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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
TRAN European Parliament
Follow its sittingsVirginijus Sinkevičius
The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Excellent. Some colleagues didn't have a good week. Invite them for lunch or dinner. Let's go ahead with the with the votes now.
And the the first vote is on the protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between EU and Morocco to take account of the accession to the EU of the Republic of Croatia. We can proceed directly. This is a simple yes or no vote. It's a roll-call vote. And the vote is open.
The vote is closed. It's adopted unanimously, thank you very much. Dear colleagues, our next vote is about the European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fisheries and Maritime Prosperity and Security 2028-2034. TRAN is for opinion on this file and our rapporteur is Ms. Rosa Serrano Sierra from the S&D. As you know, the NRP will be an important source of funding complementary to the CEF in 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework.
Let's proceed with the vote. First we vote on compromise 1. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We move to compromise 2. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We move to compromise 3.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise five.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise six.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise seven.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise eight.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We move to compromise nine. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We move to compromise ten. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We move to compromise eleven. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We move to compromise twelve.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We move to compromise 15.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We now go to 149.
It's a block vote, 149, 140 and 72. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We go to the final vote. The final vote will be by roll call. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. It's adopted. Congratulations to the rapporteur. Thank you very much, colleagues. Let's now move to the next item on our agenda, which is an exchange of views on the draft report on connecting Europe through high-speed rail.
I'd like to remind you that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set for 30th of June at 12:00. And now I'd like to invite the rapporteur to present the draft report. Where is Vincent? Okay, let's have a small break because the rapporteur is not there, just a very, very short for three minutes and then we will resume the meeting.
Okay, excellent. Dear colleagues, thank you for your patience. We can now proceed.
As I said, we move now to connecting Europe through high-speed rail. Now I'd like to invite rapporteur to present the draft report. Dear colleague, Vincent Marzà Ibáñez, the floor is yours now for three minutes.
Vicent Marzà Ibáñez
Thank you. Thank you, chair. I will do it in Spanish, so radio time. Gracias. Gracias, señor presidente.
Piensen en un proyecto europeo capaz de conectar personas y territorios, reducir dependencias externas, hacernos más competitivos, crear puestos de trabajo de calidad y reducir emisiones. Un proyecto que, si lo trabajamos todos juntos, sin dogmatismos, puede cambiar nuestro continente.
Un proyecto posible si equilibramos ambición con pragmatismo. El borrador de informe que les presento hoy intenta, con toda la humildad del mundo, que tengamos la oportunidad de sentar las bases de ese proyecto. Que el tren llegue a todas partes y que sea para todos. Que la alta velocidad europea sea competitiva con otros modos de transporte más contaminantes y capaz de generar una industria europea del tren que sea líder mundial. La comunicación de la Comisión publicada el 5 de noviembre va en la buena dirección.
Este informe viene a contribuir a darle más ambición y más músculo político. No hay otro proyecto europeo con esa capacidad transformadora. El informe se ordena en cuatro bloques.
Primero, una red puerta a puerta. No queremos una Europa de seis capitales conectadas y mil territorios olvidados. Queremos que la red llegue a cada eurorregión europea de norte a sur y de este a oeste. Que cada estación sea un punto de nodo intermodal y que se hagan realidad las conexiones transfronterizas ya de una vez. Una alta velocidad conectada con la movilidad del día a día de la ciudadanía, que no se construya en detrimento de la red convencional, al contrario, que la mejore y la complemente.
Segundo, terminar con nuestra dependencia de combustibles fósiles importados, hacer real el cambio modal. Una alta velocidad competitiva respecto a los otros transportes más contaminantes que haga posible cumplir con objetivos vinculantes de descarbonización con un billete único para desplazarse por toda Europa, con un sistema fiscal justo que priorice el tren y a quien menos contamina. Y tercero, una infraestructura resiliente con financiación efectiva. La infraestructura ferroviaria es un bien estratégico y se debe financiar como tal, con inversión pública, con los ingresos del mercado de emisiones y con bonos climáticos, con financiación privada, con un modelo de explotación equilibrado.
Nuestra dependencia del combustible fósil nos cuesta cada año lo que se ha estimado que costaría la red de alta velocidad. Dejemos de quemar el dinero. Necesitamos una hoja de ruta clara con instrumentos presupuestarios y financieros a la altura. Y cuarto, con una industria líder. O aceleramos el desarrollo de una política industrial ferroviaria europea planificada, innovadora y con empleos de calidad o podemos perder un sector estratégico.
No podemos competir divididos en veintisiete mercados rotos. Necesitamos estandarizar homologaciones y permisos, un sistema ERTMS y no más de veinte, compras públicas que ayuden a ganar escala a nuestra industria y una apuesta por la tecnología europea.
Europa se construyó sobre el diálogo y sobre los acuerdos, sobre un espacio común de libertad de movimiento. Ahora toca construirla también sobre raíles. Cuento con todos los grupos para poder hacerlo realidad. Muchas gracias.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Excellent. Thank you very much, dear Vincent. Now we'll move to our shadow rapporteurs. Each will be given two minutes. And first, EPP, Sophia Kircher.
Sophia Kircher
Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Maz, dear Vincent, for presenting your report and also the work that you are doing on this important topic for all of us. I believe that the report contains many topics and elements that are super important for us, and I especially welcome the strong role foreseen for the European Union's Agency for Rail in the light of the discussion of the updated mandate for this agency. Equally important is the clear message that the expansion of high-speed rail must complement and never come at the expense of conventional regional and suburban services.
And I really appreciate also what you just mentioned to connect cities and also rural areas around Europe. All the points that you mentioned are essential if we want to build a truly integrated European railway network. And I look very much forward to working together. And I hope that we can deliver on what this report is all about, connecting Europe through high-speed rail.
Excellent. Thank you very much, dear Sophia. On behalf of S&D, I have Stefan Musu, but he's not there. Anyone on behalf of S&D? No?
Okay, we save time and we move.
François Kalfon
Je vais parler en français. Donc bien sûr que nous apprécions ce que le rapporteur a dit.
L'Europe veut prendre le TGV sans payer son billet. Ce plan grande vitesse, c'est une magnifique promesse pour le train et pour les Européens, mais sans budget, cela restera une promesse en l'air. On promet aux passagers de traverser l'Europe à plus de 250 kilomètres-heure, de voyager de Paris à Madrid en six heures seulement, mais comment transformer ce plan lointain en avancées concrètes pour les Européens ? D'abord en accélérant l'extension et la modernisation de l'infrastructure pour des trajets raccourcis et moins de retards.
