Appendices

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

Appendix A

Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations in the East African Community

This appendix quantifies the economic benefits due to regional harmonization of axle load regulations in the East African Community (EAC), specifically focusing on transport fixed cost savings accruing from decreases in weighbridge crossing times. The regional truck transport cost for a 40-foot freight container vehicle (at an average of 26 tons of freight per container) can be summarized as follows: Total Transport Costs = (Variable Cost x Travel Km) + (Fixed Cost x Travel Days) Variable costs include costs for fuel, lubricants, tires, and other incidentals. Fixed costs consist of salary and equipment costs related to the operation of the vehicle. Table A-1 summarizes the variable costs (in USD/km) and fixed costs (USD/day) for the various corridors in the four regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. Table A-1: Truck 1 Operating Costs along Four African Corridors (2008)
Corridor West Africa (Burkina Faso and Ghana) Route Gateway / Destination Tema/Accra Ouagandougou (Burkina Faso) Tema/Accra Bamako (Mali) Douala - NDjamena (Chad) Doula - Bangui (Central African Republic) Ngaoundere NDjamena (Chad) Ngaoundere Moundou (Chad) Mombasa Kampala (Uganda) Kampala Kigali (Rwanda) Lusaka Johannesburg (South Africa) Lusaka Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) Variable Cost (USD/km) 1.51 1.67 1.31 1.22 1.83 2.49 0.98 1.47 1.54 1.34 Fixed Cost (USD/Day) 30 36 49 73 22 21 61 40 55 71

Central Africa (Cameroon and Chad)

East Africa (Uganda and Kenya)

Southern Africa (Zambia)

Source: Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic, Transport Prices and Costs in Africa: A Review of the Main International Corridors, 2008.

The fixed and variable costs for East Africa Region (with respect to the Northern Corridor originating from Mombasa Port) can be attributed to the transport kilometers and transport days summarized in Table A-2.

It is assumed that the term heavy truck in the AICD report and the 40-foot container (26 tons) vehicle are the same.

A-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

Table A-2: Freight Transport Time through the Northern Corridor (Mombasa PortKampala/Kigali) by a 40-foot Container Vehicle (2008)
Freight Destination (Originating from Mombasa Port) Distance (km) Number of Borders Port Dwell Time (days) Land Transport Time (days) 2 Driving Time (hours) Border Crossing Time (hours) Weighbridge Crossing Time (hours) Clearance Time at ICD (days) Total Transport Time (days) Kampala 1,119 1 14 5 41 8 11 4 23 Kigali 1,683 2 12 7 62 10 12 4 23

Source: JICA and PADECO, The Research on the Cross-Border Transport Infrastructure Phase 3. Based on information from the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), 2008; Annual Review and Bulletin of Statistics, 2007; East African Trade and Transport Facilitation Project (EATTFP), 2008; Report on Inspection Tour on Northern Corridor; and KPA, A Study of the Central Corridor, 2008

Combining the information from Tables A-1 and A-2, the average fixed and variable transport cost along the entire Northern Corridor is summarized in Table A-3. Table A-3: Fixed and Variable Cost for a 40-foot Container Vehicle (2008)
Variable Costs Distance (km) Variable Cost (USD/km) Average Variable Cost Along the Entire Northern Corridor Fixed Costs (Land Tranpsort)*** Driving Time (hours) Border Crossing Time (hours) Weighbridge Crossing Time (hours) Fixed Cost (USD/day) Fixed Cost (USD/hour)**** Average Fixed Cost Along the Entire Northern Corridor (USD/hour) MombasaKampala 1,119 km USD 0.98/km KampalaKigali 562 km* USD 1.47/km

USD 1.14/km ** MombasaKampala KampalaKigali 41 21 8 2 11 1 61 41 5.1 3.4 USD 4.61/hour *****

Note: * Calculated as 1,683 km 1,119 km = 562 km; ** Calculated as [(1,119 km x USD 0.98/km) + (562 km x USD 1.47/km)] / 1,683 km; *** Port/ICD Dwell Time omitted ****Truck Operation is assumed to be 12 hours/day; ***** Calculated as [(Total Land Transport 60hrs x USD 5.1/hr) + (24 hrs x USD 3.4/hr)] / 84 hrs Source: JICA Study Team

As Table A-3 is based on information derived from publications and traffic surveys from 2008, the weighted average inflation rate for the five EAC countries shown in Figure A-1 was applied to establish the current fixed and variable costs.

2 The total land transport time is defined as the sum of driving time, border crossing time, and the time spent at weighbridge stations. An hour-to-day conversion was undertaken, assuming truck operations of 12 hours a day.

A-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

Source: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Republic of Uganda

Figure A-1: EAC Weighted Average Inflation Rate An average inflation rate from 2008-2010 was applied to the 2008 costs to derive the fixed and variable costs for 2011 as summarized in Table A-4. Table A-4: Fixed and Variable Cost for a 40-foot Container Vehicle (2011)
Costs Average Variable Cost along the Northern Corridor (USD/km) Average Fixed Cost along the Northern Corridor (USD/hour)
Source: JICA Study Team

1.5 6.0

As Table A-3 suggests, regional harmonization of axle load regulations in the East African Community would directly lower the fixed costs of truck transport by specifically decreasing the land transport time attributed to weighbridge crossing time. As summarized in Table A-5, for the case of the route from Mombasa to Kampala, the fixed cost attributed to weighbridge crossing time is USD 66 per trip, and constitutes approximately 18.6% of total fixed costs for land transport (omitting Port/IDC dwell time). By harmonization of axle load regulation in the EAC, this cost of weighbridge crossing could be substantially thereby generating economic benefits due to lower regional transport costs, which will facilitate regional trade. Table A-5: Fixed Land Transport Costs for a 40-foot Container Vehicle
Fixed Costs (Land Tranpsort) Driving Time Border Crossing Time Weighbridge Crossing Time Average Fixed Cost along the Northern Corridor (USD/hour)
Source: JICA Study Team

MombasaKampala USD (hrs) 240 (41) 48 (8) 66 (11) 6.03

KampalaKigali USD (hrs) 126 (21) 12 (2) 6 (1)

This value is also in the same range as the fixed costs derived from the JICA Cross-Border Transport Infrastructure Phase 3 Report (2008), in which the total fixed costs for forward land transport of a 40-foot container from Mombasa Port to Kamala is 400 USD for a 60 hours of transport time, which roughly equates to USD 6.7/hour/40-foot container.

A-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

Tables A-6 and A-7 show that the total annual volume of goods transported by road transport along the Northern and Central Corridors are 20.3 million tons and 7.1 million tons, respectively. These values roughly equate to 780,770 trips [assuming that one trip equals one 40-foot (26-ton) container traveling from Mombasa to Kigali 4] along the Northern Corridor road per year, and 273,080 trips along the Central Corridor [assuming that one trip equals one 40-foot (26 ton) container travelling from Dar es Salaam to Kampala]. Within the EAC, weighbridges have been used mainly along the Northern and Central Corridors, thus economic benefits from harmonization of axle load regulations is speculated to affect traffic along the Northern and Central Corridors specifically. Table A-6: Northern Corridor Road Traffic (2009)
Type of Traffic Transit Regional Domestic Total Traffic Volume (000 tons) 5,509 2,974 11,817 20,300

Source: USAID, Corridor Diagnostic Study of the Northern and Central Corridors of East Africa, by Nathan Associates Inc.

Table A-7: Central Corridor Road Traffic (2009)

Type of Traffic Transit Regional Domestic Total Traffic Volume (000 tons) 357 658 5,617 6,632

Source: USAID, Corridor Diagnostic Study of the Northern and Central Corridors of East Africa, by Nathan Associates Inc.

Assuming that the Central Corridor will experience the same USD/time rate of savings as the Northern Corridor, the cost savings from weighbridge time savings would be as shown in Table A-8. A 10-minute decrease in weighbridge crossing time amounts to USD 1 cost saving per trip with an annual economic benefit calculated to USD 1 million within the EAC. 5 Furthermore, a one-hour reduction in weighbridge crossing time amounts to USD 6 cost saving per trip with an annual economic benefit calculated to be USD 6.2 million within the EAC.

JICA and PADECO, The Research on the Cross-Border Transport Infrastructure Phase 3. Based on information from the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), 2008; Annual Review and Bulletin of Statistics, 2007; East African Trade and Transport Facilitation Project (EATTFP), 2008; Report on Inspection Tour on Northern Corridor; and KPA, A Study of the Central Corridor, 2008. 5 As explained earlier, economic benefits from reductions in weighbridge crossing time in the EAC will mainly affect traffic along the Northern and Central Corridors.

A-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

Table A-8: Economic Benefits from Savings from Weighbridge Crossing Time
Corridor Northern Corridor Central Corridor EAC Total 10 Minute Decrease 780,770 273,080 1,053,850 1 Hour Decrease 4,684,620 1,638,460 6,323,080

Note: This calculation does not include benefits from time savings in the empty backhaul truck operation. Source: JICA Study Team

Table A-9 shows that small physical improvements (e.g., computerization, increased versatile portable weighing machines, an increased number of lanes) at weighbridges result in time savings ranging from 10 minutes to a few hours. Axle load harmonization within the EAC (and in the future with SADC and COMESA) would most likely contribute to more than a 10-minute decrease in weighbridge crossing time. This finding suggests that economic benefits resulting from transport savings from decreased weighbridge crossing times will be of the order of a few million USD annually, furthermore leading to greater implications in terms of regional trade facilitation. Table A-9: Improvements in EAC Weighbridge Crossing Times
Weighbridges Mariakani Athi River (Mlolongo) Maai Mahiu Gilgil Eldoret Webuye Amagoro (Malaba) Busia Kisumu Busitema Masaka (Lukaya) Mbarara Mubende Baseline 6 hrs Dec 07 10 hrs 8 hrs 2 hrs 3 hrs 50 min May 08 8 hrs 8 hrs 1 hrs 1 hrs 20 min Jul 09 5 hrs 3 hrs 40 min 1.5 hrs 30 min Improvements Additional lane, computerization Increased number of weighing machines, computerization Only escorted trucks pass through March Only escorted trucks pass through weighbridge Versatile portable weighing machine as been introduces Only verification of documents take place Versatile portable weighing machine is easing operations 360 degree turn to weighbridge may increase process time

50 min 30 min 20 min

20 min 20 min 10 min

30 min 20 min 10 min

Source: East Africa Trade and Transport Facilitation Project (EATTFP), Report on Inspection Tour of Northern Corridor From Mombasa Malaba Kigali by the Seamless Transport Committee 412 July 2008.

A-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix A Regional Economic Benefits from Harmonization of Axle Load Regulations

A-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix B Regional Saving in Maintenance Cost by Eliminating Overloading

Appendix B

Regional Saving in Maintenance Cost by Eliminating Overloading

In Section 4.4 the methodology adopted in this study for estimating maintenance cost with or without overloading was described. It was based on the distribution of axle loads actually measured at a limited number of points in the road network are limited. Although overloading is said to be rampant in the region, and while actual records do show some overloading, the majority of loads are under the limit. Generally, there are fewer violations on roads with high traffic volumes and more violations on roads with low traffic volumes. Two traffic types were taken as axle load distribution patterns: Type T with high traffic volumes and low violation rates and Type U with low traffic volumes and high violation rates. Table 4-25 shows the results of HDM-4 model runs. For Type T the ratio of maintenance cost with and without overloading turned out to be 1.21, i.e., maintenance cost for the without case was 82.6% of the case with overloading. Similarly, for Type U the without overloading case resulted in a maintenance cost 89.3% of that in the with-overloading case. The third type, a medium-traffic type, was defined as the average of the two, which gives a maintenance cost without overloading of 86.2% of the case with overloading. As explained in Section 4.4, the case of without overloading was defined assuming that all cargo on the overloaded vehicles would be transferred to vehicles at the maximum axle load limit, i.e., ideal loading. The number of vehicles thus would be larger than in the overloading case since the total amount of cargo must be divided into smaller individual payloads. Road networks of each Partner State were divided into three types: high, medium, and low traffic carrying sections. Table B-1 shows the distribution of road lengths that fall into the three types by country. Applying the above-mentioned reduction factors by traffic type to the distribution of traffic type for each country, overall cost reduction factors for each country were obtained as shown in the table. Table B-1: Average Maintenance Cost Reduction Factor by Country Due to No Overloading
Country Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda High Traffic % 25 6 31 1 0 Medium Traffic % 38 31 31 9 10 Low Traffic % 67 63 38 90 90 Average Cost Reduction Factor 0.865 0.879 0.862 0.889 0.890

Source: JICA Study Team

The HDM-4 model was run for each country with overloading to yield the maintenance cost for each country with existing, i.e., overloading conditions. The model was run for 20 years starting from the existing conditions and assuming 3% annual traffic growth. The model determines necessary maintenance activities to achieve a given road condition level (in this case an IRI of 4.0) and calculates maintenance cost. Maintenance cost under the ideal condition, i.e., without overloading, can be obtained by applying the cost reduction factor shown above to the maintenance cost for each country. Table B-2 shows the results.

B-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix B Regional Saving in Maintenance Cost by Eliminating Overloading

Table B-2: Maintenance Cost by Country

(USD million)

Country Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda Total

Source: JICA Team

Estimated Maintenance Cost for 20112030 20.38 1,511.33 100.68 1,268.54 1,306.23 4,207.15

Estimated Maintenance Cost without Overloading (Ideal Loading) 17.62 1,328.66 86.38 1,128.23 1,162.20 3,723.55

In 20 years the elimination of overloading would save USD 484 million for the EAC region, or USD 24 million per year. As Table A-3 was based on information derived from publications and traffic surveys from 2008, the weighted average inflation rate for the five EAC countries shown in Figure A-1 was applied to establish the current fixed and variable costs.

B-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Appendix C
C.1

EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Traffic Volume Data

Table C-1: Tanzania Traffic Data
Traffic Volume Road Link T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 1 10 15 20 30 35 40 45 47 50 55 70 87 90 92 96 100 105 110 112 605 607 610 612 615 Total Length 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 15 21 21 7 43 20 3 36 33 228 3248.4 272 283 272 349 511 431 368 505 965 6462 1297.7 316 318 320 352 300 258 342 575 311 1309 511.6 181 185 192 214 217 170 185 231 260 381 5057.7 769 786 784 915 1028 859 895 1311 1536 8152 Light 26280 36943 29693 41215 17841 28517 28930 17841 20116 11755 10659 7370 3988 3633 4198 1218 1251 1964 1888 1718 1783 1013 318 281 300 Medium 6251 3579 14741 5750 6270 4962 5816 6271 5799 4187 4497 4039 2513 1950 3189 953 1646 1098 1179 1339 775 459 243 342 198 Heavy 9 0 29 221 818 235 270 823 755 615 555 678 1023 1230 1422 368 1053 1005 761 827 468 395 125 243 111 Total 32540 40522 44463 47186 24929 33714 35016 24935 26670 16557 15711 12087 7524 6813 8809 2539 3950 4067 3828 3884 3026 1867 686 866 609

Weighted Average

T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3

620 625 630 635 640 641 645 650 653 654

14 10 14 18 17 1 18 12 0 1

C-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3

655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 698 700 705 715 720 725 730 735 740 745 760 Total

26 19 22 10 0 0 27 38 2 27 33 7 19 17 26 46 9 1 21 31 486

240 156 194 181 69 162 122 246 67 289 179 169 1614 117 57 128 280 219 216 298 297.3 330 445 227 310 709 230 185 300 394.7 139 192 373 140 173.1

218 272 179 266 77 268 179 216 100 278 233 230 1272 134 89 128 201 166 238 250 277.6 259 391 175 234 437 117 186 159 279.9 146 75 101 83 102.2

181 222 364 211 164 227 385 269 145 251 222 229 2943 116 184 140 349 314 299 267 337.5 278 343 188 180 311 193 186 195 236.0 159 74 122 144 119.6

639 650 737 658 310 657 686 731 312 818 634 628 5829 367 330 396 830 699 753 815 912.4 867 1179 590 724 1457 540 557 654 910.5 444 341 596 367 394.9

Weighted Average T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 T3 765 770 775 780 790 792 795 800 Total 21 21 7 79 47 8 18 16 217

Weighted Average

T3 T3 T3 T3

805 810 815 820 Total

32 38 5 19 94

Weighted Average

Source: Data from Tanzania

C-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-2: Kenya Traffic Data

Traffic Volume

Region

Province

District Teso Nakuru Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Bungoma Lugari Lugari Lugari Lugari Lugari Lugari Lugari

RoadID A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104

Chainage 2.20 10.04 16.86 16.99 33.28 33.48 35.08 35.51 41.05 41.30 57.80 57.96 59.05 64.53 64.99 67.02 67.30 71.20 71.44 85.80 85.99 Total Length

Distance 6.12 7.33 3.48 8.21 8.24 0.90 1.02 2.99 2.89 8.37 8.33 0.63 3.29 2.97 1.25 1.16 2.09 2.07 7.30 7.28 5.23 91.13

Light 971 8879 786 904 1298 735 2123 2005 1417 1450 2092 1999 1483 1841 1044 1785 1963 885 1550 1041 1770

Medium 364 5646 607 576 879 233 591 574 460 398 744 853 337 589 509 577 738 164 499 555 882

Heavy 219 871 330 340 641 99 299 300 168 107 227 326 47 286 286 156 256 77 173 315 509

Total 5134 51626 5764 6086 9595 3463 9783 9366 6609 6273 9820 10294 5941 8811 6069 8062 9591 3621 7123 6340 10466

3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western 3 Western

Weighted Average 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Uasin Gishu Koibatek Koibatek Koibatek Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 96.26 97.84 107.11 107.69 113.64 114.00 125.16 127.97 128.47 133.25 134.09 144.70 145.48 149.70 150.32 170.01 170.47 177.52 178.15 189.28 189.87 194.45 197.91 215.91 217.75 231.27 231.72 232.96 233.35 238.72 239.83 240.25 254.51 255.15 265.99 5.92 5.43 4.93 3.27 3.15 5.76 6.99 1.65 2.64 2.81 5.72 5.69 2.50 2.42 10.15 10.08 3.76 3.84 5.88 5.86 2.58 4.02 10.73 9.92 7.68 6.99 0.85 0.81 2.88 3.24 0.76 7.34 7.45 5.74 5.71

2051.2
1633 2678 3115 2117 2163 1481 6971 1333 5447 3282 3058 5873 3997 1853 1648 1672 1912 1349 1081 1120 1145 2578 1622 2106 1381 1414 3383 3736 3733 6084 3179 3502 2502 2198 6725

975.8
570 841 1706 1256 813 651 1435 742 1266 817 801 1537 1292 738 537 882 813 581 815 806 522 1531 1268 630 659 692 1545 2130 2132 1822 1307 1378 1623 1522 2095

343.1
299 420 487 395 358 342 568 461 684 385 390 610 494 293 298 358 410 288 433 302 232 485 502 286 287 260 655 789 789 619 483 501 555 553 718

3370.1
8186 12799 17087 12184 10844 8128 28787 8484 24022 14523 13798 25806 18658 9348 8132 9513 10279 7266 7797 7277 6208 14800 11114 9822 7627 7703 18235 21787 21782 27504 16236 17526 15277 13987 30665

C-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 2 Rift Valley 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Central 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi 1 Nairobi

Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nakuru Nyandarua Nyandarua Nyandarua Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Kiambu Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi Nairobi

A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104 A104

266.57 276.67 277.37 284.67 285.14 289.62 290.23 292.06 292.55 316.78 317.31 320.38 320.84 337.88 338.21 342.57 347.77 348.43 352.71 353.57 371.14 371.67 374.52 374.74 380.81 381.90 389.59 390.03 397.30 398.16 403.74 404.21 406.12 407.17 418.22 418.29 424.11 426.02 438.76 438.82 440.28 440.40 450.49 451.32 Total Length

5.34 5.40 4.00 3.88 2.48 2.55 1.22 1.16 12.36 12.38 1.80 1.77 8.75 8.68 2.35 4.78 2.93 2.47 2.57 9.22 9.05 1.69 1.54 3.15 3.58 4.39 4.07 3.85 4.06 3.22 3.03 1.19 1.48 6.05 5.56 2.95 3.87 7.32 6.40 0.76 0.79 5.10 5.46 6.06 365.83

5909 6003 7762 34228 22853 18181 2053 13509 9580 4259 6994 3342 3422 5724 5758 8378 5196 10004 394 778 5812 14228 3585 3567 3602 3534 3669 3400 3585 3216 4328 9606 3400 3308 7868 11525 9570 42375 100361 116234 2889 85560 7140 9135 9027.3 6157 12426 1458 1432 4553 2312 941 2512 2482 2676 3004 4225 2685 1896 1868 2320 5382 8442 2164 1510 1408

1928 2083 2441 3647 3848 3548 940 3250 2116 2288 2332 1342 1360 3063 3055 3076 1067 3564 226 285 1336 2403 656 662 649 676 622 730 933 526 487 2080 730 628 1936 2968 1060 5610 2652 4613 880 4232 947 2762 1687.1 3671 2933 2081 2074 2671 1799 809 1873 941 1825 2134 3307 1910 2247 2129 1914 1765 1615 1593 2097 2066

579 833 870 853 890 977 442 1063 760 666 667 492 497 950 890 871 60 948 3 6 58 60 53 61 46 75 17 133 246 20 15 794 133 77 798 777 277 874 709 749 195 741 142 928 503.7 1162 1558 1617 1614 1042 1041 478 1121 320 888 1056 1794 825 1657 1558 1136 1076 1015 1042 1622 1611

26999 28908 35661 122397 87469 72238 11209 57009 39929 23274 32031 16882 17205 31348 31161 39441 19879 46358 1907 3328 22573 52378 13510 13508 13509 13511 13506 13517 15186 11845 15204 39978 13517 12682 34108 48587 34615 154093 327965 383386 12626 285408 25924 41051 11218.1 35344 54847 18017 17902 26841 17282 7530 18485 12060 17798 20495 31329 17911 20070 19193 18059 27018 35969 16240 18252 17791

Weighted Average 4 Eastern 4 Coast 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern Machakos Mombasa Machakos Machakos Machakos Machakos Machakos Machakos Machakos Machakos Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 0.33 1.49 13.84 14.65 21.37 22.98 36.70 36.71 36.72 46.21 46.64 59.48 59.96 69.29 69.72 84.86 85.76 98.26 98.76 99.62 100.50 0.91 6.75 6.58 3.77 4.17 7.66 6.86 0.01 4.75 4.96 6.64 6.66 4.90 4.88 7.79 8.02 6.70 6.50 0.68 0.87 22.69

C-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Eastern 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast 4 Coast

Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Makueni Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Taita Taveta Kw ale Kw ale Kw ale Kw ale Kw ale Kilifi Kilifi Kilifi Kilifi Kilifi Kilifi Kilifi

A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109 A109

144.99 167.82 168.26 206.99 207.99 254.76 255.43 265.57 266.24 283.01 283.69 298.27 299.39 302.07 302.75 304.30 305.05 307.10 308.14 332.36 366.93 369.29 395.48 397.23 415.57 416.86 422.16 423.80 431.38 431.59 437.51 438.02 Total Length

33.66 11.63 19.58 19.86 23.89 23.72 5.41 5.41 8.72 8.73 7.63 7.85 1.90 1.68 1.12 1.15 1.40 1.54 12.63 29.40 18.46 14.27 13.97 10.05 9.82 3.29 3.47 4.61 3.89 3.07 3.22 0.26 438.02

1677 1859 1555 1408 1689 652 1152 1339 1183 1090 1122 1016 1243 1427 823 1336 1321 1173 851 1671 1799 1797 673 1577 1277 1442 1888 2523 3128 2284 1889 3508 1964.8018

1638 1537 1770 1529 1687 1085 1624 1985 1579 1873 1861 1669 1737 1381 1200 1498 470 1220 1483 1403 1424 1473 737 1009 1484 1509 1455 1409 1014 1262 1655 2137 1629.8736

1120 968 1270 1032 1207 713 1236 1118 1117 1351 1340 1222 1254 930 856 1169 253 834 813 950 917 906 546 685 1060 1060 806 921 325 693 1052 1226 1066.8527

15196 14781 15881 13627 15774 8494 14046 15132 13464 15105 15121 13653 14731 12789 9986 13886 6704 11084 10660 13741 14059 14160 6771 11067 13185 13778 13866 16279 14344 14061 15587 22957 4661.5281

Weighted Average

Source: Data from Kenya

C-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-3: Uganda Traffic Data

Traffic Volume Station Kampala Kampala Jinja Jinja Tororo Tororo Traffic Count Station No Road No 2 A001 5 A001 120 A001 118 A001 126 A001 128 A001 Average Light 13950 5634 3403 2321 910 810 4504.7 Medium 2494 1431 977 810 317 104 1022.2 Heavy 913 797 716 683 456 546 685.2 Total 17357 7862 5096 3814 1683 1460 6212.0

Mpigi Mpigi Masaka

6 A002 8 A002 25 A002 Average

7362 1456 1763 3527

1917 940 772 1210

202 128 154 161

9481 2524 2689 4898

Masaka Kabale
Source: Data from Uganda

26 A002 62 A002 Average

891 1051 971

520 422 471

135 144 140

1546 1617 1582

C-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-4: Rwanda Traffic Data

Small Rd ID RN1 RN1 RN1 RN1 RN1 Section GITIKINYONI-GITARAMA GITARAMA-NYANZA NYANZA-BUTARE BUTARE-MUKONI MUKONI-AKANYARU Type Length (km) Rural 42.343 Rural 41.587 Rural 34.871 Urban 3.59 Rural 29.582 Total Length 151.973 Weighted Average Urban Rural Rural Rural Total Length Weighted Urban Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Total Length Weighted 7.817 16.179 22.968 28.378 75.342 Average 9.25 16.56 31.183 3.373 14.026 31.792 10.662 10.022 38.831 165.699 Average 1903 1153 919 2865 69 1138 1969 691 527 272 616 3857 3857 1633 1343 1312 685 316 272 85 1235 Medium 445 183 144 144 19 214 948 211 208 184 276 386 386 378 164 230 168 106 54 13 199 Large 38 32 34 10 10 29 121 109 100 107 107 89 89 82 1 89 90 87 61 44 74

RN2 RN2 RN2 RN2

GATSATA- NYACYONGA NYACYONGA-GASEKE GASEKE- RUKOMO RUKOMO-GATUNA

RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3 RN3

KIGALI-KANOMBE KANOMBE-RUGENDE RUGENDE-GISHARI GISHARI-RWAMAGANA RWAMAGANA-KAYONZA KAYONZA-KIBUNGO KIBUNGO-KIBAYA KIBAYA-CYUNUZI CYUNUZI-RUSUMO

Source: Data from Rwanda

Table C-5: Burundi Traffic Data

Route RN 1 RN 1 RN 1 RN 1 RN 1 Location CH.P Station 0 6 Kamenge 51 Bukeye 94 Kayanza 114.88 Weighted Average Length (km) 28.5 44 42.38 Small 1089 488 235 543.8 Traffic Volume Medium Large 689 114 57 235.7 57 34 19 34.0 Total 1836 636 311 813.5

Source: Data from Burundi

C-7

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

C.2

Axle Load Distribution Data

Table C-6: Axle Load Distribution Data in Tanzania

Category Number of Axle Low (kg) High (kg) Total Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 0 1000 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1000 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 3000 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 3000 4000 30 8 6 3 5 5 3 0 4000 5000 49 12 12 9 4 4 6 2 5000 6000 147 64 38 20 7 9 9 0 6000 7000 284 149 53 45 16 11 10 0 7000 8000 556 203 43 51 91 82 79 7 8000 9000 386 17 117 100 54 45 48 5 9000 10000 190 0 144 30 5 7 3 1 10000 11000 38 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 11000 12000 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 12000 13000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13000 14000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14000 15000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15000 16000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16000 17000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17000 18000 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18000 19000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19000 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20000 21000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21000 22000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22000 23000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23000 24000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24000 25000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25000 26000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1694 454 454 260 185 166 160 15
Source: Axle load data from Tanzania (Sample N = 454 vehicles)

C-8

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-7: Axle Load Distribution Data in Kenya

Category Number of Axle Low (kg) High (kg) Total Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 0 1000 829 10 505 142 87 85 0 1000 2000 749 11 388 191 52 48 59 2000 3000 1251 23 581 371 96 74 106 3000 4000 2640 203 1199 637 236 175 190 4000 5000 8788 2535 3514 1126 680 420 513 5000 6000 28147 14993 6762 2009 1939 1005 1439 6000 7000 38699 18491 4185 3685 5334 3106 3898 7000 8000 55969 4562 5948 10878 11719 12320 10542 8000 9000 73600 925 12147 14630 13032 18174 14692 9000 10000 25377 34 3598 5705 5213 4168 6659 10000 11000 4910 10 1757 1498 1288 355 2 11000 12000 1628 0 665 527 353 82 1 12000 13000 630 1 301 201 110 17 0 13000 14000 249 0 136 79 25 9 0 14000 15000 105 0 64 23 16 2 0 15000 16000 44 0 33 8 2 1 0 16000 17000 10 0 8 1 1 0 0 17000 18000 7 0 4 1 1 1 0 18000 19000 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 19000 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20000 21000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21000 22000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22000 23000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23000 24000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24000 25000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25000 26000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 243636 41798 41798 41712 40185 40042 38101
Source: Axle load data from Kenya (Sample N = 41,798 vehicles)

C-9

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-8: Axle Load Distribution Data in Uganda

Category Number of Axle Low (kg) High (kg) Total Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 0 1000 180 2 147 13 12 3 3 0 1000 2000 152 8 54 30 34 17 9 0 2000 3000 524 77 124 77 116 61 59 10 3000 4000 1447 374 309 166 280 156 145 17 4000 5000 3483 1275 563 326 666 329 303 21 5000 6000 6968 3080 796 795 1025 718 515 39 6000 7000 9598 3634 979 1318 1316 1197 1035 119 7000 8000 11559 2216 2396 2484 1123 1678 1475 187 8000 9000 7181 624 1854 1958 715 974 1020 36 9000 10000 3160 167 1232 832 325 294 300 10 10000 11000 2065 75 1140 433 156 119 134 8 11000 12000 1199 12 675 281 79 76 68 8 12000 13000 589 6 289 176 36 31 40 11 13000 14000 501 6 234 144 39 34 36 8 14000 15000 343 1 195 91 16 13 17 10 15000 16000 272 1 145 75 25 11 9 6 16000 17000 190 0 119 38 8 11 13 1 17000 18000 154 2 107 23 12 3 5 2 18000 19000 112 1 82 14 4 5 5 1 19000 20000 64 1 42 8 10 2 1 0 20000 21000 37 0 24 11 2 0 0 0 21000 22000 13 0 6 4 3 0 0 0 22000 23000 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 23000 24000 7 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 24000 25000 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 25000 26000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 49807 11562 11517 9301 6008 5732 5193 494
Source: Axle load data from Uganda (Sample N = 11,525 vehicles)

C-10

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

Table C-9: Axle Load Distribution Data in Burundi

Number of Axle Category Low (kg) High (kg) Total Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 0 1000 3 1 2 0 0 1000 2000 48 21 22 1 2 2000 3000 198 118 53 8 8 3000 4000 152 69 45 16 7 4000 5000 99 43 36 12 3 5000 6000 79 38 29 5 2 6000 7000 83 29 34 13 4 7000 8000 80 24 30 10 5 8000 9000 63 8 28 7 8 9000 10000 54 4 15 6 5 10000 11000 49 4 18 9 5 11000 12000 37 2 13 3 8 12000 13000 22 0 9 2 1 13000 14000 16 0 9 3 2 14000 15000 18 0 9 5 2 15000 16000 6 0 1 3 1 16000 17000 4 0 2 1 0 17000 18000 5 0 4 1 0 18000 19000 1 0 1 0 0 19000 20000 0 0 0 0 0 20000 21000 1 0 1 0 0 21000 22000 0 0 0 0 0 22000 23000 0 0 0 0 0 23000 24000 0 0 0 0 0 24000 25000 0 0 0 0 0 25000 26000 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1018 361 361 105 63
Source: Axle load data in Burundi (Sample N = 361 vehicles)

Axle 6 0 1 8 9 1 2 1 6 7 9 5 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 1 3 4 3 2 1 5 3 9 5 6 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50

Axle 7 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 6 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

C-11

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix C EAC Trunk Road Network Data

C-12

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix D Japanese Design Standards

Appendix D
D.1

Japanese Design Standards

Japanese Pavement Design Standards

Japan Manual for Asphalt Pavement (1998) Method based on the AASHO Road Test and experiments in Japan (i) Evaluate subgrade by California Bearing Ratio (CBR). (ii) Total thickness of asphalt concrete called TA, which assumes that necessary thickness of pavement is composed of only asphalt concrete, is determined by accumulated heavy traffic volume and the strength of subgrade. (iii) Thickness of each layer is determined utilizing coefficients of relative strengths of each layers material based on AASHO Road Test and the above TA value. (i) Design traffic volume for pavement is determined by calculating average traffic volume of heavy vehicle in the design period utilizing the growth factor and the latest traffic volume data. (ii) Above TA is calculated by converting the design traffic volume for pavement into accumulated number of standard axle loads of which standard is equivalent to 49 kN.

