COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 authorized weights in international traffic
Date: 2013-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carrying capacity, commercial vehicle, container, electric vehicle, energy saving, international road transport, reduction of gas emissions, safety standard, technical standard, weight and size

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.4.2013  
SWD(2013) 108 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 authorized weights in international traffic 

{COM(2013) 195 final} 
{SWD(2013) 109 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 authorized weights in international traffic 

Table of contents 

1. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 1 

Identification .............................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 1 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 1 

1.2.1.  Main results of the public stakeholder consultation..................................................... 2 

1.2.2.  Main result of the targeted stakeholder meetings ........................................................ 2 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board ............................................................ 3 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 4 

Political context............................................................................................................ 4 

2.2.  What is the issue or problem that may require action? ................................................ 6 

2.2.1.  Part 1:  Certain limits on weights and dimension set by the Directive constitute 
obstacles to energy efficiency gains of road vehicles and to intermodal transport 
operations ..................................................................................................................... 6 

2.2.2.  Part 2: Ineffective application of the Directive .......................................................... 14 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 16 

2.4. 

2.5. 

How would the problem evolve, all other things being equal?.................................. 17 

Does the EU have the right to act – Treaty base, ‘necessity test’ (subsidiarity) and 
fundamental rights limits?.......................................................................................... 19 

2.5.1.  Link to the corresponding article of the Treaty.......................................................... 19 

2.5.2.  Subsidiarity test.......................................................................................................... 20 

2.5.3.  Test of added value .................................................................................................... 20 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 21 

Policy objectives ........................................................................................................ 21 

Possible trade-offs between the objectives of this initiative and the horizontal 
objectives of the EU ................................................................................................... 22 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 23 

Discarded policy measures......................................................................................... 23 

EN 

i 

   EN 

4.1.1.  List of considered policy measures in relation with energy efficiency...................... 24 

4.1.2.  List of considered policy measures in relation with improving the functioning of the 

internal market for road transport .............................................................................. 25 

4.2. 

Identification of the policy packages (in addition to the business-as-usual scenario)26 

4.2.1.  Policy Package 1: Limited revision............................................................................ 27 

4.2.2.  Policy Package 2: A more extensive revision ............................................................ 28 

4.2.3.  Policy Package 3: More binding regulatory approach ............................................... 29 

4.2.4.  Overview of measures proposed in Policy Packages................................................. 30 

5. 

5.1. 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 31 

Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 31 

5.1.1.  Climate change........................................................................................................... 31 

5.1.2.  Air pollution (NOx, PM, SOx, HCs, CO) ................................................................... 35 

5.1.3.  Noise .......................................................................................................................... 35 

5.2. 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 36 

5.2.1. 

Impact on the functioning of the internal market and competition............................ 36 

5.2.2. 

Impact on competitiveness......................................................................................... 38 

5.2.3. 

Impact on transport sector.......................................................................................... 39 

5.2.4. 

Impact on the administrative burden, public administrations and onSMEs............... 39 

5.3. 

Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 41 

5.3.1. 

Impact on working conditions, health and lifestyle of drivers................................... 41 

5.3.2. 

Impact on road safety ................................................................................................. 41 

5.4. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

7. 

Summary of impacts .................................................................................................. 43 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 45 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 45 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 46 

Coherence................................................................................................................... 48 

Sensitivity analysis..................................................................................................... 49 

Conclusion - ranking of the options ........................................................................... 49 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 50 

Annex 1 .................................................................................................................................... 51 

Annex 2 .................................................................................................................................... 58 

Annex 3 .................................................................................................................................... 61 

Annex 4 .................................................................................................................................... 63 

EN 

ii 

   EN 

 
 
Glossary 

Directive 96/53/EC1 (hereafter referred to as such or as the ‘Directive’) concerns vehicles of 
categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 and their trailers of categories O3 and O4 as defined by Annex 
II to Directive 2007/46/EC2. These categories include the following vehicles:  

-  M2  and  M3:  Vehicles  for  the  carriage  of  passengers,  comprising  more  than  eight 
seats in addition to the driver's seat, referred to from here on as 'buses' (for urban and 
for inter-urban transport). Buses and coaches are not differentiated for the purpose of 
this document; 

-  N2  and  N3:  Vehicles  for  the  carriage  of  goods  and  having  a  maximum  mass 
exceeding  3.5  tonnes,  referred  to  from  here  on  as  'heavy-goods  vehicles'  (HGV), 
'trucks' or 'lorries'; 

- O3 and O4: Trailers with a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes.  

In this document, the terms 'heavy goods vehicles', 'trucks' and 'lorries' all refer to vehicles of 
categories  N2  and  N3  with  or  without  combinations  of  trailers  O3  and  O4.  Heavy  duty 
vehicles (HDV) refer to all HGVs and buses. 

Combined transport is defined in accordance with Directive 92/106/EEC3 as  

"the transport of goods between Member States where the lorry, trailer, semi-trailer, 
with or without tractor unit, swap body or container of 20 feet or more, uses the road 
on the initial or final leg of the journey and, on the other leg, rail or inland waterway 
or maritime services where this section exceeds 100 km as the crow flies and make 
the initial or final road transport leg of the journey;  

- between the point where the goods are loaded and the nearest suitable rail loading 
station for the initial leg, and between the nearest suitable rail unloading station and 
the point where the goods are unloaded for the final leg, or;  

- within a radius not exceeding 150 km as the crow flies from the inland waterway 
port or seaport of loading or unloading." 

Intermodal  transport  refers  to  transport  of  intermodal  loading  units  (containers  or  swap 
bodies)  using  at  least  two  different  modes  of  transport  as  part  of  a  transport  chain  with  no 
limitation on the length of the road transport leg, nor of the other legs. 

1   Council  Directive  96/53/EC  of  25  July  1996  laying  down  for  certain  road  vehicles  circulating  within  the 
Community  the  maximum  authorized  dimensions  in  national  and  international  traffic  and  the  maximum 
authorized weights in international traffic; OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 59. 

2   Directive  2007/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  September  2007  establishing  a 
framework  for  the  approval  of  motor  vehicles  and  their  trailer,  and  of  systems,  components  and  separate 
technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive); OJ L 263 of 9.10.2007, p. 1. 

3   Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types 

of combined transport of goods between Member States; OJ L 368 of 17.12.1992, p. 38. 

EN 

iii 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
•  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Identification 

Lead DG: MOVE 

Agenda planning: 2012/MOVE/013 

This  impact  assessment  (IA)  is  the  basis  for  a  proposal  to  be  submitted  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council with the aim of modifying Directive 96/53/EC on the maximum 
dimensions  of  certain  road  vehicles  autorized  for  national  and  international  traffic  and  the 
maximum weight authorized in international traffic (hereinafter 'the Directive').4  

The  reason  for  the  revision  is  founded  on  multiple  requests  coming  from  professional 
stakeholders, demonstrating a growing gap between the directive and the market. Following 
the 2011 White Paper on Transport5, it was decided to launch a public consultation to assess 
the opinions on the status of the implementation of the Directive 96/53/EC and propose for a 
revision the issues already highlighted by the stakeholders. 

o Organisation and timing 

For the preparation of this initiative, DG MOVE set up an Impact Assessment Steering Group 
in  which  the  following  DGs  took  part:  SG,  ENTR,  JRC,  ENV,  CLIMA,  LS.6  The  Steering 
Group  held  five  meetings  between  September  2011  and  September  2012.7  The  Steering 
Group’s comments were taken into account in the impact assessment. 

o Consultation and expertise  

External  assistance  has  been  used  through  a  contract  on  specific  technical  issues  with  the 
French IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC from November 2011 to April 
2012.  The  consultants'  role  was  to  answer  specific  technical  questions  of  DG  MOVE  on  an 
ad-hoc basis. A stakeholder consultation was organised in two parts: 1) a public consultation 
via  the  Internet,  which  was  open  from  22  December  2011  to  27  February  20128,  and  2)  a 
targeted  stakeholder  consultation9,  consisting  of  four  workshops  organised  by  DG  MOVE, 
with  enforcement  organisations  (16  February  2012),  vehicle  manufacturers  (6  March  2012), 
intermodal  transport  operators  (2  April  2012)  and  road  safety  experts  (26  June  2012).  The 
Commission’s standards in terms of stakeholder consultation10 have been met. 

(cid:131)  Main results of the public stakeholder consultation 

Before launching the consultation, DG MOVE organised a meeting with representatives of the 
Member  States  on  26  October  2011  to  discuss  areas  of  possible  scrutiny.  Following  this 
meeting the consultation was organised around the four following themes:   

4   Council  Directive  96/53/EC  of  25  July  1996  laying  down  for  certain  road  vehicles  circulating  within  the 
Community  the  maximum  authorized  dimensions  in  national  and  international  traffic  and  the  maximum 
authorized weights in international traffic; OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 59. 

5   COM (2011) 144. 
6   Two other DGs – CNECT and ECFIN – were invited to participate, but were unable to do so. 
7   7 September 2011, 12 October 2011, 20 March 2012, 9 July 2012 and 9 September 2012. 
8   A detailed summary of the outcome of the public consultation is available in Annex 1. 
9   Summaries of the targeted stakeholder meetings are also available in Annex 1. 
10   See COM (2002) 704. 

EN 

i 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Theme 1: energy efficiency and CO2 emissions, aerodynamics of the vehicles; 
•  Theme 2: intermodal transport of goods;  
•  Theme 3: controls, checks and enforcement of the Directive by the Member States. 
•  Theme 4: need for legal clarifications of derogations from the Directive for heavier 

and longer trucks; 

300  replies  from  professional  stakeholders  were  registered,  as  well  as  700  responses  from 
private  citizens.  The  latter  were  largely  identical,  suggesting  that  members  of  some 
associations  sent  predefined  answers.  While  the  relevance  of  the  proposed  themes  were 
confirmed by stakeholders, no other important topic was suggested during the consultation. 

The key findings of the consultation can be summed up as follows:  

•  Theme 1: there is broad consensus on the objective to improve energy efficiency and 
fuel consumption by improved aerodynamics of heavy goods vehicles, especially by 
allowing rear flaps and new designs of the cabin. The same consensus applies with 
regard to a support to hybridization and to electric vehicles. For that purpose, 
stakeholders requested that some of the constraints set by the current Directive are 
released to accommodate these technological improvements (e.g. the weight of 
batteries).  

•  Theme 2: there is a general consensus on the necessity to accommodate containers of 

45 feet length through an increase in length of the vehicle by 12 or 15 cm. 

•  Theme 3: most stakeholders of all kinds agreed that controls are not efficient and are 
insufficient in number. All means to improve the situation, including automatic 
systems would be useful. Professional stakeholders also highlight the necessity for 
harmonizing control procedures and sanctions at European level. 

•  Theme 4: the majority of stakeholders consider existing derogations as not sufficiently 
clear. Positions diverge on possible changes needed: Environmental NGOs, rail and 
combined transport associations as well as road safety associations advocate a 
restricted use of longer vehicles while manufacturers, the haulage industry and 
shippers highlight the energy efficiency of longer vehicles (two longer ones would be 
needed where currently three vehicles are required) and ask for a generalised 
authorisation of their cross-border use.  

(cid:131)  Main result of the targeted stakeholder meetings 

The  targeted  hearings  of  associations  of  enforcement  inspectors,  vehicle  manufacturers  and 
hauliers associations, intermodal transport stakeholders and experts in road safety yielded the 
following results: 

•  Enforcement associations underlined the benefits to be achieved through automatic 

enforcement methods such as weigh-in-motion systems (WIM), which allow enforcers 
to filter traffic and more efficiently target vehicles for manual checks.  
•  Vehicle and trailer manufacturers confirmed the potential for aerodynamic 

improvement as well as the market interest for such solutions. They underlined the 
different product development lifecycles (10 years for tractors and <2 years for 
trailers), and promoted the idea of performance-based standards instead of fixed limits 
for the new designs of both rear flaps and the front of new cabins. 

•  The intermodal stakeholders confirmed that properly designed aerodynamic devices 
would not be a problem for trailers on most rail wagons. They requested the current 
administrative burden related to 45’ containers to be reduced by a release of the need 
for special permits. 

EN 

ii 

   EN 

 
 
•  Road safety experts highlighted the relation between braking distance and the weight 
of vehicles, the benefits of widening the driver's field of visions through an improved 
design of cabins and the need for signalisation of any additional element at the rear of 
a vehicle. 

The  policy  options  analysed  in  this  IA  reflect  suggestions  collected  during  the  consutlation 
process. A great deal of the technical information contained in this IA has also been gathered 
during the consultation process. 

The draft report for this IA was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board 

o Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 

(IAB) on 21 September 2012. In its opinion of 19 October 2012, the IAB made a number of 
recommendations  which  were  taken  into  account  in  the  final  draft.  The  most  important 
amendments in comparison to the version submitted on 21 September are the following: 

•  The baseline has been strengthened by introducing data on key variables (fuel and 
carbon prices, number of km driven and fuel consumption) from the PRIMES-
TREMOVE baseline. Data on other variables, such as on forecasted movements of 45' 
containers, is not available in the PRIMES-TREMOVE baseline or other sources that 
we have investigated, which is why only qualitative information could be provided. 
Moreover, expected developments of weights of vehicles, containerisation, transport 
routes and enforcement have been indicated. 

•  The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the IA have been better integrated, 

assumptions and calculations have been clarified, and it has been explained which 
Member States are likely to be most affected. 

•  While keeping the incremental approach of assessing Policy Packages, the comparison 
of Policy Packages with the baseline has been clarified. Moreover, the effectiveness as 
well as the efficiency of the Policy Packages in terms of total costs and benefits have 
been outlined. 

•  Views of stakeholders have been presented more thoroughly in the main text and in 

Annex 1 with regard to the main elements of the report. 

EN 

iii 

   EN 

 
 
•  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Heavy duty vehicles transporting goods and passengers in Europe must comply with certain 
rules  on  maximum  weights  and  dimensions.  For  each  vehicle  type,  Directive  96/53/EC  sets 
the respective maximum authorised length, width, height and weight (total weight and weight 
per  axle).  Vehicles  which  comply  with  these  limits  can  perform  international11  transport 
operations  within  all  EU  Member  States  (Art.  3).  To  avoid  that  national  operators  benefit 
from undue advantages over their competitors from other Member States, they are bound, as a 
general rule, to comply with the limits set for international transport (Art. 4(1)). In line with 
the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  a  number  of  derogations  allow  Member  States  to  apply  higher 
limits for transport within their own borders. The derogations concern the maximum height, 
the  maximum  weight  (Art.  4(2))  and  the  possibility  to  employ  longer  vehicles  in  special 
transport, trials or with modular combinations of vehicles (Art. 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5)). 

As  explained  further  in  section  2.2.1,  these  rules  have  been  defined  to  strike  a  balance 
between  requirements  in  terms  of  protecting  the  infrastructure  as  well  as  the  environment, 
ensuring  safety,  energy  efficiency  and  economic  profitability.  The  infrastructure  and  the 
safety rules are important constraints on the possible evolutions of the vehicles. Concerning 
the infrastructures, three major issues are at stake : 

-   the  weight  per  axle  of  the  vehicle,  which  has  the  most  important  impact  for  road 

wear and tear, 

-   the total weight of the vehicle (relevant in particular for bridges), 
-   the capability of the vehicles to manoeuver, for instance in roundabouts and in urban 

areas. 

These constraints will not be challenged by a revision of Directive 96/53/EC. 

By  avoiding  technical  hindrances  at  borders  and  ensuring  fair  technical  conditions  of 
competition to hauliers, the Directive aims at facilitating the internal market and ensuring the 
free movement of goods and persons in Europe.  

o Political context 

One  of  the  key  objectives  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy12  is  sustainable  growth  aiming  at 
building a more competitive low-carbon economy by notably increasing energy efficiency. In 
this  context,  the  2011  White  Paper  on  transport13  has  put  a  clear  emphasis  on  the  need  to 
reduce the CO2 emissions from the transport sector with a reduction target of 60% by 2050 
compared  to  1990  levels.  In  the  area  of  road  transport,  the  White  Paper  has  stressed  that 
Directive  96/53/EC  on  the  maximum  weights  and  dimensions  should  be  adapted  to 
technological developments and new circumstances, such as the evolution of containerisation 
and new vehicle technologies improving aerodynamics.  

Insofar  as  the  review  of  the  Directive  could  contribute  to  more  harmonised  framework 
conditions for freight transport, it is linked to the review of the road freight market announced 
in  the  White  Paper  and  in  the  Commission's  2013  work  programme.  This  review  includes 
other initiatives to further integrate the road transport market, such as a stepwise approach to 
further  opening  national  transport  markets  (including  through  cabotage)  and  a  review  of 
existing  road  user  charging  rules,  which  will  also  contribute  to  increasing  the  energy 
efficiency of road transport. 

11   International transport refers to intra- and extra-EU cross-border operations. 
12   COM (2010) 2020. 
13   COM (2011) 144. 

EN 

iv 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The White Paper further aims at improving the resource-efficiency of the transport sector by 
making  vehicles  cleaner  and  more  fuel-efficient,  and  by  optimising  the  performance  of 
multimodal  logistic  chains.  This  includes  improving  connections  between  modes  and  using 
each mode where it is the most efficient. Significantly increasing the loading capacity of road 
vehicles  may  result  in  adverse  effects  on  infrastructure,  road  safety  and  other  modes,  thus 
undermining  the  aim  of  creating  an  efficient  multimodal  transport  system.  This  option  is 
therefore not evaluated in this impact assessment. 

This initiative also builds on the draft Commission Regulation on type approval of heavy duty 
vehicles (HDVs) as regards masses and dimensions (currently under scrutiny by the European 
Parliament  and  due  to  be  adopted  by  the  end  of  2012).  This  upcoming  Commission 
Regulation  (DG  ENTR)  will  govern  the  conditions  for  manufacturing  and  distribution  of 
heavy  duty  vehicles  in  the  EU.  It  is  developed  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  the 
type-approval  Framework  Directive  2007/46/EC14  and  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  661/2009 
("General  Safety  Regulation")15  in  order  to  replace  the  current  Directive  97/27/EC16  with 
effect  of  1  November  2014.  It  will  introduce  possibilities  for  new  vehicles  to  deviate  from 
maximum  dimensions  for  small  series  by  creating  allowances  for  foldable  aerodynamic 
devices  at  the  side  and  back  of  vehicles  within  the  limit  of  500  mm  at  the  back  (when 
unfolded).  

International  standards  would  create  no  obstacles  to  such  changes.  The  1958  UNECE 
agreement on the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment 
and  parts17  does  not  cover  masses  and  dimensions  of  road  vehicles  nor  does  it  include 
aerodynamic  devices.  On  the  one  hand,  no  changes  to  international  agreements  will  be 
required  to  amend  Directive  96/53.  On  the  other  hand,  failing  the  existence  of  international 
standards, there is a case to facilitate the roll-out of aerodynamic devices in this Directive. 

Furthermore, the Commission is currently preparing a strategy to reduce the CO2 emissions of 
HDV.  In  the  preparatory  work  to  establish  this  strategy  (carried  out  by  DG  CLIMA),  a 
number  of  actions  have  been  identified  to  reduce  HDV  CO2  emissions.  One  of  them  is  the 
review of Directive 96/53/EC in order to facilitate the introduction of more energy-efficient 
road vehicles, including more aerodynamic vehicles. The review of Directive 96/53/EC may 
therefore contribute to the climate strategy. 

Finally,  legal  uncertainties  have  long  existed  with  regard  to  the  derogations  for  longer 
vehicles  in  Art.  4  of  the  Directive.  The  wording  of  the  Directive  was  considered  to  be 
insufficiently  clear  regarding  the  rules  relating  to  the  cross-border  use  of  longer  modular 
trucks.  In  light  of  these  uncertainties  and  following  requests  from  stakeholders,  Vice-
President  Siim  Kallas  sent  a  letter  on  13  June  2012  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Transport 
Committee  of  the  European  Parliament  (see  annex  3).  This  letter  provides  guidance  and 
considers the cross-border use of longer vehicles lawful if two Member States already allow 

14   Directive  2007/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  September  2007  establishing  a 
framework  for  the  approval  of  motor  vehicles  and  their  trailers,  and  of  systems,  components  and  separate 
technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive); OJ L 263 of 9.10.2007, p. 1. 

15   Regulation  (EC)  No  661/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  concerning 
type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components 
and separate technical units intended therefor; OJ L 200 of 31.7.2009, p. 1. 

16   Directive 97/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 1997 relating to the masses and 
dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers and amending Directive 70/156/EEC; OJ 
L 233 of 25.8.1997, p. 1. 

17  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  Inland  Transport  Committee  -  Agreement  concerning  the  adoption  of 
uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be 
used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis 
of these prescriptions, 1958 

EN 

v 

   EN 

                                                 
this and if the conditions for derogations under Art. 4(3), 4(4) or 4(5) of the Directive are met. 
In particular, there should be no significant impact on international competition.  

In a response to President Schulz of the European Parliament, President Barroso indicated in a 
letter of 26 July 2012 that the Commission would make a legislative  proposal which would 
give an opportunity for the European Parliament to legislate on this issue if it wishes to do so 
and that until any revision of the Directive is fully implemented, the current Directive remains 
in force along the guidance provided.18 Hence, given that existing uncertainties regarding Art. 
4 of the Directive have been addressed and given that the legislator will have the opportunity 
to address the issue, as appropriate, in connection with the present revision of the Directive, 
this Impact Assessment will not address the issue of Art. 4. 

o What is the issue or problem that may require action?  

Against this background, new circumstances, technologies and user needs call for a revision 
of  the  Directive.  More  exactly,  the  main  problem  identified  following  the  stakeholder 
consultation  is  that  the  limits  set  in  the  Directive  are  one  of  the  obstacles  to  energy 
efficiency19 in road transport and to intermodal transport. Moreover, the effectiveness of the 
Directive  is  hampered  due  to  a  lack  of  compliance  by  transport  operators.  Hence,  the  main 
problem consists of two parts described in more detail below. 

(cid:131)  Part 1:  

Certain limits on weights and dimension set by 

the Directive constitute obstacles to energy efficiency gains of 
road vehicles and to intermodal transport operations 

As mentioned above, rules on weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles are meant to 
strike  a  balance  among  several,  and  in  part  competing  requirements,  namely:  i)  energy 
efficiency and environment; ii) economic efficiency; iii) safety; and iv) infrastructure needs. 
This balance has to be valid EU-wide to ensure a level playing field. 

The  current  legislation,  conceived  in  the  1990s  to  accompany  legislation  regarding  the 
opening of the international road transport market, reflects the conditions present at the time. 
Several  elements  have  changed  in  the  meantime,  implying  that  current  rules  no  longer 
correctly balance the various elements and needs. 

In  particular,  energy  dependency  and  climate  change  considerations  require  that  greater 
emphasis  is  now  given  to  the  energy  efficiency  of  vehicles.  Developments  in  maritime 
transport  and  containerisation  have  an  impact  on  the  logistics  and  the  economy  of  road 
operations. Vehicle and infrastructure technology has advanced. Safety concerns have become 
more prominent.  

