E-tolls are the only way: Cesa

Enzo Matrix

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
12,299
These are probably the same ****s who benefited from the construction contracts, so yeah go suck a lemon you ****tards
 

Ianf1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
1,873
“To Cesa, it might be inefficient but it’s the only way… No one has explained it to the people. There really is no choice.”

Cesa, a business representative body for over 500 consulting engineer firms was making a presentation to the advisory panel on e-tolls and its socio-economic impact in Midrand.

Wow talk about warped logic. I hope the consulting Engineers here take them apart.
:mad:
 

Bismuth

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
3,773
Never heard of CESA before now, but now that I know of them, I think that they are bunch of ****s.

Bugger off back to the hole you came from CESA.

B
 

Fiekie247

Active Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
67
Go knock on SARS doors for tax money that we already pay. You want my money come and get it... Ima cause an accident with a truck that carries petrol and make sure it collide next to the damn Sanrals offices...
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,837
These are probably the same ****s who benefited from the construction contracts, so yeah go suck a lemon you ****tards

Obviously. No roads being built, less work for the engineers who work in that market, but also no roads for you to travel on. So can the vitriol, please.

Wow talk about warped logic. I hope the consulting Engineers here take them apart.
:mad:

The message that they conveyed was that they see no other way to fund new roads. What the public should read from this is that they are telling you that you either pay tolls, or make do with poorer quality roads. You might shout from the roofs that fuel levies and such should be used, but they have their finger on the pulse of the business and they are telling you it is not going to happen with the current government's priorities.

He also said:
To Cesa, it might be inefficient but it’s the only way… No one has explained it to the people. There really is no choice.
So, it was poorly implemented from the start. Obviously they (SANRAL and GP gov) should have told people the cost from the start, long before they even decided to start construction.

As for "take them apart", sorry, no.
 
Last edited:

Ianf1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
1,873
The message that they conveyed was that they see no other way to fund new roads. What the public should read from this is that they are telling you that you either pay tolls, or make do with poorer quality roads. You might shout from the roofs that fuel levies and such should be used, but they have their finger on the pulse of the business and they are telling you it is not going to happen with the current government's priorities.
.....
As for "take them apart", sorry, no.

So efficiency must go out the window there have been numerous suggestions on how to get the money more efficiently just point them to OUTA website. This is a case of a profession talking to their book rather than what is logical and efficient.
This is the argument that I would expect from SANRAL not a professional body.
Anyway I am sure they knew that they will take a lot of flak.
And they should be taken apart!
 

Compton_effect

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
12,292
Consulting Engineers SA (Cesa)...
A new group for my **** list.

Here's hoping some journalist discovers they have major SANRAL contracts.
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,837
...
Anyway I am sure they knew that they will take a lot of flak.
And they should be taken apart!

As long as it is a civilised debate, go ahead. As for the expletives expressed in other comments, direct them at the politicians who base their opinions on fear and emotion.
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,837
Here's hoping some journalist discovers they have major SANRAL contracts.

You need a journalist to tell you that? Obviously all the design to roads and other infrastructure that SANRAL commissions is done by CESA members. I suspect the in-house design capacity of SANRAL is very limited. It is probably a requirement that SANRAL only appoint CESA member firms.
 

furpile

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
3,879
I've never trusted engineers, and this just confirms my suspicions - they're *******s.

That's a bit harsh. Nothing wrong with engineers, although I'm biased. But like has been said in other posts, these are consulting engineers and they are very reliant on government spending on infrastructure development to make a living, so they can't really say anything else.

On to the issue at hand, what they are also saying between the lines, is that the government is incapable of properly managing the national budget. It has been shown many times that the current income from the fuel levy is around R40 billion a year. Only R10 billion gets allocated to SANRAL. Now we need useless and horribly inefficient Etolls to fund the GFIP which cost R20 billion. And most likely R10 billion of that is just to build the Etoll gantries and the infrastructure required to run it. So the R10 billion needed to build the GFIP could easily have been paid using existing fuel levies, or even adding a few cents.

SANRAL are using the same argument for the Cape Winelands toll route. They state that highway upgrade will cost R10 billion, which is their annual budget for the whole country. Again, this whole project can be paid in one year using fuel levies. But instead, the government pilfers the fuel levy income and spends it on other struggling departments and the RAF and so forth. Now they try and force everybody to pay again for something that was supposed to have been paid for already. In 10 years time everybody will still pay Etolls if government has its way, and you can be sure the toll fees will never come down once the capital has been paid.

So no, Etolls aren't the only way, and it shouldn't have even been considered from the beginning.
 

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
26,925
An engineer happy with inefficiency & not interested in making it better, faster, smarter?

Seems a bit like the Pallo Jordan case, either highly politicized or are you sure those qualifications are legit?
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
That's a bit harsh. Nothing wrong with engineers, although I'm biased. But like has been said in other posts, these are consulting engineers and they are very reliant on government spending on infrastructure development to make a living, so they can't really say anything else.

That was me being polite. The fact that they're saying anything at all shows just how arrogant they are - they'll very quickly tell us mere peasants to leave the engineering to engineers (even though it's hardly rocket surgery), but think the country must listen when they comment on economic and accounting issues. **** them. They obviously subcontract out most of their work to inebriated chimpanzees, so maybe we should just cut out the middleman and save some money.
 

Ianf1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
1,873
As long as it is a civilised debate, go ahead. As for the expletives expressed in other comments, direct them at the politicians who base their opinions on fear and emotion.
Skerminkel are you involved with CESA or SANRAL?
I still can't get my head around "We know it's inefficient but that's all we can do approach". Surely there are Engineers who look for innovation rather than that is what it is.
A submission which said the upgrades were needed, but the financing should of been handled better would be more honest. I am still gobsmacked by this.
 

Skerminkel

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
3,837
Skerminkel are you involved with CESA or SANRAL?
I still can't get my head around "We know it's inefficient but that's all we can do approach". Surely there are Engineers who look for innovation rather than that is what it is.
A submission which said the upgrades were needed, but the financing should of been handled better would be more honest. I am still gobsmacked by this.

CESA yes, as a consulting engineer my company is a member, SANRAL no.
I support that CESA is finally giving an opinion on the matter. I think they should have done so long ago, actually. I argue that people should actually consider CESA's statement objectively, because they have would have given it a lot of objective and considered thought.
Ideally all engineers would love to innovate and present the best technical solutions to all problems, but the fact is that we work in the real world. Where public infrastructure is concerned, it is not just about how to best design the road and even fund it, but also consider the social and political environment that it has to be done as well.
Engineers, especially consulting engineers, are not all sitting behind computers and in laboratories designing iphones and microchips.
 
Top