ALRTA takes aim at IA Pro­gram

Australian Transport News - - Contents -

In­dus­try body uses HML sub­mis­sion to list is­sues with In­tel­li­gent Ac­cess Pro­gram

THE AUS­TRALIAN LIVE­STOCK AND RU­RAL TRANSPORTERS

AS­SO­CI­A­TION ( ALRTA) has come out strongly in its op­po­si­tion of the cur­rent role of the In­tel­li­gent Ac­cess Pro­gram ( IAP) in Higher Mass Lim­its ( HML) reg­u­la­tion.

A part of its re­sponse to Na­tional Heavy Ve­hi­cle Reg­u­la­tor ( NHVR) Is­sues Pa­per on the 2017 Draft ing of the Na­tional HML Dec­la­ra­tion, the in­dus­try body says the reg­u­la­tor needs “to go much fur­ther” than a note that it will “re­view IAP and telem­at­ics in terms of their ad­min­is­tra­tion and ap­pli­ca­tion.”

“If Aus­tralia is to fully re­alise the pro­jected $1.8bn in pro­duc­tiv­ity, safety and en­vi­ron­men­tal benefi ts promised by a na­tion­ally con­sis­tent ap­proach to HML, then it is im­per­a­tive that the NHVR in­sists on a cen­tral role in devel­op­ing and ad­min­is­ter­ing a na­tion­ally con­sis­tent, risk- based, ap­proach to IAP,” a mes­sage pre­pared by ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor Mathew Munro says.

Tak­ing a look at New South Wales and Queens­land, the ALRTA be­lieves af­ter eight years there is “no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the ap­pli­ca­tion of IAP as a manda­tory re­quire­ment for HML.”

The in­dus­try body says the IAP is based on “a poor tech­nol­ogy plat­form that re­lies on con­tin­ual driver dec­la­ra­tions” and is “the pri­mary fac­tor pre­vent­ing greater up­take of HML by el­i­gi­ble ve­hi­cles on gazetted HML routes.”

It “greatly erodes the pro­duc­tiv­ity gains of op­er­a­tors who do take up HML,” the ALRTA says, and “rarely im­proves ‘ last mile’ ac­cess to the farm gate; does not pro­tect vul­ner­a­ble in­fra­struc­ture; gen­er­ates mil­lions of false non- con­for­mances an­nu­ally; and has not re­sulted in a sin­gle suc­cess­ful HML re­lated pros­e­cu­tion.”

To ad­dress th­ese prob­lems, the ALRTA says the NHVR should “pro­pose to re­move IAP as a manda­tory con­di­tion of HML and in­stead de­velop a new ‘route in­tegrity’ com­po­nent of the NHVAS Mass Man­age­ment mod­ule that could be sup­ported with a mod­ern telem­at­ics sys­tem cho­sen by each op­er­a­tor” and “im­me­di­ately com­mence work on na­tion­ally con­sis­tent, risk based, guide­lines for the ap­pli­ca­tion of IAP as a road ac­cess con­di­tion”.

It would also like a se­ries of govern­ment reg­u­la­tions be amended to ease cur­rent IAP re­stric­tions and em­power the NHVR. While it has an is­sue with the IAP, the ALRTA says it has backed sev­eral pro­pos­als in the NHVR Is­sues Pa­per, see­ing pos­i­tives in: • Im­ple­ment­ing HML lim­its by axle group rather than heavy ve­hi­cle com­bi­na­tion types • Re­quir­ing NHVAS Mass Man­age­ment

ac­cred­i­ta­tion for tri-axle groups • Re­quir­ing road friendly sus­pen­sion

(RFS) • Al­low­ing 22.5t for a tri­axle group • Not re­quir­ing the HML dec­la­ra­tion to be car­ried by the driver in ei­ther phys­i­cal or elec­tronic for­mat.

“IAP is based on ‘a poor tech­nol­ogy plat­form that re­lies on con­tin­ual driver dec­la­ra­tions’”

Matthew Munro

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.