Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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" (COM(2002) 769 final — 2002/0309 (COD))
Date: 2003-06-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, road safety, traffic regulations, transport accident, transport safety, tunnel

C 220/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 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’

(COM(2002) 769 final — 2002/0309 (COD))

(2003/C 220/06)

On 22 January 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee under
Article 71(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 June 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Levaux.

At its 400th plenary session, held on 18 and 19 June 2003 (meeting of 18 June), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion, with 68 votes in favour and two abstentions.

1.

Introduction — brief outline of the contents of the
proposal

15 minutes are of critical importance if lives are to be saved,
the Commission sets the following two aims:

1.1. Background

— reducing the possible consequences of accidents and fires.

— preventing critical situations from arising;

— The Commission’s White Paper of 12 September 2001
on ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’
provided for the introduction of an EU Directive on the
harmonization of minimum safety standards for tunnels
in order to ensure a high level of safety for the users of
tunnels, particularly those which form part of the Trans-
European Transport Network.

— With regard to road tunnels in particular, the recent
catastrophes in the Mont Blanc and Tauern Tunnels in
1999 and in the Gotthard Tunnel in 2001 have raised
the collective awareness of the importance of this subject.
In this context, political decisions have been taken on the
basis of work recently carried out at international or
European level or in particular EU states, such as Italy
and France, and in Switzerland. Attention is drawn to the
fact that the proposals set out in the draft Directive to
beyond the recommendations of the Economic Com-
mission for Europe of the United Nations (UN-ECE) which
are currently being examined.

— The present Proposal for a Directive, which was forward-
ed by the Commission on 16 January 2003, applies to
road tunnels longer than 500 m in the Trans-European
Road Network; it does cover railway tunnels, the safety
requirements for which will be addressed in the railway
interoperability Directives.

1.2. Aims of the Proposal

1.2.1.
and pointing out that after any accident

After outlining the main causes of road accidents
the first 10 to

1.3. Contents of the Proposal

Article 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum defines the contents
of the Proposal. It deals with:

— the scope: i.e. tunnels longer than 500 m which form

part of the Trans-European Road network;

— organisational requirements: each state will have to
appoint an Administrative Authority, backed up by an
Inspection Body, to harmonise the organization of safety
level and to clarify the different roles and
at national
responsibilities;

— technical requirements: these are set out under four
headings; Infrastructure, Operation, Vehicles and Road
users.

1.4. Number of tunnels falling within the scope

The Directive applies to tunnels in operation, tunnels under
construction and tunnels at the design stage. The table below,
taken from Article 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, lists
the TEN tunnels in the EU-15. Norway is the only other EEA
state with tunnels over 500 m in length (130 tunnels having a
total length of 200 km). Only three candidate states in the
TINA network have tunnels longer than 500 m (Bulgaria 4,
Slovenia 5 and Slovakia 1, the total length of these tunnels
amounting to 15 km).

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/27

Member State

Existing TEN
Tunnels
> 1 000 m

New Ten
Tunnels
> 1 000 m
(2002-2010)

Existing TEN
Tunnels
500-1 000 m

New TEN
Tunnels

Total TEN
Tunnels

500-1 000 m > 500 m in
(2002-2010)

2010

Austria

Belgium

Germany

Denmark

Spain

Finland

France

United Kingdom

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Portugal

Sweden

EU total

Total length

33

1

19

1

16

0

18

6

3

0

83

0

1

1

0

8

0

12

0

3

1

2

2

16

1

13

0

3

0

3

19

1

18

2

4

0

13

4

4

0

144

0

7

0

0

4

0

6

0

2

4

2

0

22

0

6

3

0

1

0

64

2

55

3

25

5

35

12

45

1

246

3

11

2

3

182

64

216

50

512

900 km

172 km

151 km

39 km 1 262 km

1.5.

Justification for action at Community level

The Commission justifies the Proposal for a Directive on the
grounds that long tunnels can be found in all EU Member
States, with the exception of Finland and Ireland, and that it is
necessary to improve coordination and harmonise safety
information, communications and equipment so that tunnel
users will enjoy a comparable level of safety everywhere.

reoccurrence of catastrophes such as those which have
occurred in recent years, and to minimize the impact in human
and economic terms of any catastrophes which may occur.

2.2.

Scope of the Directive

1.6. Assessment of the cost

The Commission estimates the total cost of the proposal at
between EUR 2,6 and EUR 6,3 billion. The latter figure is
based on the assumption that all the existing tunnels would be
adapted to meet the demands which are applicable to new
tunnels. The Commission states that the costs attendant on
complying with the Directive would be borne by the Member
States.

