Ponter, L A

Stack, E

Stack, Elizabeth M

South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS)

E-TOLLING IN GAUTENGPROBLEMS AND PERCEPTIONSMR LA PONTERPROF E STACKRHODES UNIVERSITYOVERVIEW INTRODUCTIONOPPOSITION TO E-TOLLINGPOSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE EMOTIVE OPPOSITIONGOALS OF THE RESEARCHWHY E-TOLLINGCOST ANALYSISALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDINGINTRODUCTIONE-TOLLING WAS INTRODUCED IN GAUTENG ON 3 DECEMBER 2013.  SINCE THEN THERE HAS BEEN VOCAL AND ONGOING OPPOSITION BY THE PUBLIC:  PARTLY BASED ON FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS PARTLY WHAT APPEARS TO BE EMOTIONAL RHETORICWAS THE OPPOSITION JUSTIFIED?OPPOSITION TO E-TOLLINGOPPOSITION TO URBAN TOLLING ALLIANCE (OUTA)VARIOUS COURT PETITIONS – FINALLY     UNSUCCESSFUL AT  SCA LEVEL AS E-TOLLING HAD BY THAT TIME EFFECTIVELY BEEN WRITTEN INTO LAW(TRANSPORT LAWS AND RELATED MATTERS  AMENDMENT ACT 3 OF 2013)DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE“IT WAS A SAD DAY FOR GAUTENG AND THE COUNTRY THAT GOVERNMENT HAS IGNORED PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE TOLLING”OPPOSITION TO E-TOLLINGDEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE“A VOTE FOR THE DA IS A VOTE AGAINST E-TOLLS”COSATUA PROGRAMME OF PROTESTSTHE HON. MALEMATAKE DOWN THE GANTRIES !POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE OPPOSITION POOR PERFORMANCE OF ROADS DEPARTMENTS IN GAUTENG- AMONG FIVE OF THE WORST-RUN DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTRY- IN 2013 THE DEPT. ROADS AND TRANSPORT HADWASTEFUL AND UNAUTHORISED EXPENDITURE OF R2,2 b (36,3% OF BUDGET)- THE DEPT. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT: R288 m (24% OF ITS BUDGET) WASTED ALREADY HIGH LEVELS OF TAXATION E-TOLLING WOULD SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION MAJORITY SHAREHOLDING IN ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION (PTY) LTD IS NON-SA AND A LARGE PORTION OF COLLECTIONS TO GO TO NON-SA SHAREHOLDERSPOSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE OPPOSITION SANRAL’S SPENDING ON ADVERTISING – R202 m IN 3 YEARS PRIOR TO 2013 AND R85 m IN 2013 SANRAL NOT CONSULTING STAKEHOLDERS AND NOT MAKING COST DETAILS AVAILABLE UNTIL ORDERED BY THE COURT TO DO SO SANRAL NUMBERS WERE VAGUE (OUP) AND THE ORIGINAL BUDGET ESCALATED BY 350% YEARS OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEGLECT SHAREHOLDING IN ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION (PTY) LTD LINKED TO COMPANIES INVOLVED IN THE ARMS DEAL BRIBERYRESEARCH GOALS AND METHODSGOALS: TO UNDERSTAND THE COSTS INVOLVED TO CONSIDER THE CONTROVERSIES TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING THE UPGRADE OF THE ROADSMETHOD:  LITERATURE REVIEW ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND COST ESTIMATESSANRAL’S REASONS FOR E-TOLLING HIGH QUALITY ROAD NETWORK REQUIRING LESS MAINTENANCE OVER A LONGER PERIOD IMPROVED ROAD SAFETY, REDUCED TRAVELLING DISTANCES SAVINGS ON RUNNING COSTS AND TRAVEL TIME LESS CARBON EMISSION “USER PAYS” PRINCIPLE – LINKING THE BENEFIT TO THE ROAD USERS TO HOW MUCH OF THE ROAD THEY USE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE GAUTENG FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (UCT)COST OF THE SYSTEMCOST ITEM EXPENDITURE/INCOME (24 YEARS)R millionPERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOMEINITIAL CAPITAL 20 629,99 28,90ROAD MAINTENANCE 10 669,45 14,94VIOLATION PROCESSING CENTRE - CAPITAL 6 194,06 8,68TOLL-RELATED: CAPITAL & OPERATING 12 170,13 17,05OTHER OPERATING 1 727,11 2,42INTEREST 20 005,00 28,02REVENUE 71 396,74 100,00ANALYSIS OF COSTSREVENUE BUDGETED TO EQUAL COSTS OVER 24 YEARSInitial capital costs and road maintenance expenditure43.94%e-toll related expenditure 28.6%Interest on loans 28.02%Spending on the Gauteng Freeway Improvement plan from e-toll fee collectionsANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDY SANRAL: “VARIOUS STUDIES WERE UNDERTAKEN AS PART OF THE PREPARATORY PHASE” STANDISH, BOATING & MARSAY (2010: vii):  “THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GAUTENG, SANRAL, AND RELEVANT LOCAL AUTHORITIES WISH TO UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF UPGRADING THE EXISTING GAUTENG FREEWAY NETWORK, ADDING CAPACITY, ADDING NEW ROADS AND TOLLING THE ENTIRE NETWORK” BUT THE PROJECT STARTED IN 2008.  CLEARLY THE BUDGET HAD BEEN APPROVED AT THAT STAGE – WAS THE IMPACT STUDY USED TO MAKE THE DECISION OR TO JUSTIFY IT?ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYTHE STUDY COMPRISED THREE ELEMENTS:  A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS A MICRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; AND A MACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSISANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYBENEFIT/COST RATIOINTERNAL RATE OF RETURNNET PRESENT VALUE (R b)8,0 37% 209,8● THE COST IS BELOW THE ESTIMATED COSTS PROVIDED BY SANRAL● COSTS:- INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST =  R16 410 m- ROAD MAINTENANCE COSTS   =  R12 902 m- COST TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES =  R459 m        TOTAL =  R29 772 m● BENEFITS:- ROAD USER SAVINGS                =  R239 580 m● NET BENEFITS                                 =  R 209 808 mANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYCOSTS THE COSTS WERE TAKEN FROM THE SANRAL ESTIMATES THE COSTS RELATING TO THE VIOLATION PROCESSING CENTRE AND OTHER TOLL-RELATED EXPENDITURE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE IMPACT STUDY COSTS, NOR THE INTEREST COSTS THUS AN UNDERSTATEMENT OF R41 615 m (IN 2011 TERMS) THERE ARE NO DETAILS AS TO HOW THE COST TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES (R459 m) WAS ESTIMATEDANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYROAD USER SAVINGS SAVINGS IN VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS, DUE TO REDUCED TIME ON THE ROADS AND A BETTER ROAD SURFACE SAVINGS RELATED TO THE REDUCED POSSIBILITY OF ACCIDENTS ON THE LESS CONGESTED ROADS SAVINGS RELATED TO THE SHORTER TIME SPENT ON THE ROAD DUE TO LESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE COST OF TIMEANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDY THE SAVINGS IN VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS ARE LIKELY TO BE CREDIBLE, AS THEY WERE BASED ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY THE WORLD BANK THE COST OF ACCIDENTS WAS ALSO BASED ON THIS SOFTWARE AND IS LIKELY TO BE CREDIBLE THE SAVINGS TO ROAD USERS IS THE PROBLEMATIC PART OF THE CALCULATION. IT WAS BASED ON SPEED SAVINGS (ALSO A CREDIBLE CALCULATION) AND A TIME COST PER VEHICLE (HIGHLY SPECULATIVE)ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYSPEED SAVINGS x TIME COSTS = TIME SAVINGSTime cost per light vehicle● NON-WORKING TIME = 1/3 OF WORKING TIME● COST OF TIME IS BASED ON ROADSIDE INTERVIEWS● 27 000 INTERVIEWS – ONLY 5 524 REVEALED THEIR INCOME, OF WHICH ONLY 1 728 COULD BE USED● INTERVIEWEES ARE ALWAYS RELUCTANT TO REVEAL  THEIR TRUE INCOMETIME R PER HOUR (2010 PRICE)COMMUTING TIME 177,66NON-WORKING TIME 180,90WORKING TIME 168,58ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYMICRO- ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS- TOLL REVENUE = O,34% OF GAUTENG GROSS GEOGRAPHICAL PRODUCT- TOLL REVENUE = 0,48% OF GAUTENG  HOUSEHOLD GROSS DISPOSABLE INCOME (PEOPLE FALLING INTO LSM CATEGORIES 7 -10) IMPACT ON BUSINESS- GREATER RELIABILITY/TIME KEEPING BY STAFF  - DISTRIBUTERS COMPLETING MORE TURNAROUNDS PER DAY- MORE BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS IN A DAY- PUBLIC TRANSPORT: LOWER TOLL FEES AND FREEWAYS ARE NOT THEIR PRIMARY ROUTESANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYMACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSISCUMULATIVE CONTRIBUTION TO GDP (R m – 2010 PRICES)NOTE: THE FIGURE IN THE TOTAL COLUMN DIFFERS FROM THE STANDISH REPORT, WHICH APPEARS TO CONTAIN AN ERROR THE BUSINESS SAVINGS, AGAIN, ARE SPECULATIVE AND NO INFORMATION IS PRESENTED AS TO HOW THEY ARE CALCULATED UPGRADE COST BUSINESS SAVINGSTOTAL100 989 (48,4%) 107 649 (51,6%) 208 638 (SEE NOTE)ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT STUDYMACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (CONTD.) THE REPORT STATES THAT AN ESTIMATED 23 363 DIRECT AND INDIRECT JOBS WILL BE CREATED THIS INCLUDES 7 851 JOBS CREATED THROUGH “BUSINESS TIME SAVINGS”.  THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON HOW BUSINESS COST SAVINGS ARE CONVERTED INTO JOBSALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FUNDING AN ADDITIONAL FUEL LEVY: THIS WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO R0,093 (10 CENTS PER LITRE) A BUDGET ALLOCATION BY NATIONAL TREASURY – GAUTENG CONTRIBUTED 38,9% OF TOTAL TAX COLLECTIONS IN 2011, BUT WAS ALLOCATED ONLY 9,82% OF THE TOTAL TAX COLLECTIONS A LEVY ON LICENSE FEES A COMBINATION OF ALL THREETHE CONTROVERSIES CONTINUE HACKING THE SANRAL E-TOLL WEBSITE INCORRECT INVOICES SMSs THAT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE HARASSMENT OF MOTORISTS BY THREATS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FALSE LICENCE PLATES COST OF COLLECTING E-TOLL FEES E-TOLLING COUNTRYWIDE?E-TOLLINGTHANK YOU

E-tolling in Gauteng: problems and perceptions

Rhodes Repository (SEALS)

http://vital.seals.ac.za:8080/vital/access/services/Download/vital:20260/SOURCE1

E-tolling in Gauteng: problems and perceptions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS)

Rhodes Repository (SEALS)