Items Design Standards Principle of Design Method Outline of Design Method

Traffic Volume for Design

Source: Japan Road Association, Manual for Asphalt Pavement, 1998

D.2

Japanese Bridge Design Standards

Japan Specifications For Highway Bridges Permissible Stress Design Method Not specified A loading and B loading Not specified @3.5 kN/m2 + @10 kN/m2 on 10 m of length 200 kN k (1 axle) k: Extra coefficient k = 1.0 (L < 4m), k = L/32 + 7/8 (4 m < L) Impact factor 2@100 kN (Wheel load, 20 cm 50 cm)

Items Design Standard Design Method Design Period Live Load Loading Carriageway Width: B(m) Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) Truck Load

Impact Load Live Load for Slab Design

Source: Japan Road Association, Specifications for Highway Bridges

D-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix D Japanese Design Standards

D-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Appendix E
E.1
E.1.1

Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Funding Needs Estimation using HDM-4

Common Maintenance Configuration for the HDM-4 Model

Maintenance Options and Scenarios

Crack seal Patch Reseal Overlay Reconstruct Condition Apply >10% of surface Apply 10 potholes per km Apply >20% damaged Apply when IRI>5 Apply when IRI>8 Economic cost 5 USD/sqm 12 USD/sqm 34 USD/sqm 45 USD/sqm 86 USD/sqm Type 1 v v Type 2 v v Type 3 v v v Type 4 v v

Note: These unit rates are based on to the prices in Rwanda, where all of unit rates for maintenance work were collected.

Economic Cost Configuration by Country

Crack seal Patch Reseal Overlay Reconstruct Condition Apply >10 % of surface Apply 10 potholes per km Apply >20% damaged Apply when IRI>5 Apply when IRI>8 Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi 5 USD/sqm 12 USD/sqm 34 USD/sqm 45 USD/sqm 86 USD/sqm Kenya and Tanzania 3.5 USD/sqm 9 USD/sqm 24 USD/sqm 31 USD/sqm 60 USD/sqm

Basic Configurations of Vehicles

E-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.1.2

Dataset for HDM-4 Analysis for Burundi

Traffic volume/composition, length, and pavement condition for the target network

Result of optimized maintenance program

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Cost

NPV 0 0.496488 2.17 0 2.345 1.4035 0 0 0 0 0 7.805 0 0 2.9435 2.17 0 0 0 1.54 0

E-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.1.3

Dataset for HDM-4 Analysis for Kenya

Traffic volume/composition
Car 21.5% 23.7% 36.7% Pick-up - Utility 10.6% 6.5% 8.0% 4WD Jeep 12.2% 9.4% 13.0% Minibus - Matatu 18.6% 12.1% 25.5% Small Bus 2.8% 4.7% 2.9% Large Bus 2.0% 2.6% 1.6% Medium Truck 11.9% 9.1% 7.1% Heavy Truck 11.3% 16.8% 3.1% Articulated Truck 9.1% 15.0% 2.1%

Low Medium High

Result of optimized maintenance program

Year

Cost NPV 2011 384.6771 39.9961 2012 0 2013 43.4 2014 0 2015 96.6 2016 0 2017 112.7 2018 0 2019 11.2 2020 0 2021 96.6 2022 0 2023 112.7 2024 33.95 2025 366.8 2026 0 2027 96.6 2028 4.2 2029 138.25 2030 13.65

E-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.1.4

Dataset for HDM-4 Analysis for Rwanda

TOTAL without Motorcycles 24 2386 1.0% 17 1368 1.2% 19 1097 1.7% 6 3020 0.2% 7 104 7.1% 47 3038 1.5% 49 1012 4.8% 45 836 5.4% 47 561 8.3% 7 4334 0.2% 7 4334 0.2% 6 2093 0.3% 0 1506 0.0% 7 1632 0.4% 5 944 0.5% 5 509 1.0% 5 387 1.3% 5 365 3.5% 8 628 1.3% 10 479 2.1% 5 184 2.7% 16 481 3.3% 11 616 1.8%

Sections, length, traffic volume, vehicle composition, and initial pavement condition
Cars Length (km) 42.343 41.587 34.871 3.59 29.582 7.817 16.179 22.968 28.378 9.25 16.56 31.183 3.373 14.026 31.792 10.662 10.022 38.831 26.501 26.228 62.645 25.765 4.79 250 10.5% 151 11.0% 101 9.2% 954 31.6% 21 21.4% 480 15.8% 106 10.5% 93 11.1% 67 11.9% 784 18.1% 784 18.1% 251 12.0% 198 13.1% 167 10.2% 90 9.5% 28 5.5% 26 6.7% 12 8.5% 61 9.7% 32 6.7% 17 9.2% 37 7.7% 186 30.2% Pick up 61 2.6% 28 2.0% 15 1.4% 123 4.1% 3 3.1% 97 3.2% 88 8.7% 73 8.7% 5 0.9% 416 9.6% 416 9.6% 91 4.3% 48 3.2% 254 15.6% 37 3.9% 14 2.8% 8 2.1% 4 2.8% 38 6.1% 10 2.1% 6 3.2% 8 1.7% 26 4.2% Minibus& Jeep4x4 1592 66.7% 974 71.2% 803 73.2% 1788 59.2% 45 45.9% 1392 45.8% 497 49.2% 361 43.2% 200 35.5% 2657 61.3% 2657 61.3% 1291 61.7% 1097 72.7% 891 54.6% 558 59.2% 274 53.8% 238 61.5% 69 48.6% 413 65.8% 319 66.7% 106 57.3% 288 59.8% 285 46.3% Bus 32 1.3% 15 1.1% 16 1.5% 9 0.3% 6 6.1% 30 1.0% 29 2.9% 30 3.6% 32 5.7% 133 3.1% 133 3.1% 44 2.1% 38 2.5% 96 5.9% 1 0.1% 3 0.6% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% 31 4.9% 6 1.3% 7 3.8% 15 3.1% 0 0.0% 2 Axles Truck 366 15.3% 147 10.7% 111 10.1% 120 4.0% 4 4.1% 763 25.1% 130 12.9% 122 14.6% 95 16.9% 237 5.5% 237 5.5% 317 15.1% 124 8.2% 127 7.8% 164 17.4% 99 19.4% 50 12.9% 7 4.9% 61 9.7% 81 16.9% 25 13.5% 86 17.8% 91 14.8% 3 Axles Truck 47 2.0% 21 1.5% 17 1.5% 15 0.5% 9 9.2% 155 5.1% 52 5.1% 56 6.7% 57 10.1% 16 0.4% 16 0.4% 17 0.8% 2 0.1% 7 0.4% 3 0.3% 4 0.8% 3 0.8% 6 4.2% 6 1.0% 8 1.7% 11 5.9% 18 3.7% 6 1.0% TrailerTruck 14 0.6% 15 1.1% 15 1.4% 4 0.1% 3 3.1% 74 2.4% 60 5.9% 55 6.6% 60 10.7% 82 1.9% 82 1.9% 76 3.6% 1 0.1% 82 5.0% 85 9.0% 82 16.1% 56 14.5% 39 27.5% 10 1.6% 12 2.5% 8 4.3% 14 2.9% 10 1.6% Trailer Good 42.343 41.587 34.871 3.59 27.982 7.817 16.179 22.968 26.578 9.25 16.56 31.183 3.373 14.026 24.792 10.662 8.922 27.231 24.901 26.228 27.945 4.665 4.79 Fair 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1.1 11.6 1.6 0 23.6 13.6 0 Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.1 7.5 0

E-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

HDM analysis results (work program for Rwanda and cumulative cost for maintenance)

E-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Cost

NPV 7.14 2.596527 1.029 15.1214 15.0115 1.288 0 0 0 2.737 0 0.90335 2.49095 18.4786 14.2975 9.0265 1.16585 1.5848 5.90415 3.395 1.10215

E-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.1.5

Dataset for HDM-4 Analysis for Tanzania

Traffic composition
Cars 16.6% 19.0% 35.2% PUs Vans 20.7% 24.7% 21.7% Small Buses 11.0% 22.2% 21.1% Large Buses 14.1% 8.1% 13.1% Light Lorries 8.4% 6.3% 4.6% Med. Lorries 10.0% 6.9% 2.6% Heavy Lorries 12.7% 5.7% 1.3% V.H. Lorries 6.6% 7.1% 0.5%

Low Medium High

HDM analysis results (work program for Tanzania and cumulative cost for maintenance)

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Cost

NPV 28.7 28.02947 108.15 44.52 8.4 40.25 11.55 28.7 0 0 40.67 51.8 345.1 28.7 0 322.7 116.55 64.05 0 28.7 0

E-7

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.1.6

Dataset for HDM-4 Analysis for Uganda

Saloon cars and Taxies Medium/Large Single Unit Truck

Traffic Composition
Light Goods Small Buses Light Single Unit Truck Truck Trailer and Semi Trailer

Buses

Low Medium

18.4% 27.5%

22.2% 23.6%

22.6% 29.1%

4.3% 1.2%

8.1% 6.8%

12.7% 7.7%

11.7% 4.0%

HDM Analysis results (work program for Uganda and cumulative cost of maintenance)

Year

Cost NPV 2011 384.6771 35.16654 2012 0 2013 43.4 2014 0 2015 0 2016 4.2 2017 96.6 2018 11.2 2019 0 2020 108.5 2021 0 2022 4.2 2023 0 2024 33.95 2025 463.4 2026 0 2027 0 2028 112.7 2029 32.2 2030 11.2

E-8

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.2
E.2.1

Analysis of Overloading Measurement Records by Country

Uganda

The recorded axle loads of each axle of all passing traffic at two weighbridge stations, Mbaraba and Masaka, located along the central corridors, shown as below, were recorded in the following format.

Mbalaba

Masaka

Figure E-1: Location of Measurement

E-9

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Table E-1: Measurement Record Format for Uganda

Items Ticket_No Axle_Format Units_Measure Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle 8 Axle 9 Axle_Groups GVW(Kgs) OverWeight_(Kgs) PGOW_(%) Mobile Station Cargo_Type Actual record as example 28 kg 6900 8400 8250 8350 7700 8200 Note by study team

Recorded by each axle, no group measurement. For this case, Axle 2,3,4 and 6 are overloading

4,5,6 47800 250 1.04 LUKAYA FUEL

Just show the number of axle

Permit_No Driver's_Signature WB_Operator's_Name WB_Controller's_Name Action_Taken WB_Controller's_Signature

J594*** MWEBAZE*** SOOXXX SM-S2T8T12 (1*12-222)

Over 250 kinds of goods are recorded; there is no standardized manner in record. (The asterisk are for personal information protection)

The measurements covered the period from June to August 2010, measured 11,572 freight vehicles, and detected about 57% of freight traffic exceeding axle load and/or GVM limits. The following tables summarize the measurements.

E-10

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Table E-2: Summary of Freight Vehicle Overloading Measurements in Uganda

# of Axles 2 3 4 5 6 7 # of Measured Vehicles 2271 3293 276 539 4699 494 # of Overloading Vehicles 1462 1782 121 289 2606 317 Share of Overloading 64.4% 54.1% 43.8% 53.6% 55.5% 64.2% ESAL per vehicle 4.28 5.88 3.13 5.73 5.76 13.85 GVM per Vehicle 15887.1 24245.0 27495.5 36532.9 42707.0 56167.3

Source: JICA Study Team and Uganda National Road Authority

Table E-3: Overloading Measurement Results by Weighbridge Stations

Summary of GVM and ESAL data (Mbarara Weighbridge, Uganda) Total Overweight Vehicle Non-Overweight Vehicle # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL 632 14382.6 3.13 312 16870.2 5.06 320 11912.3 1.23 1459 22717.5 3.85 562 26024.4 7.16 897 20645.7 1.77 183 27509.0 3.15 81 29477.8 4.37 102 25945.6 2.22 366 35715.7 5.17 172 39517.4 7.72 194 32345.1 2.91 2313 41119.3 4.55 1045 44933.0 6.52 1268 37976.3 2.93 71 48758.5 5.20 43 52007.0 6.40 28 43769.6 3.36

2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

Summary of GVM and ESAL data (Masaka Weighbridge, Uganda) Total Overweight Vehicle Non-Overweight Vehicle # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GMV Ave. ESAL 1639 16467.2 4.72 1150 17742.9 6.03 489 13467.2 1.66 1834 25460.2 7.49 1220 27802.2 10.20 614 20806.6 2.12 93 27468.8 3.09 40 29586.3 4.22 53 25870.8 2.23 173 38261.8 6.92 117 41248.3 8.80 56 32022.3 2.99 2386 44246.1 6.93 1561 47340.0 8.84 825 38392.1 3.32 423 57410.9 15.30 274 62140.3 20.50 149 48713.8 5.73

2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

Source: JICA Study Team and Uganda National Road Authority

The following chart presents a summary of loading per Overload Total Share axle by vehicle type. For example, examining the axle GVM 801 2261 35% loading of 2-axle vehicles, it was found that 63% of 1 axle 128 2261 6% vehicles exceeded its rear axle weight limits (10 tons), 2 axle 1428 2261 63% but only 6% of the front axles exceeded the limit (8 tons), and 35% of vehicles violated the GVM regulation. This suggests that 30% of overloaded freight is caused by overloading of the rear axle, and damage to pavement by overloading can be alleviated by improving the loading distribution.

E-11

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

2 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

800 700 600

Number of Axle

500 400 300 200 100 0 Axle 1 Axle 2

Axle Weight (kg)

3 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

1200

1000

800

Number of Axle

600

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

400

200

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-2: Axle Load Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (UGANDA)

E-12

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

4 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

140 120 100

Number of Axle

80 Axle 1 60 40 20 0 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4

Axle Weight (kg)

5 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

300

250

200

Number of Axle

150

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5

100

50

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-2: Axle Load Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (UGANDA) (continued)

E-13

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

6 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

2000 1800 1600 1400

Number of Axle

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6

Axle Weight (kg)

7 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

250

200

Number of Axle

150

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

100

Axle 4 Axle 5

50

Axle 6 Axle 7

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-2: Axle Load Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (UGANDA) (continued) The JICA Study Team also examined the types of goods involved in overloading as shown in the following table, which lists the top goods groups involved at each location. Overloading is higher in Masaka. Major overloading items at Masaka are fuel, cement, beer, matoke, and coffee. The rate of overloading exceeds 50% for several goods types, e.g., coffee, cassava, bitumen, and salt. For Mbaraba, the major overloaded goods are fuel and construction materials (e.g., cement, limestone). Also, the rate of overloading is high among transporters of construction materials.

E-14

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

This set of measurement records is extensive, which suggests strengthening of measurement by industry. It covers only freight movements over months; however, other seasonal agro products should be been monitored. Table E-4: State of Overloading by Goods (Masaka)
Masaka Fuel Cement Beer Assorted Matooke Coffee Soda Soap Timber Steel Water Sugar Posho Beans Oil Salt Cassava Bitumen Tea Not OL 769 409 320 193 139 54 91 93 60 50 43 34 35 37 26 20 10 16 20 OL 436 170 132 136 89 126 58 43 59 57 54 49 38 33 32 33 37 26 21 Total 1205 579 452 329 228 180 149 136 119 107 97 83 73 70 58 53 47 42 41 OL rate 36% 29% 29% 41% 39% 70% 39% 32% 50% 53% 56% 59% 52% 47% 55% 62% 79% 62% 51%

Table E-5: State of Overloading by Goods (Mbaraba)

Mbalaba Cement Pozzolana Fuel Limestone Beer Salt Assorted Goods Food Millet Maize Coffee Soda Sand Tires Empty Plastics Rice Not OL 1093 714 241 105 132 98 98 56 36 67 26 44 10 19 22 18 19 OL 302 178 84 136 54 34 26 15 7 7 5 11 15 5 2 1 Total 1395 892 325 241 186 132 124 71 43 74 31 55 25 24 22 20 20 OL rate 22% 20% 26% 56% 29% 26% 21% 21% 16% 9% 16% 20% 60% 21% 0% 10% 5%

E.2.2

Tanzania

Tanzanias overloading measurements were collected at the Kibaha weighbridge on 12 July 2010 (Monday), located along the A7 central corridor, 30 km from the Dar es Salaam. The records were collected in the following format, by stopping all freight vehicles in both directions. A total of 454 records were collected.

E-15

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Item Date Weighbridge Station Ticket Number Time Vehicle Reg.No. Axle Configuration Axle Grp.Wt1 (Kg) Axle Grp.Wt2 (Kg) Axle Grp.Wt3 (Kg) Axle Grp.Wt4 (Kg) Total GVM (Kg)

1 12/07/2010 SOUTH 1304186 0:01 T 153 XXX 1-22+2-22 6500 18050 8550 17950 51050

2 12/07/2010 SOUTH 1304187 0:05 T 190 XXX 1-22-222 6600 11650 17600 35850

Note

Showing 24-hour operation

Measured by axle group, and the JICA study team estimated weight per axle.

The following table is a summary of measurement records. This shows that 29.1% of freight vehicles are overloaded, and heavier vehicles had a high ratio of overloading. Table E-6: Summary of Freight Vehicle Overloading Measurement in Tanzania
Total Overweight Vehicle Non-Overweight Vehicle OL Ratio # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL 194 16470.9 2.57 45 17475.6 3.44 149 16167.4 2.31 23.2% 75 22456.0 2.49 16 24465.6 3.33 59 22456.0 2.27 21.3% 19 26881.6 2.14 6 27416.7 2.23 13 26634.6 2.10 31.6% 6 38500.0 5.12 3 41950.0 7.43 3 35050.0 2.82 50.0% 145 44033.8 4.56 56 47508.0 5.81 89 41847.8 3.77 38.6% 15 49690.0 5.06 6 53541.7 6.05 9 47122.2 4.40 40.0% 454 132 322 29.1%

2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

The distribution of load per axle is illustrated in the following charts. Compared with Uganda, the records show good compliance to the limit value. Figures for 4 and 5 axles have been omitted due to the small number of samples.

