Kenya out of tune at EAC meeting on load limits

Kenya was playing on a bit of a sticky wicket at the East African Community (EAC) load limits and overload control project task force meeting in Tanzania two weeks ago, according to Barney Curtis, executive officer of the Federation of Southern and East African Road Transport Associations (Fesarta), which was part of the study team. The project was to harmonise load limits and overload control in the East African region. But Kenya was not playing in tune on three of the issues on the agenda for debate at the meeting – the bridge formula, gross combination mass (GCM), overload tolerance, and interlinks. “At the outset of the meeting,” Curtis told FTW, “Kenya reiterated its position: Although • the study group’s recommendation was for a 56-tonne GCM, Kenya’s GCM limit would not exceed 52-tonnes or six axles; • Interlinks would only be allowed under special permit.” Kenya noted that its bridges were designed to Japanese standards and could not cope with a GCM of 56-t. “It was the first time since the start of the project that this information was made available,” Curtis added. “It was a major obstacle to achieving harmonisation, since the study team had shown that the Japanese standards were much lower than the British and French standards (which, it was assumed, all the bridges in East Africa had been designed to). “It was not clear, however, which bridges were actually designed to this standard.” He also noted that there was input that the later bridges were using Japanese standards, which were equivalent to British standards. Kenya was to provide further details on its bridge designs and construction. “But,” said Curtis, “in support of the 56-t, the study team explained that 56-t over seven axles and controlled by the bridge formula, created no more stress in the bridges than 48-t on six axles, particularly as there was currently no bridge formula in place in East Africa.” Kenya also persisted in seeing interlinks as being different to other vehicle combinations – being considered to take up more road space than the equivalent truck and trailer combinations. Said Curtis: “Whilst the study team accepted that the 90-degree turning corridor for an interlink was one metre wider than that for the equivalent truck and trailer, this was not sufficient reason to require special permits for interlinks. “It was noted Australian research showed that interlinks had better dynamic stability than the equivalent truck and trailer. It was hoped that Kenya would drop its requirement for special permits by the next stakeholder workshop.” A more general disagreement occurred in the debate on the overload tolerance limits. “Partner states,” said Curtis, “insisted that there be zero tolerance on gross vehicle mass (GVM) and 5% on axles and axle units. This was in spite of the study team’s request for at least 2% and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) recommendation of 5%. There was even general agreement that weighbridges were never 100% accurate, particularly as most of the weighbridges in East Africa were the single-axle type. “The decision for zero tolerance would have major repercussions throughout East and Southern Africa.” The late inclusion of the complete map of the East African Regional Trunk Road Network (RTRN) also created considerable problems to the running of the project, according to Curtis. This, since most of the calculations and tables relating to road maintenance and overloading charges would have to be updated if they were to be for the complete RTRN. “After considerable discussion,” he added, “it was agreed that the maintenance costs would only be calculated for the three main corridors: Northern, Central and Dar es Salaam Corridors. “It was further agreed that the maintenance costs that had been calculated for the road networks seemed far too low. They would be checked for correctness by the study team and then used to produce recommended overloading charges.”