The EESC expresses its understanding for the decision
2.2.1.
to restrict the application of the Directive in the immediate
future to tunnels over 500 m in length which form part of the
Trans-European Road Network. These are the tunnels for
which the EU can most readily harmonise the rules. According
to the argument rightly advanced by the Commission, harmon-
ization of information, communications, equipment and forms
of administration will be a decisive factor in improving the
safety and protection of users.

2. General comments

The EESC endorses and supports the action taken by
2.1.
the Commission. It backs the aims of the Commission and
calls for their rapid implementation in order to avoid a

2.2.2.
This being the case, whilst the scope of the Directive
should not be extended forthwith to cover all tunnels over
500 m in length which do not form part of the Trans-
European Road Network, it should be clearly stipulated that
this is a medium-term objective.

C 220/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

2.2.3.
The EESC calls for the Directive to stipulate that
when major restoration, restructuring or maintenance work is
carried out in tunnels over 500 m in length which do not form
part of the Trans-European Road Network, Member States will
be set a deadline of 20 years for bringing these tunnels into
line with the new rules set out in the Directive.

2.3.4.
The EESC therefore calls for the removal of any
possible derogations from the measures stipulated in the
Directive, except in cases of technical unfeasibility which are
duly demonstrated and accepted by the Commission. In such
cases, the Member States concerned would have to put forward
solutions providing at least an equivalent level of safety.

2.2.4.
In the absence of such a provision, European users
will soon be confronted by different rules for harmonized
‘European’ tunnels over 500 m in length, on the one hand,
and ‘national’ tunnels, on the other. This lack of harmonization
will have a damaging effect on safety.

2.2.5.
The EESC recognizes that its proposal would increase
the overall cost of the measures set out in the Directive but
making provision for implementation of the Directive to be
spread over a period up to 2025 should facilitate the achieve-
ment of the objectives which have been set. The EESC also
takes the view that, given the funding proposals which it puts
forward below (see point 2.4 of this opinion), the EU will have
the necessary funds to launch such a policy.

2.3.

Possibility of implementing lesser measures

2.4.

Financing the costs entailed in implementing the Directive

The EESC does not have the means to assess the
2.4.1.
Commission’s cost estimates.
It notes the summary infor-
mation provided by the Commission, which states that the
cost of the proposal is ‘in the range of EUR 2,6 billion to
EUR 6,3 billion’. Austria alone is reported to have allocated a
budget of the order of EUR 1,7 billion. The EESC therefore
calls upon the Commission to re-examine its estimates,
particularly in view of the fact that the disproportion between
its upper and lower figures will encourage Member States to
exploit all opportunities for derogations in order to minimize
their costs; this will result in a ‘cut-price’ implementation of
the Directive.

In view of the cost of refurbishing road tunnels to
2.3.1.
bring them into line with the requirements of the Directive,
the Commission proposes
‘to
implement
less costly measures under certain conditions
where they achieve a sufficient safety level’ (point 6A in the
Explanatory Memorandum).

to allow Member States

As special work occasioned by difficult conditions,
2.4.2.
such as the nature of the soil, will be necessary, the EESC
assumes that all existing tunnels will have to be brought into
line with the requirements of the Directive, at an estimated
cost of EUR 6,3 billion, spread over a period of ten years.

The EESC fails to understand the Commission’s
2.3.2.
intentions. There are two possible scenarios: either the Member
States display a lack of rigour by agreeing to finance work at a
higher price than what is strictly necessary to respect the terms
of the Directive; or there really are measures which ensure an
adequate or equivalent level of safety, whilst costing less than
the measures set out in the Directive. In the latter case, the
EESC wonders why the Directive does not stipulate these
measures from the outset.

2.3.3.
The EESC believes that giving Member States the
possibility to adopt, for financial reasons, different measures
from those stipulated in the Directive will mean that a
considerable amount of time will be lost in implementing the
Directive because of the negotiations which are bound to
take place between the Member States in question and the
Commission. These derogations would be in conflict with the
desire to achieve harmonization, which the Commission
regards as the way of guaranteeing a clear improvement in the
level of safety in road tunnels.

The EESC also notes the summary nature of the
2.4.3.
Commission’s estimates of the direct and indirect cost of
accidents. Simply on the basis of the incomplete data provided,
it is very probably that an in-depth study would demonstrate
that the direct and indirect cost of accidents in road tunnels is
of the order of EUR 1 billion per year. The cost of the
programme for bringing tunnels into line with the require-
ments of the Directive in order to eliminate accidents, or
reduce their impact, is estimated at EUR 0,63 billion per year
over a period of ten years, i.e. much less than the current cost
of accidents each year.

