EUR 23933 EN - 2009

Longer and Heavier Vehicles 

for freight transport 

Panayotis CHRISTIDIS, Guillaume LEDUC
The mission of the JRC-IPTS is to provide customer-driven support to the EU policy-making 

process by developing science-based responses to policy challenges that have both a socioeconomic as well as a scientific/technological dimension. 

European Commission 

Joint Research Centre 

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Contact information 

Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) 

E-mail: jrc-ipts-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 

Tel.: +34 954488318 

Fax: +34 954488300 

http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu 

http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu 

Legal Notice 

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 

responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/ 

JRC 52005 

EUR 23933 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-12790-8 

ISSN 1018-5593 

DOI 10.2791/12276 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

© European Communities, 2009 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

Printed in Spain 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................1

2 Comparison of main studies on LHVs............................................................................................................3

3 Main factors affecting the impact of LHVs....................................................................................................9

4 Monte-Carlo simulation................................................................................................................................15

5 Simulation results .........................................................................................................................................17

6 Limiting the external impact.........................................................................................................................22

7 Designing specific policy measures..............................................................................................................23

8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................24

9 References ....................................................................................................................................................34
1 

1 Overview 

The European Commission is considering the implications of allowing the use of Longer and 

Heavier Vehiclesa for road freight transport (abbreviated as LHVs in this study), measuring up 

to 25.25 m and weighing up to 60 tons, for the whole of the European Union transport system. 

Such trucks are already in circulation in Finland and Sweden, while several Member States 

are considering their introduction. 

The Directorate General Energy and Transport (DG TREN) commissioned a study to analyse 

the technical characteristics of LHVs and estimate the potential impacts [TML, 2008]. The 

findings were very positive as regards the impact of LHVs, both at the level of individual 

vehicles and as regards their level of adoption at EU level. Since the subject is both important 

in economic terms and complicated in technical terms, the Community of European Railway 

and Infrastructure Companies (CER), a major affected stakeholder, commissioned an 

additional study to focus on the impact that LHVs would have on railways [ISI, 2008]. Even 

though the ISI study forecasts concerning the uptake of LHVs were quite moderate, the 

resulting impact on railways raised some concerns as regards the environmental impacts and 

the continuity of EU transport policy favouring railways. In addition, studies at various levels 

of detail have been carried out at member state level. An example of such an extensive study 

is the one carried out for the Department for Transport of the UK [TRL, 2008]. Since the 

analysis was mainly focused on the impacts at UK level, the expected improvements in 

overall efficiency and the degree of uptake of LHVs were considered as limited to the UK 

transport system and not transferable to the rest of the EU. 

The analysis of the impacts of LHVs is quite complicated since it entails the adoption of 

assumptions concerning the technical characteristics of future LHVs, the evaluation of costs at 

truck level, the estimation of the repercussions on costs for the transported goods, the 

prediction of the market share of LHVs and the calculation of the external impacts, including 

environmental damage, accidents and wear and tear. Since the three studies mentioned above 

used different assumptions and hypotheses, it is not surprising that their results differ 

significantly and no consensus can be found. 

The Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, carried out the 

present study in order to compare the assumptions of the three studies above and, after 

consulting additional sources of information, to identify the range of technical and economic 

factors assumed. Using these as input, an independent analysis was carried out, which 

encompasses both the scope of all three studies and the range of values used in their 

assumptions. Since the initial assumptions influence the final results to a large extent, a 

Monte-Carlo analysis was carried out to allow for different combinations of the various 

assumptions and to identify a range of potential costs and benefits at a lower level of 

uncertainty. 

The results of this analysis suggest that the potential impacts of the introduction of LHVs at 

EU level can be positive in both economic and environmental terms. The increased payloads 

per vehicle are expected to reduce transport costs and lead to significant savings for operators, 

industry and consumers. Since fewer trucks would be required to transport the same volume 

 

a

 Also called Mega-Trucks (MT), European Modular System (EMS), Ecocombi, Eurocombis, gigaliners, etc. This report uses 

the term LHVs to encompass all freight vehicles exceeding the limits on weight and dimensions established in Directive 

96/53/EC. 
2 

of trade, the environmental and other external costs of freight transport would also be lower, 

even though an individual LHV consumes and pollutes more than a conventional truck. 

A successful policy for the introduction of LHVs would nevertheless need to ensure that they 

are used within specific boundary conditions. This would involve a combination of regulatory 

and economic measures to stimulate the use of LHVs in cases where they deliver real 

efficiency improvements. Defining suitable technical standards for LHVs would assist in 

limiting the external impacts of individual vehicles and the infrastructure requirements for the 

whole road network. Identifying the extent of the road network that they are allowed to use 

would influence their usability and uptake. Using a charging system that internalizes their 

external costs would be an additional safeguard against additional externalities and would 

stimulate the rational use of LHVs. 

The analysis was carried out under the assumption that the use of LHVs would be allowed 

across the EU, without any distinction of the type of road network used. As a result, the trade 

flows that are expected to be served by LHVs are spread across Europe, although a higher 

traffic is expected in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and a number of specific 

corridors. The road network links where higher LHV traffic is expected would benefit from 

reduced total freight traffic and congestion levels, but may need to invest in infrastructure 

improvements, depending on the technical characteristics of the LHVs that would be allowed 

to circulate. It is also expected that the main competition with the other modes will occur 

along these corridors. Limiting the use of LHVs to specific Member States or corridors would 

probably reduce their environmental impact and infrastructure requirements, as well as the 

shift from other modes. But it would also limit their uptake and the potential overall benefit 

for the economy as a whole. A more detailed analysis would be needed to analyse the impacts 

of a more limited use of LHVs, but in principle they are expected to be positive regardless of 

the scale of their application. 

Additional research would be also required in order to analyse short-distance road transport 

operations and estimate the potential overall efficiency gains from the introduction of LHVs 

serving that part of the market. Although theoretically there is margin for improvement, the 

diversity of economic, organisational and technical factors that affect freight transport 

planning at that level makes the estimation of the uptake of LHVs for shorter trips rather 

uncertain. 

 

As is the case with most policy measures, introducing LHVs would produce winners and 

losers. The benefits would be spread among the economy and society as a whole, in the form 

of lower transport costs and environmental impacts. On the other side of the coin however, 

other transport modes -especially rail- would become less competitive and lose market share. 

In the road sector itself, increases in efficiency would mean that fewer drivers would be 

necessary, but the ones remaining would tend to be better trained and paid. At territorial level, 

there is also the case of possible imbalances between costs and benefits; where improvements 

in infrastructure are required, the costs for a specific region may exceed the benefits, which 

may be enjoyed by users in other regions. 

Overall though, the potential benefits of LHVs clearly outweigh the associated costs. In 

addition, it is possible to introduce additional legislative measures to ensure that their 

introduction, in specific market segments and under certain conditions, maximises the benefits 

and compensates the stakeholders that would be affected negatively. 
3

2 Comparison of main studies on LHVs 

TML consortium [TML, 2008]

This study was commissioned by DG TREN and was released end of 2008. It provides 

analytical and model-based results on the impact of LHVs on the EU transport market (e.g. 

road freight demand, rail demand, environmental impact, safety and infrastructure). In broad 

terms, the TRANSTOOLS model is used for providing transport volume in 2020 (tonnevolume converted in tonne-km through the model RESPONSE) while the TREMOVE model 

is used for assessing the environmental impact in the EU, based on the traffic volume 

(vehicle-km) obtained from assumed loading factors. A schematic overview of the 

methodology is given in Figure 1. 

