Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic'
Date: 1999-09-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: commercial vehicle, inland transport, international transport, weight and size

C 374/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

mission could play a greater role when allocating funding or
framing proposals and projects to ensure that they address

inter alia, transport safety measures or research into cleaner
technologies.

Brussels, 16 September 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending
Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the
Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the
maximum authorised weights in international traffic’

(1999/C 374/18)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the list of Commission proposals pending on 1 May 1999 for which the entry into force
of the Amsterdam Treaty entails a change in the legal basis and/or procedure (SEC(1999) 581 final);

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down
for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in
national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (COM(1998)
414 final — 98/0227 COD ex-SYN) (1);

having regard to the Council decision, as notified by letter of 14 June 1999, to consult it on the matter,
under Articles 261 (first paragraph) and 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 September 1999 to appoint Mr Walsh (UK,
ELDR) as rapporteur-general, with a view to drawing up an opinion on the matter in accordance with
rule 39 of its rules of procedure,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 30th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 1999
(meeting of 16 September).

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Council Directive 96/53/EC deals with, amongst other
matters, the introduction of 44-tonne lorries onto Europe’s
roads. The European Commission proposal is to modify that
Directive to permit a range of vehicles over 40-tonnes all with
11.5-tonne drive axle weights for combined transport.

(1) OJ C 261, 19.8.1998, p. 13.

Notwithstanding its support for combined transport
1.2.
generally the European Parliament,
in its first reading on
15 April 1999, rejected the Commission proposal and request-
ed alternative options.

1.3.
The key question for local and regional authorities is
whether the proposed transport units will cause more damage
that
to road infrastructure and require strengthening of
infrastructure, notably bridges, insofar as local and regional
authorities have responsibilities in this area.

23.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374/83

2. Detailed consideration

The European Commission proposal seeks to modify
2.1.
the 1996 Directive in respect of maximum weight limits for
certain types of vehicles in combined transport:

— 44-tonnes for drawbar-trailer combinations where both

vehicle and trailer each have three axles;

— 44-tonnes for articulated vehicles where the tractor unit
has three axles and the semi-trailer either two or three
axles;

— 42-tonnes for articulated vehicles where the tractor unit

has two axles and the semi-trailer three axles.

These vehicles would be allowed a maximum axle drive weight
of 11,5-tonnes.

2.2.
The 11,5-tonne drive axle weight means that these
vehicles will cause about 30 % more road wear than vehicles
with 10,5-tonne drive axles. Road wear is proportional to the
weight on a vehicle axle, raised to the fourth power. On
this basis, calculation can show that the 44-tonne six-axle
articulated lorry is more road friendly than the 44-tonne
five-axle vehicle. The 44-tonne vehicle (with road-friendly
suspension) is less onerous for the road infrastructure, includ-
ing bridges, than the EU sanctioned 38-tonne or 40-tonne
5-axle vehicle.
If the Council Directive were amended to
include the 42-tonne vehicle discussed above, then there
would be significant costs to many highway authorities. It
would result in extra road damage and would require extensive
bridge strengthening.

2.3.

Council Directive 96/53/EC recognises:

— that the increase of lorry weights to 44-tonnes requires ‘a
balance between the rational and economical use of
commercial road vehicles and the requirements of infra-
structure maintenance’. (para. 5 of preamble);

— that ‘in the case of modular concept operations (inter-
modal) there should be a transition period to enable a
Member State to adapt its road infrastructure’ (para. 18 of
preamble);

— that Member States which have to adapt

their road
infrastructure in order to permit vehicles complying with
Annex 1 may nevertheless prohibit until December 2003
at the latest vehicles which exceed current national stan-
dards. (Article 4 para. 4)

2.4.
In summary, where Council Directive 96/53/EC
requires the adaptation of the road infrastructure (presumably
including bridges) at the public expense, Member States will
be given a period of grace up to December 2003 in which to
carry out the necessary adaptation. Funds would need to be

provided for any necessary strengthening of bridges in the
road infrastructure but there would still be additional wear and
tear to highway surfacings (see below.)

3. Overloading of lorries

The overloading of heavy goods vehicles is an issue of
3.1.
continuing concern.
In addition, during the last year the
mis-use of ‘road-friendly’ suspensions has become a cause for
concern. Operators have been observed running with ‘tag-
axles’ lifted clear of the ground under conditions where they
are fully loaded, thereby overloading the remaining drive
axle. Systems are therefore required to ensure that axle
configurations in vehicles equipped with ‘road-friendly’ sus-
pensions are operated in the way the designer intended.

4. Arguments against

the 44-tonne (and 42-tonne)

vehicles

The arguments against the 44-tonne vehicles and the
4.1.
recently proposed 42-tonne vehicle are well made in the
European Parliament’s consideration of the issue:

— The proposals would be a first step towards a general
44-tonne limit for road transport, which would be undesir-
able because of the risk of damage to infrastructure in
some Member States;

— The proposals would be likewise undesirable in view of
the forthcoming accession of a number of applicant
countries whose infrastructure was not yet ready to cope
with such heavy vehicles.

4.2.
always
Although the European Parliament has
expressed itself in favour of combined transport (i.e. inter-
modal operations), this did not mean that any proposal could
be accepted in the name of combined transport. The Parliament
has rejected the Commission proposal
in the interests of
European citizens and the environment.

4.3.
The debate regarding the balance to be struck between
the economical use of commercial road vehicles and the
requirements of infrastructure maintenance is one which has
wider implications than just the strengthening of bridges:

— The proposed increase in size and weight of lorries has

implications for highway maintenance.

— Although 44-tonne (or 42-tonne) vehicles may be perfectly
acceptable on motorway and trunk roads, their presence
can be overwhelming and out of place on the local road
network. Here the roads and bridges are generally narrower
and of lower standard; conflicts often arise between heavy
goods vehicles and other categories of road user, e.g.
pedestrians and cyclists.

C 374/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.12.1999

The Committee rejects arguments for permitting the
4.4.
introduction of 44-tonne (or 42-tonne)
lorries on certain
routes. If the economic argument on transport costs is correct,
then industry relying on such ‘combined transport operations’
would tend to re-locate in areas adjacent to such routes. This
may benefit towns and cities undergoing rapid development
but penalise old-established industrial areas which grew up
before the advent of the 20th century main road networks. For
these reasons, any increase in dimensions and weight
is
unacceptable.

It should also be noted that inter-modal operations do
4.5.
not always take place between local railheads and distribution
points. For example, in the UK a major supermarket chain is
currently using a trans-shipment depot in the Midlands of

England to serve Scottish outlets, using 44-tonne lorries for
the journey.

5. Conclusions

5.1.
The Committee rejects the introduction both of
44-tonne vehicles and of 42-tonne articulated vehicles where
the tractor unit has two axles and the semi-trailer three axles.

Compliance with size and weight requirements for

5.2.
heavy goods vehicles should be monitored.

5.3.
Increased or re-directed local and regional resources
should be directed to the policing and control of overloaded
heavy lorries.

Brussels, 16 September 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER