Evolution of Heavy Good Vehicles and Impacts on Infrastructures

Transcription

1 Evolution of Heavy Good Vehicles and Impacts on Infrastructures Bernard Jacob Deputy Scientific Director IFSTTAR 1

2 Table of content 1. Freight transport: facts and figures 2. Weights and dimensions regulation 3. Higher Capacity Vehicles (HCT) 4. Impact on Infrastructure 5. Conclusions 2

3 6.2% Freight Transport in the EU 30% 18.3% Freight transport in the EU28: modal share (2013) 75.5% Road Railways Inland waters 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% %CO2 total %CO2 transport %CO2 road transport EU White Paper (2011): by % by % Road freight transport: CO2 emission share (EU28) Dominant share of the road in freight transport: > 50% incl. maritime, 75.5% of inland transport stable over years, slight increase in some member states (ex. France) Fuel consumption and CO2 emission; Heavy good vehicles: 6% of the whole CO2, 18% in transport, 26% on road Objectives: White paper 2011, COP21 (Paris 2015) Fuel cost = 30% of operating cost 3

4 Facts and Figures (France/EU) France Inland freight transported by road 81% 76% Number of lorries 550,000 > 2 millions Ton.km (billion) 300 1,200 Veh.km (billion) Average yearly mileage/lorry (km/yr) 50,000 to 100,000 Truck flow (motorways, veh./day) 4,500 up to 11,000 Overloads frequency 8-12% - Overload amplitude 10% (up to 20%) EU - 4

5 Increase of International Transport International Total Evolution of EU-28 road freight transport, (based on tkm, 2009=100) National 5

6 and long distance transport > 1000 km km EU-28 total transport by distance classes (2009=100, based on t.km) < 150 km 6

7 by heavier vehicles Evolution of EU-28 road transport by maximum permissible laden weight of vehicle, (Mt.km) 7

8 Weights and Dimensions Regulations 8

9 Heavy Traffic Increase 9

10 European Directive 96/53EC Directive of July 1996 for International transport in the EU, mini-max Revision 2015: extra lengths Payload optimization design shape 10

11 European Directive 96/53EC Maximum weights and loads: EU / France GVW (t) 2-axle (rigid) axle 25 / 26* 3-axle artic. bus 28 32/38 (t) Comment 26 * Twin wheels on the drive axle + air suspension 4-axle 32 32/36* *Rigid / articulated or road train 5-axle 40 /44* 40/44 * Combined transport by container 2015: up to +1 t for electric/hybrid vehicles, 19 t for 2-axle busses Axles (t) (t) Comment Single 10 / 11.5* 13 * Drive axle Tandem 11 to to 21 Depending on spacing d Tridem 21 / 24** 22 to 31.5/27* ** d 1.30 m, * 40/44 t GVW 11

12 (Over)loads on a French motorway 12

13 Impact of Overloads 8 to 15% of trucks are overloaded, site and time dependent, mostly between 5 and 10%, (up to 20-25%) Overloads lead to unfair competition (between modes and companies), may induce reverse modal shift and reduce road safety and infrastructure reliability Weights and dimensions should comply with the infrastructure capacity (geometry and resistance) and equipments Enforcement should be implemented as part of the highway operation on a large scale, and WIM data used for infrastructure management and assessment as ITS solutions 13

14 Higher Capacity Vehicles (HCV) 14

15 HCVs around the World Type Name Diagram GCM (t) Pay. (t) Length (m) Very high capacity vehicle Australian B-triple EMS vehicle Scandinavian Truck and trailer Scandinavian B-double EU semi-trailer and rigid trailer Longer and/or heavier vehicle Dutch triple trailer British semi-trailer German long vehicle trial Typical EU vehicle OECD 2010 Moving freight with better trucks EU swap-body EU semi-trailer EU 38t

16 Performance rating Payload efficiency Vehicle productivity = fuel consumed per: ton.km or cubic meter.km Mass efficiency Volume efficiency kg of C0 2 Litres of fuel kg of C0 2 Litres of fuel 100 ton.km 100 ton.km 100 m 3.km 100 m 3.km 16

17 Mass efficiency B-triple: +35% EMS: +20% OECD 2010 Moving freight with better trucks 17

18 Volume efficiency B-triple & EMS: +15% OECD 2010 Moving freight with better trucks 18

19 European Modular System (EMS) Combinations of standard units m and up to 60 t, +50% volume 19

20 Modularity of EMS 20

21 Various EMS Combinations Current trucks allowed in the EU complying with the Directive 96/53/CE LHV= longer and heavier vehicles Possible combinations in the EU complying with the Directive 02/07/CE 21

22 Design and geometry: roundabouts, crossings, parking lots Bridges, piers, retaining barriers, tunnels Organisation, loading, Costs, coupling/decoupling Rail, waterborne, road: rebound effect Pollutants: NOx, particles Greenhouse gas: CO2 Consumption Objective and subjective safety Other users: cars, 2 wheelers, pedestrians Building area, urban and periurban Impact of EMS Technico-economics Environment Social Bridges Roads Modal split Emissions Safety Logistics Noise/ Vibration 22

23 Economy and Logistics 100 tractors + semi-trailers app. 33 palettes/combination Safety spacing 50 m Total road length used: 6.6 km Load factor +40 % Volume % 3300 palettes in 100 tractors + semi-trailers Cost of truck and LHV per km Same quantity of palettes by 63 LHVs app. 53 palettes per combination; safety spacing of 50 m Total road length used: 4.69 km Road length used reduced by 29% Source : Survey BRRC Container Goods Bulk Other Weighed average Cost of a current truck per km Cost of a LHV per km Cost of a LHV per km (+40% load) Interest of regular flow between two points, loading area planning EMS cost/km = +6% / current road train depends on the loading: +10% bulk, +3% other goods -30 to 50% veh.km reduction of transport cost 25% 23

