[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinbad said:
OK, then compare fuel SALES for that period, and revenue generated.

No way it has not increased dramatically, far more than any consumption related savings - especially in only 4 years.
Click to expand...

The sales will be way up, but there are also much more people on the road now. Or it seems that way to me. You can't go on the full sales in that period as the road degenerates as it caries more vehicles. So I think it will have to be worked out per car.

I just used the 4 years because that is all they showed on that site.

Also remember that it only increased 2% above inflation and the road network (not quality, but size) is much bigger now because of the new areas and roads that were tarred that didn't have previously. So we don't really know what they used that 2% on, but I would assume it was to enlarge the road network and that also have to be maintained.

And you can only really count the amount above inflation as a real increase in anycase. Because the labourers would want at least an inflation related increase.

Remember more sales, means more cars on the road which means more maintanence and more roads.

But in anycase, I was only playing devils advocate - I don't think that even if they were correct that it cost them more because of the fuel efficiency that it was a good argument. The more fuel efficient the cars - just adjust the fuel levy accordingly - it will also promote having newer cars on the road which means less broken vehicles I would imagine.
 
phoneJunky said:
The sales will be way up, but there are also much more people on the road now. Or it seems that way to me. You can't go on the full sales in that period as the road degenerates as it caries more vehicles. So I think it will have to be worked out per car.

I just used the 4 years because that is all they showed on that site.

Also remember that it only increased 2% above inflation and the road network (not quality, but size) is much bigger now because of the new areas and roads that were tarred that didn't have previously. So we don't really know what they used that 2% on, but I would assume it was to enlarge the road network and that also have to be maintained.

And you can only really count the amount above inflation as a real increase in anycase. Because the labourers would want at least an inflation related increase.

Remember more sales, means more cars on the road which means more maintanence and more roads.

But in anycase, I was only playing devils advocate - I don't think that even if they were correct that it cost them more because of the fuel efficiency that it was a good argument. The more fuel efficient the cars - just adjust the fuel levy accordingly - it will also promote having newer cars on the road which means less broken vehicles I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Trucks do way more damage to the roads than cars. If you want to argue your argument, then normal vehicles should pay nothing and truck users should pay considerably more.
 
Wyzak said:
Trucks do way more damage to the roads than cars. If you want to argue your argument, then normal vehicles should pay nothing and truck users should pay considerably more.
Click to expand...

They do, they use considerable amount fuel more than a car per km. Which means they contribute much more to the fuel levy. Maybe not enough, but that would actually be a pro e-toll argument.
 
Wyzak said:
Trucks do way more damage to the roads than cars. If you want to argue your argument, then normal vehicles should pay nothing and truck users should pay considerably more.
Click to expand...

The big problem is overloaded trucks which have an axle loading beyond what the road was designed to handle.
I've seen damage figures as high as 70,000 to 80,000 times that of a normal road vehicle.
i.e. An overloaded truck can cause 70,000 to 80,000 times the wear and tear or damage of a normal passenger vehicle.

This CSIR did some research in the late 90's and found that passenger vehicles cause so little damage that they're hardly a factor (< 1%).
80 to 85% of legally loaded trucks caused 40% of the damage to roads.
15 to 20% of trucks are overloaded and cause 60% of the damage to roads.

Edit:
A 40 ton truck does as much damage as 160,000 passenger vehicles:
http://www.nomegatrucks.eu/the-facts/why-are-mega-trucks-dangerous/infrastructure/
 
Last edited:
phoneJunky said:
They do, they use considerable amount fuel more than a car per km. Which means they contribute much more to the fuel levy. Maybe not enough, but that would actually be a pro e-toll argument.
Click to expand...

How come ?

I see that as a pro fuel levy argument, trucks only pay 3-4 times as much as cars in terms of toll, but they use a much higher multiple of fuel as compared to a small car.

BTW, I remember seeing some figures published by by the CSIR some years back, where it was said that a single overloaded truck caused as much damage to the road as 150 000 cars.

