Jola
Honorary Master
That ^
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How often do you receive spam calls?
[May 2013..Dec 2013] The Gauteng E-tolling Thread
- Status
That ^
Albereth
Honorary Master
Piecing things together it appears that SANRAL don't actually earn any money at all. And that has nothing to do with the current debacle. They're not earning anything on the current concessions. All that happens is that there is a summary report from the concession holders.
The advertising that they're doing is really for the benefit of the people who are supposed to collect the money.
The advertising that they're doing is really for the benefit of the people who are supposed to collect the money.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
OUTA QUESTIONS SANRAL ENTERING POLITICAL FRAY
Anti-tolling group OUTA has noted with suspicion the press statement of 21 September, wherein SANRAL’s spokesperson, Mr Vusi Mona, attacks the Democratic Alliance use of eTolls for political gain. Mona is reported to have said the following: “The DA is using e-tolling as an electioneering strategy and is continuously misrepresenting the facts to win votes in next year’s elections and Sanral is not going to entertain politics.”
OUTA Chairman, Wayne Duvenage, says that statements of this nature are seriously worrying as they start to blur the line of separation between party and state. “SANRAL is an organ of state,” he said. “Its job is to provide services to citizens irrespective of their political affiliation,” he added. “By making statements on the political activities of a political party, Sanral is drawing an organ of state into the political arena and thereby undermining our democracy.”
Duvenage said that all political parties were free to comment on the actions of state-owned enterprises, be it eTolls, arms procurement, energy generation, state expenditure on private properties etc. This is the space of political and civil action entities that forms part of healthy democratic discourse. “If the DA, Agang, UDM or other political entities are able to convince voters that they would be able direct SANRAL or other SOE’s in a manner more beneficial to the country’s citizens that the current ruling party,they are quite entitled to do so,” he said. “Likewise, the ANC or any other political party is free to argue a similar points. What is not acceptable is for state-run organs themselves to become politically aligned. They should answer the queries and give facts but never enter the space of political mudslinging.”
Mr Mona then ends his attack on the DA with the following confusing comment “We understand the politicking but we aren’t interested in it.” Why then attack the DA’s politicking behavior if indeed they understand it and are not interested in it?
OUTA expresses serious concern at SANRAL’s statements and regular misrepresentation of facts, which has become a liability for this State Owned Entity. Duvenage says “SANRAL’s attempts as an SOE to enter the political fray is just another milestone in a series of PR mishaps which includes the following recent dubious and misleading statements:-
On 31 July, Mr Mona stated that the number of toll gantries required at eTag rates to reach the [R450] cap was around 301 or roughly 2760 kms on the eToll roads, whereas this figure is closer to almost half that number at 164 gantries and 1600km.
In June 2013, Mr Mona denied that money from the GFIP e-tolling project would directly fund and benefit Austria’s KapschTraffiCom, whereas that company’s own press release to the international investor community confirmed this was the case, to the tune of over R670m per annum.
Again, in June 2013, Mr Mona’s stated that at the end of April 2013, Sanral had sales of 250 000 e-tags and following their recent ‘successful’ marketing campaign,eTag sales had been boosted by over 100% in six weeks, taking their eTag sales up to 600 000by mid June. However, the Department of Transport had announced a year earlier in April 2012, their eTag sales had reached over 500,000 and this number had crept up to 600,000 by December 2012.
“A major reason for the public’s rejection of E-tolling’s has been the failure of SANRAL to engage and communicate openly and honestly with the public,” Duvenage said. “SANRAL is now having to increase their marketing and PR budget by over 200% to R85m per annum in order to rectify its shattered integrity and poor image, yet they continue to shoot themselves in the foot by making such rash and misleading statements on a regular basis. The public have lost faith in this once credible organ of the state and will not succumb to their spin doctor tactics and self-gratifying publications and press inserts,” concluded Duvenage.
- See more at: http://www.outa.co.za/site/outa-questions-sanral-entering-political-frey/#sthash.5r3PZQY3.dpuf
Anti-tolling group OUTA has noted with suspicion the press statement of 21 September, wherein SANRAL’s spokesperson, Mr Vusi Mona, attacks the Democratic Alliance use of eTolls for political gain. Mona is reported to have said the following: “The DA is using e-tolling as an electioneering strategy and is continuously misrepresenting the facts to win votes in next year’s elections and Sanral is not going to entertain politics.”
