Without trucks, South Africa stops. Few seem to understand the critical role that trucks play in the country’s economy. The proposed reduction in axle mass loads and the prohibition of moving certain goods by road is the latest in a series of attempts to shift the movement of goods on roads, to rail. The end result of this will have a devastating impact on the national economy and will ultimately result in increased prices of goods to consumers, who are already grappling with significantly reduced household disposable income. This is according to the Road Freight Association, addressing a media briefing earlier this week.

The Department of Transport (DoT) has proposed major changes to the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA), Act 93 of 1996. These include the:

1. Intention to prohibit the operation of “certain axles” on the secondary road network and the movement of these to the primary road network.
2. Intention to prohibit the transport of “certain commodities” on primary and secondary road networks and movement of these to rail.

According to RFA spokesperson Gavin Kelly, this development is part of a new project of the DoT – the Road Freight Strategy - which involved the activation of a committee to look at relieving/reducing the load on the secondary network and revitalising the (rail) branch lines. Initial investigations undertaken by the RFA have revealed that:

1. The “proposal” to reduce single rear axle mass load from 9 000kg to 8 000kg is driven by an urgent need from National Treasury to look into the deteriorating network. No funds are available to continually sustain repair and data shows that the network has a five-year lifespan left before collapse. The DoT has been tasked to engage Transnet on this issue to address the funding shortfall (for road repair/maintenance);
2. The “prohibition of certain commodities on both the primary and secondary road networks and the migration of same to the rail branch lines” could not be clarified or any further detail given.

Discussions with the author of the letter, Mr N Thoka and Mr Clement Manyungwana (both from the Department of Transport), have revealed that there is an oversight in the letter and that the proposed reduction in axle mass load would apply to multi-axles. Interactions with other DoT representatives have revealed different interpretations of the proposed legislation.

It is clear that this legislation has not been thought through clearly and a number of issues have not been considered:

1. Reductions in axle masses could result in a 12% decreased payload and a proportional 12% reduction in revenue to operators. In some cases operators could lose up to 5 tons payload. As a result in the proportional reduction in revenue to the operator, these costs would have to be passed on to the customer, and ultimately to the consumer.

1. Even though the restriction is just on secondary networks (definition is unclear, but it is inferred that this includes all roads except for those roads declared national roads), it is not practical for hauliers to operate solely on primary networks. As a result, all vehicles would need to conform to the proposed axle-mass reduction. Failing that, operators would have to set up trans-shipment centres, to move loads to smaller vehicles, once again resulting in additional costs, increased supply chains, longer delivery times and increased standing times, compromising “Just In Time” efficiencies, against the global trend.

• Bulk flammable liquids and gas (ullage) vehicles are currently configured for maximum permissible mass. The axle-mass load reduction would compromise certain safety standards. With current truck designs, reduction in axle massloads would create an empty space in the tanker compartment, increasing the risk of combustion.
• Contrary to misguided beliefs, the proposed legislation would actually result in an increase in the number of trucks in the short-term (or as long as it takes for the rail infrastructure to pick up road volumes).
• Manufacturers’ costs would soar, as vehicles would have to be re-configured for the new combination. This cost would ultimately be passed on to the consumer.
• Although the commodities that are to be shifted from road to rail are not specified, discussions with DoT and Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) indicate that these would be mainly bulk goods (chrome, sugar, coal, platinum, fuel).  These products mentioned are currently being carried on rail to its maximum capacity. Ironically the balance is only carried by road in order to meet demand, due to TFR’s lack of capacity to deal with the demand.
• Discussions with DoT and TFR determined that the original intent of this proposal was to phase in this legislation over a period of five years, to allow operators to plan and to give TRF sufficient time to improve their efficiency levels and to make the necessary infrastructure investment  to absorb the additional freight volumes. The trucking industry has also not been consulted on this matter.

It is the RFA’s view – which is supported by the SA National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) – that the deteriorating road network is as a result of poor maintenance (low standard of work/inappropriate maintenance/delayed maintenance/no maintenance at all) and not as a result of the current permissible axle masses.

It is the RFA’s intent to communicate this dire impact to the DoT, industry stakeholders, operators and to consumers, who will ultimately bear the brunt of this proposed legislation. The RFA also questions the removal of the dedicated road fund, to which the fuel levy contributed. The current fuel levies are utilised for the general fiscus and not for road infrastructure development. With over 4 billion litres of diesel being consumed by the trucking industry annually, as well as revenue generated through licence fees, permit fees, operating permits and toll fees – the trucking industry more than pays its dues – in addition to other standard taxes.

It should also not be forgotten that goods are only transported by road due to rail’s inability to deliver door to door, on time, safely and reliably and the onus is on rail to offer a comprehensive competitive service. Market forces in a free market economy should dictate the mode of transport and not artificial manipulation in the form of legislation. Ultimately it is the customers’ Constitutional right to choose the mode of transport for delivery of their products.

When contacted for comment, the DoT’s spokesperson from the Minister’s office appeared to be unaware of the proposed legislation. The RFA has requested an urgent meeting with the Minister. To date no response has been received.

We encourage comment from members of the industry with either a fresh perspective or in response to one of our weekly contributions. Please e-mail us at editor@supplychainupdate.co.za