Furthermore,  the  way  manufacturers  adapt  their  vehicle  design  to  demand  –  within  the 
regulatory limits – is likely to produce suboptimal results. This is because vehicle operators 
do not pay the full price of negative externalities such as climate change, energy dependency 

18   http://www.michael-cramer.eu/fileadmin/documents/2012-07-31_-

_Barroso_reply_to_Schulz_on_Gigaliner_issue.pdf  

19   Technically,  'energy  efficiency'  means  using  less  energy  inputs  while  maintaining  an  equivalent  level  of 
economic activity or service; 'energy saving' is a broader concept that also includes consumption reduction 
through  behaviour  change  or  decreased  economic  activity.  In  practice  the  two  are  difficult  to  disentangle. 
(see  also  footnote  2  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Plan  2011;  COM  (2011)  109).  This  Impact  Assessment  will 
discuss  energy  efficiency,  depending  on  the  context,  in  terms  of  different  units:  energy  consumption  per 
vehicle kilometre, energy consumption per tonne kilometre or energy consumption per passenger kilometre. 

EN 

vi 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
and the social cost of accidents, and are therefore attributing lower value to these features than 
it would be desirable.  

Some of these problems have already been recognised by the policy maker and tackled with 
regulation  imposing,  for  example,  minimum  safety  and  environmental  standards,  but  as  a 
result, the regulations adopted over the last two decades and the evolving importance given to 
respective  policy  goals  has  also  altered  the  balance  between  the  various  elements  of  the 
problem. It can be said today that: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Infrastructure and safety still represent a constraint to weights and dimensions and do 
not allow sizeable increases of vehicles. On the other hand, reducing the loading 
capacity would imply lower economic and environmental efficiency, since more 
kilometres would have to be driven to transport the same quantity of goods; 
The total weight limits have been set in a precautionary manner in the Directive. A 
limited increase in the maximum authorised weight would still be possible for most 
categories of heavy duty vehicles without being harmful to main roads, which are built 
to resist an axle weight of 11.5 tonnes. This safety margin would leave space for a 
slight increase of the maximum permissible weight of electric vehicles to compensate 
for the additional weight of their batteries;   
Since larger containers are becoming ever more common and have environmental 
advantages, the trade-off between a little additional length and safety/infrastructure 
problems is favourable to the former; 
The same consideration can be applied to aerodynamic appendices, in view of the 
greater social cost of energy these days. 

In  short,  as  reported  by  stakeholders,  especially  hauliers  and  manufacturers,  the  Directive 
imposes limits which, although pertinent in the 1990s, do no longer strike for some of them 
the  right  balance  between  the  four  above-mentioned  requirements  and  today  create  undue 
obstacles  to  energy  efficiency  gains  and  to  intermodal  transport.  In  this  respect,  the  limits 
acting as obstacles can be regrouped under two main groups: 

Root cause 1) Certain maximum weights and dimensions prevent the market uptake of 
more  aerodynamic,  electric  and  hybrid  trucks  and  reduce  the  attractiveness  of  certain 
coach services 

A. Certain dimensions prevent the deployment of aerodynamic solutions for trucks  
Aerodynamics is a major factor influencing the energy efficiency of HGVs.20  

When driving a truck at constant speed on a flat level road, about 40% of the fuel consumed is 
used to overpower the air resistance (drag)21. The drag, which slows the truck down, is caused 
by high or low pressure at certain points in relation to the ambient atmospheric pressure. The 
oncoming airflow pushes against (1) the tractor front, creating a high-pressure region, just as 
it does on (2) the wheels and the front of (3) the semi-trailer. The heavy duty vehicle moving 

20   This is less the case for buses and coaches, since: 

•  unlike heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches are not composed of several vehicles the spaces between 

which may cause aerodynamic perturbations; 

•  most of the bus and coach fleets operate in cities at speeds below 50 km/h, where aerodynamics do not 
play a crucial role; the number of coaches used in long-distance transport is small compared to the fleet of 
heavy goods vehicles used in inter-urban transport; 
it  was  stated  by  stakeholders  during  the  consultations  that  the  current  legislation  give  manufacturers 
sufficient flexibility to conceive aerodynamic buses with drag coefficients as low as 0.35.   

• 

For the above reasons, the IA will concentrate on heavy goods vehicles in what follows. 

21   ITF: Innovation in Truck Technologies, 2010. 

EN 

vii 

   EN 

 
                                                 
forward in the airflow creates a low-pressure region (4) behind the tractor and (5) the semi-
trailer, which ’pulls’ the vehicle backwards. Interestingly, the high-pressure region at the front 
contributes just as much to drag as the low-pressure region at the rear. 

The  sources  of  drag  numbered  (2),  (3)  and  (4),  representing  one  third  of  the  total  drag,  are 
currently addressed by respectively side skirts, roof-top spoilers and reflectors between cabins 
and  trailers,  which  can  be  installed  on  trucks  as  these  devices  do  not  extent  weights  or 
dimensions  of  vehicles  beyond  the  maximum  limitations  of  the  Directive.  Notably  roof-top 
spoilers  and  reflectors  are  widely  used  on  approximately  90%  of  all  long-distance  trucks22. 
Side  skirts,  on  the  other  hand,  are  only  used  to  a  very  limited  degree,  according  to 
stakeholders, due to their exposure to damage when loading HGVs from the side.  

Figure 1: Different aerodynamic devices which allow overcoming the aerodynamic drag 
for a heavy goods vehicle. 

(5)  An  aerodynamic  rear  device 
would  exceed  current  maximum 
limitations on length of HGVs 

(3)  Roof-top  spoiler  -  currently 
in use 

(1)  An  aerodynamic  cabin 
longer 
rounded  and 
being 
current 
would 
exceed 
maximum 
on 
length of HGVs 

limitations 

(4)  Reflector 
currently in use 

– 

(2)  Side  skirt  – 
currently in use 

The main sources of drag numbered (1) and (5) above, representing each one third of the total 
drag, can only be addressed within the current limitations of dimensions of HGVs stipulated 
by Directive 96/53/EC by decreasing the length of loading units, which consequently would 

22   Source : IRU. 

EN 

viii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
reduce  loading  capacity.  Stakeholders  argued  during  the  public  consultation  that  reducing 
loading  capacities  of  HGVs23  would  compromise  the  commercial  viability  of  such  vehicles, 
and  that  the  Directive  currently  hampers  innovations  of  HGVs  that  could  contribute  to 
improving  their  energy  efficiency  and  reducing  their  CO2  emissions.  As  an  illustration, 
accomodating  aerodynamic  devices  at  the  front  and  at  the  back  of  HGVs  (of  for  instance  2 
metres)  within  current  maximum  dimensions  of  18.75  m,  would  require  a  correponding 
decrase of loading capacity, and thus of revenues, by 18%24. Although aerodynamic devices 
at  the  front  and  at  the  back  of  HGVs  would  generate  substantial  fuel  savings,  as  explained 
below,  reducing  overall  costs  by  more  than  18%  by  means  of  fuel  savings  alone  –  to 
compensate for the loss of revenues alone – would require a more than 60% improvement in 
fuel  efficiency  of  HGVs25,  which  could  not  be  achieved  by  means  of  aerodynamic  devices. 
On the other hand, allowing additional length of HGVs beyond current maximum dimensions 
would enable hauliers to maintain existing loading capacities and to benefit from fuel savings 
(see also cost-benefit analysis carried out in chapter 6.2). 

As regards the drag source numbered (5), the frame table here below gives an idea of possible 
solutions  to  improve  the  energy  efficiency  of  trucks  by  additional  equipment  on  the  trailer. 
Adding  this  equipment  would  exceed  the  maximum  length  allowed  by  the  Directive.  The 
potential  CO2  emissions  reduction  provided  in  the  table  have  been  confirmed  by  numerous 
studies and trials26 carried out by the industry. 

23   Indeed, the current rectangular design of the trailers allows maximising the loading space in terms of number 
of pallets. A more aerodynamic design – within the same length, width and height limits – would inevitably 
reduce loading capacity. 

24   A 2-meter reduction of loading capacity represents a reduction of 6 pallets of a total of 33 pallets, i.e. 18%. 
25   Fuel costs represent 30% of total costs. 
26   See,  for  example,  http://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/design-lorry-tractor-optimised-safety-

and-fuel-consumption;  
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201010.pdf  

EN 

ix 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 1: Devices to Reduce Aerodynamic Drag at the Rear of Trucks 

Source: Towards a lower fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by means of aerodynamic add-ons for 
trailer rear-end, PART Consortium27 

As to the drag source numbered (1), studies have been performed on the front of the trucks, 
suggesting that much improved performances could also be achieved by a more aerodynamic 
shape of the vehicle, as for instance the one presented here below in Figure 2. The expected 
reduction  of  fuel  consumption  is  3-5  %  (FKA  report  104190  Aachen  2011).  Figures  must 
however  be  taken  with  care  as  they  result  from  theoretical  studies,  and  laboratory  tests,  not 
from real-life tests of trucks in operational conditions. 

27   Towards  a  lower  fuel  consumption and  CO2  emissions by means  of aerodynamic  add-ons  for  trailer  rear-

end, PART - Platform for Aerodynamic Road Transport, 2011  

EN 

x 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Current design and example of 'Design of a Tractor for Optimised Safety and 
Fuel Consumption' 

Source: FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011. 

Combining the devices presented in Table 1 and the change to the cabin presented in Figure 2, 
it  would  be  possible  to  reduce  the  drag  coefficient  (cw)  of  today’s  trucks  and  tractor-
semitrailer combinations, ranging from 0.5 up to 0.9, to at least 0.3. In real numbers, today's 
technology  allows  reducing  the  aerodynamic  drag  by  20  to  25%,  resulting  (according  to 
scientific studies) in fuel savings of 7 to 15%28. However, such changes would necessitate a 
modification  of  the  maximum  dimensions  specified  in  the  Directive,  or  alternatively  a 
reduction of the loading capacity by reducing the length of the trailers, a solution which, as 
earlier mentioned, would be economically unsustainable.  

Additionally,  the  redesign  of  the  cabin  allows  taking  other  problems  mentioned  by 
stakeholders into consideration, including an improvement of driver comfort and the safety of 
vulnerable  road  users.  Currently,  truck  drivers  are  seated  on  top  of  the  engine,  which  poses 
serious challenges in terms of cooling of the cabin and access to the engine. The size of the 
couchette  is  small,  and  the  cabin  is  occupied  by  several  mandatory  devices.  Changes  to  the 
cabin would moreover benefit citizens in terms of safety, as cabins with a more rounded front 
would  reduce  the  impact  and  the  number  of  victims  in  case  of  accidents.  While  fatalities 
involving  HGVs  in  absolute  numbers  have  halved  over  the  last  10  years,  the  number  of 
fatalities in accidents with HGVs is still around 4,000 per year or 11.4% of total road fatalities 
in the EU in 2009. As highlighted by several stakeholders, changes to the cabin design for a 
longer  and  more  rounded  front  would  allow  reducing  the  number  of  fatalities  in  accidents 
with HGVs. Simulations have shown that rounded fronts would prevent overruns of persons 
hit  by  HGVs29  and  therefore  reduce  the  number  of  fatalities.  See  section  5.3.2  of  this 
document. 

The  implementation  of  new  aerodynamic  devices  or  designs  must  also  take  into  account 
issues  like  signalisation,  the  lighting  of  vehicles  at  night  and  room  for  manoeuvre  of  the 
vehicles. 

B. Certain maximum weight limitations prevent the market uptake of electric/hybrid vehicles 

The introduction of  hybrid or electric  powertrains,  mainly  in  urban or small-size trucks  and 
buses (typically with a maximum total weight of 18 tonnes 30) could additionally contribute to 
improving energy efficiency. However, batteries used in these propulsion systems continue to 
be  very  heavy,  weighing  around  one  tonne  according  to  figures  provided  during  the 
stakeholder  consultation.  One  tonne  less  in  terms  of  the  payload  would  undermine  the 
economic sustainability of many transport operations. As an illustration, reducing the payload 

28   ITF: Innovation in Truck Technologies, 2010. 
29   http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/2012%2002%20FKA%20Smart%20Cab%20study_web.pdf. 
30   Heavier lorries and coaches are not currently deemed suited for such propulsion systems. 

EN 

xi 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
by 1 tonne for buses with a capacity of 30 passengers, weighing on average 75 kg (excluding 
luggage  –  see  chapter  4.1.1),  would  reduce  the  capacity  of  buses  by  approximately  13 
passengers, or some 40%. Consequently, the current weight limits of the Directive may hinder 
the market uptake of such vehicles and act as an obstacle to reap their environmental benefits 
in terms of energy efficiency. 

C.  Certain  maximum  weight  limitations  have  not  evolved  to  keep  pace  with  the  growing 
weight of vehicle safety and comfort equipment and of passengers 

The  total  weight  of  vehicles,  which  is  limited  by  Directive  96/53/EC,  is  determined  by  the 
weight of the vehicle as well as its payload. Technical developments of vehicles in relation to 
on-board safety equipment and cleaner powertrains have made vehicles heavier. It has been 
particularly striking in coaches where safety and comfort requirements are relatively higher. 
This has resulted in a decreasing capacity to load goods (lorries) or passengers (buses) (and 
hence  the  need  for  more  HGVs  /  more  buses  to  transport  the  same  amount  of  goods  and 
passengers respectively). The table below provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of items, 
which have made vehicles heavier: 

Table 2: Examples of items which make vehicles heavier 

Situation  - 
mid-1990s 
(in kg) 

Current 
situation  
(in kg) 

Additional 
weight  
(in kg) 

Items 

Euro IV/V Engines 

Noise reduction 

Retarder and brake systems: ABS, ESP, ACC, AEBS, LDWS 

Strength of the body (UN R 66) 

Underrun protection (UN R 58) 

Safety belts and anchorages 

260 

15 

70 

110 

0 

80 

Air-conditionning system + Toilets + Water tank + Kitchen 

315 

450 

100 

220 

200 

60 

200 

480 

190 

85 

150 

90 

60 

120 

165 

70 

30 

Onboard equipment: Camera & Mirrors + Multimedia + ITS 
systems 
At the same time, the standard weight of a European passenger has increased by 7 kg31, and 
the  weight  and  size  of  personal  luggage  has  also  gone  up.  Therefore,  the  number  of 
passengers that a coach can carry has decreased, at constant size and weight, contributing to 
an  increased  price  per  passenger  (the  total  cost  of  the  trip  has  to  be  divided  by  fewer 
passengers),  making  transport  by  bus  and  coach  less  attractive,  and  thus  contributing  to  a 
potential reverse shift from collective transport to personal vehicles. It could be necessary to 
accommodate these developments to make collective transport of passengers more efficient, 
in terms of energy, demand management and economic profitability for the operators.  

40 

The  2011  White  Paper  on  transport  similarly  stressed  the  need  for  transporting  ‘greater 
҆  
numbers of travellers jointly to their destination by the most efficient (combination of) modes.҆

31   Research on the Weight of Buses and Touring Coaches – Final Report, NEA June 2007. 

EN 

xii 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Root  cause  2)  Certain  maximum  weights  and  dimensions  have  not  kept  pace  with  the 
technical developments of intermodal transport and containerisation 

The development of trade has gone hand in hand over the two last decades with the growing 
containerisation of global logistic chains. Containerisation presents a further opportunity for 
the development of intra-EU intermodal/combined transport as an alternative to door-to-door 
road  transport  solutions.  However,  the  incomplete  standardisation  of  the  transport  units 
hampers this development. As a result certain large containers used in maritime transport can 
hardly  be  accommodated  in  the  land  transport  legs  of  the  chain,  because  of  the  maximum 
dimensions imposed by the Directive.  

This is the case of the 45' containers which are increasingly used as they carry more payload, 
and for example 2 pallets more (on the floor and more when stacked) than in traditional 40’ 
containers.  
45’  containers  represent  20  %  of  the  global  stock  of  containers32,  the  number  of  which 
increased by 86% between 2000 and 2010 to 14.875 million TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent 
Units)33.  Today,  some  20  %  of  these  containers  reach  Europe.  45’  containers  thereby 
represent  2-3%  of  the  total  container  market  in  Europe  and  this  share  is  reportedly  rapidly 
increasing. When arriving in EU ports, such containers are often transported by rail, in short 
sea shipping or on inland waterways towards the final destination, but the transport from the 
port to the connecting transport mode as well as the final part of the trip are usually performed 
by road.  

45’  containers  have  the  potential  of  decreasing  energy  consumption  and  consequently  to 
promote  the  efficiency  and  attractiveness  of  intermodal  transport  chains  on  routes  which 
combine  short  sea  shipping  or  rail  transport  with  road  transport.  But  45’  containers  may 
currently only be transported by road under certain conditions34, with a special permit or by 
way of derogation from Directive 96/53/EC, which needs to be notified to the Commission. 
Such permits and derogations entail administrative burdens which are costly for operators and 
which may hinder and slow down the development of intermodal transport. As an example, 
obtaining  a  special  permit  for  transporting  a  45’  container  from  Hamburg  (DE)  to  Aarhus 
(DK)  by  road  costs  €  90.  As  the  application  for  the  permit  is  complex,  lengthy  (at  least  14 
days) and has to be submitted in the language of the country in which the permit is requested, 
hauliers  usually  apply  via  specialised  organisations  charging  a  fee,  which  reportedly  can 
amount to approximately € 70 (in DK), i.e. a total cost of € 160.  

Moreover,  the  maximum  weight  of  vehicles  carrying  45'  containers  remains  limited  to  40 
tonnes, unlike vehicles transporting 40' containers for which a maximum weight of 44 tonnes 
is  allowed  as  part  of  a  combined  transport  operation35  to  factor  in  the  dead  weight  of  the 
container. This  discrepancy between  40’ and 45’ containers is due to the fact that Directive 
96/53/EC was drafted at a time when 45' containers were only rarely used.   

Other types of containers are arriving from overseas; 45' pallet wide (containers with a length 
of 45 feet but which are more than 5 cm wider than a standard 45' container. Thanks to this 

32   All figures in this paragraph come from different answers to the public consultation of stakeholders. 
33   Container supply review. May 2011. World Shipping Council. 
34   Commission Staff Working Document on the continuous carriage of 45' containers in national road transport, 

SEC (2006) 1581. 

35   In  this  report,  combined  transport  is  defined  as  the  transport  of  goods  between  Member  States  where  the 
initial or final part of the journey uses the road, and the other leg uses rail or inland waterway or maritime 
services for a distance of over 100 km. The road leg shall be less than 150 km if combined with a maritime 
leg. See also Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for 
certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States; OJ L 368 of 17.12.1992, p. 38. 

EN 

xiii 

   EN 

                                                 
extra width these containers can carry two pallets side by side instead of one, i.e. 33 pallets in 
total  instead  of  27),  48'  and  53'.  Whereas  these  containers  allow  operators  to  carry  more 
pallets, they would require more significant extensions of trailers in both width and length to 
be carried over road (as part of a standard operation).  

(cid:131)  Part 2: Ineffective application of the Directive  

An important problem highlighted by a group of stakeholders during the public consultation is 
the  relatively  large  number  of  infringements  related  to  weights  of  HGVs.  The  association 
Euro Control Route, which, out of 28,639 HGVs controlled in week 21 of 2012, found 6,800 
HGVs with offences, of which 1,446 (21%) were overloaded. Other evidence has shown that 
during  a  roadside  check  on  motorway  A11  in  France  (March  2010),  1/3  of  vehicles  were 
overloaded,  several  vans  by  1  tonne,  a  truck  by  80  %,  and  a  coach  by  7  tonnes.  This  is 
consistent with reports from enforcers from other Member States, according to which 35% of 
the vehicles checked were non-compliant. 

In  cooperation  with  DG  MOVE,  Euro  Control  Route  sent  a  separate  questionnaire  to  its 
members  asking  about  the  most  frequent  infringements  related  to  Directive  96/53/EC.  The 
majority of the members pointed to an overweight of the driving axle. The poor compliance 
with,  and  hence  the  lack  of  effectiveness  of  Directive  96/53/EC,  leads  to  damages  to  the 
infrastructure (especially road pavement and bridges) made by overloaded HGVs. ISWIM, the 
International Society on Weigh-In-Motion, estimates an additional average share of 3.8 %36 of 
total  maintenance  costs  (€  25  billion  –  see  chapter  5.2.1)  caused  by  overloaded  HGVs.  In 
addition, road safety could be undermined by HGVs that do not respect authorised weights, 
since stopping a heavier vehicle requires a longer distance and collisions involving a heavier 
vehicle lead to more damage.  

This  poor  compliance  leads  to  distortion  of  competition  between  hauliers  and  negatively 
affects  the  internal  market  for  road  transport.  In  a  context  of  fierce  competition,  operators 
operating at the edge of the rules by maximising their load can gain a substantial competitive 
advantage to the detriment of the others. 

Levels  of  enforcement  are  very  different  between  Member  States.  First  of  all,  the  limits 
authorized for national transport operations are quite different: from 40 to 48 tonnes in most 
countries,  50  tonnes  in  the  Netherlands,  60  tonnes  in  some  Nordic  countries.  In  some 
countries, there is little enforcement in place. In many of the others, enforcement is done with 
portable static equipment, mainly during the day, not at night. There are only a few countries 
where checks are performed by well-trained staff in well-equipped sites along main roads or 
motorways. Weigh-in-motion stations (WIM) are essentially used in the following countries: 
NL – FR – DE – UK – CZ. CZ is the sole country where a law authorizes the use of WIM 
stations for direct enforcement, whereas in others WIM stations are only allowed for filtering, 
due to their level of inaccuracy. 

Furthermore,  levels  of  penalties  vary  between  Member  States,  as  well  as  thresholds  above 
which these penalties are applied.For example, the threshold of overweight for immobilization 
of the vehicle varies from 6 % to 15 % between Member States. 

Root cause 3) Lack of common and dissuasive enforcement methods 

One  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  poor  compliance  with  the  Directive  is that  controls  are  too 
infrequent, leaving an impression of impunity for potential offenders. According to estimates 

36 Average of range provided on chapter 5.2.1 

EN 

xiv 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
in  France,  trucks  are  weighed  on  roadside  stations  on  average  every  2  million  kilometres. 
Moreover, in the case of container transport, the wrong actors are fined: while drivers have no 
means  to  control  the  weight  of  the  containers  they  transport,  they  are  the  ones  responsible 
according to the law. On the contrary, legislation does not foresee the possibility of fining the 
shippers/forwarders, who have the possibility to estimate or measure the weight of the cargo 
and therefore to prevent overloading. 

Furthermore,  the  enforcement  policies  and  control  practices  in  Member  States  using  simple 
risk  profiling  are  lacking  effectiveness,  considering  that  1  out  of  2  controls  affect  vehicles 
which  comply  with  the  rules,  and  is  thus  unnecessary,37  and  consuming  scarce  resources  of 
public  authorities,  which  could  be  employed  more  efficiently  to  obtain  a  higher  dissuasive 
effect.  Without  considering  the  level  of  sanctions,  which  is  another  crucial  element,  current 
checks, when done, are often not cost-efficient and lack effectiveness.  

