Proposition 52K0727

Proposition de résolution relative au lancement de projets pilotes "écocombis".

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Guido De Padt, Willem-Frederik Schiltz, Ine Somers, Ludo Van Campenhout

Submission date

Jan. 25, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

commercial vehicle sustainable mobility carriage of goods environmental protection resolution of parliament reduction of gas emissions road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Maya Detiège (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• David Geerts (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 7, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

We discussed the draft resolution at the meeting of 22 April. Ms Somers explained the draft resolution on behalf of the applicants.

The resolution states that the inclusion of the ecocombi in the co-modal freight transport can provide a significant boost, especially in the field of container traffic. She pointed out a number of advantages, such as transporting more cargo per ride, resulting in a decrease in the number of trucks.

On the other hand, there is also the fuel consumption, which is lower, and the emission of fine dust, which is on average 15% lower in a supertruck than the consumption of two separate small trucks for transporting the same quantity of goods.

She referred to the pilot project taking place in the Netherlands and where the figures and results of that pilot project are promising.

Also in our country, at the level of the West, the problem of long and heavy trucks has already been thoroughly considered. On 10 July 2007, the Flemish Parliament adopted a proposal for a resolution on the launch of a pilot project.

Such a pilot project falls under the shared responsibility of the federal government and the Regions. Therefore, the Infrastructure Committee of the Federal House also discussed this proposal.

It also referred to the European Directive 96/53 which allows Member States to deviate from the standard dimensions and weights of road freight transport.

During the discussion, Mr Lavaux, on behalf of CDH, expressed his support for the proposal and also clarified that the Waals Region has clearly demonstrated its willingness to allow such a pilot project to take place on the Wallonian motorway network.

Mrs Snoy et d’Oppuers was not in favour of the proposal. She pointed out that one supertruck or two small trucks can replace, but that one inland vessel can replace as many as 80 trucks.

She also pointed out that the heavily congestioned road traffic should not be put under further pressure and she pointed out the risks to road safety, among other things because our Belgian roads are not the size of the American highways. She added a number of questions.

Modal shift is a European initiative to which she referred, to move freight transport from road to rail and water transport. She says that the ecocombies do not fit in this.

She also pointed to the fact that there is a risk that the infrastructure may be further damaged and that our Belgian roads are already in a bad condition.

On behalf of the CD&V group, I took the word myself. I also referred to that resolution of the Flemish Parliament of 10 July 2007, where all Flemish majority parties supported that resolution. Curiously, I also concluded that the KB drafted by the federal government now apparently does not receive a positive opinion from the Flemish Region, more specifically from the competent minister.

We have, as in the Flemish Parliament, also in the House consistently expressed our support for this draft resolution to set up a pilot project.

The representative of the State Secretary for Mobility further clarified that a draft KB was prepared and that the Regions were asked for advice, but that the Flemish Region has not yet given advice. The opinion of the State Council was also requested. In that opinion it was stated that a cooperation agreement is needed between the federal government and the various regions, but that this has not yet been possible due to the deficient progress of this dossier, especially on the Flemish side.

The resolution was eventually adopted with 9 votes for and 2 votes against.

Mr Schiltz, who submitted the resolution, has the floor.

I am pleased to present this resolution to you today. Colleague Van den Bergh has already done this very well. I am here today, as the applicant, to once again point out the importance of this pilot project. The obligations of our country under the Kyoto Protocol and the increasing mobility attacks that threaten our economic centers urge us to take action. There is a modal shift, which is now nuanced by the European Commission. The European Commission calls for an emphasis on improving the combinability between different modes of transport.

My colleague Somers will explain to you, as a member of the Infrastructure Committee, in more detail, with numbers and numbers, why this project needs to be firmly and firmly supported. However, I would like to emphasize that, especially for the port of Antwerp, and I can also think of other economic centers here and there in the country, a project like this should not go unnoticed. I think we should be fully committed to this.

The reduction in harmful emissions, fuel efficiency and the reduction in the number of accidents make this project an excellent project. I thank you for your attention and hope to count on your support.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you the opinion of my group that Mr. Van den Bergh has already ⁇ very honestly.

