Proposition 51K1911

Projet de loi portant assentiment de la Convention du 4 avril 2003 visant à mettre en oeuvre le programme du réseau express régional de, vers, dans et autour de Bruxelles.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 4, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

means of public conveyance regional transport urban transport suburban transport rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 17, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. President, the bill that is now submitted for voting is actually behind the facts. It is therefore best approved as soon as possible. After all, the challenges for the mobility of citizens and also for the economy of our country are a very important data.

The draft law was discussed in the committee on 26 October 2005.

The dossier of the regional express network, the so-called GEN, has been discussed for some time at different policy levels.

The agreement of 4 April 2003, which hopefully will be approved later, is intended to address the mobility challenges facing our capital. It aims to increase and integrate the overall supply of public transport both quantitatively and qualitatively. The Flemish Line, the Brussels MIVB, the Waals TEC and the Belgian NMBS are placed on one line.

The integration of the transport offer of all the above-mentioned companies is a process that takes a lot of time. To facilitate this process, the agreement therefore provides for a number of guidelines and accompanying measures to encourage the use of public transport.

Colleagues, the various political groups agreed that it was time that this important point for the mobility of our capital could finally be discussed in the committee. Each of them gave their views on the GEN, which can be found in the written report and which we will probably hear later in the presentations of Mr. Lavaux and Van den Bergh.

The bill was adopted in the committee with 12 votes for and 1 vote against.

Mrs Vautmans, now you speak on behalf of your group. First, you will be applauded as a reporter. So is it, not Mr. Mortelmans?

Mr. Speaker, for VLD, there is no need to argue that the GEN is an absolute necessity for our capital. In fact, as in all other major European capitals, it should have been there for a long time.

However, Mr. Secretary of State, the high priority of the expansion of the suburban network does not prevent us, Mr. Guido De Padt and I, on behalf of our groups, from giving you some points of attention and recommendations, which must ⁇ be discussed at government level.

First, the GEN investments should be based, as far as possible, on objective needs analysis, where demand directs supply and not vice versa. Communal transport should be used as far as possible in places and times where the need for mobility is the greatest.

A critical cost-benefit analysis should respect the ratio between cost-price and social return.

We can also make it clear that the Community distribution key 60/40 does not work here and can be better put aside for the GEN. VLD is in favor of a unified, long-term free track. Without liberalization, the GEN is losing in the long term.

Secondly, the equality of the method of exploitation of the GEN should be discarded. Indeed, the danger remains real that the confrontation of the transport companies concerned and the four corresponding shadow fighting policy levels will continue to cause. If the regions continue to shield their own borders and the transport companies continue to engage in navel, the GEN will become losing, while the traveller nevertheless needs a comprehensive concept for the common transport. We want more cooperation between the different companies in the function of the customer. This will lead to a customer-friendly transport system.

Thirdly, the GEN must, in the long run, explore new horizons and dare to develop innovative concepts such as the introduction of a light rail system around Brussels. Mr. Secretary of State, we talked in the committee that the governor of Limburg, whom I know very well, gave a very good example and is a great supporter of it. With the necessary additional infrastructure works, this will improve mobility towards Brussels. In order to ⁇ this, the funding must be relied on the private sector.

Finally, a very important point for the VLD. It is clear that the accompanying measures to encourage the use of public transport should not result in restricting the freedom of choice of the traveler to public transport alone. It may not be intended to immobilise the pendler through a strict parking policy or a highly dissuasive speed regime, such as excess zone 30's, in such a way that he is obliged to use public transport. The VLD prefers positive incentives over mandatory regulations that restrict the mobility of citizens. The GEN should not be an excuse for us to restrict the freedom of choice. There should be positive incentives to make the use of public transport more attractive, but the GEN should not be an alibi to squat the car.

With these observations in mind, the VLD will approve this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today we will give our consent to a convention that dates back more than two years and which, therefore, should have been in force for a long time.

The RER project or regional express network is a project that is ⁇ close to the CDH. The aim is to create an integrated public transport offering that is more attractive than the car in and around Brussels.

In addition to increasing the railway supply, this project aims to create synergies with regional transport companies so that the offers of one and the other are perfectly complementary to the greatest benefit of users.

