Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network"

(2003/C 256/11)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network - (COM(2002) 769 final - 2002/0309 (COD));

having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 22 January 2003, under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

having regard to the decision of its bureau of 12 March 2002 to issue an opinion on this subject and to entrust the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy with the preparation of the opinion;

having regard to the White Paper on European transport policy(1) issued by the European Commission on 12 September 2001;

having regard to Decision No. 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network(2);

having regard to its opinion on the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Trans-European Transport Network: 1998 report on the implementation of the guidelines and priorities for the future (pursuant to Article 18 of Decision No. 1692/96/EC) (COM(98) 614 final) (CdR 60/1999 fin)(3);

having regard to its opinion on the White Paper on European transport policy (CdR 54/2001 fin)(4);

having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Network (CdR 284/2001 fin)(5);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy on 30 April 2003 (CdR 93/2003 rev.), rapporteur Mr Durnwalder, Governor of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol (Italy-EPP);

whereas:

1) there is an acknowledged need to improve the level of safety in tunnels forming part of the Trans-European Road Network; whilst it is necessary to have a uniform level of minimum requirements, there is also a need for a realistic appraisal of both the costs and risks and for implementation of the safety measures to be left, as far as possible, to the Member States and the regions;

2) bearing in mind that structural and technical adjustments to existing tunnels require a high level of investment, there is a need to set an appropriate time limit, having regard to both the tunnel density in the respective areas and the class of tunnel concerned, i.e. the degree of risk involved;

3) regional and local authorities can make a decisive contribution in this field as they frequently have direct responsibility for administering the road network in their respective areas and either implement or coordinate a series of safety measures;

4) the introduction of higher safety standards in tunnels should be backed up by appropriate measures to inform and educate road-users, in order to prevent accidents,

adopted this opinion unanimously at its 50th plenary session held on 2 and 3 July 2003 (meeting of 3 July).

1. The views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

1.1. welcomes the Commission's endeavours to establish a new, organic system of measures, coordinated at EU level and aimed at ensuring safety in tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network;

1.2. would, however, point out that each tunnel represents a unique engineering feat and consequently the same safety measures cannot readily be applied to each individual situation;

1.3. does, however, underline the need to apply equivalent, internationally consolidated standards in order to achieve the highest possible uniform level of safety throughout the EU. When these provisions are implemented, the bodies concerned must be authorised to have recourse to measures which are in line with established practice, are economically justifiable and which take account of the state of public budgets;

1.4. criticises the lack of information campaigns on correct rules of behaviour for road-users in tunnels (e.g. the need to keep longer safety distances between vehicles than in the open; the need to keep a safe distance, even when traffic has come to a standstill or is moving very slowly; and the establishment of measures to be taken in emergencies), bearing in mind that the most frequent cause of accidents is human error;

1.5. draws attention to the fact that deadlines for making adjustments to existing tunnels should be set not only in the light of the density of tunnels in the respective Member States but also in the light of the class of tunnel involved;

1.6. highlights the fact that the safety system to be adopted will entail a high level of investment with regard to both the organisational requirements and the structural and technical measures required; adequate funding will have to be found to cover these costs;

1.7. therefore believes that the refitting requirement in the case of existing tunnels should concentrate on hazard-prevention measures;

1.8. calls for local highway authorities and the safety-inspection authorities to be fully involved in the planning and implementation and application of the system of measures; not just tunnels, but also whole road networks should be regarded as forming part of a single complex, from a safety point of view, in order to enable the situation to be considered from a comprehensive standpoint;

1.9. would like to see the application of a similar system of safety measures in the case of all tunnels throughout the European transport network, bearing in mind that safety measures cannot be confined to particular sections of this network.

2. Recommendations made by the Committee of the Regions

Recommendation 1

Article 4(2)

>Original text>

>Amended text>

Recommendation 2

Article 5

>Original text>

>Amended text>

Recommendation 3

Articles 6 and 7

The CoR recommends that Article 6 and 7 set out less detailed provisions, with the aim of entrusting responsibility for implementing the safety measures to the Member States or the regions, on the basis of existing organisational arrangements.