OUTA Chairman, Wayne Duvenage, says that statements of this nature are seriously worrying as they start to blur the line of separation between party and state. “SANRAL is an organ of state,” he said. “Its job is to provide services to citizens irrespective of their political affiliation,” he added. “By making statements on the political activities of a political party, Sanral is drawing an organ of state into the political arena and thereby undermining our democracy.”
Duvenage said that all political parties were free to comment on the actions of state-owned enterprises, be it eTolls, arms procurement, energy generation, state expenditure on private properties etc. This is the space of political and civil action entities that forms part of healthy democratic discourse. “If the DA, Agang, UDM or other political entities are able to convince voters that they would be able direct SANRAL or other SOE’s in a manner more beneficial to the country’s citizens that the current ruling party,they are quite entitled to do so,” he said. “Likewise, the ANC or any other political party is free to argue a similar points. What is not acceptable is for state-run organs themselves to become politically aligned. They should answer the queries and give facts but never enter the space of political mudslinging.”
Mr Mona then ends his attack on the DA with the following confusing comment “We understand the politicking but we aren’t interested in it.” Why then attack the DA’s politicking behavior if indeed they understand it and are not interested in it?
OUTA expresses serious concern at SANRAL’s statements and regular misrepresentation of facts, which has become a liability for this State Owned Entity. Duvenage says “SANRAL’s attempts as an SOE to enter the political fray is just another milestone in a series of PR mishaps which includes the following recent dubious and misleading statements:-
On 31 July, Mr Mona stated that the number of toll gantries required at eTag rates to reach the [R450] cap was around 301 or roughly 2760 kms on the eToll roads, whereas this figure is closer to almost half that number at 164 gantries and 1600km.
In June 2013, Mr Mona denied that money from the GFIP e-tolling project would directly fund and benefit Austria’s KapschTraffiCom, whereas that company’s own press release to the international investor community confirmed this was the case, to the tune of over R670m per annum.
Again, in June 2013, Mr Mona’s stated that at the end of April 2013, Sanral had sales of 250 000 e-tags and following their recent ‘successful’ marketing campaign,eTag sales had been boosted by over 100% in six weeks, taking their eTag sales up to 600 000by mid June. However, the Department of Transport had announced a year earlier in April 2012, their eTag sales had reached over 500,000 and this number had crept up to 600,000 by December 2012.
“A major reason for the public’s rejection of E-tolling’s has been the failure of SANRAL to engage and communicate openly and honestly with the public,” Duvenage said. “SANRAL is now having to increase their marketing and PR budget by over 200% to R85m per annum in order to rectify its shattered integrity and poor image, yet they continue to shoot themselves in the foot by making such rash and misleading statements on a regular basis. The public have lost faith in this once credible organ of the state and will not succumb to their spin doctor tactics and self-gratifying publications and press inserts,” concluded Duvenage.
- See more at: http://www.outa.co.za/site/outa-questions-sanral-entering-political-frey/#sthash.5r3PZQY3.dpuf
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
E-toll ads under fire
As the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) continues to push e-tag sales in the build-up to the implementation of open road tolling in Gauteng - a date as yet unknown - the state-owned entity continues to be slammed by opposition for wasteful spending.
In the latest attempt at e-toll obstruction by a political party, the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) is today approaching the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to put a stop to all of Sanral's advertisements regarding e-tolls in Gauteng, saying it constitutes a breach of the ASA's code.
At the same time, says FF Plus parliamentary spokesperson on transport, advocate Anton Alberts, the party will request that the auditor-general investigate whether Sanral's advertising expenses are "fruitless and wasteful expenditure" in terms of the Public Finances Management Act.
Breaking the rules?
Alberts says Sanral is jumping the gun by advertising a product that is not legally being billed yet.
"The ASA's code is being contravened as the advertisements are selling a product, ie, the improved Gauteng highways, which is legally not payable yet, but which in fact has already been paid by way of other previously charged taxes."
See also
He says the roads agency is contravening the second rule of the advertising code (section two) in that "the selling of an already paid and public product is dishonest".
Furthermore, Alberts notes the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance's court case, in which it will appeal government's e-toll system, is still pending. "The issue of whether the improved highways are payable through toll taxes, is still pending in the High Court and a decision on this will be taken in September."
The FF Plus's ASA complaint is also based on rule one (offensive advertising) of section two of the advertising code. "The advertisements give offense to the majority of residents in Gauteng. The residents have in various campaigns, from public protests to petitions, as well as in the media, clearly indicated they are fiercely opposed to the e-toll system. The FF Plus itself had a successful online-petition and submitted more than 100 000 signatures to Parliament and the Gauteng legislature."
