21 February, 2012 15:29
14 Comments

Michael Bratt
BusinessLIVE

E-tolling 'has many positives' (With Video)

While so many negatives have been associated with the e-tolling system since its establishment, the results of a study released on Tuesday paint a completely different picture.

Image: Gallo

According to the study there are major positives of having the system in place, which will not only benefit individuals but SA as a whole.

Dr Roelof Botha, the independent economist who conducted the study, explained at the results presentation that the tolling system leads to motorists spending less time on the road. This could mean that they are more productive if they use their new-found spare time doing something other than travelling.

In his words: "If a motorist uses just 15% of the spare time that they now have, not travelling, on productive work effort, then there is the potential for the individual to generate R8.84 for every R1 they spend on tolls."

Botha also said that besides the cost benefit situation, a person would also be able to further enrich his or her life as they could use the spare time, which they would have spent normally stuck in traffic, on something that they would prefer to do.

"Apart from the productivity gain if you were to translate some of your time saved into work, you have an enormous amount of time at your disposal now, which you can also utilise for other activities like recreation, sport and spending time with family," Botha said.

When asked about a common complaint that people have that the toll fees are too expensive Botha said that his study showed that when compared with other roads which are tolled in SA, the Gauteng fees do not come close to the other amounts.

Various alternatives to the tolling scheme have been thrown around lately, one of them being an increase in the fuel price, but Botha quickly dismissed this and said that the tolling system was the best way forward for SA.

"In my mind, raising the fuel price is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Firstly it will almost certainly have a regressive impact on the economy, in other words it will make the poor relatively poorer ... and secondly a fuel increase will flow through national treasury and invariably place pressure on fiscal parameters, it may even threaten SA's international credit ratings."

Botha wanted to emphasise one message to the e-tolling prophets of doom at the end of the results presentation. "Go to the trouble of calculating the time that you are likely to save, or probably are already saving, by using the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project as opposed to if it had never occurred, and take that time saving and place a value on it in terms of what you can earn if you were to be productive or how fit you could become if you go to the gym or maybe improving the relationships with the rest of your family and spending more time with them."       



COMMENTS

Avatar
  • *
Hacker

Smeegen Feb 21, 2012

Dumbest argument yet.
This entire fantasy revenue stream for the Gauteng motorist is based on the assumption that implementing E-tolls will magically speed up the traffic, which currently flows at a snail's pace.
The reality is that it won't. The number of cars actively avoiding the toll roads will be negligible, at best. Simply put, there are no alternative routes, which, from a government perspective, makes the E-tolls a perfect form of stealth tax... absolutely unavoidable, regardless how well off you are, or aren't.
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

JohnGalt Feb 21, 2012

The flaw in the whole argument is that time saved will result in increased income. For salaried workers - most of us I guess - salaries are fixed so there will be no financial benefit for the time saved. Assuming a car has a consumption of 10kms per litre at R11/litre - means fuel cost of R1.10 per kilometre. 40c per kilometer (the toll rate) would then be equivalent to a ~40% increase. R1 per litre added to the fuel levy would add only a ~10% increase to fuel costs.
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

Francis Feb 21, 2012

Any idea Dr. Botha how much one can safe when sleeping in an hotel near your work?
No domestic stress,little toll fees, for every four hundred Rand spend on an hotel, you will save R 3.536 per day in overtime, pertrol cost, car maintenance and bed- sewer- and kitchen expenses as the employer gladly will provide you with these domestic necessities to make you 24h/day available.
Do you live close to Weskoppies to make your fortune to attend the lost cases?
Your name seems to be a reflection of your capabilities.
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

MoBlaq Feb 21, 2012

Tired argument and very lame. Tolling might actually have the very opposite effect of it's so called advantages. Local policy makers should desist from borrowing concepts from other countries in different regions, with different socio-economic structure and trying to force their implimentation here.
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

donorfatigued Feb 21, 2012

Remember that stupid movie 'Dumb and Dumber"? Is this a transcript of the movie?

I have never heard such a pathetic, retarded, loser argument in my life!

I use the roads affected by the GFIP - and there is no time saving as a result of their having a smoother surface than they used to have.

How can time be saved by now paying for something we have enjoyed for years and which has already been paid for many times over and which we continue to pay for from our vehicle and driver licence fees and road fund levy?

The idiot must be in the pay of SANRAL.

Motorists - just refuse to buy an e-tag and watch the entire SANRAL business model collapse in a heap of sh!t!
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

cusip Feb 21, 2012

usually a Feasibility, Viability or in this case a Benefit : Cost Study is done before a project gets to first base.

The study should look mainly at financial, economic and social criteria.

It is not rocket-science but rather systematic, thorough and honest and the outcomes are then reliable and logical decisions get made.

This afterthought study relies on one major issue - a quicker journey - which is one valid issue BUT assumes that it applies equally to all users which it can and does not.

(school mom; taxi occupant; low paid forced driver who make up a significant proportion of users).

The added or saved km is also a factor - some major toll roads can provide a direct win-win on this issue alone, and is a major factor because it spills over into economic costs as well which can add or detract.

(the carbon footprint belongs here)

The social dissension cost appears to have been ignored - its value is as important as a 'no-go' option in an EIA but again, it gets done before the event.

This road would probably otherwise be funded by the regional government which is in turn funded by National as a 'normal' amenity in a metropolis.

Taxpayers at large have the right to a route of this quality within 'normal' governance whereas it has been placed on a pedestal as some sort of special favour.

There are probably a host of other criteria which most civil engineers who, in spite of a conflict of interest if the designer as well, would raise

So perhaps rather get those who are better versed to do the anaysis and regard the report as set in this article, as, euphemistically, unacceptable.





Avatar
  • *
Hacker

mike63 Feb 21, 2012

Another consultant desperate to kick-start the "perpetual gravy train revenue" from the Gauteng e-toll project for the crony-capitalists he serves. Adds a clever slant directed at the "privileged few who can afford the toll", knowing well that he has no hope against the unity of opposition this has drawn from across the political spectrum. Dr Roelof Botha's conflict-of-interest: Director of GOPA Group SA (2005 project - Gauteng Provincial Transport Infrastructure Strategy); Economic advisor to Price Waterhouse Coopers for 17 years (PWC appointed unilaterally by the MEC to implement a “turnaround strategy” relating to the Strategic Public Transport Network for Gauteng & the Gautrain Concession Agreement. Not on anyone's payroll????
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

Twistapro Feb 22, 2012

Who is this Clown... perhaps another Malema. The White version!
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

AdrianSchofield Feb 22, 2012

I agree with Smeegen and mike63. The absolute fallacy is the assumption that there is significant time saved which can be put to another use. I travel on these roads every day and the improvements have not changed driver behaviour. One breakdown, one small bumper-bashing, one shower of rain and the congestion is as bad as ever.

The "independent" reports smacks of opportunisim. You cannot tell me that spending an additional R400 rand to travel these roads is going to generate R3500 for me.
Avatar
  • *
Hacker

fikzo Feb 22, 2012

Wow! is this Dr Botha chap really an economist! what a flimsy argument. I agree with Twistapro; he's very close to being a white version of Malema. Nice try Dr; go back to SANRAL and tell them your "other latest study reveals that we are still refusing to pay for this s*it."