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 Council Directive 92/106/EEC as regards a support framework for intermodal transport of goods and Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards calculation of external costs savings and generation of aggregated data
Date: 2023-11-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, combined transport, common transport policy, data processing, freight rate, inland waterway transport, maritime transport, rail transport, road transport, savings

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.11.2023  SWD(2023) 352 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 Council Directive 92/106/EEC as regards a support framework for intermodal transport of goods and Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards calculation of external costs savings and generation of aggregated data               {COM(2023) 702 final} - {SEC(2023) 373 final} - {SWD(2023) 351 final}  
 
 
A. Need for action 

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

Transport  has  significant  external  costs  for  society.  The  large  majority  of  these  external  costs  is 
caused by the road sector, which dominates the inland freight transport market. EU transport, energy, 
and environmental legislation has and will continue to target the negative externalities, with a focus on 
cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 55%  (compared to 1990 levels) by 2030, as established in the 
European Climate Law.  

One  of  the  measures  in  this  regard,  put  forward  in  the  Commission’s  2020  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility  Strategy,  is  revamping  the  existing  framework  for  intermodal  transport,  to  achieve  the 
greening  of  cargo  operations  in  Europe.  Intermodal  transport  means  using  less-polluting  rail  and 
waterborne transport for main stretch of the transport operation and road haulage to bring transported 
containers and other closed loading units to and from the transhipment terminal. 

Users  –  that  is  companies  who  need  their  goods  transported  –  make  their  decisions  in  a  highly 
competitive market. However, in the current market conditions, intermodal transport is often not cost-
competitive  with  road-only  transport,  even  if  it  combines  the  better  environmental  performance  and 
energy efficiency of non-road transport with the accessibility and flexibility of road transport.  

This is partly because of performance gaps in the operation of non-road modes that need to be addressed 
by  respective  sectoral  legislation and  industry  efforts.  However,  it  is  also  because  the  external  costs  of 
road transport are not fully internalised, that is to say the negative impacts of road transport to society 
at  large  are  not  reflected  in  the  price  of  road  transport,  and  because  intermodal  transport  involves 
additional  costs  and  disadvantages  (transhipment  time  and  costs  and  fewer  connection  options  with 
respect to both timing and destination).  

Therefore,  in  medium-long  distances,  where  intermodal  could  be  a  viable  alternative,  road-only 
transport still dominates. In addition, some inefficiencies of intermodal transport, related to information 
exchange and transhipment terminals, hinder the smooth functioning of the whole intermodal transport 
chain. Thus, to accelerate and frontload the uptake of intermodal transport, intervention is needed to 
promote its use.  

The Combined Transport Directive (CTD) was adopted in 1975. It was last revised in 1992, to target 
increasing  problems  of  road  congestion,  environmental  concerns  and  road  safety.  It  provides  a 
beneficial regime for eligible intermodal operations called ‘combined transport’. However, the existing 
Directive is not fully effective and some of its provisions are outdated. A revision is required to achieve 
the policy goal of reducing negative impacts through optimised use of different transport modes.  

Since two attempts to amend the CTD, in 1998  and 2017, were not successful,  the approach in this 
proposal  has  been  substantially  reworked,  in  particular  introducing  a  completely  new  approach  to 
eligibility criteria.  

Its  preparation  has  been  coordinated  with  other  initiatives  relevant  to  intermodal  transport,  including 
the  initiative  to  better  manage  international  rail  capacity,  the  amendment  of  the  Weights  and 
Dimensions  Directive  on  road  transport,  the  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  the  new  common  EU 
framework  for  greenhouse  gas  emissions  accounting  in  transport  and  logistics  (CEEU)  and  the 
implementation of the Electronic Freight Transport Information Regulation (eFTI). 

What should be achieved?  

The  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to  facilitate  an  increase  in  the  share  of  rail,  short  sea  shipping  and 
inland waterways in total freight transport, in order to help reduce both the negative externalities and 
levels of energy consumption in transport.  

The  revision  aims  to  improve  the  existing  support  by  extending  it  to  a  wider  set  of  operations,  by 
revising the eligibility conditions to link them better to the policy goals and by increasing the choice and 
level of support measures.  