2 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

140 120 100

Number of Axle

80 60 40 20 0 Axle 1 Axle 2

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-3: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Tanzania)

E-16

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

3 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

10 9 8

Number of Axle

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

Axle Weight (kg)

6 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

14 12 10

Number of Axle

8 6 4 2 0

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-3: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Tanzania) (continued) E.2.3 Burundi

Overloading measurement results were collected from several weighbridges in the country, without information on the location of weighbridges. A total of 361 records were collected. The following summary shows that the overloading rate was 28%, and heavier vehicles particularly those of 6 and 7 axles, had a higher overloading tendency.

E-17

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Table E-7: Summary of Freight Vehicle Overloading Measurement in Burundi

Total Overweight Vehicle Non-Overweight Vehicle OL Ratio # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL 256 9172.1 0.87 38 18185.8 2.77 218 7601.0 0.29 14.8% 42 23050.2 7.23 22 30284.1 13.21 20 15093.0 0.65 52.4% 4 27310.0 7.03 2 39070.0 13.78 2 15550.0 0.27 50.0% 9 21504.4 1.29 1 38920.0 7.97 8 19327.5 0.46 11.1% 30 42313.2 7.83 20 50837.8 11.35 10 25264.0 0.78 66.7% 20 63319.5 19.03 18 67097.2 21.06 2 29320.0 0.71 90.0% 361 101 260 28.0%

2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

The distribution of load per axle is illustrated in the following charts. The records for 2-axle vehicles show compliance with the limit value. The figures for 4 and 5 axles have been omitted due to the small sample size.

2 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

140 120 100

Number of Axle

80 60 40 20 0 Axle 1 Axle 2

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-4: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Burundi)

E-18

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

3 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

10 9 8

Number of Axle

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

Axle Weight (kg)

6 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

14 12 10

Number of Axle

8 6 4 2 0

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-4: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Burundi) (continued) E.2.4 Kenya

Over 40,000 measurement results were provided by the Kenyan authority without information on the location of weighbridges. The following summary shows the overloading rate as 61%, which is the highest among the countries. Note that the data for 6-axle freight vehicle accounts for over 90% of measurements, and the JICA Study Team would request an explanation of background for this occurrence.

E-19

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Table E-8: Summary of Freight Vehicle Overloading Measurement in Kenya

Total Overweight Vehicle Non-Overweight Vehicle # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL # of Vehi. Ave. GVM Ave. ESAL OL Ratio 86 14348.9 2.33 35 16770.9 3.81 51 12686.8 1.31 41% 1,527 23431.3 2.89 741 23718.6 3.21 786 23718.6 3.21 49% 143 29484.7 3.73 70 30829.4 4.34 73 28195.1 3.15 49% 1,941 39179.2 6.03 1,359 39611.7 6.54 582 38169.2 4.82 70% 38,101 45006.9 5.40 23,098 45298.5 5.76 15,003 44557.9 4.83 61% 41,798 25,303 61%

2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

The distribution of load per axle is illustrated in the following charts. The records for 2-axle vehicle show its compliance to the limit value.

2 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

30

25

20
Number of Axle

15 Axle 1 10 Axle 2

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-5: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Kenya)

E-20

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

3 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

1200

1000

800

Number of Axle

600

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3

400

200

Axle Weight (kg)

4 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

70 60 50

Number of Axle

40 Axle 1 30 20 10 0 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-5: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Kenya) (continued)

E-21

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

5 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

1200

1000

800
Number of Axle

600

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5

400

200

Axle Weight (kg)

6 Axle Vehicle (Each Axle)

20000 18000 16000 14000

Number of Axle

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6

Axle Weight (kg)

Figure E-5: Axle Loading Distribution by Freight Vehicle Types (Kenya) (continued)

E-22

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.3
E.3.1 (1)

Assumptions in the Analysis With/Without Overloading

Input Data Sample Network for Analysis
Condition Year Length (km) Roughness IRI (m/km) Total Cracking Area (%) Ravelled Area (%) Edge Break (m2/km) Rut Depth (mm) ADT (veh.)

Name 01_AM_Paved High Traffic Good Condition 02_AM_Paved High Traffic Fair Condition 03_AM_Paved High Traffic Poor Condition

2010

32.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

10,000

2010

12.00

5.50

5.00

5.00

8.00

5.00

10,000

2010

80.00

8.00

10.00

15.00

50.00

10.00

10,000

(2)

Traffic Composition
TYPE TK (%) with OL without OL 35.1 35.1 21.7 21.7 21.1 21.1 13.1 13.1 3.8 1.5 0.5 3.2 3.0 1.2 0.3 2.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 1.2 TYPE UB (%) with OL without OL 35.1 35.1 21.7 21.7 21.1 21.1 13.1 13.1 1.8 2.6 0.6 4.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 1.8 1.1 1.5 0.3 2.2

Common for both cases (passenger traffic)

composition for overloading cases referring to actual status Composition for non-Overloading vehicles

Composition of ideal loading vehicles replacing overloading amount

(due to rounding)

Cars Pick up Minibus Bus 2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck 2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck 2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck

(3)

Specification for ESAL and GVM

TYPE T GVM (kg) ESAL 17,475 3.44 24,465 3.33 29,670 2.86 47,508 5.81 16,167 2.31 22,456 2.27 28,212 2.24 41,847 3.77 18,000 3.18 24,000 2.77 35,000 4.19 48,000 5.54 TYPE UB GVM (kg) ESAL 19,735 4.28 28,953 5.88 34,244 4.85 48,455 5.76 15,162 1.49 21,865 1.91 29,462 2.66 41,452 3.09 18,000 3.18 24,000 2.77 35,000 4.19 48,000 5.54

Overloading cases referring to actual status non-Overloading vehicles

Ideal loading vehicles

2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck 2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck 2 Axles Truck 3 Axles Truck Trailer Trailer-Truck

E-23

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E.3.2 (1)

Analysis Results With Overloading Case for Type T

1. Progress of IRI during the project period

2. Optimized Work Program and Cumulative Maintenance Expenditure

E-24

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

(2)

Without Overloading Case for Type T

1. Progress of IRI during the project period

2. Optimized Work Program and Cumulative Maintenance Expenditure

E-25

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

(3)

With Overloading Case for Type UB

1. Progress of IRI during the project period

2. Optimized Work Program and Cumulative Maintenance Expenditure

E-26

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

(4)

Without Overloading Case for Type UB

1. Progress of IRI during the project period

2. Optimized Work Program and Cumulative Maintenance Expenditure

E-27

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix E Maintenance Cost Estimates, Input Data, and Modeling Results

E-28

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

Appendix F
F.1

Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

Estimation using the Results of the Funding Needs Estimation

Using the input data of the HDM Model for the Funding Needs Estimation described in Section 4.3 and Appendix D.1, the sum of ESALs per day at each section and the length of each section (km) of the model road network in this HDM analysis was calculated, which was converted to average ESALs per day for the model road network. Then, assuming 3% annual traffic growth, average ESALs over the 20-year analysis period for each model road network were estimated. The level of responsibility of a vehicle axle for road maintenance cost per ESAL per km was estimated from the road maintenance cost for the analysis period per km calculated in Section 4.3 and the average ESAL for that period. The data used for this calculation and calculation results are shown below.

F-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Common Assumption of Average ESAL

Vehicle Type ESAL Cars 0.00 Pickup 0.01 Small Bus 0.01 Bus 0.80 2 Axle 4.28 2.5 Axle 5.22 3 Axle 5.87 4.5 Axle 4.85 6 Axle 5.76

Calculation Result of ESAL*km per Day (2010) and Input Data of HDM Model Used for this Calculation
Country Traffic Volume 35,657 5,799 1,000 26,396 Tanzania F-2 Burundi Rwanda 9,509 1,203 1,836 636 311 2386 1368 1097 3020 104 3038 1012 836 561 4334 4334 2093 Traffic Composition Cars 36.7% 23.7% 21.5% 35.2% 19.0% 16.6% 23.9% 28.7% 48.9% 10.5% 11.0% 9.2% 31.6% 21.4% 15.8% 10.5% 11.1% 11.9% 18.1% 18.1% 12.0% Pickup 21.0% 15.9% 22.8% 21.7% 24.7% 20.7% 21.7% 29.7% 23.5% 2.6% 2.0% 1.4% 4.1% 3.1% 3.2% 8.7% 8.7% 0.9% 9.6% 9.6% 4.3% Small Bus 28.4% 16.8% 21.4% 21.1% 22.2% 11.0% 13.7% 18.2% 3.2% 66.7% 71.2% 73.2% 59.2% 45.9% 45.8% 49.2% 43.2% 35.5% 61.3% 61.3% 61.7% Bus 1.6% 2.6% 2.0% 13.1% 8.1% 14.1% 3.0% 3.9% 6.1% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 0.3% 6.1% 1.0% 2.9% 3.6% 5.7% 3.1% 3.1% 2.1% 2 Axle 4.6% 6.3% 8.4% 27.1% 12.2% 9.4% 15.3% 10.7% 10.1% 4.0% 4.1% 25.1% 12.9% 14.6% 16.9% 5.5% 5.5% 15.1% 2.5 Axle 7.1% 9.1% 11.9% 3 Axle 2.6% 6.9% 10.0% 7.5% 1.9% 2.8% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 9.2% 5.1% 5.1% 6.7% 10.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 4.5 Axle 3.1% 16.8% 11.3% 1.3% 5.7% 12.7% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.1% 3.1% 2.4% 5.9% 6.6% 10.7% 1.9% 1.9% 3.6% 6 Axle 2.1% 15.0% 9.1% 0.5% 7.1% 6.6% 2.8% 5.0% 5.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.7% 0.2% 7.1% 1.5% 4.8% 5.4% 8.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Road Length (km) Good 32 276 65 24 148 1,908 22 44 40 42 42 35 4 28 8 16 23 27 9 17 31 Fair 12 39 92 82 344 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poor 80 271 1,048 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Total 124 586 1,205 24 230 2,252 29 44 42 42 42 35 4 30 8 16 23 28 9 17 31
ESAL*km/ day (2010)

Kenya

2,916,318 7,418,095 2,070,032 346,432 3,124,325 5,577,695 94,327 27,407 12,766 88,546 39,315 27,138 2,449 4,087 37,877 23,717 32,325 37,640 15,582 27,895 59,530

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Result

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Country

Traffic Volume 1506 1632 944 509 387 365 628 479 184 481 616 13,908 2,245

Traffic Composition Cars 13.1% 10.2% 9.5% 5.5% 6.7% 8.5% 9.7% 6.7% 9.2% 7.7% 30.2% 27.5% 18.4% Pickup 3.2% 15.6% 3.9% 2.8% 2.1% 2.8% 6.1% 2.1% 3.2% 1.7% 4.2% 23.6% 22.2% Small Bus 72.7% 54.6% 59.2% 53.8% 61.5% 48.6% 65.8% 66.7% 57.3% 59.8% 46.3% 29.1% 22.6% Bus 2.5% 5.9% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 4.9% 1.3% 3.8% 3.1% 0.0% 1.2% 4.3% 2 Axle 8.2% 7.8% 17.4% 19.4% 12.9% 4.9% 9.7% 16.9% 13.5% 17.8% 14.8% 6.8% 8.1% 2.5 Axle 3 Axle 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.8% 4.2% 1.0% 1.7% 5.9% 3.7% 1.0% 7.7% 12.7% 4.5 Axle 0.1% 5.0% 9.0% 16.1% 14.5% 27.5% 1.6% 2.5% 4.3% 2.9% 1.6% 0.5% 1.6% 6 Axle 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 1.0% 1.3% 3.5% 1.3% 2.1% 2.7% 3.3% 1.8% 3.5% 10%

Road Length (km) Good 3 14 25 11 9 27 25 26 28 5 5 46 427 Fair 0 0 7 0 1 12 2 0 24 14 0 38 268 Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8 0 1 55 Total 3 14 32 11 10 39 27 26 63 26 5 84 750

ESAL*km/ day (2010)

Uganda F-3

1,985 15,594 37,157 9,373 5,366 28,342 11,138 13,605 15,327 16,686 2,590 1,158,756 3,015,832

Calculation Result of Average ESAL for the Model Road Network for 20 years (2010-2030)
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Kenya 2,364,294 2,435,223 2,508,279 2,583,528 2,661,033 2,740,864 2,823,090 2,907,783 2,995,017 3,084,867 Average ESAL Tanzania Burundi Rwanda Uganda 1,317,911 427,339 374,698 1,826,596 1,357,448 440,159 385,939 1,881,394 1,398,172 453,364 397,518 1,937,836 1,440,117 466,965 409,443 1,995,971 1,483,320 480,974 421,726 2,055,850 1,527,820 495,403 434,378 2,117,525 1,573,655 510,265 447,410 2,181,051 1,620,864 525,573 460,832 2,246,483 1,669,490 541,341 474,657 2,313,877 1,719,575 557,581 488,896 2,383,293
Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Result

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Average ESAL Kenya Tanzania Burundi Rwanda Uganda Year 2020 3,177,413 1,771,162 574,308 503,563 2,454,792 2021 3,272,735 1,824,297 591,537 518,670 2,528,436 2022 3,370,918 1,879,026 609,284 534,230 2,604,289 2023 3,472,045 1,935,397 627,562 550,257 2,682,418 2024 3,576,206 1,993,459 646,389 566,765 2,762,890 2025 3,683,493 2,053,262 665,781 583,768 2,845,777 2026 3,793,997 2,114,860 685,754 601,281 2,931,150 2027 3,907,817 2,178,306 706,327 619,319 3,019,085 2028 4,025,052 2,243,655 727,517 637,899 3,109,657 2029 4,145,803 2,310,965 749,342 657,036 3,202,947 Total 63,529,459 35,412,760 11,482,766 10,068,287 49,081,317 (20 years) F-4

Responsibility of a Vehicle Axle per ESAL for Road Maintenance Cost

Country Kenya Tanzania Burundi Rwanda Uganda Average M. Cost ($) ('10-'30) 559,950,000 392,410,000 9,930,000 51,930,000 262,350,000 Road Length (km) 1,915 2,506 115 539 834 M. Cost (US$)/ km 292402.09 156588.19 86438.02 96355.27 314497.45 189,256.20 ESAL*km/day (2010) 12,404,445 9,048,451 134,501 553,263 4,174,587 5,263,050 Ave. ESAL/ day (2010) 6,478 3,611 1,171 1,027 5,004 3,458 Ave. ESAL ('10-'30) with 3% annual traffic growth 63,529,459 35,412,760 11,482,766 10,068,287 49,081,317 33,914,918 M. Cost (US$)/ ESAL/km) 0.0046 0.0044 0.0075 0.0096 0.0064 0.0065 M. Cost (US$)/ ESAL/100km 0.46 0.44 0.75 0.96 0.64 0.65
Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Result

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

F.2

Estimation Using the Results of the Analysis With/Without Overloading

For both Types T (low rate of overloading) and UB (high rate overloading), overloaded axles were extracted from the axles of all vehicles weighed at sample weighbridge stations, and the sum of the overloaded proportion of ESALs of those overloaded axles (i.e., the sum of the difference between the ESALs of overloaded axles and ESALs at the axle load limits) by number of axles by vehicle type were calculated. Then, adapting the sum of the overloaded proportion of ESALs to the number of vehicles weighed, the sum of the overloaded proportion of ESALs per day under the assumptions of with/without HDM-4 analysis, described in Section 4.4 and Appendix D.2, was estimated. Converting the total overloaded proportion of ESALs per day to a 20-year period with 3% annual traffic growth, the overloaded proportion of ESALs of the target section of 124 km in the analysis period was calculated. Finally, the level of responsibility of an overloaded axle for road maintenance cost per overloaded proportion of ESAL per km was estimated from the difference of the road maintenance cost between the with and without cases, and the total overloaded proportion of ESALs of overloaded axles described above. The data used for this calculation and calculation results for both Types T and UB are as follows. F.2.1 Type T
# of Vehicles Weighted

Sum of Overloaded Portion of ESALs of Overloaded Axles (Actual Data from Tanzania)
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle Total Configuration 1*2 1*22 11*22 1*2-222 1*22-222 Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Total

5.88 7.03 1.94 0.00 2.04 -

116.81 14.39 3.63 0.00 32.29 -

14.39 0.00 1.53 32.29 -

0.00 7.78 49.40 -

7.78 48.26 -

48.26 -

122.69 35.80 5.58 17.10 212.55 393.71

194 75 19 6 145 439

Sum of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs of Overloaded Axles per Day (2010) under the Assumption of With/Without Analysis
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle Total Configuration 1*2 1*22 11*22 1*2-222 1*22-222 Axle 1 Axle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Total ADT by Vehicle Category