En accélérant la production et l'homologation du matériel roulant pour mettre plus de trains sur nos rails. Enfin, en se saisissant des 17 milliards d'euros de la mobilité militaire, en passant à l'écartement européen, en déployant l'ERTMS et en augmentant le poids sur essieu. Ce plan est donc une opportunité immense pour des trains plus fréquents, plus rapides et pour notre mobilité militaire également. Chers collègues, on peut agir maintenant pour transformer ce rêve lointain en véritable Erasmus du rail qui rapproche concrètement les Européens.
Merci beaucoup.
Julien Leonardelli
Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Tout d'abord, je tiens à remercier le rapporteur pour le travail qu'il a accompli sur cet important rapport. Le groupe des Patriotes pour l'Europe soutient fermement le développement du train à grande vitesse en Europe. Des liaisons ferroviaires efficaces sont essentielles à la croissance économique, à la cohésion territoriale et à la compétitivité et aussi à une meilleure connectivité entre nos régions.
Le train à grande vitesse peut jouer un rôle important dans le renforcement du marché intérieur et à l'amélioration de la mobilité des citoyens dans toute l'Union. Dans le même temps, nous estimons que le débat sur le train à grande vitesse doit rester pragmatique, économiquement viable et axé sur l'apport d'avantages concrets aux citoyens et aux régions. De notre point de vue, l'une des principales priorités doit être de remédier au déséquilibre de longue date entre l'Europe occidentale et l'Europe centrale et orientale. Alors que des investissements considérables ont déjà été réalisés dans les réseaux ferroviaires à grande vitesse dans plusieurs États membres d'Europe occidentale, de nombreuses régions d'Europe centrale ne disposent toujours pas de liaisons à grande vitesse adéquates.
Les futurs investissements européens devraient donc se concentrer sur les maillons manquants, les tronçons transfrontaliers et les corridors stratégiques qui renforcent la cohésion de l'Union dans son ensemble. Nous estimons également que le succès du train à grande vitesse dépendra avant tout d'un financement adéquat et prévisible. Des objectifs ambitieux doivent s'accompagner d'engagements financiers réalistes. Le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel et le futur mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe devraient apporter un soutien suffisant non seulement aux tronçons transfrontaliers, mais aussi aux tronçons nationaux d'importance stratégique présentant une valeur ajoutée européenne évidente.
Par ailleurs, nous soutenons l'interopérabilité, le déploiement de l'ERTMS et la suppression des obstacles techniques inutiles. Toutefois, l'interopérabilité ne doit pas servir de prétexte à une centralisation excessive. La coopération européenne doit aller de pair avec le respect des responsabilités des États membres et des spécificités nationales justifiées.
Kosma Złotowski
Szanowny panie przewodniczący, panie i panowie sprawozdawcy. Kolej dużych prędkości może poprawić połączenia międzynarodowe, zwiększyć mobilność i wspierać rozwój gospodarczy.
Z mojej perspektywy, europosła z Polski, szczególnie ważna jest trasa Rail Baltica, łącząca Tallinn, Rygę, Wilno i Warszawę. Nie powinna ona jednak oczywiście kończyć się w Warszawie, a stanowić część szerszego korytarza i prowadzić dalej na zachód, do Berlina, Brukseli i Paryża. Musimy jednak pamiętać o wyzwaniach związanych z tym ambitnym projektem, aby raport był realistyczny i możliwy do wdrożenia. Po pierwsze, finansowanie. Inwestycje będą wymagały nie tylko środków unijnych, ale także znacznego wkładu państw członkowskich, które mają różne wydatki i różne priorytety budżetowe.
Po drugie, różnice między państwami. Dotyczą one organizacji rynku kolejowego, procedur administracyjnych czy akceptacji społecznej. I po trzecie, bezpieczeństwo. Już dziś obserwujemy w Europie Środkowej i Wschodniej zagrożenia związane z potencjalnymi aktami sabotażu ze strony Rosji.
Odporność i ochrona infrastruktury muszą być więc integralną częścią tego projektu. Cieszę się na współpracę z panem Merzą-Ibañezem i mam nadzieję, że wspólnie przygotujemy ambitny i realistyczny raport. Dziękuję.
Ana Vasconcelos
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm from Portugal, and we don't have a direct connection by rail from Lisbon to Madrid, the nearest capital. With this high-speed rail plan, it will be possible to go from Lisbon to Madrid in three hours. That's roughly the time that it takes going from Lisbon to Porto right now, the other big city in Portugal.
It may take up to nine hours to go from Lisbon to Paris. This is a game changer, and it's incredible that we're not at that level yet, especially considering that rail is the best climate-friendly option to air travel. So we want to help our consumers have more choices, not impose limitations on their transport mode, and especially if we take seriously the fact that freedom of circulation is a bedrock of the European Union project. On that note, we very much welcome the rapporteur's report.
Rail's real rival was never the plane, it is the border. 27 sets of technical standards, operational rules, authorization procedures turn every cross-border line into 27 different projects. Both Draghi and Letta warned high-speed rail transforms our economies and stops at national borders, and that fragmentation is a cost that passengers pay in higher fees and fewer connections. Europe has the technology, the engineers, the operators, millions of citizens who want a cleaner, faster way to travel. Our priorities for the report follow from that.
Open the market: where competition was introduced, prices fell 31% in Italy and frequency rose 41% in Austria.
De-risk investment and speed up permitting so high-speed rail deal mobilizes private capital alongside the 345 billion of public need, not instead of it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now we go to the left, Mr. Aras Saidi.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président, je vais m'exprimer en français. On cherche partout comment décarboner nos mobilités. La réponse existe, elle a plus de 150 ans, elle s'appelle le train. 20 fois moins émetteur que l'avion, 9 fois moins que la voiture, le rail offre la transformation de nos modes de vie la plus efficace, la plus immédiate, la plus accessible et nous le connaissons bien.
C'est à la fois le levier le plus puissant pour le climat et le plus concret pour nos vies. Moins de dépendance au pétrole, plus de temps, plus de lien entre les territoires. C'est une promesse d'émancipation : se déplacer sans polluer, sans subir les prix du carburant, sans être assigné à un territoire. Mais pour que cette promesse devienne réelle, elle doit rester partagée de toutes et tous. Cela nécessite d'abord des financements car le rail est chroniquement sous-doté.