It has to be noted that Directive 96/53/EC does not contain any provisions on the enforcement 
of the rules it has put in place. This has led the Member States to develop their own practices 
resulting in widely differing methods of checks and different categorisation and tolerances of 
offences.  

As  regards  methods,  checks  performed  by  Member  States  vary  from  a  purely  manual 
selection  of  vehicles  to  be  checked  to  the  pre-selection  using  technical  methods  to  filter 
vehicles to be checked manually. Modern and efficient methods, allowing targeted checks, are 
not widespread: for instance, Weigh in Motion (WIM) systems, which allow pre-checks to be 
carried  out  without  physically  stopping  all  HGVs  and  thus  stopping  only  those  with  a  very 
high likelihood of committing an infringement, are used by enforcement officers in a limited 
number of Member States only.38 

On-board weighing devices are another option offered by technology to make drivers aware 
of the weight of their vehicles. These alert hauliers immediately when an overweight load is 
being loaded onto the truck. These equipment are currently not standardized, costly (around 
3,000 €) and consequently not well deployed. In certain cases, without such devices and when 
an overweight container39 is loaded onto a truck, hauliers have no way of checking whether 
they  comply  with  maximum  weight  limits.  However,  there  is  no  common  legal  framework 
requiring  the  use  of  these  devices,  and  the  lack  of  effective  control  policy  by  the  Member 
States has not incentivized hauliers to equip their vehicle fleets. 

As  regards  categorisation  and  tolerances  of  infringements,  Member  States  deviate  with 
respect  to  levels  applied  when  checking  HGVs.  The  result  of  the  questionnaire  prepared  by 
Euro Control Route and DG MOVE showed that some Member States allow a tolerance of up 
to 5% whereas other Member States only allow a tolerance of 2%.  

Those  differing  national  enforcement  practices  is  a  source  of  confusion  and  contradictory 
signals  to  hauliers  who  are  subject  to  different  checks  and  sanctions  throughout  the  EU. 
Furthermore,  drivers  have  to  face  the  risks  of  situations  coming  from  the  divergence  in 
procedures, documents of proofs required, causing them delays, loss of time, and extra costs. 

As a conclusion, current enforcement by Member States is insufficient, not cost effective and 
lacks  harmonisation.  As  a  consequence,  hauliers  frequently  infringe  the  Directive,  which 

37   See chapter 5.2.1 
38   It  can  be  grossly  estimated,  that  ca.  350-500  pieces  of  WIM  equipment  would  be  needed  to  ensure  basic 
coverage  of  the  main  interurban  network  in  the  EU.  So  far,  only  150-200  WIMs  are  deployed  in  the  EU. 
(source: International Society on Weigh-In-Motion – ISWIM) 

39   Relative to the weight indicated on the accompanying freight documents. 

EN 

xv 

   EN 

                                                 
leads  to  a  distortion  of  competition  between  transport  undertakings,  to  damage  of 
infrastructure and to safety hasards.  

Other  problems,  which  could  have  been  addressed  by  the  revision  process,  have  not  been 
covered, either because these problems are not of a legislative nature but a technical one (for 
instance the fragility of the side skirts), or because they reflected positions expressed by some 
stakeholders which were not supported by a majority of them. 

o Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?  

On average, fuel consumption amounts to 1/3 of the costs of road haulage. The provisions of 
the  current  Directive,  which  effectively  prevent  a  more  aerodynamic  design  of  the  vehicles 
under  the  commercial  constraints  of  maximising  load  capacity,  therefore  negatively  affect 
commercial  road  operators.  It  is  obvious  that  they  equally  strongly  reduce  the  market 
opportunities of the manufacturers of such innovative aerodynamic devices and aerodynamic 
trucks. 

Road  operators  and  combined/intermodal  transport  operators  are  currently  restricted  in  their 
capacity  to  transport  larger  containers.  They  would  benefit  –  in  terms  of  new  commercial 
opportunities  –  from  a  change  in  the  legislation  which  would  allow  them  to  fit  maritime 
containers  on  semi-trailers  and  optimising  the  use  of  their  transport  means  with  smarter 
combinations  of  containers  and  swap  bodies.  All  intermodal  transport  operators,  including 
road,  rail,  sea  and  inland  waterway  operators,  would  benefit  from  the  greater  choice  and 
flexibility introduced by these changes. 

Truck  drivers  would  be  positively  affected  by  changes  to  the  cabin,  which  would  allow  for 
more comfort compared to the current cabins, which are designed to take up as little space as 
possible to allow for maximum loading space. Other road users would be positively affected 
by the reduction of the dead vision angles reducing the number of wounded vulnerable users 
during manoeuvers. Citizens will be positively affected by lower emissions of CO2, NOx, fine 
particulates  and  other  pollutants,  although  a  possible  rebound  effect  (more  road  transport 
resulting from lower costs) will need to be assessed.  

Public authorities will be affected as they are in charge of the enforcement of the Directive. 
They  will  benefit  from  reduced  damages  to  road  infrastructure  and  consequently  reduced 
maintenance  costs.  Infrastructure  adaptions  will  not  be  required  beyond  adaptions  already 
introduced  in  Member  States  where  longer  vehicles  are  already  allowed  to  circulate. 
Similarly, aerodynamic devices, which could also increase the total length of vehicles, would 
only be fully effective at speeds above 50 km/h and they would be intended to be folded when 
entering urban areas, when loading or when the vehicle is involved in an intermodal operation 
(loading the semi-trailer on to a rail wagon or the whole vehicle on to a boat). 

Fuel savings may mean reduced fuel tax revenues but also a positive impact on fuel security 
and the EU's external trade balance. 

FunFinally, all economic actors (companies and consumers) will benefit from lower transport 
costs and more efficient combined and intermodal transport. 

The  issue  of  control  of  the  weights  and  dimensions  of  the  vehicle  will  impact  the  police 
officers  in  charge,  providing  them  assistance  on  procedures  and  technical  means.  It  would 
affect  the  haulage  industry  by  securing  a  level  playing  field  and  all  citizens  as  overloaded 
vehicles induce higher risks during collisions and have a negative impact on the wear and tear 
of roads. 

EN 

xvi 

   EN 

 
 
o How would the problem evolve, all other things being equal?   

The  economic  crisis  will,  together  with  rising  costs  of  fuel  and  increasingly  stringent 
measures  to  reduce  CO2  emissions  from  transport,  intensify  the  already  fierce  competition 
between hauliers in the road transport sector. This expected development is likely to increase 
the demand for fuel efficient vehicles by users and consequently to intensify R&D efforts by 
manufacturers  to  supply  such  vehicles.  According  to  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  baseline,  the 
total  average  energy  efficiency  of  HDVs  is  expected  to  improve  from  309  to  271  tonnes  of 
fuel (all types included) per mio vehicle-kilometres (vkm). 

CO2  emissions  from  HGVs  represented  approximately  a  third  of  total  CO2  emissions  from 
transport  in  2010  in  the  EU.  This  share  is  likely  to  increase  as  measures  to  reduce  the 
emissions from other transport means have recently been introduced (e.g. emissions from new 
cars, ETS in aviation). In absolute terms, CO2 emissions from trucks amount to 270 million 
tonnes per year. Despite the current economic crisis, the amount of vkm of HGV in Europe is 
rising  and  expected  to  increase  from  314  mio  vkm  in  2010  to  390  mio  vkm  on  2030.  If 
nothing  is  done,  total  fuel  consumption  of  HGVs  will  increase,  despite  expected  energy 
efficiency  improvements,  by  9%  between  2010  and  2030  according  to  the  PRIMES-
TREMOVE baseline, resulting in increased air pollution and CO2 emissions.  

Truck  manufacturers  and  equipment  suppliers  are  working  on  several  fronts  to  improve  the 
energy  efficiency  of  HGVs,  for  instance  through  more  efficient  engines.  However,  as 
mentioned by the manufacturers in the targeted stakeholder meeting organised by DG MOVE 
in the context of this IA, the current limits of Directive 96/53/EC prevent manufacturers from 
improving the aerodynamic performance of HGVs.  

The upcoming Commission Regulation on the type approval of heavy duty vehicles will allow 
rear  devices  of  a  maximum  length  of  50  cm  which  could  help  saving  2  %  of  the  fuel 
consumption (see Figure 3). This limited extension, would not require a revision of Directive 
96/53/EC. Indeed the measurements in Directive 96/53/EC refer to Directive 97/27/EC (and 
as a result to the Commission Regulation which will repeal Directive 97/27/EC). Since rear 
deflectors are accepted in addition to the maximum measurements in the Regulation, they will 
not  be  considered  as  exceeding  the  maximum  dimensions  in  Directive  96/53/EC  either. 
However,  the  fuel  savings  would  remain  limited  in  light  of  the  potential  offered  by  longer 
extensions (see table 1 above). 

EN 

xvii 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 3: 500 mm deflector under test 

The small scale of the changes brought by this future Commission Regulation can result in a 
loss  of  competitiveness  of  the  EU  HDV  manufacturing  sector  on  markets  in  other  world 
regions where developments are on-going to reduce the aerodynamic drag of HDVs40. 

The  use  of  intermodal  transport,  which  is  generally  acknowledged  having  the  potential  to 
increase energy efficiency and CO2 performance of transport, is hampered by the Directive in 
terms of the use of 45’ containers requiring special permits for transport by road. Due to the 
remaining  additional  administrative  burden  for  45'  containers,  as  described  earlier  the  EU 
risks staying behind the worldwide evolution of containerisation, and the additional costs of 
special permits and derogations will hinder the economic sustainability of an economic sector 
under considerable stress.  

The use of 45’ containers in land-only movements is unattractive for hauliers as – compared 
to  conventional  trailers  –  such  containers  are  very  heavy  and  thus  reduce  the  permissible 
payload  while  allowing  loading  the  same  number  of  pallets  as  in  conventional  trailers  and 

40   The  United  States  '21st  Century  Truck  Partnership'  aims  at  an  aggressive  target  of  20%  reduction  in 
aerodynamic drag by designing and deploying boat tailings, collapsible roof lines, side and underbody skirts, 
tractor  trailer  interfaces,  and  deflectors  (see  OECD/ITF  (2010):  Innovation  in  Truck  Technologies  – 
Discussion Paper 2010-10, p. 6). 

EN 

xviii 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
while requiring costly permits for such movements. Hence, the use of 45’ containers in land-
only movements is not expected to increase in the future. 

The use of hybrid or electric vehicles in freight transport is currently hampered – in addition 
to their price – by the additional dead weight of these vehicles and thus the need to reduce the 
payload  of  the  vehicles,  either  passengers  or  goods,  in  order  not  to  exceed  the  maximum 
allowed  weight.  This  situation,  unless  unchanged,  contributes  to  a  slower  uptake  of  hybrid 
and electric vehicles for freight transport, which will prevent the sector from becoming more 
energy  efficient.  The  dead  weight  of  HGVs  seen  in  isolation  is  expected  to  increase  in  the 
future due to more stringent requirements related to safety and other equipment. Whereas this 
will  reduce  the  permissible  payload,  the  fierce  competition  between  hauliers  will  require  a 
greater consolidation with the risk of infringing weight limitations. 

Moreover, both increasing mandatory safety requirements in HDVs and the general increase 
in  the  weight  of  human  beings  negatively  impact  the  permissible  payload  and  hence  freight 
rates/ticket  prices  of  the  road  freight  and  passenger  transport  sector  respectively.  Assuming 
that  this  situation  would  not  impact  traffic  volumes,  or  only  to  a  minor  degree,  passengers 
may increasingly choose to disfavour buses and coaches and use private cars, and more trucks 
will  be  needed  to  meet  the  transport  demand  for  goods  leading  to  higher  CO2 and pollutant 
emissions. 

Leaving  cabin  designs  of  HGVs  unchanged  would  also  result  in  a  missed  opportunity  to 
simultaneously  reduce  aerodynamic  drag  and  to  further  reduce  numbers  of  fatalities  with 
HGVs. 

In terms of compliance with current legislation on weights and dimensions, it is expected that 
the fierce competition in the EU road haulage market will intensify with the crisis and with 
increasing  fuel  costs.  Hauliers  are  likely  to  operate  more  and  more  on  the  margins  of  the 
existing  legislation,  hence  committing  more  infringements  than  currently  reported.  Current 
controls  and  methods  applied  by  enforcement  bodies  are  obviously  not  able  to  effectively 
ensure full compliance with the Directive. This situation is expected to increasingly result in 
distortion  of  competition  between  hauliers,  and  non-respect  of  maximum  weight  limits  will 
result in damages of the infrastructure and reduced road safety.  

o Does the EU have the right to act – Treaty base, ‘necessity test’ 

(subsidiarity) and fundamental rights limits?  

(cid:131)  Link to the corresponding article of the Treaty 

This impact assessment explores and analyses options for revising Directive 96/53/EC, which 
is  based  on  Article  91  TFEU  (ex-Art  71).  The  EU  added  value  was  recognized  when  this 
Directive was adopted and the arguments, which substantiate this added value, still hold.  

These arguments are predicated upon the ever-increasing reality that road transport within the 
EU is transnational in nature. Cross-border road freight transport accounts for approximately 
one third of total road freight transport41 and passenger road transport also has an important 
international dimension. Data compiled by the European Commission shows that cross-border 
road  freight  is  an  increasing  proportion  of  this  total.  This  is  due  to  increasing  cross-border 
trade and economic growth, which have in part been facilitated by the EU Internal Market and 
by the liberalisation of the road freight market in Europe. 

41   Source: Eurostat, as compiled in the 2010 Road Freight Transport Vademecum 
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/doc/2010-road-freight-vademecum.pdf ) 

EN 

xix 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(cid:131)  Subsidiarity test 

The  objective  of  Directive  96/53/EC  is  to  set  limits  to  the  size  of  the  vehicles  allowed  on 
public roads in the EU, safeguarding the right for each Member State to accommodate bigger 
or  heavier  vehicles  on  its  own  territory  if  its  infrastructure  allows  it.  The  objective  of  the 
current  revision  does  not  question  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  develop  solutions 
according to local circumstances. It also aims to adapt the terms of the Directive to technical 
progress, within the existing constraints of infrastructure, road safety and market conditions. 
Indeed  it  appears  that  some  limits  in  the  Directive  could  be  relaxed  to  harness  the  benefits 
from new technologies. An adaptable approach to the definition of new standards is suggested 
so as to reflect techincal evolutions and changing market standards. 

As  at  the  time  when  Directive  96/53/EC  was  adopted,  an  action  by  Member  States  alone 
would  not  be  sufficient  to  ensure  an  EU-wide  harmonisation  of  maximum  lengths  and 
dimensions.  A  patchwork  of  differing  national  rules  would  hinder  the  creation  of  a  truly 
integrated EU road haulage market.  

In  a  context  of  increasing  cross-border  road  freight  transport,  the  preceding  chapters  have 
highlighted the fact that common rules and levels of enforcement are increasingly required to 
ensure  a  level  playing  field  between  hauliers.  Different  levels  of  enforcement  between  EU 
Member  States  favour  certain  hauliers  and  may  create  incentives  for  hauliers  to  plan  routes 
via countries or itineraries where enforcement levels are the lowest. These different levels are 
also causes for discrimination between hauliers and additional burdens in international traffic. 
Action  at  EU  level  is  therefore  required  to  harmonise  effectively  the  implementation  of  the 
limits set in the Directive. 

However,  given  that  enforcement  is  subject  to  important  subsidiarity  considerations,  as 
measures in this area may be costly and as they are under the competence of Member States, 
any  measure  proposed  in  this  area  will  be  studied  carefully  in  the  section  on  assessment  of 
impacts.  Similarly,  categories  and  levels  of  sanctions,  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  the 
existing Directive and which are under the competence of Member States, will be scrutinised 
and will be assessed in terms of added value before any proposal is recommended in this area. 

(cid:131)  Test of added value 

Considering the nature of the problems addressed in this IA having a clear EU dimension – 
both  in  terms  of  harmonisation  and  in  terms  of  controls  –  the  EU  is  in  a  better  position  to 
address the problems than Member States. Lastly, EU Directives may only be revised at EU 
level. 

EN 

xx 

   EN 

 
•  OBJECTIVES 

This  section  defines  the  general,  specific  and  operational  policy  objectives  of  the  proposed 
initiative, discusses possible trade-offs between them and verifies their consistency with other 
EU horizontal objectives. 

o Policy objectives 

General objectives 

In line with the problems described in section 2 above, the general objective of this initiative, 
taking account of the general economic context and the headline goal of the White Paper, is 
twofold: 

•  To improve the energy efficiency of road transport and to facilitate intermodal 
transport while respecting the requirements of infrastructure maintenance, road 
safety and the protection of the environment. 42 

•  To improve the internal market for road transport by ensuring a level playing field 

for hauliers and by increasing the effectiveness of Directive 96/53/EC. 

Specific objectives 

In light of the above and in order to address the problem and its root causes identified earlier, 
the  general  objective  of  this  initiative  can  be  translated  into  three  specific  objectives  (SO). 
These objectives must be achieved without upsetting the balance between the requirements of 
infrastructure  maintenance,  road  safety  and  the  protection  of  the  environment,  as  explained 
under the first general objective and in section 2.2.1 above. 

SO1: To enable the market uptake of more aerodynamic, electric and hybrid trucks 

and to increase the attractiveness of certain coach services. 

SO2: To enhance the development of intermodal/combined transport via a support to 

new possibilities of containerisation. 

SO3: To ensure better enforcement of the maximum weights and dimensions across 

the EU. 

Table 3: Mapping problem and objectives 

Problem – Part 1 

General objective – Part 1 

Certain  limits  on  weights  and  dimensions 
set  by  the  Directive  constitute  obstacles  to 
energy efficiency gains of road vehicles and 
to intermodal transport operations.  

To  facilitate  energy  efficiency  of  road 
transport  and  intermodal  transport  by 
revising  certain  limits  on  weights  and 
dimensions  of  vehicles  while  maintaining 
the  balance  with  the  requirements  of 
infrastructure  maintenance,  road  safety 
and the protection of the environment. 

Root cause 1: 

Specific Objective 1: 

Certain  maximum  weights  and  dimensions 
prevent 
the  market  uptake  of  more 
aerodynamic,  electric  and  hybrid  trucks  and 
reduce  the  attractiveness  of  certain  coach 
services. 

To  enable 
the  market  uptake  of  more 
aerodynamic,  electric,  hybrid  trucks  and  to 
increase  the  attractiveness  of  certain  coach 
services. 

42   As mentioned in recital 5 of the Directive. 

EN 

xxi 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Root cause 2: 

Specific Objective 2: 

Certain  maximum  weights  and  dimensions 
have  not  kept  pace  with 
technical 
developments  of  intermodal  transport  and 
containerisation. 

the 

enhance 

To 
intermodal/combined transport 

the 

development 

of 

Problem – Part 2 

General objective - Part 2 

The Directive is not applied in an effective 
manner 

To  improve  the  internal  market  for  road 
transport by providing for a fairer playing 
field for hauliers. 

Root cause 3: 

Specific Objective 3: 

Lack  of  common  and  dissuasive  enforcement 
methods 

To  ensure  better  enforcement  of 
the 
maximum weights and dimensions across the 
EU 

Operational objectives 

The above-mentioned specific objectives related to energy efficiency (SO1 and SO2) of road 
and of intermodal transport are complex and depend on factors which are independent from 
the  scope  of  this  initiative.  Due  to  complications  of  dissociating  these  factors,  it  has  been 
decided not to propose any quantified operational objectives with regard to energy efficiency. 
Alternatively, the following operational objectives are proposed, which will allow monitoring 
and  evaluation  (see  Chapter  7)  of  the  impacts,  and  their  evolution,  of  the  proposal  of  the 
Commission: 

OO1:  Achieve  a  significant  share  of  long-distance  trailers  equipped  with  rear 

aerodynamic devices (75%) and aerodynamic cabins (50%) by 2030 

OO2:  Achieve  a  doubling  of  the  use  of  45’  containers  transported  as  part  of  a 

combined/intermodal transport operation by 2030 

SO3 logically should be associated with an operational objective measuring the evolution of 
the compliance with Directive 96/53/EC. The following operational objective is proposed: 

OO3:  Increase  the  effectiveness  of  manual  checks  (number  of  infringements  / 
number  of  checks).  Such  an  increase  will  improve  the  reliability  of  checks 
and at the same time avoid 100,000 unnecessary checks annually by 2020. 

o Possible trade-offs between the objectives of this initiative and the 

horizontal objectives of the EU 

Increasing  the  energy efficiency of road  and of intermodal transport  will  increase  economic 
efficiency of these modes of transport, which could potentially lead to a minor rebound effect 
resulting in freight and passenger transport shifting to road from other modes of transport and 
thereby  contributing  to  increased  CO2  emissions.  However,  as  mentioned  in  Chapter  2,  and 
also in the 2011 transport White Paper, this initiative would not stand alone. Other initiatives 
are  planned,  which  increasingly  will  implement  the  ‘user-pays’  and  the  ‘polluter-pays’ 
principles,  and  which  will  complement  this  initiative  with  the  goal  of  ensuring  competitive 
transport services, while at the same time seeking to avoid rebound effects. For example, the 
2011  White  Paper  on  Transport  announces  the  introduction  of  an  infrastructure  charging 
scheme for heavy duty vehicles, with a common tariff structure and cost components such as 

EN 

xxii 

   EN 

 
 
the  recovery  of  wear  and  tear,  noise  and  local  pollution  costs,  which  would  replace  the 
existing user charges. 

EN 

xxiii 

   EN 

•  POLICY OPTIONS 

The  stakeholder  consultation,  the  targeted  stakeholder  meetings  and  research  allowed  the 
Commission to identify a set of individual measures having the potential to address the root 
causes  identified  in  the  problem  definition  above.  The  following  process  was  applied  for 
establishing the policy packages that will be analysed in later parts of the present report: 

Identify  the  policy  measures  which  can  be  discarded  on  the  basis  of  a  first 

preliminary assessment; 

Identify  a  list  of  retained  policy  measures  addressing  the  problems  and  respective 

root causes in full; 

Combine  retained  measures  into  policy  packages  constituting  viable  policy 

alternatives for achieving the objectives. 

o Discarded policy measures 

A  few  policy  measures  were  proposed  by  some  stakeholders,  yet  contested  by  other 
stakeholders  and  in  some  cases  contradicted  by  scientific  evidence.  They  are  described  in 
more detail below along with reasons for excluding them from further assessment in this IA. 