0.65 1.11 0.96 0.00 0.43 -

56.33 12.13 3.75 0.00 30.45 -

12.13 0.00 1.21 30.45 -

0.00 10.02 15.14 -

10.02 14.67 -

14.67 -

56.98 25.37 4.72 21.25 105.80 214.11

380 150 38 12 320 900

F-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

Sum of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs of Overloaded Axles for 20 years (2010-2029) under the Assumption of With/Without Analysis
Overloaded ESALs (with 3% annual traffic growth) 78,150 80,494 82,909 85,397 87,958 90,597 93,315 96,115 98,998 101,968 105,027 108,178 111,423 114,766 118,209 121,755 125,408 129,170 133,045 137,036 2,099,919

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total (20 years)

Responsibility of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs for Road Maintenance Cost

Maintenance Cost for 20 years (US$) Responsibility per Overloaded Axle With Case Without Case With - Without (US$/124km/ESAL) (US$/km/ESAL) 111,160,000 91,560,000 19,600,000 9.333694095 0.075271727

F.2.2

Type UB

Sum of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs of Overloaded Axles (Actual Data from Mbarara and Masaka Weighbridges)
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle Total Configuration 1*2 1*22 11*22 1*2-222 1*22-222 Axle 1 275.48 712.55 35.71 22.24 238.58 Axle 2 7,852.28 10,503.30 110.22 1,271.12 3,444.38 Axle 3 4,213.53 213.42 290.47 5,694.74 Axle 4 107.25 166.69 2,957.85 Axle 5 189.23 2,363.29 Axle 6 2,491.09 Total 8,127.76 15,429.38 466.60 1,939.75 17,189.93 43,153.42 # of Vehicles Weighted 2,271 3,293 276 539 4,699 11,078

F-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

Sum of Overloaded Proportion of ESAL of Overloaded Axles per Day (2010) under the Assumption of With/Without Analysis
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle Total Configuration 1*2 1*22 11*22 1*2-222 1*22-222 Axle 1 12.53 21.72 1.19 0.41 7.95 Axle 2 368.45 715.97 7.40 54.52 188.11 Axle 3 252.80 8.56 13.28 320.95 Axle 4 2.65 5.94 186.21 Axle 5 6.92 117.97 Axle 6 129.48 Total 380.98 990.50 19.81 81.07 950.67 2,423.02 ADT by Vehicle Category 180 260 20 40 400 900

Sum of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs of Overloaded Axles for 20 years (2010-2029) under the Assumption of With/Without Analysis
Overloaded ESAL (with 3% annual traffic growth) 884,403 910,936 938,264 966,412 995,404 1,025,266 1,056,024 1,087,705 1,120,336 1,153,946 1,188,564 1,224,221 1,260,948 1,298,776 1,337,740 1,377,872 1,419,208 1,461,784 1,505,638 1,550,807 23,764,253

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total (20 years)

Responsibility of Overloaded Proportion of ESALs for Road Maintenance Cost

Maintenance Cost for 20 years (US$) Responsibility per Overloaded Axle With Case Without Case With - Without (US$/ 124km/ ESAL) (US$/ km/ ESAL) 124,040,000 111,160,000 12,880,000 0.541990535 0.004370891

F-7

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix F Overloading Charge Estimates, Input Data, and Calculation Results

F-8

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix G Axle Load Limit Analysis, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Appendix G
(1)
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle

Axle Load Limit Analysis, Input Data, and Modeling Results

Axle Load and GVM Specifications of an Ideal Vehicle for a Various ESALs
ConfiguratiNo.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 GVW ESAL GVM ESAL total carryinvehicle number ratio 1*2 6000 8000 14000 1.22 12908 1.025008 3195350 248 2axle 41.5% 1*22 6000 6000 6000 18000 0.88 16596 0.739101 1684200 101 3axle 17.0% 11*22 4000 4000 6000 6000 20000 0.70 18440 0.590064 510750 28 4-5axle 6.0% 1*2-222 6000 8000 6000 6000 6000 32000 2.10 29504 1.764108 231000 8 6axle 35.5% 1*22-222 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 36000 1.76 33192 1.478201 6384900 192 1*22+22*22 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 42000 2.05 38724 1.724568 745350 19

1) ESAL=6

2) ESAL=8
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle ConfiguratiNo.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 GVW ESAL GVM ESAL total carryinvehicle number 1*2 8000 10000 18000 3.18 16596 2.67962 3195350 193 2axle 1*22 8000 8000 8000 24000 2.77 22128 2.335923 1684200 76 3axle 11*22 6000 6000 8000 8000 28000 2.43 25816 2.050016 510750 20 4-5axle 1*2-222 8000 10000 8000 8000 8000 42000 5.96 38724 5.015543 231000 6 6axle 1*22-222 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 48000 5.55 44256 4.671846 6384900 144 1*22+22*2 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 56000 6.47 51632 5.450487 745350 14 ratio 42.5% 16.8% 5.7% 35.0%

3) ESAL=10
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle ConfiguratiNo.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 GVW ESAL GVM ESAL total carryinvehicle number 1*2 10000 12000 22000 6.94 20284 5.842849 3195350 158 2axle 1*22 10000 10000 10000 30000 6.77 27660 5.702937 1684200 61 3axle 11*22 8000 8000 10000 10000 36000 6.36 33192 5.35924 510750 15 4-5axle 1*2-222 10000 12000 10000 10000 10000 52000 13.71 47944 11.54579 231000 5 6axle 1*22-222 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 60000 13.55 55320 11.40587 6384900 115 1*22+22*22 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 70000 15.80 64540 13.30685 745350 12 ratio 43.1% 16.7% 5.5% 34.7%

4) ESAL=12
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle ConfiguratiNo.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 GVW ESAL GVM ESAL total carryinvehicle number 1*2 12000 14000 26000 13.35 23972 11.24467 3195350 133 2axle 1*22 12000 12000 12000 36000 14.04 33192 11.82561 1684200 51 3axle 11*22 10000 10000 12000 12000 44000 13.88 40568 11.6857 510750 13 4-5axle 1*2-222 12000 14000 12000 12000 12000 62000 27.40 57164 23.07028 231000 4 6axle 1*22-222 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 72000 28.09 66384 23.65122 6384900 96 1*22+22*22 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 84000 32.77 77448 27.59309 745350 10 ratio 43.5% 16.6% 5.4% 34.5%

5) ESAL=14
Vehicle 2 Axle 3 Axle 4 Axle 5 Axle 6 Axle 7 Axle ConfiguratiNo.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7 GVW ESAL GVM ESAL total carryinvehicle number ratio 1*2 14000 16000 30000 23.47 27660 19.76106 3195350 116 2axle 43.8% 1*22 14000 14000 14000 42000 26.02 38724 21.9084 1684200 43 3axle 16.5% 11*22 12000 12000 14000 14000 52000 26.71 47944 22.48934 510750 11 4-5axle 5.4% 1*2-222 14000 16000 14000 14000 14000 72000 49.49 66384 41.66946 231000 3 6axle 34.4% 1*22-222 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 84000 52.04 77448 43.8168 6384900 82 1*22+22*22 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 98000 60.71 90356 51.1196 745350 8

G-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix G Axle Load Limit Analysis, Input Data, and Modeling Results

(2) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

HDM Results for the ADT 10,000 Case IRI 4 ESAL 6 case IRI 4 ESAL 8 case IRI 4 ESAL 10 case IRI 4 ESAL 12 case IRI 4 ESAL 14 case IRI 7 ESAL 6 case IRI 7 ESAL 8 case IRI 7 ESAL 10 case IRI 7 ESAL 12 case IRI 7 ESAL 14 case

(3) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (4) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

HDM Results for the ADT 10,000 Case IRI 4 ESAL 6 case IRI 4 ESAL 8 case IRI 4 ESAL 10 case IRI 4 ESAL 12 case IRI 4 ESAL 14 case IRI 7 ESAL 6 case IRI 7 ESAL 8 case IRI 7 ESAL 10 case IRI 7 ESAL 12 case IRI 7 ESAL 14 case HDM Results for the ADT 10,000 Case IRI 4 ESAL 6 case IRI 4 ESAL 8 case IRI 4 ESAL 10 case IRI 4 ESAL 12 case IRI 4 ESAL 14 case IRI 7 ESAL 6 case IRI 7 ESAL 8 case IRI 7 ESAL 10 case IRI 7 ESAL 12 case IRI 7 ESAL 14 case

G-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix H Bridge Strength Evaluation Data

Appendix H

Bridge Strength Evaluation Data

Sectional specifications of main beam Strain distribution
cu = 0.0035

Consideration on the ultimate limit state (main beam at the center of bridge span)
Working force

200 110 125 900

x = 332.3

Concrete

C=8699 N

1245 1725.2 220 1891.3

2000

Centroaid of PC 250 240 142.5 700 s=0.0182 Steel

Calculation of resisting bending moment

d W1 t1 W2 x

Effective Hight Compression Flunge Thickness of Slab Thickness of Web Neutral Axis from Top

mm mm mm mm mm N/mm2 N/mm2 mm2 kN N/mm2 mm2 N/mm2 kN mm kNm kNm

2057.5 2450 200 220 332.3 30 40 0.0035 609070 8699.9 200000 5376 0.182 1860 8699.44 1891.35 16454.6 16453.7

Concrete Slab Concrete Beam cu Stress Limitation of Conc A Resistance area C=0.67/1.5*fcu*A =0.447fcu*A Ep Young Modulous Steel Ap Area of PC tendon s (Traial calculation) pu T T=0.87pu*Ap Z=d-0.5x Mr Mrc=C*Z Mrt=T*Z

H-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix H Bridge Strength Evaluation Data

H-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

Appendix I

Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

Generally axle mass limits in Africa are low in relation to international practice, while gross vehicle/combination mass limits are higher. The historical development of these limits is set out in this appendix. (1) Origins of Single, Tandem, and Tridem Axle Mass Limits

For many years in South Africa, the single axle mass limit for an axle with dual tires was set at 8.2 tons, 1 while limit for a tandem axle unit was set at 16.4 tons (i.e., 8.2 tons 2). Also, historically (i.e., prior to the introduction of a bridge formula in South Africa in the early 1970s), the tridem axle unit was 24.6 tons (i.e., 8.2 tons 3). With the application of the bridge formula, the axle load limit for the tridem axle unit with an extreme axle spacing of 2.72 m was set at 20.9 tons. 2 Early international studies showed that an axle with air suspension caused 15% less road wear than an axle with a steel suspension, presupposing (of course) that the shock absorbers in the air suspension were working efficiently. Furthermore, on average, under dynamic conditions, single axle loadings varied by plus or minus 25% of the static load, while axles in tandem axle units varied by 15%. Axles in tridem axle units generally caused less road deterioration than axles in tandem axle units. In fact, it was shown that axles in a well-designed tridem axle unit caused less road wear than single axles. 3 A number of significant studies, working group reports, and symposia relating to axle mass limits were undertaken in Africa and globally between 1986 and 1993 as summarized below: C.R. Freeme, Simplification of Regulations, June 4 1986 High tire pressures (around 1,000 kilopascals) can reduce pavement life by 60%70%. Canadian Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study, 1986 Recommendations were limits of 10 tons for single, 17 tons for tandem, and 24 tons for tridem axle units. Council of Ministers, Canada, 1988 Noted the following existing regulations: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) steering 5.5 tons (long nose); single with duals, 9.1 tons; tandem with duals, 17.0 tons (1.21.85 m spacing); and tridem with duals, 21.0 tons (2.43.0 m) spacing, 23.0 tons (3.03.6m), and 24.0 tons (3.63.7m).

The limit for the rear axle of a bus was set higher at 10.2 tons, perhaps because the government owned railway buses. 2 However, in many parts of South Africa, the bridge formula was not applied and a load limit of 24.6 tons was applied for the tridem axle unit. 3 NITRR Technical Note TP/39/86, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), 1986. 4 Months cited where available.

I-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

South African Technical Working Group, May 1991 The recommendations from this Working Group were to: (i) increase the articulated vehicle length from 17.0 to 18.5 m, for increased efficiency without causing any real detriment; and (ii) increase the vehicle combination length from 20 m to 22 m, for increased efficiency without causing any real detriment. Van Wyk & Louw Inc., Consequences in the Increases of Legal Axle Loads, September 1991 Recommendations from this study were as follows: (i) There was economic justification to increase the legal load limits. (ii) Although limits of 10.2 tons (single), 20.4 tons (tandem), and 24 tons (tridem) offered the highest benefit/cost ratios, load limits of 10 tons, 18 tons, and 21 tons, respectively, were recommended. South African Department of Transport Working Group on Dimensions and Loads, February 1992 The road transport industry recommended load limits of 10 tons (single), 18 tons (tandem), 24 tons (tridem), and 56 tons (gross vehicle/combination mass), as it could be shown that there would be a financial net benefit to the country if mass limits were increased. A regulation was drafted that would increase axle mass limits on the condition that overloading was being reduced and additional funds were being appropriated for increased road maintenance. The increases agreed were 9, 18 and 21 tons, respectively. The Working Group agreed that these limits would be reviewed with long-term application the ultimate goal. Third International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights, United Kingdom, August 1992 Most delegates at this symposium spoke of 24 tons as the optimum for a tridem axle unit, irrespective of other axle limitations. The United Kingdom was undertaking a bridge strengthening program to allow for a 24-ton tridem. Carl Bro International, Axle Load Study for Southern Africa, May 1993 The objective was to harmonize load limits in Southern Africa. The main outcome was an estimated optimum mass limit for the single axle with dual tires of 13 tons; however, allowing a safety margin, 12 tons was recommended. Since the Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Model (HDM-III) assumed that 15.1 tons on a tandem axle was equivalent to 2 equivalent standard axles (ESAs) 5 for road wear, 24/15.1 for a tandem axle unit was found to be roughly equal to 13/8.16 for a single axle. Hence, 24 tons was estimated as the correct loading for a tandem axle unit. The optimum single, tandem, and tridem limits varied from 12, 17, and 24 tons, to 12, 22, and 33 tons. The consultants recommended a compromise between the two, presumably 12, 19.5, and 28.5 tons, although no figures were given. (2) Origins of the Bridge Formula

The origins of the bridge formula may be traced from the 1970s to the 1990s, as below. It is on this basis that SADC has been guiding the region forward, as also described at the end of this subsection.

5 An ESA refers to the number of standard axle loads that are equivalent in damaging effect on a pavement to a given vehicle or axle loading.

I-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

Origin of the 1.8 L + 16,000 Bridge Formula, 197071 In 197071 the South African Department of Transport formed a committee chaired by E.B. Cloete to update existing load regulations to protect the nations bridges. While the committee found that South Africa needed to follow act to protect its bridges as did overseas countries, the committee also found that the overseas systems were very complex. For example, the United States formula was W = 500 (L N/(N 1) + 12N + 36), where L was the spacing in feet, N being the number of axles, and W the weight in pounds. Therefore, a simpler formula was required and N.O. Marriott of the Cape Provincial Administration and a member of the committee came up with a solution. He placed two reference points on a graph of allowable mass (y axis) against distance between axles (x axis). A tandem axle unit was allowed to be loaded to 16 tons and so he placed the first reference point at zero distance and 16 tons. At the other end of the scale, a 20 m long vehicle combination should be allowed a gross combination mass (GCM) of 50 tons. Since the extreme axle spacing for a 20 m vehicle combination was about 18.5 m, he placed the reference point at 18.5 m extreme axle spacing, with a GCM of 50 tons. A straight line was drawn between the two reference points and this line was defined by the equation 1.8 L + 16. This formula was subsequently introduced into South Africas regulations as the bridge formula. Figure I-1 illustrates this derivation of the South African bridge formula graphically.
60 50 40 30 20 P = 1.8L + 16 10 0 Allowable mass (ton)

10 11 12 15 17 19 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 1313 1414 15 1616 17 1818 19 2020 2121 Distance between axles (m)

Figure I-1: Derivation of the South African Bridge Formula Canadian Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Study, 1986, and Council of Ministers Decision, Canada, 1988 Based on the 1986 study, 6 in 1988 the Canadian Council of Ministers of Transportation agreed on certain vehicle configurations and mass limits. Included was a B-double or B-Train double (equivalent to the interlink), with a GCM limit of 62.5 tons. The minimum extreme axle spacing was set at 18.75 m. Applying the 1.8 L + 16 bridge formula, the 18.75 m extreme axle spacing
6

The study found that [a]mong the B-doubles [i.e., interlinks], the eight-axle variety, with tridem centre-group, offers the greatest productivity advantages while suffering no significant loss in dynamic performance relative to the five-axle truck tractor semi-trailer. Recognizing the safety benefits of the reduced exposure which accompanies increased payload capacity plus high performance, yet simplicity, of this vehicle combination, the eight-axle Bdoubles (interlink) is looked upon as the closest to ideal configuration of the overall group of vehicles.