In terms of rule three (unacceptable advertising) of section two, the FF Plus says Sanral's advertisements are unacceptable in that they "instil fear with the public that they would contravene laws if they did not register for the e-toll system and, therefore, motivates the public on this basis to accept the system".
Alberts says rule four (truthful presentation) of section two is also being flouted, as "the advertisements are also based on an untruth, as no legally mandatory e-toll system has already been implemented and there is uncertainty whether it will at all be happening".
Budget specifics
“As a state-owned company and law-abiding institution, Sanral respects the ASA’s process and will respond to complaints and/or queries from the ASA or FF Plus should it receive any,” says the agency.
According to Sanral, the agency has budgeted R85 million for advertising related to the e-toll system in Gauteng, which will be spent on "alternative sources of funding campaigns, as well as corporate campaigns".
Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona says, in the current financial year, the agency has spent R23 257 989 on its toll portfolio; and R1 805 627 on its non-toll portfolio.
"Please take note that our toll portfolio spans more than the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, which is only 201km. Sanral has a toll portfolio of 1 832km and has a responsibility to promote and communicate on its alternative sources of funding (the selective use of tolling to build road infrastructure)."
Earlier this week, Sanral responded to the Democratic Alliance's anti-toll statements by saying the party needs to "stop using e-tolling as a political football for electioneering and stick to the facts".
The roads agency also dismissed suggestions that its advertising spend is unjustified and reiterated that it is on track to secure funding to meet its financial obligations. "We have previously clarified our approach to debt financing. We have a clear plan on how we are going to finance the R1.4 billion obligation on the toll portfolio and are concluding discussions with the banks. We have no reason to believe we will not meet our obligations when the five-year bond relating to this obligation matures at the end of October 2013."
Mona says what he calls "over-excitement" on Sanral's liquidity challenges - which recently led to conclusions that the body is bankrupt - "is totally misplaced, unfortunate and a manifestation of a level of ignorance".
He says Sanral will "step up its efforts in the near future to educate our colleagues in the media and public in general about the funding of Sanral".
Department of Transport spokesperson Tiyani Rikhotso previously said the upcoming court case is irrelevant to the fact that e-toll implementation has been deemed legal and will go ahead when all the appropriate formalities have been finalised.
Implementation of the system and the onset of billing rest on the signing of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill - or e-toll Bill - which is currently on president Jacob Zuma's desk awaiting his mark.
As the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) continues to push e-tag sales in the build-up to the implementation of open road tolling in Gauteng - a date as yet unknown - the state-owned entity continues to be slammed by opposition for wasteful spending.
In the latest attempt at e-toll obstruction by a political party, the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) is today approaching the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to put a stop to all of Sanral's advertisements regarding e-tolls in Gauteng, saying it constitutes a breach of the ASA's code.
At the same time, says FF Plus parliamentary spokesperson on transport, advocate Anton Alberts, the party will request that the auditor-general investigate whether Sanral's advertising expenses are "fruitless and wasteful expenditure" in terms of the Public Finances Management Act.
Breaking the rules?
Alberts says Sanral is jumping the gun by advertising a product that is not legally being billed yet.
"The ASA's code is being contravened as the advertisements are selling a product, ie, the improved Gauteng highways, which is legally not payable yet, but which in fact has already been paid by way of other previously charged taxes."
See also
He says the roads agency is contravening the second rule of the advertising code (section two) in that "the selling of an already paid and public product is dishonest".
Furthermore, Alberts notes the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance's court case, in which it will appeal government's e-toll system, is still pending. "The issue of whether the improved highways are payable through toll taxes, is still pending in the High Court and a decision on this will be taken in September."
The FF Plus's ASA complaint is also based on rule one (offensive advertising) of section two of the advertising code. "The advertisements give offense to the majority of residents in Gauteng. The residents have in various campaigns, from public protests to petitions, as well as in the media, clearly indicated they are fiercely opposed to the e-toll system. The FF Plus itself had a successful online-petition and submitted more than 100 000 signatures to Parliament and the Gauteng legislature."
In terms of rule three (unacceptable advertising) of section two, the FF Plus says Sanral's advertisements are unacceptable in that they "instil fear with the public that they would contravene laws if they did not register for the e-toll system and, therefore, motivates the public on this basis to accept the system".
