Estimation of the impact of LHVs on
future European transport demand
and modal shift
K. Verweij, I.Davydenko & G. Zomer
TNO Mobility and Logistics
Content
•
Background –  What’s at stake –  Contras3ng opinions •
Analy3cal approach –  Road transport demand genera3on –  Impact on rail freight •
Modelling approach (TRANS-­‐TOOLS) –  Assump3ons –  Scenarios –  Scenario results •
•
•
Impact on road transport demand genera3on Impact on modal split Conclusions Background
•
Direc3ve 96/53/EC –
–
–
–
Length: 16.50m / 18.75m Width: 2.55m Height: 4,00m Weight: 40t / 44t •
Excep3ons: at na3onal level only! •
Combina3ons of exis3ng modules •
Hot-­‐temperate debate in Europe –  Max 25.25m, 60t –  Applied in Sweden (> 50% of TKM), Finland –  Trials in Germany, Netherlands (400 exemp3ons), Denmark What about LHVs?
•
50% more capacity •
Higher opera3ng costs per vehicle-­‐km •
Lower transport costs per tonne-­‐km •
Lower energy consump3on and emissions per tonne-­‐km •
Modular concept is the dominant one: LHVs can be converted into HGV •
Only highways are generally LHV-­‐
compa3ble, no regional roads Contrasting opinions
Nature of the controversy –
rail’s argument
Impact study
•  Impact study commissioned by EC in 2008 •  Consor3um led by TML •  Role TNO –  impact on transport demand genera3on –  Impact on modal shib •  Two methodologies applied: –  Analy3cal approach (conceptualise on aggregate level) –  TRANS-­‐TOOLS Modelling approach (detailed level – regional impacts) Analytical approach: elasticities
The aggregate transport system in this study is influenced by 1.  The share of goods carried out by LHVs (in tonne-­‐km) 2.  The transport cost discount of LHVs 3.  Extra capacity through LHV 4.  Transport demand price elas3city (concept) 5.  Impact on other modes: cross-­‐
elas3city (concept) Impact on road
Impact on rail
TRANS-TOOLS modelling
approach
TRANS-­‐TOOLS: •  Forecast macro freight transport flows in Europe based on global economic trends •  Widely used by EC to assess impact of future transport policies •  Maintained and further co-­‐developed by EC-­‐JRC (IPR free) Classical transport model approach •  Genera3on •  Distribu3on •  Modal choice •  Assignment Innova3ve elements •  Logis3cs module: from trade to transport •  Impact modules •  Feedback mechanism of infrastructure impact on economy •
Specific model assump3ons 4 scenarios for 2020
1.  Scenario 1 “Business as usual”. The direc3ve is not changed. –  Current limit of 40 ton 18,75 meters –  No changes in na3onal policies: some countries allow 44t, some 60 ton / 25,25 meter 2.  Scenario 2 “LHV full op3on”. Europe-­‐wide permission of 25,25 meter 60 ton LHV. –  Road restric3ons: LHVs only on cer3fied roads –  50 ton extrapola3on at Commission’s request 3.  Scenario 3 “Corridor” or “Coali3on of willing” or “Axis of evil” –  LHVs (60 / 25,25) are only allowed in NL, BE, DE, SE, FI, DK –  Everywhere else according to 2000 situa3on 4.  Scenario 4 “Compromise” –  Current limit is adjusted to 44 ton / 20,75 meters EU-­‐wide –  Addresses fears of rail –  Takes into account chemical and automo3ve industries (clients of rail) Impact on road
Impact on rail and IWW
Summary of other impacts
•
Less road conges3on •
Less energy consump3on and emissions •
Careful considera3on of impact on infrastructure (e.g. bridges) •
Roads must be cer3fied for usage of LHVs •
Road safety can be improved but requires the right countermeasures (e.g. extra safety measures and precau3on) Conclusions
•
European stakeholders are strongly divided over possible impacts of harmonising weights and dimensions HGVs •
Impacts of LHVs quan3fied by two methods: analy3cal approach and modelling approach •
Both methods show rather limited impacts on road demand genera3on and modal split … •
… but show considerable reduc3on in road traffic performance •
External impacts are also generally posi3ve (except for infra costs) •
TNO proposes harmonisa3on of European policies allowing LHVs to operate borderless in Europe