EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 11.7.2023

SWD(2023) 445 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

[…]

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic

{COM(2023) 445 final} - {SEC(2023) 445 final} - {SWD(2023) 446 final} - {SWD(2023) 447 final}

Table of contents

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

2.Problem definition

3.Why should the EU act?

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

5.What are the available policy options?

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

7.How do the options compare?

8.Preferred option

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

Annex 1: Procedural information

1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

2.Organisation and timing

3.Consultation of the RSB

4.Evidence, sources and quality

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

1.Practical implications of the initiative

2.Summary of costs and benefits

3.Relevant sustainable development goals

Annex 4: Analytical methods

Annex 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK

1.Overview of impacts on competitiveness

2.Synthetic assessment

Annex 6: Detailed description of policy measures

Annex 7: Rules on Weights and Dimensions of HDVs

Annex 8: Discarded policy measures

Annex 9: Conclusions of the evaluation

Annex 10: Effectiveness of the different policy options

Annex 11: SME test

Annex 12: Letter from former Vice-President Siim Kallas, 13 June 2012

Annex 13: Monitoring

Annex 14: Visuals for concept understanding

Annex 15: Evaluation report (separate document)

Glossary 1

Abbreviations

1.Introduction: Political and legal context

This Impact Assessment accompanies a legislative proposal for a revision of Council Directive 96/53/EC on the maximum dimensions of certain road vehicles authorised for national and international traffic and the maximum weight authorized in international traffic (hereinafter “the Weights and Dimensions Directive”, or “the W&D Directive” or “the Directive”).

1.1.Political context

Road transport plays a vital role in connecting businesses and consumers across the EU, facilitating trade, and supporting economic growth and employment. It facilitates mobility of people and supports many industries, such as manufacturing, construction and retail, by providing the means for the transport of goods. It also plays a critical role in emergency response.

In 2020, road freight transport represented 53.3% (1,745 billion tonne-kilometres) of all the goods transported within the EU and more than three-quarters (77.4%) of the total inland freight transport (based on tonne-kilometres performed) 4 . The bus and coach transport activity amounted to 294 billion passenger-kilometres, representing 6.6% of total passenger transport activity in 2020. The road transport sector employs more than 5 million people in the EU, of which 3.3 million work in freight and almost 2 million in passenger transport4. Road freight transport has proven critical in ensuring the delivery of essential products and the transport of humanitarian aid in emergency situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia 5 .

While the road transport sector brings substantial economic and social benefits, it also has negative impacts on the environment, including air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), as well as noise. Too much road traffic can generate congestion and increase wear and tear of infrastructure. It can also lead to accidents and injuries. For example, it is estimated that heavy-duty vehicles were involved in road accidents causing around 3,000 out of the 22,800 fatalities on the EU roads in 2019 6 (i.e. approximately 13% of the total).

Transport 7 accounted for 26% of all EU greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions in 2020, with road transport alone representing 20% of the total. Around 28% of road transport emissions originate from heavy-duty vehicles, such as lorries and buses (6% of EU’s total GHG emissions) 8 . Road transport is the principal source of nitrogen oxides, responsible for 37% of emissions in 2020, and also accounts for a significant share of emissions of other main air pollutants (except for SOx) 9 . Road transport was responsible for 77% of total energy consumption in transport 10 in 2020. Heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) account for 38% of the EU’s diesel consumption in road transport 11 .

The European Green Deal Communication 12 adopted in 2019 sets the long-term goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, showing the need for reducing GHG emissions from transport by 90% until that date. The European Climate Law 13 enshrines in legislation the EU’s commitment to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and sets a target of at least 55% net GHG emissions reduction by 2030 compared to 1990. To achieve this target the Commission adopted in 2021 the Fit for 55 14 package of measures focusing, among others, on reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, expanding the use of renewable energy sources, accelerating the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure and revising the CO2 standards for new cars and vans. In response to the hardships and global energy market disruption caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission has presented in May 2022 the REPowerEU Plan 15 . The key objective of the Plan is to end the EU's dependence on Russian fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency and fast forward green transition, including towards zero-emission vehicles. In addition, on 14 February 2023 the Commission proposed to revise the CO2 standards for new HDVs to ensure that they are in line with the increased climate ambition of the European Green Deal and to contribute to reducing the EU’s energy dependency.

To operationalise the green and digital transformation of the transport system and contribute to the achievement of Green Deal objectives, the Commission adopted in 2020 the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 16 together with an Action Plan of 82 initiatives. The initiatives under the Strategy are based on three strands: making all transport modes more sustainable, making sustainable alternatives widely available in a multimodal system, and putting in place the right incentives to drive the transition. The revision of the W&D Directive will contribute to the Strategy’s objectives of boosting the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, renewable & low-carbon fuels and related infrastructure (flagship 1) and greening freight transport (flagship 4). In this context, it forms part of the Greening freight package, a set of initiatives catering for more sustainable solutions to improve the operational and system efficiency of the transport sector.

The initiative fits under the broader objectives of the green and digital transformation of the EU economy, including the Zero Pollution Action Plan 17 . Finally, the revision of the W&D Directive also contributes towards the Sustainable Development Goal SDG 13 (“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”) and SDG 3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”).

1.2.Legal context

The Council Directive 96/53/EC sets out the maximum permitted weights and dimensions for commercial heavy-duty vehicles 18  (HDV) that circulate on EU roads carrying goods or passengers. The Directive specifies the maximum weight and dimensions of those vehicles including their length, width, height and axle loads. Annex 7 provides additional information on the current legal framework. These common standards aim to ensure that HDVs do not exceed limits that can compromise road safety, infrastructure and the environment. The rules also aim to facilitate cross-border transport and ensure that road transport operators can compete on equal footing in the internal market in terms of the loading capacity of their vehicles.

The original Directive adopted in 1996 was subsequently amended in 2002 by Directive 2002/7/EC, and in 2015 by Directive (EU) 2015/719 19 . The 2002 revision harmonised the maximum authorised dimensions of buses in national and international traffic, to enable seamless passenger transport by road within the EU. The 2015 revision provided for certain derogations from the maximum authorised weights and dimensions of vehicles and vehicle combinations, in order to encourage the uptake of alternatively fuelled powertrains, to improve vehicles’ aerodynamics and to ensure interoperability with other modes of transport. The reduction of GHG emissions, improving road safety and driver’s comfort in commercial (freight) transport were the main driving purpose of these derogations.

In addition, following the commitments of the Paris Agreement on climate change, Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 20  setting CO2 performance standards for HDV introduced the notion of “zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle” promoting its use by the introduction of additional weight derogations applicable to this vehicle kind, and Decision (EU) 2019/984 21 brought forward the initial deadline for placing more aerodynamic cabs in the market from 2 December 2022 to 1 September 2020.

1.3.Synergies with other EU policy instruments

The revision of the W&D Directive is complementary to other initiatives that aim at reducing emissions from transport, improve energy and operational efficiency of cross-border operations and promote intermodal cooperation. In particular, it offers synergies with three initiatives put forward as part of the Greening freight package, namely:

·The revision of the Combined Transport Directive, aimed at incentivising the uptake of intermodal transport;

·The CountEmissions EU initiative, aimed at establishing a harmonised methodology to measure door-to-door GHG emissions of transport operations, which could be used by transport companies to monitor and benchmark their transport services;

·The initiative on rail capacity planning and management aimed at improving the reliability, punctuality and availability of rail services by optimising the use of rail infrastructure and improving their multimodal integration.

Although these initiatives cover different modal and cross-modal aspects of the regulatory framework for land transport, they complement each other in delivering a more efficient and sustainable land transport system. There are particularly strong connections with the revision of the Combined Transport Directive whose main objective is to incentivise the uptake of freight intermodal transport in order to contribute to reducing GHG emissions and other externalities from transport such as air pollutant emissions, congestion and accidents. The W&D Directive aims to provide additional incentives to intermodal transport, by eliminating the disadvantages of the road legs by HDV involved in intermodal transport operations in terms of loading capacity and by extending the support of the Directive to non-containerised intermodal transport.

There are also clear synergies between this initiative and the Regulation setting HDV CO2 emission performance standards 22 , which sets requirements on vehicle manufacturers as to the supply of more fuel-efficient and zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles. The proposal for the revision of the Regulation, adopted by the Commission on 14 February 2023, extends the scope to almost all newly registered HDVs with certified CO2 emissions and sets new CO2 emission targets from 2030 onwards 23 . To effectively reach its targets and achieve the greening objectives as swiftly as possible, the CO2 standards for HDVs need to be complemented by enabling measures targeting the demand side. The revision of the W&D Directive aims to put in place the right incentives for the transport operators to invest in cleaner HDV, contributing to the uptake of ZEV and the achievement of the GHG emission reduction target set in the European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy.

The Eurovignette Directive 24  addresses the need to internalise road transport’s external costs, applying “the polluter pays” and “the user pays" principles. In addition, a recent legislative proposal to revise the Eurovignette Directive takes account of the environmental performance of trailers and semitrailers in the calculation of road charges 25 . This will further reinforce the incentives provided by the W&D Directive to boost the uptake of zero-emission HDVs and to encourage the use of energy efficient trailers and semitrailers. As part of the Fit for 55 package, the Commission also put forward a proposal for the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive 26 that promotes clean technologies and remove outdated exemptions and reduced rates that currently encourage the use of fossil fuels. In addition, road transport will be covered by emissions trading 27 , putting a price on pollution, stimulating cleaner fuel use, and re-investing in clean technologies.

On the infrastructure side, the most relevant initiatives that could strengthen the effects of W&D Directive are: the EU Action Plan on Military Mobility 28 and the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) 29 . The EU Action Plan on Military Mobility aims to remove the obstacles that hamper military mobility in the EU. A key part of the Action Plan is to identify the infrastructure capable of accommodating bigger and heavier vehicles than those within the limits of the W&D Directive. A gap analysis conducted to this end 30  concluded that 91% of the road TEN-T network would be suitable for military transport needs, which either match or (mostly) exceed the standards set in the W&D Directive. AFIR sets mandatory minimum targets for the roll-out of recharging and refuelling infrastructure across the TEN-T core and comprehensive network and thus strengthening the W&D objectives to facilitate the uptake of ZEV.

The Cross-Border Enforcement (CBE) Directive aims to improve road safety and to ensure equal treatment of drivers, namely resident and non-resident offenders. In March 2023 the Commission adopted a legislative proposal 31 to amend the CBE Directive, extending its scope to other road safety related traffic offences. The “use of an overloaded vehicle” is one of them. Hence, the mechanism provided by the CBE Directive could be used to identify the offenders and facilitate their prosecution for infringing the provisions of the W&D Directive.

1.4.Evaluation of the Directive 

An evaluation of the W&D Directive has been carried out ‘back-to-back’ (i.e. at the same time) with the impact assessment. The evaluation of the W&D Directive is annexed to this report.

The main conclusion of the evaluation is that the Directive was only partially successful in achieving its objectives of strengthening the internal market, improving energy and operational efficiency of road transport operations, contributing to road safety and to the protection of road infrastructure. On the one hand, the common technical standards for HDVs enabled more effective, safe and fair cross-border operations within the EU internal market, and on the other hand, the variety of national derogations and requirements established by Member States in line with the Directive, led to fragmentation of certain segments of the market and to operational inefficiencies.

While the Directive helped to increase the share of containerised intermodal transport and to improve the energy and operational performance of operations in the Member States allowing for longer and heavier vehicles, its overall contribution to the energy efficiency of freight transport operations in the EU, including through the uptake of aerodynamic devices and of alternatively fuelled powertrains (including zero-emission ones), has been very limited. The Directive is considered effective in promoting road safety and in reducing infrastructure wear and tear.

The partial ineffectiveness and inconsistency of the Directive has been attributed in the evaluation to a combination of factors, including a lack of clarity in the Directive's provisions and a lack of enforcement by Member States. Both of these aspects contribute to the challenges in achieving harmonisation and correct implementation of the Directive.

As to the lack of clarity, the evaluation confirmed that the Directive contains provisions that are open to interpretation or lack specificity in certain areas, in particular as regards the use of longer/heavier vehicles in cross-border operations and requirements for authorisations for abnormal transport. This led to varying interpretations and inconsistent application across Member States, resulting in a fragmentation of the market (its segments such as: longer/heavier HDVs, including European Modular Systems (EMS), car transporters, indivisible load transport). The lack of clear provisions and common standards created confusion and hindered the full achievement of the harmonisation objective of the Directive.

Ineffective and inconsistent enforcement by Member States, including inadequate or insufficient checks, penalties, and monitoring, undermined the effectiveness of the Directive in the area of internal market, ensuring free movement of goods and fair competition. It has also affected the performance of the Directive in eliminating the risks to road safety and damage of infrastructure posed by overloaded vehicles.

The lack of clarity in the Directive's provisions and the lack of enforcement are interconnected. The ambiguity in the provisions created challenges for enforcement authorities, while weak enforcement further exacerbated non-compliance and undermined the harmonization objectives.

The links between the conclusions of the ex-post evaluation and the impact assessment are summarised in Annex 9.

2.Problem definition

The key problems, corresponding drivers and consequences that are relevant for the revision of the Directive are presented in Figure 1 .

Figure 1: Problem tree

2.1.What are the problems?

2.1.1.Problem 1: Low uptake of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles and energy saving technologies and schemes

The evaluation has shown that the incentives to improve the energy efficiency of road transport and to reduce the GHG emissions via the deployment of alternatively-fuelled HDVs (including ZEVs) and improved aerodynamics were insufficient and not reflecting the operational and zero-emission technology requirements, and that intermodal transport remains partially disadvantaged.

