainly slow down transportation considerably. But for Italy, it is the door to the European single market. So every restriction can lead to serious economic damage to our businesses and our export and import system, and this is unacceptable. It violates the spirit of the transportation agreement between Europe and Switzerland.
So there are technical reasons, unpredictable ones, legitimate, of course, but to impose unilateral restrictions is something which is unacceptable when it comes to the Rhine-Alpine Corridor. We need to seek to avoid changing the European logistics transportation system, because this would undermine traffic of merchandise from Italian ports, Genoa and Savona in particular, towards another logistical network. So it's not a temporary emergency because it's taking a long time. It creates bottlenecks which are blocking our port system and its fluidity. And indeed, it even affects the Mediterranean logistics platform.
So we need to establish a principle of solidarity and coordination through the TNT network. This situation is unacceptable. So we have two suggestions to make two proposals. The first is the due duty of overlap. That is the network managers must harmonize their maintenance timetables because often accidents come on top of temporary closures that have to do with maintenance, which are, of course, one-off and are necessary.
And secondly, there's the role of the commission. The commission cannot just act as a spectator. It must serve as a guarantor to maintain operational continuity. If there is a commitment, it needs to ensure an agreement with the member states involved so that the ordinary or limitation work is done in a coordinated fashion. Because if we have a bottleneck as a result of an unpredictable technical event, but if we don't fluidify the system, then it's going to undermine our entire logistics network.
And operational continuity of this area is not negotiable. If we don't have free circulation of goods, that is the heart of the single market, that would disappear. We need to create rules for coordination among member states so that we can maintain a balance when it comes to our merchandise transportation capabilities. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Mister Chicharli, now for renew, I think, missus Devoe. Yes. Thank.
Valérie Devaux
You, chair. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for your comments. Now I'll be brief. After the Saint Gaudaard accident, significant work was done between national railway networks in order to prepare common solutions to avoid such situations. The Swiss decision to unilaterally adopt a decree on this subject goes against this common approach and creates a serious harmful precedent when it comes to undermining the North South connectivity in Europe.
So I would encourage the commission to formalize its opposition to such unilateral measures with respect to the Swiss Confederation, while asserting our support to the ERA's action, which is the right venue to handle such issues. Thank you.
Kai Tegethoff
Yes. Thank you once again, Mister Schmidt, for your presentation and taking over this topic. I will try not to repeat you or the other colleagues too much. I think, it very much shows already that we have all the very similar concern in on this matter. But I want to mention that following this accident, there was already a European process launched to address those safety risks linked to fried wagon wheel sets, and Switzerland was fully involved.
So then just before this process was concluded, Switzerland decided to act on its own and introduced those additional national measures. But I think it also has to be mentioned that those measures are not just technical adjustments, but they actually mean higher costs and potentially, as has been mentioned before, that wagons accepted elsewhere will not, yeah, be operated, able to operate in Switzerland under the same conditions. So, basically, and that's what you actually said. This is just the opposite of what rail freight needs in Europe. And, additionally, this is particularly concerning because the Gotthard Base Tunnel is a major hub on the North Sea, Orion Mediterranean corridor, and therefore, decisions taken there immediately affect cross-border traffic across Europe.
And Switzerland is part of the European system through the land transport agreement. This means it is bound by our EU rules. And yet, now, we have a situation where a key corridor is subject to unilateral national measures. So I would like to ask you three questions a little bit more in detail. You, of course, mentioned your concerns about that situation.
But how do you, maybe a little bit more formally speaking, assess the compatibility of those Swiss measures with the EU-Switzerland land transport agreement? Second, then maybe also give us a little bit more of your insight. If there was already that European process underway, how did we actually end up that we have those unilateral measures and Switzerland, yeah, decided to go this, this path by themselves? And third, what can you mention you want to try to solve the situation, but what can you actually do now to bring this back to a coordinated European approach and maybe also to avoid similar situations in future, because we still don't fully know what actually went wrong in this process. Thank you.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much. From the left, we have No. And from the ESN, no. Mister Schiedel, you have the floor, sir, for one minute.
Andreas Schieder
Thank you, madam, president, and thanks to the commission also for explaining the issue. I think it is important to underline that unilateral approaches and solutions, of course, are creating additional risk in the rail sector of undermining the ability to remain a competitive and efficient mode of transport. And especially in this geopolitical context, the impact of different transport modes and the resilience of rail, I think, was also highlighted, and therefore, is even more important for rail to play a more prominent role in the transport system. And therefore, we have to maximize also the effort to deliver an efficient, reliable, well coordinated European rail network, and this unilateral approach is, let's say, contradicting this. And I also took note of the, let's say, positive approach that the commission is expecting that Switzerland might, let's say, come into the orchestra again.