2.4.4.
Under these circumstances, a number of Member
States which have many tunnels over 500 m in length could
have difficulty in meeting the cost of bringing these tunnels
into line with the requirements of the Directive. The Com-
in order to
mission should therefore amend its proposal
introduce fairer financing arrangements which offer greater
incentives.

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/29

2.4.5.
Fairer financing arrangements: since the Trans-Euro-
pean Road Network, by its very nature, benefits all users,
irrespective of their country of origin, inside or outside of the
EU. It would be abnormal to oblige each Member State to meet
the full cost of what represents a joint charge. This would
penalize Member States which, for geographical, historical or
economic reasons, have invested in the building of tunnels and
thus helped to establish a high-grade European road network.

2.4.6.
Financing arrangements which offer greater incen-
tives: since national budgetary constraints are such that, when
the time comes to take decisions, Member States which are
responsible for a large number of tunnels could well postpone
investments in furbishing tunnels and bringing them up to
standard.

2.4.7.
It is for this reason that, in line with the proposal
which it has already put forward in its opinion of 23 January
2003 on tax arrangements for diesel fuel (1), the EESC high-
lights the need to adopt an innovatory approach to funding by
setting up a ‘European Transport Infrastructure Fund’
into
which income would be paid on an ongoing basis (one cent
per litre of all fuel used by road vehicles, or EUR 10 per tonne
of fuel consumed, which will amount to approximately EUR 3
billion per year from 2006). The income collected by the EU
Member States would be used to provide an annual income
for the proposed ‘European Transport Infrastructure Fund’, for
which there would be a special heading in the EU budget.
Operating with assistance from the European Investment Bank
(EIB), the proposed fund could provide assistance in the form
of loan guarantees or subsidies representing 50 % of the cost
of the work required to bring tunnels over 500 m in length
into line with the requirements of the Directive (2).

2.5.

Status of the safety officer

2.5.1.
The Directive makes provision for the establishment
of a number of bodies (Administrative Authority and Inspec-
tion Body), the roles and tasks of which are quite easy to
define. The same applies to a number of other players (the
Tunnel Manager and the emergency services). As regards the
Safety Officer, the central figure in the arrangements for
ensuring the coherence of
the Directive and its proper
implementation, the EESC believes that the role of this officer
needs to be spelt out more precisely in order to guarantee his
independence and authority.

2.5.2.
The EESC thinks that, and despite the intentions
expressed by the Commission, which stipulates that ‘the Safety
Officer ... shall be independent in all road tunnel safety-related
issues ...’, the officer’s status as the salaried employee of the
Tunnel Manager will inevitably place him in situations which
are difficult to resolve or even in situations of conflict in the
event of crises or when urgent decisions need to be taken.

( 1) OJ C 85, 28.4.2003.
( 2) In view of the considerable importance of this matter,

it is
proposed that an own-initiative opinion be drawn up, with the
aim of carrying out an in-depth analysis of all aspects of the
financing of such infrastructures.

This will be the case, for example, when the safety officer,
acting in pursuance of Article 4 (‘Modifications’) of Annex II,
has to ‘specify restrictive operating measures, or, in urgent
cases ... order the tunnel to be closed to the public’.

The EESC wants real assurances to be provided in
2.5.3.
respect of the independence of the Safety Officer and wants
the competence of the Safety Officer to be verified. The
Directive should stipulate that the Safety Officer:

— may, under no circumstances, be a salaried employee of

the Tunnel Manager;

— has to be self-employed, a salaried employee of a
company or a member of a public service body (such as
the civil defence or the fire and rescue service), which has
no links with the Tunnel Manager;

— is able to demonstrate personal competence, certified by

the Administrative Authority;

— has to have insurance cover;

— will be able to refer matters directly to the Administrative
Authority should serious conflicts arise with the Tunnel
Manager (the Tunnel Manager will also be entitled to refer
matters to the Administrative Authority);

— will have the resources necessary to carry out his work,
with the cost being borne by the Tunnel Manager as
specified in a contract which has been submitted to the
Administrative Authority.

2.6.

Future member states and special cases

2.6.1.
The EESC expresses its surprise that the proposal
does not address the consequences of applying the Directive
to the candidate states, which are likely to be acceding in a few
months time. In the run-up to EU enlargement, the EESC calls
upon the Commission to provide, by 2005, a list of all the
tunnels exceeding 500 m in length in the future Member States
and to stipulate, without waiting for the extension of the
Directive’s field of application, that all tunnels in the enlarged
EU are to be brought into line with the requirements of the
Directive by 2025.