Mais ce financement ne doit pas aller seulement aux grandes capitales, pas seulement pour les voyageurs d'affaires, pas seulement autour des seules lignes déjà rentables. C'est précisément ce que ce rapport a compris. Il pose une exigence que nous partageons pleinement : la grande vitesse ne peut ni ne doit cannibaliser le réseau du quotidien.
Pas question que l'argent public finance des lignes de prestige pendant qu'on ferme des petites gares et qu'on déserte des territoires entiers. Nous entendons donc soutenir fortement la proposition portée par le rapporteur et le renforcer encore autour de trois points.
D'abord sur la billettique, nous refusons de voir livrer clé en main le rail à des intermédiaires commerciaux qui ne construisent rien, n'exploitent pas de train, n'entretiennent rien et n'investissent pas, mais qui capteront les marges. Nous demandons des garde-fous clairs : transparence des commissions, neutralité des plateformes et plateformes publiques au cœur du système. Ensuite, sur le marché de l'occasion, oui à la mobilité du matériel roulant, mais prioritairement au profit des opérateurs publics régionaux et des missions de service public, pas pour ouvrir la porte à une concurrence prédatrice de nouveau et uniquement sur les lignes les plus rentables. Enfin, sans cheminots qualifiés, ce réseau ne sera qu'une promesse de papier. Nous défendons une stratégie européenne de la main-d'œuvre ferroviaire : formation, reconversion, mobilité et tout ça, évidemment, sans dumping social.
Le train comme bien commun, actif stratégique accessible à tous et financé par la collectivité, c'est notre ligne, celle qui doit faire du train le mode de transport de la révolution climatique et sociale. Je vous remercie.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
I'll give the floor for one minute if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please, please raise your cards. I'll start with the EPP, Ms. Brnjac, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chair. So first of all, I want to welcome the draft report and commend the rapporteur for the comprehensive work he has done. And I would like to comment just a few things.
Nikolina Brnjac
First, that European high-speed rail network must not only focus on already well-connected capitals and mature rail markets, and that it must integrate high-speed rail must be integrated with existing regional and conventional services, while stations should function as genuine intermodal nodes. Then the second is the financing part. CEF and NRRP funding should be used for regional and for the local railways lines that connect communities and intermodal nodes with high-speed corridors. And third, the EU financing must also strengthen European infrastructure companies, European signaling system, and European rolling stock.
That procurement should reflect not only price, but also safety, cybersecurity, interoperability, security of supply and European industrial capacity. And also the last important thing is regarding ERTMS deployment must remain as he said a priority, but lines using legacy systems should not be automatically excluded from funding where investment supports a credible modernization of connecting lines. And my amendments will go in these directions and I look forward to working constructively with the rapporteur. Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Excellent, thank you very much. Next on the list, EPP, Mr. Jonski, and after him I'll give the floor to S&D, Mr. Musson.
Dariusz Joński
Thank you chair, I'll be speaking Polish. Chciałbym bardzo podziękować na wstępie raportierowi i shadow raportierowi za tę, za ten wkład pracy.
Wszyscy, jak jesteśmy w tej komisji, wiemy, jak istotna jest kolej dużych prędkości i realizacja tego bardzo ważnego projektu. Tak de facto kolej dużych prędkości jest taką istotą i fundamentem Unii Europejskiej. Szybkie połączenia, połączenie wszystkich stolic do 2040 roku, to wszystko jest bardzo istotne i skupia się wokół jednego: wokół finansowania.
Ja bym chciał zwrócić uwagę, że w nowym budżecie Unii Europejskiej w ramach CEF, Connecting Europe, mamy dwa i pół raza większy budżet. Z 33 miliardów euro wzrasta ten budżet do 81 miliardów euro, ale oczywiście on jest niewystarczający, jeśli myślimy o tak ambitnych projektach. I zwracam uwagę, że kraje członkowskie będą musiały się zaangażować. Ja pochodzę z Polski, gdzie polski premier ogłosił, że w ciągu siedmiu lat chcemy zainwestować blisko 40 miliardów euro w kolej, kolej dużych prędkości i modernizację kolei. Chcemy połączyć Litwę, Łotwę, Estonię przez Polskę z Europą Zachodnią.
I mówię o tym dlatego, że budżet unijny to jest jedno, ale budżety państw członkowskich to jest drugie. I ten plan bardzo ambitny jest do zrealizowania tylko przy zaangażowaniu również krajów członkowskich. Bardzo dziękuję.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Dziękuję bardzo. Let's keep one minute, colleagues. Mr. Musoiu, the floor is yours. Next is Madam Martinez.
Stefan Mușoiu
Thank you, Chair.
Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his very strong draft and for his openness for dialogue and the exchange to convey a strong European Parliament position. High-speed rail has the potential to be a magnet in driving investment and renewed political momentum for rail, delivering visible benefits for citizens while demonstrating the value of investing in rail as the sustainable transport mode of the future. At a time when the rail sector faces significant challenges in attracting the scale of investment needed to modernize and expand the network, high-speed rail can provide a compelling vision and business case. Europe is a global leader in high-speed rail technology and manufacturing.
An ambitious European vision for high-speed rail is therefore not only a transport policy objective, but also an industrial policy imperative. It can help sustain Europe's technological leadership, support high-quality jobs across the rail supply chain, and reinforce Europe's strategic autonomy in a sector where global competition is intensifying. This is why, as S&D shadow, I strongly support an ambitious European vision for high-speed rail as a means for driving much-needed investment onto rail. However, I also believe it is crucial that investment in high-speed rail reinforces, rather than replaces, sustained investment across the wider rail network. High-speed rail remains, to a large extent, a premium service.
It is a more expensive service to run and use. We must therefore ensure that the development of high-speed rail does not come at the expense of the broader objective of delivering accessible and affordable rail services for all. Two other points I would like to mention as key focus areas. First, my home country Romania currently has no rail lines capable of supporting high-speed services at 250 kilometers per hour. If we are serious about building a genuinely European high-speed rail network, we need to do a better job of making the economic, social and territorial case for investment, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.
