Final position of the UITP European Union Committee on proposal for a regulation on passenger rights in bus and coach transport COM(2008)817

Transcription

1 17 FEBRUARY 2009 Final position of the UITP European Union Committee on proposal for a regulation on passenger rights in bus and coach transport COM(2008) General remarks The UITP European Union Committee (EUC) represents public transport undertakings offering rail, road or waterborne urban and regional transport services in the European Union. These include cross-border local and regional rail and/or bus services operated by some of our members. The EUC welcomes all initiatives of the European Commission (COM) to make public transport more attractive and would like to bring in the sector s experiences in the discussions on passenger rights in public transport. Like previous proposals in the field of passenger rights such as the regulation 1371/2007 on rail passenger rights and obligations, the current COM proposal on bus/coach (and also the one on waterborne transport) does not sufficiently take into account the specific situation and needs of local and regional public transport services. The justification of the needs and objectives of this regulation is focussing clearly on long distance international services, not on short distance regional and local public transport. The COM estimates the annual volume of international coach and bus transport in the EU of around 73 million passengers. This is extremely low compared to passenger numbers in local and regional public transport (example: in Germany, every day around 28 million passengers use local and regional public transport services, in Sweden around 4 million or in the Ile-de-France region around 13 million). These figures clearly highlight the need to take into account the specific characteristics of local and regional public transport when dealing with passenger rights. The characteristics of these services are quite different to long distance bus/coach services: 1

2 Local/regional public transport bus services are running frequently over short distances (in general up to 50 km) with regular intervals. An attractive public transport requires short travel times and short distances between larger numbers of stops especially in urban areas. Short stopping times at bus stops are important to reduce travel time. Long distance bus/coach transport in most cases have only two stops the start and the end of a travel. Even if there are more stops, then the stopping time is not very relevant in relation to the overall travel time. Normally long distance coach/bus services are booked in advance with a seat guarantee (via travel agencies, internet, etc., as mentioned in article 3 (9) and article 12 (2)). It is, however, very unclear how these provisions should be applied to local/regional public transport where many passengers hold periodic tickets (annually, monthly and weekly). Also considering the carriage of luggage, a differentiated treatment is necessary. Passengers take regularly luggage on long distance bus/coach services. For these services a separate loading of luggage has advantages. In local/regional public transport, where passengers normally carry if any - only small hand luggage, this would considerably harm the punctuality and thereby attractiveness of services. Very unrealistic in local/regional public transport is the obligation to inform passengers on delays during the travel according to article 21. In addition, in most European urban areas and also in many rural areas local and regional public transport services are offered as integrated multimodal services (harmonised fare systems, information, etc.). These integrated services have been success stories everywhere, attracting much more passengers than in areas where different public transport modes and operators have been acting separately. Therefore the EUC cannot support the European Commission s modal approach on passenger rights which will result at the end in different passenger rights for each transport mode. Consequently within integrated public transport systems, at least four different regimes for passenger rights (for railways, metro/tram, bus, ferries) will have to be applied. Apart from the unacceptable efforts and costs for local public transport operators and authorities, this situation will be extremely confusing and unattractive for passengers. In this perspective, the COM s statement in its press release from 4 December 2008, saying that the new proposals will avoid different levels of rights for passengers depending on which mode of transport they travel with is simply not true. 2. Proposed solution: Exemption of local/regional bus services from the scope of the regulation The EUC has in the past repeatedly raised these problems and proposes as the most elegant solution the exemption of local and regional public transport services from parts of the proposal on the basis of criteria like for example route length, the possibility to pre-book a seat or not, international service, etc Such criteria should be fixed on a national basis as those services vary from one country to another. In this context, article 2.2 of the proposal (allowing Member States to exempt urban, suburban and regional bus services covered by a public service contract) is not of help as this provision does not take into account the specific characteristics of local/regional public transport bus services. To the contrary, such exemption is only possible if such contracts ensure a comparable level of passenger rights to that required in this Regulation and thereby in fact the provisions of the proposal are declared as minimum requirements for all bus/coach services. 2