Alberts says rule four (truthful presentation) of section two is also being flouted, as "the advertisements are also based on an untruth, as no legally mandatory e-toll system has already been implemented and there is uncertainty whether it will at all be happening".
Budget specifics
“As a state-owned company and law-abiding institution, Sanral respects the ASA’s process and will respond to complaints and/or queries from the ASA or FF Plus should it receive any,” says the agency.
According to Sanral, the agency has budgeted R85 million for advertising related to the e-toll system in Gauteng, which will be spent on "alternative sources of funding campaigns, as well as corporate campaigns".
Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona says, in the current financial year, the agency has spent R23 257 989 on its toll portfolio; and R1 805 627 on its non-toll portfolio.
"Please take note that our toll portfolio spans more than the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, which is only 201km. Sanral has a toll portfolio of 1 832km and has a responsibility to promote and communicate on its alternative sources of funding (the selective use of tolling to build road infrastructure)."
Earlier this week, Sanral responded to the Democratic Alliance's anti-toll statements by saying the party needs to "stop using e-tolling as a political football for electioneering and stick to the facts".
The roads agency also dismissed suggestions that its advertising spend is unjustified and reiterated that it is on track to secure funding to meet its financial obligations. "We have previously clarified our approach to debt financing. We have a clear plan on how we are going to finance the R1.4 billion obligation on the toll portfolio and are concluding discussions with the banks. We have no reason to believe we will not meet our obligations when the five-year bond relating to this obligation matures at the end of October 2013."
Mona says what he calls "over-excitement" on Sanral's liquidity challenges - which recently led to conclusions that the body is bankrupt - "is totally misplaced, unfortunate and a manifestation of a level of ignorance".
He says Sanral will "step up its efforts in the near future to educate our colleagues in the media and public in general about the funding of Sanral".
Department of Transport spokesperson Tiyani Rikhotso previously said the upcoming court case is irrelevant to the fact that e-toll implementation has been deemed legal and will go ahead when all the appropriate formalities have been finalised.
Implementation of the system and the onset of billing rest on the signing of the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill - or e-toll Bill - which is currently on president Jacob Zuma's desk awaiting his mark.
Been there, done that. ASA ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction. (aka copped out).
See https://www.dropbox.com/s/bsnonxceuuykp8w/sanral etoll 20121002102635.pdf
Last edited:
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
SANRAL dismisses DA's e-toll calculations
The SA National Roads Agency has dismissed as "fallacious" the DA claim that it will spend R473.2 million on communication with e-toll account holders and transgressors.
"Either the DA can't read the documents we sent to them or they are being mischievous," Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona said on Monday.
"In case of the former, we shall be patient and help the DA to understand and navigate its way through the voluminous documents we gave them last week," he said.
Mona said it was disappointing the Democratic Alliance had made the claim without seeking clarity from Sanral.
He said Sanral had given the DA documentation relating to the implementation of e-tolling in Gauteng at its request.
In a statement on Monday, the DA said the documents it obtained from Sanral indicated that the funds would go towards sending smses, e-mails, faxes, letters, and making calls to clients' land-lines and cellphones.
Mona said the amounts quoted by the DA referred to provisional sums in Sanral's contract with the service provider.
An amount of R427.2m was the provisional sum Sanral could pay, in the worst case scenario, for communication to e-toll account holders and transgressors.
"However, we can see that at this stage, registration trends show that less than one percent of account holders have indicated that they would like to receive their invoices by mail. The majority have opted for paperless options.
"This means Sanral will end up spending far less of the provisional figure than projected," said Mona.
The services listed in the contract, for which the provisional sum was provided, were procured in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
"The DA also omitted to indicate that the current toll tariff structure, which has been published in the media many times before, makes provision for violations.
"An increased toll tariff (alternative user toll fee), which is a higher toll fee, becomes applicable should a road user not pay within the seven days grace period.
"This allows for the additional administration costs to be absorbed and it also avoids a situation where compliant users subsidise non-compliant users," said Mona.
DA MPL Ian Ollis said it believed e-tolls would not benefit Gauteng motorists.
"[We have] already successfully halted Sanral's plans to toll highways where we govern in the Western Cape, and [we are] prepared to take the fight to the Constitutional Court if we have to," he said.
Source : Sapa /nsm/cls
Date : 26 Aug 2013 23:54
The SA National Roads Agency has dismissed as "fallacious" the DA claim that it will spend R473.2 million on communication with e-toll account holders and transgressors.
