Against E toll: South Africa

Stop the theft of the tax payers money.

1. ​​E-tolling of GFIP is irrational and unreasonable. Tolling Gauteng's freeways is an Unnecessary waste of billions of SA's Tax pay money. We do Realized the need to pay for the freeway improvements, we expect order to do so through efficient means clustering clustering to collect these "taxes." Raising funds for Costly (upgrade road) projects of this nature, shoulds be done with the least negative impact on the pockets of the public, whilst Achieving the goal of funding the infrastructure. Such As, if Existing or new funding Mechanisms are available, thesis shoulds be Considered and used, Unless of course a valid reason is Provided and is acceptable to society, ie the people Ultimately Have you pay. The installation of an elaborate and complex toll gantries, electronic tags in every vehicles & the revenue collection system for this Specific Project, Means That Will users pay not only the expense of the road building purpose additionally, They Must Suffer the heavy and Unnecessary burden of this Specific toll collection system. It is Estimated That The electronic tolling processes Planned by SANRAL Will cost R1, 7billion per annum (based on the tender Awarded by SANRAL to ETC for this work, at R8, 4bn for the first five year period, EXCLUDING set up costs) just to operate and administer. The capital costs of road building R18bn (ie EXCLUDING other costs related to eTolls), if paid over 20 years with interest, to Amounts Approximately R1, 67bn per annum (or R40, 7bn over 20 years), Including maintenance. E -tolling in Gauteng was Planned to raise over R95bn (ie 236% of the required amount) and Will Be a burden to the road user -. Unnecessary and an utter waste of money the road-users must also note here One That there is no intention to halt the tolling (or reduce to cover department costs only) once the capital and interest is paid up. eToll loads Will Remain in place and Will Increase every year. In the Lack of SANRAL's eToll model All All which They refuse to divulge or share with the public the the, OUTA Have constructed Their Own, simplified spreadsheet All All which shows high level expenditures and repayment Estimates All All which we believe Gives a fairly accurate account of the costs eToll. Click here to see spread sheet for calculations.

2. Gauteng's freeways are not new roads. Existing roads Whose These are basic capital costs Have Been paid for through taxation structure over time. Following years of neglect and has infrastructure growing for park, cam Obviously the time for Government to conduct repairs and expansion, They Ought to something Provided for through medium and long term schedule in the past. To Develop this economic area over decades thesis along freeway routes and then Introduce an additional tax for use thereof, is tantamount to extortion, Especially in the Lack of alternative public transport services and roads.

3. Poor planning & incorrect information Deciding When to e-Toll: In the High Court papers files by SANRAL and the Department of Transport, Initial Estimates of the e-tolling revenue collection process Were R395 million per annum. These Were the figures presented to the Minister of Transport (Min Jeff Radebe) at the time of the decision to toll. This was done with no formal calculation and in the end, the tender was Awarded at R1, 7bn per annum (or R8, 4bn for 5 years), some 330% higher.

4. There are no viable alternative routes .. While we know there are peripheral Alongside roads and close to the highways, it is ludicrous to expect any diversion of current freeway traffic onto these roads, All All which are Already Deteriorating Rapidly and highly congested. Will this lead to traffic chaos and gridlock falling on morning and evening peak periods. Travel

5. There is no effective and reliable public transport option .. Earlier communications and plans for e-tolling, by Authorities, Indicated That paramount to the e-Toll process was the implementation of an efficient public transport system. Almost alternative is non- exist for MOST of the current freeway users and to date, very little has-been done to rectify the position this. Earlier SANRALs eToll decision included funding Allocated to Public Transportation park and ride facilities, All All which never transpired.