This  should  incentivise  transport  organisers  in  the  EU  to  increasingly  use  intermodal  transport, 
promoting  a  more  sustainable  modal  composition  in  the  transport  system  and  consequently  helping 
reduce  its  negative  impacts.  It  also  aims  to  improve  access  to  information  about  services  and 
conditions offered by transhipment terminals.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

1 

 
The CTD promotes the uptake of intermodal transport across the EU through support measures based 
on  common  eligibility  criteria.  From the policy and the internal market perspective,  these  are  needed  to 
ensure  that the  benefits provided for in  the CTD are  applicable in  a comparable way throughout  the 
EU, since 81% of intermodal transport operations in the EU are cross-border operations.  

While  Member  States  are  free  to  support  intermodal  operations  directly  under  the  State  aid  rules, 
those  support  measures  may  not  be  equally  accessible  to  all  operators,  given  the  different  eligibility 
criteria used. Therefore, some operators may gain a competitive advantage with impacts beyond their 
national border. Harmonised rules on eligibility and types of support,  which are  in line with  State aid 
rules,  will  help  create  comparable  treatment  for  operators  across  the  EU  and  simplify  administrative 
procedures  for  industry,  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  This  cannot  be  achieved  with 
regulation at Member State level only.  

B. Solutions 

What are the various options to achieve objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, 
why?  

Three policy options have been assessed in the context of this impact assessment, with one off them 
having three sub-options. All options propose solutions to the identified problems but vary in terms of 
the extent of EU intervention.  

•  Option A establishes eligibility through  ability to save at least 40% of a set of external costs 
(greenhouse  gases,  air  pollution,  noise,  congestion  and  accidents)  compared  to  road-only 
operations,  and  encourages  Member  States  to  have  more  economic  support  measures  but 
does not introduce an obligation to that effect. It does not include any obligations on industry.  

•  Option B establishes an obligation on Member States to take support measures, while leaving 
the  choice  and  design  of  such  measures  up  to  Member  States.  It  also  encourages  Member 
States  to  provide  start-up  support  and  proposes  a  new  regulatory  measure  –  an  exemption 
from the driving ban for heavy good vehicles performing the road legs of eligible operations.  

•  Sub-option B1 proposes eligibility through greenhouse gas savings (25%) 

•  Sub-options , while B2a and B2b propose eligibility through saving 40% of a set of external 

costs. 

The only difference between B2a and B2b is that B2a (like also options A, B1 and C) covers 
all intermodal operations, while B2b includes only international intermodal operations.  

•  Option C envisages eligibility through saving the wider set of external costs (40%), mandatory 
harmonised operational support by Member States and the driving ban exemption. All options 
involve  revising  the  data  requirements  for  proof  of  eligibility  and  mandatory  use  of  eFTI 
platforms  for  operators  who  choose  to  benefit  from  the  support  measures  and  transparency 
operators.  
obligations 

terminal 

on 

Option  C  also  includes  common  dataset  and  data  exchange  protocols  for  intermodal 
operations.  

All options envisage an increase in the uptake of intermodal transport relative to the baseline, though 
the increase for option A is minimal. The uptake, and resulting saving of external impacts is highest in 
the B sub-options, while the costs of support are highest in option C.  

The preferred policy option identified is B2a. 

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option?  

In  the  stakeholder  consultation,  stakeholders  agreed  in  general  with  the  relevance  of  the  problems 
identified, as they agreed to a large extent with the objectives. They further provided useful input for 
determining policy measures and options.  

Most stakeholders supported the change of scope to include domestic operations and it was pointed 
out that it is important to ensure that all modal combinations are treated equally. As regards eligibility, 
a  large  majority  of  the  stakeholders  agreed  that  more  effective  measures  are  needed,  and  they 
supported eligibility based on a wider set of externalities as opposed to greenhouse gas savings. For 
the  amount  to  be  saved,  there  was  no  consensus  on  the  level,  but  the  average  proposed  by 

2 

 
 
 
stakeholders was around 33%.  

