Proposition 54K1357

Proposition de résolution visant à garantir la gratuité des B-parkings pour les usagers de la SNCB.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Catherine Fonck, Isabelle Poncelet

Submission date

Oct. 8, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable development free service resolution of parliament parking area railway station

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

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we have already had the opportunity to discuss this proposal of resolution in a committee. We need to talk about it now, not in a year or two. The management contract is currently being negotiated.

The least we can say is that, in recent times, the government has not ceased to send signals in favor of an anti-mobility policy. You will ask me what this has to do with the price. It should be known that the cost of the train is one element among others in terms of the attractiveness of the train. It is not the only one. There is also the punctuality, the accessibility of parking spaces. But this remains an element that makes it possible to have a competitive and attractive means of transport.

Last week, there was a debate here about the rates that the SNCB, or even the government – one can go to say it – wanted to increase during peak hours or for a target audience, namely the elderly, students.

Dear colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that all members of the majority have let me know that this is not the goal pursued by the SNCB. In addition, some have told me that the free parking has no impact on the latter.

Let me tell you that if parking, now free, becomes paid tomorrow, this will represent for the shuttle carrier an increase of 15 to 30 percent per year. These are disguised taxes. This will result in additional costs to be borne.

In addition, I learned that by 2018, you had decided to move to 45 additional paid parking spaces, which represents 18,500 seats. These are existing places, not news, that you will be paid for! The thumb is obviously when the SNCB, with a monster thumb, unless it is the government that imposes this situation, explains that if it pays these existing parking spaces, it is to allow shuttlers to have a place. We do not propose to make all parking spaces free, we want free access for shuttle drivers in order to carry out a real mobility policy, to make it a real factor of attractiveness and competitiveness for choosing this type of mobility.

Dear colleagues, if you send back this resolution proposal by saying “you’re kidding like forty years ago,” we can conclude that it doesn’t bother you to add costs and taxes to people who get up early to go to work. We may conclude that your policy damages intermodality. In the commission, some complained that people did not use the bicycle. That thought makes me laugh! Having to travel ten or even twenty kilometers to reach the station, leaving on the journey his child to the nursery or school ...

We can conclude that you have decided to transform the government’s vision into anti-mobility policy rather than mobility policy. You push people to the car and you disgust them to take the train! Dear colleagues, this is how your vote will have to be interpreted if, like in a committee, you sweep the proposal with a reverse hand!

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the assembly and, in particular, those who will support the text.