We have always supported this project, in the context of all levels of power. I would like to emphasize that in Wallonia, the roads to train stations have been strengthened as part of the policy implemented by Minister André Antoine.

In the federal, the RER was included in the 1999 government agreements. This political priority was reintroduced in the Government Agreements of 2003. It is therefore surprising that so many years have been needed to gather forces around this yet mobilizing project.

Article 16 of the RER Cooperation Agreement of March 2002 provided that an agreement, establishing the necessary cooperation bodies for the organization of the RER, would be finalised as soon as possible.

Following many delays, on 4 April 2003, the Federal State and the three Regions concluded the RER Convention for the implementation of the regional express network program from, to, in and around Brussels. This agreement was designed as a framework agreement for the relevant authorities to align their mobility policy within a 30 km area around Brussels.

The Brussels Parliament, by decree of 13 May 2004, and the Walloon Parliament, by decree of 27 May 2004, have ratified the text of this Convention. On the other hand, the Federal Parliament lost almost two years before the text for the formality of the consent was presented. Why so late for such a formality?

It still follows that the obligations and deadlines provided for in this convention are already largely exceeded. The same goes for the establishment of the RER pilot committee which, fortunately, met informally this year for the first time.

The Convention provides that a study of requests for displacement needs shall be carried out no later than six months after the entry into force of this Convention. I assume that the time that has passed since the signing of the convention could have been used to initiate this work before it came into force. If this is not the case, what a wasted time!

Now to the purchase of the equipment. Article 17 of the Cooperation Agreement stipulates that part of the rolling stock intended for the RER must be available in 2005 so that the first two lines of the RER can be put into service by 31 December 2005 at the latest. However, as your predecessor confirmed in the Chamber Infrastructure Commission, the order for this material has not yet been passed. And for the cause! It appears that the tender procedure for the purchase of this equipment, launched in August 2004, has been a rough failure. The Secretary of State confirmed in a commission that eight offers had been received but that none corresponded to the planned budget envelope.

The Secretary of State for Public Enterprises confirmed in the Infrastructure Committee, in response to a parliamentary question, that the new RER branches will only be delivered from 2009. Meanwhile, SNCB users will have to settle with the existing equipment, modernized by the SNCB - which, you will admit, is not the same at all.

I therefore take advantage of this tribune to press the government to move from words to actions and to implement quickly all measures so that the RER finally takes effect.

Furthermore, as the State Council notes in its opinion, it seems that this convention is already outdated in some aspects. Indeed, its arrangement does not take into account the new reality of the SNCB, divided into three separate legal entities.

The CDH will approve this bill that supports the objectives of the RER, the decongestion of automotive transport and the organization of modal transfers. The adoption of this convention constitutes a small step towards the achievement of the RER. However, we insist that the government respects all the deadlines set, in order to allow the gradual implementation of the integrated transportation offer to the capital as soon as possible.

The expectations of our fellow citizens are very important in terms of mobility. It is our duty to respond.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, today the cooperation agreement for the GEN is finally here for approval. The first ideas about this GEN date back to 1989, the first plans from 1993, yet already 16 and 12 years ago.

GEN stands for the Western Express Net for the Brussels region. In this regard, many interested parties like to make the comparison with the RER in Paris. This comparison is completely misplaced. More even, the GEN is not even a Western Express Network. This for two reasons. First, a fully integrated public transport network is not being established. Secondly, the current concept is purely focused on transportation from and to Brussels and as such offers too few prospects for a number of growth poles, such as Diegem and Vilvoorde in the Flemish outskirts. I would like to emphasize that Zaventem is the exception.

However, about 70% of traffic in this region is not directed to the capital, but to the region. The answer we are constantly receiving is that such connections in the region around Brussels should not be included in the GEN because this can be resolved fully autonomously by Flanders by De Lijn with its Pegasus Plan and for Flanders-Brabant with the Regionet Brussel-Brabant. However, if one is honest, one must acknowledge that, rail and bus must be aligned and preferably integrated in order to be able to come to one genuine gen.

