OUTA PRESS RELEASE – 5 Oct 2012

Judging from comments by the Minister of Transport urging the public to purchase e-Tags and other communication being sent out by SANRAL this week, it is clear that Government intends to launch e-tolling before the court review in November.

Having filed its replying affidavit on Monday, OUTA is now even more adamant that the decision to toll the Gauteng freeway upgrade (GFIP) was a poor decision taken by the authorities. “Since having access to the ETC contract, for which we had to sign a confidentiality agreement, our expert transport economist’s assessment of the numbers and efficiency of e-Tolls has revealed that the plan suffers from oversights and is a most inefficient manner in which to fund the R17bn freeway upgrade” says Wayne Duvenage, Chairperson of OUTA.

We expect the IMC to announce their e-Toll plans sometime this weekend or next week, wherein we envisage they will further reduce the e-toll tariffs as well as the capped maximum charge, as they go on the charm offensive to woo the public into believing this is the best option. We also believe their announcement will include the acceptance of e-Tolling by a few entities that were originally opposed to the plan.

OUTA firmly opposes the application of e-Tolling under the veil of ‘user pay’. Given the structure of our economy and the need to support those who lack many of the basic services, it is important that we apply the most cost efficient and effective funding methods.

The reality however is that you can’t be “half pregnant” on e-Tolls. You either e-toll or you don’t. A lesser amount of the wrong method doesn’t make it any more right. According to Clif Johnston of the SA National Consumer Union “The cost of collection and the bureaucratic burden it will place on society are independent of the actual amount charged per kilometre (km). Indeed, as the toll rate per km falls, the collection costs become an increasingly larger percentage of the amount collected”.

“This is the ultimate tragedy of the plan” says Johnson, “being that the road user will still have to foot the bill of more than R1,1bn per annum to cover the electronic toll collection process, regardless of how much they reduce the toll rate and cross subsidise the revenue required with fuel levies and / or the national fiscus mechanisms”.

Gary Ronald, CEO of the AA says “we are concerned about why the contracts still remain confidential. The public, who are ultimately expected to pay the fees, should be given full view of the entire contract. Until now, all we have seen are few tables from the authorities which vary substantially in the costs and projected revenues, casting serious doubt regarding the authenticity and accuracy of these figures”.

Duvenage says “The e-Toll plans are a most inequitable and inefficient ‘user pays’ process and the 8:1 Benefit to Cost ratio for users is a gross over exaggeration and has failed under expert examination. We continue to emphasise that, as per Government’s own documents, transfers from the fiscus and receipts from a fuel levy remain the most cost efficient way of raising funds. What’s more, these methods are included in government policy for revenue generation toward road infrastructure development. Adding to the injustice is a lack of the (planned) upgrading of public transport in Gauteng, which will eventually offer both road users and the general public a reliable, safe and efficient alternative to owing a private vehicle”.

Michael Tatalias, CEO of the SA Tourism Services Association (SATSA) says that “forcing e-Tolling onto the citizens of SA is a gross injustice and implies that citizen’s intellect is being taken for granted by the authorities, that they are unable to detect when a planned revenue / tax collection system is a waste of their hard earned money and time. COSATU’s warnings to government were expected and reflects the strong disquiet within both Gauteng and nationally at the prospect of a national e-Tolling roll out. It is clear that Government should not err by discounting the extent of dissatisfaction with the GFIP e-Tolling plan”.

Ari Seiris, CEO of the QuadPara Association of South Africa (QASA), continues to be concerned for his members who were not consulted during the planning of e-Tolling and are largely unable to use alternative public transport due to its lack of accessibility, convenience and reliability. Whilst a solution is currently being sought for people with disabilities, the last proposed tariff structure and policy makes no accommodation for those without transport but who rely on the generosity of many private individuals to transport them around Gauteng, often using the network of highways.

OUTA has always said it is willing to pay for the GFIP and other national transport infrastructure projects which benefit the country as they are both much needed and long overdue but not via e-Tolling. OUTA remains confident that the November judicial review of the decision to implement e-Tolling will be a strong challenge against the unjust plan.

END

Wayne Duvenage

ADDRESS: P O Box 2627, Northriding, 2162
DIRECTORS: Wayne Duvenage (Chairperson), Michael Tatalias (Vice Chairperson), Paul Pauwen (Secretary)
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Ari Seirlis, Clif Johnston, Jeff Osborne, Marc Corcoran
COMPANY REGISTRATION:  2012/064213/08
WEB SITE: www.outa.co.za

OPPOSITION TO URBAN TOLLING ALLIANCE

OUTA Press Release – 28 May 2012

OUTA welcomes the court’s decision to interdict the launch of e-Tolling, thereby allowing time for the full matter and case to be heard in court. We are pleased that Judge Prinsloo has decided it would be prudent to keep the e-toll ‘horse in the stable’ until this matter is reviewed in full, notwithstanding the recent decision to halt the launch for another month.

