This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013SC0109
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 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
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 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
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 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
/* SWD/2013/0109 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 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 /* SWD/2013/0109 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending 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 1. Problem definition Heavy duty
vehicles transporting goods and passengers in Europe must comply with certain
rules on weights and dimensions. For each vehicle type Directive 96/53/EC (hereafter referred to as such or as the ‘Directive’) the sets the respective maximum authorised length, width, height and
weight (total weigh and weight per axle). Vehicles which comply with these
limits can perform international[1]
transport operations within all EU Member States. To avoid that national
operators benefit from undue advantages over their competitors from other
Member States, they are bound, as a general rule, to comply with the limits set
for international transport. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, a
number of derogations allow Member States to apply higher limits for transport
within their own borders. The derogation concerns the maximum height, the
maximum weight and the possibility to employ longer vehicles in special
transport, trials or with modular combinations of vehicles. The main problem identified following the
stakeholder consultation is that the limits of the Directive are one of the
obstacles to energy efficiency of road transport and to intermodal transport.
Moreover, the effectiveness of the Directive is hampered due to lack of
compliance by transport operators. Hence, the main problem consists of two
parts, for which several root causes were identified: Part 1:.Certain limits on weights and
dimension set by the Directive constitute obstacles to energy efficiency gains
of road vehicles and to intermodal transport operations The current legislation, conceived in the
1990s' to accompany the opening of the international
road transport market legislation, reflects the
conditions present at the time. Several elements have changed in the meanwhile,
implying that current rules no longer balance correctly the various elements
and needs be energy efficiency and environment, economic efficiency, safety and
infrastructure needs. In particular, energy dependency and
climate change considerations require that greater weight is now given to
energy efficiency of vehicles. Developments in maritime transport and
containerisation have an impact on the logistics and economy of road
operations. Vehicle and infrastructure technology has advanced. Safety concerns
have become more prominent. Furthermore, the way manufacturers adapt their
vehicle design to demand – within the limits of regulation – is likely to
produce suboptimal results. Consequently, and supported by stakeholders,
the following root causes were defined: Root cause 1: Certain maximum weights and
dimensions prevent the market uptake of more aerodynamic, electric and hybrid
trucks and reduce the attractiveness of certain coach services. Maximum dimensions of HGVs imposed by the
Directive is mainly an issue for the deployment of aerodynamic solutions for
trucks, which – by maintaining the length of standard loading units - would
exceed current limitations. Moreover, maximum
weights of HGVs imposed by the Directive are preventing the market uptake of
electric/hybrid vehicles, being heavier than conventional vehicles, which
consequently would have reduce their payload. Similarly, the growing weight of
vehicle safety and comfort equipment, and of passengers, are forcing coach
operators to reduce the number of passengers per coach. Root cause 2: Certain maximum weights
and dimensions have not kept pace with the technical developments of intermodal
transport and containerisation Containerisation
presents an opportunity for the development of intra-EU intermodal/combined
transport as an alternative to less energy efficient door-to-door road
transport solutions. However, the incomplete standardisation of the transport
units hampers this development. As a result certain large containers used in
maritime transport, mainly 45' containers, can hardly be accommodated in the
land transport legs of the chain due to the Directive (they can only be
transported on the basis of special permits). Part 2: Ineffective
application of the Directive It was highlighted by stakeholders during
the public consultation that large numbers of infringements of the Directive
occur related to weights of trucks. In a context of fierce competition,
operators operating at the edge of the rules by maximising their load can gain
a substantial competitive advantage to the detriment of the others. Consequently, and
supported by stakeholders, the following root causes were defined: Root cause 3: Lack of common and
dissuasive enforcement methods One of the
other main reasons of the poor compliance with the Directive is that controls
are too infrequent, leaving an impression of impunity for the potential
offenders. Furthermore, the enforcement policies and control practices in
Member States are lacking effectiveness considering that 1 out of 2 controls affect
vehicles which comply with the rules and is thus unnecessary. As regards
methods, checks performed by Member States vary from purely manual selection of
vehicles to be checked to pre-selection using technical methods to filter
vehicles to be checked manually, and tolerances applied by Member States during
checks deviate substantially. What would happen all things
remaining equal? CO2 emissions from HGVs represents
approximately a third of total CO2 emissions from transport in 2010 in the EU.