The amendments introduced in 2015 (Directive (EU) 2015/719 32 ) provided for certain derogations from the maximum authorised weights and dimensions of HDV to encourage deployment of new “greening” technologies and more sustainable transport schemes, in particular the use of alternatively fuelled vehicles (including zero-emission vehicles), the improvement of vehicles’ aerodynamics and the support to intermodal containerised transport. The share of alternatively fuelled medium and heavy-duty vehicles in the EU yearly registrations has slowly increased from 0.5% in 2016 to 7% in 2020 33 . Even though the registrations of ZEVs are increasing, their current share of the EU fleet is still very low. In 2020, 0.2% of all lorries above 3.5 tonnes and nearly 1% of buses in use in the EU were electrically rechargeable 34  ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2: Share of alternatively fuelled vehicles in the EU fleet in 2020

 Source: ACEA

Overall, the uptake of zero-emission vehicles in the HDV (in particular truck) fleet is very limited. The EU truck fleet (above 3.5 tonnes) continues to be strongly dominated by fossil fuel engines. Road freight transport relies predominantly on diesel (96.3% of all trucks in the EU run on diesel), with only 0.7% of all trucks being run on alternatively fuelled internal combustion engines (natural gas and LPG). The share of electrically chargeable trucks, including battery electric and plug in hybrid vehicles, is as low as 0.2%. Buses make more use of alternative fuels in internal combustion engines (3.7% of the EU fleet) than trucks. The figures also show higher uptake of hybrid electric (1.4%) and electrically chargeable (1%) buses, mostly used in urban transport. The sales of zero-emission buses over 7.5t are growing rapidly 35 .

One position paper 36 and other stakeholders’ feedback provided to the Commission 37 identify the availability of recharging and refuelling infrastructure, the price, total cost of ownership (TCO 38 ) and duration of charging, as the main barriers to the broad uptake of zero- and low-emission vehicles. At the same time, the stakeholders in the trucking industry call for rapid decarbonisation of the road freight sector and for an ambitious quick and broad roll-out of the related infrastructure to enable the uptake of ZE HDVs 39 . They call on the EU and the national governments to put in place enabling policies to accelerate the market uptake of ZEV and removing barriers holding back the transition, including the current limits on weights and dimensions of HDVs. These issues are being addressed by different legislative initiatives mentioned in section 1.3, and W&D Directive can also play an important role in providing a comprehensive solution by removing the technical and administrative barriers to the deployment of ZE HDVs.

In addition to switching to alternative fuels, research projects and testing activities show that emission reductions are possible via energy savings through improved vehicle aerodynamics for the complete vehicle, of about 5-10% 40 . However, the uptake of devices enabling such savings (notably aerodynamic cabs and rear flaps) has been very low until now due to past regulatory obstacles as well as a limited type of operations (mainly long-distance motorway driving) which the use of these devices has been economically beneficial so far. The 2015 amendments to the W&D Directive supported the improvement of vehicles’ aerodynamics by allowing extra length for HDVs equipped with rear aerodynamic devices and for HDVs equipped with cabs improving the aerodynamics and safety of the vehicle, as well as the visibility, safety and comfort of drivers. However, the type-approval legal framework necessary for the introduction of aerodynamic devices and cabs, and the complementary rules to ensure uniform operational conditions of rear flaps 41 apply only since December 2019 42 . In addition, the length derogation for the new cabs applies only from September 2020 43 , which delayed their placing on the market.

The first and the only truck equipped so far with an elongated cab was placed on the market on 9 June 2021 44 . It is reported 45 , 46 that the cab was elongated by 160mm at the front and 330mm at the rear. Coupled with re-designed windows and packaging, the elongated cab is claimed to have substantially improved direct vision, beneficial for road safety. However, the re-shaping of the front is less radical than was envisaged by concepts studied in the development of the Directive 47 , limiting the potential energy savings only to high-speed long-distance trips. 

The requirements of the HDV CO2 Standards Regulation in combination with the need for improved aerodynamics to reduce energy consumption and the Direct Vision Regulation 48 is expected to drive widespread introduction of elongated cabins 49 . However, it appears likely that, in response to market demands and the prioritisation of manufacturers to roll-out zero-emission powertrains over improved aerodynamics, much of the length increase possible under the legislation will be put at the rear of the cab, where it can be used to benefit interior space for driver comfort and/or additional space for zero-emission equipment, such as hydrogen tanks.

As regards the implementation of rear flaps, although neither technology suppliers, nor manufacturers have provided figures that would allow to quantify the actual use of rear devices in freight transport, they all agree that there is no increase in the demand for such devices. According to the Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) “implementation of the measures envisaged by the W&D Directive at the national level caused delays in the real world uptake, as did uncertainties related to other legislation (General Safety Regulation, Direct Vision Regulation) which occurred in parallel with the W&D developments”.

In addition to these improvements to the HDVs, increased use of intermodal transport is considered an important element in the decarbonisation of freight transport in the EU, due to its energy and emission saving potential. It combines the better environmental performance and energy efficiency of non-road transport with the accessibility and flexibility of road transport on the 'last mile'. The volume of intermodal freight transport in tonne-kilometres has more than doubled in the last 30 years, since the adoption of the Combined Transport Directive, and has been the fastest growing market segment in three important non-road freight modes (i.e. rail, inland waterways, short sea shipping), even if this relative growth advantage has in recent years slowed ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3: Freight transport activity of unimodal (excluding the intermodal respective legs) and total intermodal transport (including road and non-road legs), 2005-2020 (in billon tkm)

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2022, REFIT evaluation of Combined Transport Directive (2016) and Ricardo et al. support study (2023) 50

The use of 45-foot containers and swap bodies, which is estimated to account for 19% of the ISO-container category, has similarly been increasing during this period as it is considered the most efficient cargo unit for intermodal transport. Enabling 51 the use of standard 45-foot containers and swap bodies has been highly welcomed by the market operators and the expectation is that the large containers (45-foot and high-cube) will increase gradually their market share of containerised transport in the future. Swap bodies are large containers designed to be easily transferred between road and rail modes of transport without special handling equipment by lifting them from below, as they are equipped with up-folding legs. Compared to traditional shipping containers, swap bodies have more inside space despite the same external dimensions, and thus allow for greater cargo capacity. Directive (EU) 2015/719 introduced weight derogations for 5- and 6-axle HDV combinations involved in intermodal transport operations (from 40 tonnes to 42 tonnes or 44 tonnes depending on the axle configuration) to compensate for the extra weight of the empty containers and swap bodies.

Figure 4: Swap body trailer with extended legs, during loading process.

Source: Schmitz Cargobull

However, the effects of this measure to promote intermodal transport have been partially cancelled out in eleven Member States 52 (representing 24.6% of the total road freight transport activity in the EU in 2020 53 ) where the weight limits for the vehicle combinations used in domestic road-only operations were increased to at least 44 tonnes. As a result, while overall energy and operational efficiency of road transport operations increased in those Member States, shippers and operators involved in (containerised) intermodal transport have been put in a disadvantaged position by having lower loading capacity as compared to road-only transport. The cost efficiency of road-rail intermodal transport is particularly sensitive to pre- and post-haulage costs 54 , since this activity typically has a larger cost compared with its share of the total distance in the transport chain. Improving the efficiency of pre- and post-haulage activities is, therefore, of utmost importance for the competitiveness of the intermodal transport system 55 .

2.1.2.Problem 2 – Fragmentation of the market for heavier and bigger (freight) transport vehicles

The W&D Directive establishes the maximum weight and dimensions for different types of heavy-duty vehicles (e.g. 16.50 m and 40 tonnes for articulated vehicles with 5 or 6 axles). Vehicles complying with these requirements can freely circulate throughout the EU territory. At the same time, the Directive allows for national derogations for heavier or bigger vehicles to circulate on the national territory only. Member States have granted national derogations, allowing increased weights and dimensions, in an uncoordinated manner (see problem driver 4 for details). This has created a patchwork of rules, which hampers the free circulation of HDVs within the EU, distorts competition, renders enforcement ineffective and leads to loss of operational and energy efficiency. It affects particularly the market segments of high-capacity vehicles, vehicle transporters and indivisible loads and limits the pursued economic and environmental savings in these segments. For instance, due to the lack of harmonisation at the EU level in this regard, high-capacity vehicles (e.g. 44 tonne vehicles and vehicle combinations European modular systems – EMS 56 ) allowed to circulate in national transport in neighbouring Member States cannot, in principle, cross the borders of those Member States to continue the operation. The call for evidence 57 revealed that 80% of 174 contributors, representing companies and business associations (mainly road transport and logistic operators, truck manufacturers, construction businesses, agricultural producers and chemical industry), considered the lack of harmonisation in this respect a significant hurdle and demanded the allowance of 44 tonnes in international transport.

European Modular Systems (EMS) are particular case. EMS are allowed in cross-border operations based on bilateral agreements, limited to one single border crossing between two neighbouring Member States who allow EMS on their territories. This is based on the broad interpretation of the W&D Directive 58  which is meant to preserve the international competition in the transport market. However, it has also created geographical areas within which cross-border transport is allowed but that are unconnected. For instance, international transport by EMS between Finland and Sweden cannot continue to Denmark, even though the latter also allows EMS on its territory. International transport between Germany and the Netherlands cannot continue to Belgium, although Belgium allows EMS. According to information from national authorities in the context of the stakeholders’ consultation, discussions are ongoing to possibly allow cross-border transport of EMS between Portugal and Spain and between Germany and Denmark in the near future.

The national rules and trials allowing the circulation of EMS impose specific additional conditions mostly citing reasons of road safety and protection of the infrastructure. These national requirements are diverging and hamper even more the use of EMS in cross-border operations. For example, in Germany EMS are limited to a maximum weight of 40 tonnes while in the Netherlands EMS can reach 60 tonnes of weight but must be equipped with sideguard warnings and drivers must follow specific training. The bilateral agreement between the Netherlands and Germany reflects these national requirements creating specific legal frameworks for these regional markets within the EU internal market.

Abnormal transport or transport of indivisible loads 59 is a relatively small, though important segment, as it is linked with the strategic areas of renewable energy, civil engineering and infrastructure, oil and gas, heavy industry and power generation sectors. This segment also suffers from diverging national rules, procedures and requirements for obtaining a permit to circulate across the EU. The patchwork of rules creates administrative burden, causes delays and makes cross-border operations inefficient and prone to fraud (it is estimated that 25% of such transport in the EU is not covered by special permits 60 ) adversely affecting road safety and the infrastructure. In 2011, the European association of abnormal road transport and mobile cranes (ESTA) conducted an economic impact assessment and concluded that, if all recommendations of the European Best Practice Guidelines for Abnormal Road Transports 61 were followed, particularly in terms of simplification and harmonisation of the rules and procedures to obtain the special permits, the savings could amount to EUR 800 million every year 62 .

2.1.3.Problem 3 – Ineffective and inconsistent enforcement of transport rules for HDV 

The variety and complexity of the regulatory frameworks (EU, national and bilateral/multilateral) and the resulting lack of legal certainty have led to inefficient and inconsistent enforcement of the rules in cross border transport. For instance, the cross-border transport between France and Belgium by 44 tonnes HDVs (both Member States allow a maximum weight of 44 tonnes in national transport) was for many years tolerated, even if not allowed by the W&D Directive 63 . The recent enforcement actions taken by France 64 , which according to the complaints by operators, target only incoming transport (to France), while outgoing transport with 44t HDVs can continue to and through Benelux countries without restrictions, could lead to discriminatory controls and create a competitive advantage for international transport operators carrying goods from France to the Benelux countries compared to their counterparts serving the French territory.

Similarly, it is the current practice that cross-border transport of vehicle carriers with extended length (i.e. longer than the W&D limits, but allowed under national derogations) is accepted all over the EU as long as the extensions used are permitted in the Member States crossed.

The evaluation shows that exceeding the maximum allowed masses and axle loads of HDV is the most frequent infraction. A survey conducted by the Conference of European Directors of Roads CEDR among its members (i.e. road authorities) reveals that the percentage of overloaded vehicles in Europe varies between 2% and 18% 65 . The circulation of overloaded vehicles, resulting from low compliance and weak enforcement, not only leads to distortions of competition between hauliers, but can endanger road safety and create risks of damage to the infrastructure, in particular its parts that are not adapted to accommodate the traffic by heavier/bigger vehicles (e.g. old bridges, certain roads).

According to the recent biennial report on the implementation of the W&D Directive 66 , around 17 million vehicles and vehicle combinations were checked at the roadside in 2019 and 2020 in the territories of the nineteen Member States that have provided data. More than half million offences (3.3% of the HDV controlled) of exceeding the maximum weight or the maximum axle weight were detected. There are, however, very significant differences among Member States in the number of controls performed. In the reporting period 2019-2020, Ireland performed the highest number of controls (around 12.6 million controls), followed by Poland (around 3 million controls) and Italy (almost 600,000 controls). Substantial differences were also observed in the efficiency of controls measured as the percentage of infractions detected per control carried out. The detection rates range from 72.2% in Estonia (2,166 infractions detected out of 2,929 controls carried out) to 0.2% in Poland (7,217 infractions detected out of 3,050,851 controls carried out).

The legal uncertainty about the applicable rules in cross-border transport and the diverging levels of enforcement were considered as the most important issues to be addressed by the revision of the W&D Directive in the two workshops with industry stakeholders and with national experts of the Member States held on the 15 and 16 December 2022, respectively.

2.2.What are the problem drivers?

Problem driver 1: Current technical standards are not adapted to the needs of ZEV

The existing provisions are inadequate and/or insufficient to encourage the investment in zero-emission vehicles. To reach the same range as a diesel vehicle (or other fossil fuel vehicles), zero-emission vehicles typically need a higher mass (battery electric trucks) or volume (fuel cell electric trucks). The amendments introduced by Directive (EU) 2015/719 and by Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 increased the permitted weight for zero-emission vehicles to compensate for the loss of loading capacity caused by the extra weight linked to the zero emission powertrains. Truck manufacturers and technology suppliers argue, however, that these allowances are insufficient and that additional weight and axle-weight 67 is needed, in particular for long-haul freight transport, because batteries need to be bigger and heavier.

