Amendment Bill: Why no emphasis on vehicle overloading?

Roads are designed to accommodate a projected number of axle load repetitions of a specific magnitude for a projected service life. The damage created by traffic loads is expressed in terms of a reference axle load. Projected axle loads from different vehicle configurations are converted into an equivalent number of 8,000-kg single axle loads. These equivalent single axle loads (ESALS) are the basis for determining the thickness of the road structure required to provide the desired design life and thus its cost. The effect of a single axle load on a road increases as approximately a fourth-power of axle load. For example, although a 16,000-kg single axle load is only twice as large as an 8,000-kg single axle load, it causes 17 times more loss in life of a road.

In addition to the impacts on road service life, increasing axle loads may also increase the level of maintenance required between major resurfacings. As expected, using tandem axles rather than single axles reduces the damage to the pavement.

I have suggested that Government consider a system of varied license fees based on the number of axles and axle configuration. Lower fees would be applied for the vehicles with higher number of axles, with particular advantage being applied to the usage of tandem axles.

Section 97(1) of the existing Act directs the vehicle or trailer to the nearest weighbridge for the purpose of weighing such load.

Which weighbridge of the Licensing Authority is operational? The 1994 Weigh-in-Motion Study done by Lea-Trintoplan on behalf of the Ministry of Works and Transport showed that there was a significant amount of vehicle overloading on the nation’s roadways.

The incidence of overloading was greatest on the Churchill-Roosevelt Highway, the Uriah Butler Highway, and the Eastern Main Road in Valencia. The main offenders were semi-trailers with 3 or 4 axles, while straight trucks with double wheels on the rear axle followed closely.

Hauliers of aggregates and hardware material often install a “greedy bar” in order to extend the truck’s capacity beyond the stipulated maximum gross weight. The “greedy bar” is removed whenever the truck has to be inspected by the Licensing Authority.

The Honourable Attorney General referred to the Jamaica example; let me refer to Jamaica a bit. Jamaica has given priority to the control and enforcement of vehicle overloading.

What is the extent of their overloading? (a) The number of heavy vehicles doubled over the period 1994-2006.

Just like us in T&T.

(b) The typical truck is at least 65% overweight (quite a number of units are carrying twice the legal axle loads). This causes in excess of 10 times the damage of a vehicle carrying legal axle loads and cuts in half the life of the roadway based on design loads.

Several years ago, Jamaica established a Vehicle Weight Enforcement Unit: (a) A 4-man unit established at ITA.

(b) Unit has received hands-on training on AX900 Portable Scales.

(c) Developed a Comprehensive Vehicle Weight Enforcement Manual.

(d) Procurement of the two (2) portable weigh scales.

Jamaica has proposed improved regulations:

• An increase in the sum payable as a penalty for breaches or violations of the law is also proposed.

• The person in charge of the vehicle shall ensure that another vehicle is dispatched and the excess goods be off loaded onto another vehicle in a manner not likely to cause obstruction to the traffic and the offending vehicle or trailer shall not proceed until it has satisfied the prescribed weight limit.

• “The Island Traffic Authority (ITA) may after seven (7) days, dispose of non- perishable goods stored [removed from overloaded vehicles] by means of sale or such other manner as it thinks fit. For perishable goods, the Island Traffic Authority may sell or otherwise dispose of them before the seven (7) days.” The ITA does not want to get into the storage and vending business

• Axle configuration details to be put into regulations

• No objection to varied license fees favouring increased axles, but max vehicle length of 17.3m must not be exceeded I have recommended that

(1) Permanent weight-restricted bridges be placed at the terminal gates of all ports, in order to address container truck overloading;

(2) The Licensing Authority acquires portable weigh bridges; and,

(3) vehicle weight regulations be enforced in a consistent and effective manner. This enforcement should be highly visible in order to deter and act as a warning and reminder to others.

e-mail: info@ccost.org