"Either the DA can't read the documents we sent to them or they are being mischievous," Sanral spokesman Vusi Mona said on Monday.
"In case of the former, we shall be patient and help the DA to understand and navigate its way through the voluminous documents we gave them last week," he said.
Mona said it was disappointing the Democratic Alliance had made the claim without seeking clarity from Sanral.
He said Sanral had given the DA documentation relating to the implementation of e-tolling in Gauteng at its request.
In a statement on Monday, the DA said the documents it obtained from Sanral indicated that the funds would go towards sending smses, e-mails, faxes, letters, and making calls to clients' land-lines and cellphones.
Mona said the amounts quoted by the DA referred to provisional sums in Sanral's contract with the service provider.
An amount of R427.2m was the provisional sum Sanral could pay, in the worst case scenario, for communication to e-toll account holders and transgressors.
"However, we can see that at this stage, registration trends show that less than one percent of account holders have indicated that they would like to receive their invoices by mail. The majority have opted for paperless options.
"This means Sanral will end up spending far less of the provisional figure than projected," said Mona.
The services listed in the contract, for which the provisional sum was provided, were procured in terms of the Public Finance Management Act.
"The DA also omitted to indicate that the current toll tariff structure, which has been published in the media many times before, makes provision for violations.
"An increased toll tariff (alternative user toll fee), which is a higher toll fee, becomes applicable should a road user not pay within the seven days grace period.
"This allows for the additional administration costs to be absorbed and it also avoids a situation where compliant users subsidise non-compliant users," said Mona.
DA MPL Ian Ollis said it believed e-tolls would not benefit Gauteng motorists.
"[We have] already successfully halted Sanral's plans to toll highways where we govern in the Western Cape, and [we are] prepared to take the fight to the Constitutional Court if we have to," he said.
Source : Sapa /nsm/cls
Date : 26 Aug 2013 23:54
Compton_effect
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 12,287
- Reaction score
- 1,102
I had a worrying thought yesterday.
The system seems to be on allready. What are they currently doing with that data?
Are they logging road usage for later pre-emptive violation notifications or targeted marketing?
By now they have a pretty good idea which cars regularly use which sections.
The system seems to be on allready. What are they currently doing with that data?
Are they logging road usage for later pre-emptive violation notifications or targeted marketing?
By now they have a pretty good idea which cars regularly use which sections.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
DA: E-tolls won't work because Aarto is failing
The fact that the state is due to lose over R2-billion in unpaid fines due to an inefficient Aarto Act means e-tolls won't be successful, says the DA.
Ninety percent of Gauteng's road users owe government over R2-billion in unpaid fines in just a two-year period due to end in December 2013, and the Democratic Alliance (DA) says the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) Act has failed to ensure that municipal authorities adjudicate and collect fines.
At a press conference on Tuesday, the DA – which is against e-tolling – revealed details of a report from Parliament's working group on the Aarto Act that shows that between 2011 and 2013 over 89% of required payments remained unpaid by road users.
The Act has been piloted in Gauteng since 2008. Aarto was passed by Parliament in 1998 to regulate the execution of warrants.
"Current indications are that, due to the lack of practical knowledge of the implementation process, it is evident that the role players do not have a full insight into the practical implementation and are short-sightedly looking at hardware issues only," Ian Ollis, the DA's spokesperson for transport, said quoting the report.
The DA claimed that no courtesy letters and enforcement orders are sent out and/or granted. Added to that, failure by the infringer to respond in time must have consequences, which were not imposed because of budgetary constraints.
'Completely inadequate'
Another reason was the fact that motorists chose not to pay, and using the eNatis database was not adequate to track down infringers. eNatis is a state-of-the-art technology, started in 2007, that allows transactions over the internet and via automated teller machines for motorists. The system also allows for the introduction of the administrative adjudication of road traffic offences system and online registration of vehicles by financial institutions.
"The eNatis database is completely inadequate because it is incorrect, it cannot track down any motorist, and this is the backbone of Sanral's plan in implementing e-tolling," argued Ollis.
Part of Sanral's communication strategy, which has a provisional budget of half a billion, is using a methodology that the two metros suspended in 2012.
"The sending out of courtesy letters for payment no longer happens because it was ineffective and costs over R30-million a year. Sanral is tabling the same method which has shown that means to collect and enforce fines in Gauteng are non-existent," argued Mmusi Maimane, the DA's candidate for premier of Gauteng.