The extra weight allowance applies to certain buses, rigid trucks and tractors only, excluding 4-axle motor vehicles, 2-axle rigid buses and vehicles forming part of a vehicle combination other than the tractor. These allowances neither consider new technological developments such as electric trailers equipped with auxiliary motors and batteries which reduce the demand of energy from the motor vehicle and/or power other elements, such as cooling units of reefers. These innovative solutions cannot benefit nowadays from extra weight allowance to compensate for the weight of the system, which discourages their market uptake.

Battery electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV powered with hydrogen) require space to store the batteries and the hydrogen tanks 68  which are commonly installed behind the cab. Current rules do not allow for extra length to compensate for the space needed for this type of energy storage. This means that investment in such vehicles under the current rules would lead to the reduction of the loading length capacity of the vehicle combination or the reduction of the space inside the cabin. In the first case, the competitiveness of these HDVs is affected as they cannot offer the same payload capacity as an internal combustion engine (ICE) truck. In the second case, the driver’s comfort and safety pursued via the introduction of new elongated cabs might be affected.

The needs for extra weight and length have been consistently reported by truck manufacturers and technology developers 69 . Hydrogen Europe, ACEA 70  and one truck manufacturer estimated the necessary increases of the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) by 2 tonnes and of length (by 0.9 to 1.5 m) for a long-haul hydrogen-powered HDV that would enable those vehicles to cover the range of at least 600 km on one refill.

The need to adapt the weights and dimensions standards was also confirmed during the public consultation. During a workshop with 115 industry stakeholders, organised in December 2022, participants considered the inadequacy of current technical standards for the needs of ZEV as one of the three most important issues to be addressed. This is in line with the results of the open public consultation in which 93 out of 127 respondents stated that adapting the technical standards to the needs of ZEV would be a very useful or useful measure.

Problem driver 2: Insufficient incentives for the uptake of ZEV, rear aerodynamic devices and aerodynamic cabs

Vehicle manufacturers are committed to reducing CO2 emissions by bringing a wide range of zero-emission vehicles to the market 71 . However, their uptake largely depends, according to European manufacturers, on transport operators being able to invest in them and operate them profitably 72 . The lack of technological maturity currently keeps the costs of the available solutions high and thus impedes the uptake of alternative fuels, including zero-emission vehicles 73 . Nonetheless, the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the HDV CO2 performance standards 74   found that, in all policy combinations considered, the TCO is positive along the vehicle lifespan. The positive TCO determines net economic savings, even without considering the monetisation of the CO2 and air pollutants emissions, since the fuel savings outweigh the capital costs and other costs. Other recent studies indicate that long-haul battery-electric trucks will reach TCO 75 parity in the coming years, which will very much depend on the amount and intensity of available policy incentives and the technological developments 76 . High upfront vehicle costs pose a serious market barrier for the EU hauliers, the great majority of which are micro and small enterprises, as addressed by the Impact Assessment of the revised HDV CO2 Standards.

Regarding energy-saving technologies such as improved aerodynamics, the interest within the sector has been low. Despite the estimated benefits 77  highlighted by environmental associations and flaps manufacturers, the operators consider that the use case for the rear flaps is limited. Firstly, because they are not suitable for certain types of vehicles (e.g. car transporters), cargo (e.g. indivisible loads), operations (e.g. intermodal operations) or weather conditions (e.g. snow and ice). Secondly, the rear flaps are mostly effective in vehicles when travelling at constant high speed on long distances. Hence the return on investment is not warranted. As shown in Figure 5 : Power required for a 40-tonne vehicle combination to overcome the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, as a function of the vehicle speed , aerodynamic drag only starts affecting fuel consumption significantly at higher speeds (60km/h and above), which makes their use interesting for long-distance transport and on motorways.

Figure 5: Power required for a 40-tonne vehicle combination to overcome the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, as a function of the vehicle speed

Source: Martini, 2016

Road transport operators also argue that the use of those devices requires additional skills and work of a driver and involves the risk of unintentional damage. The lack of direct economic benefit has also eliminated the demand from trailer rental/leasing companies and poses a significant market barrier to the adoption of more energy-efficient vehicles 78 . 

According to the Impact Assessment accompanying the current HDV CO2 standards, the main drivers hindering the uptake of more fuel-efficient technologies (other than ZEV) were found to be environmental externalities, imperfect and asymmetric information in the new vehicle market, access to finance and cost pass through.

As regards aerodynamic cabs, truck manufacturers had insufficient time to bring them into the market. Firstly, the length allowance necessary for their placing unto the market was not applicable until 1 September 2020 79 . Secondly, cab designs usually have a fixed lifespan of the order of 10-20 years for economic reasons. Thirdly, there has been competing pressure from other regulations, such as the General Safety Regulation and the Direct Vision Regulation. Manufacturers have also indicated that their efforts were dedicated to the development of alternative powertrains as their preferred way to improve energy efficiency in the transport sector. Nevertheless, they also indicated that they would continuously design more aerodynamic cabs, which will become the standard for all BEV trucks.

Problem driver 3: Current technical standards do not sufficiently promote intermodal operations

According to a recent comparative evaluation of transhipment technologies for intermodal transport 80 the most common type of containers, in terms of length, used in containerised transport are 20’ (about 6.10m) and 40’ (about 12.20m) containers, with a standard external height of 8’ 6’’ (about 2.60m) or 9’ 6’’ (about 2.90m, so-called high-cube container). The advantage of high-cube containers is their much better ratio in terms of volume per tonne.

Skeletal trailers (container only – no deck), used for the transport of containers, typically have 1.4m height from floor to deck/container locks. With a height of about 2.90m high-cube containers and high swap bodies, HDV transporting them reach a total height of 4.30m, therefore exceeding the maximum authorised height by 20 cm. In the absence of additional height allowance of 20cm for HDVs in cross-border operations, the use of high cube containers is limited to the domestic operations in the territories of Member States that granted national derogations increasing the maximum height 81 . Transport of high cube containers in cross-border operations requires a special permit for abnormal transport by HDV or necessitates the use of a special equipment (low wheels skeletal trailers) which adds costs to the transport operation.

Figure 6: Dimensions of a skeletal trailer with a high cube container

Source: Own representation

In addition, the national derogations from the authorised weight limits allowed under W&D Directive for national transport put intermodal transport in a disadvantaged position as regards loading capacity. Under national weights derogations the HDVs gain a payload, while the extra 2 or 4t allowance for HDVs in intermodal transport only compensates the weight of an empty container to maintain the usual payload of 40t HDV.

Problem driver 4: The current legal framework hampers cross-border transport and the realisation of the full potential of heavier and/or bigger HDVs

In line with the W&D Directive Member States may authorise the circulation on their national territory of HDV exceeding the maximum authorised by the Directive weights, without any restrictions, and maximum dimensions in prescribed cases, namely: specialised vehicles (e.g. used in the forestry industry), European Modular System (EMS) and trial schemes with vehicles incorporating new technologies or new concepts. Several Member States have launched trials to test the circulation of EMS, where the most common combinations are 25.25 m and 60 tonnes.

The W&D Directive does not explicitly allow the use of heavier or longer vehicles (i.e. exceeding the limits set in the Directive) in international transport. The HDVs used in international transport are bound by the limits set in the Directive even when they cross the territory of two neighbouring Member States that allow the same higher maximum authorised weights and/or dimensions on their territories. However, based on the broad interpretation of the W&D Directive, it was considered lawful to cross one border with such heavier and/or longer vehicles between neighbouring countries that allow the same weight and/or dimensions excesses (further explained in problem driver 5).

Currently, the use of modular systems (EMS) of at least 25.25m long is allowed in Finland and Sweden, and is being tested in Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic and Germany. Italy authorises longer semitrailers to allow for a maximum length of the vehicle combination of 18m. Cross-border transport of EMS is allowed between Finland and Sweden, Sweden and Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands and between Germany and the Netherlands.

Figure 7: Maximum national permissible lengths of HDVs and allowed cross-border transport

Sources: ITF-OECD, Volvo, and CEDR and road authorities’ webpages and consultation activities

All Member States authorising the circulation of EMS allow them with a maximum gross vehicle combination weight of at least 60 tonnes, with the exception of Germany where it is limited to 40 tonnes (44 tonnes in intermodal transport). Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark and Finland allow the circulation in national transport of five and/or six-axle vehicle combinations (standard articulated vehicles and road trains) with a weight of 44 tonnes and beyond, in some cases 82 . There is a particular situation of the Benelux countries. It originates in the Treaty Establishing the Benelux Economic Union 83 , which was recognised by article 350 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU 84 . As a result, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are allowed to conduct trials with heavier and longer HDV in cross-border operations between them in the context of the Benelux internal market. Currently, the Benelux countries allow for cross-border transport by heavier vehicles up to 44t.

Figure 8: Maximum national permissible weights of HDVs and allowed cross-border transport

Sources: ITF-OECD, Volvo, and CEDR and road authorities’ webpages and consultation activities

Member States in which EMS are authorised, report that their use brings substantial savings in terms of energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and operational costs. According to their ex-post assessment the use of EMS does not attract freight transport from other modes of transport, and it slightly improves road safety without significant infrastructure investments 85 .

The so called ‘loaded length’ of vehicle transporters is not regulated under the W&D Directive. Member States introduced national rules allowing the extra length via the use of front and/or rear overhangs when loaded. These national rules have been granted in all Member States but one 86 and they allow for extra length for loaded vehicle transporter starting from 20.35m and beyond. In practice, cross-border transport of vehicles carriers exceeding the maximum length set in the WDD is considered lawful by most Member States as long as national standards in the territories crossed are met.

Figure 9: Maximum “loaded” length (via front and/or rear overhangs) of vehicle transporters in meters in the EU based on national legislation

Source: ECG 

The transport of indivisible loads is subject to a national permit as required by the W&D Directive. National rules vary significantly between Member States as regards the conditions assigned to each type of permit (long-term permits and/or one-time/one-route permits), the number of authorities to be consulted by the applicant, the time needed to issue permits 87 and the route selection and check 88 . To address these administrative hurdles, the Commission Expert Group elaborated and adopted in 2008 the European Best Practice Guidelines for Abnormal Road Transports (BPG). Although the BPGs, as endorsed by Member States, offered a list of rules and procedures promoting harmonisation, safer operations and improved transparency, the Guidelines have barely been followed by Member States. No progress has been made as regards the implementation of the uniform SERT document 89 nor the abnormal transport corridors and only a few Member States have fully implemented the one-stop-shop principle.

The Directive does not regulate the weight of 5- and 6-axle rigid trucks. Therefore, in cross-border transport these vehicles must comply with the 32t weight limit set by the Directive for 4-axle rigid trucks (four-axle motor vehicles with two steering axles). This legislative loophole adds to operational and energy inefficiencies when using such 5- or 6- axle rigid trucks in cross-border operations.

Problem driver 5: Legal uncertainty about the applicable rules to cross-border transport and levels of enforcement

The use of EMS in national transport in nine Member States triggered the question of the lawfulness of the cross-border transport between neighbouring Member States that allow the use of longer and/or heavier vehicles on their territories 90 . The Directive is not sufficiently clear about that. Some Member States considered that as there is nothing in the Directive clearly forbidding such cross-border operations, they can allow the cross-border operations by longer and/or heavier (EMS and 44t HDVs) based on bilateral agreements. These diverging interpretations of the rules in force have led to diverging enforcements practices or even lack of controls of compliance.

Another ambiguity stemming from the Directive relates to the rules for vehicle carriers in cross-border transport. These HDVs use overhangs to increase the maximum length when they are loaded. As the Directive does not define a ‘loaded length’, some Member States and vehicle carriers consider that the Directive does not forbid cross-border operations by HDVs, the loaded length of which exceeds the length limits set in the W&D Directive. It is the general practice that cross-border transport of vehicle carriers is accepted as long as the extensions used (type and length) are permitted in the Member States crossed. According to the complaint submitted by one of the key stakeholders in this segment, at least one Member State started fining foreign car transporters for using vehicles with a loaded length exceeding 18.75m (maximum authorised by the WDD in international traffic) even though that loaded length does not exceed the national extra length allowance in that Member State. Such inconsistencies in enforcement create legal uncertainty and raise the issue of discrimination against foreign operators.

As regards the number and effectiveness of controls of overloaded HDV, the W&D Directive requires that Member States carry out in each calendar year an appropriate number of checks on the weight of vehicles or vehicle combinations in circulation, proportionate to the total number of vehicles inspected each year in its territory. However, the Directive does not specify what can be considered “proportionate” and does not oblige Member States to notify the total number of HDVs inspected each year, which would enable to assess whether the share of controls on the maximum weights in the total number of controlled vehicles is proportionate. The biennial implementation reports reveal that there are huge discrepancies between Member States as regards the number of controls of weight of HDVs carried out every year, ranging from 5.2 million and 3 million (in 2020, in Ireland and Poland, respectively) to 370 and 700 controls (in 2020, in Latvia and the Netherlands, respectively). The effectiveness of those controls of compliance (detection rate calculated as a percentage of detected overloaded vehicles in total number of vehicles controlled) also differs vastly, ranging from 73% and 45% (in 2020, in Estonia and in Belgium, respectively) to 0.2% and 1% (in 2020, in Poland and Sweden, respectively). These differences in performance of compliance checks undermine the harmonisation and internal market objectives of the Directive, leading to uneven competition, as companies in countries with lax enforcement may gain an unfair advantage over those in countries with stricter and more effective enforcement.

Additional information on problem analysis

The relative importance of the three identified problems (low uptake of zero-emission HDVs, fragmentation of the market for longer and heavier vehicles, and ineffective and inconsistent enforcement of transport rules for HDV) vary in the context of the underperformance of the Directive.

