Hauliers await response to axle mass proposals

The battle against the department of transport (DoT) proposal to reduce the permissible single rear axle mass for freight vehicles from the current 9 000-kilograms to 8 000-kgs goes on apace, with an urgent meeting having been held between the Road Freight Association (RFA) and the department on December 9. This, said the DoT, was a move to save damage to the already deteriorated secondary road system – and included the lower permissible mass, a move to rail, and prohibiting the road transport of certain (as yet unnamed) commodities on the secondary system. But, while the DoT appeared to be looking at this as a possible answer, the immediate reaction from RFA CEO, Sharmini Naidoo, was that it was not a feasible solution. She added that it also failed to recognise the true reason for the deteriorating roads. The department’s own research, she said, showed that “no funds are available to continually sustain repair and research – and that the network has a five-year lifespan left before collapse.” But at least, after an initial failure to get any sort of official response from the DoT, the December 9 meeting was finally agreed to, according to Gavin Kelly, technical and operations manager of the RFA. “We met with two deputy director-generals and were informed that an internal strategy meeting was being held within the DoT on December 17,” he told FTW. “This was to look at the axle-mass issue in terms of Natmap (the national transport masterplan), and we were urgently requested to submit our full detailed comments on the issue for consideration at the meeting.” Despite the time restraints, the RFA was able to submit a lengthy document outlining its feelings to Lanfranc Situma, the deputy director-general of integrated planning and intersphere co-ordination. The document initially outlined what the RFA judged as the reasons for the continued disintegration of the secondary road network. It said that no periodic maintenance, repair or development had been done over the past few years, and that budget allocations for road had been appropriated for other programmes. A second reason, it added, was that dedicated road user revenue streams (like fuel levies, licence fees, permit fees, general tax allocations, fines) had not been utilised for road maintenance. The third reason cited a lack of foresight and forward planning at departmental level – with the RFA pointing out that many roads were not originally built for either the weight or the traffic volumes now experienced. A final accusation is laid at provincial level, and a failure to prevent misuse of the road structure by the less-scrupulous amongst road transporters. “Provinces,” said the RFA document, “have not effectively policed road traffic matters.” Kelly then summarised seven proposed solutions for FTW. A first he directed at the country’s road transport management system (RTMS). “Under this,” he said, “real penalties for not complying should be fed into a dedicated road fund. Also, as part of RTMS accreditation, a levy should be included that can be ring-fenced for roads. “In addition, we feel that operators should be offered benefits for compliance – in the form of tax rebates and the like.” The RFA is also adamant that responsibility for roads around the country is spread over just too many government and provincial bodies for decent co-ordination of road works to take place. “All major transportation routes (whether secondary or primary),” said Kelly, “should be handed over to the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral). This would ensure that routes are properly maintained for safe and efficient traffic flows.” Steps should also be taken to preserve supposed road funding taxes and levies for that purpose. “All present and future road user charges/revenue streams (like fuel levies, licence fees, permits, budget allocations, traffic fines) must be ringfenced for road requirements.” Planned maintenance must also become the norm, Kelly added. The RFA also feels that there is a need to develop a freight corridor programme. “This,” said Kelly, “would see most weight and volume kept on the primary road network – with secondary roads only being used for distribution where necessitated by demand and supply.” In an interview with FTW in the first week of the year, Kelly said that he had, until then, no idea whether the proposed internal strategy meeting at the DoT had actually taken place – nor how the RFA’s documentation/ input and comment had been received.