Friday, 13 January 2012

More on TEN-T (Transport)

A 'White Paper' on transport, issued by the EU Commission last March slipped under my radar, however there is no time like the present to rectify that error.

From the Directorate-Generale for Mobility and Transport we are advised:

"The European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels has published its second report: Infrastructure for Alternative Fuels, from the Introduction of which we learn:
"Transitions in fuel supply infrastructure and vehicles will be needed for all new transport fuels. These transitions may need to be encouraged or mandated throughout all EU Member States and coordinated at the EU level in order to drive the market forward.

Assuming a reduction of at least 60% of GHGs by 2050 with respect to 1990 in the transport sector, improvements in the energy efficiency of transport operations and vehicles will provide a period of several years to evaluate and develop the technologies for alternative fuel systems that will require major transitions in infrastructure and vehicle design. A timely decision on these major transitions can therefore be taken to ensure a long-term cost-effective and sustainable solution that is commensurate with adequate industrial lead-time.

In view of the scope of change required for a low carbon transport system, it would be recommendable to analyse the current regulatory framework and to identify the gaps and level of policy support required to enable this change, particularly with regard to infrastructure for alternative fuels.

There is a current lack of an EU-wide harmonised alternative fuel infrastructure due to differing levels of development in the Member States. Such fragmented development leads to high costs, hampers consumer acceptance, and prevents the economies of scale which the Single Market could provide. A specific strategy on alternative fuel infrastructure at EU level will be necessary for the short and medium term.

Member States have promoted different alternative fuel infrastructures, because they have opted for different priorities in their fuel choices with regard to the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive and to the allocation of state support. But there is a clear lack of harmonized EU standards within the various types of alternative fuel refuelling equipment and storage systems.

During the last decade, policy actions have mostly addressed fuel and vehicle developments, neglecting an appropriate alternative fuel infrastructure build-up. Funding to build up alternative fuel infrastructure has also been insufficient. The initial costs for market-deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure are generally higher than for petroleum-based fuels due to i.a. the lack of initial economies of scale. Fuel suppliers (i.e. private spending) are investing in alternative fuels even if the revenue from fuel sold is not sufficient to pay back infrastructure and logistics costs.

The recently adopted White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System" announces that the Commission will develop "a sustainable alternative fuels strategy including also the appropriate infrastructure" (Initiative 24) and ensure "guidelines and standards for refuelling infrastructures" (Initiative 26).
Which is all jolly interesting, is it not? Bear with me, it gets better! From the White Paper:

Page 5 (16): Coherence at EU level is vital – a situation where (for example) one Member State opted exclusively for electric cars and another only for biofuels would destroy the concept of free travel across Europe.

Page 5 (19) New transport patterns must emerge, according to which larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of travellers are carried jointly to their destination by the most efficient (combination of) modes. Individual transport is preferably used for the final miles of the journey and performed with clean vehicles. Information technology provides for simpler and more reliable transfers. Transport users pay for the full costs of transport in exchange for less congestion, more information, better service and more safety. (Emphasis mine)

Page 6 (22) In the intermediate distances, new technologies are less mature and modal choices are fewer than in the city. However, this is where EU action can have the most immediate impact (fewer constraints from subsidiarity or international agreements). More resource-efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels are unlikely to achieve on their own the necessary cuts in emissions and they would not solve the problem of congestion. They need to be accompanied by the consolidation of large volumes for transfers over long distances. This implies greater use of buses and coaches, rail and air transport for passengers and, for freight, multimodal solutions relying on waterborne and rail modes for long-hauls. (Emphasis mine)

Page 8 (30) In cities, switching to cleaner transport is facilitated by the lower requirements for vehicle range and higher population density. Public transport choices are more widely available, as well as the option of walking and cycling. Cities suffer most from congestion, poor air quality and noise exposure. Urban transport is responsible for about a quarter of CO2 emissions from transport, and 69% of road accidents occur in cities. The gradual phasing out of ‘conventionally-fuelled’9 vehicles from the urban environment is a major contribution to significant reduction of oil dependence, greenhouse gas emissions and local air and noise pollution. It will have to be complemented by the development of appropriate fuelling/charging infrastructure for new vehicles. (Emphasis mine

Page 8 (31) A higher share of travel by collective transport, combined with minimum service obligations, will allow increasing the density and frequency of service, thereby generating a virtuous circle for public transport modes. Demand management and land-use planning can lower traffic volumes. Facilitating walking and cycling should become an integral part of urban mobility and infrastructure design (Emphasis mine)

Page 8 (32) The use of smaller, lighter and more specialised road passenger vehicles must be encouraged. Large fleets of urban buses, taxis and delivery vans are particularly suitable for the introduction of alternative propulsion systems and fuels. These could make a substantial contribution in reducing the carbon intensity of urban transport while providing a test bed for new technologies and opportunity for early market deployment. Road pricing and the removal of distortions in taxation can also assist in encouraging the use of public transport and the gradual introduction of alternative propulsion. (Emphasis mine)

I could continue, but I believe readers will be able to see that our travel is to be 'conditioned' to the extent of what form of public transport will be available and that which we may use; that we, the public, will be bearing the full cost; that any hope we had 'killed' the introduction of road pricing in this country is now but a dream; that private long-distance journeys may only be allowed at the discretion of the state (which makes a mockery of 'the free movement of people'); that the type of car we may be allowed to purchase will be limited to 'approved models, or else we will have a choice but the larger car will no doubt have a 'tax imposed so as to make it unavailable for the average person, etc etc.

The entire White Paper is well worth reading (in fact I would urge you so to do) because therein will be shown to you exactly that which is in store for every individual in the future, a future being mapped out by the 'elite' - and a choice on which you will not have. It is not illogical to assume that as they impose conditions on how an individual moves around and the methods from which a choice can be made - so this 'control' can be extended to the type of home you have; the food which you can eat; where you may travel; when and if you can smoke or consume alcohol; how many children may be raised, etc etc. 

You think I may be scaremongering? Has the last few years taught you, the public, anything? Nothing is more certain than that our own political elite are 'beavering away'laying the groundwork' for all this to happen. The other thing on which you can be certain is that none of the restrictions to be imposed on 'us' will apply to 'them'.

It is not for nothing the EU has been dubbed the EUSSR!


Anonymous said...

Malthusians. Anyone know where to find!

microdave said...

The section in italics appears to have been duplicated?

If this comes to fruition (and I haven't already kicked the bucket through natural causes) I will use my transport "allowance" to make a one way trip to an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. I'm buggered if I will have my life controlled by these bastards...

Jan M said...


Anonymous said...

A few years ago now PEAK OIL was the conspiracy tin hatters scaring people.The enviro angle given as green fuel is plain to see.Why they are running out of the black stuff.The use of armned force to sercure the control of what remains has been a price they think has been worth it.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

md: Thanks and corrected. As to rest of your comment - probably join you.

JM: You yawn and sleep all you like - but don't come crying later when you find your freedom of movement limited!