A set of four scenarios were developed for the year 2020: 

• Scenario 1 or "Business as usual" scenario which assumes no changes to the road 

transport equipment constraints that were valid in 2000 and takes into account 

projected transport demand in Europe until 2020. 

• Scenario 2 for which LHVs are allowed on all EU motorways (usage of LHVs in 

regional roads can be restricted). 

• Scenario 3 for which LHVs are allowed in some countries only, the rest sticking to the 

current restrictions (40t, 18.75m). 

• Scenario 4 or "intermediate" scenario where the EU allows the usage of up to 20.75m 

and 44t trucks. 

SET OF 

ASSUMPTIONS

• Discount factor: -20%

• Load Factor (LHVs) = LF (HDVs) + LF (HDVs)*50%

• No oil prices scenario 

• Transport elasticity fixed at -0.416

• Share of MTs within the total road transport

Tonne-volume

Tonne-km

Vehicle-km

Impacts on safety Impacts on fuel consumption

and emissions

Impacts on 

infrastructure

Load factors

RESPONSE 

model

Impact on rail 

demand

TREMOVE 

model

SET OF 

ASSUMPTIONS

• Discount factor: -20%

• Load Factor (LHVs) = LF (HDVs) + LF (HDVs)*50%

• No oil prices scenario 

• Transport elasticity fixed at -0.416

• Share of MTs within the total road transport

Tonne-volume

Tonne-km

Vehicle-km

Impacts on safety Impacts on fuel consumption

and emissions

Impacts on 

infrastructure

Load factors

RESPONSE 

model

Impact on rail 

demand

TREMOVE 

model

Figure 1: Overview of the approach used by TML 
4

Limitations of the TML study approach 

• Only one price elasticity was used (-0.416) and only one run was carried out. A 

sensitivity analysis would be required. 

• Elasticity is suitable for modest price variations and for short term effects. 

• Freight demand parameters (e.g. elasticities) are generally expressed in tonne-volume 

and not in tonne-km. It can be difficult to compare the results with other studies. 

• Need to distinguish between the different rail market segments (commodity group and 

distances). 

• Technological potential improvements not covered (e.g. aerodynamics, new safety 

systems). 

Summary of results (scenario 2 vs. reference) 

Road freight market Modal shift Environment Safety Infrastructure 

416.0 ε / RR −= (ton-volume) 

Tonne-volume rises by 0.99% 

(+0.76% in ton-km). 

30% of heavy cargo traffic is 

carried out by LHVs. 

Traffic volume (veh-km) of 

LHVs decreases by 12.9% 

(depending on the country). 

Road transport cost reduced by 

15-20%, on average. 

Rail demand 

decreases by 

3.8% (in tonvolume). 

60 t vehicles are up to 

12.45% more efficient 

in terms of fuel 

consumed per ton-km. 

CO2 emissions 

reduction by 3.58%. 

Reduction of NOx 

emissions by 4.03%. 

Reduction of PM by 

8.39%. 

Impact 

depending on the 

vehicle-km 

(rather positive in 

this aspect). 

Impact depending on 

the vehicle-km 

(rather positive in 

this aspect). 

ISI Fraunhofer [ISI, 2008] 

This study was financed by the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure 

Companies (CER) and conducted by ISI Fraunhofer (Germany) in collaboration with TRT 

Trasporti e Territorio (Italy) and NESTEAR (France). The objective is to assess the effect of 

introducing LHVs on long-term perspective, with the emphasis put on modal shifts effects 

between rail and road freight transport. 

After reviewing some key outcomes from the literature and from two representative case 

studies in the EU, this study used the LOGIS model (from NESTEAR) and developed a 

System Dynamics model (from TRT and ISI Fraunhofer) leading to the following conclusions 

for the EU-25 (plus Switzerland): 

• The GIS analysis (LOGIS model) concluded that LHVs would account for 25% (in 

ton-km) of the total road market by 2020. LHVs would represent a 100% share in total 

HDVs for distances above 1000 km, concentrating on major corridors. On the other 

hand, LHVs will start playing a role in the road-road competition only for distances 

above 300 km. Rail container traffic may be reduced by up to 85% in case of EU-wide 

acceptance of 60 tons LHVs. 
5

• The Vensim model (System Dynamics) was used to assess the long-term impacts of 

LHVs (time horizon 2025) which take place in three phases: 

1- From 3 to 6 years: decrease of CO2 emissions due to efficiency gain on the road 

(0.5 million tons per year). 

2- From 5 to 20 years: counter-balancing of CO2 reduction (2 million tons per year). 

3- From 15 to 30 years: road sector might re-gain overall CO2 emission. 

The study also concluded that reducing the maximum gross weight from 60 tons to 50 tons is 

not an efficient alternative. 

Summary of results 

Road freight Modal shift Environment 

Between 20% and 30% cost 

saving potential from LHVs. 

LHVs may take up to 20-30% 

HDV goods volumes 

(depending on the country). 

Container shipments may face 

losses of rail demand up to 

50%. 

Traffic volumes lost by the 

railways due to 60t LHV: 

[3-5%] reduction for bulk goods 

including heavy industry and 

chemical products 

[10-15%] reduction for food, 

food products and semi 

products 

[20-30%] reduction for 

continental container traffic 

[10-20%] reduction for 

maritime container traffic 

The results from the Vensim model concludes that the 

introduction of LHVs will end up in a negative climate 

gas balance due in the medium term. 

Rebound effects will counter-balance the initial 

advantage of LHVs. 

Limitations of the ISI study approach 

• High uncertainties of the model parameters in Vensim. Therefore, results from the 

scenarios might be very different. 

• Market-based analysis, focus on the impact on combined transport. 

TRL study [TRL, 2008] 

This mainly desk-based research assesses the likely effects of allowing LHVs in the UK with 

regard to road safety, environment, infrastructures, operating costs, congestion, and other 

social and policy issues. Different vehicle configurations in length and weight were analysed. 

Eight scenarios on the usage of LHVs in the UK were developed, based on a micro simulation 

freight model. 

These scenarios present several combinations of maximum vehicle length (16.5m, 18.75m, 

25.25m and 34m), weight (from 44t to 82t) and number of axles (6, 8 and 11). 
6

Summary of results 

Road freight Modal shift Environment Safety Infrastructure 

One-third of articulated 

vehicle trips could be 

suitable for LHVs. 

LHVs expected to be 

specialist vehicle 

working in 'niche' 

operations. 

Around 5-10% of the 

ton-km carried by 

articulated vehicles 

could move to LHVs of 

60 tons or more (i.e. a 

migration to around 

11.8 bn ton-km per 

year).

Important risk of shift 

from rail to road. 

Maximum of 8-18% of 

all rail tons-km 

(especially for the deep 

sea container market) 

would migrate to 

LHVs. 

No shift expected from 

waterborne transport. 

Decrease in veh-km 

Increase of fuel 

consumed per veh-km 

(up to 71% for 82 tons 

LHV). 

