On Thursday last, I was one of many victims of another freeway traffic jam. The unusual thing about this one was that it was in the evening at 8:30 pm, a time when one normally expects a relatively clear run on the N3. We have become so accustomed to traffic congestion, especially on the freeways (although residents of the northern suburbs of Maritzburg are among the worst victims in the country, surely) that we regard it as a way of life, one of those things that one can do little about. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be seem to adopt a similar attitude, conforming to the human trait of accepting everything as inevitable once the initial anger and frustration have been vented. What can one expect, after all, following an economic boom, an expanding and more mobile middle class and a proliferation of vehicles on the roads?
To my mind, the costs of the innumerable interruptions to traffic far exceed in significance, the inconvenience that we experience. I am a frequent listener to SAfm in the mornings and day after day there are reports of freeway accidents involving, mostly, trucks. There are also so many reports of dysfunctional robots that I wonder if municipalities have any conception of maintenance. Although I have heard that, in some cases at least, road freight companies are billed when their trucks are responsible for accidents, I do not know whether this happens every time, whether the costs recovered are enough to compensate what the total costs are to tax payers, or which agency of government evaluates the services provided and sends the bills.
Consider a typical free way accident which, if there is no possibility of diversion, may hold up the traffic for hours. A large truck overturns and loses its load of hazardous material. Because of the spillage it is impossible even to open one lane. In order to clear the freeway, para-medical services are required, as well as a service to remove the truck, experts in hazardous substances and a specialist cleaning crew. Such cleaning may also extend to a local stream or river. The accident ties up numerous members of the traffic police who are not in a position to charge for their time, but whose involvement with one incident prevents their attention to any other. All in all, the services required will cost a very large sum.
In the meanwhile, cars and trucks are wasting precious, and now very expensive. Most are business vehicles of one type or another, so their time has a monetary value – impossible to estimate. Unnecessary pollution of the air occurs by the concentration of so many vehicles in one area, particularly if many are large trucks, as they were last Thursday evening, incidentally, when the number in the long line of waiting vehicles was almost incomprehensible. There is no doubt that our vehicles are major contributors to air pollution.
Government cannot simply look upon this as a characteristic of the contemporary world which we just have to live with and accept. The wastefulness must be brought under control. Perhaps efforts are being made to do this, but the evidence of the increasing number of accidents suggests that whatever is being done, is not working. Resources of the public sector, supported by tax payers, should not be made so freely available when many of these accidents might be avoided if private companies were more responsible about the quality of their drivers, the size and nature of their loads and the roadworthiness of their vehicles. If some companies can get it right – one doubts that the really good ones experience many accidents to their vehicles – then they all can, except that too many cut corners to maximise their profit. However, aside from better enforcement which should remove all dicey trucks and drivers from the road, one would like to see more evidence of a strategy to reduce the usage of freeways by heavy vehicles. That rail is not considered a viable alternative defies logic because it has to be cheaper than using the road.
Andrew Layman: PCB CEO
This article appeared in the Public Eye on the 5 June 2008