3 In addition to public service contracts for the definition of local/regional public transport services as in some EU Member States (UK, Germany, Poland, some Baltic States, etc.) a considerable part of local/regional bus services is operated without public service contracts according to regulation 1370/2007. We therefore ask for the deletion of article 2 (2) and propose the following amendment: Article 2 (Scope): 2. Urban, suburban and regional transport services are exempted from the scope of this regulation. 2a (new) Member States shall introduce measures for urban, suburban and regional transport such as the adoption of passenger charters that will address all the issues set out in article 1 of this regulation. This position is in line with regulation 1370/2007 on public passenger services by rail and road to leave the decision on the level of passenger rights in local/regional public transport in the hands of competent local/regional authorities 1. At the same time the EUC has very actively promoted voluntary provisions for operators and authorities to increase the quality of service in local and regional public transport. Therefore UITP has published in autumn 2006 the UITP Passenger Charter ( as a recommendation to its members. For example all Swedish PTA have voluntary adopted a travel guarantee, ensuring passengers rights of compensation. This is fully in line with the draft initiative report of the European Parliament (rapporteur MEP Savary) on an action plan on urban mobility. The initiative report recommends under point 16 that a users charter be drawn up for urban transport. In this context, the EUC is fully available for further discussions and a possible modification of the UITP Charter. 1 Recital 17 of regulation 1370/2007: In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, competent authorities are free to establish social and qualitative criteria in order to maintain and raise quality standards for public service obligations, for instance with regard to passenger rights, 3

4 3. Further specific problems with the proposal and detailed amendments This part identifies in detail problems with the proposal and proposes amendments (in italic text). Chapter I: General provisions As the provisions of this article do not allow fare differentiation on the basis of nationality or place of residence, all third party payer agreements offering special (or free) fares for the inhabitants of a given municipality (there exist a number of cases e.g. in Belgium, Germany, etc.) could be interpreted to be illegal. Proposed solution: Article 4 (2) Transport contract : Paragraph 2bis (new) within the framework of so-called third party payer agreements, whereby local or regional authorities or other organisations substitute themselves as (partial) payers of the tickets/season tickets purchased by inhabitants/residents of their respective regions or municipalities, a fare differentiation based on place of residence shall in such a case not be considered a discrimination in the sense of article 4(2.) Chapter II: Liability In general the liability provisions are considered to be too excessive and especially concerning luggage not adapted to local/regional public transport. Also, it is not clear what constitutes an accident. The consequences for operators will differ widely depending on the definition adopted. If a dog runs into the road and the bus brakes, causing a drunken passenger to fall onto other passengers, injuring them, who has a valid claim against the bus operator? The lack of a requirement for claimants to prove negligence on the operator s part makes the proposed system very open to fraud, to the extent that bus operation may become uninsurable. Art. 6 (1) + (3): general liability of bus undertakings, in conjunction with Art. 6 (3): liability even without fault for damages until EUR, there is no comparable provision in the rail passenger rights regulation 1371/2007 Art. 6 (2): unlimited liability seems to be not justified compared to already existing situation in many Member States where thresholds exist. Art. 8: Advance payments even in cases without fault of a bus undertaking Art. 9 (1): liability for damaged luggage even without fault. Passengers in public transport normally travel only with hand luggage. The responsibility for e.g. loss/damage of luggage today is at the passenger s side. Proposed solutions: Thresholds for liability for damages to persons to be defined by Member States according to already existing widespread national rules and in alignment with regulation 1371/2007 Amendments: article 6 (liability for death and injury of passengers) Paragraphs 2 and 3 to be deleted Paragraphs 2bis and 3 bis new (identical provisions are in article 30 of annex I in regulation 1371/2007): 4