Decrease of fuel 

consumed per unit of 

goods by around 8-28% 

depending on the 

scenario. 

Internal operational 

costs per ton-km would 

then be reduced by 18-

43%. 

Risks of adverse 

environmental effects 

due to the shift demand 

from rail to road 

(depending also on the 

configuration). 

Increase safety 

risks per vehicle 

(depending on the 

configuration of 

the LHV). 

However safety 

risks per unit of 

goods are reduced. 

Risks could be 

mitigated by using 

new technologies. 

Large investments are 

necessary to upgrade 

parking facilities and 

to manage road 

infrastructures. 

Increase or decrease 

of road wears 

depending on the 

configuration. 

Impacts on bridges 

need further research 

work. 

Limitations of the TRL study approach 

• UK-specific study, cannot be extended to the rest of the EU. 

• Wide range of effects obtained depending on the LHV configuration (max length, max 

gross weight). 

• Are these technical combinations realistic for the rest of Europe? 

Other results from literature 

Apart from the three relevant studies briefly discussed above, a wide range of analyses and 

reports addressing LHVs is also available. Some focus on technical and/or economical issues 

while others discuss the results of pilot projects. It is out of the scope of the present study to 

provide a detailed literature survey on the impact of LHVs (see e.g. the literature review 

carried out by TML [TML, 2008]). The tables below present main outcomes from a (nonexhaustive) list of EU studies. The only comment that can be made from this comparison is 

that there is no consensus on the impact of LHVs across Europe, something that is also 

highlighted in a recent paper from Prof. McKinnon [McKinnon, 2008]. Depending on the 

country characteristics (road network, freight market, etc.), the model assumptions (road 

elasticities, cross elasticities, etc.) very different positive or negative results can be obtained. 
7

GLOBALLY POSITIVE POSITION Reference Road freight demand Modal shift Environment Safety [Aurell, 2007] (SE) 

 Fuel consumption and air 

emissions reduced by at least 18%. 

Modular combinatioshow better dynamstability compared standard HDVs. 

[Arcadis, 2006] (NL) 

6000-12000 LHVs will replace 8000-16000 regular combinations. Increase of road transport by 0.05%-0.1% and reduction of traffic volume (veh-km). Cost price per mile for LHVs increase by 6.5% but it is compensated by the reduction of the number of rides. Total cost reduction in road transport amount to 1.8-3.4%. 

Decrease in rail transport by 1.4%-2.7%. 

Lower fuel consumption and CO2

emissions. Congestion reduced by 0.7-1.4%. 

Traffic safety woincrease (since lower vkm). Decrease in fatal accideby a factor 4-7 and injurby 13-25 (no statistibased approach wavailable). 

German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA)b

If 23% of all conventional truck trips in Germany were made with EuroCombis (type of LHVs), 2.2 billion vehicle-km would be saved annually in long haul traffic. The savings would be 16% on operational costs when using EuroCombis instead of 40t trucks. 

 A fully loaded EuroCombi 

consumes 15% less fuel per tonkm compared to 40t trucks. 

No safety risks frEuroCombis. 

[VTI, 2008] (SE) 

Model used for modal shift: SAMGODS (Swedish freight transport model). 

Clear advantages of not going back to smaller trucks. 

Model used for emissions: ARTEMIS Model used for noise: HARMONOISE Clear advantages of not going back to smaller trucks. 

Clear advantages of going back to smaltrucks. 

NEUTRAL POSITION Reference Road freight demand Modal shift Environment Safety T&E 2007c

Cost reduction by 20-25% but greater demand. Cross-elasticity: 

1.8 (rail). Rebound effects due to modal shift. 

Positive impacts only if loads under 50 tons, optimising loading capacity is key issue. 

Best suited to higvolume, low-weicargoes. 

b http://www.vda.dec http://www.transportenvironment.org/Downloads-req-getit-lid-453.html
8

GLOBALLY NEGATIVE POSITION Reference Road freight 

demand 

Modal shift Environment Safety I

[BAST, 2006] German Highway Research Institute 

Important shift is expected. 

Higher consequences of fires in tunnels due to larger loading volume. Increase of severity of accidents in the case of head-on collisions. This could however be overcome through the use of modern assistance systems (Lane keeping assistant, brake assistant with interval radar). 

NewdInwPcpv

K+P Transport Consultantsd (DE) 

TIM Consult 2006e

Trucking costs reduced by 20-25%. 

7 billion tons-km would shift from rail to road in one year. Decrease of intermodal traffic up to 55% with LHVs on the road (24% road freight increase. 

CO2 emissions reduction of 

1.1% to 7.3%. 

 

[UBA, 2007] German Federal Environmental Agency 

Cost per loadtonne is reduced by 20-25%. 

Significant shift demand from rail to road (e.g. up to 5% decline in rail-freight transport). 

Energy efficiency gain only for load rate greater than 77%. Pollutants emissions only decline when fully charged. Increase of noise emission due to heavier motorization and higher number of axles. 

Higher consequences in case of accident due to heavier weight. 

PresN

d http://www.nomegatrucks.eu/deu/service/download/k-und-p-studie-2-langfassung.pdfe www.timconsult.de
9

3 Main factors affecting the impact of LHVs 

The starting point of the economic assessment is the increase in loading capacity brought by 

LHVs, typically 40-50% higher than for conventional (40 tons) trucks. As a consequence, the 

introduction of LHVs can trigger a chain reaction leading to a relatively complex dynamic 

process that will affect the different freight markets. A conceptual model of the main 

interactions is provided in Figure 2 below: 

Vehicle-km

Rail demand

Additional road 

freight demand

Additional traffic, 

centralisation, 

stockholding, etc.

+

+

Road freight price decreases

(cost per ton-km)

EXTRA LOAD CAPACITY

Road price elasticity

= f (commodity, trip 

length, space, time,...)

-

Tons-km

Load factor

Cross-elasticity

= f (commodity, trip 

length, space, time, ...)

Share of LHVs over 

total HDVs fleet -

External costs

(accidents, congestion, air 

pollution, climate change, etc.)

+-

Vehicle-km

Rail demand

Additional road 

freight demand

Additional traffic, 

centralisation, 

stockholding, etc.

+

+

Road freight price decreases

(cost per ton-km)

EXTRA LOAD CAPACITY

Road price elasticity

= f (commodity, trip 

length, space, time,...)

-

Tons-km

Load factor

Cross-elasticity

= f (commodity, trip 

length, space, time, ...)

Share of LHVs over 

total HDVs fleet -

External costs

(accidents, congestion, air 

pollution, climate change, etc.)

+-

Figure 2: Schematic view of the different interactions 

1- The road freight market would benefit from this extra loading capacity through a 

substantial cost reduction per tonne-km. 

2- Depending on the price elasticity assumed, the reduction in price would generate an 

increase in road demand. This effect may be counterbalanced by the fact that more LHVs on 

the road would mean much fewer conventional trucks. 

3- Losing market to road, the rail freight demand would be probably reduced, depending on 

the cross-elasticity assumed. A similar shift would happen, to a lesser degree, away from the 

inland waterway sector. 

4- Special attention should be paid to the load factor that will impact both the road price and 

the traffic volume. 

