Johannesburg - The e-toll resisters who haven’t paid should be charged just the toll costs and not the additional administrative fees.
That’s one of the many recommendations from the e-tolls review panel’s report.
The recommendation is for the “implementation of a plan for payment of arrears for all non-compliant users based on actual usage at the e-tagged rate, and without the application of penalties”.
The e-tagged rate must be a cheaper tariff.
But it’s not clear exactly which tariff the recommendation means: for registered or unregistered e-tag users.
The highest tariff – the punitive tariff – is the “alternative users” tariff, which is nearly six times the discount charged to registered e-tag users.
But non-registered e-tag users are charged the “standard” tariff, which is double the rate for registered e-tag users.
Whatever the rate, the biggest saving for the defaulters will be if the penalty costs – the costs of collecting the debt – are waived as that is what massively loads the bills.
Many of the motorists who refused to pay have run up thousands of rand in e-toll accounts.
The panel was unimpressed by the civil disobedience campaign of refusing to pay e-tolls.
NO JUSTIFICATION
While the panel acknowledged “the underlying sentiments of the campaign, including the anger and frustration about perceived and real lack of consultation, the complexity of the system, billing problems, conflicting information and pressure on household incomes,” it said it could see “no justification for the campaign, which sets unsustainable precedents and threatens democracy and social cohesion”.
The panel also recommended removing those penalty fees from further transactions.
“Removal of all penalty fees to remove the additional administrative burden,” said one of the administration recommendations.
The report was released last week by Gauteng Premier David Makhura, who appointed the panel.
While many protesters had hoped for the system to be scrapped, that’s not what the panel recommended.
Instead, it recommended simplifying the system.
It also recommended a few extra sources of revenue for funding the hugely expensive Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP).
One of these targets the businesses that colluded rig bids for the Sanral tenders that did the freeway work.
The panel noted the collusion found by the Competition Commission in June 2013 and recommended that Gauteng lobby the National Treasury for the R1.46 billion paid in fines on this to be used to set off some of the GFIP costs.
The panel also recommended that Sanral bring civil claims for losses against those companies, and do this prior to the three-year deadline before such claims passed.
CONSULTATION
The panel was appointed in July 2014 and by the time it produced its report in November, it had managed to do desktop research, conduct its own primary research studies and run extensive public consultations.
The consultations involved 15 public meetings, with 1636 people participating, and reading 53 written submissions and 67 statements of opposition to e-tolls.
It heard from people across the spectrum: the three tiers of government as well as entities sugh as Sanral and Transnet, organised labour, organised business and professionals, civil society, the taxi industry, political parties and various experts.
The panellists heard proposals ranging from “scrapping the gantries and selling them for scrap metal” to considered and well-argued solutions to identified problems”.
They heard complaints of lack of consultation, and claims that there had been consultation.
Cosatu offered that its members would donate a day’s wages to offset the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project debt.
Some suggested lowering tolls, while spending three years developing public transport and alternative roads. Others suggested a Gauteng fuel levy, which was dismissed as likely to send motorists across the borders into other provinces to fill up, and possibly even create a Gauteng fuel black market.
Proposals from the public included “swallowing some pride” and making compromises: “call a truce and discuss”.
The panel took into account the “dire macro-economic position of the country”, the expectation that taxes will be raised in the next national Budget, the plan to increase vehicle licence fees nationally, and other demands on the fiscus.
The panel said it supported the “user pay” principle for such infrastructure.
Then they drew up a long list of recommendations, some general and long term, and some for immediate implementation.
The panel said that at the top of its recommendations was the “paradigm shift from apartheid spatial and transport planning” as reflected in the Gauteng Integrated Transport Master Plan for the next 25 years.
“It serves as a point of departure from apartheid spatial planning, land use and mobility, and ushers in an integrated and equitable transport value chain, where public transport has the highest priority,” it said.
At the heart of this is the understanding that it is not economically sustainable for Gauteng transport infrastructure to accommodate the single car with just one person in it.
THE PANEL’S RECOMMENDATIONS:
These are the panel’s recommendations to the Gauteng government for immediate implementation to address short-term challenges. There were also a range of recommendations for longer-term implementation.
Use a mixed source of revenue streams:
Recommendations on where to get the money to pay for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP).