I-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

gives a GCM limit of 49.75 tons. Using the 2.1 L + 18 bridge formula proposed for East and Southern Africa, the 18.75 m extreme axle spacing gives a GCM limit of 57.4 tons, less than the Canadian limit of 62.5 tons. South African Technical Working Group. May 1991 The recommendations from this Working Group were to (i) increase the articulated vehicle length from 17.0 to 18.5 m, for increased efficiency without any detriment; and (ii) increase the vehicle combination length from 20 m to 22 m, for increased efficiency and again with no detriment. The increased length of a vehicle combination meant an increase in the GCM to around 52 tons. Peter Buckland, North American and British Long-Span Bridge Mass, Journal of Structural Engineering, October 1991 7 Buckland showed that the British Standard BS5400 1978 (to which many of the bridges in East and Southern Africa were designed) allowed higher loadings than the American AASHTO 1983 and the Canadian CAN/CSA-S6-88 1988 standards. Yet, as indicated above, the Canadians allowed their B-Double a higher bridge loading than what is being proposed for East and Southern Africa even though there bridges were designed for a lesser loading. For a tandem axle unit in South Africa, using the original bridge formula of 1.8L + 16 and an axle spacing of 1.36 m, the mass limit would be 18.5 tons, which is in excess of the original 16 tons and the proposed 18 tons. However, the 1.8L + 16 bridge formula limited the tridem axle unit (spacing 2.72 m) to 20.9 tons. Retaining this formula meant that the transporters and trailer manufactures would spread the tridem axle unit out to over 4 m to achieve the 24-ton mass limit (i.e., the sum of 3 8 ton axles). Such a wide-spaced axle unit would be legal (as it was not considered an axle unit), but it would not be desirable because: (i) it would create considerable scuffing unless expensive and complex steering axles were included; and (ii) it would be very difficult to retain equal massing on the three axles. This was one justification to upgrade the original bridge formula. Technical Methods for Highways (TMH) 7 Code of Practice, 1981, assumes a constant limiting value of 3.6 tons per m (36 kN/m). 8 As shown in Figure I-2 below, with an extreme axle spacing of around 9.5 m, the original bridge formula gave higher mass limits, while the gross vehicle mass/gross combination mass was controlled by the sum of the axle mass limits. Above an extreme axle spacing of around 9.5 m, and for the heavy vehicle combinations, the original bridge formula reduced the bridge loading below that of TMH7.

7 8

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?73321. BS5400 takes into consideration high mass per unit length. It also considers impact massing.

I-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Allowable mass (ton)

P = 1.8L + 16 TMH7 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 99 10 11 12 1313 1414 15 16 17 18 19 2020 2121 Distance between axles (m)

Figure I-2: Comparison of TMH 7 and the Original Bridge Formula It can be shown that a line of jam-packed 4 2 trucks results in a bridge loading of around 4.2 tons per m while a line of jam-packed 6 4 trucks results in a bridge loading of around 3.6 tons per m. However, this does not consider the practical situation where: (i) other vehicle types of vehicles are interspersed, (ii) vehicles are partly laden or empty, and (iii) there is a reasonable distance between moving vehicles. It can be seen from Figure I-2 above that a 7-axle vehicle combination (truck and trailer, or interlink) of 20 m length is controlled by the bridge formula and therefore causes considerably less wear to the roads than does smaller heavy vehicles. Van Wyk & Louw Inc, Consequences of Increases in the Legal Axle Mass Limits, September 1991 Three studies were carried out as inputs to this document. Study 1 showed that increased axle masses would give net gains to South Africa, but that no increases should be given until additional maintenance funds were made available. Study 2 recommended the bridge formula 2L + 15 and limits of 10.2 tons for a single axle, 20.4 tons for a tandem axle unit, and 24 tons for a tridem axle unit. Study 3 recommended limits of 10 tons for a single axle and 18.5 tons for a tandem axle unit. (A limit of 11 tons could be considered for a single air-suspended axle.) South African Department of Transport Working Group on Dimensions and Loads, February 1992 This Working Group was set up after the conclusion of the previous studies outlined above. Existing mass limits were 8.2 tons (single), 16.4 tons (tandem), and 21 tons (tridem). The summation of axles in a 7-axle vehicle combination resulted in a GCM of: 6.5 + (6 8.2) = 55.7 tons. The existing bridge formula of 1.8 L + 16 did not allow a 20 m vehicle combination to realize its full potential. Using the extreme axle spacing of 18.5 m, the bridge formula gave a GCM limit of 1.8 18.5 + 16 = 49.3 tons. Although there was no upper GCM limit set in the regulations, the bridge formula effectively determined this limit to be 49.3 tons. The Working Group agreed on an interim bridge formula of 2.1 L + 15 tons, which would give 53.9 tons for a 20 m vehicle combination, and the Minister endorsed this recommendation. There was to be an immediate overloading monitoring program and a bridge strengthening program. Also, extra budgets were to be made available for road maintenance.

I-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix I Historical Course of Events Leading to SADC Axle Load Limits and the Bridge Formula

Van Niekerk Kleyn & Edwards, Van Wyk & Louw, The Effect of an Increase in Loads, March 1993 This study showed that the theoretical strengths of bridges were less than the forecast traffic loads that would result from the proposed increase in mass limits. However, field tests showed that the actual stiffness of the bridges exceeded the theoretical stiffness. Carl Bro International, Axle Mass Study for Southern Africa, May 1993 The objective of this study was to harmonize mass limits in Southern Africa. Dimensions had been previously agreed at 12.5 m for a rigid vehicle, 17 m for an articulated vehicle, and 22 m for a vehicle combination. The HDM-III model was used in the calculations. The study recommended a 63-ton GCM limit, although consideration had to be given to the strength of bridges and some bridges may have required some restriction. Developments Since 1993 and Comments Following the 1993 Carl Bro study, various investigations were undertaken by the road transport and freight forwarding industry. One of the submissions found a gain in efficiency for the region by loading 3 6 m TEU, or 1 6 m TEU and 1 12 m ISO container on a vehicle combination. To achieve this gain, the length of the vehicle combination needed to be increased to 22 m. 9 It was found that the GCM over 2 additional meters would cause no more road wear and less stress on bridges. Applying the upgraded 2L + 15 bridge formula to a 22 m vehicle combination with an extreme axle spacing of about 19.7 m would give a 54.4-ton GCM limit. While the 1993 Carl Bro study had recommended a GCM limit of 63 tons, this limit was considered too high and therefore SADC recommended a 56-ton limit (7 axles x 8 tons per axle). In South Africa, this recommendation meant that the upgraded bridge formula of 2L + 15, with an extreme axle spacing of 19.7 m, could not achieve the recommended limit. SADC also agreed with the road transport industrys recommendation of limits of 10 (single), 18 (tandem), and 24 (tridem) tons. However, in South Africa the upgraded bridge formula of 2 L + 15 when applied to a tridem axle unit with a 2.72 m extreme axle spacing only gave a 20.4-ton limit for the tridem, which was well below the 24-ton limit recommended by SADC. With the two shortcomings in the 2 L + 15 bridge formula described above, South Africa agreed to revise the formula for a second time, to 2.1 L + 18. This gave a 23.7-ton limit for a tridem axle unit (considered to be close enough to the agreed 24-ton limit) and a GCM limit of over 59 tons. However, it was agreed that the new formula was not too generous (at 59 tons for the extreme axle spacing) because it restricted the limits on the tandem and tridem axle units in a 6axle articulated vehicle. The extreme axle spacing for the 18-ton tandem axle unit and the 24ton tridem axle unit in the articulated vehicle would have to be at least 11.4 m apart for them to achieve full loading. Since this was in fact not possible, these two axle units have not been able to realize their full potential until recently. Against this background, all parties in the context of SADC cooperation agreed that the 56-ton limit was adequate and the new bridge formula gave the tandem and tridem axle units in a 6axle articulated vehicle combination reasonable mass limits.

9 Generally, this was not seen as presenting a safety problem since the time required to overtake such a vehicle would be increased by less than one second.

I-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

Appendix J

Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings to Assist with the Regulations of Member States

The following drawings of vehicles and vehicle combinations show many of the vehicles and vehicle combinations on the regions roads today. Not every vehicle or vehicle combination is shown. No more than 7 axles per vehicle combination are shown. While 8-axle vehicle combinations will be limited to 56 tons and do appear on regional roads, it is not considered desirable to show them since it may encourage overloading. All vehicles and vehicle combinations are covered by the Bridge Formula: Load (tons) = 2.1 Distance between any two axles (meters) + 18 The heavier vehicle combinations comply with the Bridge Formula and are limited to 56 tons. For simplicity and apart from the front axle, no axles with single tires are shown. In most cases, the inclusion of single tires will reduce the allowable load limits. The regional recommendations for single tire limits in an axle unit still have to be finalized. The load limits shown in the left hand column wee determined by the sum of the axles (axles), or by the single drive axle (single drive), or by the gross combination mass limit (GCM). LEF = the Load Equivalency Factor for the seven common vehicle combinations shown, as calculated in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) study of August 2010.

J-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GVM TRUCK 18 tons (axles) 10

12.5 m

18.5 m

26 ? tons (axles) 16 ? 26 tons (axles) LEF = 4.48 8 18 10

30 tons ? (gvm) 16 ? 18

GCM TRUCK AND TRAILER 38 tons (axles) 8 10 10

12.5 metres

18.5 metres

10

46 tons (axles) 8 10 10 18

48 tons (single drive) 8 10 18 18

J-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GCM TRUCK AND TRAILER

12.5 m

18.5 m

46 ? tons (single drive) 16 ? 10 10 10

48 tons (single drive) 16 ? 10 10 18

48 tons (single drive) 16 ? 10 18 18

GCM TRUCK AND TRAILER 46 tons (axles) 8 54 tons (axles) LEF = 7.93 8 56 tons (gcm) LEF = 5.68 8 18 18 10 18 10

12.5 metres

18.5 metres

10

18

18

18

56 tons (gcm) 8 18 10 24

J-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GVM/GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

28 tons (Axles) 8 10 10

36 tons (axles) 8 42 tons (axles) LEF = 6.02 8 10 24 10 18

GVM/GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

48 tons (axles)

10

10

10

10

48 tons (single drive)

8 48 tons (Single drive)

10

18

10

10

10

18

18

J-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

36 ? tons (axles) 16 ? 10 10

44 ? tons (axles) 16 ? 10 18

48 ? tons (single drive) 16 ? 10 24

48 tons (single drive) 16 ? 10 10 10 10

GVM/GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

36 tons (axles) 8 44 tons (axles) LEF = 6.44 8 50 ? tons (gcm) LEF = 6.46 8 18 24 18 18 18 10

J-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GVM/GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

56 tons (axles) 8 18 10 10 10

56 tons (gcm) 8 18 10 10 18

56 tons (gcm) 8 18 18 18

56 tons (gcm) 8 18 18 10 10

GVM/GCM

12.5 metres TRUCK TRACTOR (HORSE) AND SEMI TRAILER

18.5 metres

48 tons (gcm)

18

24

56 tons (gcm)

18

24

J-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

GVM/GCM INTERLINK (B-DOUBLES) 38 tons (axles) 8 10 10

12.5 metres

18.5 metres

10

46 tons (axles) 8 10 18 10

46 tons (axles) 8 10 18 10

48 tons (single drive) 8 10 18 18

GVM/GCM INTERLINKS (B-DOUBLES) 46 tons (axles) 8 18 10

12.5 metres

18.5 metres

10

54 tons (axles) 8 18 10 18

54 tons (axles) 8 56 tons (gcm) LEF = 5.84 8 18 18 18 18 18 10

J-7

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix J Examples of Vehicle and Vehicle Combination Drawings

J-8

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix K EAC Act or Protocol

Appendix K
K.1

EAC Act or Protocol

An EAC Act or Protocol?

An EAC Act is preferred to an EAC Protocol because:

it provides an integrated approach to vehicle overload control with legal effect; this approach has been effectively applied before; the steps required for adoption of a Protocol are lengthy, making it inappropriate for the required fast tracking of the issue; and a Protocol would just provide a general framework and would therefore need to be accompanied by a number of laws and regulations.

K.2

Integrated Approach to Vehicle Overload Control

An EAC Act (pursuant to Article 62 of the EAC Treaty) would provide an integrated approach to vehicle overload control in the EAC with legal effect in the Partner States. It would override contrary national laws and regulations as per subparagraphs (4) and (5) of Article 8 of the EAC Treaty. Alternatively, if a Protocol is adopted and the Partner States have their own laws/regulations, they will not meet the mandate of Article 90(l) of the EAC Treaty for the Partners States to adopt common rules and regulations on gross weight and load per axle.

K.3

EAC Acts Have Been Effectively Applied Before

EAC Acts have been applied effectively before (e.g., the EAC Customs Management Act, 2004; the EAC Standardisation, Quality Assurance, Metrology and Testing Act, 2006; the EAC One-Stop Border Posts Act, in process). There are no convincing reasons to abandon this approach.

K.4

The Steps Required for a Protocol are Lengthy

A Protocol would take longer to adopt than an Act, making it inappropriate for the required fast tracking of the issue. It would require many steps: (i) submission of the draft to the sectoral council and then to workshops in the Partner States, (ii) preparation of a final report with a revised draft Protocol as an official document, (iii) submission of the final report to the Council of Ministers for approval, (iv) article-by-article review by the Attorneys Generals of the Partner States and the Legal Department of the Secretariat, and (v) submission of the resulting draft to the Council of Ministers for signing.

K.5

A Protocol Would Only Provide a General Framework

A Protocol would only provide a general framework and therefore would not meet the mandate of Article 90(l) for common rules and regulations. Pursuant to Article 151(l) of the EAC Treaty, a Protocol is an annex of the EAC Treaty to spell out the objectives and scope of, and institutional mechanisms for co-operation and integration. Therefore, many of the required details could not be specified in a Protocol. It would be unprecedented.

K-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix K EAC Act or Protocol

Additional laws and regulations would be required, and if enacted at the Partner State level would result in a fragmented, non-harmonized approach.

K-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix L Dynamic Stability of Interlinks

Appendix L

Dynamic Stability of Interlinks

In response to a request for a comparison of interlinks (B-doubles) and truck-trailers, a brief discussion of existing work is presented. The National Transport Commission (NTC, previously NTRC) of Australia developed performance-based standards (PBS) for heavy vehicles as an alternative means of regulating heavy vehicles. It is the latest edition of these standards that South Africa is using for its PBS initiative. During the process of recommending and reviewing potential performance standards, the NTC conducted an evaluation of the Australian heavy vehicle fleet against these standards. 1 At the time, the range of selected potential standards was as suggested by previous work by the same organization 2 and this list remains essentially unchanged. In the NTCs evaluation of the Australian vehicle fleet, 139 generic vehicles were chosen to represent the range of typical vehicle combinations including rigid trucks, truck-trailers, trucksemitrailers, and road trains. Numerical computer simulations of these vehicle combinations were conducted (using Adams and AutoSim multi-body/vehicle dynamics software packages) and the performance statistics of each combination compared against the respective performance standards. The subsequent report from that study is lengthy and detailed and a summary may be downloaded from the NTCs website. 3 A description of the various performance measures may also be obtained from the website. 4 In support of the safety of interlinks over truck-trailers (more specifically, based on the illustrations provided, truck and dog trailer), some overall results of the study are presented in Tables L-1, L-2, and L-3. The tables show the percentage of vehicles simulated in each vehicle group (e.g., B-double, rigid truck) that pass the required performance criteria at the required level. In the right-most column the percentage of vehicles in each group that pass all of the standards is given. Hence, a higher quoted percentage of one vehicle group over another gives an indication of the statistically superior performance of that particular vehicle combination over the other in each performance measure. The limiting values for the PBS measures are relaxed for more limited road access Urban road access has the most stringent requirements, major freight routes slightly less stringent and road train routes the least stringent. The tables show the results for each of these access levels respectively. Arguably, the most safety-critical PBS measures are those pertaining to dynamic characteristics of the vehicle and are: Static Rollover Threshold, Rearward Amplification, High Speed Transient Offtracking, Yaw Damping, and Tracking Ability on a Straight Path. The results show the B-double to be the superior performer in all these standards except rollover threshold and the difference here is not considerable. It can be seen from the performance in low-speed standards that the B-double is not, in general, ideally suited for urban access but performs notably overall. From these results and other research results it may be said that in general Bdoubles are dynamically safer than truck-dog-trailer equivalents. It should be emphasized however that it is possible to produce an unsafe vehicle in either configuration, even within legal constraints, and as such this deduction is not all-encompassing.

NTRC, Performance Characteristics of the Australian Heavy Vehicle Fleet, Melbourne: National Road Transport Commission, 2002. 2 NTRC, Definition of Potential Performance Measures and Initial Standards, Melbourne: National Road Transport Commission, 2001. 3 http://www.ntc.gov.au/docview.aspx?documentid=255. 4 http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/PBSSchemeStandsVehAssRule24Nov08.pdf.