It has to be kept in mind that the impacts can vary considerably depending on the commodity 

type, the distance travelled, the geographical area, time, whether ton-volume or ton-km are 
10

considered, etc. meaning that the degree of complexity, due to the number of dimensions 

involved is very high. In the following, some of the critical parameters are analysed. 

Decrease in road haulage price 

The split of cost to hauliers is available from several sources but it highly depends on the 

Member State, the distance travelled, the commodity type, etc. Globally, costs for wages and 

fuel account for more than half of the total cost, following by purchase, insurance and repair 

costs (Figure 3). 

Repair

7%

Labour and 

labour tax

45%

Fuel and fuel tax

26%

Purchase

13%

Insurance and 

insurance tax

8%

Ownership and 

registration tax

1%

Cost breakdown to EU hauliers for long distance freight 

transport 

Source: [FM, 2008]

Road tax

2%

Interest

2% Tyres

1%

Vehicle 

insurance

6%

Fuel

30%

Wages

26%

Overhead

18%

Depreciation

10%

Repair and 

maintenance

5%

Share of the Total Operating Cost (TOC) 

40 tons Tractor semitrailer combination 

Source: [Larsson, 2008]

Figure 3: Examples of cost breakdown to EU hauliers 

Increasing the truck loading capacity would initially reduce road haulage costs per tonne-km. 

As an example, McKinnon [McKinnon, 2005] reported that for the UK, the two historic 

weight limit increases from 38 tons to 40 tons (in 1999) and from 41 tons to 44 tons (in 2001) 

reduced road haulage costs by respectively 7% and 11%. Due to the much higher loading 

capacity (60 tons) offered by LHVs, cost reductions would probably range between 20% and 

30% compared to conventional 40 tons HDVs. 

According to the ISI Fraunhofer study [ISI, 2008], driver costs would decrease by one third 

while fuel costs would decrease by up to 25% if fully loaded. Oxera [Oxera, 2007] reported 

that the introduction of LHVs would reduce cost per ton-km by 14.2% to 15.3% depending on 

the scenario. A decrease cost in cost of around 23% was estimated for a 84-tonne truck. 

Demand elasticities 

Price demand elasticities i.e. the degree at which demand reacts at changes in prices, are key 

parameters and need to be carefully addressed. They are used to assess the impact of the price 

decrease expected from the introduction of LHVs on both road freight and non-road freight 

demand especially the rail sector which it will mainly compete with, depending on the trip 

length. Therefore two types of demand elasticities should be considered: the price elasticity of 

demand for road freight transport and the cross-elasticity for rail demand related to road 

freight price variation. A detailed description of these two quantities is given by [TML, 2008]. 
11

It is essential to bear in mind that these parameters are usually integrated values since they 

depend on a wide number of variables: 

Elasticity = f length,trip( commoditygroup,space, )time...

Road freight demand 

There are many elasticity estimates available in literature leading to very different orders of 

magnitude, depending on the level of complexity assumed. A review of freight demand 

elasticities was undertaken by Graham and Glaister [Graham, 2004]. It was underlined that: 

• A limited number of studies focused on elasticities for different trip length or 

have distinguished demand between freight transport (tonnage) and freight 

traffic (ton-km). 

• Very different estimates were found across different commodities and for 

different geographical areas. 

• Treatment of time and the distinction between long and short-run effects is 

rather vague. 

• Road freight demand studies are relatively scarce. 

Even if Graham and Glaister [Graham, 2004] concluded that "it would be imprudent to offer a 

firm conclusion about the order of magnitude of the price elasticity of demand for road freight 

movement", their literature reviewed provided a range of price elasticity estimates which is 

already a relevant source of information. It was estimated that the price elasticity given in 

literature range from -7.92 to 1.72, with a mean at -1.07. Two thirds of the estimates ranged 

from -0.5 to -1.3; 42% fall between -0.4 and -0.8 while only 13% of estimates were greater 

than -0.4 and 2% were positive. Overall, it was found that the price demand elasticity is likely 

to fall between -0.5 and -1.5, meaning that the elasticity is negative and rather elastic. 

Cross-elasticity for rail demand 

As in the case of road freight demand elasticity, literature provides a wide range of crosselasticity values meaning that it is very difficult to get accurate and reliable data. The 

elasticity estimates are positive and typically range from 0.3 to 2 depending on the trip length 

and commodity type. 

A brief literature review providing some ranges of road demand elasticities and crosselasticities is given in Table 1 below: 
12

Reference Road freight elasticities Cross elasticities (rail) Comments 

[Quinet, 1994] [-0.9; -0.7] 1.3 Long distance 

[UBA, 2007] 1.9 Assuming a 20% cost 

reduction 

[TRL, 2008] 0.29 

[0.4-0.9] 

Rail bulk markets 

Assuming a 20% cost 

reduction 

[Oxera, 2007] -1.2 0.74 Tonne-km 

SD: -1.06 

SD: -0.58 

SD: 0.11 

SD: 0.08 

Tonne-km 

Tonne-volume 

Assuming a 5% cost 

reduction 

[Beuthe, 2001] 

LD: -1.31 

LD: -0.63 

LD: 0.67 

SD: 0.14 

Tonne-km 

Tonne-volume 

Assuming a 5% cost 

reduction 

[Bonilla, 2008] -1.42 (foodstuffs) 

-1.75 (building materials) 

-0.43 (oil and coal) 

Tonne-km (for Denmark) 

Setra SD: -0.7 Tonne-km f

LD: -1.0 Tonne-km 

[TML, 2008] -0.416 (TRANSTOOLS 

model) 

[-1.2; -0.3] (analytical 

approach) 

 Tonne-volume 

Tonne-km 

[Graham, 2004] Typically [-1.5; -0.5] Range from literature 

review. But it highly 

depends on commodity 

groups, trip length, etc. 

Table 1: Example of elasticity range estimates 

Loading capacity 

The loading rate of LHVs is doubtless the most important factor. The challenge is to 

maximise or at least optimise the payload of LHVs in order to get the maximum benefits from 

them (e.g. in terms of cost per ton-km or energy consumed per ton-km). 

With regard to energy efficiency, the UBA study [UBA, 2007] reported that the potential of 

LHVs to reduce fuel consumption per tonne loaded is highly dependent on the optimised use 

of loading capacity. As long as the payload is not clearly above 77% of the full capacity (i.e. 

corresponding to 40 pallets out of a maximum 52), the average fuel consumption per palletkm would be lower than for a fully loaded standard HDV. This point will be discussed in 

chapter 4. 

Moreover, it is difficult to get data about the share of empty running on the total vehicle-km. 

This will depend on the distance travelled, the availability of backloads and the type of 

commodity transported. However, due to the economical disadvantages of running an empty 

LHV over long distances, one can expect that hauliers would optimise their routes in order to 

get maximum profit. 

 

f See e.g. the position paper of the European Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM) at: 

http://www.eimrail.org/documents/EIMStatementonLHVspresentation06082008_000.pdf 
13

There is debate about a potential minimum payload required for LHVs. A close monitoring of 

the payload of LHVs seems to be unavoidable (weight-based or volume-based measurements 

by means for instance of weigh-in-motion systems might be a solution). 