The status report for the Aarto Act as of last month indicates that Johannesburg and Tshwane are not ready for implementation due to budget constraints. The DA has moved for a repeal of the Aarto Act in Parliament, should it win Gauteng.
"We need to spend money on road maintenance, upgrading alternative routes to the toll roads and make funding available for the rollout of 24-hour traffic police on our freeways to improve road safety," said Ollis.
The Automobile Association (AA) of South Africa earlier in the year released a statement to argue that Aarto proved to be unworkable, and has not yielded any positive results in driver behaviour or road safety.
Maimane said the collapse of Aarto is probably a good thing in the fight against e-tolling. "The principle is that the cost of living in Gauteng is too high, adding on these costs that people are already struggling with would be a crime."
The report has recommend that the Act cannot be rolled out nationally until it is financially sustainable.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-28-da-e-tolls-wont-work-because-aarto-is-failing
The fact that the state is due to lose over R2-billion in unpaid fines due to an inefficient Aarto Act means e-tolls won't be successful, says the DA.
Ninety percent of Gauteng's road users owe government over R2-billion in unpaid fines in just a two-year period due to end in December 2013, and the Democratic Alliance (DA) says the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) Act has failed to ensure that municipal authorities adjudicate and collect fines.
At a press conference on Tuesday, the DA – which is against e-tolling – revealed details of a report from Parliament's working group on the Aarto Act that shows that between 2011 and 2013 over 89% of required payments remained unpaid by road users.
The Act has been piloted in Gauteng since 2008. Aarto was passed by Parliament in 1998 to regulate the execution of warrants.
"Current indications are that, due to the lack of practical knowledge of the implementation process, it is evident that the role players do not have a full insight into the practical implementation and are short-sightedly looking at hardware issues only," Ian Ollis, the DA's spokesperson for transport, said quoting the report.
The DA claimed that no courtesy letters and enforcement orders are sent out and/or granted. Added to that, failure by the infringer to respond in time must have consequences, which were not imposed because of budgetary constraints.
'Completely inadequate'
Another reason was the fact that motorists chose not to pay, and using the eNatis database was not adequate to track down infringers. eNatis is a state-of-the-art technology, started in 2007, that allows transactions over the internet and via automated teller machines for motorists. The system also allows for the introduction of the administrative adjudication of road traffic offences system and online registration of vehicles by financial institutions.
"The eNatis database is completely inadequate because it is incorrect, it cannot track down any motorist, and this is the backbone of Sanral's plan in implementing e-tolling," argued Ollis.
Part of Sanral's communication strategy, which has a provisional budget of half a billion, is using a methodology that the two metros suspended in 2012.
"The sending out of courtesy letters for payment no longer happens because it was ineffective and costs over R30-million a year. Sanral is tabling the same method which has shown that means to collect and enforce fines in Gauteng are non-existent," argued Mmusi Maimane, the DA's candidate for premier of Gauteng.
The status report for the Aarto Act as of last month indicates that Johannesburg and Tshwane are not ready for implementation due to budget constraints. The DA has moved for a repeal of the Aarto Act in Parliament, should it win Gauteng.
"We need to spend money on road maintenance, upgrading alternative routes to the toll roads and make funding available for the rollout of 24-hour traffic police on our freeways to improve road safety," said Ollis.
The Automobile Association (AA) of South Africa earlier in the year released a statement to argue that Aarto proved to be unworkable, and has not yielded any positive results in driver behaviour or road safety.
Maimane said the collapse of Aarto is probably a good thing in the fight against e-tolling. "The principle is that the cost of living in Gauteng is too high, adding on these costs that people are already struggling with would be a crime."
The report has recommend that the Act cannot be rolled out nationally until it is financially sustainable.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-28-da-e-tolls-wont-work-because-aarto-is-failing
Put your mind at ease, no government institution has ever been able of forethought.
Another though i had was them going the CoJ route and back charging for usage. Would not surprise me at all actually. once the system goes live they still have a massive debt to be paid so expect prices to go steadily upward
Albereth
Honorary Master
The law doesn't allow for back dating of claims. In fact, they run foul of other laws by not having prepaid usage - in effect they grant credit but without taking into account the requirements of the NCA.
But if they get it in the prices will only go one way.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
E-tolls will only come after polls
President Jacob Zuma is unlikely to sign the e-toll Bill into law before elections next year because of a procedural flaw.