My goal is to travel by train from Paris or from Madrid to Bucharest under 24 hours. Second, the forthcoming revision of the European Union Agency for Railways regulation will be crucial in reducing technical and regulatory fragmentation, strengthening interoperability and supporting economies of scale. I look forward to the revision contributing to lowering rail costs and reinforcing Europe's rail industrial base. Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. I gave a bit more time to our colleague because he is a shadow rapporteur, but other colleagues I ask you, especially speaking second time, to keep one minute time slot. Thank you very much.
Now we move to Renew, Ms. Martinez.
Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez
Gracias, presidente. Bueno, simplemente valoramos muy positivamente el informe de iniciativa porque entendemos que lo que viene es a reforzar los anuncios de alta velocidad ya hechos por la propia Comisión. Y si mi compañera hablaba de la conexión Lisboa-Madrid, pues yo voy a hablar de la de Madrid-Burdeos.
Y aquí lo que esperamos de este informe es que sirva realmente para generar espacios de trabajo y de compromiso entre los Estados miembro y para que realmente se terminen de materializar esas conexiones y tramos transfronterizos que hacen que vertebre Europa. Sería fundamental también, y esperemos que aparezca en el informe por las noticias que estamos viendo, que todos estos planes y proyectos de alta velocidad, además de vertebrar y mejorar la conectividad y competitividad europea, sirvan para reforzar la industria europea, porque sí que quiero trasladar una preocupación que tenemos en estos momentos con respecto a las posibilidades de que esto no sea así y, por lo tanto, le pido que ponga especial atención a ello. Muchísimas gracias, eskerrik asko.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you, and appreciate taking the note about the time. The last on the list, Mr. Leonardelli, the floor is yours for one minute.
Julien Leonardelli
Merci, Monsieur le Président. En 1981, la France invente le TGV. En 2024, elle le regarde passer. L'Espagne roule plus vite que nous, l'Allemagne roule plus loin, et nous, pendant ce temps, rien. Chez moi, à Toulouse, troisième ville de France, pour rallier Bordeaux, Montpellier, Perpignan, Madrid, Lisbonne, Barcelone à grande vitesse, il faudra encore attendre 10, 20, et pourquoi pas même 100 ans.
Sur ce sujet-là, pour une fois, l'Union européenne avance dans l'intérêt de nos concitoyens, mais la France, elle, traîne encore. Interconnecter l'Europe par le rail, ce n'est pas un slogan technocratique de plus.
C'est désenclaver nos régions, c'est relier les peuples, c'est redonner à la France son rang de grande nation ferroviaire. Et alors non, il ne s'agit pas d'opposer le train à la voiture ou à l'avion, comme le rêvent certains qui voudraient peut-être nous voir revenir au temps des calèches. Le train, la voiture, l'avion, ce sont des compléments, pas des ennemis. La vraie écologie, c'est de donner le choix, pas d'interdire. Alors construisons dès maintenant ou continuons de nous contenter de voter des mêmes rapports sur les mêmes retards avec les mêmes excuses pour les 30 années à venir.
L'histoire ne pardonne pas aux retardataires. Construisons, avançons ou taisons-nous.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Okay. Merci beaucoup.
Now we move to the European Commission. We have with us Mr. Filip Chantraine, head of unit of transport and investment from DG MOVE. Please, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Chair, and very happy to be here and to see this high-speed rail initiative report, which confirms that we are talking about very important matters.
Philippe CHANTRAINE
First of all, we would like to thank the rapporteur for the good work, which is going in the same direction as we do and supporting our objectives. At the same time, it is very clear that in order to have better high-speed rail across Europe, the challenges are multiple and multi-faceted and complex. Many of them have been mentioned here: interoperability, ERTMS, ticketing, etc. So we have to be active on many fronts, and this is why this action plan from the Commission tries to bring all these elements together, and this is why we are busy now implementing this action plan. One word maybe on the ticketing, because this has been raised in particular.
We see this as a good way to ensure precisely that we can connect the longer-distance traveling also with the regional and local traveling.
So we look very much forward to the discussion in the framework of the proposal that is on the table. And then on the financing because that is a bit the conditio sine qua non. Of course the challenges are very important here. We have just launched last week the last reflow call under the CEF of the current MFF where the majority of funding will go again into rail and we put a priority on high-speed rail. And we are discussing of course the next MFF and as it was mentioned we will have to mobilize all the available tools here to support the industry where we are world leaders.
That means we need a strong CEF to take care of the missing cross-border sections.
Many of them were mentioned here, Lisbon-Madrid, Madrid to Bordeaux, etc. But also we need the NRPPs to take care of the national sections and we need the competitiveness fund to support our industry and we need InvestEU to make sure that private investment complements the public investment that is needed to support high-speed rail. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And now to conclude the debate I'll give back the floor to our rapporteur Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, the floor is yours.
Vicent Marzà Ibáñez
Gracias, presidente. Muchísimas gracias a los shadows de cada grupo por las aportaciones, por el trabajo ya realizado previamente y por contribuir de forma directa a este informe y que lo haremos en los próximos semanas con sus aportaciones vía enmiendas y diálogo continuo, que es lo que pretendo y quiero realizar, dialogar uno a uno con los diferentes shadows con todas las aportaciones que se han realizado aquí.
De las diferentes aportaciones creo que hay una cuestión clara y es que compartimos la necesidad de un informe ambicioso, compartimos la necesidad de una apuesta clara por la alta velocidad que conecte todos los territorios y que no sea solo una lanzadera interna dentro de cada estado miembro entre diferentes capitales, que ayude a complementar la red convencional, que lo haga de la mano de la industria para que esta industria sea cada vez más competitiva y por lo tanto también competitiva en el exterior, que tenga un sistema de financiación claro y que sea persistente y consistente y por lo tanto que deje espacio a la inversión y que dé fiabilidad para que se haga realidad, que sea equilibrado territorialmente y creo que aquí las diferentes aportaciones han sido muy interesantes para cómo podemos intentar equilibrar la inversión entre el este y el oeste, centro de Europa para que llegue a todas las regiones y a todos los estados miembros.
Creo que es importante que trabajemos como se ha aportado por alguno de los shadows también en reforzar las instituciones europeas como la Agencia Europea para trabajar en una mayor estandarización, simplificación de las homologaciones y por lo tanto reforzar el mercado interno y que sea real y que ayude a conseguir nuestros nuestros objetivos.