Firstly,  several  proposals  were  made  in  the  public  consultation  to  increase  the  loading 
capacity  of  vehicles  in  cross-border  traffic  (for  instance  to  liberalize  the  traffic  of  EMS 
vehicles at 60 tonnes and 25.25 m, or to raise the weight limit for five- or six-axle vehicles to 
44 tonnes). Such proposals were based on studies having been carried out on the potential of 
vehicles  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  road  transport  by  increasing  the  loading  capacity. 
However,  discussions  and  objections  from  several  other  stakeholders,  and  the  fact  that  the 
underlying  studies  present  conflicting  results,  do  not  allow  establishing  a  mature  and  clear 
position  on  the  long-term  impact  of  an  EU-wide  use  of  such  vehicles,  notably  as  regards 
possible  infrastructure  damages  or  expansion/investment  needs,  road  safety,  rebound  effects 
and modal shift. Moreover, maximum dimensions of vehicles and lengths of loading units – 
and thus the loading capacity of vehicles – are directly related. As standard loading units are 
essential to  ensure  interoperability  in  and  between  transport  modes,  any  extension  proposed 
by stakeholders to increase loading  capacity would hinder interoperability and consequently 
not be considered as a valid policy measure. Therefore, and as it was initially announced in 
the introduction to the public consultation, all measures beyond what is currently authorised 
by  Directive  96/53/EC43  intending  to  significantly  increase  the  total  weight  and  the  loading 
capacity  of  long-distance  HGVs  are  out  of  the  scope  of  this  initiative  and  will  not  be 
considered in this impact assessment. 

Secondly,  some  proposals  were  made  by  niche  sectors  to  accommodate  specific  needs.  For 
instance,  transporters  of  completed  vehicles  and  of  refrigerated  goods  suggested  that  an 
increase in the maximum loading length and/or width may be beneficial to accommodate their 
specific  loading  conditions.  Given  the  limited  market  share  of  these  sectors  and  given 
potential needs of other niche markets, which were not expressed during the consultation and 
which  would  be  overlooked,  it  was  decided  not  to  provide  specific  derogations  for  each  of 
these as it would lead to a fragmentation of legislation on a sectorial basis. Moreover, some of 
the  sectorial  requests  –  if  satisfied  –  would  lead  to  a  significant  increase  of  the  loading 
capacity, an option excluded from the scope of this revision of the Directive as explained in 
point 2.2.1 above. 

43   Including the interpretation of certain aspects of Directive 96/53/EC – see the letter from Vice-President Siim 
Kallas  to  MEP  Brian  Simpson:  http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/doc/2012-06-13-kallas-reply-to-
simpson.pdf  

EN 

xxiv 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
List of considered policy measures 

The tables below provides a mapping between the retained list of policy measures proposed 
by  stakeholders,  Member  States  and  other  interested  parties,  and  the  root  causes  identified 
ealier in this Impact Assessment. 

(cid:131)  List of considered policy measures in relation with energy 

efficiency 

Table  4:  Measures  corresponding  to  root  cause  1:  Certain  maximum  weights  and 
dimensions prevent the market uptake of more aerodynamic, electric and hybrid trucks 
and reduce the attractiveness of certain coach services. 

Measures 

1. Rear flaps  

2. Aerodynamic cabins 

Description 

The  maximal  allowed  length  is  increased  for  vehicles  equipped  with  special 
aerodynamic devices fitted at the rear of the trailer/semi-trailer. The devices must 
respect  essential  requirements  on  aerodynamics,  road  safety  and  suitability  for 
the  infrastructure.  They  must  be  foldable  or  retractable  in  order  to  allow  urban 
traffic,  loading  onto  rail  wagons,  and  to  accommodate  the  constraints  of  the 
infrastructure on and off motorways. 
These  allowances  shall  be  used  for  no  other  purpose  than  aerodynamics  and 
cannot increase the loading capacity.  

The  maximum  allowed  length  of  HGVs  with  more  aerodynamic  cabins  is 
increased. The conditions, including the essential requirements for the devices on 
energy  efficiency,  CO2  emissions  and  road  safety  and  suitability  for  the 
infrastructure are defined by the Commission with the help of a committee. The 
extended  length  will  allow  manufacturers  to  redesign  the  cabin  to  improve  its 
aerodynamics,  to  improve  the  safety  of  other  road  users  and  the  comfort  of  the 
driver. 
As above, these permissions are used for no other purpose than aerodynamics and 
cannot increase the loading capacity of HGVs. 

3. Make rear flaps 
mandatory on all vehicles 

This measure concerns all new vehicles as well as retrofitting of existing ones by 
2025. This date is fixed to give sufficient time to hauliers to adapt or renew their 
fleets of trailers.44 

4. Higher weight limits for 
electric/hybrid trucks 

5. Max. 19 t for two-axle 
coaches 

The maximum weight of vehicles using electric or hybrid propulsion is increased 
by  1  tonne  for  the  sole  purpose  of  accommodating  the  extra  weight  of  the 
batteries  for  electric  or  dual  propulsion  (hybrid  motorization),  and  with  the 
condition that current maximum axle weight limits are respected45. 

The  maximum  weight  of  two-axle  coaches  is  increased  from  18  t  to  19  t  to 
accommodate the extra weight of the new mandatory on-board devices for safety 
and  control,  and  to  take  into  consideration the  increase  in  weight  of passengers 
and luggage46. The increase in the weight of vehicles due to legal obligations is 
detailed above (see chapter 2.2.1).. 

44   An alternative to the measure could have been to limit the obligation to new vehicles and to avoid retrofitting 
existing  vehicles.  The  positive  and  negative  impacts  of  the  measure,  as  presented  here  under  would  be 
typically the same, with a different range of magnitude due to the lower number of vehicles concerned in the 
first years. This is why the two measures are grouped in one. 

45   The axle load is more critical to road damage than total vehicle weight, as the pressure on the infrastructure is 
provided by the axles. As such, a vehicle with a higher number of axles carrying a given weight will cause 
less damage to the infrastructure than a vehicle with a lower number of axles. 

46   On average, weights of ‘standard’ passengers have increased since 1996 from 68 kg  to 75 kg  

EN 

xxv 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table  5:  Measures  corresponding  to  root  cause  2:  Certain  maximum  weights  and 
dimensions have not kept pace with the technical developments of intermodal transport 
and containerisation 

Measures 

Description 

6. Allow for 45' containers 
in combined transport 

Extension  in  length  of  the  trailers  by  15  cm  to  accommodate  45'  containers  in 
combined  transport,  and  only  for  that  purpose.  In  addition,  as  the  cross-border 
transport  of  40'  containers  is  already  allowed  with  a  weight  of  44  tonnes  to 
account  for  the  dead  weight  of  the  container,  transport  of  45'  containers  is  also 
permitted to reach 44 tonnes in combined transport. Furthermore, the transport of 
non-ISO 40' containers is also allowed in combined transport. 

7. Allow for 45' containers 
in intermodal transport47 

The transport of 45' containers is allowed in intermodal transport and by standard 
trailers only extended by 15 cm, with a weight of 44 tonnes. No more reference 
to combined transport is made. 

8. Facilitations for larger 
containers 

The future tendency seems to be going towards expanded sizes of containers in 
intercontinental  shipping  to  48  or  even  53  feet.  It  is  proposed  that  the 
Commission  is  empowered  to  update  the  limitations  in  dimensions  and  weight 
fixed  in  Annex  I  to  the  Directive  in  order  to  accommodate  the  evolution  of 
intermodal  transport  of  containers.  This  includes  also  pallet-wide  45  feet 
containers. Such an update would be based on a market study, expert consultation 
and an impact assessment. 

(cid:131)  List of considered policy measures in relation with improving 
the functioning of the internal market for road transport 

Table  6:  Measures  corresponding  to  root  cause  3:  Lack  of  common  and  dissuasive 
enforcement methods 

Measures 

Description 

9. Guidelines on 
enforcement 

10. Common categorisation 
of infringement 

The  Commission  will  define  guidelines  on  good  practices  for  controls  and 
checks with the help of a committee and experts from stakeholder organisations. 
These guidelines will address  methods and best practices to make checks  more 
efficient (ways to target vehicles and to perform checks efficiently and safely), 
with a view of harmonization between all Member States.  
The work will be based on the results of European projects, the experience gained 
in  different  Member  States  and  from  the  operation  of  weigh-in-motion  stations 
and of other automatic systems. 

Binding  categorisation  of  the  levels  of  seriousness  of  infringements  to  the 
Directive,  with  a  regular  reporting  obligation  to  the  Commission  for  Member 
States on checks carried out and infringements. Reports will be used to monitor 
the  effectiveness  of  the  enforcement  policy  of  the  EU  and  the  Member  States. 
The  synthesis  of  the  reports  will  be  published.  The  categorization  of 
infringements  will  be  defined  according  to  different  thresholds  on  excessive 
weight,  length  or  width  of  the  vehicle.  Depending  on  the  category,  vehicles 
could/shall be stopped until obtention of a special permit or unloading, a financial 
penalty  would  be  imposed  or  even  –  for  the  highest  infringement  class  –  the 

47   In distinction from combined transport, defined earlier in this IA, intermodal transport has to involve at least 
two modes of transport, but no restrictions are imposed with regard to the length of the road leg, the rail leg 
or  the  waterborne  leg.  In  combined  transport,  the  road  leg  is  limited  to  150  km.  The  difference  between 
measures 6 and 7 is on this parameter. 

EN 

xxvi 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
11. Mandatory preselection 
of vehicles targeted for 
manual checks 

12. Co-liability of the 
shipper / forwarder 

13. Standards for on-board 
weighing devices 

procedure for loss of good repute of the company would be launched. 

In  order  to  limit  the  number  of  vehicles  stopped  for  manual  control,  and  to 
increase  the  number  of  vehicles  controlled  by  automatic  means,  all  Member 
States should implement filtering methods for checks on weights and dimensions 
enabling  a  pre-selection.  Preselection  of  vehicles  could  be  carried  out  with 
weigh-in-motion  stations  or  on-board  weighing  sensors  linked  to  the  digital 
tachograph,  or  with  company  profiling.  The  preselected  vehicles  would  be 
stopped for manual check and only this manual check would possibly lead to an 
infringement  and  a  prosecution.  The  obligation  will  be  defined  in  terms  of 
performance and not in terms of means. 

Road transport operators transporting containers often have to rely on the weight 
stated  on  the  freight  documents  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  maximum 
permissible  weight.  In  cases  where  HGVs  are  overweight  due  to  inaccurate 
weight  specifications  on  the  documents,  and  in  cases  where  the  transport 
operators  had  no  other  means  of  verifying  the  total  weight,  shippers,  freight 
forwarders or other parties having indicated the weight of the containers on the 
freight  documents  and  having  signed  these  shall  be  jointly  liable  in  case  of 
infringements. 

The Commission will define EU standards of on-board weighing devices in order 
to  ensure  pan-European  interoperability  so  that  the  devices  can  communicate 
with roadside equipment. It will facilitate the deployment of on-board weighing 
devices, which would transmit in real time data from a vehicle to a police officer 
alongside  the  road  through  a  DSRC  interface  and  beacon.  This  would  allow 
police forces to know the weight of the vehicle without stopping it. It would also 
allow hauliers to know the weight of their truck more precisely when loading.  

14. Compulsory on-board 
weighing devices 

On-board weighing devices will have to be installed by default for all new trucks 
and coaches as from 2025. Retrofitting of older vehicles will not be mandatory. 

15. Minimum number of 
manual checks 

All Member States shall mandatorily check a certain percentage, e.g. 10%, of the 
number of trucks and coaches on their road network for offenses to the rules on 
maximum weights and dimensions. 

o Identification of the policy packages (in addition to the business-as-

usual scenario) 

To address the problem and all the problem root causes in full, and given the substantial list of 
measures,  it  is  proposed  to  form  policy  packages  (PP)  of  measures  for  further  assessment. 
Each  policy  package  will  be  composed  of  a  series  of  policy  measures  addressing  both  the 
issue of energy efficiency and the issue of enhancing the rules governing the functioning of 
the internal market. 

It is proposed to keep for in-depth assessment three PPs, which are cumulative, meaning that 
PP 2 would include the measures of PP 1, and PP 3 would include the measures of PP 1 and 
of  PP  2.  The  policy  packages  are  conceived  to  include  measures  with  increasing  intensity 
addressing respectively energy efficiency and compliance with the rules of the Directive. The 
amplitude of impacts, both negative and positive, is expected to be higher in PP 2 than in PP 
1, and higher  in PP 3 than in PP 2. 

Other policy packages with measures of varying intensities were also provisionally envisaged 
combining measures with high intensity in the area of energy efficiency with measures of low 
intensity  in  the  field  of  enforcement.  Such  policy  packages  were  however  discarded  as 
measures  to  increase  the  maximum  length  and  weight  of  vehicles  would  require 
proportionately reinforced control measures in order to avoid additional infringements, which 
may  have  adverse  impacts  on  safety  and  on  the  infrastructure.  On  the  other  hand,  policy 
packages envisaging measures of low intensity in the area of energy efficiency and measures 
of  high  intensity  in  the  area  of  enforcement  were  discarded  for  reasons  of  political 

EN 

xxvii 

   EN 

 
acceptability,  acknowledging  that  higher  levels  of  enforcement  without  preselection,  in  a 
situation  where  current  limitations  of  weight  and  dimensions  of  HGVs  would  remain 
unchanged, may be considered as a significant burden to stakeholders and to Member States 
and such policy packages would have little chances of being adopted48. 

(cid:131)  Policy Package 1: Limited revision 
This package is based on limited revisions of the Directive as well as on soft measures aiming 
at an improved implementation of the Directive with minimal changes and costs. It therefore 
excludes measures which: 

•  require changes at the vehicle manufacturing phase (measure 2), 
•  lead to a serious re-organisation of the logistics structures and procedures (measures 8, 

12 and 13), 

•  priviledge compulsory over optional changes (measures 3, 10, 11, 14 and 15), 
•  are general, rather than limited in application (measure 7). 

In order to improve the energy efficiency of trailers and so as to reduce their CO2 emissions, 
the  Directive  needs  to  be  amended  to  improve  the  aerodynamic  performance  of  vehicles. 
Studies performed by different stakeholders and presented during the stakeholder meetings as 
references  suggest  that  an  extension  of  the  length  of  the  vehicle  is  necessary  in  order  to 
accommodate foldable or retractable rear flaps. These flaps would primarily be used when the 
truck exceeds 50 km/h and should thus be retractable or foldable when entering urban areas, 
slow  roads  with  roundabouts  for  instance,  or  for  use  on  rail  wagons  or  ships  in  combined 
transport.  These  flaps  would  be  allowed  if  they  comply  with  technical  requirements  on 
aerodynamic  performance,  on  traffic  safety  and  suitability  for  the  geometry  of  the  different 
types of road or streets. A committee will help the Commission to refine and to update these 
requirements  on  a  regular  basis.  The  measure would  be  immediately  operational,  given  that 
manufacturers of trailers indicated that they would be in a position to react very rapidly. 

A second way to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of trucks and 
coaches is to provide the possibility to better accommodate alternative propulsion systems in 
these vehicles. Therefore, derogations in weight are provided for alternative systems – electric 
or  hybrid  –  for  both  trucks  and  buses.  Studies  on  batteries  and  hybrid  motorisation  suggest 
that an increase of 1 tonne is needed to the weight limits for trucks and coaches. 

Energy efficiency also entails a shift from personal transport to public transport. It is therefore 
important  to  take  into  account  the  current  evolution  of  the  weight  of  passengers  and  their 
luggage and to adapt the maximum weight of a coach for that purpose. A weight increase of 1 
tonne will be proposed for two-axle coaches.49 This extra weight will also accommodate the 
different  types  of  equipment  made  mandatory  for  the  purpose  of,  for  instance,  passengers' 
safety and comfort, as explained in chapter 2.2.1 above. 

In order to accommodate the development of intermodal transport and of containerisation, and 
drawing on the stakeholder consultation and workshops, it is proposed to allow an additional 

48   Higher levels of enforcement without preselection would require for instance an increase in the number of 
police forces devoted to this task by the Member States, an increase the number of vehicles stopped on the 
highways, thus an increase the number of parking places used for control, and would mean a higher loss of 
time (and an increase of costs) for drivers and haulage companies. 

49   This  increase  has  been  suggested  by  the  stakeholders.  It  strikes  the  balance  between  the  need,  on  the  one 
hand, to reflect the increase in the weight of safety and  environmental equipment (see table above) as well as 
of passengers and their luggage and, on the other hand, to respect the 11.5 t weight per axle standard to which 
main roads are built.  

EN 

xxviii 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
15 cm extension of the length of the trailer for the transport of 45' containers. This is a very 
limited  modification  and  it  would  have  virtually  no  impact  on  manoeuvrability  or  safety. 
Considering that vehicles carrying containers of 40' as part of a combined transport operation 
may currently be loaded up to 44 tonnes without a special permit so as to take into account the 
dead  weight  of  the  container  and  to  give  an  advantage  to  intermodal  transport,  the  same 
derogation  should  for  reasons  of  consistency  apply  to  vehicles  carrying  45'  containers. 
Measures  6,  related  to  combined  transport,  and  7,  related  to  intermodal  transport,  are  both 
retained  in  PP1  as  alternative  solutions  for  facilitating  the  transport  of  45'  containers.  They 
were  both  suggested  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  and,  given  their  similar  nature,  it 
seems  appropriate  to  analyse  these  measures  as  variants  of  the  same  policy  package  rather 
than as parts of different policy packages. Policy Package 1 thus offers two variants regarding 
measures 6 and 7 on respectively combined and intermodal transport of 45’ containers: 

•  In  variant  "a",  the  facilitations  for  the  transport  of  45'  containers  at  44  tonnes 
would remain restricted to the area of combined transport, like in PP1 (measure 6) 

•  Variant "b", on the other hand, proposes to extend the possibility to transport 45' 
containers at 44 tonnes beyond the scope of combined transport (measure 7), and 
enable these to be part of intermodal transport chains as well, in order to further 
promote containerisation.  

Moreover,  under  this  package  an  improved  enforcement  of  infringements  against  the 
Directive  would  be  addressed  through  guidelines  drawing  the  attention  of  all  stakeholders 
including  Member  States'  authorities  to  the  requirements  of  the  Directive,  especially  on  the 
maximum  weight,  and  providing  some  rules  and  procedures,  as  well  as  technical  means  on 
how to use them. These guidelines, strongly welcomed by the enforcement community, would 
harmonise the procedures across the EU, thereby avoiding that drivers face different situations 
from one country to another with the same truck or coach. Policy Package 1 thus addresses 
the issue of ineffective application and absence of control standards (specific objective 3). 

(cid:131)  Policy Package 2: A more extensive revision 

This package would entail a more intensive (in terms of magnitude of impacts) revision of the 
Directive,  with  new  measures  in  addition  to  the  measures  proposed  in  Policy  Package  1 
including  the  variants.  The  additional  measures  will  require  a  certain  adaptation  effort  from 
the  automotive  industry  and  from  the  administrations.  Far-reaching  measures  or  those 
requiring a very large adaptation  effort from the  industry  and  administrations would  still be 
excluded (measures 3, 8, 14 and 15). 

Concerning the aerodynamics of the trucks, in addition to rear flaps, a redesign of the cabin 
will  be  allowed,  with  an  increase  of  the  cabin  length.  This  redesign  will  also  be  based  on 
technical  requirements  on  aerodynamic  performance,  road  safety  and  suitability  to 
infrastructure.  The  same  committee  proposed  in  measure  1  will  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
measure  2.  The  reason  for  which  measure  2  on  the  aerodynamics  of  the  tractors  has  been 
proposed in PP 2 and not in PP 1 is a matter of time and amplitude of impacts. A redesign of 
the cabin is a substantial task for the automotive sector and can have wider implications than 
rear  flaps  (on  infrastructure,  road  safety  and  driver  comfort).  It  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
limited  revision  of  the  Directive.  The  time  required  for  the  design  and  development  of  new 
cabins  is  expected  to  last  several  years,  in  order  to  take  into  account  other  issues  such  as 
safety  of  vulnerable  users  in  accidents,  the  comfort  of  the  driver  and  the  inclusion  of 
mandatory  equipment  related  to  road  safety.  This  is  why  this  measure  would  be  made 
operational only after a period of several years after the adoption of the Directive. 

EN 

xxix 

   EN 

 
In  terms  of  controls  and  enforcement  of  offences,  new  binding  measures  are  proposed 
harmonising  the  categorisation  of  infringements  throughout  Europe,  and  the  obligation  for 
Member  States  to  perform  a  pre-selection  by  filtering  of  vehicles  possibly  infringing  the 
Directive  and  targeted  for  manual  checks.  Preselection  could  be  determined  by  weigh-in-
motion systems allowing enforcers not to slow down traffic for vehicles complying with the 
limits,  or  on-board  weighing  devices  installed  in  trucks  and  coaches.  The  obligation  is  in 
terms  of  performance,  not  in  terms  of  technical  means.  A  reporting  obligation  to  the 
Commission  would  allow  measuring  the  evolution  of  the  rates  of  infractions,  and  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Directive.  By  developing  common  EU  standards,  the  revision  will 
encourage the deployment of on-board weighing devices which would transmit the weight of 
the vehicles and per axle in real time to police officers along the roadside through a DSRC 
interface (20 meters range). This type of equipment would be linked to the digital tachograph 
by some functionalities. With such a system, hauliers would also know precisely the weight of 
their  vehicle  when  loading.  Knowing  the  weight  of  the  vehicle,  the  haulier  will  have  the 
possibility to take the appropriate measures to respect the legislation in  force.  

Road transport operators transporting containers indicated that they often have to rely on the 
weight  stated  on  the  freight  documents  to  ensure  compliance  with  maximum  permissible 
weight  limitations.  In  cases  where  HGVs  are  overweight  due  to  inaccurate  weight 
specifications  on  the  freight  documents,  and  in  cases  where  the  transport  operators  had  no 
other means of verifying the total weight, shippers, freight forwarders or other parties having 
indicated the weight of the containers on the freight documents and having signed these shall 
be jointly liable in case of infringements. 

These measures address the problem of unsatisfactory enforcement (specific objective 3). 

(cid:131)  Policy Package 3: More binding regulatory approach 

Beyond the measures presented in the PP 1 and 2, including the variants, other measures are 
envisioned, as follows, in order to push forward more actively the realisation of the objectives 
of the revision.  

On the energy efficiency side, rear flaps are made mandatory for new trailers and trucks and 
by 2025 are made compulsory for older vehicles through retrofitting. This would ensure that 
the whole European fleet of trucks and trailers is equipped with these devices in a time frame 
also acceptable for SMEs to adapt their fleets. This measure contributes to meeting specific 
objective 1 and to address the problem of suboptimal energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. 

Further developments expected in intercontinental sea shipping and containers longer than 45 
feet  (48  or  53  feet  for  instance)  might  have  to  be  accommodated  in  the  future  by  road 
transport  in  a  sufficient  number  to  imagine  legal  instruments  beyond  special  permits. 
Although  data  on  such  containers  is  scarce,  it  is  known  that  they  are  increasingly  used  in 
countries such as the USA and China. The Commission might thus be given the mandate to 
accommodate the evolution of intermodal transport with further modifications of the size and 
weight  limits  in  Annex  I  to  Directive  96/53/EC,  on  the  basis  of  studies  performed  by  a 
committee  of  experts.  The  update  of  the  Annex  would  be  made  through  a  Commission 
Decision. This measure will help to meet specific objective  2  by ensuring that standards  on 
containerisation are constantly updated. 

In  case  the  measures  described  above  are  not  considered  as  sufficient  to  cope  with  the 
excessive number of infringements against the Directive and in order to correctly implement 
possible  changes  in  weight  limits  in  the  Directive  due  to  the  transport  of  larger  containers, 
onboard  weighing  devices  would  be  made  mandatory  to  new  vehicles  produced  after  2025 

EN 

xxx 

   EN 

 
and a percentage of the traffic of heavy goods vehicles and coaches could be fixed that every 
Member  State  will  have  to  check  manually  every  year,  with  an  obligation  to  report  to  the 
Commission.  The  mandatory  onboard  weighing  devices  would  help  in  the  preselection  of 
vehicles to be inspected  by manual checks. The addition of the  two measures would ensure 
the most effective way of lowering the level of infringement currently recorded.  

Finally, since the options are incremental, PP 3 contains the same variants "a"/"b"as PP 1 and 
PP 2 respectively.  

Table 7: Overview of measures proposed in Policy Packages 

(cid:131)  Overview of measures proposed in Policy Packages  

PP1 

PP2 

PP3 

Specific  Objective  SO1:  To  enable  the  market  uptake  of  more  aerodynamic,  electric  and 
hybrid trucks and to increase the attractiveness of certain coach services. 

1. Rear flaps 

2. Longer cabins 

3. Mandatory rear flaps for all vehicles 

4. Higher weight limits for electric/hybrid trucks 

5. Max. 19 t for  two-axle coaches 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

SO2: To enhance the development of intermodal/combined transport 

6. Allow for 45' containers in combined transport 

7. Allow for 45' containers in intermodal transport 

X/Ø 

X/Ø 

X/Ø 

X/Ø 

8. Facilitations for larger containers 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X/Ø 

X/Ø 

X 

SO3: To ensure better enforcement of the maximum weights and dimensions across the EU 

9. Guidelines on enforcement 

X 

10. Common categorisation of infringement 

11.  Mandatory  preselection  of  vehicles  targeted  for  manual 
checks 

12. Co-liability of the shipper/forwarder 

13. Standards for on-board weighting devices 

14. Compulsory on-board weighing devices 

15. Minimum level of manual checks 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

xxxi 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The present chapter will assess the impacts of the three proposed policy packages, compared 
to  the  baseline,  with  respect  to  relevant  impacts  identified  in  the  Commission  Impact 
Assessment Guidelines50.  

The analysis of the impacts will be partly of a qualitative nature and partly of a quantitative 
nature where quantitative evidence is available and can be usefully applied in the analysis of 
impacts.  

Due  to  the  policy  packages  being  cumulative,  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  will  focus  on 
incremental  changes  between  the  policy  packages.  According  to  this  approach,  PP  1  will 
initially be compared to the baseline, PP 2 will be compared to the baseline and to PP 1 and 
PP 3 will be compared to the baseline and to PP 2. 

o Environmental impacts 

(cid:131)  Climate change 

Obstacles  caused  by  Directive  96/53/EC  to  achieving  efficiency  gains  from  road  and  from 
intermodal  transport  were  identified  as  one  of  the  main  problems  of  the  present  impact 
assessment. Addressing this problem by way of adapting maximum weights and dimensions 
of  HDVs  would  allow  increasing  energy  efficiency  and  consequently  reducing  GHG 
emissions,  which  would  provide  a  positive  contribution  to  the  fight  against  climate  change. 
The current initiative has, in line with the problem definition, identified measures related to 
aerodynamics  of  vehicles,  which  would  require  an  extension  or  derogation  from  current 
maximum  length  limitations,  and  related  to  propulsion  systems  and  to  buses,  which  would 
require an increase in current maximum weight limitations. 

Firstly, concerning aerodynamic devices, it is important to note that the front and the rear of 
HGVs  contribute  equally  to  aerodynamic  drag.  These  two  factors  are  the  most  influential 
ones, contributing each to approximately 1/3 of the overall aerodynamic drag of HGVs51. As 
40%  of  the  fuel  consumption  of  HGVs is  used to overpower aerodynamic drag52,  these two 
factors  are  significant,  and  lowering  any  of  them  could  potentially  lead  to  important 
reductions in fuel consumption. Such reductions would help prevent climate change. 

The  rear  of  HGVs  creates  a  low-pressure  zone  ‘pulling’  vehicles  backwards,  which  is 
responsible  for  approximately  35%  of  all  drag  affecting  a  tractor  with  a  semi-trailer53.  By 
installing aerodynamic devices at the rear of trailers it is possible to achieve gains of 5 to 8 % 
(or  possibly  even  15  %  when  combined  with  aerodynamic  cabins)  in  fuel  consumption54, 
which  would  result  in  a  similar  reduction  in  GHG  emissions.  The  performance  of  these 
devices increases with their length and would require an extra length ranging between 0.5 m 
and 2 m. It can be demonstrated that, in this range, there is a near-linear relationship between 
the length of aeodynamic rear devices and the resulting fuel saving. This relationship does not 
extend beyond 2 metres, after which any additional effect would diminish55. 

However,  an  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  extra  length  due  to  the  fitting  of  aerodynamic 
devices would have to be based on their actual effectiveness (and safety – see below), which 
is closely related to speed, and hence to use, as displayed in Figure 4 below. 

50   Impact assessment guidelines, SEC (2009) 92. 
51   FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011. 
52   See section 2. 
53   Gandert M.R. Van Raemdonck, Design of Low Drag Bluff Road Vehicles, 2012. 
54   French IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC. 
55   French IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC. 

EN 

xxxii 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 4: Fuel consumption according to speed 

Source: Trailer aerodynamics, PART - Platform for Aerodynamic Road Transport, 2012 

As  highlighted  by  the  IRU  during  the  public  consultation,  while  studies  convincingly 
demonstrate  that  rear  flaps  would  allow  recovering  the  investment  costs  by  lowering  fuel 
consumption  in  long-distance  transport,  no  trials  have  been  performed  to  demonstrate  how 
much  a  standard  truck  performing  short-  or  medium-distance  trips  would  gain  in  fuel 
reduction  during  its  lifetime.  Should  it  turn  out  to  be  insufficient,  it  may  limit  the 
attractiveness of rear flaps for many hauliers. Hauliers also warn of possible problems linked 
to damage to flaps during loading or unloading. 
Regarding the front of HGVs, one recent study56 has shown that if the lower part of the front 
of the driving cabin was streamlined and extended by 0.8 m, the aerodynamic drag coefficient 
(CD)  would  drop  by  6.4  %  resulting  in  a  reduction  of  fuel  consumption  by  3.2  to  5.3  %. 
Shorter extensions (0.4 m) of cabins would yield markedly poorer results (4.5% reduction in 
CD).  With  a  longer  extension  (1.2  m)  the  gain  would  increase  to  8.9  %.  These  results  were 
also obtained on high-speed long-distance trips. 

In Table 8 below, fuel savings for HGVs, and the corresponding climate change mitigation, 
are estimated at different market penetration rates of the various policy measures. It should be 
noted first of all that the data used in this table are based on modelling and projections (for 
instance  of  fuel  prices)  and  may  therefore  only  give  an  estimate  of  the  foreseen  effects. 
Furthermore  market  penetration  rates  are  likely  to  differ  for  the  policy  measures  due  to 
differences in the product cycles and in investment requirements. Whereas rear devices could 
be  deployed  relatively  quickly,  including  their  installation  on  existing  vehicles,  and  would 
require  a  minor  investment,  the  deployment  of  cabin  re-designs  and  hybridisation  are 
expected  to  have  longer  lead  times  due  to  higher  investment  requirements  and/or  longer 
product development cycles. It is should however be highlighted that providing estimates on 
the uptake of such devices is challenging due to their innovative nature. 

56   FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011 

EN 

xxxiii 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The vehicle stocks are determined according to the use made of the devices described above. 
Of  the  total  estimated  EU  HGV  fleet  in  2030  (9.8  million  vehicles),  only  those  above  20 
tonnes in maximum weight are expected to be equipped with rear devices and cabins (41.5% 
or slightly more than 4 million). Roughly 1 in 4 (around 25%) of these are thought to be used 
to travel long distances (about 1 million). Due to their safety benefits in urban contexts, the 
fleet  of  vehicles  using  new  cabins  is  expected  to  be  larger  than  the  one  equipped  with  rear 
flaps. However the fuel savings linked to their aerodynamic properties will only take place on 
long-distance high-speed trips. The fleet used to estimate the fuel savings from this measure is 
therefore the same as for vehicles using rear add-ons. 

Moreover,  in  order  to  calculate  the  fuel  savings  (in  million  litres)  for  the  potential  stock  of 
HGVs at different market pentration rates, it was assumed, using statictics from Eurostat and 
evidence  from  France,  Germany  and  the  UK,  that  average  HGVs  drive  between  39,000 
km/year  (short  distance)  and  98,000  km/year  (long  distance),  and  that  HGVs  on  average 
consume 30 litres fuel per 100 km.  

The total fuel saving (in million Euro) was calculated multiplying the resulting fuel savings 
(in  litres)  by  the  forecasted  price  of  fuel  in  2030  of  2.10  €/litre  from  the  the  PRIMES-
TREMOVE reference scenario. 

The carbon reduction potential (in tonnes) was calculated multiplying the total fuel saving (in 
litres) by the carbon content of diesel (2.6 kg CO2 / litre, diesel) and the benefit in terms of the 
lower contribution to the climate change (in Euro) was calculated multiplying the total carbon 
reduction potential (in tonnes) by the estimated price of carbon in 2030 of €36/tonne from the 
DG Clima IA on a Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. 

Table  8:  Estimated  fuel  saving  and  corresponding  climate  change  mitigation 
(2030)

Measures

Rear devices (7.5% fuel saving)
Cabin re-design (4.25% fuel saving)
Hybridisation (25% fuel saving)

EU27 Stock
1,017,106
1,017,106
5,815,675

Total fuel saving (million litres)
Total fuel saving (million Euro)

Carbon reduction (1000 tonnes)
Climate change mitigation (million
Euro)

HGVs (>3.5 tonnes)
Market penetration

50%
897
253
8,505

9,655
19,311

75%
1,346
379
12,758

14,483
28,966

100%
1,794
506
17,011

19,311
38,622

25%
449
126
4,253

4,828
9,655

12,552

25,104

37,656

50,208

452

904

1,356

1,807

Source:  Own  calculations  (main  assumptions:  1.  Forecasted  EU27  HGV  stock  of  9.8  million  by  2030  from 
PRIMES-TREMOVE  reference  scenario  of  which  25%  drive  mainly  long  distance,  2.  Average  HGVs  drive 
between  39.000  km/year  (short  distance)  and  98.000  km/year  (long  distance)  and  consume  30  liter  diesel/100 
km57, 3. The forecasted price of fuel is 2.1 €/liter in 203058,, 3. Price of carbon in 2030 is €36/tonne59).  

These results show distinct progress in comparison to the baseline scenario. 

57   Based on data from Eurostat and evidence from France, Germany and the UK. 
58   PRIMES-TREMOVE reference scenario – same as the reference scenario used for the 2011 White Paper. 
59   http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2011:0288:FIN:EN:PDF 

EN 

xxxiv 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Hybridisation of lorries and of buses could potentially lead to a reduction in fuel consumption 
of 20-30%60. By allowing the extra weight to carry these propulsion systems, and in addition, 
extra weight to handle the increase in weight of passengers and their luggage, and the extra 
weight required for mandatory safety equipment, the payload could be maintained61 resulting 
in an increased energy efficiency per tonne/passenger transported. If on the other hand such 
propulsion  systems  were  introduced  without  an  allowance  to  increase  the  total  weight  of 
vehicles, the payload would have to be reduced which would off-set potential gains in energy 
efficiency per tonne/passenger transported, and hence potentially hamper the market uptake of 
such propulsion systems. Concerning the weight of the passengers in buses, maintaining the 
current total weight of buses (and therefore limiting the passenger capacity) would restrict the 
shift from personal to public transport, which is being promoted by the EU among others to 
protect the environment.  

Lastly,  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on  the  use  of  45’  containers  is  likely  to  increase 
their  use  in  Europe,  which  is  currently  impaired  due  to  the  high  cost  and  administrative 
burden linked to obtaining a permit to move these containers. By facilitating the transport of 
containers which are mainly used in combined and intermodal transport after arriving by sea, 
this  measure  would  promote  combined  and  intermodal  transport  and  thus  increase  energy 
efficiency  compared  to  road-only  transport  operations.  Furthermore,  transport  operations 
using  these  containers  can  be  more  energy  efficient  than  those  using  their  smaller 
counterparts.  As  45’  containers  allow  placing  two  additional  pallets  on  the  floor,  and  more 
while  being  stacked,  the  fuel  consumption  per  pallet  would  decrease.  Moreover,  the  total 
number  of  container  movements  could  be  reduced,  assuming  constant  freight  volumes,  and 
this reduction would be proportional to the uptake of 45’ containers. Lastly, the increased use 
of 45’ containers would benefit short sea shipping in Europe, thus further increasing the use 
of modes with a lower carbon impact. 

The facilitations for the transport of 45' containers will have different impacts depending on 
whether  this  is  limited  to  combined  transport  (variant  "a"),  or  extended  to  all  intermodal 
movements  (variant  "b").  In  the  first  option,  the  use  of  45’  containers  will  be  restricted  to 
certain  types  of  intermodal  transport  only  (for  instance  within  150  km  of  a  sea  or  inland 
waterway  terminal,  see  glossary  for  full  definition).  As  intermodal  transport  represents  a 
wider market than combined transport, in the second option ("b"), 45' containers are likely to 
penetrate the market faster and deeper. Their wide-spread use will increase the average load 
per container, and therefore reduce the fuel consumption per transported pallet.  

The  increases  in  energy  efficiency  will  result  first  of  all  from  the  increase  of  traffic  in 
intermodal  transport  using  more  energy-efficient  modes  such  as  rail  and  waterways,  which 
will in turn lead to an overall lower fuel consumption of the transport sector. Restricting the 
facilitations  to  combined  transport  will  also  create  incentives  for  greater  use  of  transport 
modes  alternative  to  the  road,  and  thus  allow  for  GHG  emission  reductions  through  modal 
shift. However, due to the strict definition of combined transport (see glossary on p. iv), the 
use of the 45' containers will remain more limited (mainly to rail-road solutions) than under 
variant "b" (road-short sea shipping solutions would also be possible). The question if the new 
rules  on  45'  containers  should  be  applied  to  combined  or  intermodal  transport,  i.e.  whether 
variant "a" or "b" prevails, therefore remains open. 

Compared to the baseline, PP 1 would contribute to increasing energy efficiency by allowing 
aerodynamic devices on the rear of HGVs, by allowing extra weight to carry batteries or dual 

60   http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/global/en-gb/trucks/new-trucks/Pages/volvo-fe-hybrid.aspx 

http://www.daf.com/EN/Products/Model-Range/Pages/DAF-LF-Hybrid.aspx 

61   as compared to 1996 (see description of measure 6). 

EN 

xxxv 

   EN 

                                                 
propulsion systems and by equally allowing extra weight of passengers and of mandatory on-
board safety equipment. Allowing the use of 45’ containers in combined/intermodal transport 
would  additionally  increase  energy  efficiency  compared  to  the  baseline.  Variant  "b"  would 
enable a larger take-up of 45’ containers in intermodal transport, which would have additional 
positive  impacts  on  climate  change  mitigation.  This  positive  impact  could  however  be 
lowered by a reverse modal shift of a magnitude which is difficult to estimate. 

PP 2 contains the same measures as PP 1 and will therefore bring at least the same impacts. 
PP  2  would  allow  additional  improvement  to  the  aerodynamics  of  cabins  of  HGVs,  a  more 
substantial reduction of pollution and of fuel consumption.  

Compared to PP 1 and PP 2, PP 3 proposes to make aerodynamic devices at the rear of HGVs 
mandatory. Although this measure would have merits in ensuring a broad implementation of 
such devices, the incremental gain in energy efficiency would liekly not pay for the additonal 
costs  imposed  on  the  transport  operators.  As  displayed  in  Figure  4  above,  the  measure 
delivers  full  potential  only  for  HGVs  driving  at  higher  speeds  on  motorways,  which  would 
mainly affect international/long-distance transport in which only about 25% of the total stock 
of HGV is used62 but which obviously accounts for a larger share of total vehicle-kilometres. 
Other  HGVs,  driving  mainly  shorter  distances,  would  not  be  able  to  achieve  the  same 
improvements in energy efficiency, and the return on investing in aerodynamic devices would 
be  correspondingly  much  lower.  Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  PP  3  would  not  bring 
more benefits than PP 2. 

(cid:131)  Air pollution (NOx, PM, SOx, HCs, CO) 

The  reduction  in  emissions  of  particulate  matters  (PM)  and  other  air  pollutants  (NOx,  SOx, 
CO, HCs) will be proportional to the ones in greenhouse gases, which are described above. 

However,  whereas  climate  change  is  a  global  concern,  impacts  of  air  pollution  are 
considerably more severe in urban areas than in rural areas. This implies that PP 1, allowing 
additional  weight  for  electric  and  dual  propulsion  systems  used  for  mainly  short  distance 
transport  in  urban  areas,  would  generate  considerable  benefits  as  compared  to  the  baseline. 
The additional measures included in PP 2 and PP 3, achieving their full impact only in long-
distance transport, would generate smaller additional benefits in terms of reducing harmful air 
pollutant emissions. 

(cid:131)  Noise 

In road transport, the sound emitted is mainly produced by the propulsion system and by the 
sound of the tyres63. The speed generally determines which one of the two sources is the most 
dominant. At lower speeds, the tyres represent the main source of noise, while the propulsion 
system is the main source of noise at higher speeds.  

The  proposed  measure  in  PP  1  aimed  at  increasing  the  maximum  weight  of  vehicles  to 
accommodate  for  electric  and  dual  propulsion  systems  is  expected  to  facilitate  the  market 
uptake of such vehicles. Compared to the baseline, where engines are almost entirely diesel 

62   All HGVs with a Community licence are assumed to be active in long-distance transport. The total stock of 
HGVs according to the TREMOVE version 3.3.2 is 6.5 million and 1.7 million of these have a Community 
license, which is needed for carrying out international transport operations.  
(see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/doc/2010_04_12_carriers.pdf) 

63   Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Cost of Transport (IMPACT), Deliverable 1, 2008. 

EN 

xxxvi 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
driven, PP 1 would have a positive impact on noise as electric and dual propulsion systems 
are  more  silent64.  Moreover,  this  impact  may  be  significant  due  to  the  fact  that  electric  and 
hybrid vehicles would tend to drive in urban areas where (1) the average speed is low and the 
noise impact of engines is higher than the one of tyres and (2) noise affects more people than 
in rural areas. 

Other measures proposed in the three policy packages are expected to have no or very limited 
impacts  on  noise.  Although  no  specific  acoustic  test  of  rear  flaps  or  improved  cabin  design 
has been made, other aerodynamic devices not requiring a change in dimensions (side skirts) 
are  reported  as  having  no  impact  on  noise65.This  is  due  to  the  sources  of  noise  described 
above  (from  the  propulsion  systems  and  tyres)  which  are  not  impacted  by  the  addition  of 
aerodynamic add-ons or design of the cabin.  

o Economic impacts 

(cid:131)  Impact on the functioning of the internal market and 

competition 

The lack of compliance with Directive 96/53/EC, as identified above, results in a distortion of 
competition between road transport undertakings and contributes to a suboptimal functioning 
of the internal  market. The impact of the policy packages on the functioning of the internal 
market and competition will hence be proportional to their effectiveness in reducing the level 
of non-compliance. 

PP 1 proposes the introduction of guidelines on common principles and methods of controls, 
the  provision  of  expert  knowledge  and  the  dissemination  of  best  practice  to  relevant 
stakeholders.  This  should  contribute  to  avoiding  misinterpretations  on  the  content  of  the 
Directive  and  to  limiting  the  trouble  caused  to  international  drivers  by  differing  national 
legislations,  including  a  suboptimal  planning  of  trips.  They  would  also  help  to  ensure  that 
enforcement procedures are performed according to the same methodologies in all countries 
of the EU. Other positive impacts are the alignment of the conditions of competition between 
hauliers of different Member States, and an improvement of the compliance rate. 

The  benefits  of  improved  enforcement  are  multiple,  including  improved  road  safety  and 
reduced  damage  to  pavements  and  bridges  from  overloading,  along  with  associated  lower 
maintenance  costs.  It  was  estimated  in  a  research  project66  that  between  2.3  and  5.3%  of 
maintenance costs are caused by overloaded HDVs, which amount to an estimated cost of € 
575  million  to  €  1,325  million67.  However,  in  Member  States  where  such  guidelines  would 
not be applied (as may be the case due to reductions in enforcement budgets and staff, or in 
order  to  support  local  hauliers  by  not  fining  them  in  case  of  overloading),  transport 
undertakings would continuously have an incentive to infringe the Directive by overloading 
vehicles,  which  would  negatively  impact  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and 
competition. 

In  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario,  PP  1  would  improve  compliance,  help  to  avoid 
distortions of competition resulting from overloading and reduce the costs of maintaining the 
infrastructure. 

64   http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/global/en-gb/trucks/new-trucks/Pages/volvo-fe-hybrid.aspx  
65   Design of Low Drag Bluff Road Vehicles, Gandert M.R. Van Raemdonck, 2012. 
66   http://iswim.free.fr/doc/remove_WP4_costbenefit_analysis.pdf  
67   The annual road maintenance cost in the EU in 2009 is estimated at € 25 billion. 

source:ITF and  DG MOVE estimate for the purpose of this IA 

EN 

xxxvii 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PP 2 provides the same benefits as discussed above . In addition, PP 2 would introduce more 
binding  control  provisions  and  harmonised  categories  of  infringements,  which  would 
guarantee  a  higher  rate  of  compliance  with  Directive  96/53/EC.  Introducing  harmonised 
categories  of  infringements  has  demonstrated  its  effectiveness  in  other  legislations,  for 
instance  on  the  control  of  travel  times  with  the  help  of  the  digital  tachograph.  The  most 
serious infringements have been greatly reduced, as the consequence might lead to a loss of 
operating licence for the haulage company. Filtering for pre-selection is a way to ensure that a 
high number of vehicles will be controlled without creating traffic jams or losses of time for 
drivers  and  operators  complying  with  the  rules,  therefore  supporting  efficient  logistics 
services.  

By  using  filtering  techniques,  vehicles  for  closer  manual  inspection  will  be  selected  by 
automatic  means  (weigh-in-motion  stations)  or  by  categorising  the  relevant  companies  or 
vehicles  as  relatively  more  suspicious.  With  filtering  and  the  same  amount  of  enforcement 
officers, the effectiveness of checks will be drastically improved. A study in the Netherlands 
concluded that the ‘hit rate’ of vehicles is 50%68, implying that 50% of the vehicles stopped 
using manual selection were overloaded while the other 50% were stopped and delayed for no 
objective  reason.  Applying  these  numbers  to  the  numbers  quoted  earlier  from  TISPOL  in 
chapter 2.2.2 provide an indication of the number of unnecessary checks which are carried out 
using manual selection, i.e. 75,192  per year for the 14 TISPOL members.   

