Peer review: Richard Wallace
Former EU Policy Manager, ATOC
Phillippa Edmunds makes some pertinent and very interesting points that are often not widely aired, possibly due to the strong road lobby throughout Europe.
As she says, the cost of damage to local infrastructure by the use of bigger and heavier lorries is nowhere near recouped through either fuel tax or vehicle excise duty. Yet the charging regime for rail freight in Great Britain takes account of both capacity use and the impact of various traffic and vehicles on the network, which surely argues for a comparative system for HGVs if we are to have a level playing field between the modes for the carriage of freight.
The EU’s work on interoperability and a competitive market on rail also advocates the need to reflect a similar charging structure across the European rail network, in order to better reflect the internalisation of external costs. However, when it comes to road freight, it seems that the EU policy is at odds with that for rail - the ‘Eurovignette’, which could eventually introduce a common charging regime on road, has not progressed far as the EU does not wish to make it mandatory.
What is more serious is the EU’s policy on even larger trucks - the so-called mega-trucks of weights up to 60 tonnes and a length of up to 25.25m (over 82 feet).
In 2012, EU Commissioner for Transport Siim Kallas announced a reinterpretation of EU Directive 96/53. This now permits the use of mega-trucks between two Member States that have approved the use of such trucks within their borders. A number of countries (such as Denmark and Germany) are allowing ‘trials’ of these trucks, while others (such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland) have now accepted their use. Sweden has even carried out further trials of extra-long mega-trucks of 32.5m in length (over 106 feet) and an 80-tonne payload..
This may well be the thin end of the wedge, as the introduction of such mega-trucks will seriously undermine the viability of rail freight in what is already a very competitive market. The EU’s policy also takes no account of the increased pollution, environmental and structural damage that these larger heavy goods vehicles will inflict, as well as their impact on road safety.
Fortunately, the recent HGV road user levy in the UK is a step in the right direction, while the Department for Transport has come out firmly against mega-trucks. But despite this, road charges that reflect congestion and pollution costs which could address some of these issues have been widely resisted in the UK (with the exception of London).
Phillippa’s article should flag up the need for the rail industry, domestically and EU-wide, to lobby much more strongly for a level playing field for rail, especially if the EU’s goal of shifting 30% of road freight over 300km to other modes (such as rail or waterborne transport) by 2030 is to be realised.
- For more information on the arguments regarding the impact of mega-trucks, download the joint paper on this subject produced by UIC, CER and UNIFE earlier this year. It can be accessed at http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/megatrucksbrochure_web.pdf