Maybe it would be fairer if trucks paid, say, 100 times as much as cars, even that is way too low.

Consumers are subsidising truck transport, at least with fuel levies trucks pay a lot more.
 
Jola said:
How come ?

I see that as a pro fuel levy argument, trucks only pay 3-4 times as much as cars in terms of toll, but they use a much higher multiple of fuel as compared to a small car.

BTW, I remember seeing some figures published by by the CSIR some years back, where it was said that a single overloaded truck caused as much damage to the road as 150 000 cars.

Maybe it would be fairer if trucks paid, say, 100 times as much as cars, even that is way too low.

Consumers are subsidising truck transport, at least with fuel levies trucks pay a lot more.
Click to expand...

Transport trucks won't be capped with e-tolling like normal passanger cars.

But this will probably lead to other problems like overloading to safe on a load etc.

And with the e-tolling it is something like 8 times more, but yes it is too low.
 
Last edited:
Paul_S said:
The big problem is overloaded trucks which have an axle loading beyond what the road was designed to handle.
I've seen damage figures as high as 70,000 to 80,000 times that of a normal road vehicle.
i.e. An overloaded truck can cause 70,000 to 80,000 times the wear and tear or damage of a normal passenger vehicle.

This CSIR did some research in the late 90's and found that passenger vehicles cause so little damage that they're hardly a factor (< 1%).
80 to 85% of legally loaded trucks caused 40% of the damage to roads.
15 to 20% of trucks are overloaded and cause 60% of the damage to roads.

Edit:
A 40 ton truck does as much damage as 160,000 passenger vehicles:
http://www.nomegatrucks.eu/the-facts/why-are-mega-trucks-dangerous/infrastructure/
Click to expand...

Exactly :) So with PhoneJunky's argument, we shouldn't have to pay anything, and trucks should pay everything.
 
Sanral’s e-toll poll shock

http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/45125/sanral-e-toll-poll-shock/

A survey conducted by South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) in 2009 revealed that as many as 48% of people in Gauteng would not be willing to pay for an open road tolling system.

This according to documents provided by the Democratic Alliance (DA) on Monday (2 September), which showed that a question was posed to gauge public acceptance of e-tolling as part of Sanral’s initial market research.

“I can reveal today that Sanral knew from as early as 2009 that they are facing widespread opposition against e-tolling on Gauteng freeways,” said Mmusi Maimane, DA Premier candidate for Gauteng.

The question on the document asked: “The envisaged tolls for Gauteng Freeways will be automated, there will be no toll stations. Payment will be collected automatically. If there were two extra lanes on the freeways you normally travel on, saving you time, would you be prepared to pay a toll?”

Sanral’s April 2009 documentation indicated that 69% of people were willing to pay a toll fee, while 39% of people were not willing to pay toll fees.

However, in an addendum (as part of the contract information) in June 2009, the results were amended indicating that 48% of people would not be willing to pay for e-tolls.

“Though the question in itself raises serious concerns on how it was formulated to lead respondents to a positive outcome – baselessly claiming that more lanes will equal less time travelled – the results are nonetheless revealing,” Maimane said.

“Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) and Sanral both agree that one of the critical success factors for the project as a whole include the high levels of public compliance,” the DA said.

It said that the ETC in its contract submission stated that this opposition expressed in the market research presented a huge communication and marketing challenge to shift attitudes and behaviour of a significantly large group into acceptance, or at least compliance.

“Should such a sizable group actively resist compliance, law enforcement will be serious hampered and could become virtually impossible to implement. Sizable active resistance could jeopardise the project as a whole,” the DA cited the ETC as saying.

The political party said that the ETC’s submission also identified the risk that a culture of non-payment could materialise based on past practical experiences with “grudge buys” – purchasing a right of passage instead of a tangible benefit.
 
Two extra lanes? There are not two extra lanes, so fukdat.
 
DJ... said:
One on each side of the freeway. Very disingenuous question though...
Click to expand...