This share is likely to increase, measures to reduce the emissions from other
transport having been recently introduced (e.g. emissions from new cars, ETS in
aviation). Despite the current economic crisis, the number of tonne kilometres
(tkm) in Europe is increasing and expected to continue in the long run. If
nothing is done, total fuel consumption of HGVs and buses will increase,
resulting in increased air pollution and CO2 emissions. Continuing business-as-usual would result
in a missed opportunity to simultaneously reduce aerodynamic drag and also to
further reduce numbers of fatalities with HGVs: simulations have shown that
rounded fronts would prevent overruns of persons hit by HGVs and therefore
reduce the numbers of fatalities. In the area of intermodal transport and containerisation,
the additional administrative burden for 45' containers would put the EU in a
position that would risk staying behind the world wide evolution of containerisation,
and the additional costs of special permits and derogations would hinder the
economic sustainability of the intermodal transport sector already under
considerable stress. Current controls and methods applied by
enforcement bodies are reportedly not able to effectively ensure compliance
with the Directive. This situation, is likely to increase non-respect of
maximum weight limits and in distortion of competition between hauliers, which
would result in damages to the infrastructure and in reduced road safety. 2. Analysis of subsidiarity Action by Member States alone would not be
sufficient to ensure an EU-wide harmonisation of maximum lengths and
dimensions. A patchwork of differing national rules would hinder the creation
of a truly integrated EU road haulage market. In a context of increasing cross-border
road freight transport, common rules and levels of enforcement are increasingly
warranted to ensure a level playing field between hauliers. Different levels of
enforcement between EU Member States favour certain hauliers and creates
incentives for hauliers to plan routes via countries where enforcement levels
are the lowest. 3. Policy objectives General objectives In line with the problems described in
section 2 above, the general objective of this initiative, is twofold, to: ·
improve energy efficiency of road transport and
intermodal transport by revising certain limits on weights and dimensions of
road vehicles while maintaining the balance between the requirements of
infrastructure maintenance, road safety and the protection of the environment; ·
provide for a fairer playing field and thereby
enhance the internal market for road transport. Specific objectives The general objectives can be translated
into three specific objectives (SO). These objectives must be achieved without
upsetting the balance between the requirements of infrastructure maintenance,
road safety and the protection of the environment. 1. SO1: To enable the market
uptake of more aerodynamic, electric and hybrid trucks and to increase the
attractiveness of certain coach services. 2. SO2: To enhance the
development of intermodal/combined transport. 3. SO3: To ensure better
enforcement of the maximum weights and dimensions across the EU. 4. Policy options To address the
problem and all the problem Root causes in full, and given the substantial list
of measures, it is proposed to form policy packages (PP) of measures for
further assessment. It is proposed to form three PPs, which are cumulative,
meaning that PP 2 would include the measures of PP1, and PP3 would include the
measures of PP1 and of PP2. The Policy Packages (see oveview table below) are
conceived to include measures with increasing intensity addressing respectively
energy efficiency and compliance with the rules of the Directive. Policy Package PP1: Limited revision This package is based on limited revisions
of the Directive as well as on soft measures aiming at an improved
implementation of the Directive with minimal changes and costs. Concerning containerization and intermodal
transport, PP1 proposes to extend the possibility to transport 45' containers
at 44 tonnes beyond the current scope. PP 1 thus offers two variants regarding the
measures 6 and 7 on respectively combined and intermodal transport of 45’
containers: ·
In variant "a", the facilitations for
the transport of 45' containers would remain restricted to the area of combined
transport (measure 6) ·
Variant "b", on the other hand, proposes
to extend the possibility to transport 45' containers at 44 tonnes beyond the
scope of combined transport (measure 7), and enable these to be part of
intermodal transport chains as well in order to give a real acceleration to
containerization. Policy Package PP2: A more extensive
revision This package
would entail a more intensive (in terms of magnitude of impacts) revision of
the Directive, with new measures in addition to the measures proposed in policy
package 1.The additional measures will require a certain adaptation effort from
the automotive industry and from national administrations. Far reaching
measures or those requiring a very large adaptation effort from the industry
and administrations would still be excluded. Policy Package PP3: More binding
regulatory approach Beyond the measures presented in the PP 1
and 2, other measures are envisioned, in order to push forward more actively
the realization of the objectives of the revision. The below table provides on overview of the
measures included in the Policy Packages, and of how these measures address the
Specific Objectives: || PP1 || PP2 || PP3 SO1: To enable the market uptake of more aerodynamic, electric and hybrid trucks and to increase the attractiveness of certain coach services. || || || 1. Rear flaps || X || X || X 2. Longer cabins || || X || X 3. Mandatory rear flaps || || || X 4. Higher weight limits for electric/hybrid trucks || X || X || X 5. Max. 19.5 t for two-axle coaches || X || X || X SO2: To enhance the development of intermodal/combined transport || || || 6. Allow for 45' containers in combined transport || X/ Ø || X/Ø || X/Ø 7. Allow for 45' containers in intermodal transport || X/ Ø || X/Ø || X/Ø 8. Facilitations for larger containers || || || X SO3: To ensure better enforcement of the maximum weights and dimensions across the EU || || || 9. Guidelines on enforcement || X || X || X 10. Common categorisation of infringement || || X || X 11. Mandatory preselection of vehicles targeted for manual checks || || || X 12. Co-liability of the shipper/forwarder || || X || X 13. Standards for on-board weighting || || X || X 14. Compulsory on-board weighing || || || X 15. Minimum level of checks || || || X 5. Assessment of impacts The assessment of relevant impacts, identified
in the Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines, for the three Policy Packages
resulted in the following result: –
Taking into account the possibility to add rear
aerodynamic devices to trailers, and to the possibility to develop heavy
vehicles with electric or hybrid propulsion, PP 1 will have a positive impact
on fuel consumption (5 to 10 %), and on air pollution. The carbon footprint
reduction can be estimated at around 24 million tonnes per year for the
operational objective of 50 % long-distance trailers equiped in 2030. An
improved effectiveness of the directive due to increased enforcement will also
have very positive impacts on competition, the functioning of the internal
market, the cost of road maintenance, and the number of injured persons in
accidents due to overweight vehicles. The impact on economic efficiency of the
road transport sector will be improved by promoting containerisation without
having a reverse effect on other modes of transport such as rail or inland waterways.