L-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix L Dynamic Stability of Interlinks

Table L-1: Australian Heavy Vehicle Fleet Performance (Access to Entire Road Network) [1]

Table L-2: Australian Heavy Vehicle Fleet Performance (Access to Major Freight Routes) [1]

L-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix L Dynamic Stability of Interlinks

Table L-3: Australian Heavy Vehicle Fleet Performance (Access to Road Train Routes) [1]

Source of all Tables: NTRC, Performance Characteristics of the Australian Heavy Vehicle Fleet, Melbourne: National Road Transport Commission, 2002

L-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix L Dynamic Stability of Interlinks

L-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

Appendix M

List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M-1

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M.1
No. 1 2 Country -

List of Participants, the 1st Taskforce Meeting on 18 January 2011

Name M r. Hosea Nyangweso M r. Gratian R.S. Rutaserwa Position Principal Civil Engineer Senior M aterials/Paveme nt Engineer JICA Advisor Infrastructure and Planning Directorate Expert, Africa Department Regional Project Formulation Advisor Assistant Commissioner Director of operations M anager-Axle Load Control Principal Engineer Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs Axle Load Control Engineer Business Development Specialist Axle Load Controller Senior Engineer Weighbridge Operations Road Transport Adviser Director of Internal Trade Team Leader Organization EAC Secretariat EAC Secretariat Email [email protected] [email protected] Telephone 255 784 239 997 255 713 614 755 255 784 404 049

M s. Tomomi Tokuori

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 769 800 704

M r. Kei Yoshizawa

JICA

[email protected]

81 3 5226 8257

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Uganda Uganda Kenya Kenya Kenya Rwanda Rwanda Tanzania Tanzania Burundi Burundi

M r. Takao Nakamura M r. Denis Sabiiti M r. Ssebbugga-Kimeze M r. Kungu Ndungu M r. M ichael M uchiri M s. Norah B.A. Ooingo-Kajwang M r. Garuka Dieudonne M r. Francis Rugero M r. Scandamr M assale Eliamin L Tenga M r. Nyanwi Edouard M r. Nzeyimana Thrence

JICA Kenya Office M inistry of Works and Transport Uganda National Roads Authority Kenya National Highway Authority M inistry of Transport Kenya National Highway Authority

[email protected] [email protected] Ssebbugga.KIM [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

254 20 2724877 256 772 677 460 256 772 477 042 254 722 871 998
254 733 798 914 254 722 795 123 250 788 425 153 250 788 757 069 255 222 121 604 255 222 926 001/6 257 777 77197 257 799 31953

Rwanda Transport Devel [email protected] Private Sector Federation M inistry of Works TANROADS [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

M inistry of Transports [email protected] and Public Works M inistry of Trade, [email protected] Industry, Posts and Tourism JICA Study Team [email protected]

17

M r. Yuichiro M otomura

81 3 5812 1091

18

M r. Bruce Winston

Legal Expert Road /Highway Engineer Weighbridge Expert Transport Economist Consensus Building Expert

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

81 3 5812 1091

19 20 21 22 23

M r. M ikio Orikasa M r. M ichael I. Pinard M s. M asako Hatta M r. Barney M W Curtis M r. Seiji Kadooka

JICA Study Team JICA Study Team JICA Study Team JICA Study Team

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

81 3 5812 1091 267 713 11629 81 3 5812 1091 27 83 386 8202 81 3 5812 1091

Coordinator/ JICA Study Team Highway Engineer

M-2

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M.2
No. Country/ Category 1 EAC

List of Participants, the 1st Stakeholders Workshop on 78 February 2011

Name Position Director Infrastructure Organization Email Telephone

M r.Philp Wambugu

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 272 504253

2 3

EAC EAC

M r. Hosea Nyangweso M r. Gratian R.S. Rutaserwa

EAC

M s. Tomomi Tokuori

Principal Civil EAC Secretariat Engineer Senior M aterials/Pavement EAC Secretariat Engineer JICA Advisor Infrastructure and EAC Secretariat Planning Directorate Senior Projects Accountant Regional Project Formulation Advisor M anager-Axle Load Control Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs Principal Engineer CDT Traffic Regional Executive Office Director Senior Assistant Commissoner EAC Secretariat

[email protected] [email protected]

255 784 239 997 255 713 614 755 255 784 404 049 255 769 800 704

[email protected]

EAC

M s.Angella Amudo

[email protected]

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

JICA Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Uganda Uganda Uganda

M r. Takao Nakamura M r. Kungu Ndungu M s. Norah B.A. Ooingo-Kajwang M r. M ichael M uchiri Githua M r.Joseph Oletito M r.John M athenge M r.Alfred Kitolo M s.Agatha Wakiuru Kanothi M r.Rapael Kanothi M r.M aurice Otieno Ndeda M r.Hudson Kihumba Wanguhu M r.Ouma Clarence Karot M rs. Ronah Serwadda M r. Rauben Byereta M r.Balisiba Lawrence LugwanaKaggwa M r.Denis Sabiiti

JICA Kenya Office Kenya National Highway Authority Kenya National Highway Authority M inistry of Transport Kenya Police Kenya Freight Forwaders M inistry of EAC Kenya Revenue Authority

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

254 20 2724877 254 722 871 998

254 722 795 123 254 733 798 914 254 722-894413 254 722 990719 254 20 2245741 254 727 631339 254 20 2245741 254 722 291497 254 20 2722865/6 254 720 759184 256 772 405688 256 788 093106 256 752 744477

Principal Economist M inistry of EAC Chief supt. Engineer(ROADS) M anager(planning& programing) Senior Enginee M aintenance M inistry of Roads Kenya Roads Board

21

Uganda

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda

M r.Ben Ssebbugga-Kimeze M r.Kugonza Frankline M r.M oses Ogwal M r. Atama Gabriel Richard M r. Rubagumya Julius M r. Kareba Charles M r.Ndarubogoye Abdul M r.Bitwayiki Andr M r.Twagirumukiza Benoit M r.Safari S. Vincent M r.Garuka Dieudonne M r.Hagenimana Innocent M r.Tayebwa D. James

35

Rwanda

M r.Nuwagaba Fred

Kenya National Highway Authority M inistry of East African Community Commissioner Affairs Foreign Service M inistry of Foreign Officer Affairs Uganda Truck Owners M anaging Director Organization Road and Pipeline Transport Regulation Asst.Comissioner M inistry of Works and Transport Uganda National Roads Director operations Authority Assistant Commissioner of Uganda Police Police Private Sector Director Police Federation Uganda M inistry of East Principal African Community Infrastructure Affairs Officer Uganda Revenue Regional M anager Authority Uganda Freight Chairman Forwarders Association Trans Africa Container Vice Chair Person Transport Limited M anaging Director M ATARE SARL EXECUTIVE ATAR SECRETARY Director, Trade and Private Sector Policy Advocacy Federation Axle Load Engineer RTDA - M ININFRA TRANSPORT RTDA - M ININFRA ENGINEER Regional Trade Development M INICOM Expert Head of Transit, Rwanda Revenue Export and Authority Outstation

[email protected]

256 772 677460

Ssebbugga.KIM [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

256 772 477042 256 712 831057 256 772 980184 256 752 637880 256 717 440294 256 772 772736 250 788 301110 250 788 302388 250 788 356395 250 788 302313 250 788 425153 250 782 369174 250 788 463517

[email protected]

250 788 740098

M-3

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

No. 36

Country/ Category Brundi

Name M r. Consolateur Nitunga

Position

Organization

Email [email protected]

Telephone 257 79 689936

37

Brundi

M r. Landre Ruberintwari

38

Brundi

M r. Athanase Nsabumwami

39 40 41

Brundi Brundi Brundi

M r. Ferdinand Nisubire M r. Jean Claude Niyongendako M r. Jean Paul Ntuhurumuryango

42

Brundi

M r. M athieu Bizimana

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Brundi Brundi Brundi Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania

M r. Do Ntibibuka M r. Jacques Bankuwunguka M r. Antoine Ntisigana M r. Charles James Obado M r. M aden KIPANDE M r. John Kiswaga M r. Antony M asunzu M r.Thomas L.M osso M r. M elchior Barantandikiye M r. Zakaria Hans Poppe M r. Anastas K. Selemani M r. Japfet M alambi

M inistry of Transports, Advisor and Human Public Works and Resources M anager Equipment M inistry of Transports, Director of Road Public Works and Works Equipment M inistry of Trade, Industry, Posts and Advisor Tourism M inistry of Trade, Industry, Posts and Advisor Tourism M inistry of EAC Advisor Affairs Burundi Industrial EXECUTIVE Association of SECRETARY M anufacturers Burundi Association of Freight Forwarding and Chairman Custom Agencies Burundi Association of Freight Forwarding and Vice President Custom Agencies Burundi traders Association Federal Chamber of Deligate Commerce and Transporter Industry of Burundi Border Control Immigration Policy Analist Director Civil Engineer Police Officer Director of M aintenance M inistry of Works M inistry of EAC POLICE DEPARTM ENT TANROADS

[email protected]

257 77 739833

[email protected]

257 77 752285

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

257 77776910 257 79 905306 257 79 965650

[email protected]

257 79 926257

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

257 78 850408 257 79921152 257 22 225431 255 715 697430 255 754 292998 255 22 2134654 255 754 528751 255 767 695460 255 764 278412

55

Tanzania

M r.Eliamin L.Tenga

56

Tanzania

M r.Ernest N.Tarimo

57

TTCA

M r.Charles H. Sabiiti

58 COM ESA M r.Glbert M aeti 59 Other donors M r.David K. Adolwa 60 Other donors M r.Dorian Kirumbi 61 Other donors M r.Lawerence Kiggundu 62 Other donors M r.Adams Grodzicki 63 Study team M r. Yuichiro M otomura

Central Corridor Logistics Specialist Transit Transport Facilitation Agency Executive Tanzania Trucks Committee M ember Owners Association Director Road SUM ATRA Transport M inistry of Transports, M aintenance Public Works and Engineer Equipment Senior Engineer Weighbridge TANROADS Operations Surface and M arine Director of Transport Regulatory Corporate Affairs Authority Transit Transport AG.Head, Coordination Infrastructure Authority,Northern Development Corridor Senior Transport COM ESA Economist Transit Advisor US AID/COM PETE Delegation of EU- Head of SectionsUganda Infrastructure Infrastructure African Development Specialist Bank Head of Infra EU delegation Section TANZANIA Team Leader JICA Study Team

[email protected] / tatoa@superdoll- 255 784 220303 [email protected] [email protected] 255 784 446021 255 767 7193877

[email protected]

255 784 650115

[email protected]

255 715 978567

[email protected]

254 734 049230

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

260 9795 99615 254 722 754969 256 414 701000 255 766 610659

81 3 5812 1091

64 Study team M r. Bruce Winston

Legal Expert Road /Highway Engineer

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

81 3 5812 1091

65 Study team M r. M ikio Orikasa 66 Study team M r. M ichael I. Pinard 67 Study team M r. Barney M W Curtis 68 Study team M s. M asako Hatta

JICA Study Team

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

81 3 5812 1091 267 713 11629 27 83 386 8202 81 3 5812 1091

Weighbridge Expert JICA Study Team Consensus Building JICA Study Team Expert Transport Economist Coordinator/ Highway Engineer JICA Study Team

69 Study team M r. Seiji Kadooka

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

81 3 5812 1091

M-4

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M.3
No. 1 2 Country/ Category EAC EAC

List of Participants, the 2nd Taskforce Meeting on 10 May 2011

Name M r. Hosea Nyangweso M s. Tomomi Tokuori Position Principal Civil Engineer JICA Advisor Infrastructure and Planning Directorate Regional Project Formulation Advisor M anager(planning& programing) M anager Roads M aintenance Organization EAC Secretariat EAC Secretariat Email [email protected] [email protected] Telephone 255 784 239 997 255 769 800 704

3 4 5

JICA Kenya Kenya

M r. Takao Nakamura M r.Hudson Kihumba Wanguhu M r.Charles Okeyo Dede

JICA Kenya Office Kenya Roads Board

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

254 20 2724877 254 20 2722865/6 254 722 849664

Uganda

M r.Denis Sabiiti

7 8 9 10

Uganda Rwanda Rwanda Brundi

M r.Ben Ssebbugga-Kimeze M r.M urenzi Theodore M r.Garuka Dieudonne M r.Bayihishako Pierre

Kenya National Highway Authority Road and Pipeline Transport Regulation Asst.Comissioner M inistry of Works and Transport Uganda National Roads Director operations Authority Secretary General ACPLRWA(PSF) Zonal M aintenance RTDA - M ININFRA Enginner East M in.of Transport Director of Road Public Works and Planing Equipment M in.of Transport Director of Internal Public Works and road transport Equipment Senior Engineer Weighbridge Operations Axle Load Controller

[email protected]

256 772 677460

Ssebbugga.KIM [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

256 772 477042 250 788 300393 250 788 425153 257 79 928896

11

Brundi

M r.Willy M asirisha

[email protected]

257 789 28800

12 13

Tanzania Tanzania

M r.Eliamin L.Tenga M r.Scanda M assale

TANROADS M in. of Works

[email protected] [email protected]

255 784 650115 255 21 21604

14

Tanzania

Dr.Bartholomew B. Rufunjo

Principal Transport M inistry of EAC Engineer Economist Weighbridge Expert JICA Study Team Consensus Building JICA Study Team Expert Consultant JICA Study Team

[email protected]

255 22 2134654

15 Study team M r. M ichael I. Pinard 16 Study team M r. Barney M W Curtis 17 Study team M s.AGNES N.Wadda

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

267 713 11629 27 83 386 8202 256 772 589433

M-5

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M.4
No.

List of Participants, the 1st Stakeholders Workshop on 3031 May 2011

Country/ Category Name Position Organization Email Telephone

EAC

M r.Philp Wambugu

Director Infrastructure EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 272 504253

EAC

M r. Hosea Nyangweso

Principal Civil Engineer Senior M aterials/Pavement Engineer JICA Advisor Infrastructure and Planning Directorate Web Editor

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 784 239 997

EAC

M r. Gratian R.S. Rutaserwa

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 713 614 755 255 784 404 049

EAC

M s. Tomomi Tokuori

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 769 800 704

EAC

M r. Edward Ssekalo

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255-767-191076

EAC

M s.M aryam Killo

Secretary

EAC Secretariat

[email protected]

255 272 504253

EAC

Amb.DR.Richard Sezibera

Secretary General

East Afrcia Community

[email protected]

255 27 2504253

EAC

M r.Jean Claude Nsengiyumva

Deputy Secretary General

East Afrcia Community

[email protected]

255 27 2504253

EAC

M r.Anthony L. Kafumbe

Principal Legal Officer East Afrcia Community

[email protected]

255 27 2504253

10

JICA

M r. Takao Nakamura

Regional Project Formulation Advisor

JICA Kenya Office

[email protected]

254 20 2724121

11

JICA

M r.James Kariuki Wairuri

Grant Aid Consultant(infrastruct JICA Kenya Office ure) Chief Supt. Engineer(ROADS) M inistry of ROADS

[email protected]

254 20 2724121

12

Kenya

M r.M aurice Otieno Ndeda

[email protected]

254 722 291497

13

Kenya

M r.Alfred Kitolo

Director

M inistry of East Africa Community Kenya Transport Association

[email protected]

254 20 2211614

14

Kenya

Jane Njeru

Chief Executive Officer

[email protected]

254 41 2311958

15

Kenya

M s. Norah B.A. Ooingo-Kajwang

Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs

Kenya National Highway [email protected] Authority

254 722 795 123

16

Kenya

M r.Hudson Kihumba Wanguhu

M anager(planning&pr Kenya Roads Board ograming) M anager-Axle Load Control

[email protected]

254 20 2722865/6

17

Kenya

M r. Kungu Ndungu

Kenya National Highway [email protected] Authority [email protected]

254 722 871 998

18

Kenya

M r. Abdi M ohammed

Director

M otor Vehicle Inspection [email protected]

254 722 421141

19

Kenya

M r. M ichael M uchiri Githua

Principal Engineer

M inistry of Transport

[email protected]

254 733 798 914

20

Kenya

M r.Jered M akori

Senior Engineer

Kenya National Highway [email protected] Authority

254 702 197162

M-6

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

No.

Country/ Category 21 Kenya

Name

Position Senior Assistant Director

Organization M inistry of East Africa Community Kenya Transport Association

Email

Telephone

M s. Irene Nambuye M usebe

[email protected]

254 721 358653

22

Kenya

M s. Grace M aina

Programs Offcier

[email protected]

254 734 619494

23

Kenya

M s.Christine M unywe

M ember Service Officer Chief Superintending Engineer

Kenya Shippers Council

[email protected]

254 20 3745456

24

Kenya

M r.Tom Ogalo

M inistry of Transport

254 20 2729200

25

Kenya

M r. David S.O. Nalo

Permanent Secretary

M nistry of EAC

26

Kenya

M r.Philip Kemboi

Administrative Assistant Principal Information Officer

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 722 696568

27

Kenya

M r.Joseph Kamuto

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 722 746925

28

Kenya

M s.Rehema A.M uge Chemas

Protocol Officer

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 722 385272

29

Kenya

M r.Kennedy E.Njagi

Offcial

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 725 741412

30

Kenya

M r.Samson M uo

S.S.S.

