The study “Comparative analysis of legislative and technical standards for electric public transport in Ukraine and EU countries” was conducted during 2024–2025 by the public organization “Vision Zero” (Ivano-Frankivsk). Authors: Anton Gagen and Viktor Zagreba.
The purpose of the study:
to compare the current Ukrainian standards for planning and designing electric public transport infrastructure (trams and trolleybuses) with the standards of the European Union, in particular the Czech Republic and Italy, and, in certain aspects, Poland and Switzerland. The study was conducted to identify outdated and overly restrictive Ukrainian standards inherited from the Soviet period and hindering the modernization and reconstruction of transport infrastructure in Ukraine.
Information for the comparative analysis was collected from Ukrainian and European legislative and technical standards. The comparative analysis includes Ukrainian standards compared with the standards of the Czech Republic and Italy as the main countries for comparison, and Switzerland and Poland were used as additional countries. The study included a comparison of requirements for tram tracks, power supply, contact network, and rolling stock.
Conclusion:
The study showed that the Ukrainian regulatory framework governing electric public transport remains heavily influenced by outdated Soviet-era standards. These outdated standards are fundamentally different from the flexible, targeted approaches used in the European Union based on the principles of target or parametric methods of standardization in construction. At the same time, these outdated standards contradict the newer provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Construction Standards”, which states that parametric and target methods should be preferred in standardization, rather than the prescriptive method. The shortcomings and unjustified restrictions in the existing regulatory framework are not marginal or random; they are systemic in nature and require a comprehensive review, not a gradual adjustment.
Key findings:
The analysis identified four main categories of regulatory discrepancies between Ukrainian and European practices:
- Unjustified prohibitions:
Ukrainian regulations often prohibit the use of internationally proven solutions – designs and methods that are widely used in EU countries – without scientifically sound reasoning. This limits the search for solutions and hinders the implementation of safe and effective practices that have already been tested in Europe. - Unjustified prescriptions:
Many Ukrainian standards contain overly strict technical requirements – for example, specifying exact radii, materials or elements of the contact network – without reference to measurable results. Such regulations do not contain a clear justification or orientation to the final result, which limits engineering flexibility. - Excessive safety and capacity requirements:
Infrastructure often has to meet inflated safety or capacity standards, which leads to over-design and excessively high project costs. This all-or-nothing approach effectively blocks economically balanced or phased development strategies that are otherwise viable. - Template-based, out-of-context design:
The current system forces engineers to apply predefined Soviet-era templates instead of conducting project-specific analysis.
As a result, infrastructure design is disconnected from local needs, spatial constraints, and modern technologies.
To view the overview, please click on the image below and you will be taken to the PDF file:
About the project:
The materials were developed within the framework of the project “Reform of Electric Public Transport of Ukraine”, which was implemented by the NGO “Vision Zero” from August 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025. The project was implemented in cooperation with the Association “Energy Efficient Cities of Ukraine” within the framework of grant support from the European Climate Foundation. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the materials lies with the authors of the study. The European Climate Foundation cannot be held responsible for any use of the information presented in the studies and does not necessarily share the opinions, assessments and conclusions given in them.