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s indication, in
2.6.2.
the Explanatory Memorandum, that it took account of studies
carried out in Switzerland and that Switzerland, together with
Norway, will be invited to take part in the work of the
Committee set up under Article 16 of the Directive. The
EESC hopes that the Commission will ultimately succeed in
harmonising the minimum safety requirements for road
tunnels in the EU, Switzerland and Norway.

C 220/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

3. Specific comments

3.4. Vehicles

3.1.

— With regard to the objectives of the proposal (Point 2 of
the Explanatory Memorandum), the EESC considers that
accidents are frequently the result of the dilapidated and
obsolescent state of the network and poor maintenance.

— The EESC calls for the inclusion of an additional provision
stipulating that the safety measures will be updated, as
part of an ongoing monitoring exercise, to take account
straightaway of new techniques and new patterns of
behaviour. By way of example, it may be assumed that,
in the near future, the use of the new fuels such as LPG
could become widespread. If this is the case, the Directive
will have to take account of this without delay as it has
been drawn up on the assumption that incidents or
accidents will lead to fires, which could be followed by
explosions. In the case of fuels such as LPG, depending
upon the nature of the accident involved, we do not
know whether the explosion precedes the fire or vice
versa; this means that the scenarios with regard to
prevention and the organization of emergency services
will have to differ from those which have been envisaged
up to now.

It would be preferable to ban, by 2010, the use of additional
fuel tanks lacking safety controls, especially as a harmonised
central Community rate for commercial diesel fuel will be in
force by then. The EESC would point out that, in a recent
Directive on the alignment of excise duties, the Commission
denounced the anti-competitive practices of certain hauliers
who, by virtue of having 1 500 litre fuel tanks, were able to
buy fuel at rates from which other hauliers were unable to
benefit. The EESC therefore urges that the measure put forward
by the Commission to be of a temporary nature and that
additional fuel tanks be banned.

3.5. Drivers of heavy goods vehicles exceeding 16 tonnes

The EESC calls upon the Commission to point out in the
Directive that the Member States have to ensure that drivers of
heavy goods vehicles receive training. In particular, the EESC
proposes that, in the context of tunnel safety requirements, all
drivers of heavy goods vehicles follow a course of specific
training, certified by a special entry on their driving licences.
The scheme to be introduced should take account of the need
to:

— standardise the level of training of drivers already working

in the EU;

— As regards the second objective, the EESC hopes that not
only material damage, but also the human and economic
impact will be as limited as possible.

— train new EU drivers;

3.2.

Scope

The EESC calls upon the Commission to amend the text so as
to include the proposal which it made above, namely that the
scope of the Directive should be eventually extended to include
road tunnels over 500 m in length which do not form part of
these tunnels should
the Trans-European Road Network;
receive from the abovementioned ‘European Transport Infra-
structure Fund’ 50 % of the funding required to bring them
into line with the Directive by 2025.

3.3.

Infrastructure

— train drivers from non-EU states.

3.6. Annex I

3.6.1.
Point 1.5.2: The EESC believes that this is the
moment to define the rules to be observed in the course of
work of such or similar importance close to tunnels which are
in operation, in order to ensure the ongoing safety of users.

3.6.2.
Point 1.10: The EESC takes the view that risk analyses
should be carried out in all cases, in pursuance of Article 13 of
the Directive,
irrespective of the nature of the tunnel; no
special distinction should be made for underwater tunnels.

3.6.3.

Point 1.11:

The EESC suggests that the Commission revise its approach by
proposing that, whenever single-tube tunnels are constructed,
all measures be taken to keep open the possibility of adding a
second tube later, thereby transforming the tunnel into a twin-
tube tunnel.

— The EESC believes that it should be stipulated that lighting
should continue to operate for a sufficiently long period
(two hours) in the event of an incident or accident (need
for independent power supply or dual system).

16.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/31

— The EESC believes that, in the case of Class I tunnels, it
should be stipulated that fire hydrants should be fed by
stored-pressure networks.

— The EESC calls for the Directive to specify the nature and

capacity of the fire extinguishers to be installed.

— The EESC proposes the addition to the second sentence
of the third indent: ‘The Tunnel Manager and emergency
services shall be able to interrupt radio broadcasting to
broadcast emergency messages to tunnel users via their
in-vehicle radios’.

— Indent 5: The EESC proposes the following text:

‘Secure power sources, with equipment being fed
by high- and low-voltage cables (electricity, radio,
telephone, etc.), which shall be protected to ensure
continued operation for a period of two hours in the
event of incidents or accidents, etc. ...’.