The flaw means that the legislation has to be sent back to Parliament for consideration.
Zuma's lawyers are said to have advised him against signing the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill because it would not survive a Constitutional Court challenge.
The decision will spare Zuma the pain of signing the controversial Bill – which has also been challenged by trade union federation Cosatu, an ANC ally – before the election.
In July, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters denied that Zuma was delaying signing the Bill because of the elections.
The problem, according to Mail & Guardian sources, is the tagging of the legislation as a section 75 Bill – that is, a Bill of national competence. Tagging is used by Parliament to classify Bills for the purpose of determining the procedure to be followed in enacting a piece of legislation. The Bill should have been tagged as a section 76 Bill, which would make it a Bill of provincial competence so that public hearings in the provinces could have been held.
Bills tagged as 76 are introduced in the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces and must be considered by both houses. In the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), at least five provinces need to vote in favour of such Bills, usually considered by a provincial committee, which may also hold public hearings. If Zuma refers the Bill back to Parliament, processing it would have to start from scratch.
At fault is Parliament's joint tagging mechanism, a body consisting of the speaker, the deputy speaker and the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. They are assisted by parliamentary legal advisers.
The Democratic Alliance has raised the issue of tagging and holding of public hearings on several occasions in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.
At the last committee meeting to process the Bill, Elza van Lingen, the DA leader in the National Council of Provinces, pleaded with her colleagues to consider holding public hearings in the provinces.
Van Lingen said that another controversial Bill, the Protection of State Information Bill, had also been tagged as a section 75 Bill, but the National Council of Provinces committee had held public hearings into the legislation in all provinces in 2012. She was overruled.
The DA wanted the public hearings in all provinces, especially those in which e-tolls could be implemented in future. If the Bill is sent back to Parliament, it would be a blow to the South African National Roads Agency (Sanral), which had planned to start tolling in Gauteng in June this year.
Moody's downgraded Sanral's ratings in May 2012 over concerns of its financial sustainability.
This was "likely to exert pressure on the company's cash flows and cast doubt on the government's transport policy strategy", Kenneth Morare, Moody's lead analyst for Sanral, said at the time.
In April, Sanral issued a statement saying that e-tolling was ready to start, and it was just waiting for the completion of the parliamentary process. At the time, the Bill was still being processed in the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly passed it on May 22 and sent it to Zuma to sign it into law.
This week, Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona said, if Zuma had indeed received legal advice not to sign the Bill, he would find the advice "very odd" because the roads being tolled in Gauteng have nothing to do with other provinces.
Mona warned that taxpayers might have to pick up the tab for the building of Gauteng roads.
He said Sanral had not heard about a possible delay in signing the Bill, but if it occurred, "we would never switch on the system unless there is law".
"It would basically mean that somebody else would have to pick up the tab, and that somebody is you and me – the taxpayer."
Zuma's spokesperson, Mac Maharaj, said Zuma was still attending to the matter (the Bill) "and when he takes a step we'll inform the public".
He refused to answer questions about whether Zuma had received a legal opinion about the Bill, saying he did not deal with rumours.
According to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, which records meetings of Parliament committees, the department of transport noted that after much deliberation it was deemed correct to tag the Bill under section 75 (national competence) instead of section 76 (provincial competence) of the Constitution, and it was not necessary for the matter to be referred to the House of Traditional Leaders.
"There was a great deal of concern [from MPs] about whether the public had been sufficiently engaged on the Bill," the monitoring group said. "As the Bill had been tagged as section 75, the NCOP was not authorised to veto the Bill but could only recommend amendments. However, the NCOP could hold public hearings.
"The department was of the view that there had been sufficient public engagement in the past on tolling in general as well as extensive consultation with various institutions on the contents of the Bill." The National Assembly held a public hearing on November 20 2012.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-30-00-e-tolls-will-only-come-after-polls
President Jacob Zuma is unlikely to sign the e-toll Bill into law before elections next year because of a procedural flaw.
The flaw means that the legislation has to be sent back to Parliament for consideration.
Zuma's lawyers are said to have advised him against signing the Transport Laws and Related Matters Amendment Bill because it would not survive a Constitutional Court challenge.
The decision will spare Zuma the pain of signing the controversial Bill – which has also been challenged by trade union federation Cosatu, an ANC ally – before the election.
In July, Transport Minister Dipuo Peters denied that Zuma was delaying signing the Bill because of the elections.