1. Some funding should come from the government, to show commitment to transport infrastructure.
2. Reduce the e-toll cap (but remember that one person per car is “unsustainable”).
3. Use a ring-fenced national fuel levy for investing in roads, including the GFIP.
4. Increase and ring-fence the cost of road advertising along toll routes.
5. Ring-fence part of any increase in vehicle licence fees for spending on transport infrastructure.
6. Increase fees for tyres.
7. Recover funds from the construction industry to mitigate costs. In June 2013, the Competition Commission found bid rigging by construction companies in various infrastructure projects, including GFIP. Some cases were too late to prosecute and others were settled with a collective fine of R1.46 billion, which was paid to the National Treasury; the panel recommended that at least part of this be used to offset GFIP costs and also that Sanral bring civil claims for damages against the companies.
Traffic-demand management:
These are the recommendations to get vehicles, particularly low-occupancy vehicles, off the road.
8. Retrofit lanes on tolled routes for high-occupancy vehicles of three passengers or more, and consider using gantries to check on it.
9. Implement park-and-ride schemes to encourage car pooling and bus transport, and facilitate public transport aimed at providing alternatives to tolled routes.
10. Immediately introduce a single ticketing system for existing public transport.
11. Change the tariffs so there is a bigger difference between peak and off-peak, to reduce peak-time congestion.
12. Change the tariffs to encourage the use of fuel efficient and low-engine-capacity vehicles.
13. Immediately establish a traffic authority.
Social effects and exemptions:
These are the recommendations on how to protect the poor from the costs.
14. Exempt low-income vehicle owners, such as students, from tolls based on “reasonable evidence”, and link eNatis vehicle ownership to the South African Revenue Service to confirm income.
15. Exempt high-occupancy vehicles, including taxis, scholar transport, registered vehicles of people with disabilities and those of NGOs doing charity work. The e-tolls “should not be used as a proxy for regulation of the taxi industry”.
16. Consider switching off gantries for periods at weekends to allow movement for religious, cultural and family reasons.
E-toll administration:
These recommendations arose from the public opposition to the perceived costs of administration, although the GFIP steering committee said in 2011 that, compared internationally, these costs were not exorbitant.
17. Issue a tag to all vehicle owners during vehicle licence renewal, preferably credited with the capped fee for the first month so that the owner can get used to the system.
18. Provide “clear communication of a single system” for reloading e-tags, like prepaid electricity meters or prepaid cellphones.
19. Set a flat rate per gantry and eliminate all “alternative tariffs” to simplify the system.
20. Remove all penalty fees to remove the additional administrative burden.
21. Remove all postal administration and thereby all those administrative costs.
22. Switch off gantries to low-income areas and/or where there are no alternative roads.
23. Implement plans for motorists to pay e-toll arrears “based on actual usage at the e-tagged rate and without application of penalties”.
24. Run a process of engagement between all three tiers of government: national, provincial and local government, to decide on the panel’s recommendations.
All the recommendations should be communicated in “the most direct manner possible”, the panel suggested.
Consultation and civil disobedience
“The panel knowledges that there have been numerous previous consultation processes. By its nature, consultation can never be exhaustive, and nor will it result in 100 percent consensus.
“The panel has also observed that the opposition to e-tolls has taken place in a heightened political climate, accompanied by massive civil disobedience.
“While the underlying sentiments of the campaign, including the anger and frustration about perceived and real lack of consultation, complexity of the system, billing problems, conflicting information and pressure on household incomes, the panel can see no justification for the campaign, which sets unsustainable precedents, and threatens democracy and social cohesion.
“The campaign of non-payment must also be weighed up against the evidence of payment of R678 million by 1.2 million users in the six-month period 3 December 2013 to 31 May 2014.” – Review Panel Report
Finding funds
“In the absence of adequate funding from the national or provincial fiscus, funds must be found for payment for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project phase 1, as well as for commencement with GFIP phases 2 and 3. In addition, funds must be found for other transport infrastructure investment needs in Gauteng and in the country. The maintenance need for the national network is an additional R65.8 billion per annum and there is a backlog of R91.7 billion required for gravel road surfacing.”– Review Panel Report
Frame of work
The panel’s job was to look at the socio-economic effect of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project and the e-tolls, invite proposed solutions from the public and stakeholders, and make recommendations to the provincial government.
The panel consisted of 13 members, chaired by Professor Muxe Nkondo, and included engineers, planners, economists, environmentalists and social scientists.
Gauteng Premier David Makhura appointed the panel in July.
The members produced the report on 30 November and Makhura released their 223-page report last week.