3.6.4.
Point 2.2: In view of the importance of the Safety
Officer, the EESC calls upon the Commission to set out in a
single article of the Directive — namely Article 7 — all of the
provisions relating to the role of the Safety Officer, taking
account of the proposals put forward by the EESC above.

3.6.5.
Point 3.2: The EESC urges the Commission to specify
how these checks are to be carried out. In the EESC’s view, the
checks should be made by the police or by customs officials
rather than by the Tunnel Manager, who does not have the
requisite legal authority. The EESC calls for this article to be
deleted.

3.7. Annex II

3.7.1.
Point 2 (fifth bullet). The EESC proposes that the
fourth indent of this bullet be amended to read as follows: ‘...
maintenance of the tunnel and safeguard work within or in
the immediate proximity of the tunnel’.

3.7.2.
The EESC trusts the Commission will specify how
the safety documentation is to be updated and the intervals at
which it is to be updated.

3.7.3.
Finally, with regard once again to the role of the
Safety Officer, the EESC requests that his power to impose
restrictive operating measures, or, in urgent cases, to order the
tunnel to be closed to the public, not be listed discreetly at the
end of Annex II but be included in Article 7 of the Directive
itself, as advocated above.

3.8. Annex III

3.8.1.
Points 1 and 2.4: These two points contradict each
other with regard to the location of fire extinguishers and
telephones. The EESC favours the second, as it is logical that
such equipment is best located in the safety recesses.

3.8.2.

Point 2.4:

— In the view of the EESC, the descriptive panel indicating
the class of tunnel is not readily comprehensible to tunnel
users without the knowledge to benefit in any way from
this information. If this descriptive panel is retained, only
the initiated will understand it.

— Three panels are to be used to indicate the presence of
lay-bys. The EESC points out that these three panels are
much less clear and understandable than the panel on the
following page (p. 46). There is a danger of confusion as
a result of the juxtaposition of a dotted line and a
continuous line, which suggests a narrowing of the road
or a diversion, rather than necessarily indicating the
presence of a lay-by.

Point 1.1 stipulates that lay-bys have to be equipped
3.8.3.
with an emergency telephone
two fire
extinguishers. This being the case, only the third panel,
indicating the presence of this equipment, should be included
in the Annex. The retention of the two other panels would
give the impression that there could be exemptions from this
obligation.

and at

least

4. Conclusions

The EESC endorses the Commission’s proposal for the rapid
implementation of harmonized minimum safety requirements
for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network. In the EESC’s
view, the Commission does, however, fail to come up with
any solution for helping to fund the cost of the work required
to bring tunnels into line with the proposed requirements.

The EESC therefore makes a number of proposals.

4.1.

Financing the work required to bring tunnels into line with
the proposed requirements

In the EESC’s view, leaving it up to each Member State to
finance the work required to bring its tunnels into line with
the proposed requirements is not fair and does not provide
any incentive, bearing in mind national budgetary constraints
and the concentration of tunnels in particular Member States.
The EESC therefore reiterates the need for an innovatory
approach consisting of a ‘European Transport Infrastructure
Fund’, paid for by a levy of one cent per litre on all road
transport fuel consumed within the EU (see 2.4.7 above).

C 220/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2003

4.2.

Scope

With a view to facilitating the harmonization of safety
requirements and the observance of good behaviour by tunnel
users, the EESC calls for the scope of the Directive to be
extended by 2025 to cover all road tunnels over 500 m in
length and for the states concerned to be awarded a 50 %
subsidy for the work, financed by the ‘European Transport
Infrastructure Fund’ (see 2.2 above).

4.4.

Specific training for drivers of heavy goods vehicles exceeding
16 tonnes

In the EESC’s view, if the minimum safety requirements are to
be observed, tunnel users will have to be properly informed.
In the case of heavy goods vehicles weighing more than
16 tonnes, the EESC believes that, because of the major
potential risk which they represent, it is essential to introduce
specific training for drivers. Completion of the courses in
question would be certified by a special entry on driving
licences (see 3.5 above).

4.3. Abolition of derogations

In the view of the proposed establishment of the ‘European
Transport Infrastructure Fund’, under which a 50 % subsidy
could be provided in respect of the cost of all the necessary
work, the EESC calls for the abolition of possible derogations
in order to avoid an inadequate application of the safety
measures.

4.5.

Safety officer

The Safety Officer, who is to play a crucial role in the measures
set out in the Directive, must be independent vis-à-vis the
Tunnel Manager and his competence will have to be verified
(see 2.5.3 above).

Brussels, 18 June 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH