Blog

Protect your children in vehicles

SANRALauthor1449views0comments

The safest place children should be placed in is in the centre of a back seat vehicle, using a lap-and-shoulder seatbelt or a child’s safety seat.

Research has revealed that child safety seats can reduce injury to babies by up to 70% and by up to 50% in older children. This is because at the moment of impact, unrestrained occupants of the vehicle collide with each other and with the inside of the vehicle, slamming against headrests and the sides of the car.

Charmaine van Wyk of Bakwena addressed that it is important for parents to realize that holding their children on their laps or allowing them to play on the back seat is not appropriate as they may end up going through the windscreen.

According to South African law, children between the ages of three and 14, being transported on the road, must be restrained in car or booster seats in a vehicle. In a case where a special safety seat cannot be provided, children must be secured using the vehicle’s seatbelt. If there are no seatbelts, they are to sit in the back of the vehicle.

gallery image
gallery image
gallery image

Children older than four years or those weighing more than 18 kg no longer need a car seat; but a booster seat positioned at their shoulder level, which allows them to see out the windows and protect their heads and necks from partial head-on or side impact collisions. Babies who weigh less than 9 kg can be placed in a rear-facing seat, in which they lie flat, to protect their bones and spine in times of an accident.

From April 2015, the law will require children under the age of three years to be buckled into car seats. Even when a vehicle is fitted with airbags, they can be dangerous to children under the age of 13 years. The force is enough to cause head injuries and they should not sit in the front seat.

Parents must fully take the initiative to ensure their children’s safety in moving vehicles.

SANRAL accommodates Boeing aircraft move on a major highway

SANRALauthor1327views0comments

On 25 January 2015, SANRAL assisted the Comair/British Airways in moving a decommissioned aircraft across a major highway.

The aircraft needed to be moved to the Comair/British Airways training centre where it will be used to train cabin crews in a true-to-life environment. Traffic was disrupted on the R21 for the period of the move between 22h00 on Saturday to 10h00 on Sunday.

The plane, and the rigging equipment, weighed 32 tons and four cranes, a 100 tonne, 200 tonne, 400 tonne and 500 tonne, were required to make the move. The move required closed lanes and the highway was narrowed by lane closures to accommodate the equipment and people needed for the move. At the time the aircraft was being lifted over the highway by a series of cranes, traffic was stopped for approximately 30-40 minutes on three occasions.

The team that moved the Boeing Almost there

Capt. Glen Warden of Comair said that this is the first time this has been done in this country. To move an entire aircraft across a national highway is a mammoth task. He commended SANRAL for its fantastic assistance in managing the traffic on the roads.

SANRAL closed lanes in a planned sequence so as not to disrupt motorists too much, get the plane across the highway and keep road users safe. Regional manager of the Northern region, Ismail Essa, said the operation was an unusual one but they ensured that road users’ safety was priority, and that traffic was not disrupted.

He also said there have only been three moves of such done worldwide as far as they know. This was part of SANRAL’s contribution to keep the economy moving.

Watch:

SANRAL participates in Annual Transportation Board Meeting

SANRALauthor1032views0comments

This week SANRAL will participate in a high-level annual meeting about the Transportation Research Board in Washington D.C.

The meeting will cover topics on transportation modes and will attract more than 12,000 delegates and 5,000 presentations with 800 sessions from key players in the transport industry, including policy makers, administrators, researchers, practitioners, government and academic representatives.

Accompanied by SANRAL CEO, Nazir Alli, the delegation will include the renowned incumbent of the SANRAL chair at the University of Stellenbosch’s Civil Engineering Department, Professor Kim Jenkins, who will showcase the transport agency’s efforts and latest technological developments on pavement engineering.

The new innovative South African Pavement Design Method (SAPDM), developed by specialists on the roads and the South African Pavement Engineering Manual (SAPEM), which is the flagship initiatives aimed at best practice in designing pavements in South Africa, will be presented to the international community key initiatives that the delegation has undertaken, such as the development of methodologies and solutions through pavement engineering for supporting the local economy, material testing, quality and laboratory management and the different methods used in the construction pavements.

According to Jenkins, the Pavement Design Method has pushed research boundaries to incorporate relevant, advanced technologies that will provide robust and refined pavement structures that can incorporate innovative initiatives.

In addition, the Engineering Manual is a reference and best practice guide for all aspects of pavement engineering. It provides explanations of the basic concepts and terminology used in pavement engineering and stands to benefit the young practitioners as well as experienced engineers who seek to explore new technologies.

SANRAL will also align itself with the conference’s theme: Corridors to the Future: Transportation and Technology, by demonstrating how it integrated technology as one of its core pillars into South Africa’s roads system.

Tolling Policy Does Not Cause Road Decay

SANRALauthor1088views0comments

SANRAL’s response to the Automobile Association’s (AA) article, titled Tolling Policy Causing Road Decay (dated 18 November 2014), should be viewed against the background of the South African Government’s assertion that transport is the heartbeat of economic growth and social development that should be underpinned by a world-class road infrastructure network.

SANRAL views the assertions made by AA as not only dogmatic, but also exceedingly distorted. Consequently, SANRAL maintains by its statement that all matters related to the development, modernisation and maintenance of South Africa’s road network is embodied within government’s overall policy and strategic framework, particularly the Department of Transport’s Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa.

It is worth mentioning that SANRAL today manages a national road network of about 21 500 km, which is expected to grow to 35 000km in the near future. This is in stark contrast to the road network of less than 530km that National Government was responsible for prior to 1994. About 15% of this road network is tolled road and 85% is non-tolled, funded from the national fiscus to the value of R11 billion. Consequently, the assertion made by AA that SANRAL only gives priority to tolled roads is factually incorrect.