Recommendation 4

Article 11(7)

With regard to Article 11(7), the CoR recommends that the proposed time limits for making adjustments to already existing tunnels should also take account of the class of the tunnels concerned; i.e. the adjustments should be carried out first to Class I tunnels and subsequently to the other classes.

Recommendation 5

Article 13(1)

>Original text>

>Amended text>

Reason

It must generally be the task of the operator (tunnel manager) to carry out risk analyses.

Recommendation 6

Article 14 Title and (1)

>Original text>

>Amended text>

Reason

It must be possible to grant derogations also in the case of equivalent or improved safety measures.

Recommendation 7

Annex I, Point 1.2.1

>Original text>

Where, for tunnels at the design stage, a 15-year forecast shows that the traffic volume will exceed 9000 vehicles per day and per lane, a twin-tube tunnel with unidirectional traffic shall be in place at the time when this value will be exceeded.

>Amended text>

Where, for tunnels at the design stage, a 15-year forecast shows that the traffic volume will exceed >S>9000>/S>12000 vehicles per day and per lane, a twin-tube tunnel with unidirectional traffic shall be in place at the time when this value will be exceeded.

Recommendation 8

Annex I, Point 1.4.2

>Original text>

Longitudinal ventilation shall be used in tunnels with bi-directional traffic only where ordinary traffic conditions allow vehicles to drive out of the tunnel in the direction of the smoke.

>Amended text>

Longitudinal ventilation shall be used in tunnels with bi-directional traffic only >S>where ordinary traffic conditions allow vehicles to drive out of the tunnel in the direction of the smoke.>/S>in cases where it has been demonstrated, on the basis of specific calculations, that the planned longitudinal ventilation equipment can contain the smoke, at least during evacuation or rescue operations.

Recommendation 9

Annex I, Point 1.6

>Original text>

The distance between lay-bys shall not exceed 1000 m. The Administrative Authority may require shorter distances between lay-bys where a risk analysis concludes that this is necessary.

>Amended text>

The distance between lay-bys shall not exceed 1000 m. The Administrative Authority may require shorter distances between lay-bys where a risk analysis concludes that this is necessary. If the tunnel has an emergency parking shoulder, lay-bys may not be required.

Recommendation 10

Annex I, point 1.7.7

>Original text>

Appropriate means, such as doors or overpressure, shall prevent the propagation of smoke or gases from one tube to the other.

>Amended text>

Appropriate means, such as doors or overpressure, shall be used to prevent the propagation of fire and smoke or gases from one tube to the other.

Recommendation 11

Annex I, Point 1.8

>Original text>

As they can increase potential risks, longitudinal gradients above 5 % shall not be permitted.

>Amended text>

As they can increase potential risks, longitudinal gradients above >S>5 %>/S>6 % shall not be permitted, except where the geographical features do not allow for any other solution.

Recommendation 12

Annex I, Point 1.11.1

>Original text>

Tunnels shall be equipped with the following:

- indication of escape routes by lighting at least every 100 m and by signs every 25 m, 1,1 m to 1,5 m above escape route level, and by lighting and signs above safety recesses and fire-fighting equipment;

- systematic installation of fire extinguishers in the tunnels at intervals of at least 150 m and at the entrances, and water supply for firemen at intervals of at least 150 m;

- radio broadcasting equipment in all tunnels with special channels for emergency services use. The Tunnel Manager and emergency services shall be able to interrupt radio broadcasting for emergency messages;

- video monitoring systems in tunnels longer than 1000 m, including automatic incident detection;

- ...

>Amended text>

Tunnels shall be equipped with the following:

- Indication of escape routes by lighting at least every 100 m and by signs every >S>25 m, 1,1 m to 1,5 m>/S> 50 m, 2 m above escape route level, and by lighting and signs above safety recesses and fire-fighting equipment;

- low-voltage illuminated road marking separating the road from the pavement;

- traffic lights for halting access to tunnels not just at tunnel entrances but also at a specified distance in front of entrances;

- automatic triggering of incident alarms by (various possibilities):

- exceeding of the alarm level for CO concentrations;

- exceeding of the alarm level for poor visibility;

- the activation of fire-detection systems;

- manual activation of the alarm signal.