A fundamental question. Is it necessary and desirable? I think this discussion has been overlooked. The GEN is, of course, absolutely necessary and a number of numbers can only confirm that. The figures on the number of pendlers in Brussels vary somewhat, but it is a minimum of 350,000 pendlers per day. A third of them come by train, and fortunately. In the last 10 years, however, the number of pendlers has increased, while the share of public transport is declining. Meanwhile, drivers are in the file. In 2003, just two years ago, there were almost 3,350,000 lost hours in the file, and that only on motorways. According to experts, the economic cost of one loss hour is 8.75 euros. The total cost of these slides in the Brussels region is approximately 30 million euros per year. If we still know that by 2010 one expects a further increase in traffic by a minimum of 10% then I think there is work in the store.

In addition, employment in the Flemish outskirts is rising even stronger than in the Brussels capital and we must also begin to focus on it because the modal split is still less favourable there than for the Brussels centre. I think there is only one possible answer to the question of whether the gene is needed. of course . In fact, it should already be there.

What is the gene that presents today? The most commonly used definition is the following: structuring the global supply of public transport of the four transport companies that together will form one basic network. We can add to this: in a radius of 30 km around Brussels.

The main conclusion concerning that definition is that it refers to the four transport companies, but not to a single GENoperator for an integrated public transport network. However, this should, in our opinion, be the goal.

I have already looked at what name we could give such an overlapping operator. I was able to find a logical name by combining the four names of the four transport companies. Put them side by side: NMBS, The Line, TEC and MIVB. Take the last letter of each transport company and what one gets: SNCB. So I do not come from a name that indicates integration, but from the name of one of the societies. In fact, that is symbolic for the entire GEN events, unfortunately.

Every public transport kingdom — that’s not my words; that’s the words of Alain Flausch — does its thing. The sp.a, which has placed her male in every kingdom, also thinks so.

Mr Van den Eynde? You will be discussed later.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene. I listen with great interest to the discourse of the CD&V spokesman on this matter, and I can agree with some of his very rightly expressed criticism, but—he hopefully will not blame me—I am surprised by that criticism. After all, dear colleague, your party is clearly taking a different attitude in the Flemish Parliament. I have here the report of the committee meeting in the Flemish Parliament, which shows that the draft was approved there by CD&V. Only because of the curse of the Flemish Interest, it was not approved. They stayed there, as so often, alone.

On the one hand, you say that the gene is needed. I can understand that; I do not blame you for that, and until then I might even be able to follow you. On the other hand from you very correct, very relevant, criticism. The question is what logic can be drawn from it for the attitude of your party, not only here, but in general, in this debate?

Mr. Van den Eynde, if you let me speak for a moment, you will come to the conclusion that we speak the same language in the Flemish Parliament and that from there the same voting behavior will follow.

CD&V continues to repeat — we have also expressed this in the Flemish Parliament — that from a mobility perspective there should actually be one operational structure in which the four transport companies participate.

I know that the employees of the various companies are a little worried about this. We can understand this, but we believe that this can be addressed if it is addressed wisely.

The question is whether one could not apply the formula applied in the NMBS Group. There, the staff of NMBStransport and that of Infrabel will be deployed, say, from the NMBS Holding. Why would this not be possible in a similar structure for the GEN?

Therefore, it remains, in our opinion, ⁇ strange that no such subsidiary of those four transport companies is sought. Moreover, a first step in that direction was apparently blocked. After all, in 2000 it was decided to establish a collaboration between the NMBS, De Lijn, TEC and the MIVB, which went a step beyond the pure coordination as it now presents. The boards of directors of these public transport companies then approved this method, but apparently the politics did not want to follow.

However, the possibility is still provided in the present draft law and that we vote hopefully. In fact, the draft law provides that public transport companies may, at the request of the parties, establish a different form of legal entity with the task of ensuring the coordination of the activities referred to in Article 10. I refer to Article 8. Nevertheless, everything continues to indicate that each kingdom will continue to do its own thing.

