COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management
Date: 2018-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, road network, road safety, road traffic, traffic signs, trans-European network, transport accident, transport infrastructure, transport network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.5.2018  SWD(2018) 176 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management {COM(2018) 274 final} - {SEC(2018) 226 final} - {SWD(2018) 175 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the revision of Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management and 
Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum safety requirements for road tunnels in the trans-European road network 

A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  
In  spite  of  continued  action  at  EU,  national  and  local  level,  the  reduction  of  road  fatalities  in  the  EU  has 
stagnated in recent years, and it appears unlikely that the EU's strategic objective of halving road fatalities 
by  2020  compared  to  2010  will  be  reached.  Reinforced  action  is  needed  across  the  field,  including  as 
regards  road  infrastructure,  which  remains  an  important  crash  cause  and  severity  factor  in  about  30%  of 
accidents.  The  impact  assessment  and  consultations  have  identified  two  main  problems:  A  large  share  of 
travel on the TEN-T network in the East and some share in the West of Europe is made on roads with low 
safety  performance;  and  the  in-built  safety  of  roads  outside  the  TEN-T  network  is  low.  There  are  large 
differences between the overall safety performance of roads in Western and in Eastern EU Member States. 
What should be achieved?  
As  a  general  objective,  the  initiative  aims  at  reducing  road  fatalities  and  serious  injuries  on  EU  road 
networks through  improved  safety  performance  of road  infrastructure.  The  four  specific  objectives  are: 1) 
Foster harmonisation and knowledge sharing between Member States on procedures and requirements; 2) 
Protect vulnerable road users; 3) Improve the deployment of new technologies; and 4) Improve the follow-
up on findings of road infrastructure safety management procedures. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  
In  general,  negative  externalities  of  road  transport,  including  road  deaths  and  injuries,  congestion  and 
pollution,  are  trans-boundary  problems  that  cannot  be  solved  by  national  or  local  action  alone.  The  main 
benefits  of  EU  action  in  the  context  of  this  initiative  lie  in  the  convergence  towards  higher  levels  of 
infrastructure safety across the EU. Travelling on roads throughout the EU will become safer whereby less 
well performing countries will be able to benefit from the experience of more advanced countries. EU-wide 
setting  of  general  performance  requirements,  e.g.  for  road  markings  and  road  signs,  will  facilitate  and 
accelerate the deployment of new safety elements that rely on features of the road infrastructure, such as 
lane keeping assistance. As for vulnerable road users, action at EU level will ensure that road assessment 
programmes  assess  separately  the  safety  of  vulnerable  road  users  with  a  view  to  improving  their  safety 
throughout the main road network in the EU.  
B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If 
not, why?  
Options  applicable  to  the TEN-T  network  (Policy  Options  1-3) and  those  applicable  to  part  of  the  network 
beyond TEN-T (Policy Options A-C) were assessed separately. 
Policy Options on the TEN-T network 
-  PO 1  consists of "soft" measures to promote  knowledge sharing,  combined with legislative measures to 
improve the transparency of procedures and to introduce requirements to focus on assessing the safety of 
vulnerable  road  users  and  to  facilitate  the  deployment  of  new  technologies.  It  also  creates  an  improved 
interface  between  the  Road  Infrastructure  Safety  Management  (RISM)  Directive  and  the  Tunnel  Safety 
Directive. 
-  PO  2  builds  on  Option  1  and  adds  compulsory  follow-up  of  inspections  through  risk  based  prioritisation 
plans, network-wide safety inspections and general performance requirements for road markings and road 
signs. 
- PO 3 builds on Option 2 and adds a minimum safety level to be achieved on TEN-T roads, in combination 
with  defining  additional  minimum  performance  requirements  for  road  furniture  (motorcycle-friendly 
guardrails). 
Policy Options on the non-TEN-T network 
- PO A makes any road project on the national road network that is financed fully or partly with EU funds 
subject to the procedures prescribed in the RISM Directive. 
- PO B makes the procedures of the current RISM Directive mandatory for national/main roads outside the 
TEN-T. 

1 

 
 
 
-  PO  C  builds  on  Policy  Option  B  and  extends  the  measures  of  Policy  Option  2  to  national/main  roads 
outside the TEN-T. 
The preferred options are respectively PO 2 and PO C. These 2 options can be combined. 
What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  
Measures aimed to improve transparency and follow-up as well as to better address the needs of vulnerable 
road  users  receive  broad  support.  There  is  also  openness  towards  the  idea  of  network-wide  inspections, 
with  however  some  Member  States  raising  concerns  about  mandating  a  minimum  safety  level  for  TEN-T, 
especially  in  terms  of  costs  and  the  methodology  to  be  used.  The  extension  of  the  scope  beyond  TEN-T 
proved the most controversial proposition, with NGOs and businesses preferring an extension and Member 
State authorities preferring to keep the application limited to TEN-T. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
The combination of Policy Options 2 and C is expected to have the following impacts: 

- Positive impact in terms of reducing road fatalities by an estimated 3,200 lives and an estimated reduction 
by 20,700 of serious injuries in 2020-2030 compared to the baseline (14,650 lives saved and 97,502 serious 
injuries avoided in 2020-250). 

-  Proper  follow-up  of  RISM  procedures  in  general  and  network-wide  inspections  in  particular  will  result  in 
many  small  scale  interventions  on  the  road  network  covered.  Such  activities  are  typically  carried  out  by 
SMEs, who are therefore likely to benefit from the initiative.  

- The measures might also have small positive environmental impacts. Fewer road crashes could marginally 
improve  the  overall  flow  of  traffic.  This  might  reduce  congestion  and  thus  energy  consumption  and  air 
emissions. However these impacts are expected to be very limited and are thus not quantified.  
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  
An  estimated  9,444  million  euros  as  a  result  of  implementing  the  relevant  procedures  and  making  the 
necessary upgrades to the road network. 
What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  
SMEs  are  likely  to  benefit  from  this  initiative  (see  above).  Due  to  the  relatively  localised  nature  of  the 
activities, no impacts are expected on the competitiveness of EU companies. 
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
Yes, the costs of the initiative will be borne by national budgets and administrations. However, the costs will 
be more than compensated by the social benefits of the initiative. 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No. 
Proportionality?  
The  preferred  option  does  not  exceed  what  is  necessary  to  solve  the  original  problem  and  meet  the 
objectives of the initiative. The extension in scope beyond TEN-T is proportionate as it targets 15% of the 
road network by length which is responsible for approximately 39% of road fatalities in the EU. To further 
ensure  proportionality,  Member  States  will  be  involved  in  the  exact  definition  of  the  road  network 
concerned. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Once the new legislative framework has become applicable in its entirety, the Commission services will carry 
out an evaluation to verify whether the objectives have been reached. This evaluation, based on the safety 
rating of the roads covered by the procedures, the key progress indicator defined in the impact assessment, 
is intended to determine whether the new measures have resulted in an improvement of the situation. 

2