Tenemos que poner en el centro la experiencia del viajero y por lo tanto la asequibilidad, la capacidad de llegar a un a un ticket único para poder hacerlo fácil, pero al mismo tiempo también que se pueda desarrollar por por la industria y que sea competitivo. Que reduzcamos las emisiones va directamente de la mano de una inversión en alta velocidad y que sea competitivo la alta velocidad respecto a otros modos de transporte implica una planificación estratégica que se vaya a cumplir. Y ahí voy terminando, necesitamos incentivos para los Estados miembro para facilitar esos acuerdos que se necesitan para que la parte de cada Estado miembro esté al servicio de la red global y que se multipliquen los recursos.
Y para ello aportamos algunas de las ideas que están en el informe. Insisto, se agradece muchísimo cada una de las aportaciones. Las vamos a tener en cuenta, las vamos a trabajar con toda la voluntad de diálogo porque creo que hay una gran capacidad de estar juntos y juntas en este informe y que compartimos los diferentes grupos que han hecho su voz el objetivo general que es el de una estrategia clara de alta velocidad que sea ambiciosa y que ayude a complementar el actual sistema convencional que es el que utilizan en el día a día la mayoría de los ciudadanos europeos. Muchas gracias y con todas las ganas de trabajar con cada una de las personas que han intervenido en nombre de sus grupos. Gracias.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. Thank you, Vincent.
Thank you dear colleagues. Now we move to the last item on our morning's agenda which is the presentation of the accompanying study on roadworthiness and I'd like to invite Professor Christian Birkner for the presentation.
Speaker 18
Yes, just a few minutes to join me here. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, dear Professor. We are very much looking forward for your presentation. So now the floor is yours.
Christian Birkner
Thanks a lot. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Many thanks for giving me the chance to present here, especially to the chair of the TRAN committee. I was asked to comment the technical topics of the roadworthiness package, the proposals to update the roadside inspection and the periodic technical inspection directives. Next slide, please. Here I will focus mainly on the technical topics regarding the traffic safety on the first point, which are influenced by the PTI and RSI.
Then I will continue with the emission measurements during PTI and RSI and conclude then with remote emission sensing. Next slide, please. Looking to the tasks more in detail, there are some remarks about topics with more specific content.
So, for PTI, the test frequency results from other Member States, the odometer readings, and some emission testing and test procedures for EVs. For RSI, the vehicle categories, what kind of scope should be there? And of course, for all electronic systems, how can they be tested in future and what is possible with emission monitoring? Next slide, please. I would start, like to start with traffic safety.
It is obvious that technical inspections will increase the safety level on our roads. The European Road Standard Observatory, next click, please. The European Road Safety Observatory stated in 2022 the fatalities on urban areas.
Can you please click the next slide? And the PTI frequencies was collected by Eurec in 2022. You can see it out on the next slide. And I compared the fatalities in urban regions with the PTI frequency. And when you click next, you can see the coloring.
And you can interpret the different colors that there is a positive effect on technical inspections to traffic safety and to the fatalities, but there is not a linear effect. So there are other effects.
When we look to the next slide, you can see a study by CEREMA. What kind of reasons do we have for all the fatalities for the Flemish region in 2015? There the main technical reasons, when you click next, it is the low visibility of power two-wheelers, the tire status, and driving with high-powered vehicles.
These are topics which are covered by the technical inspections. But when you look more in detail, you can see that the highest share of all fatalities lies in human factors, like overspeeding, like driving with drugs and alcohol, like inattention or not respecting the driving rules. Here we can push in direction of new ADAS systems and safety systems to push in this direction as a mandatory content for new vehicles. In the next slide, you can see that PTI has some major differences in testing procedures for the different member states. So we have seen the frequency is not the same, is not similar.
Also the content, how the procedure is done is not content. Here I would like to recommend that we go stepwise to a higher frequency for all the technical inspections for the PTI testing, but then accomplish it with simplifying the test procedures with tool-based automation with odometer reading and with the data storage and the documentation.
This will avoid that we have additional financial burden to the vehicle owners, but increase the observation of the technical status of the vehicles. Next slide. Looking to the roadside inspections, I would like to use the similar tools for the electronic testings like for PTI, but with a tailored version to have a shortened test content there. And we defined the roadside inspection at the moment for heavy-duty trucks, medium and heavy-duty trucks.
We should increase the scope also to N1 class to cover also a higher share of vehicles, especially for the distribution traffic. As next step, I would allow optional the roadside inspection testing for all vehicles which are obviously defect, independent of their class. Looking at roadside inspection topic cargo securing, this testing is absolutely necessary, but it is difficult to be done. For that, I'm recommending to have here an improved testing to allow a very effective and easy visual testing.
Next slide, I'm looking to the electric vehicles. When we want to test electric vehicles, the high voltage system is already completely tested and covered by the homologation. So the system itself is working. But during lifetime, we have to concentrate on other topics like corrosion, mechanical stress, deterioration or fraudulent manipulations.
This can be done by visual inspection of all components and of course by resistance measurements of the conductors and shields, which is defined in ISO 6469. And of course, for the fraudulent manipulations, we have to do the software version checking. In the next slide, you can see that software version checking is not only limited to EVs but for all electronic systems. Looking to the automation, it is mandatory to have this software version checking to have the decision part, which is mentioned here in the slide as thinking part. And this is already covered by then by homologation and by software checking.
What is still open is the sense part.
So what kind of perception do we have, the sensor fusion? And here especially all the sensor alignments, is it still correct? And on the other hand, the actuation part, all actuators needs to be tested for correct function inside the predefined operation field. For both topics, all OEM have already their test cases, which are automated in their test systems. But they are coded in a form that inside the OEM garage it can be done.
I would recommend to have it also available to use it at PTI, RSI in a global format, some of them. On the next slide, I will shift now to emission inspection at PTI. There was a report published by TNO about the NOx emissions of 18 light-duty vehicles measured with real driving emissions.
This is normally done only for homologation, but they have used used cars for that, and they have seen that the emission level is much higher than for most of the vehicles than the homologation limit. This can be interpreted as a need to cover NOx measurement also for technical inspections to see the SCR technology efficiency. In the next slide, you can see that there are already PTI analyzers for NOx, but also for particulate number available. The requirements for that is a very easy handling for the testers, low to medium price, and a high repeatability of the tests.
The systems are available, and easy handling and repeatability still corresponds strongly to the experience of the tester. On the next slide, you can see my recommendation to extend PTI with particulate number and NOx measurements.