For Ecolo, public transport policies must have two objectives: on the one hand, as regards road safety, to reduce as much as possible the number of road deaths as well as the number of accidents, in particular between vehicles of very different sizes. On the other hand, given our country’s commitment to combating climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector seems to us to be a priority that, unfortunately, is absolutely not met in the resolution we vote today in favor of “ecocombis”. In fact, in order to ⁇ these objectives, the best choice, which has also been cited by Mr. Schiltz, is the “modal shift”, that is, the modal transfer. This is not the modal transfer between small trucks, large trucks or 'monster trucks' but the modal transfer between the road and the other communication routes that are the waterway and the railway.

I have a few figures. A super truck, as I said before in commission, may represent a relative decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. However, one truck has a much greater performance since it is equivalent to 80 trucks. However, if you compare the CO2 emissions between the train and the truck, they are 30g of CO2/T/km for the train and between 210 and 1.430g of CO2/T/km for trucks, respectively. Therefore, I doubt that at this level, somewhat more efficient large trucks are more competitive than trains.

I think this is also a choice. We can develop a policy that improves road traffic performance unless it makes rail transport less competitive and costs in terms of road safety and infrastructure management.

The journal "Via Secura" of the Belgian Institute for Road Safety speaks long about "ecocombis". It recognizes certain advantages in terms of rationality and greenhouse gas emissions. However, it believes that they can only operate if a whole set of conditions are met:

- they can only drive on very wide highways, the exits of which are also;

The turns must be adjusted.

- none of the "ecocombis" can enter our cities - which would be very serious.

It is therefore impossible to have them circulate outside of a highway network with additional bands. This means that new parking spaces and places reserved for transfers between large and small trucks will need to be installed. All of this will inevitably lead to infrastructure costs.

This is a matter of choice in our public investments. In this case, it is not necessary to invest more and more in road traffic.

Then comes the issue of security. Again, "Via Secura" tells us that many conditions will have to be met to prevent these huge vehicles from posing a danger to the smaller vehicles, whether they are bicycles or small cars. This would pose a risk of accidents and additional costs for public budgets. Moreover, this would create an unfortunate competition with rail freight, which we must, on the contrary, support and encourage much more. Finally, the environmental impact would be much less favourable than if the transfer was carried out between road and train.

Mr. Speaker, the Flemish Interest Group will approve this proposal for a resolution to launch pilot projects using ecocombs, also known as the long and heavy truck combination.

It is a shared responsibility of the federal government and the regions and the problem of the ecocombs proves once again that the Belgian political system provides the necessary delay before a decision is made. The Regions are responsible for the delimitation of roads, the federal government is responsible for the regulation concerning the permitted dimensions and weights of vehicles. The shared responsibility makes the launch of a pilot project delayed, as in this case it needs to be discussed in three parliaments.

There are a number of important advantages to using ecocombs. There are also possible disadvantages. In addition, there is the fact that only certain trails allow employment. This is why it is so important to enable such a pilot project and then evaluate the advantages and disadvantages properly.

The results from the Netherlands, where similar projects have already been launched, speak for themselves: less CO2 emissions, less emissions of fine dust and less traffic. It is precisely a pilot project that should prove that even in our country, through the use of those trucks, less traffic is sent to the track.

In the Flemish Parliament at that time, 95% of the mandators adopted the resolution to launch the pilot project. It has been almost two years since that resolution was adopted in the Flemish Parliament. The pilot project is not in contradiction with increased investments in rail freight transport and investments in inland shipping, on the contrary. One does not stop the other and we will therefore approve it.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, our group will vote against.

In fact, we find that the starting point of the resolution is far too unilateral and focuses primarily on economic interests. It only talks about economic benefits and laterally the emission allowances are also cited, as a shame. When we talk about sustainable transport, we think we need to talk about transport via waterways, railways and others. What really struck me most at the chest was that there was absolutely no talk about road safety.

The trucks will be deployed in industrial areas. I think the applicants forget that between the various industrial areas there are also residential zones, where that transport must pass.