The present cooperation agreement thus only regulates the coordination between the four companies. Now there is no clear agreement on, for example, the expected operating deficits. This is an important point in the entire design of the gene. If no solution is found to remedy the operational deficits that will come anyway, then there will be little talk about the GEN. Finally, as colleagues have done before, I would like to draw attention to the need for a number of side-by-side measures in the implementation of the GEN. This, by the way, is also stated in the agreement in Article 22 of the draft. When I speak of flanking measures, I speak in Brussels of a strict parking policy. This does not necessarily mean that one must make the car driver’s life acidic, but there must be a parking policy. In Flanders, there must be a thoughtful and limited spatial development in the vicinity of the GEN stations. After all, one must be careful that one does not make the Flemish edge too attractive which threatens to be completely completed. On the other hand, I believe that Brussels City can become more livable by making public transportation more attractive. If one can drive cars out of the city by making the alternative to public transport more attractive, the capital can become a more attractive residential environment. In that sense, I am still optimistic.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, our critical considerations about the establishment of the GEN do not mean that we believe that nothing has yet happened, but on the contrary. The NMBS has already completed some projects, others are underway and more are being planned. The company is already working on certain projects in the Brussels-Brabant region. The MIVB is planning extensions of its metronet and also the TEC may have a number of projects on the stack. So everyone is working, but unfortunately this still happens too much side by side. The agreement that we will now approve will hopefully provide for some more coordination and coordination. The announcement of an integrated ticket system is another step in the right direction. CD&V is not entirely satisfied with the present design, as shown by our comments. It is a little too little and too late but it is at least a step in the right direction and therefore we will approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, RER, three letters bringing hope to thousands of people who, trapped daily in traffic jams, dream of a efficient means of public transport, which would allow them to abandon the car, or who, obliged users of public transport, aspire to a comfortable and reliable means of transport in terms of regularity and frequency. by

These three letters are also at the heart of a long negotiation between the federal government and the Regions, in order to reach an agreement on the implementation of a new public transport offer within a radius of 30 km around Brussels.

The convention of 4 April 2003, submitted today to our approval, constitutes a concrete progress in this project that has been expected for more than 10 years. However, the reading of this convention teaches us that, although this is an important symbolic step, this text does not have sufficient scope to establish this project of high mobility in a stable way.

We had hoped that a cooperation agreement would be concluded between the Federal and the Regions and we are dealing with a convention that, to say the truth, resembles more a government declaration, subject to a vote of confidence, than a contract in which each party commits itself. The Convention contains a common objective presented in a declarative form. by

The objective is that the RER offer is fully operational, at the latest by the end of 2012. If this article provided that the parties undertake that the RER offer is fully operational by the end of 2012, we could have seen it as an encouraging sign for the realisation of the RER. We must therefore content ourselves with a declaration of intent, hoping that it is not a devout wish.

But you can reiterate to us that concrete elements are included in this convention. Certainly, several dates, once collected, could be considered as the forecast calendar of the RER construction site. Thus, by 31 December 2005 at the latest, the offer should be operational for two radials from Grammont in Malines and from Braine-le-Comte in Termonde. by

At those same dates, transitional measures should have been considered, in particular with regard to the modernization of rolling stock. It is known that, for now, the rolling equipment will be delivered later. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the RER concept is based on very particular rolling material, with acceleration and deceleration systems, wide doors, plain-foot access and also a possibility of intercirculation from one barrel to another. by

If we are oriented towards a lifting of old motorcycles, we depart from this concept. Neither should the concept of rolling material be misrepresented. I must admit that within the steering committee, some transport companies are quite disappointed. This was also highlighted during the days "Mobilis". We truly hope that all these deadlines will be respected as best as possible and that the RER will be a real project.

The Convention of 4 April 2003 dedicated a whole chapter to the structure and bodies of consultation. Again, the question must be asked whether these bodies are in place or are already in work, or whether some prefer to see the consent procedure end before agreeing.

It is regrettable that the Convention is limited to stating, in Article 21, that, within the scope of its tasks, each public transport company operates and assumes the charges relating to the offer which falls within its competence. In other words, instead of fixing a key for the distribution of the operating deficit in a cooperation agreement, the convention consists of the "everyone for himself" principle.