And on the next slide, you can see the inside the graph that the false positive detection for the systems, here in this example it is the particulate number, is critical to have it in warm, in pre-good preconditioned way. When you look to NOx values, when the SCR catalyst is cooled down, you will not see anything. You will have a lot of false positive. So to overcome this preconditioning condition, this critical one, we should also look to come away from idle conditions and we should shift to remote sensing on the next slide. Remote sensing can be split into different technologies.
On the one hand, plume chasing. So one vehicle equipped with a lot of sensors is following other vehicles which are obviously high-emitting vehicles. So we have a very high effort and the share of tested vehicle is quite low, but we can precisely see this is a defect vehicle. On the other hand, we have point sampling, so measurement at the roadside. This is already introduced for air quality measurements, of course.
Point sampling is difficult to interpret the measurement results for specific vehicles which are passing by.
This is much easier to have it with cross-road sensing methodologies. On the next slide, you can see two different systems for remote emission sensing. On the first one, on the first side, on the left side, you see the EDAR system from HEAT. It is using a differential absorption infrared sensor with a vertical laser and a retro-reflector fixed on the road.
On the right side, you see the RSD from the company OPUS, which is using on the one hand a dispersive infrared laser and a non-dispersive ultraviolet sensor as a measurement technology. This is this system is mounted horizontally across the road. On the next slide, you can see how it is working or how it is interpreted. Both systems measure the light interference caused by the different exhaust gas components. The absolute accuracy of the detectors is relatively high.
You can see this example here for the EDAR system where the emission is mentioned in the colors in the middle and the precision of the different detectors is mentioned on the right side. When you when we go to the next slide you can see a study from JRC which were testing heat the heat systems from HEAT and OPUS compared to a high precision tailpipe measurement PEMS system which is normally used for real driving emissions. And what you can see that there is no clear trend which kind of system is better or worse.
Both of them show similar deviations. But absolute at the low concentrations at the end of the emission plume you can see that the absolute error is increasing so at low concentrations. But for the target application to see really defect or fraudulent manipulated exhaust after treatment systems it is so high emission level that you can easily detect with roadside emission measurement these vehicles. On the last slide you can see my summary.
Technical inspections are necessary and helpful to increase the traffic safety and the emission reduction. The PTI frequency should be increased by and accomplished by decreased effort for the testers to keep the overall effort in similar way. Therefore, the test procedures should be guided by tools.
We need an automatic documentation and an online storage of the measurement data. For the emission measurement, I'm recommending also to extend NOx and PN measurement for the PTI and perhaps also at RSI measurements. And to detect vehicle high emission vehicles, remote emission sensing could be used in suitable road sections. There we can do it either mandatory for all member states or we can do it by a reward penalty system that the financial burden to the member states are in a limited way. So on the last slide, many thanks to your attention and now I'm open for your questions.
I hope I kept 15 minutes.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
You did very well. Thank you very well. It was very interesting presentation.
I'm pretty sure our coordinators will will have their remarks and and their questions and we start with the EPP, Jens Gieseke.
Jens Gieseke
Yes, thank you very much chair and thank you very much Professor Birkner for that interesting presentation. Of course this is all in the framework of our Vision Zero to have no fatalities in traffic. So this is one important part, but it's very technical. So I of course have technical questions. On your idea on the online storage, how does it work?
Could you perhaps elaborate about the idea, how is this electronic storage organized that all member states have the access?
This is more or less a question of understanding. And then on the testing protocols for PTI and RSE, they should be guided by a standardized digital tool. And these are all authorized testing centers. What qualifies for those authorized test centers? Perhaps you can explain this in a way.
And then technically, politically, there is one fundamental question because I very well recognize your recommendation on the PTI, on the frequency, on this going from 4-2-2 to 3-1-1. The argument in Germany coming from the people dealing with it is that such recommendations just for Germany means additional 6,000 engineers, which are simply not there.
This is their argument and it's a question of feasibility. So now we want to match recommendation and implementation. So what is your advice, what is your answer? Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. We'll go now with S&D, Sergiusz Gonslavs.
Sergiusz Gonslavs
Thank you, Chair. I would like to start by thanking you, Professor, for your work in the study. And I would like to focus on remote sensing. As you know, this technology is very important to tackle air pollution.
And in the Parliament's position on this file, we proposed a different approach from the Commission. We maintain the mandatory introduction of remote sensing across Member States, but removed from the Commission proposal the obligation to cover 30% of the fleet and left it up to Member States to define enforcement rules. In other words, Member States can use any combination of remote sensing technologies, such as fixed or mobile roadside equipment or plume chasing, with no specific targets on fleet coverage. They will also determine themselves the emission thresholds and number of measurements used to decide whether a vehicle should undergo further testing.
I would like to ask you whether you believe this approach addresses the concerns you raised in your study. As I understand it, this would address your concern that the threshold used by the commission to define high-emitting vehicles is too low since member states would be able to define their own thresholds and adjust them if they result in too many false positives. Moreover, as you mentioned in your study, reaching 30% of coverage of the fleet would require significant financial investment, which would nevertheless be offset by revenue from penalties imposed on non-compliant vehicles.
By not mandating a specific percentage of coverage or a specific technology, I think we alleviate Member States' concerns, reduce entry costs, and encourage them to start using this technology. The hope is that they will then realize its public health, enforcement, and financial benefits and further invest in it. Would this be a fair reading, and are there any concerns that you have on remote sensing that the Parliament position does not address? Thank you.
Thank you very much. On behalf of Patriots, we don't... Yeah.
Julien Leonardelli
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président, merci pour votre présentation.
Après lecture donc de ce rapport, celui-ci nous confirme que la première cause de mortalité sur nos routes, c'est l'humain. Vous l'avez rappelé : la vitesse, l'alcool, les distractions. Le défaut technique du véhicule ne représente que 4 % des décès. Et que nous propose-t-on ? Donc plus de contrôles techniques, plus souvent, plus chers.
Alors je vais extrapoler, mais à ce rythme-là, pourquoi pas tous les mois, voire même tous les jours tant qu'à faire ? Chez moi, en Occitanie, dans le sud de la France, la ruralité française, il n'y a ni métro ni bus toutes les dix minutes.
La voiture n'est pas un loisir, c'est un outil de travail qui est souvent âgé parce que les salaires ne suivent pas. Et en plus de payer plus cher, chaque voiture, chaque plaque d'immatriculation sera fichée dans une immense base de données européenne centralisée à Bruxelles. Et pour quoi faire ? Donc moi je crois qu'on ne rend pas les routes plus sûres en vidant les portefeuilles et en fichant les voitures. On les rend plus sûres en punissant ceux qui mettent véritablement en danger les autres.