Low uptake of zero-emission (ZE) HDVs and of energy-saving solutions have multiple underlying causes, among which the Directive’s deficiency has a limited contribution. The Directive focuses on the demand side of the ZE HDV market, but it fails to provide sufficient incentives for the sector to encourage the investment in zero-emission technologies, such as sufficient weights or dimensions to compensate the weight and/or size of the technology and ensure at least the same loading capacity as conventional fossil fuel HDVs. There are numerous other causes of the low uptake of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV), both on supply and demand side, which cannot be attributed to or solved by the revision of the Directive. As regards the low uptake of energy-saving solutions, such as aerodynamic devices and cabs, their deployment was dependent on the adoption of the type-approval legal framework, which effectively started applying only since 2020. Hence, this part of the problem does not stem directly and entirely from the Directive.

The other two problems, fragmentation of the market for longer and heavier vehicles and ineffective and inconsistent enforcement, result greatly from the deficiencies of the Directive. Unclear and missing provisions of the Directive led to the patchwork of national rules and requirements, diverging interpretations and control practices. The inconsistent enforcement (strict controls and sanctions in some Member States and lenient in others) results from the lack of mandatory level of controls and minimum common control requirements. These are the main causes of the Directive’s underperformance with regard to its objectives of ensuring free and efficient movement of goods and fair competition. These are also sources of potential risks to road safety and damage to infrastructure.

As to the comprehensiveness of the problem analysis, it must be noted that the identified problem drivers focus only on those aspects that stem directly from the deficiencies of the Directive and which can be addressed entirely (e.g. through adapting the technical standards, clarifying the rules for cross-border operations, strengthening enforcement requirements) or partially (e.g. by providing incentives for ZEV and energy-saving solutions) by the revision of the Directive. There are other issues, independent from the Directive, that contribute to the Directive’s overall underperformance in achieving decarbonisation and harmonisation objectives. The low uptake of zero-emission vehicles for freight transport is also due to: higher Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) compared to conventional vehicles, low availability of recharging/refuelling infrastructure, long duration of charging, limited range of vehicles, lack of ZEV offer. Those issues are being addressed by other initiatives, such as the ‘Fit for 55’ initiatives, in particular, the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), the Eurovignette and the proposed revision of the CO2 standards Regulation for HDVs. The external factors contributing to challenges with harmonisation include: economic considerations (e.g. stakeholders prioritize cost-effectiveness, profitability, and competitiveness), safety concerns (stakeholders have differing perspectives on the safety implications of longer and heavier vehicles), technological challenges (availability, affordability, and maturity of zero-emission HDV technologies and supporting infrastructure), national interests and specificities (e.g. types of key industrial sectors, transport infrastructure capacities)

The revision of the Directive is not the right tool to address those external aspects, therefore they are not included in this impact assessment analysis.

2.3.How likely are the problems to persist?

Without EU action the issues related to the current technical standards that are not adapted to the needs of ZE HDVs and do not sufficiently promote intermodal operations are likely to persist.

The road sector is composed mainly of SMEs 91 . Hauliers in the hire and reward market are often price takers rather than price makers for highly competitive work that yields low profit margin (1-3%) 92 . The IRU’s Market Analysis report of 2021 found that small companies with fewer than 10 employees had an average net profit margin of just 0.7% in 2020, while larger companies with more than 50 employees had an average net profit margin of 3.5% 93 .

While the Impact Assessment supporting the revision of CO2 HDV standards Regulation showed that, also for SMEs 94 , the fuel savings outweigh the increased capital costs of the vehicles, it is crucial, notably for SMEs, that profits are not negatively affected by the reduced payload for this to happen. The uptake of aerodynamic devices and energy-saving technologies is expected to be driven by the road toll discounts (possible under the Eurovignette Directive) received on the basis of mandatory energy efficiency certification of box shaped trailers 95 . and the uptake of ZE HDV 96 , as better aerodynamics increase the autonomy range of ZEV. Intermodal transport is likely to remain partially disadvantaged (in terms of payload) compared to 44t HDVs allowed in national transport 97 and reduce the effectiveness of the revision of the Combined Transport Directive.

The rising costs of fuel and increasingly stringent measures to reduce CO2 emissions from road transport (e.g. in the forms of fuel taxes and the ETS) as well as the scarcity of professional drivers will intensify the already fierce competition between hauliers in the road transport sector. In search for savings, the operators would likely resort to alternatives with lower costs of capital than ZEVs, such as the use of biofuels, which are the preferred option for many road transport operators 98 , as well as to increase the loading capacity of trucks to the maximum extent possible.

In the absence of EU action and changes to the legal framework, the fragmentation of the market will intensify. Diverging national rules and bilateral agreements will continue to be adopted among Member States, as already announced by some Member States, to address specific circumstances and to improve the operational and economic efficiency of road transport as well as cope with the shortage of professional drivers.

As regards the effectiveness of controls, some improvements can be expected thanks to gradual deployment of weigh-in-motion systems in all Member States and, to a lesser extent, of systems allowing the direct enforcement of the weight rules. However, the level of enforcement will vary from Member State to Member State and the compliance with the rules on maximum weights and dimensions will continue to be subject to interpretation by the national authorities, and to the willingness of Member States to enforce the rules in international (intra-EU) transport. Without providing legal clarity on the rules applicable to cross-border operations by certain vehicles and the increase in effectiveness of enforcement, the number of overloaded vehicles on the EU roads may further increase causing quicker road wear, endangering road safety and distorting competition.

The analysis incorporates throughout all its dimensions relevant foresight tools. It does so to anticipate trends and issues that may affect the initiative and build a robust, future-proof evidence base for its likely impact. The megatrend “climate change and environmental degradation” 99 is relevant for the problem related to the low uptake of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles and energy saving technologies and schemes. According to the 2022 Strategic Foresight Report 100 , the aspect of “enabling a greener transport sector with digital technologies” is one of the areas where the twinning of the green and digital transitions is expected to have a major effect. It is particularly relevant to the challenges linked to the continuously growing population, increasing consumer awareness, evolving costs of sustainable transport options and new supply chain business models affecting the transport sector. This has been duly taken into account in the analysis presented in the following sections.

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

Title VI (Transport, Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishes the EU’s right to act in the area of transport. Article 91(1)(a) of the TFEU provides that the Union has competence in the field of transport to lay down common rules applicable to international transport between the EU Member States and Article 91(1)(d) TFEU provides the same competence to adopt any other appropriate provisions in the transport policy area.

3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

The on-going deepening of the EU Internal Market together with the liberalisation of the road freight transport market have increased cross-border trade and the transnational dimension of the road transport services. To facilitate cross-border operations by HDVs while ensuring fair competition and road safety on the EU internal market, the EU has already adopted legislation – Directive 96/53/EC – setting the limits as to the size and weights of the HDVs used in such operations. At the same time, in line with the subsidiarity principle, the Directive safeguards the right of each Member State to allow the circulation of bigger and/or heavier vehicles on its own territory according to their geographical and economic specificities, such as industry needs, transport infrastructure, availability and capacity of other transport modes, etc.

While the Directive represents a step forward in the process of harmonisation of certain technical standards of the HDVs circulating on the EU roads, the deficiencies of the Directive identified during the evaluation, result in diverging interpretations and applications of the rules and inefficient and inconsistent controls of compliance performed by Member States. A growing patchwork of national technical, administrative and control requirements go against the policy goal of achieving a Single European Transport Area that should ease the movements of citizens and freight, reduce costs and enhance the sustainability of European transport. EU action is necessary to remove these unnecessary barriers to efficient, fair and sustainable transport operations on the EU internal market. It is for the same reason necessary to provide legal certainty and to ensure the compliance with the rules applicable in cross-border transport, in particular as regards HDV exceeding the maximum weights and dimensions set in the W&D Directive as allowed in national traffic.

In addition, the Directive has proven ineffective in boosting the uptake of alternative fuels and energy saving technologies and only partially effective in promoting intermodal transport. In the context of emerging technological developments in the automotive industry and new EU targets on decarbonisation of transport sector as a whole, it is necessary to take further EU actions to incentivise and accelerate the deployment of zero-emission HDVs, improve compatibility with other modes of transport and contribute to the EU greening objectives.

The revision of the Directive does not affect the possibility for Member States to develop solutions according to local circumstances and for operations on national territories.

The public consultation revealed that 93 respondents out of 125 fully agreed that EU action is essential to the effective cross-border cooperation, to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and to improve the environmental performance of the transport sector.

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

The evaluation of the Directive confirmed its added value by establishing EU standards for weights and dimensions of HDVs used in cross-border operations. It has also revealed the Directive’s deficiencies, including legal loopholes and ambiguities, standards not adapted to the technological progress, hampering the use of the latest decarbonisation technologies and improving efficiency of cross border transport.

A lack of coordinated EU action would translate into the need for Member States to act individually and to reach bilateral agreements, leading to a risk of further market fragmentation due to the diversity of national rules. Market fragmentation would potentially translate into competitive distortions and discriminatory control practices. It would also weaken the incentive to deploy zero-emission vehicles and energy efficient technologies to the overall EU market. Furthermore, while public financial support plays a role to promote the market uptake of zero-emission vehicles, they differ among Member States, some of which may not adopt them at all, and they would not provide with the necessary stability and irreversibility for a long-term business case that would allow strategical planning for road transport operators and HDV manufacturers.

Overall, initiatives at the national, local and sectoral level will not be sufficient or adequate to address the identified EU-wide problems and their underlying drivers and to deliver on decarbonisation targets set at the EU level.

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

The general objectives of this initiative are to improve the energy and operational efficiency of road transport operations in the broader context of increased EU environmental and climate ambition by 2030 and EU climate neutrality by 2050 (i.e., achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050) and to ensure the free movement of goods and fair competition on the internal road transport market.

4.2.Specific objectives

These objectives must be achieved while safeguarding the balance between the requirements of infrastructure maintenance, road safety and the reduction of the GHG and pollutant emissions from the transport system. The connection between problem drivers, specific objectives and general objectives is presented in  Figure 10 .

Figure 10: Correspondence between the problem drivers and the specific objectives

The specific objectives will also contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goal SDG 13 (“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”) and SDG 3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”).

5.What are the available policy options?

5.1.What is the baseline from which options are assessed?

The EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) is the starting point for the impact assessment of this initiative. The REF2020 takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that had a significant impact on the transport sector. More detailed information about the preparation process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario publication 101 . Building on REF2020, the baseline has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package proposed by the Commission on 14 July 2021 102 and the initiatives of the RePowerEU package proposed by the Commission on 18 May 2022 103 . The baseline scenario factors in the proposals for a revision of the HDV CO2 standards Regulation 104  and the new Euro 7 standards 105  as well as other initiatives being part of the Road Safety Package 106 . The baseline scenario assumes no further EU level intervention beyond the current W&D Directive. More details on the baseline are provided in Annex 4 107 .

The baseline also incorporates foresight megatrends 108 and developments captured in the 2022 Strategic Foresight Report 109 . Among others, it captures the trend of increasing demand for transport as population and living standards grow as well as the links between the digital and green transition. In particular, the projected transport activity draws on the long-term population projections from Eurostat and GDP growth from the Ageing Report 2021 110  by the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs.

In the baseline scenario, EU transport activity is projected to grow post-2020, following the recovery from the COVID pandemic. Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU by 2050. Buses activity (expressed in passenger-kilometres) is projected to grow by 13% between 2015 and 2030 (42% for 2015-2050). For freight, heavy goods vehicles activity (expressed in tonne-kilometres) is projected to go up by 30% by 2030 relative to 2015 (57% for 2015-2050). The activity of heavy goods vehicles above 32 tonnes would grow at slightly slower pace, by 27% by 2030 relative to 2015 (47% for 2015-2050). Rail transport activity is projected to grow significantly faster than for road, driven in particular by the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and of the comprehensive network by 2050, supported by the CEF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding, but also by measures of the ‘Fit for 55’ package that increase to some extent the competitiveness of rail relative to road and air transport. Passenger rail activity is projected to go up by 24% by 2030 relative to 2015 (67% for 2015-2050). Freight rail traffic would increase by 42% by 2030 relative to 2015 (91% for 2015-2050) 111 . Congestion costs would increase by about 14% by 2030 and 32% by 2050, relative to 2015. Congestion on the inter-urban network would be the result of growing freight transport activity along specific corridors, in particular where these corridors cross urban areas with heavy local traffic.

The share of zero-emission vehicles in the total heavy goods vehicles stock is projected at 5% in 2030, going up to 30% in 2040 and 71% in 2050 in the baseline scenario. In terms of tonne-kilometres, zero-emission heavy goods vehicles are projected to account for 136.8 billion tonne-kilometres in 2030 (around 7% of total tonne-kilometres by heavy goods vehicles), 1,060.7 billion tonne-kilometres in 2040 (around 48% of the total tonne-kilometres by heavy goods vehicles) and 2,147.3 billion tonne-kilometres in 2050 (around 88% of the total tonne-kilometres by heavy goods vehicles).

CO2 emissions from transport 112 are projected to be 26% lower by 2030 compared to 2015, and 94% lower by 2050. The baseline scenario shows that the emission reductions from the transport sector would contribute towards the ambition of at least 55% emission reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, while relying to a significant extent on technological solutions (i.e. the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles and of renewable and low carbon fuels) and carbon pricing. This would depart from the balanced approach underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the ‘Fit for 55’ package and the staff working document accompanying the REPowerEU initiatives 113 , showing a combined approach of carbon pricing instruments and regulatory-based measures to deliver on the increased climate ambition 114 . NOx emissions are projected to go down by 56% between 2015 and 2030 (87% by 2050), mainly driven by the electrification of the road transport and in particular of the light duty vehicles segment. The decline in particulate matter (PM2.5) would be slightly lower by 2030 at 53% relative to 2015 (91% by 2050) 115 .

