Welcome Cross-border LHV in Europe Author: Lambert van der Meulen Jr. M.Sc. 0031(0) Commissioned by: Gebr. Versteijnen

table of contents History LHV Definition/ configurations Pros and Cons LHV’s Elaboration Pros and Cons Innovation surrounding countries Recommendations from researchers References

History a pilot scheme was introduced in the Netherlands in 2000 and ended in combination participated in this test. ( B. Rakic en J.P. van ’t Hoff, 2002) second test LHV’s 100 combination participated in this test. (ARCADIS, 2006) final testing stage 118 combination and 206 companies participated in this test. (Marieke Honer en Loes Aarts, 2010).

LHV Definition/ configurations LHVs (Longer and Heavier Vehicles) 25,25 meters long Maximum train weight of 60 tonnes

LHV Definition/ configurations

Vehicle configuration TriCS benefits No dolly required Safety, manoeuvrability same as standard trailer PIEK certificate available Less CO2 emission and Fuel consumption Saves time and costs 87 trolleys in one trip

Pros and Cons LHV’s Pros (Aarts, 2015), (ARCADIS, 2006), (Rakic et al 2002), (Honer et al, 2010) and (Monitoring Traffic Safety, 2011) Increase fuel efficiency Decrease of CO2 and Nox Decrease axle load Decrease of driver shortage Decrease of congestion Cons (according the opponents of the LHV) (M. Roggermann et al, 2007) Dangerous Environmentally damaging Absolute CO2 emissions in transport Expensive Modal shift

Elaboration Pros and Cons Pros Increase fuel efficiency up to 33% (2010) Decrease of CO2 and Nox3-6% and 2-4% (2010) – Reduction of 20 million km per year, 16 million kg CO2 per year (2010) Decrease axle load more axles to distribute the weight (2010) Decrease of driver shortageshortage 55,000 (2015) Decrease of congestion 0,7 – 1,4% (2006)

Elaboration Pros and Cons Cons (according the opponents of the LHV) Researchers have proven otherwise! Dangerous 2182 truck accidents in 2013 (including fatal accidents) 19 accidents with LHV’s during NO FATAL, slightly injured only 10 accidents with LHV’s during NO FATAL, slightly injured only From these accidents, no specific problems have emerged that deal with the greater length and behavior of LHVs Environmentally damaging (Modal shift) Absolute CO2 emissions in transport (Modal shift) Increasing the amount of LHV will not effect the transport by rail or ship – Just in time principle – Origin / destination – Short distance / network distribution Expensive (Road damage) LHV have more axles, better weight distribution is less road damage

Innovation surrounding countries Netherlands25.25 m60 tnationwide Sweden25.25 m60 t (from 06/2016: 64 t) nationwide, trials with 32 m and 90 t Finland25.25 m76 tnationwide

Recommendations from researchers continue with the current commitment of the Ministry of Transport to allow cross-border transport with LHVs (NEA, et al (Oktober 2010).

Recommendations

References Monitoring Traffic Safety, Longer and heavier vehicles, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, July gedaald/ NEA, Manfred Kindt, Arnaud Burgess en Rudy Groen.. (Oktober 2010). Langere en Zwaardere Vrachtvoertuigen in de praktijk.Rijkswaterstaat - Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart. 81 (1), 105 Martin Roggermann, Philippa Edmunds,Andreas Geißler. (2007).nomegatrucks. Available: Last accessed Loes Aarts. (januari 2015). LZV-ongevalsanalyse Inclusief overzicht conclusies LZV- ongevallen in de periode ARCADIS Nederland BV, Rijkswaterstaat, Water, Verkeer en Leefomgeving. al (1), 35. ARCADIS. (2006). MONITORINGSONDERZOEK VERVOLGPROEF LZV.MINISTERIE VAN VERKEER & WATERSTAAT, DIRECTORAAT GENERAAL RIJKSWATERSTAAT, ADVIESDIENST VERKEER EN VERVOER. al (1), 116. B. Rakic en J.P. van ’t Hoff. (2002). Praktijkproef LZV Resultaten van een proef met langere en/of zwaardere voertuigcombinaties op Nederlandse wegen. Rijkswaterstaat Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer. 1 (1), 127. Marieke Honer en Loes Aarts. (2010). Langere en Zwaardere Vrachtvoertuigen in de praktijk. Rijkswaterstaat - Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart. al (1), 105.