Introducing on-board weighing devices in the vehicles, as has been proposed by the European 
Parliament in its opinion of 3 July 2012 on the Commission proposal to amend the tachograph 
Regulation (EEC) 3821/8569, will help drivers to know precisely and in real-time if they are 
infringing  the  regulations  or  not,  and  what  the  consequences  might  be.  The  transmission 
facility  from  the  unit  to  police  forces  with  a  DSRC  interface  already  widely  used  for 
electronic  tolling,  and  soon  to  be  added  in  the  digital  tachograph  as  foreseen  by  the  above 
mentioned  Commission  proposal,  will  also  help  to  control  vehicles  efficiently  without  any 
stops.  As  mentioned  above,  such  discrepancies  are  today  suspected  of  being  the  cause  of 
several infringements, and weighing stations would give drivers the mean to refuse the load. 

In comparison to the baseline scenario, this policy package would further reduce the costs of 
infrastructure  maintenance  and  improve  compliance  with  maximum  loading  standards. 
Although  the  iniatial  cost  of  setting  up  filtering  systems  and  introducing  on-board  weight 
sensors would increase the cost of this package  in relation to the baseline for enforcers and 
hauliers, it is expected that these costs will be offset in the longer run thanks to the decrease in 
infrastructure costs, savings from more effective checks and fewer fines for hauliers. 

PP 3 goes further than PP 2 by proposing to make on-board weighing devices mandatory by 
2025 and by introducing compulsory thresholds for checks of HDVs. Such on-board weighing 
devices are commonly used in the USA and in Australia, and also by certain HDVs in Europe. 
Their  cost  range  from  between  €  3000-1200070  and  they  can  fairly  easily  be  mounted.  The 
mandatory introduction of these devices presents a number of positive impacts: 

•  no driver could claim, in case of an offense, that he did not know his situation, which 
apparently often appears with non-regular drivers (rented trucks or vans for instance) 

68   http://iswim.free.fr/doc/remove_WP4_costbenefit_analysis.pdf. 
69   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Council  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of 
the European Parliament and the Council , COM(2011) 451 final. 

70   Source: International Society on Weigh-In-Motion (ISWIM)  

EN 

xxxviii 

   EN 

                                                 
• 

• 

the number of infringement is lower with equipped vehicles (around 3 % in some 
studies) than with non-equipped ones (1/3 in some on-site controls as presented 
above)71,leading to an increased compliance rate of the vehicles in comparison to PP 2. 
the system protects the vehicle and infrastructure against exceptional wear due to 
overweight 

•  extra expenses (from fines, loss of licenses, immobilisation of vehicles…) could be 
easily avoided for hauliers, thus making the cost of non-compliance higher and the 
incentives not to fraud the Directive more important. 

However, a mandatory introduction may cause financial difficulties, particularly for SMEs, as 
described in Chapter 5.2.4.3. 

In comparison to the baseline scenario, PP 3 would increase compliance and reduce costs for 
enforcement authorities, but also create significant costs for hauliers having to use on-board 
weight sensors. 

The introduction  of thresholds for checks, on the  other  hand,  may  prove  to  be  less  efficient 
due to important subsidiarity considerations and due to different situations in Member States, 
which may result in relatively modest thresholds, which may not be sufficiently dissuasive.  

(cid:131)  Impact on competitiveness 

There  are  different  ways  in  which  the  proposed  policy  packages  can  impact  Europe's 
competitiveness.  Firstly,  allowing  aerodynamic  devices  on  the  rear  of  trailers  will  create  a 
new  market  for  European  manufacturers  and  thus  employment,  including  at  existing  trailer 
manufacturers and at other specialised non-OEM equipment manufacturers. It is expected that 
the costs of redesigning the cabin will fall under the research & development heading of HGV 
manufacturers,  thus  limiting  the  cost  of  such  a  measure.  Secondly,  allowing  changes  to  the 
cabin  design  will  create  new  market  possibilities  for European  automotive manufacturers in 
the EU and in other world regions, which would positively impact employment in the sector.  
The same would be the case for electric/hybrid vehicles and for on-board weighing devices.  
All  regions  of  the  world  face  the  same  problems  or  energy  efficiency  and  of  pollution. 
Currently, the American industry does not have the limitations imposed by Directive 96/53, 
and is able to provide solutions to other countries, like the emerging ones. The new designs of 
the European tractors, the experience gained in aerodynamics and hybrid propulsion will help 
the European industry to regain market shares with new innovative solutions. 

Thirdly, implementing measures to increase the energy-efficiency of HGVs may have a slight 
impact  on  freight  rates  and  thus  on  the  cost  of  final  products,  which  would  enable  these  to 
stand  stronger  in  the  competition  against  products  from  other  world  regions.  Finally, 
facilitating  transport  of  45'  containers  will  strengthen  the  links  between  modes  leading  to 
more efficient logistics, and improve the competitiveness of the transport sector as a whole. 

PP  1  would  consequently,  compared 
impacts  on 
competitiveness,  and  also  in  relation  to  the  baseline,  PP  2  would  furthermore  add  to  these 
positive  impacts.  PP  3,  on  the  other  hand,  would  not  add  any  significant  impacts  to  the 
previous PPs, meaning that impacts would be similar to PP 2 in this respect. 

the  baseline,  have  positive 

to 

The present initiative is foreseen to have different major impacts on the transport sector and 
on the efficiency  of the  transport system  as a whole. Firstly,  lower consumption of fuel per 

(cid:131)  Impact on transport sector 

71   French IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC 

EN 

xxxix 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
unit of freight will improve the efficiency and profitability of hauliers. Secondly, the interplay 
between the different transport modes would be improved by facilitating the transport of 45’ 
containers.  This  would  notably  benefit  combined  and  intermodal  transport  operations. 
Moreover, allowing a total weight of vehicles of 44 tonnes when transporting 45’ containers 
as part of a combined transport operation would increase the relative efficiency of combined 
and intermodal transport, which would benefit mainly non-road modes over longer distances 
(see  chapter  2.2.1).  Thirdly,  increased  compliance  with  Directive  96/53/EC  due  to  the 
introduction  of  harmonised  control  and  strengthened  standards  and  methods  infrastructure 
would  discourage  overloading  of  HDVs  and  in  turn  reduce  damages  to  the  infrastructure. 
Finally,  supporting  the  use  of  public  transport  by  increasing  the  weight  of  buses  will 
contribute  to  shifting  passenger  traffic  from  private  cars  to  public  transport,  thus  reducing 
congestion and improving capacity use of infrastructure. 

In view of the above, it is expected that PP 1, compared to the baseline, would have a positive 
impact  on  the  transport  sector.  PP  2,  would  have  additional  positive  impacts  on  intermodal 
transport and on infrastructure preservation, which would benefit the transport sector and the 
wider society. PP 3 proposes to examine further evolutions of the intermodal transport sector, 
which - in term - may represent additional benefits to the transport sector but which currently 
are highly uncertain and therefore considered neutral in this context.  

(cid:131)  Impact on the administrative burden, public administrations 

and onSMEs 

•  Impact on the administrative burden 

As  mentioned  by  stakeholders  during  the  consultations,  the  current  administrative  burden 
related to the transport of 45’ containers is considered high, which was identified as a problem 
in  this  Impact  Assessment  and  which  resulted  in  the  proposition  of  measures  6-7.  The 
suppression  of  special  permits  for  standard  45'  containers  will  be  a  progress  on  that  matter 
(see chapter 2.2.1). 

Similarly  the  differences  in  control  procedures  and  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  different 
weights  and  dimensions  limits  create  uncertainty  and  burdens  in  everyday  operation.  Truck 
drivers  are  sometimes  facing  situations  where  they  have  to  justify  their  situation  in  another 
language    in  front  of  police  forces,  even  when  they  consider  not  to  be  infringing  the 
legislation.  Improving  and  harmonizing  enforcement  practices  will  help  to  increase 
transparency and alleviate this burden.  

Furthermore the introduction of filtering and of automatic systems for enforcement (on-board 
weighing  devices  and  weigh-in-motion  stations)  will  reduce  the  administrative  burden 
currently resulting from roadside checks for hauliers. Avoiding 75.192  unnecessary checks72 
(see section 5.2.1) would result in time saving for the undertakings.  

Hence, PP 1 would have a positive impact by reducing the administrative burden. Compared 
to  PP  1,  PP  2  would  represent  a  slight  decrease  in  the  administrative  burden  due  to  less 
unnecessary checks. PP 3 is expected to be neutral as compared with PP 273.  

72   For the 14 TISPOL members. 
73   Given  that  no  other  administrative  burdens  were  identified  and  given  that  little/no  data  is  available  to 
quantify the burden using the Standard Cost Model, it was decided to carry out a qualitative assessment. 

EN 

xl 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
•  Impact on public administrations 

The Dutch study referred to in chapter 5.2.1 estimated that an average manual check lasts 35 
minutes,  involving  3  police  officers  and  of  course  the  driver  of  the  vehicle.  Like  for 
undertakings,  avoiding  75,192  unnecessary  checks74  would  result  in  a  time  saving  of  police 
officers of 138,586 hours, which could be saved or used for other purposes where additional 
resources would be required. However, the reporting obligation introduced in PP 2, and also 
in PP 3, would result in an additional administrative burden on Member States. 

The introduction of around 250 new WIM stations by Member States is sufficient to cover the 
whole TEN-T network,75 which would amount to an annual cost of around € 7 million (on the 
basis of an average individual cost of € 150,000 and a lifetime of 5 years, plus € 150,000 to    
€ 350,000 for civil works and others – one-off cost, as detailed in footnote 83). 

•  Impact on micro enterprises and on SMEs 

The  transport  sector  is  characterised  by  many  SMEs,  and  hereunder  micro  enterprises; 
actually, more than 80% of the companies active in the sector are micro-companies with less 
than 10 employees.76 Therefore any change to the legislation affecting the sector must apply 
to the micro enterprises in order to be effective.77 

Although SMEs are likely to be impacted financially by the proposed measures, the rapid pay-
off  of  aerodynamic  devices  and  fuel-efficient  cabins  is  likely  to  be  convincing  enough  to 
ensure their uptake, or, in the cases where self-financing is not available, to facilitate access to 
credit.  For  larger  transport  undertakings,  investing  in  aerodynamic  devices  and  more  fuel-
efficient cabins is not likely to be problematic given the clear business case for these.  

Should the uptake of the new devices by SMEs be unsatisfactory, the Commission may at a 
later  stage  examine  possible  additional  measures  through  the  TEN-T  funds,  the  European 
Regional Development Fund or the Horizon 2020 programme to overcome this problem for 
instance  by  providing  financial  support  to  innovative  road  SMEs  or  by  amending  the 
"Eurovignette"  Directive  1999/62/EC78  to  allow  toll  rebates  for  vehicles  equipped  with 
aerodynamic  devices.  These  measures  are  however  not  part  of  this  revision  process  and 
therefore not subject to this impact assessment. 

The mandatory introduction of onboard weighing devices is expected to cost around 4,000 € 
per vehicle, which is quite high in comparison with the benefit that a company can expect to 
recover from saved time in unfounded manual checks. This negative impact stands against the 
potential benfits from an increased effectiveness of the directive due to a higher compliance 
rate of the vehicles. 

Consequently,  compared  to  the  baseline,  PP  1  would  not  lead  to  a  substantially  increased 
financial burden on SMEs. PP 2 would produce a slightly higher impact compared to PP 1, 
while  PP  3,  proposing  a  mandatory  introduction  of  aerodynamic  devices,  would  cause  a 
significant additional financial burden on SMEs, which should however be rapidly off-set by 
the additional savings. 

74   See chapter 5.2.1. 
75   As suggested by the International Society on Weigh-In-Motion (ISWIM), we assume that the network is fully 
covered with a WIM station every 500-750 km on motorways and every 1,000-1,500 km on national roads. 

76   European Commission, Road Freight Transport Vademecum, March 2009. 
77   This justifies the inclusion of micro-companies in the scope of the legislation as required by the Commission 
Communication  on  "Minimizing  regulatory  burden  for  SMEs  -  Adapting  EU  regulation  to  the  needs  of 
micro-enterprises" [COM (2011) 803 final]. 

78   Directive  1999/62/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  1999  on  the  charging  of 

heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures; OJ L 187 of 20.7.1999, p. 42. 

EN 

xli 

   EN 

 
                                                 
o Social impacts 

(cid:131)  Impact on working conditions, health and lifestyle of drivers 

As  mentioned  above,  the  large  scale  deployment  of  rear  flaps  on  the  European  truck  fleet 
would increase the market opportunities of manufacturers of such equipment and, as a result, 
also  the  employment  in  the  sector.  Furthermore  it  is  not  expected  to  entail  any  particular 
training costs for road haulage companies. Indeed the existing prototypes or devices marketed 
outside  of  the  EU  are  mounted  on  hinges  and  can  be  folded  simply  by  pushing  the  device 
which folds onto itself and onto the doors at the back of the trailer. Devices have also been 
developed with electric actuators which automatically fold the side wings when entering into 
built-up areas or when the vehicle is stationary. 

While  this  initiative  would  have  no  noteworthy  impact  on  employment  of  truck  drivers,  it 
would, as mentioned earlier, benefit them by allowing changes to cabins, which would allow 
for more comfort79 compared to the current cabins, which were designed to take up as little 
space as possible to allow for increased loading space. In contrast, a larger cabin would allow 
space for larger bunks as well as space for a second driver in tractors where two drivers are 
required.  Drivers  would,  on  the  other  hand,  possibly  be  confronted  with  an  additional  task 
related to the folding and unfolding of aerodynamic devices on the rear of trailers. This task 
would be required during loading and unloading as well as when entering urban environments 
where the equipment, depending on the circumstances, may have to be folded for reasons of 
safety  and  manoeuvrability.  Additional  training  would  be  necessary,  in  case  where  these 
devices could not be automatically folded or deployed from the cabin. 

Overall,  it  is  therefore  expected  that  PP  1  will  have  little  impact  on  working  conditions, 
whereas PP 2 and PP 3 will have a positive impact on working conditions. 

(cid:131)  Impact on road safety 

The measures proposed in the current Impact Assessment could potentially have a significant 
impact  (positive  or  potentially  negative)  on  road  safety,  and  manufacturers  would  have  to 
consider  these  impacts  carefully  to  mitigate  any  risk  of  increasing  the  number  of  accidents 
involving HGVs. 

Firstly,  considering  the  positive  impacts,  re-designing  cabins  would  according  to  a  German 
study (see illustrations below)80: 

• 

• 
• 

improve the direct as well as the indirect vision of the driver, limiting the dead vision 
angle; 
reduce damages to other vehicles in the event of frontal collisions; 
fully reduce the risk of underrun of pedestrians or cyclists as shown in the pictures 
below. 

Figure 5: Impact on road safety of redesigned cabins 

79   Long-haul drivers spend an average of four nights per week in the HGV 

(according to "Smarter, Safer and Cleaner", T&E, 2012) 

80   FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011 

EN 

xlii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source: FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011. 

EN 

xliii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
It  is  estimated  that  changing  the  cabin  design  could  save  300  to  500  lives  per  year81,  i-e  a 
reduction of 10% of the current fatalities in accidents involving trucks. Redesigning the cabin 
could  provide  an  opportunity  to  stakeholders  to  consider  additional  means  of  safety 
improvements such as crumple zones on the front of the tractor, but these questions – which 
go into technical specifications of cabins rather than their strict dimensions – are beyond the 
scope of this revision. 

Moreover,  during  the  targeted  stakeholder  meetings,  experts  highlighted  the  important 
relation  between  braking  times,  the  severity  of  accidents  and  the  weight  of  vehicles.  Non-
compliance with the weight limitations of Directive 96/53/EC, which was identified as one of 
the  problems  in  this  Impact  Assessment,  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  road  safety,  and 
these  may  be  mitigated  by  the  proposed  control  standards  and  methods  proposed  in  the 
context of this initiative.  

Secondly, some measures could have a potentially negative impact on road safety. This may 
be the case for the rear-end aerodynamic devices, which could mask vehicle lights and which 
would  slightly  increase  the  risk  of  being  turned  over  by  strong  side  wind  or  even  of  jack-
knifing82. Rear-end aerodynamic devices could also pose a risk of underrun and its installation 
may  require  special  rules  on  marking,  material  used  (to  absorb  shocks)  and/or  underrun 
protection device. This is the reason why it is proposed to subject the authorisation of these 
devices to a number of requirements relating to road safety before manufacturers are allowed 
to equip trailers or tractors with such systems which in any case will need to be certified by 
national  authorithies.  This  measure  is  expected  to  limit  the  possible  negative  impact  of 
making such devices mandatory for new vehicles in PP 3. Then, the equipment would have to 
be certified by the Member States authorities. 

Furthermore the increase in compliance with maximum loading limits is expected to have a 
positive effect on road safety. Indeed the severity of accidents is increased when these involve 
heavier vehicles. Therefore the positive impact on road safety of the various policy packages 
can  be  expected  to  reflect  the  increase  in  compliance  with  weight  limits:  positive  in  PP  1, 
more positive in PP 2 and slightly more positive in PP 3. 

The net impacts of the above mentioned measures are difficult to assess. However, assuming 
that the future detailed requirements defined by the Commission will reduce negative impacts 
to a minimum, the net impacts are likely to be positive. Following the reasoning, PP 1 would 
have  a  limited  impact  on  road  safety,  PP  2  would  significantly  and  positively  impact  road 
safety whereas PP 3 would not have a much greater impact than PP 2.  

The above discussion may be summarized as follows: 

o Summary of impacts 

-  Taking into account  the possibility to add rear aerodynamic devices to trailers, and to 
the possibility to develop heavy vehicles with electric or hybrid propulsion, PP 1 will 
have a positive impact on fuel consumption (5 to 10 %), and on air pollution. The 
carbon footprint reduction can be estimated at around 24 million tonnes per year for the 
operational objective of 50 % long-distance trailers equiped in 2030. An improved 
effectiveness of the directive due to increased enforcement will also have very positive 
impacts on competition, the functioning of the internal market, the cost of road 
maintenance, and the number of injured persons in accidents due to overweight 
vehicles. The impact on economic efficiency of the road transport sector will be 

81   FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011. 
82   French IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC. 

EN 

xliv 

   EN 

 
                                                 
improved by promoting containerisation without having a reverse effect on other modes 
of transport such as rail or inland waterways. Administrative costs for both public and 
private sectors will go down as a result of the reduction of the number of special permits 
and as a rationalisation of the manual checks performed by police officers on 
overweight vehicles. PP 1 will also facilitate the development of intermodal transport by 
the possibility to transport containers of 45' without a special permit and its 
administrative cost. 

-  PP 2 will provide a much larger fuel reduction due to the redesign of the tractor, with 

potential fuel savings approaching 15 % on motorways. It will lead to an improvement 
of the carbon footprint of 27 million tonnes per year for the same target of equiped 
vehicles as above. PP 2 will also have a high positive effect on road safety, due to the 
saving of a few hundred lives (see chapter 5.3.2) every year with a better design of the 
tractor. More efficient checks of overweight vehicles with filtering methods will have a 
considerable positive effect on competition, and on the reduction of unnecessary checks, 
thus on the administrative costs associated to checks. The cost of the necessary 
equipment for the filtering will be recovered easily by the savings on road maintenance, 
and on police forces required for the checks. Lastly, PP 2 will have the same positive 
impact on the development of intermodal transport than PP 1. 

-  PP 3 on the other hand will not provide real additional benefits in comparison to PP 2 in 
terms of fuel saving and pollution, due to its negative impact on the financial burden on 
SMEs if the aerodynamic equipments were rendered mandatory. A similar difficulty 
would occur with a mandatory introduction of onboard weighing devices, even if PP 3 
would certainly improve the effectiveness of the directive: the cost of a mandatory 
equipment is currently considered too high for SMEs. In terms of containerisation, PP 3 
proposes to deal with larger containers than 45', but the real benefit of this measure 
would be questionable when the reverse effects on road safety and model shift to rail 
and inland waterways would need to be verified much more deeply. The added value of 
PP 3 in comparison to PP 2 is questionable, but all the positive impacts of PP 2, as 
described above are kept in PP 3. 

EN 

xlv 

   EN 

 
•  COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

This section provides an assessment of how each policy option contributes to the realisation 
of the policy objectives, as set in chapter 3, in light of the following evaluation criteria: 

effectiveness – the extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal; 
efficiency – the extent to which the objectives can be achieved at least cost;83 

coherence – the extent to which policy options are likely to limit trade-offs across  

the economic, social, and environmental domain. 

o Effectiveness 

The following table provides a synthetic overview of the effectiveness of the various policy 
options with regard to the specific policy objectives (SO) defined in chapter 3, based on the 
assessment of impacts provided above.  

Table 9: Effectiveness of envisaged policy packages in relation to the objectives 

Specific Objectives 

PP 0 

PP 1 

PP 2 

SO1:  To  enable  the  market  uptake  of  more 
aerodynamic,  electric  and  hybrid  trucks  and  to 
increase the attractiveness of certain coach services. 

SO2: 
the 
intermodal/combined transport 

enhance 

To 

development 

of 

SO3: To ensure better enforcement of the maximum 
weights and dimensions across the EU 

- 

- 

- 

Medium 

High 

PP 3 

High 

High 

High 

High 

Medium 

High 

High 

The issue of studying the future evolution of containerisation is raised in PP 3, and with it the 
possibility of empowering the Commission to authorise the transport of larger containers than 
45' by delegated acts. Considering the very low level of use of such containers, the necessary 
extension of the trailers by more than 1 m and the current differences in opinions expressed 
by  stakeholders  concerning  longer  trucks  in  general,  it  does  not  seem  feasible  to  retain  this 
measure in the prefered policy option. 

Concerning the choice between combined and intermodal sub-options in the development of 
containerisation, it appears that measure 6 would lead to a reverse modal shift to road from 
other modes of transport, as the limitation in certain cases of the road leg to 150 km would 
push  shippers  to  use  road  transport  for  the  whole  operation.  This  is  why  measure  7  is  the 
preferred sub-option on containerisation. 

o Efficiency 

In terms of costs required to achieve the objectives identified in this IA, the implemention of 
some  of  the  measures  contained  in  the  policy  packages  would  necessitate  investments  from 
public authorities and from private entities. These costs are tentatively identified below: 

83   Given the limited availability of data related to some policy measures and the difficulty of quantifying and 
monetizing the costs and benefits of these, a full cost-benefit analysis could not be performed. Alternatively, 
as  indicated  in  the  Commission  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  a  partial  cost-benefit  analysis  has  been 
performed  quantifying  policy  measures  where  feasible  and  performing  a  qualitative  assessment  of  other 
measures. 

EN 

xlvi 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  PP 1, proposing a light revision of Directive 96/53/EC and consisting of voluntary 

measures, will have a relatively minor impact on costs: 

-  Transport undertaking may choose to equip the rear of their HGV fleet, or part 
thereof, with aerodynamic devices costing approximately € 3,000 per device. 