So my question to you, Mr. Schmidt, would be also as part of the revision of the mandate of the European Union Agency for Railways, so of the ERA, if you are considering also the expansion of the ERA's mandate so that the rail safety rules agreed by national safety authorities become also binding rules in the sense and that ERA has given a greater oversight to ensure that there is consistent implementation across a member state. I think this would be a very successful and useful step after all these issues.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Schieder. And now, mister Schmidt, again, the floor is yours for three minutes, please, to answer the questions and conclude the debate. Thank you.
Kristian Schmidt
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think the voice of all the members is very clear. You want the commission to be clear with the Swiss side. And I can assure you we have been, and I can promise you we'll continue to be, because I fully agree with you, we cannot have the single European railway area endangered by fragmentation, and free circulation is essential. So on that, you have my full commitment.
To the more institutional point, we must remind ourselves that Switzerland is not a member state. Had it been a member state, probably this is an area where, after analysis by the agency, finding a national rule incompatible with EU directives, the Commission could proceed with infringement procedures. This is not the case here. We discuss it in the EU Joint Committee. But to those of you who are asking yourselves, should we or should we not support the institutional agreement, please keep in mind that that agreement foresees dynamic alignment and a much stronger framework for enforcing European rules.
And the role of error, you ask. Well, once this agreement has been adopted and enters into force, it will strengthen the role of the European railway agency vis-à-vis Switzerland. I'd also make a point about, let's say, was this an overreaction by the Swiss side? To a certain extent, yes, but it's something that also happens in our member states. I'll remind you, for instance, in 2019, there was an accident on the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark, where a semi-trailer was blown off by strong winds and eight people were killed because it hit an oncoming vehicle.
Denmark adopted urgently national rules, thinking that we have the only bridge in Europe, and the wind is only blowing in Denmark, and therefore a national rule. No, I'm not being serious. But you see the point. There is an urgent need to react until the European rules are in place. The J and S procedure I referred to is replacing the national rule with European rules.
And this is what is going to happen here as well. The process is already underway. And as I said, I am absolutely confident that the Swiss, once that rule is agreed, will replace the national rule with the European rule. Also, because within Switzerland, the national rule is being contested in the courts, and therefore, the effect was actually suspended of the national rule pending court cases. I echo all the members who spoke about both the geographic and economic importance of the Alpine corridors, the need to harmonize.
We agree on that entirely. And this accident in the Gotthard Tunnel came at the same time as there were traffic restrictions across the Brenner closure of the Frejus Tunnel. So in 2023, it really was not a good year for, let's say, the Northern Italian exports to the rest of Europe, and for the Alpine crossings. Luckily, most of these corridors have now been established. But yes, indeed, we are aware of the economic importance of the issue before us.
And again, in June, in the joint committee, but long before also in exchanges with our Swiss partners, we will convey the importance this house sees for full and unrestricted travel by rail freight through the Göta Tunnel. Thank you, madam chair.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you once again, Mr. Schmidt. And now we finish this debate. Now it's our last point of today's agenda, which is the feedback from the transmission to Poland. This mission took place last week from 30 March until 1 April. I was heading our delegation, which consisted of six members from five political groups.
And there was mister Darius Jonski, mister Borja Laraz, monsieur Francois Calfon, mister Julian Leonardoelli, missus Stilimetz, and mister Arno Baussemer. We had a very intense and extremely interesting program over three days. We started on Monday in the Polish capital, meeting mister Darius Klimchak, minister of infrastructure, as well as the main actors behind the Port Polska project, which was a central topic during our visit. Port Polska is one of the most significant Polish transport investment projects of recent times, designed to make Poland a central transport hub in Europe, and consists of a new state-of-the-art airport hub to be built between Warsaw and the new high-speed rail network spanning the country and completing the missing links and cross-border corridors, as well as complementary investments to catalyze regional development. This project is strongly financed by CEF.
The second day, we spent in the city of Gud, a very nice city where mister comes from, which plays a tragic role for the whole Port Polska project. We visited the state-of-the-art new central station, then the Redkenia, sorry, launch chamber, which is the start for the planned trains linked to the high-speed line and multimodal terminal Zuzka Vola, also newly built and to be incorporated in the Port Polska structure. Finally, on Wednesday, we went back to Warsaw to focus once more on aviation, military, mobility, visiting WB Group, the largest private defense company in Poland. GE Aerospace Poland, a leading player in airplane engines and maintenance. The I lot, the scientific partner to the aviation industry, where we were welcomed very warmly by all Polish counterparts, and we left with very memorable experiences, knowledge, and insights, which I found very close and relevant to the main topics and reports we are working on currently in Tran.
I would like to thank all the members of this delegation for their active participation. And in particular, most of all, Darius Jonski for his precious help in preparing the transmission. He had the initiative for that. And I gave the promise to myself to go back to Poland because we didn't have time to visit very interesting places. I was extremely impressed, I have to say that, in our public dialogue.
I would also extend my thanks to Nora and Anna from Trans Secretaria for the impeccable participation, as well as to our group advisers and our interpreters of the mission. And, I think Mister Ijanski wants the floor to say some words for two minutes, not more.