Concerning economic support measures, stakeholders’ positions diverged between fully harmonised, 
flexible  or  ‘should  depend  on  the  measure’,  while  the  majority  agreed  that  providing  some  support 
should be mandatory for Member States. As regards regulatory support, most stakeholders supported 
keeping current regulatory measures, in particular as regards  the ban on quotas and the use of non-
resident  road  hauliers  for  road  legs  in  international  operations,  the  same  way  as  allowed  for 
international road-only transport.  

Finally,  stakeholders  thought  that  better  interoperability  between  the  modes  and  in  transhipment 
terminals  could  improve  the  organisation  of  operations  and  there  was  strong  support  for  better 
information availability on terminals.  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?   

Direct  benefits,  all  expressed  as  present  value  over  the  period  2025-2050,  relative  to  the  baseline, 
include: 

- 

- 

- 

a reduction in total external costs of EUR 15.3 billion, driven by higher use of more sustainable 
transport modes as part of intermodal transport;  

administrative  cost  savings  for  businesses  of  EUR  4.3  billion,  driven  by  the  revision  of  data 
requirements  for  proof  of  eligibility  combined  with  mandatory  use  of  eFTI  platforms  for 
enforcement purposes; 

a reduction in administrative costs of EUR 2.3 million for public authorities, also driven by the 
use of eFTI platforms.  

The total benefits of the preferred policy option were estimated at EUR 19.6 billion. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?  

The  costs  of  the  preferred  policy  option  are  estimated  at  EUR 7.5 billion  in  addition  to  the  baseline, 
expressed as present value over the period 2025 to 2050. 

The additional costs of the preferred policy option would fall on three groups: 

• 

the  vast  majority  of  the  costs  would  be  on  the  Member  State  governments  who  choose  to 
provide additional support to operations, estimated at EUR 7.5 billion.  

•  Some lower costs are also expected  for  businesses  – on terminal  operators for compliance 
with the transparency requirements, on eFTI platform providers for updating the platforms and 
on  organisers  of  operations  for  using  the  eFTI  platforms.  These  costs  to  are  estimated  to 
account for EUR 6.9 million. 

•  The  European  Commission  will  incur  costs  for  an  additional  study  to  assess  whether  an 
establishment of a terminal categories’ framework is needed and for regular studies (every 5 
years) of the EU intermodal market, amounting to EUR 2 million over the period 2025 to 2050. 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

The preferred policy option is expected to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized businesses to 
take up intermodal transport by making it more affordable as well as simplifying the proof of eligibility 
and improving available information on terminal choices. All operators engaged in intermodal transport 
as well as shippers of goods will benefit.  

Thus, the initiative is expected to have a positive impact on SMEs. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

The  preferred  option  can  involve  significant  impacts  on  national  budgets  depending  on  the  support 
measures chosen by Member States. The budgetary impact is in direct correlation with the volume of 
supported intermodal operations.  

The impact on national budgets is estimated at EUR 7.5 billion relative to the baseline, expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050. 

3 

 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No  

Proportionality 

The preferred option includes obligation to Member States to ensure support, which can take the form 
of State aid in compliance with State aid rules, to certain types of transport operations. It is assessed 
that this does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective.  

While  the  preferred  option  does  not  entirely  eliminate  the  competitiveness  gap  between  intermodal 
transport and road-only transport, as many operational issues derive from sectoral legislation and will 
be addressed by respective modal initiatives, this intervention is estimated to achieve a 5.3% increase 
in  the  uptake  of  intermodal  transport  compared  to  the  baseline  by  2030  and  6.6%  by  2050.  The 
resulting savings in external costs are EUR 15.3 billion relative to the baseline, expressed as present 
value  over  2025-2050,  which  means  that  every  49  cents  of  support  would  generate  EUR  1  worth  of 
savings in external costs.  

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

The policy will be reviewed after 10 years, following the Directive’s full application in national laws.  

This  timeline  is  proposed  to  consider  that  the  support  measures  will  require  time  to  take  effect  and 
generate impacts. An evaluation of the market developments is carried out every 5 years following the 
adoption of the proposal.  

4