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 724 328287

31

Kenya

M r.Eric M unyao

Offcial

M nistry of EAC

[email protected]

254 724 925914

32

Uganda

M r. Rauben Byereta

Foreign Service Officer

M inistry of Foreign Affairs Uganda Transport Agencies LTD

[email protected]

256 788 093106

33

Uganda

M r.Balisiba Lawrence LugwanaKaggwa

M anaging Director

[email protected]

256 752 744477

34

Uganda

M r. Kareba Charles

Chairman

UFFA

[email protected]

256 414 344677/8

35

Uganda

M r.Denis Sabiiti

Asst.Comissioner

M inistry of Works and Transport Uganda National Roads Authority

[email protected]

256 772 677460

36

Uganda

M r.Ben Ssebbugga-Kimeze

Director operations

[email protected]

256 772 477042

37

Uganda

M r. Atama Gabriel Richard

Principal Infrastructure M inistry of East African [email protected] Officer Community Affairs

256 752 637880

38

Uganda

M r.M oses Ogwal

Director of Policy Advocacy AG.Principal Commercial Officer

Private Sector Foundation [email protected] Uganda M inistry of Trade&Industry M inistry OF Justice&Constitutional Affairs

256 772 980184

39

Uganda

M r. Oule David Epyanu

[email protected]

256 772 327958

40

Uganda

M s. Ityang Harriet

Senior State Attorney

[email protected]

256 712 556677

M-7

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

No.

Country/ Category 41 Uganda

Name

Position Road M aintenance Engineer Zonal M aintenance Engineer

Organization

Email

Telephone

M r. Namugera Ronald

Uganda Road Fund

[email protected]

256 414 257072

42

Rwanda

M r.Garuka Dieudonne

Rwanda Transport Development Agency

[email protected]

250 788 425153

43

Rwanda

M r.M urenzi Theodore

Secretary General

ACPLRWA(PSF)

[email protected]

250 788 300393

44

Rwanda

M r.Ndarubogoye Abdul

Vice Chair Person

Rwanda Transport Association

[email protected]

250 788 301110

45

Rwanda

M r.Bitwayiki Andr

M anaging Director

M ATARE SARL

[email protected]

250 788 302388

46

Rwanda

M r.Twagirumukiza Benoit

Secretary Exective

ATAR

[email protected]

250 788 356395

47

Rwanda

M r.M unyemana Theoneste

Driver

Petrocom

[email protected]

250 788 740038

48

Rwanda

Mr.Nishiminimana Emmanuel
M r.Hagenimana Innocent

President of Rwanda Long Distance T ruckers ACPLRWA(PSF) Union

[email protected]

250 788 532269

49

Rwanda

TRANSPORT ENGINEER

RTDA - M ININFRA

[email protected]

250 782 369174

50

Tanzania

M r. M aden KIPANDE

Director

M inistry of Works

[email protected]

255 22 2121604

51

Tanzania

M r.Thomas L.M osso

Director of M aintenance Principal Economic Infrastruture Officer

TANROADS

[email protected]

255 767 695460

52

Tanzania

Dr. Bartholomew Rufunjo

M inistry of EAC
Ministry of Infrastrucure

[email protected]

255 787 809285

53

Tanzania

M r. Japfet M alambi

M aintenance Engineer and Communication,

Zanzibar

[email protected]

255 773 193877

54

Tanzania

M r.Khamis K Hamidu

Regional M anager

Weights and M easures Agency Tanzania Freight Forwaders Association

[email protected]

255 754 392833

55

Tanzania

M r. David Swilla

Exective Concillor

[email protected]

255 754 635179

56

Tanzania

M r. Zacharia Hans Poppe

Executive Committee M ember

Tanzania Trucks Owners [email protected] Association [email protected]

255 784 220303

57

Tanzania

M r.Cyril Kimario

Standard Officer

TBS

[email protected]

255 22 2450298

58

Tanzania

M r. Antony M asunzu

Police Officer

POLICE DEPARTM ENT

[email protected]

255 754 528751

59

Tanzania

M r.Habib J.S.Suluo

Ag.Director Corporate Affaurs/coordinator SUM ATRA EATTFP Ag.Director Road SUM ATRA Transport Regulations

[email protected]

255 222 197514

60

Tanzania

M r.Aron Johnson Kisaka

[email protected]

255 222 197531

M-8

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

No.

Country/ Category 61 Tanzania

Name

Position Exective Committee M ember Director of Internal transport

Organization

Email

Telephone

M r.Fulgence Bube

Tanzania Trucks Owners [email protected] Association M in.of Transport Public Works and Equipment

255 22 2860930

62

Burundi

M r. M adirisha Willy

[email protected]

257 789 28800

63

Burundi

M s. Yvonne UWIM ANA

Judge

M inistry of Justice M inistry of Trade, Industry, Posts and Tourism M inistry of EAC

[email protected]

257 79 462140

64

Burundi

M r. Ferdinand NISUBIRE

Advisor

[email protected]

257 77776910

65

Burundi

M s. M arie Jeanne KAM ARIZA

Advisor

[email protected]

257 79 575758

66

Burundi

M r. Gabriel NAHIM ANA

M anaging Director

Port of Bujumbura Federal Chamber of Trade&Industry of Burundi Burundi Freight& Forwarding Association

[email protected]

257 79 464 036

67

Burundi

M r. Cyriaque NDAYISHIM IYE

Delegate Traders

[email protected]

257 79 927 447

68

Burundi

M r. M athieu BIZIM ANA

Chairman

[email protected]

257 75 926 257 255 762 486 142

69

Burundi

M r. Antoine NTISIGANA

M anaging Director

SODETRA

[email protected] / [email protected]
[email protected]

257 22 225431

70

Burundi

M r. Eric RURACENYEKA

Delegate

Burundu Bureau of Standards

257 78 849402

71

Others

M s. M apolao M okoena

Secretariat

SADC

[email protected]

267 3951863

72

Others

M r. M elchior Barantandikiye

Logistics Specialist

Central Corridor Transit [email protected] Transport Facilitation [email protected] Agency [email protected] / [email protected]

255 764 278412 254 716 864 608; 254 729 923 574

73

Others

Eng. Charles Habarugira Sabiiti

AG.Head of Program Infrastructure NCTTCA Development&M anage t Civil Engineer COM ESA

74

Others

M r. M artin M usonda

[email protected]

260 211 229725

75

Others

M r. George Sunguh

Communications Officer

PM AESA

[email protected]

254 722 703971

76

Others

M s.Sheesham Bala Sethi

Director

Bank Consult

[email protected] / [email protected]

254 720 627526

77

Others

M r.John M athenge

Regional Executive Office

FEAFFA

[email protected]

254 722 990719

78

Others

Dr.Hassan M .Rajabu

Engineer

BICO-UDSM

[email protected]

255 754 265773

79

Others

Dr.Cornel K.M taki

Consultant (BICO)Tanzania

University of Dar es Salaam

[email protected]

255 754 370374

80 Other donors M r.David K. Adolwa

Transit Advisor

US AID/COM PETE

[email protected]

254 733601136

M-9

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

No.

Country/ Category 81 M edia

Name

Position

Organization

Email

Telephone

M r.Rading Biko Gerro

Journalist

KNA

[email protected]

254 738 858740

82

M edia

M s. Eunice Kendi

Journalist

KNA

[email protected]

254 714 791287

83

M edia

M r.Silvanus Ndemo Nyamora

Information Officer

KNA

[email protected]

254 722 392510

84

M edia

M r.John M acharia Kamau

Information Officer

KNA

[email protected]

254 720 666478

85

M edia

M r.Jonah Onyango

Journalist

KNA

[email protected]

254 724 715562

86

M edia

M r.Collins Omondi

Photo Journalist

Freelance Photo Journalist

[email protected]

254 722 210520

87

M edia

M r.Denis Otieno

Reporter

Citizen TV

[email protected]

254 726 623990

88

M edia

M r.Nelson M zee

Reporter

Baraka FM

[email protected]

254 712 548061

89

M edia

M r.Luke Anami

Business Writer

Standard M edia Group

[email protected]

254 722 819960

90

M edia

M r.Ronald Njoroge

Reporter

[email protected]

91 Study team M r. Yuichiro M otomura

Team Leader

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

81 3 5812 1091

92 Study team M r. Bruce Winston

Legal Expert

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

81 3 5812 1091

93 Study team M r. M ichael I. Pinard

Weighbridge Expert

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

267 713 11629

94 Study team M r. Barney M W Curtis

Consensus Building Expert

JICA Study Team

[email protected]

27 83 386 8202

M-10

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M.5

List of Participants, the Special Taskforce Meeting on 29-30 June 2011

1. BURUNDI DELEGATION Mr. Willy Madirisha Director of Internal Transport Ministry of Transport Public Works and Equipment Financial Building, 6th Floor office Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 22241593 Fax: +257 22241593 E-mail:[email protected] Mr. Buharurwa Bornaventure Director in charge of Pacification Ministry of Public Security Bujumbura Burundi Tel: +257 22 252519 Mobile: +257 78 650 662 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Ferdimana Nisubire Director of Trade, Industry Tourism & Post P O Box 492 Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 22227257 Mobile: +257 77776910 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Edouard Nyandwi Road Transport Adviser Ministry of Transport and Public Works Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 77777197 E-mail:[email protected] Mr. Serge Sindimwo Chef de la cellule Cooperation Office des Routes Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 22222940 Mobile: +257 77733541/79818612 E-mail:[email protected] Mr. Eric Ruracenyeka Burundi Bureau of Standards Boulevard de la Tanzanine Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 78849402 Mobile: +257 78 849402 E-mail:[email protected] Mr. Marcel Niyonzima Delegate of International Transport C. Secoriel ols Transport (CF & I T) Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 22241593 Mobile: +257 778802106 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Claver Ntasehera Economic Advisor Ministry of EAC Affairs Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 79416500 E-mail:[email protected]

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

M-11

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Mr. Pacelli Sindaruhuka Communications Officer National Legislative Assembly Bujumbura, Burundi Tel: +257 78933631 Mobile: +257 79933631 E-mail:[email protected] Mr. Antoine Ntisigana President CFCIB (CS Transport) P O Box2096 Bujumbura Burundi Tel: +257 225431 Fax: +257 22215840 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Thaddee Ntahondi Press and Communication Advisor Ministry of EAC Affairs Bujumbura, Burundi Mobile: +257 79903524 Tel: +257 12259715 E-mail:[email protected] UGANDA DELEGATION Mr. Denis Sabiiti Assistant Commissioner Ministry of Works & Transport P O Box 10 Entebbe Uganda Tel: +256 772 677 460 Email: [email protected] Mr. Bazil Mugisha Commissioner, Traffic & Road Safety Uganda Polcie P O Box 7022 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 712 767710 Fax: +256 414 251 300 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Oule David Epyanu Ag. Principal Commercial Officer Ministry of Trade, Industry and Co-operation P O Box 7103 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 772 327 958 E-mail: [email protected]/ [email protected] Ms. Susan Nakabuye Wabbi State Attorney Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Affairs Queens Chambers, Plot 4 Parliament Avenue P O Box 7183 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 414 234 646 Mobile: + 256 712 805 805 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Ben Ssebbugga Kimeze Director of Operations Uganda National Road Authority Plot 5 Loudel Road Nakasero P O Box 28487 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 772477042 Mobile: +256 772 477 042 E-mail: [email protected]

M-12

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Mr. Lawrence Lugwana Kaggwa Managing Director Uganda Transport Agencies Ltd (UTAL) Also representing UCTOA P O Box 1825 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 414 4271175 Mobile: +256 752 744477 E-mail: [email protected]/ E-mail: [email protected] Mr. George Lwevoola Principal Officer ICT Ministry of EAC Affairs P O Box 7343 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 776 744645 Fax: +256 414 348171 E-mail: [email protected] RWANDA DELEGATION Mr. Benoit Twagirumukiza Secretary General ATAR Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788356395 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Emmanuel Butera Commissioner for OPNS & Public Order Rwanda National Police P O Box 6304 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788311201 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Samuel Mporanzi Head, Engineering Section Rwanda Bureau of Standards P O Box 7099 Kicukiro - Centre Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 252 55 104027 Mobile: +250 788 565977/728565977 E-mail:[email protected] / [email protected] Eng. Dieudown Garuka Zonal Maintenance & Engineer Rwanda Transport Development Agency P O Box 6674 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788425153 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Theodore Murenzi Secretary General ACPLRWA (PSF) P O Box 1095 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788300393 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Mr. Zephania Muhigi Head of Customs Operations Division Rwanda Revenue Authority Customs Department P O Box 3987 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788350686 Fax: +250 378535 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected]

M-13

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Mr. Stephen Ruzibiza State Attorney Attorney Generals Chambers Ministry of Justice P O Box 160 Kigali, Rwanda Tel: +250 788600897 E-mail: [email protected] KENYA DELEGATION Mr. Abdi Mohamed Director Motor Vehicle Inspection P O Box 78822 00507 Nairobi, Kenya Tel + 254 722 421 141 E-mail: [email protected] Eng. Maurice Otieno Ndeda Principal Supt. Engineer (Roads) Ministry of Roads P O Box 30260 - 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel + 254 20 2723101 / 20 554030/ 0722 291 497 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Alfred M. Kitolo Director Ministry of East African Community P O Box 8846 - 00200 Nairobi, Kenya E-mail: [email protected] Eng. Kungu Ndungu Manager, ALC Kenya National Highways Authority P O Box 49712 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254 722871998 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] Eng. Jacob Z. Ruwa General Manager - Planning Kenya Roads Board P O Box 73718 -00200 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254 20 27222865/8 Fax: +254 20 2723161 Mobile: +254 724 253279 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Alex Mbuvi State Counsel The State Law Office P O Box 40112 00100 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 20 2227461 Mobile: +254 722 301 381 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Musa W. Meso Assistant Director Weights and Measures Weights and Measures Department P O Box 41071 00100 Nairobi Kenya Mobile: +254 722 477 134 E-mail: [email protected]

M-14

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Mr. Eng. Tom Ogalo Chief Superintending Engineer Ministry of Transport P O Box 52692 00200 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 722 847220 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Josphat Obwoge Bangi Metrology Officer Kenya Bureau of Standards P O Box 54974 00200 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 722 830 965 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. David Tonui Principal Metrology Officer Kenya Bureau of Standards P O Box 54974 00200 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 716 225 229 [email protected] TANZANIA DELEGATION Mr. Fulgence Bube Executive Committee Member Tanzania Truck Owners Association P O Box 16541 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 222860930 Fax: +255 222865412/3 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Scanda Massalle Axle Load Controller Ministry of Works P O Box 9423 Dar es Salaam Tel: +255 2121604 Fax: +255 2121604 Mobile: +255 787 267947 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Hamisi K. Hamidu Regional Manager Weights and Measures Agency P O Box 313 Dar es Salaam Tel: +255 2203103 Mobile: +255 754 392833 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Antony Masanzu ASP Police Department P O Box 1712 Dar es Salaam Tel: +255 754 528 751 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Syvester A. Mwakitalu State Attorney Attorney Generals Chambers P O Box 9050 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 222118184 Fax: + 255 222113236 Mobile: +255 713241090 E-mail: [email protected]

M-15

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Mr. Cyril Kimario Standards Officer Tanzania Bureau of Standards P O Box 9524 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 222459298 Mobile:+255 784 869939 E-mail:[email protected] Eng. John Kiswaga Civil Engineer Ministry of East African Cooperation P O Box 9280 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 222134654 Fax: + 255 222120488 Mobile: +255 784 674422 E-mail: [email protected] Eng. Tenga Eliamin L. Senior Engineer Weighbridge Operations TANROADS P O Box 11364 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Mobile: +255 784 650115 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Zacharia Hans Poppe Treasurer & Spokesman TATOA P O Box 9280 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 784 220303 E-mail: [email protected] JICA Mr. Takeo Nakamura Regional Project Formation Advisor JICA Kenya Office The Rahimutulla Tower 10 Floor Upper Hill Road P O Box 50572 00200 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 20 272 4877 Fax: +254 20 2920190 Mobile: +254 701 396 528 E-mail: [email protected] EAC SECRETARIAT Mr. Philip Wambugu Director, Infrastructure East African Community Secretariat P. O. Box 1096, Arusha Tel: + 255 27 2504253/8 Fax: +255 27 2504255 Email: [email protected] Eng. Gratian Rutaserwa Senior Materials/Pavement Engineer East African Community Secretariat P. O. Box 1096, Arusha Tel: + 255 27 2504253/8 Fax: +255 27 2504255 Email: [email protected]

M-16

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

48.

49.

Dr. Tomomi Tokuori JICA Representative to EAC East African Community Secretariat P. O. Box 1096, Arusha Tel: + 255 27 2504253/8 Fax: +255 27 2504255 Email: [email protected] Ms. Lydia Kirera Personal Secretary East African Community Secretariat P. O. Box 1096, Arusha Tel: + 255 27 2504253/8 Fax: +255 27 2504255 Email: [email protected]

M-17

Study for the Harmonization of Vehicle Overload Control in the East African Community

Appendix M List of Participants in Stakeholders Workshops and Taskforce Meetings

M-18