5 2bis (new) The damages under Article 7 must be awarded in the form of a lump sum. However, if national law permits payment of an annuity, the damages shall be awarded in that form if so requested by the injured passenger or by the persons entitled referred to in Article 7. 3bis (new) The amount of damages to be awarded pursuant to paragraph 2bis shall be determined in accordance with national law. However, for the purposes of these Uniform Rules, the upper limit per passenger shall be set at units of account as a lump sum or as an annual annuity corresponding to that sum, where national law provides for an upper limit of less than that amount. Alignment of paragraph 4 in art. 6 with rail passenger rights regulation 1371/2007 Amendment: Article 6 (Liability for death and injury of passengers) Paragraph 4 (identical provision is in article 26 of annex I in regulation 1371/2007) The bus/coach undertaking shall be relieved of this liability (a) if the accident has been caused by circumstances not connected with the operation of the bus/coach and which the undertaking, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances of the case, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent; (b) to the extent that the accident is due to the fault of the passenger; (c) if the accident is due to the behaviour of a third party which the bus/coach undertaking, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances of the case, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent; No advance payments in cases without fault of the bus undertaking, Amendment: article 8 (advance payments): deletion No liability for damaged luggage in local/regional bus services Amendment: article 9 (liability for luggage) Either general exclusion of application of this article to local/regional bus services (see part 2 of this position) or deletion of Bus in paragraph (1) Chapter III: Persons with reduced mobility (PRM) In general the PRM provisions are unclear and, if the most restrictive reading is taken, excessive and not adapted to local/regional public transport. In this context, we would like to raise that many of our members make large efforts to facilitate accessibility to public transport. The very widespread introduction of low-floor buses, the consideration of needs of PRM when designing infrastructure (stations and stops) or the involvement of representative PRM associations are only some examples. However, it is evident that a complete accessibility everywhere for everyone if practically impossible in public transport as first of all there are different needs of different groups of passengers and of course budget constraints (including budgets of public authorities, not only bus undertakings) unfortunately do not allow this. Art. 10: bus undertakings are not allowed to deny the embarkation of a PRM: Especially on urban and regional bus lines with high amounts of passengers (especially in rush hours), bus drivers may have to deny access to passengers (PRM or not) due to heavily loaded vehicles. In this context, not the preferential treatment of certain groups of 5

6 passengers, but the equality of access to bus services should be the most important principle. Art. 11 (1+2): obligation to offer alternative services for PRM in case of denied boarding: how can this obligation be financed and by whom? This is not inline with the provisions in other regulations on passenger rights (air, rail). Art. 11 (4): obligation of immediate information of reasons for denied boarding, this is not realistic in local/regional public transport with large amounts of passengers Art. 12 (1): obligation to involve actively representatives of organisations of PRM. Bus undertakings are willing to involve representative organisations, but the provisions are too wide and could be interpreted that all kind of representatives from all different PRM groups have to be involved. Art 12 (2): obligation to provide PRM with information on the specific PRM rules at the moment of booking. This provision does not take into account the specific characteristics of public transport. Specific PRM information cannot be provided in cases of e.g. purchase of a ticket from the driver in an urban city bus or from a automatic ticket machine. Art. 14 (2) and annex 1a: bus stops and stations in local/regional public transport are normally not equipped with staff. Obligations to assist PRM in bus stations results in considerable costs for bus undertakings and consequently will increase the price of public transport tickets. Art. 15 and annex 1b: obligations on assistance on board does not take into account the specific characteristics of local/regional public transport with large amounts of passengers. For safety and security reasons bus drivers in local/regional public transport have the duty to stay in the bus driver cabin and are not always allowed to assist passengers on board the vehicle. Annex 1b is focused on long distance coach services, not on local/regional public transport. Art. 18 and Annex 2: training of staff to assist PRM: the provisions are too excessive and not realistic in local/regional public transport. Art. 19 (2): unlimited liability even without fault of bus undertaking for damages to wheelchairs and mobility equipment is not justified. Remark on electric wheelchairs: some electric wheelchairs attain weights of up to 350 kg. Taking into account the safety and contradictory needs of other (also PRM) passengers to offer a maximum of seated places, not all such vehicles can be boarded in buses. In comparison with regulation 1371/2007 on rail passenger rights which refers to PRM TSI (asking for the provision of a fully accessible railway station every 30 km) the provisions of the proposal are much more excessive. Proposed solution: Amendment: Exemption of local/regional public transport from the application of the regulation (see part 2 of this position). Justification: Accessibility everywhere for everyone in local public transport, especially at each single bus stop is not realistic. Low-floor buses are standard on most local/regional public transport networks and older vehicles are gradually being replaced in the coming years. However the adaptation of infrastructure to allow everywhere equal-level boarding will be not feasible and too costly. Even transition periods are not realistic for infrastructure as this will considerably increase the price of public transport tickets. 6

