Page 1

IRU EP lobby campaign for Members on Weights and Dimensions Strasburg, 14-16 January 2014

Marc Billiet, Head EU Goods Transport


The European Parliament in Strasburg

2


Programme – 15 January 2014 •

12:00

Lunch at the hotel

13:00

Departure to EP in Strasburg

13:30

Accreditation

14:00-18:20

LOBBY TIME

18:20

Meeting at the Louise Weiss exit. Departure by coach to the Hilton.

18:30-19:30

IRU Cocktail at the Hilton

19:30

IRU Dinner at the Hilton

23:00

Return to the hotel 3


Hilton address

• • •

Hilton Strasbourg

Avenue Herrenschmidt

67000 Strasbourg, FRANCE •

Tel: +33388371010

4


Programme – 16 January 2014 •

09:00

Departure from hotel to EP Strasburg

09:30-14:00

LOBBY TIME

14:00

Coach departure to Brussels

19:00

Estimated arrival time in Brussels

5


Background 

A total of 365 amendments in TRAN.

No willingness to act in ENVI, IMCO and ITRE.

Amendments relating to a wide variety of topics. Many similarities. The IRU prepared observations on the amendments. CALENDAR

Consideration of amendments in TRAN: 21/01/2014

Vote in TRAN: 11/02/2014

Vote in Plenary: 14-17/04/2014 6


Amendments on Objectives YES!

NO!

• Improving efficiency

• Rejection of the EC proposal

• Improving intermodality

• Forcing modal shift

• Increasing road safety

• Blocking development of EMS

• Reducing environmental footprint

• 19 tonnes for 2-axle coaches

• Use of EMS • 19.5 tonnes for 2-axles coaches

Why? • Encourage greening at source in road transport, innovation and efficiency increases, while providing flexibility to avoid reductions in capacity. • Encourage capacity increases to optimise greening at source. 7


Amendments on rear aerodynamic devices YES!

NO!

• Additional length up to 200 cm • Flexibility to innovate

• No additional length for aerodynamic devices

• Road Safety (e.g. Visibility)

• Additional length up to 50 cm

• Easy to handle

• Obligatory compatibility with intermodal transport

• Voluntary installation

• Mandatory installation

• Use of extra length for additional capacity • Expert Group on aerodynamics

Why?

• Aerodynamic devices contribute to fuel savings, but this should not come at the expense of capacity. • Legal flexibility to innovate without having to change the rules. • Road safety should not be impeded. 8


Amendments on the vehicle cabin YES!

NO!

• Additional length

• No additional length for the redesigned

• Flexibility to innovate

• Design restrictions

• Compatibility with UNECE rules

• Obligatory compatibility with intermodal transport

• Road Safety (e.g. Visibility, side and front) • Driver environment

• Market to guide uptake

• Mandatory installation without efficiency guarantees

• Use of extra length for additional capacity

• Extra weight and potential loss of capacity

• Flexible EU type approval rules • Expert Group on aerodynamics

Why?

• Redesigned cab contributes to fuel savings, more road safety and a better driver environment, but this should not come at the expense of capacity. • Type approval should be revised after the Directive 96/53 revision, but should not hamper the revision. 9


Amendments on alternative fuel vehicles YES!

NO!

• Definition for alternative fuel vehicles

• Restrictive definitions for alternative fuel vehicles (e.g. Nonfossil fuel only)

• Additional weight of 1 tonne

• Restrictions to the additional weight

• Additional weight for rigid vehicles and vehicle combinations

• Additional weight for rigid vehicles only

• Use of extra weight for additional capacity

Why?

• Technological neutrality is essential. Compatibility with EC alternative fuels package. • No loss of capacity. • Flexibility to innovate. (e.g. Alternative propulsion systems in trailers) 10


Amendments on extra W&D: freight YES!

NO!

• Member States deciding on more W&D cross-border and laying down requirements

• Member States deciding on more W&D for domestic transport only • Additional per-axle weight for cross-border

• No impact on the per-axle weight • Additional length & weight for aerodynamics and alternative fuel vehicles to be used for capacity

• Special treatment of certain vehicle types • Trials limited in time and scope

• Trials unlimited in time and scope

Why?

