The European Commission’s proposal to amend the Weights and Dimensions Directive (WDD) concerning commercial road vehicles presents some problematic points. The railway sector is concerned that the proposal will result in a reverse modal shift from road to rail while also making road and rail transport incompatible in many cases, thus substantially harming intermodal and combined transport operations.
The rail freight sector has voiced concerns about the WDD amendment since last July when the EU Commission released its amendment proposal as part of the broader Greening Freight Transport Package (GFTP) policy project aiming to decarbonise European freight transport.
Associations like UIRR, CER and ERFA have stressed that the intermodal measures included in the WDD are irrelevant or ineffective for rail freight transport. For instance, Akos Ersek, chief policy advisor at UIRR, pointed out in an interview with Railfreight.com that deploying heavier and longer commercial trucks could prove tricky since heavy cargo should, in principle, travel on rail and not on trucks.
On the other hand, leading policymakers like Kristian Schmidt, director of land transport at DG Move, underlined to RailFreight.com that the WDD revision would benefit intermodality by “ensuring intermodal compatibility and incentivising road operators to engage in intermodal operations”. However, a study commissioned jointly by ERFA, CER, UIC, UIP and UIRR and carried out by the consultancy firm d-fine seems to challenge this argument.
Widespread use of gigaliners
The five parties insist on their initial position that the WDD revision proposals are “impractical, ineffective, or unnecessary”. Their study found that the “proposed increase in the permissible gross weight of trucks and the authorisation of EMS would lead on average to a reverse modal shift of up to 21 per cent for all rail segments and 16 per cent for combined transport”.
Simply put, the five associations warn that the EU Commission’s approach will result in the widespread use of gigaliners, decreasing operational costs by up to 25 per cent and outperforming combined transport, despite simultaneously raising external costs to 2,2 billion euros.
Compatibility a real issue
Despite Kristian Schmidt reassuring that the WDD revision would ensure intermodal compatibility, this does not seem to be the case. The d-fine study found, for instance, that the proposed increase of 30 cm in vehicle height would already pose challenges since “21 EU Member States have a 4-metre height limit for trucks.” At the same time, the WDD revision projects a limit of 4,30 metres for trucks carrying high-cube containers.
Longer trucks will also create challenges for intermodal operations. The joint study points out that “none of the longer EMS truck combinations can be handled in combined transport without increased operational complexity”. Longer than 13,6 metres, semi-trailers are technically incompatible with combined transport assets. At the same time, longer and heavier vehicles will also hinder terminal operations since they will, in many cases, not be suitable for transit via access roads, while many terminals do not possess the proper equipment to handle such heavy loads.
Some proposals
For this reason, the five associations demand that the gross weight limit for border crossing trucks remain at 40 tonnes and not at 44 as the Commission proposed. Only zero-emission vehicles should be allowed an additional gross weight as long as the batteries they use require it. Finally, the five parties stress that standard dimensions for loading units should be maintained despite the introduction of gigaliners because that is the only way to ensure intermodal compatibility as promised by the EU Commission.
“We do not see a positive impact”
All parties involved in the study stressed that they struggled to identify the relevance of such measures and how they could positively impact freight transport and rail. Conor Feighan, secretary general of ERFA, commented that the industry cannot see how the WDD revision could bring forward positive developments. Moreover, Gilles Peterhans, secretary general of UIP, pointed out that longer and heavier trucks will also dictate future rail investments which will not be industry-oriented but instead focus on adapting to road transport requirements.
Alberto Mazzola, executive director at CER, said that “rail freight will lose more volumes than the European Commission predicted,” and the current WDD “is not a measure of greening freight transport”. Indeed, the EC’s prediction spoke of approximately 5,5 billion tonne-kilometres in losses for rail, while the d-fine study illustrated the losses at around 140 billion tonne-kilometres, a substantial difference.
François Davenne, director general at UIC, also raised some interesting points. He mentioned that the EC lacks a systemic approach considering both rail and road transport. He also stressed the issue of batteries by asking a simple but critical question: “Will there be enough batteries to decarbonise the road sector?” he wondered. His point was that if there are not enough resources to decarbonise truck operations, then the WDD measures will end up disrupting the freight market almost irreversibly by benefiting diesel operations.