External costs 

Broadly speaking, external costs can be defined as costs that result from the transport users 

activity but affect the rest of the society. 

External costs associated to heavy duty vehicles are generally attributable to accidents, 

congestion, infrastructure, noise and emissions (climate change and air pollution). The study 

carried out by Piecyk and McKinnon [Piecyk, 2007] reported the total external costs of heavy 

goods vehicles (HGVs) activity in the UK. The cost breakdown is shown in Figure 4. It was 

found that 40% of the total external costs is due to congestion, 23% to infrastructure, 19% to 

traffic accidents, 15% to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and 2% to noise (note 

also that climate change costs would represent around 8% of the total external costs of road 

freight transport in the UK). 

Figure 4: Total external costs of HDV activity in the UK 

Source: [Piecyk, 2007]

Also, the INFRAS/IWW study [INFRAS, 2004] provides data about the external costs related 

to road freight transport, for different years and at European level (EU15 + Switzerland and 

Norway). In this study, external costs are attributable to accidents, noise, air pollution, climate 

change, nature and landscape, urban effects, congestion and up/downstream processes. 

There is limited literature analysing the impact of LHVs on external costs at European level. 

As a first order analysis, it is expected that LHVs would have lower external costs per ton-km 

compared to standard HDVs. This is discussed by Piecyk and McKinnon [Piecyk, 2007]. But 

the equation is more complex since second order effects need to be taken into account. 

In its study on the impact of LHVs on external costs of UK freight transport, Oxera [Oxera, 

2007] concluded that although the introduction of LHVs would seem to reduce external costs, 

this benefit will be counterbalanced by taking into account the switch of demand from rail to 

road, as discussed previously. They estimated that the additional road freight demand 

generated by LHVs will cost around £907 million per year, to be supported by the society. 

The results are presented in Table 2 below. 
14

Change Cost (£ million) 

Switch from HDVs to LHVs -44 

Switch from rail to road +71 

Road freight generation +907 

Net overall impact of LHVs +934 

Table 2: Impact of LHVs on the external costs of UK freight transport 

Source: [Oxera, 2007] (see also [UIC, 2008]) 

However, as underlined by Prof. McKinnon [McKinnon, 2008], Oxera "give no indication of 

the likely source of this large amount of additional freight traffic. Its econometric analysis is 

detached from the real world of production and logistics management. There is strong counter 

evidence too to suggest that it grossly exaggerates any traffic generation effect." 
15

4 Monte-Carlo simulation 

Based on the analysis above, a model following the structure described in Figure 2 was built. 

The model covers most factors mentioned in literature that may affect the uptake and impact 

of LHVs. Given that the values for these factors differ significantly, the model developed 

allows for the use of different combinations of assumptions, covering the full range of 

possible values given by the studies consulted, literature, historical data and model 

projections. 

An additional input to the analysis came from the projections of the TRANSTOOLS model 

(v. 1.7.4) for year 2020. The demand for freight transport between all combinations of origin 

and destination at NUTS 2 level (region) across Europe was differentiated according to 

product group (following the NSTR 1-digit classification system used by TRANSTOOLS) 

and distance band. Three distance bands were selected in order to test the impact of different 

levels of uptake of LHVs depending on the distance. Accordingly, different elasticities were 

used for each combination. 

The main parameters, their range of values and the sources used to define their range are 

given in Table 3 below: 

Parameter Mean Assumptions/comments 

Cost decrease of 

LHVs 

20% Cost per tonne-kilometre would be reduced by 20-25% over long-haul 

runs (see e.g. [TML, 2008], [TRL, 2008], [UBA, 2007]). 

5-30% is assumed as a consistent range for cost decrease (but it depends 

of course on the load factor and distances). A normal distribution is 

assumed with a mean of 20%. 

Average payload 14 t (<800 km) 

21 t (>800 km) 

Refers to average payload of HDVs. 

Range distribution has been adapted from literature. 

Elasticity road 

(<800 km) 

From 0 to 50% of 

elasticity for 

distances 

between 800 and 

1500 km 

As for the longer distances, but due to the uncertainty concerning the 

degree of competition with rail at shorter distances lower values are used. 

Elasticity road 

(800-1500 km) 

-0.8 In their literature review, Graham and Glaister [Graham, 2004] reported a 

mean of -1.07 which was obtained from values ranging from -7.92 and 

1.72. Most of the estimates fall between -0.5 to -1.5 but this range should 

be somewhat extended e.g. from -0.3 to -2. Mean value estimated at -0.8. 

Distribution has been designed accordingly (see e.g. [Graham, 2004]). 

Elasticity road 

very (>1500 km) 

-1.1 Same approach as above, except that the elasticities will be moved to 

higher estimates. One can assume the range [-0.5; -2.2] with a mean value 

fixed at -1.1. 

Distribution has been designed accordingly (see e.g. [Graham, 2004]). 

Increase of 

payload per trip 

percentage 

increase of 

current payload, 

ranging from 

20% to 50% 

Payload of LHVs (depending on the configuration) can range from 0 

(totally empty) to 38-40 tons (fully loaded). 

- For standard HDVs (i.e. tractor + semi-trailer and truck semi-trailer), the 

maximum payload is around 24-26 tons (see e.g. [Aurell, 2007]). 

- For LHVs, the maximum payload can vary between 37.5 tons and 40 

tons (see e.g. [Aurell, 2007]). 
16

Parameter Mean Assumptions/comments 

A maximum additional payload of 50% is assumed 

(Note that in volume terms, LHVs can carry up to 160 m3

 instead of 101 

m3

 i.e. more than 50%.) 

Increased 

external cost per 

veh-km 

25% See e.g. the impact of LHVs on the external costs of UK freight transport 

[Oxera, 2007]. 

Share of LHVs 

in total tons 

lifted (road) 

2-15% (<800km) 

10-40% (800-

1500 km) 

5-75% (>1500 

km) 

It is e.g. estimated that around 10% of the total long-haul fleet in Sweden 

are modular vehicles [CEDR, 2007]. Different shares are available from 

literature, but 5-10% seems to be a minimum for long haul trips. 

See also the ISI study [ISI, 2008]. 

Table 3: List of variables and their associated ranges assumed in the present study 

The mean value for the average payload of conventional trucks for year 2020 is assumed to be 

14t for short distance trips and 21t for long distance trips. The range used in the Monte Carlo 

simulation was 11t to 17t and 16t to 26t respectively. Since the actual increase in payload 

does not depend only on the increase in capacity, a range between 20% and 50% was used. In 

order to take the share of LHVs into account, a normal distribution with a mean of 8%, 25% 

and 50% was used for the three distance bands, assuming that the level of uptake would 

increase with distance. 

As regards elasticities, an important reason for differences in the results of other studies, the 

present analysis uses the ones referring to original demand for freight, i.e. the tons lifted at the 

point of origin. It was considered that using the price elasticity of demand referring to 

transport performance, i.e. ton-km, can lead to distortions in the analysis by addressing an 

output indicator instead of the real demand. The range of values used was based on the values 

and probability distribution available from literature. 

