Proposition 54K1573

Proposition de résolution relative à la promotion de la combinaison bicyclette et train.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Franky Demon, Roel Deseyn, Jef Van den Bergh
MR Gilles Foret
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

Jan. 12, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable mobility combined transport transport and mobility resolution of parliament parking area two-wheeled vehicle rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

LE PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• David Geerts (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Karin Temmerman (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

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, your Committee on Infrastructure examined, on February 2, 2016, this proposal, the main author of which is Mr. Van den Bergh, supported by other parliamentarians who co-signed it.

by Mr. Van den Bergh presented his proposal on the promotion of the combination, this time, between bicycle and train, in a series of provisions on which I will have to delay a little longer than in the previous proposal for a resolution, because they have been the subject of a number of debates a little more lively than on the first.

by Mr. Van den Bergh presented his text, namely various measures relating to the promotion of the combination between bicycle and train. In the general discussion, the first two points of the proposal of Mr. Van den Bergh did not debate or give rise to observations.

In the third paragraph, Mr. Van den Bergh submitted an amendment that caused some controversy in the committee. by Mr. Van den Bergh actually wanted to remove, in his text, the link to the next management contract, which has caused a number of reactions from my colleague, Stefaan Van Hecke, who does not understand the logic of the amendment which deprives the Chamber of its ability to ensure compliance with requests through the management contract. Mr Lalieux, Mr Temmerman and your rapporteur, who emphasized that the adoption of this amendment made the formulation of certain points a little banal. Therefore, point 3 has been the subject of many considerations.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the text. Van den Bergh sparked the reaction, in any case point 6, of Ms. Poncelet, in connection with the consultation with the regional entities. Then, in point 7, a question was asked by the rapporteur as to whether the will of Mr. Van den Bergh addressed not only the so-called standardized stations in the future but also the present stations. Van den Bergh replied that it was all the stations.

by Mr. Foret returned logically on the issue of ordinary bikes, VTT and VTC. I would like to remind you of the discussion of the previous point.

by Mr. Van den Bergh replied to point 9 that it was well, not all the stations, but the majority of them; a small nuance compared to the original text. In paragraphs 10 and 11, no observations were recorded. On the other hand, in point 12, there was an important debate on the role of the text in particular in relation to the bicycle points.

Ms Temmerman, in connection with another text that will come after – still a little suspense – ⁇ emphasized the question of bicycle points, their removal and the links with the management contract; in particular the role of managers supposed to take care of these bicycle points in the stations.

by Mr. Van den Bergh and his associates subsequently submitted another amendment to new 13 and new 14 requiring the SNCB to align its bicycle policy with that of the competent authorities.

My colleague Van Hecke made a proposal to incorporate some elements from another proposal by Ms. Temmerman in relation to management contracts. It was not accepted by the authors.

At the same time, Ms. Temmerman and Mr. Van den Bergh continued to bring contradictory arguments about this problem of bicycle points.

Ms Lalieux said that her group could not support the resolution proposal under consideration.

As for your rapporteur, he regretted that the majority refused to include a compulsory element in the management contract. But given the general will to promote the combination of bicycle and train, his group will support the entire text.

Dear colleagues, the votes were contrasted since, both on the amendments and on the overall text, there was no unanimity, contrary to what happened for the previous text. Thus, the entire text as amended was adopted by 11 votes against 2 and 1 abstinence.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add a few points to Mr Cheron’s excellent report. I want to make our vote very clear.

We originally really intended to vote in favour of this proposal, but we voted against it in the committee. We voted against it mainly because there were a lot of things in the original text that we could agree with, but through all kinds of amendments the spirit of the original text has changed a little.

Sorry for the word, but the text is a bit hypocritical. The important thing in that original text was that a number of issues surrounding the quality of the bicycle parking spaces, such as the safety of the bicycle parking spaces at the stations and the cleanliness of the bicycle parking spaces, would be included in the management contract with the NMBS. All this, however, had to be taken out of the text.

If you say a, you have to say b. Resolutions have limited influence. If, however, they are weakened to such a degree that they do not need to be followed, they have no meaning and are hypocritical.

Another example in the same resolution is the refusal to do so, despite the Court’s report assessing the implementation of management contracts. In that report it is indicated that it would be best to work as specifically as possible in the management contracts so that it is very clear what is and what is not. We can hardly agree that the report of the Court of Auditors is not entirely taken into account in the resolution.

Regarding the expansion of the transport offer, the Minister has, by the way, himself stated in his policy note that – I quote: “... stimulate by including, for example, in the management contract of the NMBS Group measures to improve the combination train-bicycle.”

I also want to say something about the motorcycle manager. A bicycle manager should be appointed to coordinate the bicycle policy at the different stations. Dear colleagues, we already have it. Today there is a system that works very well, namely the bicycle points. The government wants to remove the bicycle points, but wants to appoint a bicycle manager. Never change a winning team. The bicycle points work very well today, especially in the major stations. Continue to stimulate them. That will encourage the use of the bicycle to the public transportation much more than a manager who has to manage all kinds of bicycle parking in the different stations.

Therefore, we do not fully understand why the majority wants to adopt a resolution, but does not bind the consequences to it. In addition, good systems that could ⁇ the resolution are underestimated.

Another point is the installation of the bicycle part system. Initially it was stated that the bicycle part system would be further stimulated. This is also reduced to the majority of the stations.

It is clear why we voted against. If one looks at the resolution separately from this discussion, one cannot be opposed to it, because it actually says nothing. The resolution talks about stimulating, but does not say how to do it. Therefore, one cannot really be against it.

My group will therefore vote for the resolution, but colleague Geerts and I will abstain to make it clear once again that resolutions are good, but must have consequences. It is clear that the government is not willing to accept the consequences of its own resolution.

The European Parliament can send an important message today. Mrs. Temmerman ⁇ agrees with that. Today we can point out that it is important for us that the NMBS further focuses on the combination of bicycle and train. The combination of bicycles and trains enables us to offer a fully-fledged alternative to the car in chain mobility. One of the major disadvantages of the train is the last and the first mile. The bicycle can play a much bigger role than it does today.

In addition to Mr Lahaye-Battheu’s resolution, which we have just discussed, this resolution sets out what initiatives the NMBS can still take in this regard within the framework of the management agreement currently being prepared. In that sense, the resolution can be a powerful signal.

After consultation with several people, the resolution achieved a number of measurable targets from the management agreement. That is right. We did so on the basis of a recommendation from the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors concludes that in the management agreement we work best with a limited number of quantitative objectives.

We therefore call for the inclusion of a number of quantitative targets in the management agreement in the resolution. However, we do not do so for all the possible criteria that we push forward in terms of quality, cleanliness and safety, which are more difficult to measure. Furthermore, it is evident that these criteria should also be given due attention.

There is a misunderstanding about the bicycle manager. In the meantime, we also changed the name. The intention is not that in every station or in every region someone is designated to encourage or manage cycling. It is intended that a top member of the NMBS will be given the ultimate responsibility, to ensure that the bike gets a full place in the NMBS policy.

This is the purpose of the question in the resolution. If the top of the NMBS has permeated the importance of the bike, that will only benefit the bicycle policy on the rail.

These were some of the responses to the presentation.

I thank everyone for the good cooperation. I hope that the next plenary session will send a positive signal to the NMBS when formulating the management contracts.