- systematic installation of fire extinguishers in the tunnels at intervals of at least>S>150 m>/S> 200 m and at the entrances, and water supply for firemen at intervals of at least 150 m;

- radio broadcasting equipment in all tunnels with special channels for emergency services use. The Tunnel Manager and emergency services shall be able to interrupt radio broadcasting for emergency messages;

- video monitoring systems in tunnels longer than >S>1000 m>/S>5000 m, including automatic incident detection;

- ...

Recommendation 13

Annex I, Point 1.11.2

With reference to Annex I, Point 1.11.2, the CoR recommends that rescue areas be provided for emergency service vehicles and helicopters at the entrances to Class I, II and III tunnels.

Recommendation 14

Annex I, Point 1.13

>Original text>

The Administrative Authority shall decide whether it is necessary for some tunnels (e.g. high traffic volume and safety needs) to have a control room. Surveillance of several tunnels may be centralised into a single operational centre, e.g. with the transmission of video signals and operational data.

>Amended text>

The Administrative Authority shall decide whether it is necessary for some tunnels (e.g. high traffic volume and safety needs) to have a control room. Surveillance of several tunnels may be centralised into a single operational centre, e.g. with the transmission of >S>video signals and>/S> operational data.

Recommendation 15

Annex I, point 1.14

>Original text>

Drainage of flammable liquids shall be possible through well-designed slot gutters within the tunnel cross sections, where the transport of dangerous goods is permitted.

>Amended text>

Where the transport of dangerous goods is permitted, drainage of flammable liquids shall be possible through well-designed slot gutters within the tunnel cross sections, with siphon boxes (hydraulic seals) which stop the propagation of fire.

Recommendation 16

Annex I, Point 2.2

With regard to Annex I, Point 2.2, the CoR recommends that, in the case of tunnels over 1 km in length, safety officers draw up an emergency plan, test this plan in exercises held at regular intervals (every five years) with the aid of the emergency services and, where necessary, improve the plan.

Recommendation 17

Annex I, Point 2.5.1

>Original text>

For all tunnels, and particularly for tunnels starting and finishing in different Member States, a single control centre shall have full control at any given time.

>Amended text>

For all Class I and Class II tunnels, and particularly for tunnels starting and finishing in different Member States, >S>a single control centre shall have full control at any given time.>/S>there should be a contact point to which all incidents are notified.

Recommendation 18

Annex I, Point 3.2

>Original text>

Where heavy goods vehicles are equipped with additional tanks, such as tanks mounted on the trailer or tanks not permanently connected to the engine supply, the Tunnel Manager will take care that such tanks are empty. This provision does not apply to portable jerrycans.

>Amended text>

>S>Where heavy goods vehicles are equipped with additional tanks, such as tanks mounted on the trailer or tanks not permanently connected to the engine supply, the Tunnel Manager will take care that such tanks are empty. This provision does not apply to portable jerrycans.>/S>

Reason

This point appears to be superfluous and should be deleted.

Recommendation 19

Annex I, Point 4.2.1

>Original text>

Tunnels shall be equipped to ensure continuity of the functioning of on-board vehicle communication equipment (i.e. radios, navigation and positioning systems, mobile phones).

>Amended text>

Tunnels shall be equipped to ensure continuity of the functioning of on-board vehicle communication equipment (i.e. radios, >S>navigation>/S> and >S>positioning systems,>/S> mobile phones).

Reason

The operation of navigation and positioning systems in tunnels would not appear to be a matter of key importance.

Recommendation 20

Annex I, Point 4.2.2

>Original text>

When a user calls the emergency number 112 by mobile phone from a tunnel, the information shall be instantly available to the tunnel operator and the emergency services.

>Amended text>

When a user calls the specified emergency number >S>112>/S> by mobile phone from a tunnel, the information shall be instantly available to the >S>tunnel operator and the emergency services. >/S>contact point designated by the administrative authority.