I know that there is a faction that advertises in its campaign with the slogan “afrit Flanders”, but when I find that the take-offs in Flanders are very short, I still wonder how one can answer that a truck of 25 to 30 meters will bulb on our roads.

I think this is not a good resolution. We will therefore vote against.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Geerts a question.

His group in the Flemish parliament approved the resolution, about two years ago, on 10 July 2007. Road safety is not mentioned in this resolution.

What is the difference between the group in the Flemish Parliament and in the House? Is it because the resolution in the Flemish parliament was supported by sp.a-spirit, that it was approved there, but because spirit is lacking in the House, that it is not approved here? For the rest, I see no difference between the two resolutions.

Mr. Stevenheydens, I have now, very kindly, made a brief explanation. If you want, I will repeat it again, so you can hear my arguments, why our Chamber Group will vote against that resolution.

In order not to annoy the colleagues, I suggest that you follow it in the report.

Mr Geerts, I could bored you, or please you, by reading your colleague’s presentation in the Flemish Parliament, with the argument why the group of your party expressly approved the resolution there.

We vote against.

of which act.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I am pleased with the proposal that is today ready, as it responds to the government’s desire to pursue a sustainable mobility policy. I think of a global mobility policy, focusing on both rail, road and water.

I would like to answer the criticism. It is said that the ecocombi would stimulate road transport, at the expense of more environmentally friendly alternatives such as rail and inland navigation. That is not correct. We advocate a one-and-a-one approach: both the modal shift, which encourages more freight transport by rail and through the inland waterway, and also a more environmentally friendly road freight transport.

That is important. Think of the figures released by the Planning Office in April 2009, with its long-term forecasts for transport: an increase in freight transport by almost 60 percent by 2030, compared to 2005.

This forecast also shows that despite a slight, percentage decrease, road freight will still remain the main mode of transport by 2030.

The freight transport by rail and by inland waterway increases slightly over the same period.

It is therefore clear that the only realistic message is that each mode of transport, without prejudice to the additional stimulation of the modal shift from road to rail and inland navigation, must deliver its own performance in terms of environmental aspects and further optimise it.

I would like to add a few figures.

CO2 emissions will decrease by almost 8 percent, thus complying with European directives for road freight transport. The fine dust decreases by 2 percent and nitrogen by 4 percent. Fuel consumption decreases by 33 per cent per km. These figures from Dutch studies are clear.

There is also another point of criticism regarding road safety. This criticism is for us a narcissist. Naturally, ecocombs will only be used on routes and times that do not compromise road safety. Therefore, they will ⁇ not be used in village nuclei. It is the task of the regional road managers to design the formed routes, taking into account the possibilities of the infrastructure.

We would also like to reiterate that the present resolution gives the West only the technical possibility to activate the ecocomb. Whether or not their actual use will be decided by the Regions autonomously.

Finally, I would also like to refer to a project in the Netherlands, where the ecocombi scores very well in terms of safety. The Netherlands is the country that scores the best in the whole European Union in terms of security.

Mrs Somers, Mrs Snoy et d’Oppuers would like to ask you a question.

My colleague cited minimum greenhouse gas emissions reduction figures (4%) compared to the figures from the train and truck comparison I cited. I do not see how this is a real progress compared to the current situation. You say that there is no competition, but there will be necessarily because driving “ecocombis” requires significant public investments. What will you do when an "ecocombi" leaves the highway? Are you going to build "stations" for the transfer of goods? All these investments will be the ones that will be missing on the train. It is always said that the problem with rail transportation is that it is rigid. The same goes for ecocomb transport. So invest in the train and not in the “ecocombis”.

I think I have made it clear that we must continue to encourage the shift from road transport to inland navigation and to rail transport, on the one hand. But I believe that the figures presented also show that road transport remains so important that we need to make efforts on environmental standards, on the other hand. We cannot put this problem by our side. We must address it.

Mrs. Somers, I have been pleased to listen to your great concern about road safety. You said that it is intended to set out routes where the supertuck – you call it the ecocombi, but forgive me, I can’t take that word into my mouth – can’t come.