The problem, according to Mail & Guardian sources, is the tagging of the legislation as a section 75 Bill – that is, a Bill of national competence. Tagging is used by Parliament to classify Bills for the purpose of determining the procedure to be followed in enacting a piece of legislation. The Bill should have been tagged as a section 76 Bill, which would make it a Bill of provincial competence so that public hearings in the provinces could have been held.
Bills tagged as 76 are introduced in the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces and must be considered by both houses. In the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), at least five provinces need to vote in favour of such Bills, usually considered by a provincial committee, which may also hold public hearings. If Zuma refers the Bill back to Parliament, processing it would have to start from scratch.
At fault is Parliament's joint tagging mechanism, a body consisting of the speaker, the deputy speaker and the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. They are assisted by parliamentary legal advisers.
The Democratic Alliance has raised the issue of tagging and holding of public hearings on several occasions in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.
At the last committee meeting to process the Bill, Elza van Lingen, the DA leader in the National Council of Provinces, pleaded with her colleagues to consider holding public hearings in the provinces.
Van Lingen said that another controversial Bill, the Protection of State Information Bill, had also been tagged as a section 75 Bill, but the National Council of Provinces committee had held public hearings into the legislation in all provinces in 2012. She was overruled.
The DA wanted the public hearings in all provinces, especially those in which e-tolls could be implemented in future. If the Bill is sent back to Parliament, it would be a blow to the South African National Roads Agency (Sanral), which had planned to start tolling in Gauteng in June this year.
Moody's downgraded Sanral's ratings in May 2012 over concerns of its financial sustainability.
This was "likely to exert pressure on the company's cash flows and cast doubt on the government's transport policy strategy", Kenneth Morare, Moody's lead analyst for Sanral, said at the time.
In April, Sanral issued a statement saying that e-tolling was ready to start, and it was just waiting for the completion of the parliamentary process. At the time, the Bill was still being processed in the National Council of Provinces. The National Assembly passed it on May 22 and sent it to Zuma to sign it into law.
This week, Sanral spokesperson Vusi Mona said, if Zuma had indeed received legal advice not to sign the Bill, he would find the advice "very odd" because the roads being tolled in Gauteng have nothing to do with other provinces.
Mona warned that taxpayers might have to pick up the tab for the building of Gauteng roads.
He said Sanral had not heard about a possible delay in signing the Bill, but if it occurred, "we would never switch on the system unless there is law".
"It would basically mean that somebody else would have to pick up the tab, and that somebody is you and me – the taxpayer."
Zuma's spokesperson, Mac Maharaj, said Zuma was still attending to the matter (the Bill) "and when he takes a step we'll inform the public".
He refused to answer questions about whether Zuma had received a legal opinion about the Bill, saying he did not deal with rumours.
According to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, which records meetings of Parliament committees, the department of transport noted that after much deliberation it was deemed correct to tag the Bill under section 75 (national competence) instead of section 76 (provincial competence) of the Constitution, and it was not necessary for the matter to be referred to the House of Traditional Leaders.
"There was a great deal of concern [from MPs] about whether the public had been sufficiently engaged on the Bill," the monitoring group said. "As the Bill had been tagged as section 75, the NCOP was not authorised to veto the Bill but could only recommend amendments. However, the NCOP could hold public hearings.
"The department was of the view that there had been sufficient public engagement in the past on tolling in general as well as extensive consultation with various institutions on the contents of the Bill." The National Assembly held a public hearing on November 20 2012.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-30-00-e-tolls-will-only-come-after-polls
There is no reason for Zuma to sign the bill. SANRAL can be funded out of the public eye through appropriation bills from the general fiscus. SANRAL is happy because they are covering their debts. Meanwhile, the tax payer is in effect being forced to pay e-tolls through income tax indirectly.
LCBXX
Honorary Master
Perhaps a little off-topic, but the radio voice actor that punts the benefits of getting e-tagged also punts the coming of BBM to Samsung 'droids. I am not sure how to take that..
Thingyyyyyy
Expert Member
Can they not be dragged to court for false advertising?
Love how a fuel levy is not sustainable yet we have been paying it for ever. Also, how is the toll-fees anymore sustainable? They will most probably have to increase prices like Eskom does just to keep this e-toll going, I guess that is what is called sustainable in this country i.e. sustainable for those on the gravy train.
I'm tempted to buy a newspaper, use that particular page to pick up squishy dog turds, and post it off in an envelope to Woosy Moaner @ SANRAL.
- Status