Recommendation 21

Annex I, point 1, second bullet

>Original text>

The Tunnel Manager shall consult the Safety Officer at the design stage of a structure. On receiving a positive opinion from the Safety Officer, the Tunnel Manager shall submit the design to the Administrative Authority for approval.

>Amended text>

The >S>Tunnel Manager>/S>person responsible for the tunnel project shall consult the Safety Officer at the design stage of a structure. On receiving a positive opinion from the Safety Officer, the >S>Tunnel Manager>/S>person responsible for the tunnel project shall submit the design to the Administrative Authority for approval.

Recommendation 22

Annex II, point 2, first and third bullets

>Original text>

- The Tunnel Manager shall at all times keep safety documentation for each tunnel. ...

- The safety documentation ...

- The safety documentation for a tunnel at the design stage shall include:

- a description of the planned structure and access to it, together with the plans necessary for understanding its design and anticipated operating arrangements;

- ...

>Amended text>

- The Tunnel Manager or the person responsible for the project shall at all times keep safety documentation for each tunnel. ...

- The safety documentation ...

- The safety documentation for a tunnel at the design stage shall include:

- a description of the planned structure and access to it, together with the plans necessary for understanding its design and >S>anticipated>/S> intended operating arrangements;

- ...

Recommendation 23

Annex II, point 3, third bullet

>Original text>

For this purpose the Tunnel Manager shall compile complete safety documentation. This documentation shall include:

>Amended text>

For this purpose the Tunnel Manager or the person responsible for the project shall compile complete safety documentation. This documentation shall include:

Recommendation 24

Annex II, point 3, fourth bullet

>Original text>

The Tunnel Manager shall transmit this safety documentation to the Safety Officer, who shall give his opinion on the opening of the tunnel to public traffic.

>Amended text>

The Tunnel Manager or the person responsible for the project shall transmit this safety documentation to the Safety Officer, who shall give his opinion on the opening of the tunnel to public traffic.

Recommendation 25

Annex II, point 3, fifth bullet

>Original text>

On receiving a positive opinion from the Safety Officer, the Tunnel Manager shall forward this safety documentation to the Administrative Authority, which may decide to consult the Inspection Body. After receiving the comments of the Inspection Body, the Administrative Authority shall decide whether or not to authorise the opening of the tunnel to public traffic, or whether to do so with restrictive conditions, and shall notify this to the Tunnel Manager. A copy of this decision shall be forwarded to the emergency services.

>Amended text>

On receiving a positive opinion from the Safety Officer, the Tunnel Manager or the person responsible for the project shall forward this safety documentation to the Administrative Authority, which may decide to consult the Inspection Body. After receiving the comments of the Inspection Body, the Administrative Authority shall decide whether or not to authorise the opening of the tunnel to public traffic, or whether to do so with restrictive conditions, and shall notify this to the Tunnel Manager or the person responsible for the project. A copy of this decision shall be forwarded to the emergency services.

Recommendation 26

Annex II, point 5

>Original text>

At least once every year, the Tunnel Manager shall, in cooperation with the Safety Officer, organise periodic exercises for tunnel staff and the emergency services.

- Exercises: ...

>Amended text>

At least >S>once every year>/S> every five years and also when the tunnel is brought into service and the safety documentation is renewed because of changes, the Tunnel Manager shall, in cooperation with the Safety Officer, organise periodic exercises for tunnel staff and the emergency services.

- Exercises: ...

Recommendation 27

Annex III

With regard to Annex III, the CoR recommends that road signing should in all cases be readily understandable and self-explanatory; it must at all events be agreed, on a uniform basis, throughout Europe and it should not encumber tunnels.

Brussels, 3 July 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert Bore

(1) Commission White Paper of 12.9.2001 entitled "European transport policy for 2010: time to decide" COM(2001) 370 final.

(2) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1, as amended by Decision No 1346/2001/CE, OJ L 185, 6.7.2001, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 9.

(4) OJ C 192, 12.8.2002, p. 8.

(5) OJ C 278, 14.11.2002, p. 7.