Heavy duty vehicles can generate increased wear and tear of infrastructure. In the baseline scenario, the road maintenance costs attributed to HGVs above 32 tonnes are projected to increase from EUR 13.9 billion in 2015 to EUR 15.5 billion in 2030 and EUR 18.9 billion in 2050.

The baseline scenario reflects the projected higher energy prices driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine 116 . Beyond this aspect, it was however not possible to quantify the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the context of the baseline scenario, as there is large uncertainty with respect to its impacts, in particular for the medium to long term. While its impact is felt in terms of trade (e.g. grain, bulk fertilizers and hydrocarbons) and in certain geographical areas, the impact on the baseline of this initiative is expected to be relatively limited. 

5.2.Description of the policy options

Based on the consultation activities and desk research undertaken in the context of the Impact Assessment 117 , the Commission identified a set of individual measures having the potential to address the problem drivers identified in the problem definition in section 2.

The following process was applied for establishing the policy packages: (i) identifying the policy measures which can be discarded based on a first preliminary assessment; (ii) identifying a list of retained policy measures addressing the problems and respective problem drivers; (iii) combining retained measures into policy packages constituting viable policy alternatives for achieving the objectives of the initiative.

5.2.1.Discarded policy measures

Some policy measures considered in the preparatory phase of the impact assessment were discarded based on pre-screening and preliminary assessment of their potential contribution to solving the problems and addressing the problem drivers. These measures include: (i) the mandatory craneability 118 of semitrailers; (ii) mandatory equipping of HDVs with aerodynamic devices; (iii) mandatory equipping of HDVs, exceeding the maximum weights set in the Directive, with on-board weighing (OBW) device. The detailed explanations of the discarded policy measures are provided in Annex 8.

In addition, a simplification of the HDV weights and dimensions regulatory framework based on fit-for-purpose approach has not been considered. First, the issue of weights and dimensions of HDVs is complex and interconnected with various factors, such as road safety, infrastructure capacity, environmental impact, and market competitiveness. Simplifying the regulatory framework while ensuring these aspects are adequately addressed can be very challenging. Secondly, stakeholder interests differ. The weights and dimensions of HDVs involve multiple stakeholders, including manufacturers, transport operators, infrastructure managers, and public authorities. Each stakeholder has specific interests and concerns, which can make it difficult to reach a consensus on a simplified regulatory framework that satisfies all parties involved. Thirdly, there are various technical and operational considerations that have to be addressed. HDVs come in various configurations and are used for different purposes, such as long-haul transport, urban delivery, or specialized operations. Designing a simplified regulatory framework that accommodates these diverse needs and ensures safe and efficient operations can be a considerable challenge.

5.2.2.Retained policy measures

The retained policy measures have been grouped in 3 policy options: policy option A (PO-A), policy option B (PO-B) and policy option C (PO-C). Table 1 provides an overview of the retained policy measures and their links with specific objectives and policy options. A more detailed description of the policy measures is included in Annex 6.

Table 1: Policy options and policy measures

5.2.3.Description of policy options

Policy option A

Policy option A (PO-A) includes seven policy measures that are common to all three policy options. The inclusion of the “common” policy measures in all three policy options reflects the extensive feedback gathered from public and private stakeholders related to their needs, as well as to the current practices and experiences reported by Member States and by the private sector. Both public and private stakeholders were supportive of the common policy measures in the context of the stakeholders’ consultation process 120 . 

PO-A guarantees the minimum progress needed to address all problem drivers and specific objectives, ensuring legal clarity and a certain level of harmonisation of rules consolidating current positive practices. Namely, in relation to Specific Objective 1 (SO1: Remove barriers for the uptake of ZEV and energy-saving technologies & incentivise intermodal transport), PO-A seeks to ensure that zero-emission HDVs and intermodal transport are on equal footing compared to diesel trucks and road-only transport in terms of payload capacity and height of high-cube containers, respectively. To do that PO-A allows extra weight and length to accommodate ZE technologies, including in trailers, semitrailers and dollies and in two-axle rigid buses (PMc1), and allows extra height to accommodate for the transport of high-cube containers used in intermodal operations (PMc2).

PMc1 would address the needs identified in problem drivers 1 and 2. It provides for increasing the maximum gross vehicle combination weight (GVCW) up to a maximum of 4 tonnes 121 , the maximum axle weight, when necessary, and the maximum length up to 90 cm, in order to compensate for the weight and the size of ZE powertrains (i.e. weight of electric batteries and space for hydrogen tanks) thus preventing the loss of payload. This allowance for ZE HDVs would apply to any zero-emission technology installed in any vehicle, including 2-axle rigid buses, which under current rules are excluded from extra weight allowance for ZE powertrains, and any combination of vehicles (motor vehicle, semi/trailers and dollies). As regards the heaviest vehicle combinations, i.e. those with 5 or more axles, this measure would enable a maximum GVCW of 44 tonnes for HDVs in road-only operations and of 46 or 48 tonnes (depending on the axle combination) for HDVs in intermodal operations. The current legal framework allows already circulation of vehicles with a maximum GVCW of up to 46 tonnes in case of ZE HDV (extra 2 t) involved in intermodal transport operations (extra 4 t). PMc1 as well as the measure PMc2 on increasing the height of HDV to accommodate high-cube containers will address the problem driver 3 by ensuring that the technical requirements of HDVs are compatible with technical standards in other modes of transport thus facilitating intermodal operations 122 .

To address the Specific Objective 2 (SO2: Harmonise the rules on maximum W&D of HDV in cross-border operations), PO-A builds on the current practices regarding the excesses in weights and dimensions that have been tolerated or considered lawful by the Member States, in particular, in cross-border transport of 44-tonnes HDV, European Modular System (EMS) and vehicle carriers. A certain level of harmonisation is provided based on the national rules shared among neighbouring Member States. PO-A offers three measures to address Specific Objective 2: PMc3, PMc4 and PMc5. PMc3 aims to further harmonise the maximum permitted weight of 5- and 6-axle HDV in cross-border transport (set at 40t) by including also 5- and 6-axle rigid trucks in scope of the Directive. PMc4 will allow cross-border transport of 44t HDV (articulated vehicles and road trains) and/or EMS between allowing Member States (i.e. Member States that allow such heavier and/or longer vehicles in national transport). Both measures – PMc3 and PMc4 - will address the problem driver 4 by removing unjustified barriers to using heavier/longer vehicles in cross-border operations between Member States that use such vehicles in domestic operations. PMc5 will introduce a harmonised maximum loaded length of vehicle carriers of 20.75m which will also contribute to solving problem driver 4. This measure will also contribute to the harmonisation objective of the intervention by removing the national divergences as regards the type and length of overhangs allowed.

Responding to Specific Objective 3 (SO3: Improve the enforcement of cross-border rules, including for road safety purposes), PO-A improves enforcement by setting a minimum number of controls per million vehicle-km to be performed yearly by Member States as regards compliance of HDVs with the rules on maximum weights (PMc6), corresponding to the median level in the EU. In addition, PO-A provides for a harmonised approach for the voluntary implementation of intelligent access policies 123   based on general principles of accessibility, non-discrimination and interoperability of systems (PMc7). This measure aims to further facilitate efficient enforcement and to prevent a risk of damage to infrastructure and of road safety by some types of heavier and/or longer HDV 124 . These measures will address problem driver 5 and will contribute to stepping up enforcement of the rules in force, providing with a comprehensive framework for the safe and fair circulation of HDVs exceeding the maximum authorised weights and dimensions, including those in support of zero-emission propulsion systems and intermodal transport.

Overall, PO-A is expected to largely contribute to removing the existing regulatory barriers for the uptake of ZE technologies and to indirectly promote the uptake of aerodynamic devices which will render the use of ZE powertrains more efficient (e.g. longer range travelled and longer battery life) by reducing their energy consumption. As regards the harmonisation of the rules, PO-A will sanction existing practices that have proven successful in several Member States in terms of economic and environmental benefits. This policy option will only partially address the fragmentation of the market, given that not all Member States allow any excesses in weights and dimensions in national transport, leaving a variety of rules that would also pose a challenge in terms of enforcement in cross-border operations. The barriers to the development of intermodal transport would also be partially eliminated. This policy option will ensure a common minimum level of enforcement to check maximum permitted weights (total and per axle) and support the voluntary implementation of innovative enforcement tools in a harmonised way, as overload of vehicles is one of the most common infringements and has a direct impact on competition, road safety and damage to road infrastructure.

Policy option B

Policy Option B (PO-B) includes all seven common policy measures and additional ones providing further incentives for the deployment of ZE HDVs, encouraging intermodal transport, more harmonisation in terms of administrative requirements for specific cross-border operations requiring permits and more requirements related to enforcement.

In PO-B, in relation to specific objective 1, support to greening goes further than in PO-A by offering a competitive advantage to road operators using ZEV or being involved in intermodal transport (i.e. by considering lorries, trailers and semitrailers as intermodal transport units). In addition to the common policy measures discussed above, PO-B will address SO1 by two measures. PM1 will allow a fixed 4 extra tonnes for HDV which are ZEV, irrespective of the ZE powertrain technology used, thus addressing problem driver 2. While maintaining the same maximum GVW as in PO-A, this policy measure will incentivise investment in the newest technologies that will become lighter/smaller allowing for gains in payload. Those Member States which already allow the circulation of HDV of up to 44 tonnes will be allowed to continue to do so during a transition period also in cross-border traffic, as enabled by PO-A 125 . 

PM2 will address problem driver 3 by aligning the definition of intermodal transport in the W&D Directive with the Combined Transport Directive in order to consider semitrailers as intermodal transport units (now limited to containers and swap bodies) 126 . As a consequence, HDVs for which trailers or semitrailers are used for intermodal operations would benefit from 4 additional tonnes of payload as there is no weight of empty containers or swap bodies to be compensated. This extra weight allowance will cover also compensation for the weight of craneable semitrailers, which is estimated between 200 kg and 1 tonne 127 . To verify whether the transport loading unit was/will be used in intermodal operation, controllers can currently check a consignment note (CMR 128 ) in combination with evidence of reloading, from other modes operators 129 . These controls will be facilitated by the implementation of eFTI (Electronic Freight Transport Information) Regulation 130  as operators will be able to record all the freight transport data in a digital format in a certified eFTI platform prior to an operation, and authorities would have access to this data for control purposes. 

In relation to specific objective 2, PO-B goes further than PO-A by providing for limited harmonisation of the market sector of indivisible loads, where a first step was made with the adoption of the Best Practice Guidance for Abnormal Transport. PO-B will address SO2 and contribute to solving problem driver 4 by adding a measure (PM4) on harmonisation of the requirements and procedures for issuing permits (currently subject to different national rules) for performing transport of indivisible load requiring longer HDVs. The measure envisages the implementation of the one-stop-shop concept, at national level, for the submission of applications for national permits at a single national location and the use of digital documents. Public administrations where the one-stop-shop is not yet implemented will have to adapt their national procedures to handle permission requests. The use of a digital document, namely the introduction of a common abnormal road transport registration document at EU level, could be done in two stages. The first stage would be the mutual acceptance between Member States of existing abnormal road transport registration documents. The second stage would be to agree on the SERT document and its utilisation by the EU permit granting authorities.

Finally, to address SO3 and contribute to solving problem diver 5, PO-B imposes a minimum amount of Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) systems to be deployed by Member States on the TEN-T network (every 300 km) for targeting controls 131  (PM6). This measure will also entail an assessment of the most adequate locations within the TEN-T network to install such systems. This measure aims to further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of controls and contribute to improving compliance.

Policy Option B is expected to further increase the greening impact of the intervention, by providing additional incentives (e.g. potential extra payload to the deployment of ZEV). The aim is to incentivise the uptake of ZEV as well as of aerodynamic devices and cabs which will allow lighter technologies by reducing the energy consumption and increasing the vehicle autonomy (range between the charging/refuelling points). This policy option will further facilitate intermodal transport operations in which semitrailers are used as intermodal loading units, remove current fragmentation of the market for the transport of indivisible loads and strengthen enforcement via more targeted controls.

Policy Option C

PO-C includes all seven common policy measures, two measures (PM2 and PM4) from PO-B and four additional measures. Altogether, this policy option is the most ambitious in terms of decarbonisation, harmonisation and enforcement efforts.

PO-C will strengthen SO1 by one additional measure - PM3 which will allow international operations (intra-EU) by EMS1 (of up to 25.25m long and 60 tonnes of GVCW), at least on the core and comprehensive TEN-T network, under the condition that they are ZEV or involved in intermodal transport operation. PM3 will thus address problem drivers 2 and 3. The verification of the intermodal nature of the operation, will be facilitated by certified eFTI platforms containing all data related to the cargo and its movements, including transport modes used through the entire transport operation chain. An assessment of the TEN-T network by Member States will also be necessary, in particular to ensure the manoeuvrability and visibility of EMS at critical infrastructure points, such as roundabouts, and the suitability of the network to bear the increased weight of the vehicle combinations. This assessment could take advantage of the gap analysis conducted under EU Action Plan on military mobility, as military transport share many of the critical aspects with EMS. Those Member States which already allow the circulation of non-ZE EMS would be allowed to continue to do so during a transition period in cross-border traffic, as enabled by Policy Option A.

PO-C will further contribute to SO2 by setting “abnormal transport corridors” for indivisible loads (PM5) thus addressing problem driver 4. With this measure abnormal transport (carriage of indivisible loads) would be allowed within those corridors, including crossing borders, without the need for national permits.