We still did not get two extra lanes in both directions everywhere where they want to put up e-tolls now. At the same time we lost the emergency lane in most places, making accidents far more likely and increasing fatalities by delaying emergency services... Whoop whoop...
 
Wyzak said:
We still did not get two extra lanes in both directions everywhere where they want to put up e-tolls now. At the same time we lost the emergency lane in most places, making accidents far more likely and increasing fatalities by delaying emergency services... Whoop whoop...
Click to expand...

Oh god yeah. Look, I do experience less traffic along my route now at the times I travel (6pm and 8:30pm when I go into an office on occasion) but that is not the point. The point is the funding of this corrupt behemoth as far as I'm concerned, and their lies, (now) disingenuous research, and threats...
 
SANRAL calls Maimane’s analysis of e-toll documents short-sighted

http://www.humanipo.com/news/31163/sanral-calls-maimanes-analysis-of-e-toll-documents-short-sighted/



The South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) has rubbished claims by Mmusi Maimane, the Democratic Alliance (DA) Gauteng leader, that the roads agency was aware of the negative impact e-tolling would have.

The documents in question relate largely to the contract between SANRAL and Electronic Toll Collection (ETC), which were obtained by Ian Ollis, the DA’s shadow minister of transport, through a Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) application.

SANRAL has however criticised the DA’s interpretation of the documents.

“The economic analysis of e-tolling by the Democratic Alliance’s Mmusi Maimane is short-sighted and displays a lack of understanding of the economics around road infrastructure and development,” said SANRAL in a statement.

SANRAL reiterated that the implementation of e-tolling in Gauteng is a means by which to fund the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project. SANRAL reportedly considered all available funding models, but chose e-tolling as the most “sustainable and equitable” solution.

“Mr Maimane’s assessment of the economic impact of improved roads is in direct contrast with accepted economics around the matter,” said Vusi Mona, SANRAL’s spokesperson.

“It is disingenuous to say that improving roads will be detrimental to small and medium enterprises (SMMEs). On the contrary improved roads will have a positive effect on these businesses. Mr Maimane seems to have forgotten to weigh the cost of congestion in his economic assessment.”

The Automobile Association (AA) conducted a study in 2007, before the GFIP implementation, which revealed a 1,600cc vehicle travelling between Pretoria and Johannesburg spends an extra 122 minutes on the road daily due to congestion. This calculates to 40 more hours spent in traffic per month and 705 litres of fuel wasted.

Mona then referred to Maimane’s case study involving two small business owners in Thembisa. Both said e-tolling would negatively impact their business.

“These business owners need an improved R21 otherwise deliveries to their business will always be late due to congestion on the R21. Mr Maimane probably does not know that there is an economic cost to congestion. We would argue that both these SME operators are better off with an improved R21 than a congested one,” said Mona.

Mona referred to an economic study conducted by the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Graduate School of Business, which indicated “improved accessibility” would be a “strongly positive” effect on business.

Mona said the DA’s fuel levy suggestion, which they believe is a viable solution to the GFIP as opposed to e-tolling, is flawed.

“Critically, the fuel levy imposes a tax on all motorists across the country whether or not they will use the GFIP. The DA must tell the other provinces how fair that is,” said Mona.

Mona also dismissed Maimane’s claim SANRAL was aware 48 per cent of road users would not be willing to pay e-tolling fees.

“This info is used for planning purposes, to develop enforcement strategies. The document states an expected pay rate of 90 per cent for steady state operations… The survey results were not unexpected as the payment for any services is never a popular choice,” he said.
 
DA is being 'disingenuous'

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67066

The South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) has hit back at the Democratic Alliance (DA), saying its economics are "deeply flawed".

This comes after the DA yesterday said Sanral's own documents show it knew as far back as 2009 that e-tolling in Gauteng would not work.

The controversial Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, which will charge users electronically, is set to kick off once president Jacob Zuma signs the Bill into law.

Zuma has still to give the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill (e-toll Bill) the nod, paving the way for e-tolls in Gauteng. Meanwhile, an application to the Constitutional Court to halt the implementation by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance will be heard later this month.