Autre une question concernant la généralisation des véhicules électriques imposée par Bruxelles. Les contrôles techniques vont être plus chers.
Que pensez-vous justement de ça, du coût imposé derrière en finalité aux citoyens ?
Merci beaucoup. On behalf of ECR, I don't see anyone. On behalf of Renew, please.
Asger Christensen
Thank you very much and thank you for the presentation from the professor. It's very, very interesting and we will examine the study very carefully.
As a lawmaker, our task will be to ensure that any future rules are fair, based on solid evidence, and help to improve road safety while avoiding unnecessary costs and administrative work for the citizens and business. For me, it's very, very important more safe on the road and less cost for all. Thank you very much.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. On behalf of the Greens, Mr. Kai Tegethoff.
Yes, thank you. First of all, thanks also to the authors for the study. I wish we had received it earlier in the legislative process because it would have been very useful during the negotiations in Parliament on the report on the periodic technical inspections and on the roadside inspections. Just as a side remark, we should ensure that this does not arise again for accompanying studies in future.
Kai Tegethoff
Having this said, I have two main questions. One of the real positive outcomes of the Parliament's adopted report on roadside inspections concerns the mandatory use of remote sensing technologies. My group sees that as a clear benefit and it is showcased by different EU countries where it has been rolled out already and indeed also in other markets across the globe, for example, the US and South Korea.
If implemented well, it will deter illegal tampering of vehicles, capture high emitters and ultimately offers a low-cost solution that could in turn pay for itself to dealing with air pollution. This study indeed has a look at remote sensing and outlines how Member States could implement such an approach and cover their costs. One option it highlights is the return on investment with regards to penalties being issued for exceptionally high polluters. Could you please provide more insight into how Member States can cover their costs there?
And the second question, one of your recommendations outlines the benefit of moving to annual vehicle inspections after three years from registration. Could you tell us more about the evidence underpinning this recommendation, including the expected road safety benefits and how its implementation could remain proportionate and affordable for citizens? Thank you.
Elena Kountoura
Ευχαριστώ πολύ, κύριε Πρόεδρε. Αρχικά θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον κύριο καθηγητή για την εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρουσα παρουσίαση.
Πολλά από τα συμπεράσματα που παρουσιάσατε σήμερα βρίσκονται πολύ κοντά στις θέσεις που υποστήριξα εξαρχής στην διαπραγμάτευση με πρώτη και αδιαπραγμάτευτη προτεραιότητα την ενίσχυση της οδικής ασφάλειας. Ωστόσο το κείμενο που υιοθετήθηκε τελικά από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο δεν αντανακλά πλήρως το επίπεδο φιλοδοξίας που απαιτείται. Χαρακτηριστικά προτάσεις της μελέτης σας που ταυτίζονται με θέσεις που υποστήριξα εξαρχής όπως οι ετήσιοι τεχνικοί έλεγχοι για τα παλαιότερα οχήματα καθώς και οι υποχρεωτικοί έλεγχοι για τις μοτοσυκλέτες κάτω των 125 κυβικών δηλαδή περίπου το 70% του στόλου των δικύκλων που κυκλοφορούν σήμερα στους ευρωπαϊκούς δρόμους δεν συμπεριλήφθηκαν τελικά στην θέση του Κοινοβουλίου.
Παρόλα αυτά, ενόψει των τριλόγων, υπάρχουν σημαντικά στοιχεία στη θέση του Κοινοβουλίου που οφείλουμε να προστατεύσουμε και να διασφαλίσουμε ότι θα περιληφθούν στην τελική συμφωνία. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, ιδιαίτερη σημασία έχουν η χρήση νέων τεχνολογιών ελέγχου, η πρόσβαση στα δεδομένα των οχημάτων και η αξιοποίηση ψηφιακών εργαλείων για την ενίσχυση τόσο της αποτελεσματικότητας των ελέγχων όσο και της οδικής ασφάλειας συνολικά. Θα ήθελα λοιπόν να σας ρωτήσω.
Πρώτον, η τελική θέση του Κοινοβουλίου διατηρεί το remote sensing ως εργαλείο εντοπισμού οχημάτων με πιθανές υπερβολικές εκπομπές, αλλά αφήνει στα κράτη μέλη σημαντική ευελιξία όσον αφορά τα όρια, τα κριτήρια και τη συχνότητα εφαρμογής. Πιστεύετε ότι αυτό το επίπεδο ευελιξίας εξακολουθεί να επιτρέπει την αποτελεσματική επίτευξη των στόχων του μέτρου και ποια ελάχιστα κοινά ευρωπαϊκά πρότυπα θεωρείτε απαραίτητα; Δεύτερον, πόσο κρίσιμο είναι για την επιτυχία του νέου πλαισίου να εξασφαλιστεί ισότιμη πρόσβαση στα δεδομένα των οχημάτων για τους φορείς τεχνικού ελέγχου και όχι μόνο για τους κατασκευαστές; Και τέλος, ποιο μέτρο της αναθεώρησης θεωρείτε ότι θα είχε τη μεγαλύτερη συμβολή στην ενίσχυση της οδικής ασφάλειας και στην επίτευξη των στόχων του Vision Zero και πρέπει να βρίσκεται στην τελική συμφωνία; Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. And then on behalf of ESN, Mr. Volker Schnurbusch.
Volker Schnurrbusch
Yeah, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to your report. There's my questions are there's no direct connection between PTI frequency and road fatalities.
For instance, in Germany, we have a below average PTI frequency and the number of fatalities is beneath EU average. So why do you still advocate for a harmonized PTI frequency and moreover for a harmonized PTI frequency all over the EU? So second question would be why do you think remote sensing with a fixed national minimum quota is necessary? Do you not think that remote sensing should be done according to the amount of potentially problematic vehicles and the amount of qualified testing spots for remote sensing? And some specialized questions go to the farmers and the motorcyclists.
So why do you think the inclusion of tractors is necessary? Most accidents happen because of wrongful driving and not because of the technical state of tractors.
And the same goes for motorcyclists actually. The risk of accidents for motorcyclists comes from the way of driving and the other traffic of course and not the technical status of their motorcycle. Why should more of them be included in PTI? Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. Now I'll give the floor for one minute for other members. So please raise your cards who wants to speak. We start with Mr. Danielsson from S&D.