Distance band mean min max 

< 800 km -0.21 -0.79 0 

800 – 1500 km -0.83 -1.79 -0.31 

> 1500 km -1.15 -2.44 -0.22 

Table 4: Price elasticities per distance band (road transport, demand in tonnes) 

The simulation results suggested that the degree of uptake of LHVs in the short distance band 

(<800 km) affects the overall results significantly, since their large scale introduction would 

imply an increase in the load factors for that distance band. This hypothesis has been 

discussed extensively in the literature and it seems rather improbable that such a development 

is plausible. In order to remove the distortion of that assumption and to make the analysis 

comparable to the ISI study [ISI, 2008], an additional simulation was made assuming that the 

penetration of LHVs for short distance trips would be 0% (i.e. a sub-scenario of the general 

simulation). 
17

5 Simulation results 

Given the increase in payload brought by LHVs, the number of vehicle-km needed to move 

the same volume of transport decreases in all combinations of penetration rates and 

elasticities. The simulation trials for year 2020 show an average decrease of 2.3% (although it 

ranges from close to 0% to over 4%) with trips over 1500 km being more affected (average 

decrease by 16.7%). The short distance trips are expected to have a decrease of 2% on 

average but, since they constitute the largest part of the trip, bring most benefits in absolute 

terms. 

The significant cost reductions would also attract traffic from other modes, especially rail. 

The exact volume of modal shift depends on the reaction of the market in the various 

geographic and product market segments and aggregate approaches based on simple 

elasticities can obviously give just an indication. The range of results of the simulation does 

however suggest that LHVs can be very competitive towards railways, especially for long 

distance bands and for non-bulk products. On average, the simulations show a shift of 73.3 

million tons lifted/year from rail to road, corresponding to 18.1 billion ton-km of transport 

volume per year. For railways that would represent a 2.1% decrease compared to its expected 

traffic in year 2020, while for road it would represent an increase of 0.6%. For long trip 

distances the effect on rail can be even more negative though, with loses on average of 56%, 

reaching 100% in many trials of the simulation (that combine extreme values of elasticities 

and cost reductions from LHVs). 

The overall share of LHVs in the fleet is expected to be 8.2% (mean value). This value 

depends on the assumptions concerning the uptake in the various distance bands and the 

expected freight demand for each segment. Load factors would increase from 21 tons to 23.9 

tons on average for trips over 1500 km, and from 14 tons to 14.4 tons for trips below 800 km. 

The main benefit from the introduction of LHVs would be the decrease in transport costs as a 

result of higher payloads per truck. The average of the simulation trials indicates potential 

savings of almost €3 billion/year, but with a high level of uncertainty caused by the 

underlying assumptions. Excluding trips below 800 km from the analysis gives a smaller -but 

less uncertain- figure of €500 million/year. 

The environmental benefits of using fewer trucks -even though many would be bigger than 

they are today- are also important. Accounting for higher external costs per km for LHVs, still 

gives a positive balance. On average it is estimated at about €400 million/year (€130 

million/year if short distances are excluded). 

There would be negative impacts as regards external costs though, as a result of the shift of 

traffic from other modes to road. Since trips with LHVs would replace trips with (cleaner and 

safer) rail, the external costs of the traffic shifted would rise. On average this would amount to 

€313 million/year, a significant amount but still lower than the decrease in external cost 

brought by the reduction of trips. 
18

Figure 5: Comparison of costs and benefits 

The net welfare impact of a large scale introduction in the EU would be positive in all 

possible combinations of values for the input variables. If the use of LHVs for all distance 

bands is assumed, the total net welfare would be €1.5 billion per year. However, the range of 

possible values would be very wide, from 0 in the case of minimal introduction to over €5 

billion when the maximum level of LHVs for all distance bands is assumed. 

The sensitivity analysis allows the identification of the variables that contribute most to the 

variance of the estimated total net welfare gain: 
19

Figure 6: Sensitivity analysis of the total net welfare gain 

Three main messages can be found in the results of the sensitivity analysis: 

• The net welfare gain has a high correlation with the level of uptake of LHVs. Since 

higher numbers of LHVs would imply higher savings in transport costs, maximizing 

the share of LHVs would be positive for the economy as a whole. The maximum level 

however can not be set by policy makers, since it is up to the market itself to find the 

optimum level. Most studies analysing the issue doubt the possibility of LHVs 

reaching high shares of the market since a small part only of shipments are of 

sufficient size to exploit the advantages of LHVs. 

• The average increase in payload (in absolute terms, i.e. tonnes) is also an important 

factor, especially in the case of shorter trips (<800 km). The reason for this is that the 

current average payload for such trips is very low and increasing it would lead to 

important transport cost savings. The same point though leads to a more pessimistic 

estimate of the potential uptake of LHVs for short distances: given that the actual fleet 

is used rather inefficiently for this distance band, shippers and operators will not have 

the incentive to use LHVs. This effect has been highlighted in some of the studies 

reviewed and the results of the present analysis also support it. It is therefore proposed 

to assume that the share of LHVs for shorter trips is assumed as minimal. 

• The third important variable is the assumed increase of external costs of LHVs 

compared to conventional trucks on a per km basis. This affects the increase or 
20

decrease of environmental damage, accidents and infrastructure use costs from the 

change of the fleet mix but also the overall increase in external costs from the shift of 

transport activity away from rail and inland waterways. 

The above considerations imply that a more moderate scenario for the introduction of LHVs 

is most probable. Assuming that the share of LHVs will be higher at higher distance bands the 

range of the expected impacts would be the following: 

Variable Unit Mean value Min Max 

Share of LHVs in road freight 3.2% 0.5% 5% 

Decrease in road transport activity veh*kms 2.3 billion 

1.1% 

0.4% 3.2 billion 

1.6% 

Increase in road transport volume Tonnes 

lifted 

33 million 

0.15% 

10 million 

0.05% 

50 million 

0.30% 

Decrease in rail transport activity Ton*kms 13 billion 

1.5% 

10 billion 

1.2% 

15 billion 

1.8% 

Decrease in external costs from 

more efficient shipments 

€ 230 million 180 million 260 million 

Increase in external costs from 

modal split 

€ 230 million 130 million 300 million 

Decrease of transport costs € 1.4 billion 500 million 2 billion 

Net welfare gain € 700 million 200 million 1 billion 

Table 5: Summary of results, LHV uptake depending on trip distance, year 2020 

The mean values of the above table as regards cost reductions and the new average shipment 

sizes that would result from the introduction of LHVs were used as input for the 

TRANSTOOLS model (applying a road transport assignment for the revised O-D matrices 

that correspond to the distance bands and product groups affected). This allowed the 

identification of the main corridors where increased traffic of LHVs is expected. The 

following messages can be derived from the resulting map: 

• Given the level of economic integration expected by year 2020, the trade flows that 

can be served by LHVs are spread across Europe. There is a higher concentration in 

Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, but several important corridors are 

also visible in other Member States. 

• The areas where these corridors belong to will benefit from the decreased traffic and 

congestion levels resulting from the replacement of conventional trucks with LHVs. 

They would also bear though the costs of improving the design characteristics of 

infrastructure where necessary in order to accommodate the special requirements of 

LHVs. However, the benefits of decreased transport costs will be enjoyed by users and 

consumers and the origin and destination of the shipments. 