You may be aware that there has been a discussion in Brussels for a very long time – not only in Brussels, but also in Mortsel and in many other cities and urbanized municipalities – to try to prevent freight traffic from the village centers. Until now, it does not succeed. It does not succeed! There are attempts to make arrangements, among other things with the gps managers, to prevent that traffic, but it fails. It seems to me a rather vague promise. I would like to hear from you, if it still does not work for normal freight traffic, how can it work for extra heavy freight traffic? That was my first point.

Secondly, I also listened with great pleasure to your figures on CO2 emissions. These were figures from the Netherlands, I think I understand from your speech. You may know that when it comes to the Kyoto targets in our country in terms of CO2 emissions and fine dust emissions, the transport sector is the main responsible. The figures are not comparable to those of the Netherlands.

When will we finally do something in our country to propose global transport measures that effectively reduce CO2 emissions? I can’t understand with my farmer’s mind, with the best will of the world, how that can happen with extra heavy trucks.

In your first comment, you talked about transportation in village centers. I think I have clearly said that it is ⁇ not the intention to allow the ecocombi in the village nuclei. It is mainly about routes that are specifically related, for example, to ports. It is up to the West to set those paths in terms of infrastructure and security.

In your second comment you talked about the study from the Netherlands. You say that road transport in Belgium is very important. This is precisely why we should advocate environmental action.

Mrs. Somers, I have already said this in my presentation. What I totally do not understand in this resolution and what you are repeating now is that you want to use this type of transport only in industrial areas. However, you forget that to move from one industrial area to another one must use residential cores and other infrastructure routes. You say you only use it in ports. That doesn’t work out, because then you’re just turning circles.

I think that comment is generally short-sighted. After all, when you do transportation by rail, you sometimes need other modes of transport to get from the beginning to the end of the route. I think the same can be said in this context.

I have the impression that not everyone knows exactly what it is about. There are statements made here that seem to be quite far from the record of the long and heavy trucks. For us, the sustainability of freight transport is in any case an en-en-story, without taboo. Creating the illusion that we can allow all the freight transport that passes through our country by train and by water is simply unbelievable, especially when one knows that about 80 percent of the trucks in our country must travel a distance of less than 50 km. These are distances that can never be achieved by water or by rail. The long and heavy trucks are trucks weighing 50 to 60 tons and 25.25 m long. If one drives there with the car next to it, it will indeed be a rather impressive fact. I understand that some want to respond to this and reject them based on the feelings of anxiety that these vehicles may create.

However, we need to look at what the studies say about this. A study by Transport & Mobility Leuven, carried out on behalf of the European Commission, has highlighted some interesting data. Colleague Somers has already cited a few of them. These are both economic and ecological benefits. If the transport industry in the European Union could switch to ecocombs for certain journeys – it’s actually going to take off, long journeys – it could result in annual savings of 24 to 29 billion EUR for the European economy. In addition, CO2 and other emissions, as well as the number of road accidents, would decrease dramatically.

This is all shown by that study of Transport and Mobility Leuven, yet an authority in this area.

I would like to return to that research or pilot project in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to realize a pilot project here in our country and we must therefore look at the results of the pilot project in the Netherlands. What are the results in bird flight? The pilot project gives positive results for the number of trucks on the road. This has positive consequences for the file problem. It is positive for the emission of harmful substances, both CO2 and fine dust and others. There are also positive effects on road safety, as it is clearly slated and there is very strict training for drivers of such trucks. This has a positive impact on road safety. There is no negative impact on road infrastructure.

In the Netherlands, the maximum weight of the trucks was limited to fifty tons, although it was originally intended to go to sixty tons. They have returned from this and now allow them to drive up to sixty tons. The impact on road infrastructure is negligible. Why Why ? Because the axle load per axle under that truck is not higher compared to the smaller trucks.

Collega Schiltz has rightly already referred to the interests of the logistics gates in our country. For example, the port of Antwerp currently faces a serious competitive disadvantage compared to, among other things, the port of Rotterdam, which can use this form of freight transport. I also think that we should not wait too long. Given the various benefits that have been shown from both the research and the pilot project, I think we should give this a chance. It’s about an opportunity, a pilot project, not just to let go of such trucks and ⁇ not in village centers or inner cities.