Dariusz Joński
Thank you, colleagues. I would like to thank all of the members of a mission to Poland. Thank you for the participation in special mission to Poland. I think this agenda was very busy, very ambitious, but we are in Poland, have a huge infrastructure project like Port Poland, like I mentioned, like high speed railway. So we would like to show how it will look like for the next seven years.
So when I had that was 20 20 years ago, so I hope it will be changed everything for the next seven, ten years, and the high speed will be connect West Europe with East Europe. So we just start this project, and the first line will be from my city, the center of Poland, the third biggest city in Poland, to Warsaw. It will be the first line. And, of course, we connect Warsaw with the West and the South of Europe. So it was very intensive.
I would like to, thanks a lot. We start, like just said, about the Fosten partners, about Port Poland, the huge airports we just start built. We discuss high speed railway in Warsaw and in which we have a meeting with the minister responsible for the military mobility. You know, we visit a multimodal terminal with Dzinskavola. We talk about security with one of the biggest security companies in Poland, the WB Group, about technologies and security of critical transport infrastructure in Europe, and we talk about aerospace with one of the biggest companies in Poland, G Aerospace, Poland.
So once more, I would like to thank a lot. Of course, special thanks to the staff with Tran Committee for your help. It was very important for us. Of course, for interpreters, for DGCASP staff, and office in Polis, and political group staff. Thanks for organizing and preparing this special mission for us, and it's the first mission to Poland.
The last one was about decades ago. So next time when you come to Poland, I think the high speed will be ready, and the Poland Port will be ready too. Thank you so much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Jonski. Mister, you want to take the floor, mister Calphone, as a member of our delegation there?
François Kalfon
We had a meeting, and I ran to be here because I want to give my feedback on our mission in Poland. And I continue in French, of course, but to say to Darius yes. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for the Polish organization and, of course, the Socretaria. And our chair.
She was here and very involved in our delegation. And it was very, I was very impressed by the
Me too.
François Kalfon
The level of investment in transportation infrastructure in Poland. And that's why I want to give my feedback. It's not technical feedback. It's more with the heart to support your investment, not only funding investment, and that human investment for the growth of your country. And especially because we are, and now I continue in English, because we are discussing the text of military mobility, how the Polish government is in capacity to mobilize Europe funding for SAFE.
I was very impressed by the level of European funding for SAFE because it's €44,000,000,000 only for Poland. And the global amount of SAFE is €150,000,000,000. So it's more than 34% of the global level of SAFE. So I'm very impressed by it. And you even have a ministry, we met her, especially focused on safe investments. So to come back to transportation topics, I think that mid time mobility with the funding, of course, inside our budget in SAFE, but also with regional phone, with SAFE, with RealMeU is a big opportunity for dual use.
We hear this morning, Catherine Trotman, who is leading the West East Corridor. And for the development of corridors in Europe, and you are very fluent in it, the military mobility law and after funding is a big opportunity. It's my feedback, but the first feedback, it was an amazing, not mission, trip, and big question of a time committee commissioner in each party. And thank you to the secretariat for this amazing organization. Thank you so much.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mr. Calphon. So who else? Ah, are you here, Mrs. Metz? I didn't see you. Yes.
You have the floor, madam.
Tilly Metz
Yeah. As my colleagues spoke, I was more here to listen. But as my colleagues now spoke, I am happy to take the floor also, of course. First of all, thank you very much for this mission. Perfectly organized, I must really say, and especially to our chair and head of delegation, but also to Darius.
And I was really, I found it also interesting, I say, very honestly on the human side because I discovered persons that are very much more passionate than I thought. And then that made me very happy because that's why we are all here, because we want change, and we are motivated, and also speaking for the European project and here on the side of mobility, but also with passion where we come from, and I found that very interesting. We also saw in my eyes how important it is to connect big cities, but also to think about how connecting the last mile and that if we speak about multimodal hubs that we need also, so multiticketing, so also the services for the passengers are important. And then also this very huge project, I was very impressed, I must say, by the big project that we saw in Warsaw and also this multimodal approach that is there and the importance of a timeline of safeguards also financially, and then the importance of sovereignty and that, yes, an efficient mobility is also part of security, of safety, especially if you are at the border of Ukraine.
And then, again, also, I found it interesting, a topic where I'm normally not so much in, but the defense, how much important it is to have efficient batteries in the sector of drones and defense, and also why high performance batteries are important in that sector. So, very interesting mission. A great team, I must say. And also the people, the organization have found it really perfect. It was intense, but no regrets.
Thank you to all.
Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi
Thank you very much, Mrs. Metz. So, yes, we have come to the end of our meeting. And note, please, that the next meeting will take place in April. And many thanks to the participants, interpreters, ushers, and the technicians. I wish you all a very nice evening.
Thank you, and a very good Easter for those who are orthodox, and we are having Easter on Sunday. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.