Thank you Chair. And thank you for the study and the presentation today.
Johan Danielsson
I also see from your study that you are a strong supporter of increased data exchange between Member States and see this also as an essential enabler for the package road safety, anti-fraud and internal market objectives. When I read the report, you argue that harmonized data sets are necessary to fully leverage the benefits of digitalization. And of course, this is of importance for the second part of the package that I have worked on, vehicle registration documents and vehicle registers.
And this, together with your recommendation on remote sensing, your comments of the importance of roadside inspections, do you then agree that increased data sharing on high-emitting vehicles would also then be beneficial in tackling harmful air pollution? And if so, that it would be a useful step, as proposed by the Parliament, to forward step forward to include remote sensing information among the categories of vehicle-related data exchange between Member States, of course with the aim to assist authorities in identifying potential tempered vehicles, targeted inspection more effectively, and making more efficient use of the limited enforcement resources. Thank you.
Virginijus Sinkevičius
Thank you very much. And the last on the list, I have Viviane Costanza.
Thank you. And I would like to speak in German.
Viviane COSTANZO
So please put your headphones on if you want to listen. Ja, als die Kommission letztes Jahr ihren Vorschlag rausgebracht hat und ich an Deutschland denke, dann denke ich natürlich an die großen Überschriften mit der Blick auf die jährliche Untersuchung vor allem für alte Autos und diesen großen Aufschrei, den wir auch hier im Ausschuss dazu hatten. Und ich habe damals irgendwie relativ schnell gesagt, na ja, bevor wir über Intervalle sprechen, müssen wir natürlich vor allen Dingen über Harmonisierung sprechen. Das ist genau das, was in der Studie zur Geltung kommt und das eben auch zeigt, dass diese beschlossene Reform in die richtige Richtung geht, aber dass eben noch ein bisschen was letzten Endes für Harmonisierung fehlt. Was die Prüftiefe angeht, die Prüfintervalle, aber eben auch die Preise, die sich eben stark zwischen den Mitgliedsländern unterscheiden.
Deshalb habe ich zwei Fragen. Welche Folgen haben diese unterschiedlichen Prüfstandards für die Verkehrssicherheit und vor allem auch den fairen Wettbewerb innerhalb der EU?
Und das zweite, wo sollte man Ihrer Meinung nach mit der Harmonisierung zuerst ansetzen? Also was ist so das Wichtigste, an was angesetzt werden sollte, um die Harmonisierung weiter voranzutreiben? Und dann haben wir hoffentlich auch in Deutschland nicht mehr diese Aufschreie, die ja eigentlich auf das eigentliche Problem gar nicht erfassen und erkennen.
Thank you very much. Thank you, dear colleagues. Now I'll give the floor back to you, Mr. Professor, Professor Büchner, and to reply and to conclude. Thank you.
So thanks a lot for all the questions. I try to answer most of them, all of them, when I remember correctly.
Christian Birkner
Of course, the effort for periodic technical inspection is quite high, especially like you mentioned in Germany. When we increase the frequency, it is a dramatic influence to the testers. You mentioned more than 3,000 engineers we need in addition. Due to that, I want to have a tailored testing process, really covered by electronic systems. I want to have a much better documentation that the testers, the engineers, can do more tests in the same time, that we do not need more engineers, but having a higher testing frequencies.
I think it's a dream, but I want to have it. Regarding data storage, at the moment we are filling out a lot of papers in different format, and we should do it directly while testing to input all the data inside the tool. And this can be stored in online format then in data exchange platforms like Eucaris, where also the vehicle registration is stored.
If this is possible, I do not exactly know all the tools, if it is possible, it would be easiest for all member states to assess the data. This would be regarding PTI frequency, PTI content. Regarding EVs, of course EVs are at the moment a bit more expensive than other conventional passenger cars. But for the technology, you have at EVs much less parts which can go defect. So the testing effort at PTI for EVs is lower than for conventional cars.
You do not have the exhaust aftertreatment system.
You do not have a lot of sensors inside. It is much easier. So for the future, the topic is not in my opinion EV or conventional car by the electronic testing, but more the level of electronic systems for safety. For electronic testing, I want to use the standard testing tools which are already available for each customer, for each OEM. But at the moment, you have to have a testing tool for each vehicle brand.
Due to that, it is difficult for testers to access it. Have it in a global format that every tester can assess these test cycles would easyfy the testing procedures. Regarding the vehicle safety, to increase the vehicle safety by PTI, I think I tried to answer it by the technical inspections, reducing the costs by easyfying the test procedures. On the other hand, you have had some questions about the remote sensing.
To be honest, I'm development engineer, research engineer. So I'm used to have very precise measurements, more precise than for homologation. This is my dream. Remote sensing isn't it. Remote sensing is an quite easy tool with precise sensors in a very difficult environment.
Driving by vehicles have to be measured without direct tailpipe measurement possibilities. Due to that, turbulences are influencing these technologies.
What do we want to do with that? If we have a slight deviation that the catalyst is going to degrade, we will not detect it. Or when the particulate filter is starting to get defect, we will not detect it.
If it is broken, or if it is manipulated, or if the SCR system is not working at all, the emission level is so high that all the available remote emission sensing systems will detect these vehicles. So in my opinion, it should be our interest to detect these vehicles because the emission level from these vehicles is so high that they are covering the rest of the traffic, more or less. Due to that, it should be an interest of each member state to install remote emission sensing. If we are doing it in Europe as a mandatory effect, we are already pushing each member state, you have to do.
From my point of view, when I talk to my children, I try to convince them that it is good and not to push them in a direction. So perhaps we can do it with a possibility of rewarding all the member states who are doing a lot of remote emission sensing and some penalties for these member states who are not doing it. And looking to remote sensing, when we are detecting a fraudulent manipulated vehicle, we can share the cost to the vehicle owner. So we will have a payment back, but I'm a technician, not a financial guy.
So sorry that I cannot answer financial topics. I think these were the main topics that I have written down. Did I forget something?
No, I think it's excellent. Thank you very much. We really appreciate your presentation and your answers. Dear colleagues, with that we're coming to the end of our morning session. Please note that the afternoon part of the meeting will start half past two.
We also keep the coordinators' meeting at the time as it was proposed, half past eleven. So I'll see you all in the afternoon. Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.