• Member States should be able to agree to allow more W&D cross-border, as it could encourage the use of innovative concepts, increase efficiency, reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. • Conditions should be determined. 11


Amendments on 19.5 tonnes: passenger YES!

NO!

• 19.5 tonnes for 2-axle touring coaches

• 19 tonnes for 2-axle touring coaches

• No impact on the per-axle weight

• 18 tonnes for 2-axle touring coaches • Higher per axle weights

Why? • Additional safety and environmental equipment have lead to an increased empty weight of about 1.5 tonnes. • Consensus in the EC impact assessment for 19.5 instead of 19 tonnes. 12


Amendments on EMS YES!

NO!

• Support for EC interpretation of Article 4 dating back to June 2012

• EMS in domestic transport only • Trials and use limited in time

• Support for cross-border trials and use

• Restrictions to the European Modular Concept (e.g. Setting of a maximum weight or length)

• Support for more than two Member States • Aligned requirements for crossborder • Trials and use unlimited in time

Why?

• Road transport should be allowed to innovate, increase its efficiency and green-atsource just like any other mode. • Reduced fuel consumption & CO2 emissions, more efficient intermodal. • No negative safety impact. • No negative impact on employment opportunities. 13


Amendments on the intermodal definition YES!

NO!

• EU definition.

• Replacing “intermodal” with “combined” transport.

• The definition of the EC proposal

• Decisions left to the Member States.

• Larger scope than the EC proposal (nr of km of the first and last leg and on type of freight to be carried) • Encouragement of short-seashipping

• • • •

Why? Encourage different forms of intermodal transport, including newly developing forms. Transparency needed at EU level. More flexibility to choose the most appropriate terminal. BUT: no operating framework. Need the same incentives as those laid down by Directive 92/106. 14


Amendments on the carriage of 45ft containers YES!

NO!

• Rules at EU level

• National rules

• EC proposal to increase semi-trailer length by 15 cm

• 40 tonnes maximum authorised weight

• Modifications relating to the kingpin • Yes to transition for existing national rules • Extension of the scope to pure road transport • 44 tonnes maximum authorised weight

Why? • Transparency at EU level. • Avoid accelerated depreciation of the existing vehicle park.

15


Amendments on liability YES!

NO!

• Rules at EU level

• National rules

• Clear rules for the advance notification of information relating to the weight of the load

• Shared liability restricted to the transport of containers

• Shared liability rules applicable to all loads

Why? • Liability should remain with the transport operator but if he can prove that the vehicle is overweight due to a decision of the shipper, the shipper should be held liable as well. 16


Amendments on enforcement YES!

NO!

• Alignment at EU level

• National approach to enforcement

• WIM followed by a physical check

• WIM and/or weight sensors without further research on accuracy

• Number of checks proportional to vehicles registered/ vehicles circulating in a country

• Obligatory weight sensors

• Further research into the use of onboard weighing sensors

• Automated sanctioning with WIM or weight sensors

• Shared liability rules applicable to all loads

• Delegated acts on enforcement

• Alignment of risk rating

Why?

• Insufficient accuracy of WIM or weight sensors. WIM must be followed by a physical check. • No risk rating without alignment of enforcement procedures, must avoid distortion of competition. • Further research on weight sensor needed. To be undertaken by the EC 17


Amendments on delegated acts YES!

NO! • Calls for no delegated acts

• Delegated acts relating to the definition of the requirements for aerodynamic devices and new truck cabin

• On the weight sensors • Not limited in time

• Limited in time • Fast adoption and entry into force

Why?

• More aerodynamic vehicles should be usable as quickly as possible without capacity loss. • No delegated acts on weight sensors as the EC should only propose basic rules after additional research. 18


Compromises? • Balance between pro and contra amendments. • Obligation to compromise??? • Weight of pro amendments versus number of votes in favour of contras. • Many events and actions by pro and contra camp to persuade MEPs. • Vote in TRAN • Vote in Plenary • Voting not expected on Group line nor on nationality. • Much will depend on topic. • More discipline expected in S&D and Green Groups as compared to ALDE and EPP. 19


GOOD WORK DONE! MORE EFFORTS ARE NEEDED WEIGHT OF PRO VOTES NOT SURE AS MANY PRO VOTES NEEDED AS POSSIBLE

TRAN AND PLENARY GOOD LUCK! 20


Mbi epw&d15012014  
Advertisement