As long as the operating costs of the RER do not exceed the results of public transport companies, the RER will have a chance to operate. As soon as one of these companies considers that the RER weighs too heavily on its financial situation, it risks withdrawing from the operation, resulting in a similar reaction from the other partners.

Of course, we do not want to believe in a scenario that would like to be pessimistic. On the contrary, it is in an optimistic approach, which states that the 2003 Convention is only a first step towards greater cooperation between the federal and the Regions for better mobility, that the MR group will support the approval project.

It has an advantage to be the last in a general discussion.

You are the last.

The preliminary? I am also satisfied with this, Mr. Speaker, because, after all, a person must be satisfied with what he receives from heaven.

I am especially well placed for this.

That being said, I have, first and foremost, a few comments on what I have just heard, more specifically in connection with a logic that I would call the Christian Democratic logic.

The Christian-Democratic logic I seek this time not only at CD&V, who at least still wrote the word Christian-Democratic in its name, but also at the CDH, who, if I am not mistaken, in the new party name has made that notion slip away. I hear the colleague of the CDH here advocate for the as soon as possible use of new trains for what in French is called the RER for convenience, but I will come back to that later. We want to install new trains as soon as possible.

Mr. President, why should we do this? What is the benefit of immediately deploying new trains on a network that is initially expected to function quickly, that it decongests the roads to Brussels during peak hours and makes Brussels more accessible during peak hours? On the contrary, one should advocate the use there of trains that stop very often, which seem to have a kind of mixed task: at the same time being tram, bus and train, in other words linking the advantages of the railways with those of the other public transport.

If our French-speaking colleagues would be a little less focused on Paris, because that is why they like to use the word RER — it sounds French, and if it rains in Paris, it should drop in Brussels — then they would be able to see how such systems work in other European cities. In Dublin, for example, no new trains are used at all, but there are simply tracks on which many trains run, which often stop. In Dublin, this is called DART, Dublin Area Regional Transport. It works properly and it is cheap, unlike what — noblesse oblige — the French speakers here demand and therefore get: a very expensive, new system. In addition, one may at least doubt whether it will work as efficiently as the Dublin transport system, but there are other examples in other European capitals.

The second example of Christian-Democratic logic is the argument of our colleague on behalf of that group, who very rightly and ad rem makes a lot of critical comments and places their finger on the — very — painful places, but ultimately says that it is better than nothing and that they will approve it.

The difference between the opposition parties is clear. You can lead critical and constructive opposition or you can also lead opposition to lead opposition. Their

If the slides bring an economic cost of 30 million euros per year, I think it is high time to do something. Even if it is just a small step, it is at least a step.

Absolutely absolutely . Congratulations from government banks. This is good for an opposition party. The ‘c’ of ‘critical opposition’ is written with the ‘c’ of ‘Christian-Democratic’. I have never heard you hold another discourse, in that respect you are at least faithful to a certain line.

Mr. Van den Eynde, ‘critical’, is that with a ‘c’ or with a ‘k’?

Mr. Speaker, if it is with a ‘k’, it is still with the ‘k’ of ‘Christian Democrat’.

The ‘c’ may then be for ‘constructively critical’.

‘Constructive’ is also with a ‘c’.

You cannot say these two letters in succession.

I suggest that you rename your party to 'ccc', but that may be a bit compromising.

That said, there is indeed a lack of logic. I immediately come back to your argument that all roads are full. First you will show where everything is wrong, but eventually you will approve the bill. I don’t know exactly for what ‘c’s sake you do that. Per ⁇ because of the 'c' of CD&V in the Flemish government and in the Flemish Parliament, but that is my interpretation.

I would also like to continue to reflect on the concept of ‘RER’, which is indeed so important to our French-speaking colleagues. Maybe we don’t have that feeling, but when Brussels has a RER, it might look a little more like Paris. I have the impression that it is one of the underlying arguments why our French-speaking colleagues in this Parliament over the years have repeatedly insisted — curiously much more than the Flemish colleagues — on the rapid establishment of that RER. In fact, the bill in question means — and I adhere to the official name — the consent to the agreement of 4 April 2003 between the federal government and the regions of this country, which aims at the realization of the program of the regional express network from, to, in and around Brussels. These last words are very important: from, to, in and around Brussels. In other words, whatever they try to tell us about Dendermonde, Braine-leComte or Braine-l'Alleud, the title here is about — and no one hides that — from, to, in and around Brussels.