7 Amendment: Article 12 (accessibility and information) Paragraph 1 (second line): representative organisations of disabled persons instead of representatives of organisations of disabled persons Paragraph 2: delete at least at the time a reservation is made Amendment: Deletion of article 19 (compensation in respect of wheel chairs/mobility equipment) or introduction of a threshold. Amendment Article (new): The European Commission shall initiate a European standard for wheel chairs taking into account their safe carriage in public transport vehicles, especially buses and coaches. Chapter IV: obligations in the event of interrupted travel Bus undertakings in local/regional public transport make large efforts in order to reduce the inconvenience of passengers caused by delays or cancelled services. In urban areas buses normally run on scheduled services every minutes or even more often in peak hours. Even in case of a cancellation of a service, e.g. due to a technical problem, passengers would not have to wait for a very long time until the next bus arrives. The provisions of the proposal (especially article 21) show again that the situation in local/regional public transport has not been considered very carefully. Article 21 could be interpreted that for any delay even one minute? information has to be provided to passengers. In addition, the provisions of this article would mean that information on delays is provided at each single bus stop and regularly during the journey. This would result in high investments in e.g. information displays or loud speakers at all stops (+ risk of vandalism at remote stops) as well as permanent announcement of the driver (after each bus stop) on the delay and connecting services. This would not only stress drivers considerably and have effects on safety, but also annoy passengers. Proposed solution: Amendment: article 21 (provision of information) Exemption of application of local/regional public transport (see part 2 of this position). Chapter V: Information of passengers and handling of complaints This chapter again shows that the proposal is not realistic for the situation in local/regional public transport bus services. Art. 25: obligation to inform on passenger rights at latest on departure and during the journey. Many passengers only purchase a ticket at the entrance of a bus. How should passengers be informed accordingly? For passengers receiving periodic ticket by mail, bus undertakings could of course also deliver information on passenger rights. Information can also be provided via internet. However, during operation, this is unrealistic and would be rather annoying for passengers (if e.g. each five minutes an automatic announcement on passenger rights is given during the journey). 7

8 Proposed solution: Amendment article 25 (information on passenger rights) Exclusion of application of the regulation to local/regional bus services (see part 2 of this position) Annex I: Assistance provided to PRM Annex II: Disability-related training First we would like to raise that the provisions of annex I seem to focus mainly on long distance coach services. There are e.g. practically no toilets in buses operated in local/regional public transport. An important perhaps even the most important - criteria for quality and acceptance of local/regional public transport is high travel speed and punctuality. In addition, in many cities bus drivers in local/regional public transport have the duty not to leave their driving place due to safety and security reasons. Therefore the assistance on board as required by the provisions of annex 1b can therefore not be provided by bus undertakings without employing additional staff accompanying each bus. This is, however, not economically realistic in local/regional public transport and would seriously put in danger the continuation of services. Also in relation to annex II, the provisions are not appropriate for local/regional public transport. In addition, the proposed amount of training is too extensive and would be a considerable burden for bus undertakings. Proposed solution: Amendments annex I and II Exclusion of application of this regulation to local/regional bus services (see part 2 of this position) 8