On 4 December, several European rail and intermodal associations — including CER, ERFA, RFF, UIP, UIRR and UNIFE — issued a joint statement reacting to the Council’s general approach on the Weights and Dimensions Directive, a key component of the Greening Freight Transport Package. While the Directive was originally presented as an instrument to increase efficiency and reduce the environmental footprint of freight transport, the organisations expressed concern that the compromise reached by Member States risks moving Europe in the opposite direction.
A central point raised in the statement is that facilitating the cross-border use of European Modular Systems (EMS) — longer and heavier trucks — could further widen the long-standing competitiveness gap between road transport and rail or intermodal solutions. The signatories underline that the Directive was meant to be examined in parallel with the revision of the Combined Transport Directive, and that the Commission’s intention to withdraw that revision in its 2026 work programme represents a significant setback for a balanced and sustainable freight transport framework.
According to the rail and intermodal sector, enabling heavier and longer trucks without strong safeguards for modal cooperation will undermine efforts to build interoperable logistics chains. Many intermodal terminals, wagons and handling systems are not designed to operate efficiently with EMS vehicles, creating a risk of shifting freight away from rail. The consequences of such a shift — higher emissions, increased congestion, accelerated road infrastructure wear and greater exposure to safety risks — were highlighted once again in the 2024 “Study on Weights and Dimensions” carried out by d-fine on behalf of several rail associations.
Looking ahead to interinstitutional negotiations, the statement calls on legislators to uphold a long-term vision of a balanced freight system, stressing three priorities: ensuring that any incentives under the Directive apply only to zero-emission and intermodal-compatible vehicles; safeguarding technical and operational compatibility between transport modes; and requiring Member States to carry out prior assessments of the impact of EMS on safety, infrastructure, modal split and environmental performance.
For the port and terminal community, the debate around weights and dimensions is not abstract. Shifts in modal split directly influence port congestion, yard capacity planning, hinterland connections and investment needs. A policy skewed too strongly towards end-to-end road transport risks undermining multimodal efficiency and creating additional pressure on port ecosystems already facing decarbonisation and digitalisation challenges.
FEPORT will continue to follow the negotiations closely, recalling that a resilient and sustainable logistics system requires coherent incentives across all modes, not measures that unintentionally weaken the role of rail and intermodal transport within the European supply chain.