My colleagues, I do not like that. This is the official title of the present legal piece. It is almost barocco as a title. Their

One must realize that the roads that lead to and from the capital are affected daily during the peak hours by congestion – not threatened, but affected – and that in addition the trains are eivol at the same time. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of colleagues here who can testify, including your servant. Those who know all this will, of course, be inclined to sign and approve this agreement almost blindly. I would like to admit that. Their

My group, the Vlaams Belang, the opposition that, according to the colleague of the CD&V opposition, is there to conduct opposition, is of course also aware of these problems. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, my group realizes that there are quite a few points under the grass in relation to the current draft law and that there are also quite a few questions to be asked. Their

First, there are the costs. For once, it is not a sin. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The infrastructure and reception works for the GEN are financed by the so-called GEN Fund. The GEN Fund was established by the Programme Act of 19 July 2001. This is federal funding. In other words, it’s about resources that are stuck in the federal distribution key 60/40. Their

Is this fair? Is this really something that should be considered logical? I mean not. I would like to give you an example in this regard. While one is working on the plans for that GENnetwerk to be in the framework of those plans for example - I will only give one example, there are also others - on the territory of Brussels in this regard provided eight new stations. It must also. This is not illogical. If you want to work with a regional network, you need to have more stations. I mentioned this later in connection with my example of Dublin. Their

I want to stop at one of those stations. In Anderlecht, the stop spot CERIA is provided. Mr. Secretary of State, CERIA is the French name for COOVI. In Brussels, however, the Flamings themselves say CERIA. I will keep it there. This is a Brabant provincial school. It is just simple to call it so. Their

This station or this stop, if you wish, will be on the Brussels-Zuid Denderleeuw-Gent line. This line is one of the lines connecting Brussels with Gent. It was then built as a faster connection between Brussels and the Arteveldestad, without intermediates, so that the capacity can be maximized. Their

It is a line that most travellers who come from West Flanders and East Flanders use daily, to the extent that they are pendulers. The line provides the most classic transportation between Brussels and the provinces of East and West Flanders. According to the information we receive from the NMBS and also experience daily, this line is fully saturated during the peak hours. Every day is almost a catch-party at St. Peter’s Station in Gent to get on the train fast enough to get a seat.

It seems obvious that the construction of a above-mentioned stop site will drastically reduce the capacity of the line. We will have to provide for a doubling. This is already the case. This doubling has everything to do with Flanders because it will be 90% on Flemish territory. In short, within the framework of the 60/40 distribution package, Flanders will have to take on virtually all the investments for this doubling, without really making a lot of profit. It fits in the Brussels plan for building a GEN, or rather a RER.

The line was designed at the time as a fast connection that avoids virtually all residential cores. A doubling of the tracé is ineffective for regional transport from and to the Pajottenland. The CD&V colleague has rightly emphasized that 70% of traffic in the outskirts of Brussels does not go to the capital. Duplication will not help. In short, Flanders will bear 90% of the costs but the line will be almost entirely operated by Brussels. The principle of territoriality is sacred in this case. The 60% envelope allocated to Flanders will be addressed.

Colleagues, this implies that the GEN investments and the parallel investments in this regard constitute a serious competition with the other investments necessary for Flanders that are equally or more necessary in the field of mobility. Among other things, I think of the opening of the port of Antwerp and the Iron Rhine. In short, I can quite imagine that the GEN is very important for Brussels. It is not for nothing that French-speaking Brussels parliamentarians have so far been the most pressing on its construction. Considered from the general problem of Flemish mobility, there are files that are at least as urgent, if not more urgent, but are threatened by all this.

For example, there is the opening of the Deurganckdok where a second railway tunnel is needed. Colleagues of CD&V, I will return to your arguments of the latter. You said that when one sees how many cars are driving, one must be satisfied with any measure. If that second tunnel of the Deurganckdok does not exist in 2010, a third of the traffic will not be able to pass by rail. This will then, unless you want to proclaim Antwerp a desert, have to be done over the road. It’s about millions of additional containers, which means hundreds of thousands more trucks on our roads. Please do not apologize, but the decision was made quickly.