Yesterday, in a statement released by national spokesman Mmusi Maimane, the DA claimed Sanral knew from as early as 2009 that it was facing "widespread opposition" against e-tolling on Gauteng freeways.

He says this information is based on documents received recently by the DA following a Promotion of Access to Information Act application by DA shadow minister of transport, Ian Ollis.

Problematic numbers

Based on the documents, a survey was done asking people if they would be prepared to pay an electronic toll if there were two extra lanes on the freeway. In April 2009, 69% of people were willing to pay a toll fee.

"However, in an addendum, as part of the contract information, in June 2009, the results are amended indicating that 48% of people would not be willing to pay for e-tolls."

The DA adds that the Electronic Toll Collection company, in its contract submission, states the opposition shown in the market research "presents a huge communication and marketing challenge to shift attitudes and behaviour of a significantly large group into acceptance, or at least compliance.

"Should such a sizable group actively resist compliance, law enforcement will be seriously hampered and could become virtually impossible to implement. Sizable active resistance could jeopardise the project as a whole."

Maimane says Sanral has known right from the beginning that the people of Gauteng do not want e-tolling. His comments come off the back of a visit to Thembisa, in the East Rand, to determine the effect e-tolling will have on small business owners.

No understanding

However, Sanral argues the economic analysis of e-tolling by the DA is "short-sighted and displays a lack of understanding of the economics around road infrastructure and development".

Improved roads will benefit small businesses, says Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona.

Improved roads will benefit small businesses, says Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona.
Spokesman Vusi Mona dismissed Maimane's claim that Sanral knew 48% of road users in Gauteng would not pay for e-tolls. "This info is used for planning purposes, to develop enforcement strategies.

"The document states an expected pay rate of 90% for steady state operations (after the ramp-up period). The survey results were not unexpected as the payment for any services is never a popular choice."

Sanral says it considered all possible funding models and decided on the most sustainable and equitable one. "Maimane's assessment of the economic impact of improved roads is in direct contrast with accepted economics around the matter," Mona notes.

"It is disingenuous to say that improving roads will be detrimental to small and medium enterprises. On the contrary, improved roads will have a positive effect on these businesses. Maimane seems to have forgotten to weigh the cost of congestion in his economic assessment."

Sanral points to a 2007 Automobile Association study showing that, because of congestion, a 1 600cc car would cost R7 775 more to run a month, travelling between Johannesburg and Pretoria.

"In 2010, the South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry raised concerns about the cost of congestion on the Gauteng freeway network. At the time, it was estimated that the cost of congestion on the Ben Schoeman Highway alone amounted to R15 million an hour," says Sanral.
 
Yet the traffic congestion hasn't really gone down? Even with the "two" extra lanes on the highway it's still the same as you actually need more offramps/onramps not more lanes, the biggest congestion is at these choke points, which cause the traffic to backup kilometers.
 
Lupus said:
Yet the traffic congestion hasn't really gone down? Even with the "two" extra lanes on the highway it's still the same as you actually need more offramps/onramps not more lanes, the biggest congestion is at these choke points, which cause the traffic to backup kilometers.
Click to expand...

I'm finding that the biggest congestion is caused by all the selfish twits who use the feed off lanes / off ramps to over take on which causes bottle necks when they push back into the queue at every off ramp.
 
“It is disingenuous to say that improving roads will be detrimental to small and medium enterprises (SMMEs). On the contrary improved roads will have a positive effect on these businesses. Mr Maimane seems to have forgotten to weigh the cost of congestion in his economic assessment.”
Click to expand...

More crap from SANRAL. The fuel levy would still have paid for those exact same upgrades, but we wouldn't be sending a fortune overseas every month.

“Critically, the fuel levy imposes a tax on all motorists across the country whether or not they will use the GFIP. The DA must tell the other provinces how fair that is,” said Mona.
Click to expand...

Gauteng contributes way more to the national fiscus that it receives in return. Mona should please explain how it isn't fair when we ask a little bit in return.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X