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 Road Freight Association (RFA) said on Thursday.

"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," the association said.

Noting the importance of trucks, the association said that few seemed to understand the critical role that trucks play in the country's economy.

It said the Department of Transport (DoT) had proposed major changes to the National Road Traffic Act (NRTA), Act 93 of 1996.

These included the intention to prohibit the operation of "certain axles" on the secondary road network and the movement of these to the primary road network and the 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 was 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 revealed that the "proposal" to reduce single rear axle mass load from 9000kg to 8000kg was driven by an urgent need from National Treasury to look into the deteriorating network.

The association said no funds were available to continually sustain repair and data showed that the network had 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), it said.

Another revelation was that 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.

The RFA said interactions with DoT representatives had 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," the RFA said.

It said reductions in axle masses could result in a 12 percent decreased payload and a proportional 12 percent 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.

The RFA said even though the restriction was just on secondary networks it was 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, the association said 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.

It said bulk flammable liquids and gas (ullage) vehicles were currently configured for maximum permissible mass, noted the RFA.

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, it said.

"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."

The RFA said although the commodities that were to be shifted from road to rail were not specified, discussions with DoT and Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) indicated that these would be mainly bulk goods - chrome, sugar, coal, platinum, fuel.

According to the RFA, 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 TFR sufficient time to improve their efficiency levels and to make the necessary infrastructure investment to absorb the additional freight volumes.

It said it should not be forgotten that goods were only transported by road due to rail's inability to deliver door to door, on time, safely and reliably and the onus was on rail to offer a comprehensive competitive service.

In its view, the RFA's said the deteriorating road network was as a result of poor maintenance, low standard of work, inappropriate maintenance, delayed maintenance or no maintenance at all, and not as a result of the current permissible axle masses.

I-Net Bridge

SA's top 5 fraud cases Meriza La Key counts down South Africa's biggest Ponzi schemes.

The Malema factor ANCYL leader Julius Malema has become one of the most feared and most powerful figures in the ANC.

The people vs Eskom 2 Former Eskom employee 'Ike' writes from Canada to give his views on Eskom's proposed tariff hike.