I do not feel called here

Jef Van den Bergh policy must be defended. However, you speak to us all the time so I would like to serve you a moment of response.

First, you argue that in Flanders there is more need for infrastructure works than on the road to Brussels. You can then explain that to all those Flammers who spend three million hours annually in the file towards Brussels. However, there are also flames that can be helped in their mobility needs.

Second, the Liefkenshoek gate tunnel, as far as I know, is still on the program and is not lost because of the GEN.

It is now my turn to tell you that you have not listened properly. I have told you that at least one must assume that the problem there is as heavy as in and around Brussels. What is currently somewhere on a plan is still far from being realized. It is only November 17th and sinterklaas has not yet arrived. I want to see first and then believe. I am referring to a literature that should be at your heart. Thomas also wanted to feel the wounds before he believed in the resurrection. I therefore think that you are indeed breaking a lance for the government right now, even though you say you are not doing it.

One should at least consider what is most important for Flanders. Or shouldn’t it? Is it not politically correct to do that? If you tell me now that this is not the case, then I will do it even more often. It is our habit not to be politically correct.

So it is time to reflect on the priorities and look forward to a value scale to be developed in relation to these realities and priorities. I advocate that we determine objectively what is most urgent. I’ve just stated that something needs to happen around Brussels. Their

One must at least dare to determine what is most urgent and not begin to dream of le RER, parce que cela fait très parisien. That annoys me in this case. One must make objective determinations and then see what is most urgent.

Colleague, I also dare to state that in the meantime that Gewestelijk Expresnet, which will be developed for a large part at our expense, will undoubtedly, Mr. Secretary of State, promote the city flight from Brussels. In other words, it will help the oil spot — I admit that it is a bit of an outdated concept, but it unfortunately still exists — in its expansion. The GEN, for which we pay so much and for which we neglect other priorities, becomes a war weapon in the campaign for the franchising of Flemish-Brabant. If the Trojan horse could be of iron, then the GEN would be the new Trojan horse. The refraction of Vlaams-Brabant is thereby promoted and carried out from Brussels. Don’t blame me, colleagues — I now turn to my Flemish colleagues — but in that regard you have no guarantee. No French-speaking party, from the CDH to the PS, has ever said here that one would give up. I would like to remind you that a magazine such as Carrefour is still funded by the French Community through all kinds of tricks in more than 100,000 copies to be distributed in Flemish-Brabant. One has never capitulated on that level in the French-speaking camp, one has never admitted. One continues to carry the pressure wherever one can, and the GEN thus becomes a war weapon against us.

Why would French-speaking Brussels from the capital, where it is not safe — and that no one contradicts me in this regard — and also not green, continue to live there, when in the future it will be so easy to reach this capital by public transport, the GEN, from their lush villa in Overijse, Zemst, Eppegem or near Aalst? Why would they not do it? They make it easy for them. They opened a Via Appia for them.

My conclusion, colleagues: the GEN will be expanded in large part at the expense of the Flemings and will eventually be used to refine Flemish-Brabant there, while in the meantime for Flanders important infrastructure investments are pushed in the long run.

Mr. Secretary of State, the Flemish Belang is young — probably the youngest party represented here — but not crazy. We will vote against.

I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr Van den Eynde. I feel like the Via Appia was a large road surrounded by important tomb tombs.

Mr. Casaer, you are the last in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will try to keep it as short as possible.

That is excellent!

However, it is true that the phrase "politicians who try to keep it short" is a contradictio in terminis.

I know people who say that, but usually fall out for a long time.

Absolutely absolute . I will not keep you in tension anymore. The SPA supports the GEN. As you know, what is good for people, we also find it good.

The GEN is not only good for humans, but also for the hard-working Flamingos. This is also important and worthy of attention. The GEN will ensure that during this period, a first phase of which has already begun and which runs until 2012, an effective and attractive offer is created by the NMBS, in cooperation with the various regional transport companies, to indeed offer a plain federal system of basic mobility, creating a good service, including through tariff integration and so on. The aim is to make it as simple as possible for the traveller and to prioritize the user convenience of the traveller.

