Activites

• 2004/04/30 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 2004/54
  • OJ L 201 07.06.2004, p. 0056-0076
• 2004/04/30 Final act signed
• 2004/04/29 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2004/04/20 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
  • T5-0294/2004 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Reinhard RACK (EPP-ED, A) and approved the common position.�

• 2004/04/06 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A5-0249/2004
• 2004/03/10 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2565
• 2004/02/26 Council Meeting
  • 05238/1/2004 summary

    The Council states that it supports the aim and scope of the Commission's proposal, in view of its commitment to improve the safety of tunnels throughout the Union. However, it felt that that the automatic classification system as proposed by the Commission would be too rigid for an optimal and cost effective application of the Directive to the large variety in tunnels such as they exist on the territory of the Union. Therefore, Council opted for a more fine-tuned and pragmatic system, whereby each individual safety requirement for a tunnel is based on one or more relevant parameters. Amendments of the European Parliament: - amendments concerning the administrative structure - Council was not able to accept all those relating to Administrative Authority, Inspection Entity, Tunnel Manager and Safety Officer, since the Council felt that it was undesirable to unravel the 'package' as regards the administrative structure, - amendments concerning disabled persons: the Council fully agreed with the need for specific consideration which should be given to disabled persons within the context of the Directive. It therefore accepted, with some changes in the wording, certain amendments, and included a specific recital 12 devoted to disabled persons, - amendments concerning the technical Annexes I, II and III: the Council was able to accept a great number of these, either in full, in part or in spirit. The Council acknowledged that this was due to a large extent to Parliament's agreement to use the more flexible approach also advocated by the Council: namely, to introduce a system whereby each individual safety requirement for a tunnel is based on one or more relevant parameters of the tunnel in question, -other amendments: A new recital highlighting the importance of road user behaviour for tunnel safety, was accepted. Regarding the financing for structural adjustments to tunnels through the TEN-budget, Council felt that, in view of the ongoing legislative process on the proposed Decision on the revision of guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, on the one hand, and the proposed Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, on the other, it was not appropriate to incorporate this element in this Directive. The amendment referring to the implementation of comparable safety standards for tunnels outside the scope of this Directive, was accepted.�

• 2004/02/26 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2004)0147 summary

    The Commission's amended proposal retains in their totality or in their substance a large number of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading. A number of amendments pay particular consideration to disabled people, so that they can save themselves in the event of a fire. The Commission is in favour of a specific reference to disabled people in the Directive. A new recital is added and when emergency plans referred to in Annex II are drawn up, they must take account of disabled people in order to identify and implement the most appropriate solutions. The other amendments taken up by the Commission include: - the deletion of the definitions of "traffic volume" and "equipment class" of the legislative part, because these terms are used only in the technical annexes. These definitions will therefore be removed to Annex I. - the acceptance of alternative measures to structural measures which would be substantially more expensive for tunnels already in service only if they ensure an "equivalent or improved" level of safety. - the specification of the responsibilities of the Administrative Authority. - the inclusion of a new provision in order to avoid diluting the respective responsibilities of the Administrative Authority and the Tunnel Manager. - the provision for greater flexibility in carrying out periodic inspections under the responsibility of the Member States. As a consequence of this amendment, the term "Inspection Body" is replaced by "Inspection Entity" throughout the text. - the clarification of the role of the Tunnel Manager at the various stages of design, construction and operation of the tunnel. - the clarification of the tasks of the "Safety Officer". - the provision that where the Administrative Authority considers that the safety of an existing tunnel must be improved, it must communicate that fact to the Tunnel Manager, so that remedial measures can be taken, and the Safety Officer, for information purposes. The respective roles of these two players must be highlighted. - the provision for an additional period of six months compared with the original proposal for assessing compliance of existing tunnels with the Directive. - the provision limiting the obligation on the "Tunnel Manager" to send a plan for adapting an existing tunnel only to those cases where this is necessary. - the reinforcing of the role of the Administrative Authority and making it responsible for technical inspections. - the provision clearly indicating that the body responsible for carrying out the risk analyses is independent from the Tunnel Manager. - the provision that Member States may, for the purposes of carrying out risk analyses, only use a standard methodology at national level. With a view to transparency, Member States will have to make information on the methodology that they use available in electronic form. - the extension of the possibility of Member States obtaining a derogation from the provisions of the Directive to allow the useof innovative techniques providing an equivalent or higher protection level. As far as Annex I is concerned, the Commission in general accepts the amendments based on the results of the work of national experts, including in the World Road Association (PIARC), the working group of the Alpine countries and the Council experts group. The main amendments concern the following aspects: - The five classes of equipment in the original proposal which determine the type of equipment have been replaced by a more flexible system adapted to suit each type of equipment. - The threshold for traffic forecasts above which new tunnels will have to be twin tube has been raised to 10 000 vehicles per day and per lane. - The number of lanes reserved for traffic must be the same inside and outside the tunnel. - Gradients may not exceed 5% unless this is impossible for geographical reasons. - A new definition and stricter requirements are set out for escape routes, ventilation systems, lighting, electricity supply, pavements and control rooms. - The rules vary according to whether they are to apply to a new tunnel or an existing tunnel. This is the case for example for the minimum distance between emergency posts equipped with fire extinguishers and between water supply outlets which is increased to 250 metres for existing tunnels. - The descriptions of the responsibilities of the Administrative Authority and the Safety Officer have been condensed and moved to Articles 4 and 6 respectively, without prejudice to the drafting reservation relating to Article 7. - The maximum delay of 10 minutes for the intervention of the emergency services after an alarm for the longest and busiest tunnels, by means of a provision requiring the delay to be kept as short as possible having regard to local conditions. This is acceptable subject to drafting amendments. - The obligation to empty additional fuel tanks on heavy goods vehicles before travelling through tunnels has been scrapped.�

