Transparency required over e-tolling
We do not dispute the need for the long overdue Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) but we need answers about the decision to adopt the proposed e-tolling funding mechanism. The public knew virtually nothing about the elaborate, complex and extremely unwieldy electronic tolling process until mid 2010, when we saw the gantries being erected. No meaningful consultation or engagement had taken place with either business or the public and the question is, why not?
The simplest and least expensive way to fund commuter road infrastructure upgrading is to do this via the fuel levy. This is how our roads and upgrades were funded in the past. Sadly, it appears the provisions for the GFIP were either not made, were insufficient or were spent elsewhere. This is a matter that needs answering by the authorities in the first place, what are they doing with our taxes and levies, which are supposed to be provided for such capital infrastructural upgrades?
My guess is that the public, including those in other cities, would rather fund this extra tax/toll through the far simpler method of adding a few extra cents per litre of petrol thereby eliminating the need to erect gantries, tags in cars, top up tag accounts at pay points or on-line, police the system and chase thousands of debtors daily.
So why was this "fuel levy" option never offered to us? Why the need for such an inefficient and expensive e-tolling process when the collection of these funds could be so much easier with 100% foolproof revenue collection process? In addition, although a separate debate, is the need for BUSA and other public watchdogs to take a closer look at the current use of those fuel levies.
The obvious questions that may arise in this debate are:
- What is the extent of this addition to the fuel levy to fund the GFIP? Based on the number of cars on the South African roads (minimum 8 million but more like 11 million) and average distances travelled, consumption rates etc, to fund the R20 billion bandied about (this figure also needs to be scrutinised) over 15 years including interest, should not cost us more than 15c per litre (ie less than 0.02% increase in the fuel price). When challenged on this, the SANRAL Authorities come with a figure of R1.60 / litre - vastly different, so where did they get this number from?
- A second question could be around what to do with the already erected gantries? Freeway policing is good. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras (ANPR) can be put to good use to find stolen cars and other necessary policing operations and if they cannot be put to any good use, then simply take them down. This would be a sad waste but not a fraction of the waste of money South Africans will be footing for this grossly inefficient e-tolling process.
- A third possible question: Why should our fellow citizens in Cape Town or Durban pay this extra 15c in their fuel price? Well firstly, you don't want to introduce different regional fuel funding levies. This opens up a whole can of worms and potential for abuse if handed over to regional government coffers. Fuel levies must be managed at a national level. Secondly, the 4-lane highways around these other large cities are not tolled in this manner and who paid for these? They were built on all our taxes. All national road infrastructure upgrades are carried out for all South Africans. Finally, Gauteng is the economic hub of Africa. Transportation efficiency in Gauteng will have a positive economic impact for citizens, for business and for the government.
What is needed is debate on the actual need for this e-tolling 'farce'. A small adjustment to the fuel levy option just makes so much sense, being an efficient and accurate way of dealing with the matter.
It is time that the public demand the reasons behind this kind of unilateral decision making, which is made without thorough input from all stakeholders. These decisions not only affect the broader business community and our economy, they have a negative impact on the already stressed budgets of all of us.