Proposition 54K1253

Proposition de résolution relative à l'amélioration des pistes cyclables d'accès aux gares.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Gilles Foret
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu

Submission date

July 9, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

cycle track combined transport transport and mobility resolution of parliament railway station

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, your Infrastructure Committee examined Mr. Lahaye-Battheu’s proposal for a resolution during the meetings of 17 January and 2 February 2016.

Lahaye-Battheu, who is the main, and even the only, author of this proposal for a resolution, presented her text aimed at promoting the access of bicycles, sometimes referred to as “bicycles”, to railway stations. She emphasized in particular the need to draw up an inventory of disabled railway sites and surrounding land. She wished that the management contracts of Infrabel and SNCB which are being negotiated take into account this very important aspect of multimodal access to the stations.

In the general discussion that followed, which was ⁇ rich, several speakers – among them your servant, Mr. Geerts and Yüksel, Laurette Onkelinx (I saw that a single T appeared in the report; I corrected it) and De Coninck – supported the proposal and insisted on the need for a comprehensive policy on the use of bicycle and rail transport.

by Mr. Foret wanted to incorporate in the text, in addition to traditional bikes, hybrid bikes and mountain bikes. This is still very important. Ms Lahaye-Battheu accepted this proposal, which came in the form of an amendment.

All the amendments, which I will not detail here to preserve the intellectual integrity of the members, were unanimously accepted, as was the resolution proposal itself.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on the agenda of our plenary session today are some proposals for resolutions concerning improving the cycling connections from and to the stations and concerning encouraging the combination of train and bike. Of course, our group supports the two draft resolutions.

They are formed out of our commitment to encourage multimodality. Multimodality, that is where we have to go. It is important to provide a solid response to our mobility pressure with an alternative to the car. The fact that many travellers still prefer to be alone in the file with their car, according to us, has to do with the lack of a good multimodality.

The government’s government agreement thus rightly takes comodality or multimodality as the starting point for sustainable mobility. The draft resolutions therefore call on the government to work on multimodality and more specifically to encourage the combination of train and bicycle.

But, colleagues, it is not so easy. Multimodality is not so easy to facilitate and realize. This is only possible if all modes of transport are coordinated. Therefore, it is important that the NMBS and Infrabel, when setting up the rail transport, take into account the supply of buses, bicycles, trams and cars and serve the regional and local authorities, which are responsible for the bicycle policy.

I will give a concrete example. In the construction of new bicycle roads, Infrabel should not raise any additional counter-arguments in the form of closing a highway. They should rather facilitate cycling than prevent them. Every step to promote intermodality is a good one. The combination of bicycle and train is important. Bicycles are an underused means of transport. Therefore, it is good that further attention be paid to this in the resolutions.

At the same time, we must, of course, avoid that the NMBS and Infrabel themselves develop a bicycle policy that is completely separate from the bicycle policy pursued by other governments. Cities, municipalities and regions are the competent authorities for bicycle traffic. Their policies should therefore be the starting point for the railway undertakings to join. Rather than negotiate, railway companies need to align with existing policies for other modes of transport.

This is my point, colleagues.

I reiterate what I said in the beginning: we will support both the first and the second motion on today’s agenda.

On the other hand, this resolution proposal is entirely defensive. However, the hypocrisy underlying it is such that we cannot support it.

In order to improve the cycling trails that give access to the stations, there must be stations. Therefore, it would be necessary, first of all, that we do not attack the stations, the railway, as the current government does, and without a common measure, compared with what has unfortunately been done in the past.

The hypocrisy of this draft resolution, as is the case of many majority resolutions, is so flagrant that it is not possible to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the colleagues for their cooperation on this motion for a resolution in the Infrastructure Committee, which was unanimously adopted.

The bicycle is an important and sustainable link in the mobility chain of the train’s front and bottom transport. One barrier to combined use today is the sometimes difficult accessibility of our stations. Cyclists often have to use the same access routes as cars and buses. Thus, with the proposal for a resolution, we would like to call on Infrabel and the NMBS to list the abandoned railway beds and the areas adjacent to them in order to examine where long-distance bike trails can be built.

This is, of course, the backdrop of the resolution.

I would like to thank again everyone who has worked on this.