Finally, to address SO3, PO-C proposes two measures that contribute to solving problem driver 5. PM7 will require a minimum amount of certified Weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems to be deployed in the TEN-T network (every 300 km) allowing for automated enforcement (from detecting the overweight vehicles to automatically issuing a penalty or alerting authorities for further action). The certified WIM systems will significantly increase their effectivity (controls could be performed 24h/7d) by reducing the need for additional resources (certified secondary scales and enforcement officers at the site) and replacing random ineffective roadside controls. The measure will increase the cost of the systems and require their certification and regular calibration. This policy measure is directly related to PM3, allowing EMS in the TEN-T network, and to PM5 requiring setting international abnormal transport corridors primarily on the TEN-T network. PM8 will require EMS to comply with higher safety standards for HDV than those provided for in the General Safety Regulation, such as a minimum power engine or side-warning devices. It will also require that drivers of EMS have a minimum number of years of experience driving HDV for which an EC driving licence is required or completing a specific training course for EMS drivers. This policy measure is directly related to PM3.

While the cross-border transport of EMS is envisaged in all policy options via PMc4, it is limited to traffic between those Member States that already allow them. These “allowing” Member States have tested EMS and assessed their impacts in terms of road safety, infrastructure protection and modal cooperation and they have reported, among others, that the use of EMS leads naturally to the renewal of the fleet (operators tend to acquire new vehicles to be used in EMS combinations), which brings safety improvements due to more modern vehicles, and that operators also employ their best and most experienced drivers to drive EMS.

Building on PO-A and PO-B, Policy Option C aims to bring higher operational efficiency of road transport and higher environmental benefits, in particular, by allowing for a wider use of EMS at EU level and by linking them with ZE technologies and/or intermodal operations. PO-C will thus provide a higher level of harmonisation and environmental performance. Road safety and better enforcement of the rules in force are also addressed for these vehicles, with more stringent conditions related to the vehicle specifications and to driver’s experience.

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

This section summarises the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts of each policy option 132 . The proposed measures included in the policy options are assumed to be implemented from 2025 onwards, so the assessment has been performed for the period 2025-2050 and covers EU27. Costs and benefits are expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, using a 3% discount rate. Further details on the methodological approach are provided in Annex 4.

6.1.Economic impact

The assessment of the economic impacts includes the costs and benefits which the various policy options entail for public administrations, the European Commission and road transport operators. In addition, this section covers the impacts on the functioning of the internal market and competition, SMEs and competitiveness, and digital by default.

6.1.1.Impact on public administrations

All policy options are expected to lead to adjustment costs, administrative costs and adjustment costs savings for national authorities. In addition, PO-B and PO-C are also expected to result in administrative costs savings. Each category of costs/costs savings is discussed below (see also  Table 2 to Table 4 ), while a detailed analysis including the estimates and the assumptions used for deriving the costs and costs savings for each policy measure included in each policy option is provided in Annex 4.

Adjustment costs for Member States administrations. The recurrent adjustment costs for MS administrations in 2030, 2040 and 2050 relative to the baseline are provided in Table 2 , while the one-off costs are shown in Table 3 Error! Reference source not found. . In terms of recurrent costs, PO-A is estimated to result in the lowest additional costs among the options (EUR 46.6 million in 2030 going down to zero up to 2050) relative to the baseline. These costs relate to the maintenance of road infrastructure, due to the extra weight allowance for ZEV in PMc1 (included in PO-A). They are projected to decrease over time due to the improvement in technology, leading to the reduction of the weight of the batteries, and the lower number of trips required for transporting the same amount of cargo. It should also be noted that in PMc1, the purpose of the extra length and weight for ZE technologies is only to prevent the loss of payload capacity and/or range in comparison with diesel vehicles. The recurrent adjustment costs are higher in PO-C (EUR 50.3 million in 2030 and EUR 3.7 million in 2050), which in addition to the maintenance costs for road infrastructure due to PMc1 also includes the recurrent costs for the calibration of the Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) systems (PM7). PO-B shows the highest recurrent adjustment costs among the options (EUR 71.6 million in 2030 and EUR 547.5 million in 2050), relative to the baseline, driven by the combined effect of PMc1 and PM1. It should be noted that in PM1 the extra weight for HDV which are ZEV is granted regardless of the weight of the ZE technology used and thus the impact on maintenance costs of road infrastructure, as explained in Annex 4, is estimated to be significantly higher.

In addition, PO-A is estimated to result in one-off adjustment costs (see  Table 3 ) of EUR 10.5 million for updating the inventory of bridges and tunnels (PMc2). In PO-B, in addition to the costs related to updating the inventory of bridges and tunnels, one-off adjustment costs are expected for the implementation of the one-stop-shop principle at national level (PM4) and the deployment of Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) systems every 300 km in the TEN-T network (PM6). Thus, total one-off adjustment costs in PO-B are estimated at EUR 102.7 million. PO-C shows the highest one-off adjustment costs relative to the baseline (EUR 7.7 billion), mainly due to the adaptation costs for infrastructure and reinforcement costs for bridges in PM3 133 .

Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, total adjustment costs for Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 446.6 million in PO-A, EUR 4.3 billion in PO-B and EUR 8.3 billion in PO-C relative to the baseline (see Table 4 ). Over 95% of total adjustment costs for Member States administrations in all policy options relate to maintenance and reinforcement of road infrastructure.

Administrative costs for Member States administrations. PO-B and PO-C are estimated to lead to recurrent administrative costs (EUR 0.9 million per year from 2025 onwards) driven by the maintenance and management of the one-stop-shop systems at national level for the submission of applications and the Special European Registration of Trucks and Trailers (PM4 in both PO-B and PO-C) 134 . In PO-A, the recurrent administrative costs (EUR 39.1 million in 2030 and EUR 48.7 million in 2050) are driven by the obligation to conduct a minimum level of checks on HDV’s weight (PMc6) 135 . In addition, in PO-C one-off administrative costs for inspections will be needed to assess the suitability of the infrastructure to accommodate EMS 136 . Total administrative costs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 4 ), are estimated to be the highest in PO-A (EUR 762.7 million), followed by PO-C (EUR 25.4 million) and PO-B (EUR 16.4 million).

Administrative costs savings for Member States administrations. PO-B and PO-C are also expected to result in administrative costs savings for Member States administrations. The implementation of the one-stop-shop systems at national level is estimated to lead to costs savings for processing the permit requests by public authorities (PM4) in both PO-B and PO-C (EUR 81.5 million in 2030 and EUR 64.1 million in 2050, relative to the baseline). In addition, in PO-B the non-certified WIM systems are expected to considerably increase the effectiveness of controls for pre-identifying the HDVs that are likely to be overloaded, although some manual/roadside checks would remain necessary. The reduction in the number of manual/roadside checks is estimated to lead to costs savings of EUR 1.1 billion in 2030 and EUR 1.5 billion in 2050 relative to the baseline, considering the combined effect of PM6 and PMc6 in PO-B. In PO-C, the certified WIM systems (PM7) eliminate the need for roadside controls with certified scales in the TEN-T network, where 67% of the circulation of HDVs occurs. PM7 will allow Member States to reach the minimum level of controls envisaged by PMc6 while increasing the ratio of infractions detected and will reduce the administrative costs for public authorities linked to roadside inspections (EUR 1.1 billion in 2030 and EUR 1.5 billion in 2050, relative to the baseline). In addition, setting international transport corridors for indivisible loads (PM5) in PO-C would result in additional costs savings for public authorities due to a reduction in the time for processing the permits (EUR 5.8 million in 2030 and EUR 8.4 million in 2050). Total administrative costs savings, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (see Table 4 ), are estimated at EUR 22.8 billion in PO-B and EUR 23.6 billion in PO-C relative to the baseline.  

Adjustment costs savings for Member States administrations. The adjustments costs savings for Member States authorities (see Table 2 ) are related in all policy options to a reduction in the maintenance costs for road infrastructure. This is an effect of a decrease in the number of trips and road transport activity in vehicle-kilometres relative to the baseline, driven by an increase in payload (PMc3, PMc4), the shift from road-only to intermodal transport (PM2, PM3) or the reduction in the frequency and severity of overloading practices (PMc6, PM6, PM7). The total adjustment costs savings are estimated to be the highest in PO-C (EUR 377.3 million in 2030 and EUR 487.9 million in 2050), followed by PO-B (EUR 154.4 million in 2030 and EUR 188.9 million in 2050) and PO-A (EUR 31 million in 2030 and EUR 38 million in 2050). Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (see Table 4 ), the adjustment costs savings for Member States administrations are estimated at EUR 7.5 billion in PO-C, EUR 3 billion in PO-B and EUR 0.6 billion in PO-A. 

Net costs savings/net costs for Member States administrations. As shown in  Table 2 , PO-B and PO-C are estimated to result in net costs savings relative to the baseline in 2030, 2040 and 2050 while PO-A would result in net costs for Member States administrations. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, PO-C is projected to lead to net costs savings of EUR 22.8 billion and PO-B to net costs savings of EUR 21.5 billion, while PO-A would result in net costs of EUR 0.6 billion relative to the baseline (see Table 4 ). 

Table 2: Recurrent costs and costs savings for public administrations in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in 2030, 2040 and 2050, in million EUR (2022 prices) 

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study; Note: negative values for ‘Net costs savings/net costs’ represent net costs.

Table 3: One-off costs for public administrations in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in million EUR (2022 prices)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study

Table 4: Costs and costs savings for public authorities by policy option and measure relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (in million EUR, 2022 prices)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study; Note: The baseline scenario is also expressed as present value over 2025-2050, for consistency reasons. Negative values for ‘Net costs savings/net costs’ represent net costs.

6.1.2.Impact on the European Commission

Adjustment costs for the European Commission. All policy options are expected to lead to adjustment costs for the European Commission. For PMc7 (included in all policy options), the development of IAP standards will proceed in two steps. First, a study will be carried out followed by the use of the findings and the assessment of the study to draft the standards assisted by an expert group. The cost of the initial study is estimated at EUR 400,000. The average cost for a two-day workshop hosted by European Commission (EC), where participants are reimbursed by the EC is estimated at around EUR 30,000. Two of such in-person workshops may be required as well as two online meetings. Compensation for the experts contributing to the meetings is estimated at EUR 5,000 for each meeting. Therefore, the one-off adjustment costs for PMc7 are estimated at EUR 0.47 million. For PM4 (included in both PO-B and PO-C), technical and operational standards for information exchange will need to be established. This will also be done in two steps. A study will be carried out to compile the required elements and propose several options for the establishment of the standards. In a second stage, the findings and assessment of the study will be used to draft the standards with the help of an expert group. The one-off adjustment costs for PM4 are estimated at EUR 0.46 million. For PM8 (included in PO-C) the reinforced safety features in vehicles beyond the General Safety Regulation and Type Approval legal framework are also expected to be developed with the help of an expert group, drawing on a study commissioned by the European Commission. The one-off adjustment costs for PM8 are estimated at EUR 0.47 million 137 . Thus, total one-off adjustment costs for the European Commission are estimated at EUR 0.47 million in PO-A, EUR 0.93 million in PO-B and EUR 1.4 million in PO-C relative to the baseline.

6.1.3.Impact on road transport operators

All policy options are expected to result in adjustment costs but also in adjustment costs savings and administrative costs savings for road transport operators (see Table 5 and Table 6 ). Detailed explanations on the estimates and assumptions used for deriving the costs and costs savings for each policy measure included in each policy option are provided in Annex 4. In addition, this section also provides the impacts on the transport activity performed by zero-emission vehicles.

Adjustment costs for road transport operators. In PO-A, the reinforced Member States obligation to conduct a minimum number of checks of HDV's weight (PMc6) is expected to lead to additional costs for road transport operators for cooperating with public authorities for performing the manual/roadside checks and also to additional operation costs for the operators that were operating overloaded trucks (i.e. non-compliant operators) in the baseline and now comply with the weight limits. The additional operation costs for non-compliant operators are due to the need of performing more vehicle-kilometres to transport the same quantity of goods. For PO-A, the recurrent adjustment costs for transport operators are thus estimated at EUR 32.7 million in 2030 and EUR 41.7 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see  Table 5 ). In PO-B, the joint effect of the reinforced Member States obligation to conduct a minimum number of checks of HDV's weight (PMc6) and the requirements on the installation of WIM systems (PM6) enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of controls. PO-B achieves higher level of compliance than PO-A with lower number of manual/roadside checks than in the baseline, due to the use of WIM systems as a filter to pre-identify HDV that are likely to be overloaded. The adjustment costs for non-compliant operators are estimated to be higher in PO-B than in PO-A (EUR 107.3 million in 2030 and EUR 140.1 million in 2050, relative to the baseline) due to the higher number of vehicle-kilometres to transport the same quantity of goods. In PO-C, the joint effect of the requirement on a minimum amount of certified Weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems and PMc6 will significantly increase the effectiveness of controls, relative to PO-A and PO-B, and the operation costs for non-compliant operators (EUR 265 million in 2030 and EUR 346.9 million in 2050, relative to the baseline), with controls potentially being carried out 24 hours per day while eliminating the need for ad-hoc manual/roadside checks. By minimising the proportion of overloaded vehicles, compliant operators will benefit from a levelled playing field. PO-C additionally includes adjustment costs related to the requirement for EMS to comply with higher safety standards for HDV under PM8, for training EMS drivers under PM8 138 . Thus, PO-C results in adjustment costs estimated at EUR 295 million in 2030 and EUR 381.8 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the adjustment costs for road transport operators are estimated at EUR 6.8 billion in PO-C, EUR 2.1 billion in PO-B and EUR 0.6 billion in PO-A (see Table 6 ). 

