Proposition de résolution visant au maintien et à l'augmentation des points vélo.
General information ¶
- Authors
- Vooruit David Geerts, Karin Temmerman
- Submission date
- June 17, 2015
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- sustainable mobility combined transport transport and mobility resolution of parliament two-wheeled vehicle
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB
- Abstained from voting
- PP VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
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 ¶
Feb. 25, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
</b> rapporteur Marcel Cheron ⚙
When there are no more, there are more! Never two without three, as my great colleague pointed out.
The Ministry of Finance has considered the proposal. Geerts and Mrs. Temmerman aimed at ⁇ ining and increasing bicycle points. This was at the meeting of February 2, 2016. How time passes! Ms. Temmerman presented her arguments and ⁇ highlighted the fact that the closure of bicycle points, recently decided by the Board of Directors of the NCB, constituted a very bad signal. In its proposal for a resolution, it calls for the maintenance, but also the increase of the number of bicycle points where possible, also agreeing to create bicycle points in the stations of medium-sized cities.
During the discussion that followed, Mr. Van den Bergh stressed the fact that the SNCB should bet on a combination of bicycle and train, but he believes that the objective aimed at the resolution is already contained in his own text, the one that was just discussed. He added that the goal of a bicycle point per station was not achievable, stressing that the removal of bicycle points was an autonomous decision of an autonomous public undertaking and that this generated an savings of 350,000 euros for the SNCB.
My excellent colleague Stefaan Van Hecke does not support this vision. He considered it illogical to want to promote the use of bicycles in combination with the train and to justify the SNCB’s decision to close bicycle points. He asks himself: is the majority willing to support the proposal under consideration, if it is stated that the reopening of bicycle points must be included in the future management contract?
Mrs Lalieux, for the Socialist group, found it paradoxical to have a duty, as a member of the opposition, to demand that the government agreement be applied. It is true! She believed that the maintenance and increase of bicycle points should be integrated into the management contract.
De Coninck, for the N-VA, deplored the closure of the bicycle points, but considered that their management did not fall within the key tasks of the SNCB and should not be included in the management contract. Moreover, social employment, which is one of its assets, is not a goal in itself. Finally, De Coninck stressed that all the arguments leading to the closure of the bicycle points were not known to the members of the Infrastructure Committee. In this case, according to her, the Parliament cannot decide in knowledge of cause.
In conclusion, Ms. Temmerman, one of the authors of the draft resolution, blasted, I quote, “the hypocrisy of the majority,” consisting of regretting the decision to close the bicycle points while not having the courage to criticize this decision and even less to make back machine.
In the voting, the considerations A to M were rejected by 8 votes against 4, as were points 1 to 4 of the arrangement.
The entire draft resolution was rejected, and I regret it, Mr Geerts, with 8 votes against 4.
David Geerts Vooruit ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Cheron and the services for this excellent report.
I would like to make use of Rule 88 of the Rules of Procedure today, because I think there has been a mistake in the committee.
When I received a briefing from colleague Temmerman and my co-worker after the committee meeting, I was actually very surprised that this resolution was not approved. I fell from the air; I had absolutely not seen this coming. On February 2, at Lichtmis, there was a debate in the committee on the modal shift and chain mobility, in particular on the involvement of the bicycle in the mobility story. At that time, this resolution was not adopted. The resolution of colleague Lahaye-Battheu was approved. The resolution of colleague Van den Bergh was somewhat undermined by a number of amendments but the philosophy itself was up to that.
Our resolution was primarily in line with expectations. We say — and not only us — that one should invest in the bicycle points and their promotion. These include cleaner bicycle stalls and fewer theft. These are some of the positive effects of these bicycle points. Furthermore, the NMBS itself says that it will not be able to follow up with the construction of parking spaces and that there will have to be invested in bicycle parks and bicycle points because otherwise too large costs will have to be made.
Another point, which may not be important for every group, but for us, is that the bicycle points also have an aspect of social employment. People who cannot meet on the regular labour market can get a meaningful working time spending there. If I look at the municipalities, regardless of the majority, for example in Lier where the competent ships recently said that the bicycle points are very important for the city, then I think that they are 100% right if they consider this important.
Therefore, I use Article 88 here to give colleagues who have experience with bicycle points again the opportunity to support the resolution.
After all, not only our group says that bicycle points are important. I found a quote about the savings at the NMBS, which threaten to have a detrimental impact on the bicycle points at the smaller stations. The statement reads: “We want to stimulate the combination of bike and train, and continue to invest in bicycle services. In addition, these bicycle points provide social employment where such a need exists. With the breakdown of these bicycle points, we are taking a step back.”
I don't know if you know who this quote is from. I found this on the website of CD&V Mol, where colleague Van den Bergh and colleague Verherstraeten defend the bicycle points. On March 10, there is another action in Mol, and I have understood that CD&V fully supports that action.
If you hear this, Mr Bogaert, do you also think that there was an error in the committee, where colleague Van den Bergh voted against this resolution? In essence, the resolution states that we want to conduct a study on the impact of bicycle points in the stations, in terms of cleanliness, theft, and so on; and on bicycle traffic and its possible financing. This study should examine the following aspects: chain mobility, the use of cars, bicycles or buses by boarding travellers; and the cost of parking infrastructure versus facilities for cyclists. Well, colleagues, that’s exactly what the Court of Auditors said this week and that’s what the NMBS itself says.
Therefore, I sincerely believe that our colleague made a mistake and that we are using Article 88 correctly to give him the opportunity to correct that mistake. We therefore count on that.