OUTA remains adamant that much could have been done by both SANRAL and the Department of Transport to have averted this legal action. We again state that we do not oppose the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) as there is always a need to improve our infrastructure but we object to the implementation of an unacceptably expensive and administratively burdensome tolling system. It is wasteful to pay additional billions in administration costs when these funds could be diverted to other national transport projects. We believe that the various key decision makers were unable to fully apply their minds effectively, given the information presented to them when the decision to toll was made. It would appear to us that insufficient time and effort was spent empirically challenging the various funding methods available, of which the fuel levy is just one.

Indeed the uniqueness of this particular case, being how the broad spectrum of South African society rallied around the common purpose of e-Tolling, cannot be overlooked. One senses that this may well be the start of new consciousness within South Africa where its citizens have been vindicated and their voices heard.

The interdict victory is just the second round after the case for urgency of this matter was granted in our favour. A much longer and fierce battle now lays ahead as the volumes of documentation will be argued in court to finally prove our case that eTolling is an unjustified, irrational and punitive tax on the citizens of South Africa.

Notwithstanding the interdict which now suspends eTolling until this case has received a full review in court, the authorities recent decision to postpone eTolling is just another example of how poorly this matter has been handled. Five postponements and almost a year after the initial planned launch, SANRAL are still not ready. We are of the opinion that they will never be able to be ready, because in reality, it is only possible to introduce legislation and processes that are practically possible to apply and enforce. eTolling is not supported by the majority of citizens. It is also simply impractical and unenforceable and this this is what SANRAL and the authorities are now starting to realize. By trying to force an unpopular decision on its citizens, the authorities may fast be realizing that this is not a good recipe for a healthy relationship with its people.

We remain hopeful that all parties will find each other prior to the court review, but if this is not the case, we will continue to represent South African road users interests while we seek a more efficient solution to our funding challenges.

— Ends —

OUTA (Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance) Press Release

15 April 2012

SANRAL INTRODUCES NEW PUNITIVE e-TOLL TARIFF
Department of Transport published the Gauteng e-Toll tariffs in the Government Gazette (#35263) on Friday 13th April and have displayed tactics to try and force the public to register their vehicles with SANRAL, by introducing a new tariff which is almost 6 times higher than the tagged user. To date, the upper limits were indicated at R0.58c per kilometre for non-tagged light vehicles and discounted rate of R0.30c for tagged users. SANRAL have now introduced a new “alternate user” category which has never been mentioned before, of R1.74c per km. This is a shocking new rate for those who do not register their vehicles on the SANRAL database, tag or no tag.

download: Toll-tariff-Gazette April-13 2012 _1-35263 13-4-Transp.pdf 3MB

This brings a whole new dimension to the matter and begs the question, what is the difference between an e-tag and non e-tagged vehicle (ie Vehicle License Number – VLN) when registering with the SANRAL e-Toll system? Clearly this new category rate of R1.74c / km for the road user who chooses not to register their vehicle with SANRAL will be seen as exorbitant and a ‘bully-boy’ tactic to force people to register. One wonders on what grounds are these gross variances are justified. No doubt this is a new issue that may have to be urgently brought before the National Consumer Commissioner and will probably have implications for the engagement process that took place with the Commission last week between the DA and SANRAL.

It is also important to note that the Gazette has made no mention of the tariff exemptions for minibus taxis and commuter busses. In the absence of any details at this late stage, it must be assumed that they are in fact not exempt. The absence of clarity on the criteria for exemptions has further implications for both vulnerable groups (e.g. pensioners, mobility impaired). In addition, the tourism industry which has numerous permitted vehicles and drivers similar to minibus taxi operators, have good reason to expect that they should also qualify for exemptions.

This once again highlights the lack of transparency and insincere approach by SANRAL which may further drive a wedge between the citizens of Gauteng and the authorities on the matter of e-tolls.

Issued by: Wayne Duvenage

Chairperson- OUTA (Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance)
Cell: 082 884 6652

SAVRALA has responded to Government Notice No. R.252, Gazetted on 27 March 2012, concerning:

• THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY LIMITED AND NATIONAL ROADS ACT, 1998 (ACT No.7 of 1998)
• THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY LIMITED AND NATIONAL ROADS ACT REGULATIONS, 2012

Government Notice No. R.252 – Download PDF

SAVRALA Comments to Notice No. R.252 – Download PDF

Press release: OUTA FILES LEGAL APPLICATION TO HALT E-TOLLS

Friday 23 March 12

Since the proud birth of our new democracy in South Africa, we have not seen such resistance and public outcry against a decision taken by our government. The calls to oppose e-tolling of Gauteng’s Freeway Improvements (GFIP) are loud, filled with anger and a growing resentment toward this unnecessary burden.  It is a sad day when a nation’s government develops a tense and threatening relationship with its people, when trying to force an unjust and unpopular decision into being, as is the case with this e-tolling project. 

The Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA) was recently formed out of a necessity for business organisations and people of similar mind to coordinate their efforts and consider a legal challenge to the e-tolling matter.  Our investigation has unpacked a number of issues and transgressions that highlight a disregard for protecting the interests of the public.

Challenging the actions of one’s government in court is a most unpleasant stance to take and in this case, it is our last and very necessary resort.Our application to interdict the decision to toll Gauteng’s Freeways was issued from the Pretoria High Court on Friday 23rd March 2012.

Our opposition to e-tolling must not be confused with the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project.  We congratulate SANRAL on a job well done in the upgrading of our freeways.  The benefits of time saving, reduced vehicle running expenses and improved road safety from GFIP are not being disputed, although claims of an 8 to 1 beneficial return as espoused by some requires serious challenging.  We also know and accept that we, the taxpayers, will have to pay for the GFIP.

Our issue and objection however, is with the e-tolling plan as a means of generating funds to pay for the GFIP.  Our court application seeks to halt the tolling of GFIP and is undertaken largely on the following grounds:-

• The planned e-toll process is grossly expensive, inefficient and a waste of citizen’s money. It makes no sense to pay between 30% and 50% in administration and operating costs to collect the revenue for the GFIP, when existing revenue collection mechanisms will cost virtually nothing to apply.
• It is fundamentally wrong to apply an additional tax or toll against citizens along their daily commuter routes.
• The e-toll project is unfairly punitive to Gauteng citizens who contribute significantly more in taxes than the value and spending they receive in return.  This region has more than paid for their freeway upgrade.
• Mention has been made by SANRAL of the research conducted by the University of Cape Town – School of Business, on which they based much of their decision to toll.  We believe this report was insufficient in detail, much of it untested and its proposals have even questioned by the authorities themselves.
• The ‘user pays principle’, as declared by SANRAL as a motive totoll the GFIP, is flawed.  The productivity and efficiency of Gauteng’s economy, of which its freeways are integral, has significant benefits for the entire economy and well being of all in South Africa.
• Tolling the GFIP under the guise of a ‘user pays principle’ implies that every single urban road improvement project going forward will need to be tolled.  This will never be functional or tolerated.
• While SANRAL have told us that they did engage and consult sufficiently before making their decision to toll, we will show that the extent of their engagement, consultation and assessments – for a project of this magnitude – was dismal and fell far short of that which was required of them. In simple terms they failed in this area and it would appear that they gave scant regard for other funding mechanisms that would be less burdensome to the road user.
• SANRAL’S plan to toll these urban routes appears not to have heeded the requirements for a reasonably suitable alternative road network as well as the provision of sound public transport infrastructure in and around the GFIP.

We have heard suggestions that in the absence of tolling, the fuel price will have to increase by R1.00 per litre to fund the GFIP.  We refute this figure and do so by applying simple arithmetic to show that an increase of between R0.08c and R0.11c per litre to the fuel levy will raise between R1,8 to R2bn per annum, which is more than sufficient to cover the repayment of the initial R20bn capital including the interest cost (at a rate of 9%), over 15 years.

Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that our government cannot ring-fence levies and taxes for specific needs and purposes.  It has done so for many years through our efficient revenue services department.

We sincerely believe the funding of our road infrastructure will be best conducted through a hybrid model which incorporates the national treasury as well as the fuel levy, vehicle license fees and long distance toll roads, the latter three being the best application of a ‘user pays’ mechanism in this regard.

Some proponents of e-tolling suggest the e-tolls will mainly affect the wealthy and will be of minimal burden to the poor.  These statements are outrageous in the extreme and need to be challenged.

To imply that e-tolling is good because it creates 1200 jobs is a farce. These arguments and reasons thrown into the debate are red herrings and signify a desperate attempt to justify the e-toll project.   If it is job creation one seeks, there are far better ways to create up to four times as many productive jobs from the estimated R1,5bn required for e-toll administration and operations.

It must be noted that SANRAL have been very economical and rather evasive when requested to provide detailed information related to the funding models, revenue streams,anticipated expenses, expected levels of non-compliance, application of enforcement, dispute resolution mechanisms  and other pertinent questions related to e-tolling. The people and business have every right for total transparency in this regard.

In conclusion:-

• We trust and have faith that the legal process will expose these serious shortcomings of the plan to toll Gauteng’s freeways and thereby set aside this plan for the benefit of the country’s citizens and our economic development.
• We support the government when its actions are for the betterment of society and believe it should be challenged when this is not so.
• We believe that not all is lost with the construction costs of the gantries as these can be put to other constructive use.
• Finally, we trust the authorities will see this challenge for what it is – a protection of the rights of its citizens, and realisation that the purpose of the public service is to serve the public,in the most efficient manner possible, at all times.