Adjustment costs savings for road transport operators. In PO-A, the extra length and weight to accommodate ZE technologies (PMc1), the harmonisation of the maximum permitted weight of 5- and 6-axle HDV in cross-border transport (PMc3), allowing cross-border transport of 44t and EMS between "allowing" MS (PMc4) and the harmonisation of the loaded length of vehicle carriers (PMc5) leads to operation costs savings for road transport operators due to the increase in the average payload and the reduction in the number of trips (see Table 5 ). The total adjustment costs savings for PO-A are estimated at EUR 603.4 million in 2030 and EUR 793.2 million in 2050, relative to the baseline. In PO-B, the combined effect of PMc1 and PM1 (allowing 4 extra tonnes for HDV for ZEVs, irrespective of the ZE powertrain technology) leads to higher operation costs savings for road transport operators than in PO-A, due to the increase in the average payload and the larger reduction in the number of trips. In addition, aligning the definition of intermodal transport with the Combined Transport Directive (PM2) results in adjustment costs savings due to the shift from road-only to intermodal operations, while PM6 and PMc6 lead to lower costs relative to the baseline due to the reduced time required for cooperating with the public authorities for manual/roadside weight checks. Thus, PO-B is estimated to lead to total adjustment costs savings for road transport operators of EUR 2.1 billion in 2030 and EUR 2.9 billion in 2050, relative to the baseline. In PO-C, the common measures for all options (PMc1, PMc3, PMc4, PMc5) and the common measure with PO-B (PM2) lead to similar adjustment costs savings. However, PO-C additionally results in operation costs savings due to the extra payload allowed through the use of EMS1 in the core and comprehensive TEN-T network, conditioned to be ZEV or part of an intermodal transport operation (PM3) and lower costs relative to the baseline due to the reduced time required for cooperating with the public authorities for manual/roadside weight checks (PM7 and PMc6). The costs savings for PM7 and PMc6, relative to the baseline, are larger than those for PM6 and PMc6 (included in PO-B), due to the elimination of the need for ad-hoc manual/roadside checks thanks to the use of certified WIM systems. PO-C is thus expected to result in total adjustment costs savings for transport operators, estimated at EUR 2.3 billion in 2030 and EUR 3.7 billion in 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 6 ), total adjustment costs savings for road transport operators are estimated to be the highest in PO-C (EUR 49.1 billion), followed by PO-B (EUR 42.8 billion) and PO-A (EUR 12.1 billion).

Administrative costs savings for road transport operators. All policy options result in administrative costs savings for road transport operators (see  Table 5 ). In PO-A, allowing for extra height (+0.3m) to accommodate high-cube containers in intermodal transport (PMc2) eliminates the administrative costs linked to the authorisation of higher trucks (i.e. the costs of permits). PO-A is estimated to lead to administrative costs savings of EUR 168.5 million in 2030 and EUR 196.9 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. The average number of permits over 2025-2035 is estimated at 2.37 million per year. Considering the cost per permit of EUR 70, based on the stakeholders’ consultation activities, the average annual cost savings are estimated at EUR 165.9 million. These administrative costs savings are not subject to the application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach.

PO-B results in higher total administrative costs savings (EUR 250.3 million in 2030 and EUR 261.1 million in 2050, relative to the baseline) than PO-A due to the reduction in the time needed to prepare and submit the requests for the issuance of special permits for the transport of indivisible loads 139 , 140 , driven by the application of the one-stop-shop principles at national level and the digitalisation of documents (PM4). For PM4, for the purpose of the application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach, the annual average cost saving per permit over 2025-2035 has been estimated at EUR 64.1. Considering the average number of permits over 2025-2035, estimated at 1.12 million, the average annual cost savings are estimated at EUR 71.8 million.

Total administrative costs savings for road transport operators in PO-C are estimated at EUR 256.2 million in 2030 and EUR 269.4 million in 2050, relative to the baseline. PO-C additionally envisages (in addition to PMc2 and PM4) setting abnormal transport corridors for indivisible loads up to certain excesses in W&D and for EMS (PM5). Road transport operators are expected to benefit from the simplification of procedures under PM5. Permits will continue to be required for all trips as any trip will always begin or end outside the TEN-T network. However, PM5 is expected to result in a reduction of the time needed for preparing and submitting the request for the permits. The annual average cost saving per permit over 2025-2035 has been estimated at EUR 5.3. Considering the average number of permits over 2025-2035, estimated at 1.12 million, the average annual cost savings due to PM5 are estimated at EUR 5.9 million for the purpose of the application of the ‘one in, one out’.

Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 6 ), total administrative costs savings for road transport operators are estimated to be the highest in PO-C (EUR 4.5 billion), followed by PO-B (EUR 4.4 billion) and PO-A (EUR 3.2 billion).  

Table 5: Recurrent costs and costs savings for transport operators in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in 2030, 2040 and 2050, in million EUR (2022 prices)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study; Note: negative values for ‘adjustment costs savings’ represent net costs.

Table 6: Costs and costs savings for road transport operators by policy option and measure relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (in million EUR, 2022 prices)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study; Note: the baseline scenario is also expressed as present value over 2025-2050, for consistency reasons.  

Net costs savings for road transport operators. As shown in  Table 5 , all policy options are expected to result in net costs savings for road transport operators relative to the baseline in 2030, 2040 and 2050. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050 (see Table 6 ), PO-C is projected to lead to the highest net costs savings (EUR 46.8 billion) followed by PO-B (EUR 45.1 billion) and PO-A (EUR 14.7 billion).

Transport activity performed by zero-emission vehicles. The measures incentivising the uptake of zero-emission HDVs (PMc1 and PMc4 in PO-A, PMc1, PMc4 and PM1 in PO-B and PMc1, PMc4 and PM3 in PO-C) are estimated to lead to a reduction in the operation costs per tonne for these vehicles relative to the baseline, due to the higher average payload relative to the baseline. The combined effect of the reduction in the operation costs per tonne and higher average payload is the increase in the transport activity in tonnes and tonne-kilometres for the zero-emission vehicles, coupled with a decrease in the number of trips and vehicle-kilometres driven relative to the baseline.

As explained in Annex 4 (section 1), based on literature review 141 , 142 , the price elasticity of demand for road transport (-0.3) is used to calculate the changes in the number of tonnes transported by road, relative to the baseline, due to the changes in the transport costs per unit of transport. In addition, a price elasticity of -0.1 is used to reflect rebound effects due to the use of more energy-efficient vehicles, with lower operating costs. The changes in transport activity in tonnes-kilometres due to the policy measures relative to the baseline are calculated based on the changes in transport activity in tonnes and the average mileage per origin-destination from the baseline scenario. In the following step, the changes in the number of trips are derived using the average payload corresponding to the policy measures 143 and the activity in tonne-kilometres. The activity in vehicle-kilometres is further derived by multiplying the number of trips with the average mileage per origin-destination from the baseline scenario.

The increase in the transport activity of zero-emission vehicles by policy option relative to the baseline (in billion tonne-kilometres and percentage change to the baseline) for 2030, 2040 and 2050 is provided in Table 7 . 

Table 7: Increase in transport activity of zero-emission vehicles by policy option relative to the baseline (in billion tonne-kilometres and percentage change to the baseline)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

In addition, sensitivity analysis has been performed to show the impacts of different price elasticities of demand for road transport on the transport activity by ZEV. Two cases have been considered: (i) case A, using a price elasticity of demand of -0.2, and (ii) case B, using a price elasticity of demand of -0.4. These are to be compared with the central case, using a price elasticity of demand of -0.3 (see Table 7 ). Considering the range of elasticities, the transport activity performed by ZEV is estimated to increase in PO-A by 0.8 to 1.4% in 2030 and 0.1 to 0.2% in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 8 ). The increase would be higher in PO-B, estimated at 2.7 to 5.2% in 2030 and 0.3 to 0.5% in 2050 relative to the baseline, and the highest in PO-C (4.9 to 5.7% in 2030 and around 1.7% in 2050 relative to the baseline). The ranking of the policy options in terms of transport activity performed by ZEV remains unchanged considering the different price elasticities of demand for road transport.

Table 8: Increase in transport activity of zero-emission vehicles by policy option relative to the baseline in case A and case B (in billion tonne-kilometres and percentage change to the baseline)

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

6.1.4.Impact on the internal market and competition of the road transport sector

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market. Removing the barriers to the free movement of goods via the harmonisation of the rules allows road transport operators to provide transport services more efficiently for the benefit of the customers throughout the EU. The harmonisation measures in PO-A (PMc3, PMc4 and PMc5) will remove the main barrier to cross-border operations by heavier/longer HDVs between “allowing” Member States, while Member States will retain the flexibility to adapt the rules for domestic operations to national circumstances, such as infrastructure standards and operational conditions. PO-B and PO-C will, in addition, streamline and digitalise the authorisation procedures for the issuing of national permits for the transport of indivisible loads (PM4 in PO-B and PO-C) and further simplify procedures by setting abnormal transport corridors for indivisible loads (PM5 in PO-C) improving transport services, as well as reducing unauthorised runs.

A higher level of compliance with the rules on the maximum authorised weight and axle weight of HDV will contribute to eliminating unfair business practices. All policy options set a minimum level of controls, as envisaged by PMc6, as well as a harmonised approach to the voluntary implementation of intelligent access policies (PMc7). The efficiency and effectiveness of such controls on compliance with the maximum authorised weights is further strengthened in PO-B by the deployment of WIM systems in the TEN-T network for targeting controls (PM6). PO-C will in addition require the certification of WIM systems to allow for direct (automatic) enforcement in the TEN-T network (PM7), eliminating the need to deploy inspectors to carry out roadside checks, analyse the findings and issue fines.

6.1.5.Impact on the competitiveness of the road, rail, inland waterways and intermodal transport sectors

The main positive impact on the competitiveness of the road transport sector is linked to the common policy measures addressing the Specific Objective 2 (SO2: Harmonise the rules on maximum W&D of HDV in cross-border operations), namely PMc3, PMc4 and PMc5. They aim at removing existing barriers to cross-border road freight transport and improving the efficiency of road transport operations. At the same time, the improved competitiveness of road freight transport needs to be achieved without attracting freight transport from other modes with generally even lower externalities, namely rail and waterborne transport, which would affect the competitiveness of those sectors. For this reason, all policy options include policy measures supporting intermodal transport 144 .

The possible impact of the policy options on modal shift has also been assessed. More specifically, the changes in transport activity due to the changes in the road transport prices and due to the changes in the relative prices between transport modes are assessed based on price elasticities from the literature. Two sources 145 , 146 have been identified that look at elasticities for the EU freight transport sector and have been used for the assessment, as explained in section 1 of Annex 4.

Given that PMc4 (included in all policy options) generally extends the use of EMS and 44t HDV in cross-border transport without any distance limitation, while other modes are considered more suitable for long distance transport, the reverse modal shift from rail and inland navigation towards road has been estimated based on the potential reduction in the costs of the road transport services and the cross-price elasticities of demand (see Annex 4) 147 . This is estimated at 4.9 billion tonne-kilometres in 2030 and 5.5 billion tonne-kilometres in 2050 relative to the baseline, or 0.7% of the total rail and inland navigation activity in the baseline in 2030 and 0.6% in 2050.

At the same time, PO-A is expected to increase the efficiency of intermodal transport of high-cube containers (PMc2) and enable the use of ZE HDVs in intermodal containerised operations as the extra weight and length for ZEVs provided under PMc1 can be combined with the extra weight granted to HDV involved in intermodal transport. The shift from road-only to intermodal transport is estimated at around 12 billion tonne-kilometres in 2030 and 14 billion tonne-kilometres in 2050, relative to the baseline, as explained in Annex 4. The risks of reverse modal shift will be further mitigated in PO-B, as PM2 will further support intermodal transport by considering trailers and semitrailers as intermodal loading units. This measure will render a non-containerised intermodal transport more attractive to the operators using standard vehicles, who will be able to benefit from the 4t extra weight for intermodal operations (see Annex 4 for more details). In addition, PO-B will require that as of 2035, 44-t HDV that are used in cross-border non-intermodal operations between allowing Member States (under PMc4) are ZEV (PM1). The shift from road-only to intermodal transport in PO-B is estimated at around 21 billion tonne-kilometres in 2030 and 26 billion tonne-kilometres in 2050, relative to the baseline. PO-C will enable further reductions in transport costs, alongside with further incentives for the uptake of ZEV and intermodal transport, thanks to PM3 which allows for the circulation of EMS in international (intra-EU) transport on TEN-T network provided that they are either ZEV or part of an intermodal transport operation (see Annex 4). The shift from road-only to intermodal transport in PO-C is estimated at around 23 billion tonne-kilometres in 2030 and 28 billion tonne-kilometres in 2050, relative to the baseline.

In addition, the sector of indivisible loads transport will benefit from the streamlining of the procedures to obtain national permits, including the digitalisation of documents (PM4) in PO-B and PO-C, while PO-C will further improve the efficiency of this market segment by setting abnormal transport corridors which will further simplify the authorisation of abnormal transport in certain cases.

All policy options may improve the international competitiveness of the EU commercial road transport sector by making it greener and more efficient, including by encouraging involvement in intermodal operations. They may also positively affect the road transport sector’s capacity to innovate, by providing incentives to the deployment of zero-emission HDVs and intermodal operations that may drive innovation in logistics and supply chain management.

6.1.6.Impact on small and medium enterprises (SMEs)

In the road transport sector 99% of companies are SMEs (enterprises employing up to 250 people and with a turnover of less than EUR 50 million 148 , 149 ). Intermodal transport involves by definition many different economic agents. While many operators in rail transport and shipping are medium and some even large companies, operators in inland waterways and many intermodal organisers are often SMEs. Therefore, the initiative is considered relevant for the SMEs and the SME test has been performed (see Annex 11).