The danger of the modal shift was mainly cited by colleague Snoy.

It is a justified concern. I dare to support them. Nevertheless, I think we should note that the procedure for allowing such trucks on our roads is transitioned to a procedure similar to that for exceptional transport. This allows the government to keep in mind that such freight transports do not replace or parallel to the transport by rail and water, but that this must be for other freight transports. I think we can address this concern in this way through good follow-up, good monitoring.

The benefits are clear. The proposal is a pilot project. Rejecting such large trucks on the basis of feelings – I would even call it populist, responding to human fear – is in this case not a good attitude. Our farmer’s mind says that we should support this pilot project in a wise, green way.

You still say that it has a positive effect, but in relation to what? We must see with what we compare: with the current situation or with the foreseeable situation if we do not conduct any voluntary transport policy. Per ⁇ an “ecocomb” may present an advantage but we should not use the argument that road transport will increase from 50 to 100% in the next 30 years. These are “business as usual” scenarios. This is what will happen if there is no transport policy. We demand that we finally have a serious modal transfer policy.

The use of the "ecocombis" will require a territorial planning and the establishment of the areas of economic activity in connection with the road network and not with the rail network. This is exactly what needs to be changed!

Even if it is just a pilot project, it is a bad signal that is given by politics.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene, but since it was about “simply rejecting” and even the word “populism” was taken into my mouth, I would like to do so for a moment. You may laugh at it, but after all the interventions of today, I have the following conclusion.

In combination with what the Flemish government is doing, your party and the Open Vld, despite everything, will definitely continue to choose Flanders as a logistical turntable instead of developing a coherent vision of mobility, introducing a smart mileage tax and developing the multimodal split. Then we can see if there is still need for such monster trucks. However, they do the opposite. One is going to enter the sample trucks through an experiment, but one forgets that they were banned in Austria, Switzerland and Germany after experiments; one looks at the Netherlands, one gets to the port, while the domestic transport in our country is still giantly behind compared to our other neighboring countries.

How do you develop your mobility policy? In what way do you carry it out? You work the opposite. You have a drunkenness policy on mobility. You choose monster trucks, while you have not yet worked out the multimodal split. Then you will undermine it. You say you share our fear somewhat, but you immediately add that the project cannot be rejected without it. You should have drawn up all the other conditions first and then honestly checked whether this was still necessary. I hear here only a plea for the introduction of sample trucks as a separate, loose measure, while all those other conditions are hardly yet considered. You choose our country as a logistical turntable, with every day all the consequences of it.

I live in Antwerp. There is the story of the Long Wapper, but there are many other stories. I know people who work in logistics. My husband is one of them. They are plotting to get their containers transported by domestic transport. So please do not tell me that we simply reject this. We have a coherent vision of mobility.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t get rid of a number of impressions, including that the regional campaign has apparently broken up in full.

Furthermore, I find it remarkable that I must explain to the Greens that one cannot compare apples with pearls. The story that is launched up to two or three times that the modal shift gets the mortgage by launching this experiment is aberrant.

As Mr. Van den Bergh, Mrs. Somers and I have emphasized, this is an experiment aimed at making the complement to water and rail traffic – which road traffic should always be – more efficient and more environmentally friendly.

Mrs. Van der Straeten, if there is talk of ecocombies by Mortsel, where there are already problems to keep the heavy traffic out of the village core, I can tell you that an ecocombi did not hit by Mortsel. It may be ironic, but the larger the beast, the harder it can get through a small gate.

I would not like to see Mortsel crossed through canals or railways. In this regard, I would like to keep some rationality in this story.

When one complains that there are no comparable data available, allow the federal government to give a little margin so that the regional governments can analyze this story at its correct value.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that it is the head of the NMBS itself, Mr. Jannie Haeck, who at various times has warned about the competition with rail transport.

As for the inland shipping, when one looks at the route Gent-Beringen, I cannot get rid of the impression that there will be a real competition with the inland shipping there.

I want to believe you when you say you want to implement an integrated policy, but why has there been no consultation with the NMBS or the Inland Shipping?