•  PP 2 includes additional measures involving potential costs on a first instance: 

-  The development of new cabin designs would entail a cost on those automotive 
manufacturers who would choose to use the additional flexibility, although it is 
expected that these costs could be partly covered through existing R&D budgets. 
This is why manufacturers ask for a sufficient lead time before the 
implementation of the amended Directive. Allowing this implementation period is 
expected to result in retail prices of these new cabins to be more or less at the 
same level as current cabins. However, no quantitative evidence is currently 
available on this point. 

-  Requiring a compulsory preselection of vehicles from Member States when 

carrying out checks will have cost impacts or alternatively lead to a redistribution 
of resources. As an illustration of likely costs, the total annual cost of a WIM 
system allowing pre-selection of overloaded vehicles, including enforcement and 
static scales, is estimated to be € 322,50084. The cost of the equipment for a purely 
manual control and enforcement system is around € 160,000, to which must be 
added the manpower cost to perform the checks. These cost estimations do 
however not take into account the cost of existing manual checks which they may 
replace. The cost difference in the equipments explains also why a manual system 
is relatively inefficient allowing only 10 HGVs to be checked per day, resulting in 
a time-loss of drivers and of enforcement officers as well as in infrastructure 
damage and in safety risks from overloaded HGVs which were not apprehended. 
The use of automatic systems to target vehicles to be checked manually can hence 
be expected to be more cost effective than completely manual solutions. 

•  PP 3, proposing mainly mandatory measures, will have more important cost 

implications: 

-  Mandatory on-board weighing devices and aerodynamic devices on the rear of 
trailers would oblige transport undertakings to install these at the approximate 
price mentioned above. This may place a challenging financial burden on SMEs. 
Due to the short lifespan of trailers, limiting the obligation to equip vehicles with 
rear aerodynamic devices to new ones only would not significantly alter this 
situation. 

-  The introduction of compulsory thresholds for checks of HDVs may also have 

financial impacts on Member States. However, this would depend on the change 
with respect to current number of checks in Member States. Hence, it is not 
possible to estimate any cost impacts for this measure. 

In addition, a partial cost-benefit analysis was carried out estimating annual costs and benefits 
of the different policy packages and  policy  measures, where  a quantification was  feasible.85 
Obviously the market penetration rate of the different technologies proposed, in terms of rate 
and  timing,  is  key  in  this  context  (see  table  10).  For  the  purpose  of  the  present  IA  and 

84   http://iswim.free.fr/doc/remove_WP4_costbenefit_analysis.pdf. 
85   The assumptions behind the calculations and the methodology used are described in Annex 2. 

EN 

xlvii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
considering  the  different  state  of  maturity  and  costs  of  the  technologies  proposed,  it  is 
assumed that by 2030, 75% of long distance HGVs will be equipped with aerodynamic rear 
devices (a better situation than expected in the operational objective OO1) and that 50% of all 
HGVs will have adopted the new cabin design.  

According to IRU, roof-top spoilers on cabins, which were introduced in the 1990s and which 
are  fairly  comparable  to  rear  devices  in  terms  of  costs  and  in  terms  of  possible  energy 
efficiency  improvements,  experienced  a  rapid  uptake  and  equip  currently  close  to  90%  of 
long-distance trucks. Figures from the USA, where such devices have come into use around 
2008 show that uptake has been very quick,with over 10,000 vehicles equipped in 201286. In 
this  context,  the  assumption  of  an  uptake  of  75%  of  rear  devices  in  2030  seems  plausible. 
However, a sensitivity analysis with lower penetration rates will be performed in chapter 6.5. 

Buses as well as the measure on hydridisation could not be included in the calculations below 
as  figures  needed  for  the  calculations  were  not  readily  available.  Due  to  the  higher  cost  of 
investment into a new tractor unit, the new cabin design is expected to reach slightly lower 
penetration  rates  than  aerodynamic  devices.  However,  based  on  the  average  life  cycle  of  a 
truck (5-6 years), the renewal of a part of the fleet will take place by 2030. The safety benefits 
of  these  cabins  combined  with  their  fuel  benefits  is  expected  to  ensure  that  hauliers  will 
choose this type of cabin when investing in new vehicles, thus leading a high level of uptake. 

Table  10:  Annual  and  discounted  costs  and  benefits  of  individual  policy  packages  and 
measures for vehicles registred in the EU 

Measures 

Benefits (million €)  

Costs (million €)  

PP 1 

Aerodynamic rear devices 

1.194/2.826 (fuel saving) 

32787 (cost of devices on long 
distance HGVs) 

77/157 (climate change 
mitigation) 

PP 1 total 

1.271 

327 

PP 2 

Cabin re-designs 

1.048/2.124 (fuel saving) 

Compulsory targeted checks 

47/95 (climate change 
mitigation) 
71388 (avoided infrastructure 
damage) 

789 (cost of WIM stations) 

PP 2 total 

PP 3 

3.079 

334 

Mandatory aerodynamic rear 
devices on all HGVs 

494/94290 (additional fuel 
saving to PP 1) 

1.417 (additional cost of 
devices to PP 1) 

26/52 (additional climate 

86   Source: data from aerodynamic device manufacturer ATDynamics. 
87   Assuming an average life time corresponding to that of HGVs being 7 years  

(source : EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050, Task Report 9 IV). 

88   Average of range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and assuming 75% compliance. 
89   250 stations would have to be installed to equip the trans-European road network in order to reach  a level of 
equipment similar to the one of the advanced Member States (eg France), noting that referring to the most 
advanced countries (e.g. NL) would imply a higher number. With an average individual cost of 150 k€ and a 
life  time  5  years,  plus  150-350  k€  for  civil  works  and  others  (one  off  cost)  (source:  French  IFSTTAR 
laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC). 

90   Assuming  a  100%  introduction  for  long-distance  HGVs  and  no  significant  fuel  saving  from  short-distance 

HGVs. 

EN 

xlviii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Mandatory on-board weighing 
devices on all HGVs 

change mitigation to PP 1) 
19091 (avoided infrastructure 
damage additional to PP 2) 

2.29592 (cost of devices) 

PP 3 total 

3.789 

4.046 

Note: Where figures were calculated for 2030 (in black) to take account of expected future developments, these 
were discounted to 2012 using the standard discount rate of 4% to enable a comparison with the other figures 
calculated for 2012 (in orange). The value of the 300-500 lives saved by cabin re-designs is not quantified but 
would add an additional substantial benefit for PP 2. 

While  acknowledging  that  the  above  analysis  is  only  partial  and  that  changing  the 
assumptions made, which obviously are surrrounded by a great deal of uncertainty (notably at 
the horizon of 2030 e.g. regarding the projections on vehicle stock, on market uptake and on 
fuel prices), could have an impact on the calculations, it provides nevertheless an indication of 
some, if not all, of the most significant costs and benefits. Other costs and benefits related to 
measures,  which  could  not  be  quantified  and  which  consequently  are  not  part  of  the  above 
analysis,  are  not  likely  to  fundamentally  change  the  indications  provided.  However,  a 
sensitivity analysis is provided in chapter 6.4. 

PP 1 would, relative to the baseline, have a benefit-cost ratio well above 1, which is mainly 
due  to  the  estimated  fuel  savings.  Adding  the  measures  of  PP  2  would  result  in  a  higher 
benefit-cost ratio. PP 3 would present additional benefits in terms of mainly fuel savings, but 
these  would  be  exceeded  in  the  short  term  by  the  costs  of  making  aerodynamic  devices 
mandatory, be this for all vehicles or only for the new ones. Moreover, the cost of making on-
board weighing devices mandatory would largely exceed their benefits, which would result in 
a  benefit-cost  ratio  lower  than  1.  Additionally,  in  PP  3,  SMEs  in  particular  would  face  a 
significant financial burden. 

o Coherence 

The  proposed  policy  packages  are  fairly  coherent  in  terms  of  environmental,  social  and 
economic impacts as shown in the summary table of Chapter 5.4. The only substantial trade-
offs identified are for PP 3, for which potentially substantial negative economic impacts were 
identified for SMEs. 

In terms of impacts with regards to the Member States, the countries which will be the most 
impacted are the ones with the highest level of traffic and the ones with the highest number of 
registered  vehicles.  Countries  with  the  highest  level  of  traffic  are  already  the  ones  with  the 
highest  level  of  pollution  and  congestion  created  by  road  transport,  and  for  these  countries, 
the impacts will be most positive by decreasing pollution, fuel consumption and the wear and 
tear  of  motorways,  and  possibly  by  reducing  road  traffic  (see  also  annex  4  for  more 
indications). The impacts on countries with the highest number of registered vehicles will be 
on the economic profitability of road transport in fair conditions, due to the reduction of loss 
of time for controls, and to the reduction of illegal profits biasing competition with overloads. 

o Sensitivity analysis 

Despite  the  fact  that  the  transport  sector  has  shown  a  considerable  interest  in  aerodynamic 
devices already available and possible to install within the current limits on maximum weights 
and dimensions, there may be an uncertainty with regard to the market uptake of aerodynamic 

91   Average of range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and assuming 95% compliance. 
92   Assuming the average price of the range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and an average life time corresponding to 

that of HGVs being 7 years. 

EN 

xlix 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
rear devices and cabin re-designs, which may impact the calculations presented in the partial 
cost-benefit analysis above. 

Under  current  assumptions,  however,  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  uptakes  of  single  rear 
devices and of single cabin re-designs will have cost-benefits ratios higher than 1. Therefore, 
higher or lower market uptakes than foreseen in PP 1 and in PP 2 will in all cases result in 
benefit-cost  ratios  higher  than  1.  In  absolute  numbers,  lowering  the  market  uptake  of 
aerodynamic rear devices from 75%, as assumed, to 50% (OO1) would reduce the combined 
benefit of fuel savings and climate change mitigation to € 971 million (compared to € 1,271 
million  in  2012  as  mentioned  above).  However, given that a lower number of trucks would 
install the devices, the cost would also decrease to € 218 million (compared to € 327 million 
in 2012 as mentioned above). Hence, as explained, the benefit-cost ratio of aerodynamic rear 
devices would remain higher than 1 despite a lower market update than initially assumed. 

Altering other assumptions, notably the average annual mileage of an HGV and the fuel price, 
could on the other hand change the benefit-cost ratios. If average kilometres driven per HGV 
as well as the fuel price evolved in another way than expected until 2030, and result in lower 
values than assumed in this IA, this would reduce the benefit-cost ratios. For instance, if the 
average  distance  driven  by  long-distance  trucks  would  decrease  from  the  assumed  98,000 
kilometres per year to 75,000 kilometres per year, the fuel saving benefits of rear devices and 
of  cabin  re-designs  would  decrease  to  €  2,116  million  (compared  to  the  amount  of  €  2,243 
million  in  2012  mentioned  above).  Hence,  the  benefit-cost  ratio  would  also  remain  higher 
than  1  in  this  case.  As  regards  the  assumption  of  the  fuel  price  of  €  2.10  per  litre  in  2030, 
which  is  estimated  by  PRIMES-TREMOVE  and  which  is  obviously  surrounded  by  a  great 
deal  of  uncertainty,  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  applying  the  current  level  of  fuel  prices  of 
approximately € 1.40 per litre, which would be significantly below the estimated 2030 price 
level, the benefit-cost ratio of rear devices and cabin re-designs would still remain above 1. 

o Conclusion - ranking of the options 
The table below summarises the impacts identified in sections 5 and 6 of this IA.  

Table 11: Comparison of policy packages 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Benefit-cost ratio 

PP 0 

PP 1 

PP 2 

PP 3 

- 

Medium 

High 

High 

- 

Low costs 

Low costs 

High costs 

- 

No trade-off 

No trade-offs 

High trade-off 

- 

>1 

>1 

<1 

It  can  therefore  be  concluded  that  PP  2,  ensuring  a  high  likelihood  of  achieving  the 
objectives  of  the  IA  at  a  reasonably  low  cost  and  without  causing  undue  trade-offs 
between  environmental,  social  and  economic  impacts,  should  be  the  preferred  option. 
This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  partial  cost-benefit  analysis  performed  in  this  IA 
indicating that PP 2 would result in a benefit-cost ratio higher than one. 

EN 

l 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
•  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Regular evaluation of the proposed revision of Directive 96/53/EC will be important in order 
to  assess  its  effectiveness  and  efficiency  and  in  order  to  measure  progress  against  the 
operational objectives defined above. 

The  level  of  attainment  of  the  operational  objectives  will  be  monitored  in  the  year  the 
proposed  legislation  enters  into  force  and  regularly  afterwards  supported  by  a  general 
provision in the Directive requiring Member States to provide the Commission with relevant 
statistics as referred to below. 

Table 12: Monitoring 

Operational objectives 

Monitoring 

OO1:  Achieve  a  significant  share  of  long-distance 
trailers equipped with rear aerodynamic devices (75%) 
and aerodynamic cabins (50%) by 2030 

OO2: Achieve a doubling of the use of 45’ containers 
transported as part of a combined/intermodal transport 
operation:  by  2030,  75  %  of  the  containers 
transported  over  more  than  300  km  inside  the  EU 
should use at least two modes of transport 

OO3:  Increase  the  effectiveness  of  manual  checks 
(number  of  infringements  /  number  of  checks).  Such 
an  increase  will  improve  the  reliability  of  checks  and 
at the same time avoid annually 100, 000 unnecessary 
checks by 2020 

The  Commission  will  gather  evidence  from  statistics 
from  Member  States,  automotive  manufacturers  and 
hauliers  associations  on 
trailers 
equipped with aerodynamic devices 

the  number  of 

The  Commission  will  gather  evidence  from  statistics 
from  Member  States, 
and  hauliers 
associations on the use of 45’ containers in intermodal 
transport 

shippers 

The monitoring will be performed using statistical data 
that  Member  States  will  provide  as  proposed  in 
Measure 10 of PP 2 

Apart from the benchmarks ideintified in the operational objectives here above, the impact on 
the environment of the vehicles will be monitored by processing data related to : 

-   infrastructure wear & tear: the number of infringements of the Directive and the level 
of overweight will be reduced significantly (very small amount of frauds more than 
10% above weight limit) 

-   road safety: the impact of the new designs of cabins will be measured when such new 
cabins will represent at least 30 % of the fleets of trucks. A monitoring study shall be 
launched to assess the benefit of the new designs on the safety of other road users. 
-   environment: when rear flaps start being implemented on the market, a study will 

assess the real monetary benefits in the reduction of fuel consumption of the equiped 
vehicles during their operational life cycle. The results of the study will be the best 
incentives to convince hauliers to equip their fleets. The Commission will also 
carefully check the tests performed by the manufacturers of tractors with their new 
aerodynamic vehicles, when these designs enter the market, and gather the results 
from all companies to assess the real benefits obtained from the revised Directive. 

The evaluation and monitoring by the Commission will be carried out with regular intervals, 
at least every five years, and in the case of OO3 depending on the provisison of the necessary 
statistical  data  from  the  Member  States.  The  Commission  will  report  the  findings  of  the 
evaluation and the monitoring to the European Parliament and to the Council. 

EN 

li 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 

Summary of the results of the 
public consultation on the revision of Directive 96/53/EC 
(maximum weights and dimensions of trucks and buses) 
and of the related meetings with stakeholder representatives 

October 2012 

Participation in the public consultation 

The  public  consultation  was  launched  in  December  2011  and  closed  on  27  February  2012. 
More  than  1,000  responses  were  received.  Half  of  these  came  from  professional  or 
administrative organisations, the other half from private citizens.  

Most  professional  respondents  came  from  road  transport-related  sectors  (manufacturers  of 
trucks,  trailers  or  buses,  infrastructure  operators,  transport  operators,  providers  of  electronic 
devices  and  other  equipment  (tyres  for  instance),  and  associations  of  them).  Professional 
organisations  from  other  modes  of  transport  also  replied  (rail,  combined  transport,  inland 
waterways,  maritime),  as  well  as  other  sectors  of  activities  (agriculture,  forest,  petroleum). 
Administrations of some Member State replied, as did Switzerland, Norway and the American 
Chamber  of  Commerce.  Different  non-profit  organisations  like  road  safety  associations  and 
environmental ones also participated.  

Most  answers  of  citizens  were  split  in  a  small  number  of  identical  responses,  each  group 
coming usually from one single country, leading to the conclusion that members of the same 
association  have  separately  sent  a  predefined  answer.  Due  to  this  situation,  statistics  on 
citizens responses are meaningless, and will not be mentioned in this document. 

The results of a series of meetings convened by DG MOVE with manufacturers of trucks and 
buses and operators of these sectors, with road safety organisations, enforcement associations 
and  representatives  of  intermodal  transport  (held  between  March  and  June  2012)  have  also 
been inserted. 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  have  not  yet  been  published.  The  following  sections 
summarise  the  responses,  following  the  questions  under  consideration  in  the  process  of 
revision of Directive 96/53/EC.  

I.  Energy and CO2 efficiency 

•  Does the Directive limit innovations for improving fuel consumption and energy 

efficiency? 
A  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  agree  that  Directive  96/53/EC  limits  innovations  that 
could improve fuel consumption and energy efficiency.  

Hauliers  and  manufacturers  of  trucks  and  trailers  underline  the  potential  to  improve 
aerodynamics of both the cabin and trailer by increasing the permissible dimensions. For 
that purpose, they highlighted during the focused meetings the concept of performance-
based  standards  governing  the  designs  of  new  vehicles,  to  be  preferred  to  fixed  limits 
written in stone for 20 years.  

Hauliers  also  suggest  that  innovations  like  longer  and  heavier  trucks  would  allow  a 
decrease in the number of trucks travelling on the roads, causing less congestion, lower 
global fuel consumption and less CO2 emissions. But representatives of other modes of 

EN 

lii 

   EN 

 
 
 
transport  consider  that  due  to  the  current  tendency  in  increase  of  road  transport,  there 
would  soon  be  the  same  number  of  trucks  on  the  roads,  but  heavier  and  longer.  They 
agree that increasing dimensions could be useful to improve aerodynamics but pleaded 
against any increase in the loading capacity, and pointed out the necessity to assess road 
safety risks.  

•  Efficiency of the aerodynamic shape of HGV to save fuel and energy 

80  %  of  the  professional  stakeholders  recognized  improvements  in  aerodynamics  as  a 
means  to  save  fuel  and  decrease  CO2  emissions.  Some  stakeholders  also  proposed 
complementary solutions like: 

- 

improvement of tyres 

-  a policy increasing the modal shift from road to rail and waterways 

- 

the promotion of eco-driving as an important instrument to increase efficiency of 
vehicles, especially for the heavier ones.  

-  some  private  stakeholders  call  for  a  Europe-wide  limit  of  80  km/h  as  maximum 

speed for trucks and buses, as is already the case in some Member States. 

Many possible devices have been identified by the participants to the consultation. 

Among road professionals, aerodynamic tails and side skirts were most often cited. All 
stakeholders agreed that these two devices have the highest positive impact on fuel and 
carbon efficiency.  

Concerning side skirts, if 58 % of professional stakeholders acknowledge their positive 
impact on aerodynamic performances, they appear fragile and their use is so far limited. 
These  devices  can  already  be  fitted  within  the  maximum  dimensions  foreseen  by  the 
Directive, and are therefore out of the scope of the revision process.  

Some hauliers advocate for an increase of the width of the vehicle by 5 cm in order to fit 
side skirts more easily on every truck.  

•  Aerodynamic flaps at the rear of the trailer provide a high level of efficiency. They need 

to be retractable (foldable), preferably automatically from the cabin, and made in 
suppler materials. The majority of stakeholders from the domains infrastructure, road 
safety and intermodality expressing a view said that there would be no impact. They 
represented around 30 % of professional respondents. 40 % of these professional 
respondents said they were not able to give an opinion. The remaining 30 % were split 
between small positive or small negative impacts.  
The picture below gives an idea of a truck equipped with both side skirts and rear flaps. 

EN 

liii 

   EN 

The information gathered on the rear flaps can be summarized as follows: 

there was no opposition to this equipment from any stakeholder group; 
they would fit to the great majority of existing rail wagons when folded; 

- 
- 
-  at a speed of 80 km/h, flaps would reduce fuel cnsumption by 6-7% and half as 

much at speeds of 50 km/h;  

-  cost: around € 3,000, installation included; 
- 

there is a risk that the equipment is damaged during loading / unloading 
operations; 
road safety and enforcement issues need to be considered, like for instance 
lighting at night, license plate video surveillance; 

- 

-  hauliers and manufacturers of trailers are immediately ready to adapt their 

products as soon as the Directive will be revised. 

The  rail  sector  expressed  concerns  of  a  possible  negative  impact  on  modal  split  : 
increasing  the  dimensions  of  trucks  and  trailers  could  prevent  loading  them  on  some 
wagons.  It  appears  however  that  the  foreseen  add-ons  are  compatible  with  a  vast 
majority of the existing rolling stock of wagons, when folded. 

•  Boat tail shaping of the rear of the trailer.   

Some  studies  or  trials  have  been  performed  with  a  boat  tail  configuration.  They  have 
shown some difficulties with loading / unloading as the rear entrance to load the trailer 
becomes  too  small.  A  practical  boat  tail  would  hence  require  an  increase  in  the 
maximum  height  of  the  vehicle,  should  the  size  of  the  back  door  be  kept  constant. 
Respondents did not have a complete view on this solution, which would need further 
studies. Expressing the load in terms of pallets, keeping the same load would probably 
lead to an extension of the trailer by at least 2 metres. 

•  Aerodynamics for the tractor 

75  %  of  the  professional  stakeholders  which  expressed  an  opinion  considered  that  the 
redesign of the cabin would have a positive effect on the aerodynamic performances of 
the vehicle. 

But  this  issue  is  more  complicated  than  the  previous ones. One study suggests  that an 
increase  of  the  cabin  by  80  to  100  cm  would  enhance  the  aerodynamics  of  the  truck 
generating  a  saving  of  3  to  4  %  of  fuel  consumption  whereas  an  additional  length 
beyond  1  meter  would  not  provide  additional  benefits  (according  to  a  majority  of 
manufacturers).  Some  other  manufacturers  have  however  suggested  that  an  additional 
length  beyond  1  m  would  also  provide  additional  benefits  in  terms  of  aerodynamic 

EN 

liv 

   EN 

 
performance. It has also been suggested that an extension could be used for a complete 
redesign of the cabin, allowing to include new mandatory features for safety, to improve 
the  comfort  of  the  driver,  and  to  improve  the  field  of  vision  of  the  driver  to  avoid 
accidents  with  vulnerable  users  like  bikers  or  pedestrians  in  urban  areas.  The  opinion 
expressed  is  that  it  could  allow  saving  around  300  to  500  lives  all  over  Europe.  The 
figures of the European Cyclist Federation indicate much higher figures: 3,200 to 3,800 
lives may be saved annually. 

Further studies and trials are needed to reach the best possible design, and a time period 
of  up  to  10  years  has  been  requested  by  manufacturers  of  tractors  for  this  kind  of 
adaptation. This period would also allow them recouping current investments in the last 
generation of trucks complying with the current specifications of Directive 96/53/EC.  

This could lead to designs like the one illustrated here under 

Source: FKA Report 104190, Aachen 2011. 

