News
BackPrompted by the newly reignited discussion about the cross-border admission of so-called mega trucks, HGVs with a weight of up to 60 tonnes and a length of up to 25.25 metres, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour and the European Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation organised a short-term discussion event. MEP Jörg Leichtfried, Kristian Hedberg of the European Commission, William Todts of Transport & Environment, Joost van Doesburg of the European Shippers Council and Heinz Högelsberger of the Austrian Trade Union for Transport, Commerce and Service Workers vida were invited to the discussion as speakers.
The background was the surprising announcement of EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas, to permit mega trucks across borders; a new interpretation of the existing Directive would be adequate, however, a revision of the Legislative Act would not be necessary.
The EU Commission official Kristian Hedberg played down the inacceptable attempt of his EU Commissioner to permit cross-border mega trucks. Subsidiarity would apply; that means Member States could choose whether they permitted Gigaliners or not. Emotions should be saved for other issues, said Hedberg. Transport was a matter of general interest. The efficiency of all modes of transport had to be increased - this would also apply to heavy goods vehicles. These vehicles would also play an important role in the battle for attractive locations, commented the Commission official.
MEP Jörg Leichtfried did not mince his words when commenting on Kallas’ attitude: the EU Transport Commissioner had pointed out several times in the past that the cross-border use of mega trucks would contradict current law; the last time had been in 2011. But now he had spoken with the freight lobby organisation International Road Union and suddenly everything had changed. Whilst Kallas had been strongly criticised for this approach by all groups in the Transport Committee, his staff had twittered at the same time, that the cross-border admission of these vehicles was now “in the bag”. That was outrageous. Kallas should present a new Directive proposal. Kallas’ statement, he wanted to avoid a new legislative procedure because the issue was so difficult (sensible and emotional), was condemned by Leichtfried. Yes, democracy was difficult, but it would be the only way forward, said Leichtfried. The MEP also criticised that the focus was obviously only on the price, and not on working conditions, environment and sustainability.
Even though the use of mega trucks would make freight transport cheaper, commented the representative of Transport & Environment William Todts, he was nevertheless very concerned from an ecological point of view and in respect of road safety. Apart from that, transport would shift from the environmentally friendly rail and water to road, said Todts. If individual Member States would permit the cross-border use of mega trucks, other Member States would soon be under pressure for reasons of competition to also permit the use of these vehicles. Todts was disconcerted by the attempt of the Commission to exclude European Parliament and the Council from the decision-making process.
Joost van Doesburg of the European Shippers Council was clearly in favour of permitting mega trucks, or as he called them “Eco-Combis”. Firstly, they would only be slightly longer, but secondly they would be 12 % more energy efficient than normal HGVs. Another positive effect was that fewer HGVs would be on the roads. 700 mega trucks would already drive on Dutch roads, said van Doesburg. Driving a mega truck would also be a step on the career ladder for HGV drivers, who by the way would also get better training, claimed the freight representative. He sees no danger of a shift from rail to road, as all modes of transport would be necessary for logistics to work.
Franz Högelsberger of the trade union vida criticised that Kallas would be at the back and call of the freight lobby. Obviously Kallas only needed to receive a letter from a lobbyist and he would get into action. Let’s all write him a letter of our wishes, suggested Högelsberger with a pinch of sarcasm. According to the employee representative, all studies show that as a result of permitting cross-border Gigaliners, the rail would be caught in a negative spiral, which could signal the end for rail transport. This would also result in a shift of well organised and qualified personnel towards poorly trained staff on low wages. This approach would set the course towards social and environmental dumping, which would produce many losers and few winners.
The subsequent audience discussion gave both supporters and opponents of mega trucks the opportunity to have their say. A representative of the European Automotive Association remarked the environment would play an important role for Sweden, Finland and Denmark; that was why these countries would use the mega trucks. In addition, the share of rail transport in Sweden was still very high, even though mega trucks had been used for a long time. A Spanish trade unionist pointed out that one had to talk more about the unacceptable working conditions of HGV drivers. A representative of the French national railway operator SNCF criticised the unequal conditions between rail and road transport. Even though the White Paper Transport would contain the buzzword ‘interoperability’, it was not pursued seriously. A representative of ASFINAG pointed out that the infrastructure in Austria was not suitable for mega trucks; hence, it would represent a risk both for the infrastructure and for road safety.
