E-toll report vindicates industry

The road freight industry has welcomed the latest review of Gauteng’s dreaded e-tolls that have been found to be unaffordable and unequitable. The report, released last week by Gauteng Premier David Makhura, found that the controversial e-tolling system in its current form did not work and proposed a full review as well as a different funding model to pay back the billions of rands incurred in the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP). Gavin Kelly, spokesman for the Road Freight Association, said while the report had yet to be read in full it validated the organisation’s contention that in its current form e-tolls were unsustainable because they were too costly. “E-tolling has had a massive impact on the road freight industry. There are many companies that have had their baseline profits affected and could not recoup the increased costs. Businesses have closed,” he said. “This report validates the questions the industry has had from the beginning – questions that must be addressed.” The report acknowledges that an impasse has been reached and that it is imperative a solution be found. While organisations such as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) have said they are disappointed with the report and that it should have scrapped e-tolling outright, this was never on the cards. The advisory panel and its subsequent report was an initiative by Makhura who, as the provincial government, has no jurisdiction over e-tolling which falls under the control of the South African National Roads Agency, a national government agency. Simply put, the provincial government has no power to scrap e-tolls. According to the RFA this has not been their concern. “We are happy to pay for a good, well-maintained road network,” said Kelly. “There have, however, been three questions we have wanted answered. First, why so expensive. Secondly, why are we using a system – considering that we have agreed to pay for our roads – that is going to take 70 to 80 cents out of every rand to fund the system collecting the money rather than paying the debt.” Lastly, said Kelly, we have concerns around sustainability. “It is impossible not to question the decision to choose a system in which you are hitting a small margin of people very hard. The system that has been chosen is not sustainable in the long run.” This was proved earlier this month when minister of transport Dipuo Peters delivered a reply to Anton Alberts of the Freedom Front in Parliament as to how many toll users had deregistered and how much money had been raised. Peters said that 1.25 million users had accounts registered on the system although there were some 2.5 million users monthly and nearly 100 000 users had de-registered accounts. Income from the tolls had also decreased significantly. A total of R994.7 million was raised between December 2013 and September 2014, the last available figures. Income rose steadily from R51.7m in December 2013 to a peak in June last year of R120m. Since then a steady decline has been recorded and the last figures indicate an income of around R86m per month. In its presentation to the advisory panel, the RFA maintained its position that road funding was far cheaper and more viable via the fuel levy or through licence fees collected than through this particular tolling method. According to the organisation there was an excess of R1.8 billion in Gauteng's dedicated road licence fees to fund road projects like GFIP. The advisory panel has recommended a mixed source of revenue streams for repayment of the debt for GFIP Phase 1, and for raising the necessary funding for other transport infrastructure needs including GFIP Phases 2 and 3. Kelly said the acknowledgement in the report that the system was not working was a positive step and would hopefully guide government officials in addressing the core concerns. In a statement the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA) added its voice to that of Cosatu saying many of its core concerns around e-tolling remained despite the report and that it was of the opinion that the only way forward was that the system be rejected in its entirety and scrapped.