As explained in section 6.1.3, all policy options are expected to result in net costs savings for road transport operators, estimated at EUR 46.8 billion in PO-C, followed by PO-B with net costs savings estimated at EUR 45.1 billion and PO-A with net costs savings of EUR 14.7 billion, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (in 2022 prices). Considering the very large share of SMEs in the road transport sector, most of these net costs savings are expected to be attributed to them although the available data did not allow a split of these costs savings between the two groups of operators (i.e. SME and others). In addition, the increase in intermodal transport in all policy options will have a positive economic impact on the SMEs involved, which the highest benefits expected in PO-C and PO-B.

6.1.7.Digital by default

PO-B and PO-C are expected to have a positive impact on the application of the ‘digital by default’ principle, by stimulating the transition to the digitalisation of documents (e.g. permits for abnormal transport) and transport data related to cargo, vehicle, route, etc. (e.g. on eFTI platforms) due to PM4.

6.2.Social impact

The social impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on road safety, health and fundamental rights.

6.2.1.Road safety

All policy options are estimated to reduce the number of fatalities from road accidents in which HDVs are involved. The main driver is the reduction in the number of trips and vehicle-kilometres driven relative to the baseline due to the increased payload of HDVs (the same amount of goods transported with less vehicles) and the shift from road-only to intermodal transport. Thus, the risk exposure is reduced, offsetting the potential higher risk represented by heavier and/or bigger HDVs. Cumulatively, over the period 2025-2050, PO-A is estimated to result in 237 lives saved and to lead to a reduction in the external costs of accidents by EUR 0.5 billion relative to the baseline (expressed as present value over 2025-2050). PO-B is expected to result in 411 lives saved and external costs savings of roughly EUR 0.9 billion, while PO-C accounts for 642 lives saved and external costs savings of approximately EUR 1.4 billion over the same period 150 .

Two factors were considered in assessing the impacts of the policy measures on road safety: i) the change in risk per vehicle-kilometre relative to the baseline, and ii) the change in the number of vehicle-kilometres driven relative to the baseline. The change in the risk factor associated to each policy measure draws on literature review and additional analysis performed in the context of the impact assessment support study. The changes in the vehicle-kilometres driven are derived for each policy measure, drawing on the changes in costs and price elasticities.

For the risk factor, as explained in section 4 of Annex 4, the assessment was based, on the one hand, on literature focusing on engineering predictions, which studies the engineering effects of overloading vehicles both within and beyond their design limit as well as the specific additional risks of EMS of 60 tonnes versus standard 44 tonne HGVs 151 . On the other hand, post-hoc statistical methods were also considered. These included a comparison of the fatality rates of different vehicles within existing length limits (16.5/18.75) by gross vehicle weight (GVW) and number of axles 152 , which was updated and extended to smaller vehicles in the context of the impact assessment support study, and a comparison of EMS with HGVs of up to 40 tonnes and 18.75m in Sweden 153 , which found that the actual fatality rate in the EMS group was 21% lower than that for the 40 tonne vehicles.

Policy measures PMc1, PM1 and PMc3 envisage a modest increase in the mass of HDVs. Based on the sources mentioned above, for PMc1 and PM1, the increase in mass from 42 tonnes to 44 tonnes was considered to increase the risk by 0.5%. In PMc3, permitting 5 and 6-axle rigid vehicles was estimated to lead to a 1% risk increase. It should be noted that this factor represents an increase in risk per vehicle. Given that the measures lead to an overall decrease in the number of vehicle-kilometres driven, the overall effect is a decrease in the number of fatalities.

PMc4, PM3 and PM8 envisage larger capacity increases connected to EMS. Engineering assessments show a large increase in risk per km, associated with the larger weight gain and the addition of length related risks (e.g. poor manoeuvrability) 154 . However, statistical observations suggest a reduction in the risk per kilometre associated with EMS compared with standard vehicles 155 . This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that EMS are implemented with additional safety features compared to standard HGVs and that they are used differently than standard HGVs such that their exposure to risk is different (e.g. more of their time is spent on safer parts of the road network). Operators also tend to use their best drivers on EMS. The anecdotal evidence suggests that drivers of EMS drive them more carefully than they would drive a standard HGV because of the perception of increased difficulty and risk that the additional length and articulation point brings. Moreover, EMS tend to be newer compared to other HGVs and are thus equipped with more modern safety features than the average HGV. Taking into account all these factors, a 5% reduction in risk has been estimated for PMc4 and PM3, which is further reduced to 6% with the introduction of PM8. Here again, besides the inherent risk per vehicle, the effect of the measures on the number of vehicle-kilometres has been taken into account to calculate the overall impact on road safety.

For PMc5 (i.e. vehicle carriers), it was considered that front and rear overhangs, that cause additional swept path that fall outside of turning circle limits, would be the main risk rather than load. Based on an analysis of collision data identifying typical manoeuvring related collisions, undertaken in the context of the support study, it was estimated that PMc5 would increase the fatality risk of each vehicle by 0.02%. As in previous cases, the effect of the measure on the number of vehicle-kilometres has been taken into account to calculate the overall impact on road safety.

PMc6, PM6, and PM7 reduce the number of overloaded vehicles. When the overloaded vehicles are within their design limit, the effect on safety risk per kilometre is expected to be the same as for legally loaded vehicles. However, when overloads go above the design limit the safety risks substantially increase. No studies were identified that could provide a quantification of the scale of this increase. Based on expert opinion in the context of the support study, 2% higher risk per kilometre was assumed for all overloaded vehicles compared to the legally loaded vehicles.

6.2.2.Impacts on health

All policy options are expected to reduce air pollutant and noise emissions as a consequence of the uptake of ZEV, which will progressively increase their share in the HDV fleet as shown in section 6.1.3, but also due to the reduction in the number of trips and thus vehicle-kilometres driven. The reduction in the external costs of air pollution (in terms of impacts on human health) and noise will benefit society by improving the quality of the air and reducing the acoustic contamination. It will also improve the working conditions of HDVs drivers thanks to the reduced levels of noise and vibrations inside the vehicles. PO-A is estimated to result in external costs savings for air pollutant emissions (NOx and Particulate Matter) estimated at EUR 1.6 billion, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, while PO-B results in external costs savings of EUR 2.1 billion, and PO-C of EUR 6.2 billion. With regard to acoustic contamination, the external costs of noise emissions are projected to decline by EUR 0.6 billion in PO-A, EUR 0.7 billion in PO-B and EUR 1 billion in PO-C relative to the baseline 156 . All policy options contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal 3 (“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”).

6.2.3.Impacts on fundamental rights 

The policy options were assessed to determine if they have an impact on the fundamental rights and/or equal treatment of EU citizens. The starting point of the assessment of the fundamental rights is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 157 . All POs were assessed having regard to the relevant EU instrument and it was concluded that they maintain full respect for human and fundamental rights and none will have any negative impact thereon.

6.3.Environmental impact

The environmental impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on CO2 emissions, air pollution emissions and noise. Air pollution emissions and noise related external costs were analysed in section 6.2.2. Nevertheless, Table 9  additionally provides the reduction in thousand tonnes of NOx and PM emissions in the policy options relative to the baseline for 2030 and 2050 158 .

Similarly, the reduction in the CO2 emissions is estimated as a result of the increase in the share of zero-emission vehicles in the HDVs fleet (due to PMc1 in PO-A, PMc1 and PM1 in PO-B, PMc1 and PM3 in PO-C), the increase in the intermodal transport (due to PMc2 in all policy options, PM2 in PO-B and PO-C and PM3 in PO-C) and the improved efficiency of transport operations (PMc3, PMc4 and PMc5 in all policy options). As explained in section 6.1.5, the measures supporting the increase in the intermodal transport are estimated to mitigate the risk of modal backshift resulting from the harmonisation measures. The reduction in CO2 emissions relative to the baseline in 2030 and 2050 is provided in  Table 9 . For 2030, in PO-A the reduction is estimated at 0.4% of the CO2 emissions from freight transport relative to the baseline, in PO-B at 1% and in PO-C at 1.1%. Cumulatively, over 2025-2050, PO-A is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 10.7 million tonnes relative to the baseline (0.5% of the CO2 emissions from freight transport). PO-B would reduce CO2 emissions by 27.8 million tonnes (1.2% of the CO2 emissions from freight transport) and PO-C by 29.8 million tonnes (1.3% of the CO2 emissions from freight transport), over the same period. The external costs savings of CO2 emissions, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are estimated to reduce by EUR 1.3 billion in PO-A, EUR 3.5 billion in PO-B and EUR 3.7 billion in PO-C.

Table 9: Reduction in CO2 emissions and air pollution emissions in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), in 2030 and 2050

Source: TML et al. (2023), impact assessment support study

All policy options are consistent with the environmental objectives of the European Green Deal and the European Climate Law 159 . All policy options contribute towards Sustainable Development Goal 13 (‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’). No significant harm is expected on the environment in any of the policy options.

7.How do the options compare?

7.1.Effectiveness

The assessment of effectiveness looks at the extent to which the general and specific objectives (SO) of the intervention, as previously described, are met. Table 10 provides the links between policy objectives and assessment criteria. A detailed assessment is provided in Annex 10.

Table 10: Links between objectives and assessment criteria

Each of the policy options addresses the problems identified, their drivers and the general and specific objectives. All three policy options provide support to a wider range of operations than the current W&D Directive, though the effectiveness varies between the different options.

Regarding SO1, PO-A effectively contributes to the uptake of ZEV, as operators do not lose any payload when using such vehicles due to the PO’s measures increasing weight and length for ZE technologies. However, PO-B is more effective, as weight allowances are granted irrespective of the weight of the technology used, which could result in higher payloads for operators and thus creating more incentives for them to invest in ZE technologies. While PO-A facilitates somewhat intermodal containerised transport, PO-B significantly improves the attractiveness of intermodal transport by extending the allowance of extra 4t (currently to compensate the weight of empty container or swap body used in intermodal operations) also for non-containerised intermodal operations. In practice, it means that operators using conventional HDVs may, in fact, benefit from additional payload when using their trucks, trailers and semitrailers in intermodal operations. Consequently, the alignment of the W&D Directive with the CTD under PO-B would bring along synergy effects in promoting growth of intermodal transport. PO-C is more effective in addressing SO1 than PO-A and PO-B, by further incentivising the use of ZEV and shift to intermodal transport as it removes regulatory barriers for the use of EMS in cross-border operations, and at the same time introduces several conditions for the use of EMS (which must be ZEV or/and intermodal and used in dedicated parts of the TEN-T road network). These conditions imposed by PO-C entail upfront investment or a change of a business model by operators, limiting the use cases.

For SO-2, PO-A harmonises the rules for cross-border operations by certain types of HDVs (5- and 6-axle), heavier HDVs (44t) and introduces the harmonised loaded length for car carriers. PO-A allows the cross-border transport of EMS between Member States that already allow these vehicles combinations. It does not fully harmonise the rules as EMS are subject to the national limits in terms of length, weight and axel weight, which provides Member States with the possibility to adapt their use to the national circumstances. PO-A will also reduce the need for special permits linked to the transport of high-cube containers. These measures effectively contribute to smooth cross-border operations and eliminate legal barriers to certain intermodal transport operations, ensuring fair competition between operators on the internal road transport market. Through the harmonisation of the rules, PO-A creates legal certainty and a clear regulatory framework for operators and enforcers. PO-B further extends this effectiveness in harmonisation by providing common requirements, harmonised documents and procedures for the authorisation of abnormal transport, including the transport of indivisible loads. Although the segment is small, it is mostly involved in international operations, as the type of goods (e.g. wind turbines, large industrial equipment, specialised components) are often transported across borders for assembly or to a remote construction or mining site. Therefore, harmonisation of administrative and safety requirements render the operations more efficient reducing unnecessary burden for operators. PO-B is thus more effective than PO-A in providing clear rules facilitating fair, safe and efficient cross-border operations. PO-C brings additional effect compared to PO-B by setting corridors in the EU for abnormal transport operations which enhances clarity as regards the part of network that can be used. PO-C also harmonises the use of EMS of 25.25m long and 60t all over the EU, but it creates new barriers impeding the currently existing cross-border transport of EMS beyond those limits.

For SO3, PO-A is effective in enhancing enforcement obligations on Member States by introducing minimum thresholds for controls on overloaded vehicles. The overall significance of such controls is strong, as their increased frequency and effectiveness discourage non-compliant behaviours, thus reducing the number of overloaded vehicles circulating on EU roads, contributing to less risks to road safety. However, PO-A maintains random controls which are not an efficient way of detecting infringements and, as a consequence of the increase in the overall number of checks PO-A will also increase the time and resources dedicated to performing those roadside checks. PO-A provides for additional possibilities of enhancing effectiveness of controls and improving compliance via the implementation of intelligent access policies. However, its voluntary nature may result in a limited outreach. PO-B introduces the obligation to deploy a minimum number of WIM systems per Member State, to help enforcers detect overloaded vehicles while they are in motion. Thus, PO-B is more effective than PO-A as it allows for targeting checks at non-compliant (overloaded) vehicles rendering the controls more efficient (increasing the infringement detection rate) further dissuading from non-compliant behaviour. The use of WIM systems will in addition increase the ratio of controls performed by Member States with the same (or lower) level of resources dedicated to performing roadside checks. PO-C introduces even more advanced enforcement tools by requiring the use of certified WIMs, which do not only detect overloaded vehicles, but also automatically analyse the type and severity of infringement and issue a fine. However, the efficiency of enforcement is not as significantly increased between PO-B and PO-C as it is between PO-B and PO-A. Moreover, PO-C measure imposing extra safety requirements on vehicles and drivers of EMS (PM8) does not bring significant safety gains, as EMS are usually carried out with better and newer vehicles by experienced and specifically trained drivers.

7.2.Efficiency

Efficiency concerns the ‘extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given cost (cost effectiveness)’. In all policy options, the benefits outweigh the increase in costs, relative to the baseline. The estimates of costs and benefits are summarised in Table 11 .

Table 11: Summary of costs and benefits of policy options – net present value for 2025-2050 compared to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2022 prices