6. The 'User Pay Principle 'as argued by Government is flawed: In order to justify Their stance, SANRAL and the Authorities motivate a "user country" principle to justify Their decision to Introduce eTolling to the GFIP, as Opposed to funding this upgrade through Previously used Mechanisms of the national fiscus and / or fuel levy. In Their argument They pose the question, "why shoulds the rest of the country's road users pay (through the fuel levy or tax) for Gauteng's roads?" Our response to Their argument as follows: . Benefits That arise from Gauteng's Freeways (and Its upgrades) flow through to the Entire country and not just Gauteng residents Their Produce Farmers get to the markets and airports using Gauteng's freeways. Business and individual prosperity Increases from Improved Efficiencies in transportation of people and goods through the economic heart of the South Africa. This in turn Generates more taxes for the country. Equally, road improvements in other parts of the country Will help Gauteng. These are South Africa's roads, not just Gauteng's roads. Their Gauteng Contributes more than fair share of taxes and returned to the National Treasury. The contributions to the national treasury by Gauteng's Road Users is Approximately four times more than it Receives in return from treasury. Gauteng residents do not bemoan this position and Realize That The Government needs to distribute the wealth from the economic hubs Generates into other areas of need Throughout the Entire country. By subjecting Gauteng's road users to this "user country principle" On Their roads, Implies They are double charged for Their infrastructure. Gauteng . Citizens Have more than paid for Their freeway improvement (Click here to read more about this) In the e-Toll model, not all users Will pay for the use of the Gauteng freeway network. Some road users: such as taxis (All All which are not public transport) Will receive "free pass." They Were Granted this dispensation on the back of the assertion by SANRAL That "taxis Transporting the poor" and Their exclusion Will Reduce the cost impact of tolls on the poor. maintain maintenance We maintain this decision was Introduced Shortly Prior to the initial Planned launch dates in early 2011, as the taxi industry threatened This This HAD to blockade the freeways and to boycott the system if They Were forced to pay. If the taxi industry is free for thesis tolls, why not ? long distance tolls all along all roads If it is to Reduce the burden on the poor, what about other road users also Have you are poor, and make use of car pooling. Capping country contravenes the user argument: In an attempt to placate the users of the resistance model, SANRAL Have capped the maximum levels per category. Malthus Have you someone uses these roads Extensively and well beyond the cap, Will not be paying for this "excessive" use, negating Governments 'user country principle.' Non- compliance is a serious issue in South Africa and an unfortunate blemish on our society's picture. It is Estimated That less than half (some say 75%) regions of our traffic fines are not paid. We also estimate That Gauteng HAS around 10% correct or cloned number plates on vehicles using our roads. Will this push the payment burden onto the compliant citizen and Will also exacerbate the problem further Top Top Will no doubt have more turn to incorrect fitting license plates and finding ways to circumvent Having to pay for what is Deemed . as an unjust system In a society Where this unfortunate behavior exists, it is best to push collection to an 'upstream' level (: such as through the Fuel Levy and general taxation), Where it is 'untouchable' and Efficiently Applied, Collected . and distributed SANRAL says cloned number plates That Will not be a problem if a vehicle is fitted with an e-Tag. disagree We have cloned vehicle license plate fitted to same color and make of car That HAS eTag registered account with SANRAL - will send the invoices (altho flagged) to the vehicle's Tagged account. tagged The innocent user / Party Will Have to raise the argument and request for Refunds. The administrative burden on motorists to check Placed Their accounts, movements etc. Reviews Reviews another burden is Caused by e-tolling. This is an "Owner Country" and not "User Pays" system. Part of the problem and administrative burden of this system All All which adds to the "unworkability" of the system, Is That the vehicle owner and the user Will Not Necessarily Be picking up the bill from thesis gantries.

7. Lack of consultation and transparency: While SANRAL us believe Will Have That They Did They Could all to be consultative in this decision, the truth is Simpler They failed and fell far short of What Would be expected in a matter of this magnitude. This was Demonstrated by the outrage and surprise That Virtually all Citizens Expressed When the gantries Went up, and not only the individual road user, as business goal organisms and large fleet Were shocked by the extent and implications of the SANRAL e-Toll plans. Our legal challenge HAS shown That SANRAL About About did the bare minimum to expose and engage with society on Their elaborate map to toll the Gauteng freeway upgrade. From one advert Placed in six newspapers in October 2007 to over 3.5 million licensed vehicles / motorists in Gauteng, SANRAL received only 28 responses to Their request for Emperata overture (one was a petition with 55 Signatories). DESPITE this poor response, That They Were satisfied Sufficient commitment HAD taken up . Most regard this level of response as an absolute failure on Their Behalf, goal alas, They do not see it That Way.

8. Alternative models of funding: There are far less expensive and more efficient processes used for road funding. We believe the Our entire funding of road network system, Including upgrades to urban freeways shoulds be Conducted through the use of hybrid country initiatives as follows: - - The national treasury: There is no doubt That The Entire country benefits from a good road infrastructure, Does not even if one uses the roads and as Such, national treasury needs to be an significant contributor to the funding of the roads. - Fuel Levy: There is no doubt That the road user also shoulds Contribute Toward our roads, more so than in non-road user, therefor the fuel levy was Introduced in the mid 60's. Today, the average car's fuel tank fill Contributes around R100 Toward the levy, All All which helps maintain maintenance service and build our roads. . In reality, this (R45bn per annum +) goes into the big pot treasury goal Ultimately, this treasury live Toward roads - Long distance Toll Roads: There is an argument for the tolling of new rural and inter-city roads, All All which aim to bypass the longer and more dangerous routes older, Justified Because thesis routes it offers clear benefits road user, Have you also Have the option of using the alternative route for free. Today, SANRAL earns billions from tolled roads and rural thesis thesis funds subsidise Reduce the burden to other rural and urban road building road funding from the general tax pot. - Vehicle license fees: Revenues generated by the sale of Car Licenses at the local level are (Supposed to be) utilised to fund road and infrastructure development Within the local service News and metro areas. These fees Have Been Increased Substantially in recent years, HOWEVER, the benefits to the local road user are not Being Experienced at the levels expected from the Local Authorities. Nonetheless, thesis fees are also the share of road funding hybrid model .