Overloading owes, global

You’ve no reason to know Honorary Hermogenes Edejer Ebdane, Jr. Doesn’t matter. He is Secretary in the Department of Public Works and Highways, Government of Philippines. He has been in the news of late – causing sleepless nights to haulage carriers (simply put, commercial vehicle owners) and logistics service providers or LSPs. He’s for the strict implementation of RA 8794 or Anti-Overloading Act. “

As mandated by RA 8794 or the Anti-Overloading Act, these violators must pay the fine of 25% of MVUC. However, while we are penalizing them, this does not prevent them from using the road net carrying their excess weight. This specific measure is meant to ensure that violators not only pay the penalty, but more importantly that overloaded trucks do not get to continue their journey without unloading the excess weight.”

Ebadane’s concern is understandable given the fact that Philippines spends a whopping P13.5 billion every year on maintaining 30,000 km of national highways alone. From May, authorities will be imposing the gross vehicle weight limit (GVW), on top of the current 13,500 kilograms per axle limit on trucks. The maximum allowable GVW will range from 16,880 to 41,000 kg, depending on the truck configuration and number of axles.

Drivers caught violating the law could face confiscations of their licenses as well as their truck’s license plates, and penalties to be calculated based on the apprehended truck’s excess weight. Significantly truckers lobby is arguing that the “shipper’s share of responsibility and accountability in causing the overload” is totally ignored. That is to say, overloading was caused by the cargo and therefore shippers should share the penalty burden. Strict adherence to the law of the land may cost P 5 billion to the truckers. Their worry is also understandable.

The Philippines has the highest allowable axle load limits in the World. Compared to the 13.5 mt/axle limit prescribed by RA 8794, other countries have the following limits: U.S. 9.1 mt/axle, U.K. mt/axle, EU 11.5mt/axle, France 13.0 mt/axle, Thailand 9.1 mt/axle, Pakistan 12.0 mt/axle, and India 9.3 mt/axle. The Philippines government is examining to hold the truck operators civilly and criminally liable for their willful and recurrent violations of the Anti-Overloading Law.

It will be interesting to note how African nations are tackling overload issue. Joe Gidisu, Minister of Road and Highways, is gearing up for strict implementation of axle load control to protect his country’s roads against premature deterioration from June 1. The enforcement was in compliance with the Union Economic Monitaire L'Ouest African (UEMOA) Regulation 2005, which mandated ECOWAS member states to adopt standards and procedures for control of the gauge, the weight and the axle load of every vehicle. For four months, 600 truck drivers and 300 vehicles were held in Burkina Faso-Niger border for flouting axle load regulations before the minister’s intervention brought relief. However, excess cargo was unloaded and transported in other vehicles. NO compromises on that score.

The current legal system which imposes penalties on transport operators who are guilty of overloading, is not working as the fines are "ridiculously" low and does not match the damage caused to roads, according to the Roads Authority of Namibia.

Hileni Fillemon, quoted in Namibian Economist, is of the view that apart from being the main cause of road damage, overloading should be discouraged at all costs as it removes fair competition within the industry. "Unscrupulous transport operators create some advantages for themselves over law-abiding operators by being able to move larger quantities of cargo at fairer prices than their competitors, thus becoming more attractive on the market. Furthermore, the consequences of their actions are spread among all players in the field, thus sharing the related increase in overheads with innocent competitors, in the long run," adds he.

Meanwhile, Researchers Eric Moreno-Quintero and David Watling of Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University, who wrote “A Stochastic Route Choice Model in Optimal Control of Road Freight Flows: A Mexican Case Study”, categorically maintain that “the inefficiencies arising from increased freight road traffic in the late 1990s in Mexico have posed to planners engaged in the road provision the goal to find new control measures to reduce the adverse impacts, such as road damage and overloading.”

A few developments led to a sea-change on the road freight flow. In the 1990s, road freight traffic in Mexico altered notably after the deregulation of the road freight industry in 1989; the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994; and the privatisation of the Mexican Railway in 1997. These changes created new land freight flows, attracting attention to the characterisation of lorry flows on the roads, and the estimation of possible impacts in areas like: route choice, road damage and repair costs, overloading practices and government’s decisions as weight limits, tolls levels and loading enforcement scheme.

This piece appeared in the April 2011 issue of SAARC Journal of Transport

Visit www.saarcjt.com