Source: Flows.be
Author: Koen Heinen
It remains unclear whether the revised Combined Transport Directive will be adopted. The old directive from 1992 would then continue to apply. “That poses a threat to the legislative framework and the identity of the sector,” says UIRR Director Ralf-Charley Schultze.
The final figures for combined transport (CT) in Europe in 2025 are not yet known, but Ralf-Charley Schultze of UIRR expects neither a large increase nor a large decrease. He predicts a stagnation of volumes.
“The main cause of this stagnation is the restructuring of the German rail network. Over a period of five years, forty major construction projects are taking place, each resulting in the closure of the affected railway line for six months. As a result, customers no longer have the confidence to use CT. But there is no alternative to CT. Compared to unimodal road transport, CT is 90% better in terms of CO2 emissions and 70% better in terms of energy efficiency. CT is also much better in terms of infrastructure safety and can offer a solution to the driver shortage,” says Schultze.
Dead CT guideline
Despite UIRR's plea to consider the revised Weights & Measures and Combined Transport directives as a package, the European Commission decided to proceed only with the Weights & Measures directive and to leave the CT (combined transport) directive as it is.
The Commission took that decision even without involving DG Move, while they were working on the dossier. A study was also finalized a week before the decision so that work on the dossier could continue, but it was ignored. It therefore remained to be seen whether the European Parliament still wanted to proceed with this. If nothing happened by the end of January 2026, the revision of the CT Directive would have been dead. The first directive from 1992 would then have remained in force.
“Looking to the future, that would create two problems. The first problem is that the old directive was not designed for digitalization and is therefore not compatible with eFTI (electronic Freight Transport Information). A second point is that it creates a great deal of legal uncertainty. In its position paper, UIRR put forward an idea to simplify the definition of CT, but nothing was done with it. During the Belgian EU presidency, efforts were made to achieve progress, and the Hungarian presidency was also constructive and positive, but it did not bring about a breakthrough either. At the end of January, the European Parliament announced that it opposes the withdrawal of the revised GV directive. Let us hope that the European Commission accepts that opposition,” says Schultze.
44-ton road transport not necessary
I am still of the opinion that both directives should be considered together, since road transport is part of CT for the first and last mile. The most important thing is the compatibility of both modes. When the efficiency of road transport increases through the use of longer and heavier vehicles that are no longer compatible with other modes, you lose everything. There is too much silo thinking and a focus on efficiency, but the entire logistics chain must be made efficient by integrating different modes.
“According to the Commission, the measures taken aim to promote intermodality and green transport. It would be fairer if they said they are intended to increase the share of road transport. But unfortunately, that is what will happen with the measures. In our view, the Commission’s impact assessment was totally inadequate. The infrastructure is not designed for these types of longer and heavier trucks. What we are completely dissatisfied with is the generalization of cross-border 44-ton road transport. That will cause a major reverse modal shift. Fortunately, during the Danish Presidency, the rule to also allow 44-ton diesel trucks during a transitional period was scrapped. The market has no need for cross-border 44-ton road transport because CT already exists. We need a harmonised system with good standards for road, rail, and water transport. Only in this way can you achieve greater efficiency,” emphasizes Schultze.
Definition of CT
Currently, the discussion regarding the CT Directive revolves exclusively around the definition. However, there are so many other positive points that we must not lose sight of, such as the extension to domestic transport.
We believe that a definition based on distance is the best, because it incorporates the door-to-door concept. Door-to-door CT is the future, with an integration of the right mode at the right time and the right place.
“The directive could then be based on a 60% road and 40% rail distribution, or even 50/50 to start with. A clear definition is that when one has a 'sufficient non-road transport share' in the logistics chain, the transport can then be considered a General Transport. And that would then entitle the transport to temporary compensatory measures for the non-existent level playing field. A definition based on distance would also be usable for eFTI. Reverting to the old directive poses a danger to the legal framework and the identity of the sector.”
“The European Parliament must realize that its decision will have a major impact, otherwise everything will have to be done again: the entire procedure, the impact study, and the public consultation,” Schultze emphasizes.