  • DG ['Energy and Transport'],
• #X019
• 2003/10/09 Council Meeting
• 2003/10/09 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0425/2003 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Reinhard RACK (EPP-ED, Austria) and made several amendments to the Commission's proposal. (Please see the summary of 10/09/03.) In addition, Parliament: - deleted the definitions of "traffic volume" and "equipment class"; - for tunnels located on the territory of two Member States, the latter will designate joint Inspection Bodies to carry out prescribed tasks; - the Tunnel Supervisory Body will be ultimately responsible for the safety of the tunnel; - the safety Officer is renamed the Safety Coordinator and the tasks are redefined; - Annex I is revised, and there are new provisions on monitoring systems, equipment to close the tunnel, communication systems, and power supply and electrical circuits.�

• 2003/10/08 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2003/09/10 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0311/2003
• #2515
• 2003/06/05 Council Meeting
  • 2515
• #2499
• 2003/03/27 Council Meeting
  • 2499
• 2003/02/10 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2002/12/30 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2002)0769 summary

    PURPOSE : to propose minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network. CONTENT : the proposed Directive establishes preventive measures and measures that provide a minimum level of safety in the event of accidents in tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network. It shall apply to all tunnels on the Trans-European Road Network with lengths of over 500 m, whether they are in operation, under construction or at the design stage. The following objectives have been set for reaching the optimal level of safety in road tunnels: - Primary objective: prevention (to prevent critical events that endanger human life, the environment and tunnel installations). - Secondary objective : reduction of possible consequences (concerning events such as accidents and fires) by providing the ideal prerequisites for enabling people involved in the incident to rescue themselves; allowing immediate intervention of road users to prevent greater damage; ensuring efficient action by emergency services; - protecting the environment; limiting material damage. In order to reach these objectives, the Directive proposes to establish: - organisational requirements : the Commission proposes to harmonise the organisation of safety at national level and to clarify the different roles and responsibilities. In particular, the Commission proposes that each Member State should appoint an Administrative Authority seconded by an Inspection Body. In most cases, Member States will have the possibility of appointing existing administrative services as Administrative Authorities for the purposes of the present Directive. Responsibility for safety in each tunnel will lie with the Tunnel Manager and the responsibility for control with the appointed Safety Officer; - technical requirements : the level of safety in tunnels is influenced by a variety of factors which can be put under the following four main headings: Infrastructure; Operation; Vehicles; Road users. Requirements aimed at reinforcing safety in road tunnels will be established for each group.�

  • DG ['Energy and Transport'],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2002)0769
• Debate in Council: 2499
• Debate in Council: 2515
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0311/2003
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0425/2003
• Council position published: 05238/1/2004
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2004)0147
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A5-0249/2004
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T5-0294/2004
• : Directive 2004/54
• : OJ L 201 07.06.2004, p. 0056-0076

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)