• The corridors where rail will lose traffic coincide to a large extent with the main LHV 

corridors. 
21

• It is assumed that LHVs will be allowed for all trade inside the EU and with 

neighbouring partners. Opt-outs by some member states or prohibition by some 

trading partners would probably change the picture significantly. In a similar fashion, 

different charging schemes for LHVs could lead to additional distortions. 

• The impact on combined transport and especially Ro-Ro is unclear. It depends on 

several factors, including organisational issues of road and other mode operators, as 

well as on pricing policies. 

Figure 7: Expected main corridors of LHV traffic, TRANSTOOLS results for year 2020 
22

6 Limiting the external impact 

From the economic point of view, there seems to be a consensus concerning the benefits that 

LHVs can bring for operators and the economy as a whole. Even though there is no 

conclusive evidence concerning the external impacts of LHVs on a vehicle basis, the results 

of the present analysis imply that at aggregate level the net impact would be positive: the total 

external cost of freight transport would decrease. However, some of the studies reviewed 

identify potential problems raised by the introduction of LHVs that in most cases concern 

their external impacts. 

The question of the impact on CO2 emissions from transport was highlighted in the ISI report 

[ISI, 2008]. Even though a reduction of emissions is expected as a result of the improvement 

of the efficiency in road transport in the short-term, the study warns that in the medium term 

the effect on modal shift may lead to a rebound and even an increase in total CO2 emissions. 

Our analysis elaborated on the factors that influence the net balance. There is naturally 

consensus on the fact that LHVs would still emit more than rail per ton of goods transported 

and that modal shift from rail to road would lead to an increase of emissions. However, our 

simulations for the long term (2020) suggest that the main benefits of LHVs –and their main 

market- would come from the replacement of conventional trucks and the reduction of 

emissions as a result of fewer conventional trucks on the road clearly outweighs the increase 

as a result of modal split. Additionally, two measures could ensure that the impact from 

modal shift is limited: 

• Introducing a minimum load for LHVs: improving the degree of utilization of loading 

capacity tends to limit the increase in emissions from modal shift. The Monte-Carlo 

simulations suggest that setting a minimum of 70% of loading capacity would limit 

the increase in CO2 emissions and other externalities significantly7. 

• Internalizing the real external cost of LHVs through a suitable vignette/charge: the 

"right price" for LHVs would help optimize their use. The shift from rail to road 

would be moderated as a result, while operators would have an additional stimulus to 

opt for more efficient solutions in the use of LHVs. 

The second main area for concern raised in some studies seems to be the need to adapt 

infrastructure for the use of LHVs, mainly as regards road surface, bridges, geometric design 

and parking areas. The current definition of LHVs is broad enough to allow for a wide range 

of possible vehicle setups, each having different weight and length combinations. Estimates 

on the total cost of infrastructure for specific road segments or the system as a whole are as a 

result difficult to make. There are however certain factors that can be controlled and/or 

standardized in order to minimize the external cost of infrastructure use, most notably the 

maximum allowable weight per axle. Although the findings from theory and laboratory 

experiments do not yet allow for a clear answer, it seems that several designs of LHVs can 

actually decrease surface wear. Where technical solutions are not enough to limit the 

externalities and their cost, it is important to design suitable schemes that would allow the 

providers of infrastructure to recover the investments needed or the costs incurred as a result 

of LHVs. 

 

7

 Such a measure is technically feasible, but would entail control measures that would increase the costs of LHVs 

and should be also taken into account. Additionally, if such a measure is applied for LHVs, the applicability and 

impact of a similar measure for conventional trucks as a means of increasing efficiency would also need to be 

addressed. 
23

7 Designing specific policy measures 

The impact of LHVs depends to a large extent on the conditions under which they will be 

introduced. Although the economic impact is in principle expected to be positive and 

environmental consequences would be limited in most cases, a complete impact assessment 

can be performed only when specific policy measures for their introduction are available. 

This analysis can serve as a preliminary comparison of the range of costs and benefits of 

LHVs. The results suggest that the efficiency gains brought by LHVs are significant and that, 

overall, the impacts on welfare are positive. It also identified the areas of uncertainty, as well 

as technical and economic aspects that influence the final impact. These aspects can form the 

basis for the design of more detailed policy measures that aim at improving the expected 

result and the acceptability of LHVs. The main elements of such policy measures that have 

been revealed from the present analysis are: 

• Geographical coverage: expected costs and benefits may vary significantly depending 

on the economic structure, transport industry conditions or geographic position of each 

EU member state. It can be expected that some member states may wish to opt out 

from the introduction of LHVs. The overall benefits for the EU would be different in 

that case and the efficiency of the measure would probably be lower. 

• LHV typology: the introduction of specific types of LHVs can be considered to serve 

specific market requirements. For example, the cases of two-vehicle combinations 

weighing up to 44 tonnes on 5 axles, or 48 tonnes on 6 axles, or vehicles that can 

accommodate 45ft containers can be specifically analysed. 

• Efficiency/utilization standards: technological solutions such as aerodynamic 

improvements or utilisation requirements such as minimum load limit can be enforced 

in order to limit fuel consumption and emissions. 

• Internalisation measures: the level of internalisation of the external cost of LHVs and 

the schemes to allow infrastructure providers to recover their costs would influence 

the uptake of LHVs by the market and equity in the distribution of costs and benefits. 

• Infrastructure requirements: the typology of LHVs that would be allowed to be used 

would influence the requirements for infrastructure, ranging from the geometric 

design of roads to parking and refuelling areas. In case a design that cannot be served 

by the current networks EU-wide is selected, the usable road network would be 

limited and- as a result- both the uptake and the benefits of LHVs would be reduced. 

• Efficiency in logistics and distribution: Apart from the improvement of transport 

operations, the introduction of LHVs can also influence the efficiency of operations in 

either end of the road trip as a result of the changes in shipment size and frequency. 

The direction and the order of magnitude of the impact is, however, rather unclear. 

 

The results of the simulations suggest that the success of the introduction of LHVs depends to 

a large extent on the degree of substitution of conventional trucks with LHVs. As long as the 

price signals are correct, LHVs should increase the overall efficiency of the transport system 

and the net impact would be positive. 
24

8 Conclusions 

The analysis presented here explored the range of potential impacts using the rationale and the 

assumptions of several studies that have analysed the issue extensively. The objective was 

neither to forecast the precise share of LHVs in the future, nor to provide an exact evaluation 

of their impact. Instead, the analysis aimed to address the uncertainty in the technical and 

economic aspects of LHVs and derive some policy relevant messages through the 

identification of the main factors that influence the potential impacts. 

The main conclusion of the analysis is that the introduction of LHVs would be beneficial for 

the EU economy and -under certain conditions- environment and society as a whole. LHVs 

can increase the efficiency of the EU transport system and reduce friction. From an EU policy 

point of view, facilitating the introduction of LHVs is in line with the objectives of the 

Common Transport Policy and would help improve the internal market. Naturally, improving 

road transport would worsen the competitive position of other modes, but a balance can be 

found through investments and improvements in the other modes as well. Limiting the use of 

LHVs to specific member states or corridors would pose practical obstacles and greatly 

reduce the uptake and positive impacts of LHVs. 

LHVs would bring important efficiency improvements but their extent is limited by the 

inefficiency of the structure and profile of the freight market. Since the actual loading 

capacity of conventional trucks is under-utilised, LHVs would currently have an impact on 

specific market segments of high value goods, large shipment sizes and long trip distances. 