Such a new design of the cabin could lead to a complete reshaping of concepts, such as a 
driver  seated  in  the  middle  of  the  cabin  to  have  a  symmetrical  field  of  vision.  The 
impact of such a move would touch many functionalities. As an example, a driver seated 
in the middle of the truck could not pay tolls manually. 

Manufacturers and hauliers agreed that providing performance-based standards could be 
a useful means of determining cabin design, rather than fixing definite figures in the text 
of the Directive. 

Hauliers considered that the Directive should allow the use of aerodynamic equipment, 
not make their use mandatory. The economic viability of these equipment has not been 
fully  demonstrated  (comparison  of  the  initial  investment  with  the  savings  on  fuel 
consumption  in  a  timeframe  of  2  to  3  years  which  is  the  requested  time  for  return  on 
investment  in  the  profession).  Furthermore,  the  range  of  magnitude  of  the  investment 
may not be affordable for some SMEs, especially in times of economic crisis. 

• 

Improvement of buses and their aerodynamics 
Improvement  of  buses  and  their  aerodynamics  has  a  similar  justification  as  the  one 
promoting  aerodynamics  for  trucks  (fuel  reduction:  2  to  5%).  Aerodynamics  can  be 
improved but the impact is more limited for urban transport due to lower speeds. There 
is no need to revise the Directive as the improvements such as rounding body corners 
can be done under the existing dimensions. 

•  Derogation for electric batteries 

EN 

lv 

   EN 

 
There  was  no  general  agreement  on  allowing  derogations  for  electric  batteries.  Only 
40% of professional stakeholders were in favour. 

A majority of stakeholders, mainly manufacturers, operators and public administrations, 
however agreed on increasing the weight of the trucks for electrification of urban trucks 
and  hybridisation  of  interurban  ones.  Many  vehicle  manufacturers  stated  that  a 
derogation  was  required  also  for  vehicles  with  alternative  fuels  (methane,  LPG)  that 
were now penalised, as electrification would be limited to vehicles used in urban zones. 

Actors who disagreed, mainly environmental associations, stated that batteries for heavy 
vehicles were not the most efficient instrument to cut down CO2 emissions, and called 
for an increased modal shift from road to other modes of transport.  

EN 

lvi 

   EN 

II.  Intermodality and innovation in transport needs 

•  Allowing 45' containers 

45'  containers  represent  some  2%  of  the  world  wide  stock  of  containers,  mainly  used 
between the US and the Far East over the Pacific Ocean. 20 % of these containers reach 
European ports and can continue on roads or rail in Europe. They amount currently in 
Europe to 88,000 containers of 45'. An additional group of 30,000 containers have the 
same  length  of  45',  but  a  larger  width  and  are  called  pallet-wide  containers.  The 
question  of  pallet-wide  containers  should  be  decoupled  from  the  question  of  45' 
containers. 

Most  actors  of  all  types  agreed  on  the  generalisation  of  45  '  containers  for  the  two 
following reasons : 

- this would favour co-modality and combined transport, 

- the required increase in the length of the vehicle is very limited (12 to 15 cm). 

However, many stakeholders considered that allowing 45' containers would required an 
extension of the maximal weight to 44 tonnes, as 45' containers will be heavier than the 
common 40' ones. Without this increase of the maximum allowed weight, an increase in 
size would have no sense. 

Some  actors  (shippers  and  hauliers)  pleaded  for  a  general  acceptance  of  containers  of 
48', and even 53' containers, meaning an increase of the length of about 1 m (48') or 2.5 
m (53'), and an extension of the maximal weight to 60 tonnes. 

Those  in  favour  of  allowing  45'  containers  stated  that  these  containers  have  the 
advantage to make transport more efficient and diminish the number of trucks as well as 
CO2  emissions  and  congestion.  That  would  also  eliminate  some  time-consuming 
administrative burdens (for those asking regularly permission to use 45' containers).  

Restrictions  suggested  by  the  questionnaire  (geographical,  time  restrictions  and 
intermodal  use)  were  not  welcome  by  the  haulage  industry  (as  the  legislation  was 
already  complex).  Actors  who  considered  those  restrictions  necessary  chose  mainly  a 
limitation  to  multimodal  transport,  and  another  limitation  on  certain  itineraries,  for 
reasons  of  safety  or  suitability  of  infrastructure.  39  %  of  professional  stakeholders 
would prefer a limitation to multimodal transport while 31 % would open the derogation 
for all road transport operations. 

Impacts of the use of 45' containers (non-pallet-wide) 

o  Infrastructure: According to most hauliers, the impact on infrastructure would be 
very limited, even if the EU allowed an increase in the maximum weight to 44 
tonnes. For combined transport companies and infrastructure organisations, the 
impact would mainly concern roads and urban infrastructure. This was due to the 
very small increase in the length of the vehicles (12 to 15 cm), and the fact that 
interurban infrastructures were already designed for heavier trucks than 40 tonnes. 
o  Road safety: most stakeholders of any type saw no negative impact (only 12 to 15 

cm change of the vehicle length). A Danish study demonstrates that EMS and other 
longer trucks even increase road safety. Some actors stressed however difficulties to 
manage a heavier vehicle (44 tonnes).  

o  Co-modality: while most actors of co-modality were in favour of containers of 45', 
as they considered that this would increase co-modality (45' containers would fit 
well on rail wagons), some stakeholders considered on the contrary that a 
liberalisation of the Directive on this matter would reverse the modal shift, as 

EN 

lvii 

   EN 

 
combined transport would lose its advantages to transport by road. They also 
claimed that it could facilitate a general movement to increase the loading capacity 
through the use of larger containers. 

•  Pallet wide containers 

They  were  heavily  supported  by  the  haulage  industry  as  well  as  by  the  combined 
transport associations, for reasons of economies of scale. 

The  considerations  against  pallet-wide  containers  were  that  as  pallet-wide  containers 
were  not  standardised,  some  pallet-wide  containers  would  not  fit  on  wagons,  and 
allowing them for road transport would reverse the modal shift in favour of road. 

•  Weight and dimensions of buses: 

There  was  a  general  consensus  that  an  increase  was  needed  in  the  weight  of  two-axle 
buses from 18 to 19.5 tonnes. This would allow covering the extra weight of safety and 
on-board  equipment  without  affecting  weight  distribution  or  overloading  axles.  It  was 
underlined  that  the  Euro  VI  class  for  a  coach  meant  200  kg  additional  weight.  One 
country (France) already allows in its national legislation an increase of the maximum 
weight by 500 kg for safety purposes. 

III.  Controls, checks and enforcement 

•  Hauliers, NGOs and private respondents considered that the current situation was not 

satisfactory. The main criticisms were the following : 

o  Checks are not efficient 
o  Checks are not sufficient in number 
o  Procedures are not harmonised 
o  Sanctions are not harmonised. 

•  There was a broad consensus on the need to reduce the cost of checks, for instance with 
a generalisation of automatic systems like weigh-in-motion (WIM) or on-board systems 
to measure the weight of the truck and the weight per axle. In this case, the 
measurements should be available through another communication device using for 
instance DSRC. 

•  Money collected from fines could be used for projects aiming at improving road 

transport, or could help in the deployment of weigh-in-motion systems. 

•  Excessive loading was recognized as the major infringement and as a way of distorting 
competition. The UK FTA for instance protested against the 44 % of foreign trucks 
which were recorded as overloaded on UK territory. The second major infringement was 
related to the maximum height of trucks. 

•  Harmonising checks and controls should therefore be a priority, as well as harmonising 

sanctions when infringing rules. 52 % of professional stakeholders suggested 
harmonising the procedures, 56 % the sanctions. Harmonisation would avoid 
discrimination of hauliers depending on different national legislation, or on their 
nationality. There was agreement on the fact that this harmonisation would need to be 
done at European level. 

•  The IRU and its national members requested that hauliers and shippers share the legal 
responsibility in case of overweight, especially for containers, as hauliers would not 
necessarily know the weight of the containers they transport 

IV.  Legal clarifications of derogations for cross-border traffic of longer trucks (EMS) 

Positions varied along the following lines: 

•  Hauliers associations and truck manufacturers pleaded for a generalisation of EMS all 
over Europe with no restriction, highlighting savings in fuel consumption and CO2 

EN 

lviii 

   EN 

 
emissions as three trucks would be replaced by two. They claim that studies and 
experiences from the current use in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 
showed that there was no negative impact on road safety, modal split or traffic 
management. The economic efficiency of the haulage industry and of the overall 
economy would improve. They accepted that the use of EMS should be limited to 
suitable roads only. 

•  Rail and waterways stakeholders and environmental NGOs were against the 

liberalisation of the cross-border movement of heavier and longer trucks considering 
that due to the current increase of transport demand in Europe, a sound policy would be 
to shift all increase to other modes of transport. Allowing EMS in cross-border traffic 
would reverse the modal shift in favour of road. 

•  Clarification of the provisions on cross-border transport of longer trucks 

o  69 % of the professional stakeholders considered that, in the interpretation of the 
Directive, problems would arise concerning cross-border transport operations 
mainly of transported cars, refrigerated goods, logging and forestry-related 
transport, and also chemicals and other dangerous goods. Referring to some case 
studies (FR/BE/NL; FR/ES; SE/FI/DK), they drew attention to: 

• 

• 

the lack of legal clarity with regard to the use of 44 tonne trucks or EMS 
between two Member States that allow these trucks on their national 
territory,  
the differences between national standards on weight and dimensions 
leading to a distortion of competition between companies of different 
Member States.  

o  Art. 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5) of the Directive (derogations) should be clarified. 

Positions among stakeholders varied: While the haulage industry called for a 
lifting of all restrictions between consenting neighbouring countries, those with 
reservations (mainly environmental NGOs and rail associations) considered that 
any tolerance on the cross-border use of heavier and longer trucks was against 
the Directive. 

o  Concerning Art. 4(5) of the Directive (derogation for trials), the same opponents 
said that trials should not be allowed on a scale and time period which created a 
de facto authorisation. The haulage industry considered however that in 
accordance with the subsidiarity principle, Member States were free to launch 
national trials appropriate to their circumstances. 

•  Role of the European Commission 

The EU should monitor the implementation of rules and promote innovation, updating 
legislation accordingly. Another important role of the European Commission would be 
to  provide  a  common  interpretation  of  the  Directive  and  to  monitor  the  actions  of 
Member States, also using guidelines. 

EN 

lix 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 

Methodology  applied in partial cost-benefit analysis 

The partial cost-benefit analysis presented in Chapter 6.4, calculated for 2030 with a view to account 
for expected developments of key parameters, relies on several assumptions and calculations, which 
will be explained in more detail in this annex. 

Background 

Firstly,  as  a  basis  for  the  calculation  of  the  benefits  in  terms  of  fuel  savings  and  climate  change 
mitigation, the following table, presented in Chapter 5.1.1, was prepared. 

Estimated fuel saving and corresponding climate change mitigation (2030) 

Measures

Rear devices (6% fuel saving)
Cabin re-design (4.25% fuel saving)
Hybridisation (25% fuel saving)

EU27 Stock
1,017,106
4,068,425
5,815,675

Total fuel saving (million litres)
Total fuel saving (million Euro)

Carbon reduction (1000 tonnes)

Climate change mitigation (million
Euro)

HGVs (>3.5 tonnes)
Market penetration

25%
449
506
4,253

5,207
10,935

50%
897
1,012
8,505

10,414
21,869

75%
1,346
1,517
12,758

15,621
32,804

100%
1,794
2,023
17,011

20,828
43,739

13,538

27,076

40,615

54,153

487

975

1,462

1,950

The table initially estimates fuel savings (in million litres) at different market penetration rates (25%, 
50%,  75%  and  100%)  of  rear  aerodynamic  devices,  longer,  more  aerodynamic  cabins  and  of  hybrid 
trucks. We applied the average fuel saving potentials of these measures as described in the literature. 
The  assumptions  on  the  EU27  vehicle  stocks  applied  in  these  calculations  are  derived  from  the 
PRIMES-TREMOVE reference scenario: 

• 

• 

rear devices: the potential stock of vehicles are assumed to be HGVs above 20 tonnes 
(4,068,425) driving long distance (25%), i.e. 1.017.106 vehicles 
cabin designs: the potential stock of vehicles are assumed to be HGVs above 20 tonnes93 
driving long distances (25%), i.e. 1.017.106 vehicles 

•  hybridisation: the potential stock of vehicles is assumed to be HGVs below 20 tonnes 

(5,812,675), which generally drive shorter distances. 

Moreover, in order to calculate the fuel savings (in million litres) for the potential stock of HGVs at 
different  market  pentration  rates,  it  was  assumed,  using  statictics  from  Eurostat  and  evidence  from 
France, Germany and the UK, that average HGVs drive between 39,000 km/year (short distance) and 
98,000 km/year (long distance), and that HGVs on average consume 30 litres fuel per 100 km.  

The total fuel saving (in million €) was calculated multiplying the resulting fuel savings (in litres) by 
the  forecasted  price  of  fuel  in  2030  of  €  2.10  /  litre  from  the  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  reference 
scenario. 

The carbon reduction potential (in tonnes) was calculated multiplying the total fuel saving (in litres) by 
the  carbon  content  of  diesel  (2.6  kg  CO2  per  litre  diesel),  and  the  benefit  in  terms  of  the  lower 

93   Unlike for the rear aerodynamic devices, the impacts of reviewed cabin design is not limited to inter-urban 
transport: such trucks are also safer for the vulnerable users in urban environment. However the fuel savings 
will result mainly from long-distance high-speed trips.  

EN 

lx 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
contribution  to  climate  change  (in €)  was  calculated  multiplying the  total  carbon  reduction potential 
(in  tonnes)  by  the  estimated  price  of  carbon  in  2030  of  €  36  /  tonne  from  the  DG  Clima  IA  on  a 
Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. 

The  partial  cost-benefit  analysis,  presented  in  the  table  below,  was  performed  assuming  a  market 
penetration rate of 75% for rear aerodynamic devices and 50% for cabin re-designs. Due to a lack of 
vehicle  stock  figures  concerning  buses  and  concerning  hybrid  vehicles,  such  vehicles  could  not  be 
taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis.  

Benefits 

Benefits in terms of fuel savings (in Euro) for rear aerodynamic devices and for cabin re-designs were 
calculated using the above mentioned fuel savings (in litres) for the assumed market penetration rates 
multiplied by the assumed fuel price of 2.10 € per litre in 2030. Correspondingly, benefits in terms of 
reduced contribution to climate change were calculated by multiplying the fuel savings (in litres) by 
the estimated price of carbon in 2030 of € 36 / tonne. 

Benefits  in  terms  of  avoided  infrastructure  damage  caused  by  overloaded  HGVs  were  calculated 
applying  an  estimated  average  share  of  3.8%94  of  total  maintenance  costs  in  the  EU  (€  25  billion) 
caused by these HGVs. Moreover, in PP 2 it was assumed that the introduction of WIM (Weigh-in-
Motion) stations would lead to a compliance of 75% and in PP 3 that the introduction of mandatory 
on-board  weighing  devices  on  all  HGVs  would  lead  to  a  compliance  of  95%,  the  remaining  5%  of 
non-compliance being due to rogue companies who would continue to try their luck in the hope of not 
being caught. Currently, only sparse data is available on current compliance rates but evidence from 
the  Netherlands  point  to  a  hit-rate  of  around  50%,  implying  that  50%  of  the  vehicles  stopped  using 
manual  selection  were  overloaded.  This  number,  however,  may  vary  a  lot  between  Member  States 
depending on levels of enforcement. 

Lastly, benefits in terms of lives saved by allowing an extension for cabin re-designs in PP 2 would, as 
mentioned in the IA, result in an estimated 300-500 lives saved per year. The corresponding economic 
benefit would be significant but due to uncertainty of the number and to where these lives would be 
saved, this benefit was not included in the partial cost-benefit analysis. 

Costs 

The  costs  considered  in  the  partial  benefit  analysis  include  costs  of  installing  rear  devices  on  the 
HGVs, costs of WIM (Weigh-in-Motion) stations and costs of on-board weighing devices. 

Costs of rear devices are calculated assuming a cost per rear device of € 3,000 with an average lifetime 
corresponding to an HGV, i.e. 7 years, multiplied by the relevant market penetration rates, i.e. 75% in 
PP  1,  and  on  all  HGVs  above  20  tonnes  in  PP  3,  according  to  which  rear  devices  would  become 
mandatory. 

The  cost  of  WIM  stations  is  calculated  using  expert  knowledge  estimating  the  additional  number  of 
stations  needed  to  cover  the  EU  TEN-T  road  network,  which  would  amount  to  approximately  250 
stations.95  The average  cost  of  a  WIM  station  is  ranges  from  €  50,000  to  € 70,000,  with  an average 
lifetime of 7 years, to which should be added approximately € 15,000 in annual maintenance and data 
calibration costs per station. Moreover, a one-off average amount of € 75,000 in installation costs per 
station should be added. 

Lastly, the cost of on-board weighing devices, proposed as a mandatory measure in PP 3, is calculated 
using an average cost of on-board devices of € 8,000, with an average lifetime of 7 years, applied to all 
HGVs above 20 tonnes.  

Discounting of figures calculated for 2030 

All numbers calculated for 2030 in the partial cost-benefit analysis were discounted to 2012 using the 
standard discount rate of 4% to enable comparison with the figures calculated for 2012 (in orange). 

94   Source: International Society on Weigh-In-Motion (ISWIM). 
95   Source (for all figures in this paragraph): International Society on Weigh-In-Motion (ISWIM) 

EN 

lxi 

   EN 

                                                 
Annual  and  discounted  costs  and  benefits  of  individual  policy  packages  and  measures. 
Figures presented in black are for 2030 and discunted figures for 2012 in orange. 

Measures 

Benefits (million €)  

Costs (million €)  

PP 1 

Aerodynamic rear devices 

1.194/2.826 (fuel saving) 

32796 (cost of devices on long 
distance HGVs) 

PP 1 total 

(climate 

change 

77/157 
mitigation) 

1.271 

327 

PP 2 

Cabin re-designs 

1.048/2.124 (fuel saving) 

Compulsory targeted checks 

(avoided 

infrastructure 

798 (cost of WIM stations) 

(climate 

change 

47/95 
mitigation) 
71397 
damage) 

PP 2 total 

PP 3 

3.079 

334 

Mandatory  aerodynamic  rear 
devices on all HGVs 

494/94299 
saving to PP 1) 

(additional 

fuel 

(additional  cost  of 

1.417 
devices to PP 1) 

Mandatory on-board weighing 
devices on all HGVs 

climate 

(additional 

26/52 
change mitigation to PP 1) 
190100  (avoided 
damage additional to PP 2) 

infrastructure 

2.295101 (cost of devices) 

PP 3 total 

3.789 

4.046 

96   Assuming an average life time corresponding to that of HGVs being 7 years  

(source : EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050, Task Report 9 IV). 

97   Average of range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and assuming 75% compliance. 
98   250 stations would have to be installed to equip the trans-European road network in order to reach  a level of 
equipment similar to the one of the advanced Member States (eg France), noting that reaching the level of the 
most advanced countries (e.g. NL) would imply a higher number. With an average individual cost of 150 k€ 
and  a  life  time  of  5  years,  plus  150-350  k€  for  civil  works  and  others  (one-off  cost)  (source:  French 
IFSTTAR laboratory and the Belgian Institute BRRC). 

99   Assuming  a  100%  introduction  for  long-distance  HGVs  and  no  significant  fuel  saving  from  short-distance 

HGVs. 

100  Average of range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and assuming 95% compliance. 
101  Assuming the average price of the range provided in chapter 5.2.1 and an average life time corresponding to 

that of HGVs being 7 years. 

EN 

lxii 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3 

EN 

lxiii 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

lxiv 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

lxv 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 4: 

Impacts with regards to the Member States in relation to traffic, vehicles and 
infrastructure 

Road transport performance 2010, by type of transport (corrected for territoriality) 

2010

National

international 
(incl. cross 
trade)

1,170,376

533,720

21,345

6,146

14,761

10,574

26,673

2,453

24,137

5,703

Cabotage 

Total

20,852

1,217

2

170

406

1,724,948

49,235

8,601

39,069

16,683

243,606

143,763

6,565

393,933

1,400

7,896

24,954

146,190

164,343

149,243

1,067

2,490

2,272

574

11,243

34,301

13,352

86,150

12,853

12,094

2,267

5,156

25,157

29,987

778

1,432

2,424

40,256

99,691

36,062

21

1,431

3,055

1,767

10,460

21,294

24,476

41,789

5,749

4,484

4,545

6,587

1,707

9,143

3

178

212

656

6,345

1,474

0

20

14

15

21

539

329

181

55

31

4

34

83

1,051

1,247

2,181

9,507

27,590

187,102

270,380

186,779

1,088

3,941

5,341

2,357

21,724

56,134

38,157

128,119

18,657

16,609

6,816

11,777

26,947

40,181

156,038

EU-27

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sw eden

United Kingdom

140,955

13,836

Source: Eurostat

EN 

lxvi 

   EN 

 
 
Stock of registered goods vehicles 

2010

c ha nge  
0 9 / 10
%

EU27 34,092.5

EU15 28,232.3

EU12

5,860.3

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

737.5

333.5
598.0

485.1

2,619.4

81.2

327.1

1,318.8

5,303.5

5,239.4

4640.4

120.7

71.6

133.9

35.6

464.9

47.6

1,004.0

396.8

2,981.6

1,337.0

667.2

84.1

276.0

464.4

526.4

3,796.9

0.8

0.4

2.5

1.9

4.9
-0.6

-4.5

2.5

0.1

-4.9

1.3

-0.7

0.0

1.2

-2.7

-40.6

-8.5

2.6

-0.4

0.7

-1.3

2.3

6.6

0.0

0.8

0.6

2.5

4.6

2.3
0.4   

Source: EU transport in figures 2012 

EN 

lxvii 

   EN 

 
 
 
Length of road infrastructure (2009) 

Motorw ays

Main or 
national 
roads

Secondary 
or regional 
roads

Other roads*

1,763 

12,760 

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

418 

729 

1,130 

12,813 

100 

663 

1,103 

14,021 

11,163 

6,661 

257 

309 

152 

1,273 

2,631 

1,696 

849 

2,705 

321 

747 

391 

765 

1,891 

3,674 

2,975 

6,198 

2,707 

1,349 

16,044 

48,791 

69,737 

138,000 

74,919 

39,887 

178,269 

3,893 

4,780 

10,189 

11,612 

9,768 

19,375 

2,136 

1,653 

6,358 

837 

6,802 

184 

2,445 

10,003 

17,928 

5,976 

16,182 

911 

3,496 

12,563 

13,462 

49,040 

12,427 

11,631 

30,864 

139,833 

377,986 

154,513 

2,834 

5,327 

14,591 

41,911 

78,958 

75,600 

501,053 

642,256 

4,203 

58,668 

50,680 

1,891 

23,303 

166,142 

665 

7,836 

23,653 

28,403 

4,431 

65,210 

5,117 

14,050 

13,537 

83,131 

122,542 

1,379 

123,914 

88,666 

221,826 

32,225 

25,942 

51,295 

122,378 

244,340 

Source: EU transport in figures 2012 

EN 

lxviii 

   EN