That such a network is organized around Brussels is regretted here by some. I do not think that is unlogical. But for a closer order, whether you like to hear it or not, Brussels is an important pool of pendul from important parts of Flanders and Wallonia. Through this determination one cannot, I think, pass through.

Is Brussels the only region to focus on? No, absolutely not. Other countries also already have such systems of suburban networks around large regions.

The GEN will also have positive consequences, not only for the immediate edge around Brussels, but also for example for Aalst, Denderleeuw, Dendermonde, Geraardsbergen, maybe even for Brakel, who knows.

No, but for me.

Crosswood may also be discussed at a later stage.

Therefore, it is more than encouraging Brussels’ expansion. Indeed, people who now live 15 to 25 km from Brussels and work in Brussels receive a good and attractive offer to come to Brussels at fixed times, short-term and with maximum comfort and there, if they do not work near a station, via the network of the MIVB yet in a good and fast way to get to their place of employment.

I think that we should not see the GEN too much in terms of structure, but that we should look at the importance of the traveller. Then, however, we can conclude that this concept provides positive incentives to the travellers: good offer and tariff measures. However, this is also the policy that the NMBS has been conducting in recent years and with which it apparently achieves certain results in terms of residential work traffic and in terms of number of travellers that cannot be denied, colleague Van den Bergh.

It is a total concept. It is about developing a good and attractive offer. It is ensured that the necessary comfort is also present on the trains themselves, as is the case in the stations. It is also necessary to work on the price of public transport, through tariff measures. And, as a closure, parking at stations are also matters that are important in the whole of the concept to provide a good alternative for the people who are now daily with the car in the file.

I would also like to draw attention to this. Collega Van den Bergh has rightly drawn attention to the economic costs arising from slides and fileled for the individual driver, for the economy and so on. However, there is also a very important environmental cost that should not be underestimated. Belgium and many other countries have committed themselves to a number of targets under the Kyoto Convention, including on gas emissions. Well, this GEN provides an opportunity to help with this. Is this blessing? No, but it is one of the leverages to ensure that the individual driver has a good and attractive alternative to leave the car on the side. This allows us to offer a positive alternative.

I’ve also heard that some say that it can’t be the intention that we’re going to pull everyone out of his car, put on the train, and say that from now on he can only and only use the train. No, this is indeed a good offer, an offer with which we want to stimulate people positively. If there are fewer slopes, if there is a better flow, also on the motorways, then it is of course also for those people who for some reason prefer to use the car or who have no choice because they have to get somewhere where it may not be so easy with public transport, it is important that they get to the place faster and more efficiently. This also has significant effects for the economy and for freight traffic.

I want to leave it here. I think it’s a beautiful project and I think it’s time for Belgium to actually continue such a project. Many other countries, neighboring countries, already have such projects in place or have been working on them for a long time. So I think that this is really an opportunity for the mobility debate in our country and that we should seize that opportunity with both hands.

Bruno Tuybens: Mr. Speaker, very briefly the following.

It is, in any case, a ratification law because it is a law that has been discussed and approved by the various parliaments of the Communities and Regions a long time ago. The various concerns expressed by the various Chamber members will of course be further discussed in the Steering Group. According to Article 13 of the draft law, this steering group will also conduct an investigation. That investigation should lead to multiannual plans aimed at further defining, adapting and developing the offer of reference tracks so that they can be taken into account in the future at the time of changes in the mobility emergency.

It is also true that with the GEN we aim at the development of an automatic deterrence system so that it becomes more user-friendly for the public. Several speakers have pointed out the great need for such a system. For this reason, cityrails have already been developed on six lines, the coordination tasks between the various companies are included and before new rolling material is purchased – since the price is still too high today – existing rolling material is improved so that we gradually enter the implementation phase of this law.

Finally, this is indeed one of the measures to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions to which the world community calls us, as Mr. Casaer has already pointed out. That is why this bill is ahead and we hope it will be adopted today.