Combining their introduction with measures to improve overall transport and logistics 

efficiency would lead to additional positive results. 

Improving the efficiency of the road sector would obviously worsen the competitive position 

of other modes, especially rail transport. Since LHVs –as road transport in general- does not 

compare favourably with rail, a shift from rail to road would result in an increase of the 

external cost of the part of the transport activity that would be shifted. As long as LHVs 

replace a sufficient number of conventional trucks though, the overall impact in both 

economic and environmental terms would still be positive. 

The positive impact of LHVs can be increased through measures that maximise efficiency 

gains and minimise the external costs: 

• Improvements in vehicle design to reduce fuel consumption, environmental damage 

and accident risks. 

• Enforcement of minimum load limits and/or maximum percentage of empty trips. 

• Standardisation of vehicle sizes and loading units. 

• Suitable charging systems to internalise external costs and minimize the impact on 

other modes. 

• Common infrastructure design specifications for Trans-European Transport Networks. 
25

ANNEX I - Probability distributions of input variables 
26
27

ANNEX II – Probability distributions of forecast variables 

(results) 
28
29
30
31

ANNEX III – Sensitivity tests for main forecasts 
32
33
34

9 References 

[Arcadis, 2006] Monitoringsonderzoek vervolgproef lzv resultaten van de vervolgproef met 

langere of langere en zwaardere voertuigcombinaties op de Nederlandse wegen, 

ARCADIS, May 2006 (report in Dutch, summary and results available in 

English). 

[Aurell, 2007] Aurell, J., Wadman, T., Vehicle combinations based on the modular concept, 

Committee 54: Vehicles and Transports, Report 1/2007, Nordic Road 

Association, 2007. 

[Bast, 2006] Effects of new vehicle concepts on the infrastructure of the federal truck road 

network, Final Report, Federal Highway Research Institute (Bast), November 

2006 (abstract available at http://www.bast.de). 

[Beuthe, 2001] Beuthe, M., Jourquin, B., Geerts, J-F., Ha, C., Freight transportation demand 

elasticities: a geographic multimodal transportation network analysis, 

Transportation Research Part E, 37, pp.253-266, 2001. 

[Bonilla, 2008] Bonilla, D., Salling, K., Energy Consumption And Truck Freight Transport 

Demand: Is Denmark a special case? Work in progress, 2008. 

[CEDR, 2007] Rapport sur les véhicules de 60-t, Conference of European Directors of Roads 

CEDR, October 2007. 

[FM, 2008] Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles, The Role of the 

European Commission, Interim Report 1, Initial Review of Measures and 

Policies, Fauber Maunsell, March 2008. 

[Graham, 2004] Graham, D., J., Glaister, S., Road Traffic Demand Elasticity Estimates: A 

Review, Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, 3, pp. 261-274, 2004. 

[INFRAS, 2004] External Costs of Transport –Update Study, INFRAS/IWW, Final Report, 

Zurich/Karlsruhe, October 2004. 

[ISI, 2008] Long-term Climate Impacts of the Introduction of Mega-Trucks, ISI Fraunhofer 

study for the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies 

(CER), final draft report, July 2008. 

[Larsson, 2008] Larsson presentation at IEA Workshop New Energy Indicators for Transport: 

The Way Forward, 28-29 January 2008, Paris. 

[McKinnon, 2005] McKinnon, A., C., The economic and environmental benefits of increasing 

maximum truck weight: the British experience, Transportation Research Part D, 

Vol.10, pp. 77-95, 2005. 

[McKinnon, 2008] McKinnon, A., C., Should the Maximum Length and Weight of Trucks be 

Increased? A Review of European Resarch, Logistics Research Centre, HeriotWatt University, Edinburgh, 2008.

http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/logistics/downloads/lhvstudy/McKinnon%20-%20LHV%20paper%20-

%20final%20-%20ISL%20conference%202008.pdf
35

[Oxera, 2007] The road, rail and external impacts of LHVs, Oxera, May 2007. 

[Piecyk, 2007] Piecyk, M., McKinnon, A., C., Internalising the External Costs of Road 

Freight Transport in the UK, Heriot-Watt University, November 2007. 

http://www.greenlogistics.org/SiteResources/1fbb59ff-3e5a-4011-a41e18deb8c07fcd_Internalisation%20report%20(final).pdf 

[TML, 2008] Transport and Mobility Leuven, Effects of adapting the rules on weights and 

dimensions of heavy commercial vehicles as established within Directive 

96/53/EC, TML final report for DG TREN, November 2008. 

[TRL, 2008] Knight, I., Newton, W., McKinnon, A. et al., Longer and/or Longer and Heavier 

Goods Vehicles (LHVs) – a Study of the Likely Effects if Permitted in the UK: 

Final Report, TRL study for the UK DfT, June 2008. 

[UBA, 2007] Longer and Heavier on German Roads. Do Megatrucks Contribute Towards 

Sustainable Transports? Umwelt Bundes Amt (UBA), August, 2007. 

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/hintergrund/riesenlkw-englisch.pdf 

[UIC, 2008] Mega-Truckss versus Rail freight? What the admission of LHVs would really 

mean for Europe, brochure from the rail freight and rail community 

organisations, July 2008. 

[VTI, 2008] Vierth, I., Berell, H., McDaniel, J., Haraldsson, M., Hammarström, U., Yahya, 

M-R., Lindberg, G., Carlsson, A., Ögren, M., Björketun, U., The effects of long 

and heavy trucks on the transport system, Report on a government assignment, 

VTI Report, 2008. 

http://www.vti.se/EPiBrowser/Publikationer%20-%20English/R605A.pdf
36

European Commission 

EUR 23933 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Title: Longer and heavier vehicles for freight transport 

Authors: Panayotis Christidis, Guillaume Leduc 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

2009 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593 

ISBN 978-92-79-12790-8 

DOI 10.2791/12276 

Abstract 

The European Commission is considering the implications of allowing the use of LHVs, vehicles measuring up 

to 25.25 m and weighing up to 60 tons, for the whole of the European Union transport system. The introduction 

of such trucks on the European road network will generate environmental impacts, safety and infrastructure 

costs. 

<br> 

The present study aims at carrying out an uncertainty analysis of the technical and economic aspects of LHVs 

based on assumptions and results ranges taken from recent literature. The results suggest that the potential 

impacts of the introduction of LHVs at EU level can be positive –under certain conditions- in both economic and 

environmental terms. The increased payloads per vehicle are expected to reduce transport costs and lead to 

significant savings for operators, industry and consumers. Since fewer trucks would be required to transport the 

same volume of trade, the environmental and other external costs of freight transport would also be lower, even 

though an individual LHV consumes and pollutes more than a conventional truck. An analysis of the potential 

benefits to the economy and the society as a whole has been carried out. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place 

an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by 

sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 
37

The mission of the Joint Research Centre is to provide customer-driven scientific and 

technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of 

European Union policies. As a service of the European Commission, the Joint Research 

Centre functions as a reference centre of science and technology for the Union. Close to the 

policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the Member States, while being 

independent of special interests, whether private or national. 

LF-NA-23933-EN-C