Following the discussions in the European Parliament and at the AK/ÖGB event, one can only wait with bated breath how EU Transport Commissioner Kallas will react to the harsh criticism heaped on him from all sides. Whether the cross-border use of Gigaliners will continue to be forbidden remains to be seen.
The EU Commission official Kristian Hedberg played down the inacceptable attempt of his EU Commissioner to permit cross-border mega trucks. Subsidiarity would apply; that means Member States could choose whether they permitted Gigaliners or not. Emotions should be saved for other issues, said Hedberg. Transport was a matter of general interest. The efficiency of all modes of transport had to be increased - this would also apply to heavy goods vehicles. These vehicles would also play an important role in the battle for attractive locations, commented the Commission official.
MEP Jörg Leichtfried did not mince his words when commenting on Kallas’ attitude: the EU Transport Commissioner had pointed out several times in the past that the cross-border use of mega trucks would contradict current law; the last time had been in 2011. But now he had spoken with the freight lobby organisation International Road Union and suddenly everything had changed. Whilst Kallas had been strongly criticised for this approach by all groups in the Transport Committee, his staff had twittered at the same time, that the cross-border admission of these vehicles was now “in the bag”. That was outrageous. Kallas should present a new Directive proposal. Kallas’ statement, he wanted to avoid a new legislative procedure because the issue was so difficult (sensible and emotional), was condemned by Leichtfried. Yes, democracy was difficult, but it would be the only way forward, said Leichtfried. The MEP also criticised that the focus was obviously only on the price, and not on working conditions, environment and sustainability.
Even though the use of mega trucks would make freight transport cheaper, commented the representative of Transport & Environment William Todts, he was nevertheless very concerned from an ecological point of view and in respect of road safety. Apart from that, transport would shift from the environmentally friendly rail and water to road, said Todts. If individual Member States would permit the cross-border use of mega trucks, other Member States would soon be under pressure for reasons of competition to also permit the use of these vehicles. Todts was disconcerted by the attempt of the Commission to exclude European Parliament and the Council from the decision-making process.
Joost van Doesburg of the European Shippers Council was clearly in favour of permitting mega trucks, or as he called them “Eco-Combis”. Firstly, they would only be slightly longer, but secondly they would be 12 % more energy efficient than normal HGVs. Another positive effect was that fewer HGVs would be on the roads. 700 mega trucks would already drive on Dutch roads, said van Doesburg. Driving a mega truck would also be a step on the career ladder for HGV drivers, who by the way would also get better training, claimed the freight representative. He sees no danger of a shift from rail to road, as all modes of transport would be necessary for logistics to work.
Franz Högelsberger of the trade union vida criticised that Kallas would be at the back and call of the freight lobby. Obviously Kallas only needed to receive a letter from a lobbyist and he would get into action. Let’s all write him a letter of our wishes, suggested Högelsberger with a pinch of sarcasm. According to the employee representative, all studies show that as a result of permitting cross-border Gigaliners, the rail would be caught in a negative spiral, which could signal the end for rail transport. This would also result in a shift of well organised and qualified personnel towards poorly trained staff on low wages. This approach would set the course towards social and environmental dumping, which would produce many losers and few winners.
The subsequent audience discussion gave both supporters and opponents of mega trucks the opportunity to have their say. A representative of the European Automotive Association remarked the environment would play an important role for Sweden, Finland and Denmark; that was why these countries would use the mega trucks. In addition, the share of rail transport in Sweden was still very high, even though mega trucks had been used for a long time. A Spanish trade unionist pointed out that one had to talk more about the unacceptable working conditions of HGV drivers. A representative of the French national railway operator SNCF criticised the unequal conditions between rail and road transport. Even though the White Paper Transport would contain the buzzword ‘interoperability’, it was not pursued seriously. A representative of ASFINAG pointed out that the infrastructure in Austria was not suitable for mega trucks; hence, it would represent a risk both for the infrastructure and for road safety.
Following the discussions in the European Parliament and at the AK/ÖGB event, one can only wait with bated breath how EU Transport Commissioner Kallas will react to the harsh criticism heaped on him from all sides. Whether the cross-border use of Gigaliners will continue to be forbidden remains to be seen.