home about TML contact staff jobs

Larger and heavier vehicles

Effects of adapting the rules on weight and = dimensions of=20 heavy commercial vehicles as established within Directive 96/53/EC

Directive 96/53/EC sets out the maximum allowable vehicle and loading = dimensions in national and international road transport in the EU. = However,=20 while the Directive harmonises across the EU the maximum dimensions of = road=20 vehicles and sets agreed levels for weights that would permit free = circulation=20 throughout the EU, it permits different national rules on the maximum = weights.=20 Member States may deviate from the maximum dimension limitations in = national=20 transport in certain pre authorised circumstances, the 'modular concept' = being=20 the most recent example. Also, various industrial sectors have argued = for an=20 easement in the weights and dimension restrictions to accommodate more = efficient=20 loading (i.e. more pallets or passenger cars) or to carry a heavier = payload.=20

TML was project leader of the study on the effects of adapting the = above=20 Directive 96/53/EC.

The Study focused on the effects, both positive and negative, of the = use of=20 longer and/or heavier vehicles (LHV), including the modular concept in = its=20 various forms and at various maximal weight levels in and between = adjacent and=20 consenting Member States. Three scenarios were developed for the year = 2020,=20 along with the =93business as usual=94 scenario which served as a = reference.

1. Full Option: Unlimited use of lorries up to 25.25m and 60t on the = entire=20 European primary road network.

2. Corridor: Unlimited use of lorries up to 25.25m and 60t on the = primary=20 road network of a coalition of 6 countries: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, = Germany,=20 The Netherlands and Belgium.

3. Compromise: Unlimited use of lorries up to 20.75m and 44t on the = entire=20 European primary road network.

Before starting calculations, an extensive round of stakeholder = consultation=20 was organised. Haulers, shippers and manufacturers showed themselves to = be=20 strong supports of increasing dimensions, mainly because of the the = lowers costs=20 they entail. Opponents were mainly from rail and inland waterway = transport=20 organisations, supported by the German government among others, as well = as=20 infrastructure managers, predominantly coming from the Alpine and = Eastern=20 European regions. Their main counterarguments are the expected negative = effects=20 on rail=92s market position and the environmental impact that increased = demand may=20 cause. The consultation also revealed that a volume increase was of = greater=20 importance than a weight increase, as over 2/3 of transports on road are = apparently limited by volume rather than weight.

Calculations then focussed around 6 effects:

Meeting transport demand
The extra capacity of = LHV leads=20 to lower transport costs. In accordance with basic economic rationale, = this=20 leads to an increase in demand: calculations show a 0.99% increase in = tonne km=20 in the Full Option scenario, to go along with a decrease in vehicle km = of 12.9%=20 (in comparison to the reference). A less significant increase of = dimensions like=20 in the Compromise scenario leads to a 0.42% increase in tonne km. = Vehicle km=20 decrease by 4.3% in this case.

Contribution to intermodality
Rail and inland = waterway=20 transport are expected to slightly lose volume, 3.8% and 2.9% = respectively.=20 However, as total transport volume in the reference scenario is expected = to go=20 up by between 30% and 60% by 2020, this will only result in a somewhat = slower=20 growth, rather than an absolute volume decrease. It can not be excluded = that=20 certain lines may suffer from the increased competition of LHV.

Road safety
Although certain types of LHV clearly = show a=20 deterioration in handling characteristics and stability, the research = has shown=20 that introducing LHV is not expected to negatively impact road safety. = An=20 increase of only truck dimensions barely affects its driving behaviour, = but=20 individual vehicles which are both longer and heavier will perform worse = than=20 current trucks. However, this needs to be balanced with the lower amount = of=20 vehicle km that will be driven by these new vehicles due to their larger = load.=20 The combined effect is an improvement in overall road safety. This = effect can be=20 strengthened by making electronic safety systems mandatory for LHVs. =

Infrastructure
Certain types of LHV have severe = negative=20 effects on the lifespan of European bridges and roads. Mainly the types = of 60t=20 stand out in this list. The 44t, 5 axle vehicle, which is already used = in a=20 number of European countries, also stands out as having a detrimental = effect on=20 infrastructure. Increasing length to 25.25m and weight to 50t does = perform very=20 well. On top of that, LHVs require bigger loading terminals and parking = spots in=20 rest areas. Extra costs for this also need to be accounted for.

Energy, CO2 and other emissions
LHVs of 25.25m = and 60t=20 are up to 12.45% more energy efficient per tonne km, = which is=20 the result of fewer vehicle kms (Full Option scenario). NOx = emissions=20 decrease by a maximum of 4.03%, while PM go down with 8.39%.=20 The larger decrease of PM emissions is caused by mechanical = abrasion=20 of tyres and brakes, and by resuspended particles.

It is noteworthy that a limited increase of vehicle dimensions, as = reflected=20 by the Compromise scenario, causes more CO2 emissions: the extra = capacity=20 is insufficient to compensate the extra energy required for propulsion. =

Conclusions
When combining all effects, larger = and=20 heavier vehicles will have an overall positive impact on European = society, for=20 each of the scenarios. Of the three, =93Full option=94 (25.25m, 60t all = over Europe)=20 provides the biggest gains. As the =93Corridor=94 scenario is also = beneficial, it=20 can be concluded that harmonisation is not essential in this domain. =
It is=20 however strongly advised to link the introduction of LHVs with a number = of=20 countermeasures. For one, the effect of the price change on the = transport market=20 needs to be monitored closely, especially at the level of specific = trajectories.=20 Second, all modes should be held accountable for their external cost, to = allow=20 for fair competition. Finally, enforcement is of major importance: new=20 regulation needs to be supported by more and better control.

reports

The final report can be found on the website of the European = Commission, DG=20 TREN http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/studies/strategies_en.htm= =20 or can be downloaded here.

period

2007-2008

funded by

European Commission, DG Transport & Energy (TREN)

partners

TNO (The Netherlands), LCPC (France), S=E9tra (France), RWTH Aachen = University=20 (Germany)

researchers

Tim Breemersch, Bart Van Herbruggen, Griet De Ceuster

contact

Tim Breemersch

+32 16 74.51.23