24 Modal transfer & Environment Modal transfer: policies in favor of modal transfer (waterborne & rail) are inefficient and costly but to avoid a rebound effect! Very limited impact in Sweden and NL, risky for UK Difficult to estimate, depends on elasticity hypotheses, fuel and ton of CO2 prices Environmental impact depends on modal transfer but for an unchanged modal split (NL, SE): CO2 : -11% / ton.km NOx : -14 % / ton.km Environmental benefit if modal split is unchanged 24

25 Benchmarking (1) Sweden, Finland 1996: introduction of EMS in the driving law No itinerary restriction, 60 t and m Introduction of a tax on all HGVs for the infrastructures 2006: positive assessment, neither modal shift, nor road unsafety, assessed efficiency, now trial of 33 m and 80 t combinations. Netherlands 2000: EMS trial, increasing number, periodical assessments Itinerary restrictions, up to 50 t and later 60 t : positive assessment, permanent permits 25

26 Germany Benchmarking (2) : small scale trials in Lower-Saxon, North Rheinland-Westphalie, Bade-Wurtemberg, Thuringe 2007 BAST study about impacts on infrastructures, road safety and traffic EMS not authorized 2012: national trial of 26 m vehicle operation, but up to 40-44t only United Kingdom 2007: TRL and logistic research center Heriott-Watt University study for the Highway Agency Current political status = as usual, no LHV/EMS in a near future Longer semi-trailer trial (+1 to 2 m) 26

27 Benchmarking (3) Denmark, Norway : Large scale trials, specific marking November 2011: first positive assessment 2014: deployment Belgium : Multidisciplinary and federal working group recommends strictly controlled trials 2008: Project of royal decree for trials Regional authorizations for applicable itineraries. Divergences between regions and government, instability Quit 27

28 Benchmarking (4) France : Frame of green initiative Grenelle de l Environnement March 2009: trial of m planned with the permission of the Department of Transports (joint works with the Club 25-25) July 2009: trial suspended after the European election and the green party success September 2009: OEET (Observatory for Energy and Environment in Transport) commissioned for a study on environmental impacts Not anymore in the agenda January 2013: 44 t : Project of per km eco-tax (2014: abandoned) 28

29 Luxemburg Austria, Greece France United Kingdom Belgium Germany Denmark Netherland Norway Finland Sweden EMS: European situation Contrasted European situation: from strong opposition to full allowance, studies and trials Various trials conditions in the Member States Persistent uncertainties: Rebound effect (Amplitude? Time period?...) Infrastructures (long term) Road safety (depends on behavior and local conditions) EU/EC careful. On-going revision of the Directive 96/53, no major change of general weight and dimension limits, but opening of EMS operation under conditions and bilateral agreements 29

30 Impact on Infrastructure Minneapolis 3/8/

31 Impact of HGVs on Highways Pavements are sensitive to axle loads (rutting, cracking) No increase of the axle load limits Potential effect of series of close axles Higher risk for under designed pavement or high overloads Bridges are lighter than in the past increase of the ratio live loads/dead loads Higher traffic flow and heavier vehicles Risk of fatigue (steel) or excessive strains and cracking, even collapse Need of reassessment of existing bridges, updates of bridge loading codes, bridge and traffic monitoring Bridges Pavements 31

32 Impact of axles & tires on Pavements Moving Freight with better Trucks OECD Aggressiveness against a 40T HGV tridem single tyres spacing 1m35 tridem dual tyres spacing 1m35 tridem dual tyres spacing 1m40 tridem dual tyres spacing 1m60 3 isolated dual tyres (spacing > 2m) 0 24 T 25 T 26 T 27 T 28 T 29 T 30 T 31 T 32 T Axle group load Pavement cracking, rutting (WIM + wheel type and location) Aggressiveness, design and lifetime assessment, traffic classes Maintenance provision and planning Restricted/intelligent access program on weak pavements 32

33 Impact on Bridges (1) Assumptions for truck recombination into EMS 4 truck silhouettes traffic selected Complying with the 93/56EC Directive Load effect (mid-span bending moment) calculated on simple supported span bridges 33

34 Impact on Bridges (2) Single EMS vs. T2S3 2 EMS at 50 m spacing (free flow) Traffic with a % of EMS 2 EMS at 5 m spacing (congestion) 34

35 Impact on infrastructure Pavements EMS fitting existing infrastructures or infrastructures fitting EMS? EMS complies with infra performances Pavements : 2 cumulative effects Instantaneous strain under axle load upper layer strain, rutting, polishing, pulling up Stress cycles accumulation/strain under a large number of axles fatigue cracks Influence factors: axle load, time of loading, infrastructure state, temperature No major effect expected while axle loads 8-9 t Bridges Load effects : bending moment, shear forces, pier reactions Influence factors: axle load, gross vehicle weight, distributed load, axle and vehicle spacing, relative location, dynamics Bridges = complex system, heterogeneous stock Increased effect on medium and long spans if GWV 54 t 35

36 Conclusions Road remains the main freight transport mode Its modal share is still increasing or stable Needs for savings: fuel, CO2, costs, drivers Higher capacity vehicles open beneficial perspectives Different geographical situations by regions Existing infrastructure must be protected Reluctances in EU, US Active OECD/ITF working group on HCT 36