Administrative costs for both public and private sectors will go down as a
result of the reduction of the number of special permits and as a rationalisation
of the manual checks performed by police officers on overweight vehicles. PP 1
will also facilitate the development of intermodal transport by the possibility
to transport containers of 45' without a special permit and its administrative
cost. –
PP 2 will provide a much larger fuel reduction
due to the redesign of the tractor, with potential fuel savings approaching 15
% on motorways. It will lead to an improvement of the carbon footprint of 27
million tonnes per year for the same target of equiped vehicles as above. PP 2 will
also have a high positive effect on road safety, due to the saving of a few
hundred lives (see chapter 5.3.2) every year with a better design of the
tractor. More efficient checks of overweight vehicles with filtering methods
will have a considerable positive effect on competition, and on the reduction
of unnecessary checks, thus on the administrative costs associated to checks.
The cost of the necessary equipment for the filtering will be recovered easily
by the savings on road maintenance, and on police forces required for the
checks. Lastly, PP 2 will have the same positive impact on the development of
intermodal transport than PP 1. –
PP 3 on the other hand will not provide real
additional benefits in comparison to PP 2 in terms of fuel saving and
pollution, due to its negative impact on the financial burden on SMEs if the
aerodynamic equipments were rendered mandatory. A similar difficulty would
occur with a mandatory introduction of onboard weighing devices, even if PP 3
would certainly improve the effectiveness of the directive: the cost of a
mandatory equipment is currently considered too high for SMEs. In terms of
containerisation, PP 3 proposes to deal with larger containers than 45', but
the real benefit of this measure would be questionable when the reverse effects
on road safety and model shift to rail and inland waterways would need to be
verified much more deeply. The added value of PP 3 in comparison to PP 2 is
questionable, but all the positive impacts of PP 2, as described above are kept
in PP 3. 6. Comparison of options The policy options were compared with respect
to the following evaluation criteria: ·
effectiveness – the
extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal; ·
efficiency – the
extent to which objectives can be achieved at least cost; ·
coherence – the
extent to which policy options are likely to limit trade-offs across the
economic, social, and environmental domain. Moreover, a partial cost-benefit analysis
has been performed quantifying policy measures where it was feasible.
Considering the different states of maturity and costs of the technologies
proposed, it is assumed that by 2030, 75% of long distance HGVs will be
equipped with aerodynalic rear devices and that 50% of all HGVs will have
adopted the new cabin design. Buses as well as the measure on hybridisation
could not be included in the calculations below as figures needed for the
calculations were not readily available. || || || || || || || || || Effectiveness || Efficiency || Coherence || Benefit-cost ratio PP 0 || - || - || - || - PP 1 || Medium || Low costs || No trade-off || >1 PP 2 || High || Low costs || No trade-offs || >1 PP 3 || High || High costs || High trade-off || <1 It can therefore be concluded that PP 2,
ensuring a high likelihood of achieving the objectives of the IA at a
reasonably low cost and without causing undue trade-offs between environmental,
social and economic impacts, should be the preferred option. This conclusion is
supported by the partial cost-benefit analysis performed in this IA indicating
that PP 2 would result in a benefit-cost ratio higher than one. 7. Monitoring and evaluation The level of attainment of the operational objectives will be
monitored in the year the proposed legislation enters into force and regularly
afterwards supported by a general provision in the Directive requiring Member
States to provide the Commission with relevant information. The evaluation and monitoring by the
Commission will be carried out with regular intervals, at least every five
years, based on three Operational Objectives. The Commission will report the
findings of the evaluation and the monitoring to the European Parliament and to
the Council. Operational objectives || Monitoring OO1: Achieve a significant share of trailers equipped with rear aerodynamic devices and aerodynamic cabins || The Commission will gather evidence from statistics from Member States, automotive manufacturers and hauliers associations on the number of trailers equipped with aerodynamic devices OO2: Achieve a significant share of 45’ containers transported as part of a combined/intermodal transport operation || The Commission will gather evidence from statistics from Member States, shippers and hauliers associations on the use of 45’ containers in intermodal transport OO3: Increase the effectiveness of checks (number of infringements /number of checks). Such an increase will improve the reliability of checks and at the same time avoid annually 100.000 unnecessary checks by 2020 || The monitoring will be performed using statistical data that Member States will provide as proposed in Measure 10 of PP2 [1] International transport refers to intra and extra EU cross-border
operations