It is no secret that rail stakeholders like to bring up road transport policies. They point to seemingly preferential treatment for trucks, which makes the road sector look like rail’s arch nemesis. Whether or not that is true is up for debate. Philippe Degraef, representing Belgian road association Febetra, and Hans-Willem Vroon, the head of Dutch rail freight association RailGood, share their views on the matter.
Philippe Degraef earlier took to LinkedIn to protest the rail sector’s views on road transportation. “What has possessed rail operators to rage so vehemently against road transport?”, he asked. On RailFreight.com request, Degraef agreed to elaborate on his views. The text below are his words, and they are followed by the contribution of Vroon, who also agreed to share his opinion on the matter.
The Febetra view, in defense of “Weights and Dimensions”
“These days, rail operators are seizing on the revision of the European Weights and Dimensions directive to seek confrontation and demonise road transport. They are fiercely opposed to proposals that would make road transport more efficient and environmentally friendly, such as allowing 44-tonne lorries to cross the border between two neighbouring Member States, such as Belgium and France, for example, which each allow 44-tonne lorries for national transport on their territory.
The current ban on crossing the border with 44-tonne lorries in such cases is completely absurd. It prevents road hauliers from further reducing their ecological footprint. Cross-border transport with 44 tonnes instead of 40 tonnes would also mean fewer lorries and therefore have a positive impact not only on the environment but also on mobility.
It is absolutely unclear to Febetra why Longer Heavier Vehicles, (LHVs) are portrayed as the devil incarnate in railway circles without any form of process. With a length of 25.25 metres, an LHV remains a dwarf compared to a freight train of 650 or even 740 metres. It is as if an elephant were terrified of being eaten by a tiny mouse.
Let’s be serious. Anyone who sees LHVs as a competitor to rail, which will bring about a reverse modal shift, is either malicious or hallucinating. In road transport circles, the war rhetoric used by the railways is perceived as if the railways cannot stomach the fact that road transport wants to achieve further efficiency gains.”
The road is #1
“Two LHVs transport as much as three conventional combinations. This means that one third fewer vehicles are needed to transport the same amount of goods. Contrary to what is claimed in railway circles, the EMS (European Modular System) does indeed reduce the number of vehicles on the roads and CO2 emissions. With a length of 25.25 metres, they are really no competition for 650-metre freight trains.
Road transport is the absolute number one traditional mode of transport in all European Member States. With a market share of around 75%, road transport leaves other modes, such as rail and inland waterway transport, far behind. Road transport owes its success to intrinsic qualities that other modes have much less of. Just think of its flexibility and the ability of lorries to reach almost any point on the map.
Let us also remain realistic. There are very few supermarkets that can be supplied by any means other than road transport. For parcel services, for example, only delivery vans and cargo bikes are currently suitable. And until further notice, the first and last mile will remain the exclusive domain of lorries, delivery vans and cargo bikes.
The volume of goods to be transported is so large that every mode of transport can more than hold its own. Incidentally, road transport cannot transport everything and does not want to transport everything. Road hauliers are by no means fundamentalists of the road. The days when road hauliers regarded rail and inland waterways as the enemy are long gone.
The more freight the other modes carry, the more space there is on the roads for freight flows that are not suitable for transport by rail or inland waterways. Rail and inland waterways, for example, are ideally suited to transporting bulk goods. That is their core business. It is only natural that they focus on that. Road transport has no problem with that whatsoever.”
The RailGood view, critical of “Weights and Dimensions”
“A new directive for longer and heavier lorries is putting additional pressure on intermodal rail transport”, argues Hans-Willem Vroon of RailGood. “Parts of the LHVs cannot technically be loaded onto existing wagons. Terminals are facing logistical challenges. Road transport with LHVs is also becoming more competitive in Europe. There is a real chance that rail volume will be lost to road transport. If lorries or parts of them can no longer be transported by train, a crucial link in the chain will be lost.
Meanwhile, rail continues to struggle with high costs for using the rail infrastructure, serious infrastructural limitations, high administrative burdens and extremely expensive tech push with insufficient added value. The rail infrastructure is too often unreliable and unavailable, while road transport can count on perfect interoperability. Road transport in Europe is dirt cheap, often with poor working conditions and a significantly lower level of safety.
Competitive rail freight transport is not coming to fruition because it is not being facilitated by the EU Member States, despite the EU’s fine strategic plans. State aid to certain national railway companies distorts competition on the railways and is poison for entrepreneurship. Remnants of the Staatsbahn culture inhibit entrepreneurship.”
‘Make intermodal rail competitive’
“Entrepreneurial organisations representing commercial (intermodal) rail freight operators, such as RailGood, have been calling on the national governments of EU Member States and the EU for years to take swift and decisive action to eliminate structural bottlenecks:
- A lack of interoperable and competitive diversion capacity during track works
- Too often unreliable rail infrastructure
- A dire lack of 740-metre train length routes
- An unfair playing field with infrastructure charges for running trains and shunting
- The expensive and fragmented ERTMS roll-out
- The imposition of other unprofitable tech push (DAC)
- Overregulation
- A severely watered-down compromise on the Railway Capacity Regulation
These issues are being discussed are policy documents are being written for years on end, sometimes even decades. ‘Mañana, mañana’ is too fast.
Frustrating road transport is pointless. What does work is making (intermodal) rail freight transport structurally competitive. Europe urgently needs a reset in its mobility strategy and, not least, in its implementation. What will rail freight transport actually get in return for the new EU Directive on Weights and Dimensions?
All modes of transport are necessary to keep the European economy running efficiently. The European road network is reaching its capacity limits. (Intermodal) rail freight transport is desperately needed to make transport more sustainable, but it must be competitive. Road transport and rail are competitors on the one hand, but at the same time they also need each other very much. It does not help to strengthen the competitive position of road transport without facilitating competitive intermodal rail freight transport. This would destroy something valuable.”