Gauteng commuters at risk of being left stranded

The DA calls on Gauteng Roads and Transport MEC Ismail Vadi to engage with Transport Minister Dipuo Peters and ensure that Gauteng commuters will not be left stranded from 1 April.Campbell-Dr-Neil1

Yesterday afternoon, Putco bus company distributed letters to commuters informing them that routes from Mamelodi to Pretoria’s CBD as well as southern, northern and eastern suburbs would be suspended as of 1 April.

Bus services in Kathorus (Ekurhuleni) and Meyerton (Midvaal) will also be affected.

Click here to view the letter.

Putco has been receiving government subsidies for decades to provide affordable transport to the people of Gauteng along predetermined routes.

Over the years, government’s subsidies did not keep pace with operating costs and route expansions, nor did they provide Putco with contractual security by only renewing contracts for one year in certain instances – or on a month-to-month basis in others.

The upshot of this was that Putco undercapitalised in new vehicles, with a detrimental effect on commuter and road safety.

The fact is that government slowly caused Putco’s demise, and will be forced to face the wrath of thousands of angry commuters less than 20 days from now.

MEC Vadi’s proposal to use municipal services as a stop-gap measure may provide short-term relief, but the poor state of repair of those vehicles will only escalate commuters’ dissatisfaction.

While it remains critical that commuters are not left stranded, MEC Vadi and minister Peters need to meet with Putco, discuss routes and costs associated with their operation, and hammer out new contractual agreements and their subsidies in as short a time as possible.

Gauteng’s economy cannot afford to lose thousands of man hours every day due to poor government planning.

 

Media enquiries:

Dr Neil Campbell MPL

DA Gauteng Shadow MEC for Roads and Transport

082 387 2540

 

Phansi nge E-tolls.

Friends and Fellow Democrats,

We are here today to voice our objection to the tolling of the existing Gauteng highways via the exorbitantly expensive e-toll method.

We agree that the highways have been improved so why are we not happy to pay these tolls?

Firstly, there remains uncertainty about exactly how much money will be generated by these tolls. It is also uncertain as to how much of that money will go overseas and who exactly will benefit from the profits. Is it only the Austrian company Kapsch or are ANC big-wigs also in line to augment their bank accounts?

Secondly, we are opposed to any government plan which requires the motorists of Gauteng to pay billions of Rands in collection costs when the alternative fuel levy route will cost nothing. We support the raising of funds via a national fuel levy which is ring-fenced solely for transport needs. Those in other provinces who state that they should not pay for Gauteng road upgrades must understand that Gauteng is the guinea pig regarding e-tolls and that should it succeed here e-tolls will soon ring all cities. At present their highways are paid for by the fiscus and we find it unfair that only Gauteng roads are not funded by national government.

Thirdly, we note with regret that the victims of apartheid spatial planning will pay relatively more in fuel levies because they cover greater distances. However this is also true for the proposed e-toll collection method as those in outlying areas will pass under more gantries. In fact, until the inequalities of apartheid are eradicated, those in former townships will pay more whichever method is used unless the e-tolls are paid for by national government or scrapped.

Fourthly, the alternative method proposed by the e-toll advisory panel, which was vehemently rejected by those who attended the consultative forum at Gallagher’s recently is based on:

  • A retained but reduced e-toll component which has been rejected by the majority of Gauteng motorists.
  • An increase in motor vehicle license fees. This suggestion must be rejected because licenses have been used to generate money for the fiscus which does not fund roads. Recent increase in licence fees have outstripped inflation by large percentages and although the DA is not married to a user pays principle the ANC is, and this stealth tax catches everyone with a vehicle in Gauteng. Strangely out of province and foreign vehicles escape this tax. Yesterday a provincial gazette was distributed which seeks to increase licence fees yet again.
  • Increased tyre tax. This is another stealth tax which can be increased at will and which defies the user pays principle.
  • Another suggestion that the South African Revenue Service and the electronic National Traffic Information service data bases should be combined must be rejected because eNatis is fatally corrupt and will contaminate the SARS system. It also infringes tax confidentiality which is unconstitutional.

The advisory panel states that it costs R6.25 billion per annum to run the e-tolls which cost R20 billion all-in to build. How is this possible? If we use the example of a 20 year house bond of R 1 million we would not be required to pay back R 312500 annually. Yet the government and its agent SANRAL, with superior bargaining and purchasing power is happy to force its citizens to pay this ridiculous amount annually. Are state lawyers useless or are connected cadres getting even richer?

Friends, SANRAL now admits that it paid more that it should have for the Gauteng Freeway upgrades. We told them this years ago but they denied it. SANRAL is making noises about reclaiming money for overpayment but why did it not question this when the cost was quoted.

SANRAL was chastised by the panel for not adequately informing the public. They are still not informing us.

We reject e-tolls because they are more costly than they need to be.

We reject e-tolls because we were inadequately consulted and then ignored before the system was introduced.

We reject e-tolls because they harm the Gauteng economy. 

We reject e-tolls because government does not practice cost containment but profligacy and thinks that citizens can just continue paying unfair taxes.

Phansi nge E-tolls.

Viva democracy.

E-tolls: Whose interests do they serve, Minister Nene?

Finance minister Nhlanhla Nene needs to face the public and spell out exactly who stands to benefit by continuing to impose e-tolls on motorists.

 

During his budget announcement yesterday the minister said that but that e-tolls would remain the principal funding mechanism of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP).

 

After the newly announced cap, e-tolls are now projected to earn R2 billion per year, based on the assumption that every motorist would pay. This of course is not happening.

 

Of that amount, half would service the GFIP debt while the other half would go to the collection agent.

 

It makes no sense to R5 to an agent to collect R10 when by using the fuel levy you can collect for free and save.

 

This of course begs the question: Why not scrap e-tolls in their entirety, ring-fence 10 cents a litre of the fuel levy, and service the debt?

 

All taxpayers eventually pay the e-toll via the passing on of costs through every loaf of bread and every litre of milk.

 

Government’s ongoing insistence to levy e-tolls, only to lose half to a collection agent, increases perceptions that certain individuals have interests in the e-tolls contract, and are benefitting at the expense of Gauteng’s citizens.

 

It is now the only logical conclusion. But is a perception and Minister Nene must address it.

 

It is time for minister Nene to come clean and state Treasury’s reasons behind the refusal to ring-fence a portion of the fuel levy to fund GFIP, when clearly this would be the cheapest way of paying for the roads.

 

Media enquiries:

Mike Moriarty MPL

DA Gauteng Shadow MEC for Finance

082 492 4410