Moreover, there has been an encouraging trend over the past years where provincial governments and municipalities have handed over some of their roads to SANRAL to manage. This does not only illustrate increased confidence in SANRAL as a reliable state agency, but also dispels AA’s claim that South Africa’s tolling-orientated road funding approach is accelerating the decay of non-tolled roads and that there is inadequate municipal road funding at provincial and local government level.

RESPONSE TO AA ARTICLE ON ROADS FUNDING AND BUILDING

It is simply not true that South Africa does not have a national roads policy. In South Africa, we recognise that transport is the heartbeat of economic growth and social development. We also acknowledge that this has to be underpinned by a world-class road infrastructure network.

The development and maintenance of this network is an integral part of the government’s massive infrastructure development programme. It also forms part of the Department of Transport’s Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa. Therefore, there is absolutely no way a person can make such a misleading assertion that South Africa does not have a roads policy. Everything related to the development, modernisation and maintenance of roads happens within the policy framework of government. The actual work might be done by government agencies such as SANRAL, but the overall policy and strategic framework is set by government.

It is also not true that the government is only giving priority to roads that can only be tolled so as to generate revenue from road users, at the expense of other roads. If you look at statistics, prior to 1994, the Department of Transport was responsible for a road network of less than 530km. In 1998 SANRAL was established to manage the national roads. Today, the agency is managing about 21 500 km of the national road network, and this is expected to grow to 35 000km in the near future.

Over the past 5 years, SANRAL has spent close to R62b for new works, rehabilitation, improvement and various maintenance cycles, which in real terms, is unmatched in the history of South Africa. Furthermore, SANRAL continues to work on its objectives of expanding the national road network; delivering safe, reliable and world-class network, seeking other methods of funding and improving the safety of road users. All these require massive cash injection.

It is also worth noting that about 85% of the national road network is non-tolled and therefore funded from the national fiscus to the value of R11b. Tolled roads only constitute about 15%. In addition, SANRAL has entered into private concessions with other companies to manage tolled roads on its behalf. SANRAL and these concessionaires raise money on capital markets to support development and maintenance of toll roads. The toll and non-toll roads are operated as separate portfolios, with no cross-subsidisation permitted.

Over the past few years we have seen a very interesting and encouraging trend – provinces handing over some of their roads to SANRAL to manage. SANRAL is well-positioned to manage such a huge road infrastructure, because of the human skills at its disposal as well as the agency’s technical know-how. It also shows increased confidence in SANRAL as a reliable state agency. However, most of the roads inherited were in a very bad state, and to bring these to acceptable and world-class conditions will take time and will require money.

Therefore 85% of SANRAL’s work is outside of e-tolling, and priority is not only given to tolled roads as the article alleges. SANRAL is working alongside the Department of Transport to implement the government’s top strategic priorities, of which road development, modernisation and improvement are an integral part. And all these happen within the country’s Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework.

Publiek moet opdok vir Outa se futiele vete teen SANRAL

SANRALauthor1047views0comments

Vusi Mona

Dit is Wayne Duvenage se eie keuse en goeie reg om gekant te wees teen e-tolpaaie in Gauteng, om ‘n organisasie soos Outa te stig en geldelike donasies van die publiek te bedel om sy vete teen SANRAL te finansier.

Maar hy het geen reg om die feite te verdraai nie en die waarheid te verswyg, veral as dit gaan oor hofsake waarin die land se regsprekende gesag keer op keer ten gunste van SANRAL beslis het.

Sedert Maart 2012 het verskeie regsgedinge oor wye aspekte van die Gauteng snelweg verbeteringsprojek (GSVP) voor verskeie howe gedien. Ses howe het hieroor beslis en nie minder nie as 17 regters het uitsprake gelewer. In slegs een geval is daar teen die regering (insluitend SANRAL) beslis – en hierdie beslissing van Regter Prinsloo in die Pretoria hooggeregshof is op appèl deur die grondwetike hof tersyde gestel.

In voetbalterme is dit vyf doele vir die GSVP teenoor een vir Duvenage en sy geesgenote – en selfs hierdie doel is met die ‘kykweer’ ongeldig verklaar.

Kom ons kyk, voorlopig, net na die regspunte waarop Outa en ander reeds die GSVP in die hof beredeneer het, en waar die uitsprake nie in hul guns van beslis is nie. Ongelukkig blyk dit dat Duvenage nie graag hierdie feite aan die publiek wil deurgee nie.

Duvenage versprei die onwaarheid dat die hof nog nie beslis het oor die wettigheid van die e-tol besluit nie. Dalk is dit omdat hy nog nie die uitsprake gelees het nie, of dalk is dit omdat hy nie die inligting aan sy befondsers wil erken nie.

Inderwaarheid, is daar in die uitspraak van die Grondwetlike Hof in Augustus 2012 waarin Regter Prinsloo se uitspraak omgekeer is, is die volgende bevind: “… die verantwoordelikheid om te bepaal hoe openbare bronne aangewend moet word lê in die hartland van die uitvoerende gesag se funksies en domein. In die afwesigheid van enige bewyse van onwettigheid, bedrog of korrupsie is dit die eksklusiewe mag en prerogatief van die uitvoerende gesag om beleid te ontwikkel en uit te voer rakende die finansiering van openbare projekte, onderhewig aan die begroting van die Parlement.”

Nodeloos om te sê dat die verskillende howe derduisende bladsye dokumente ondersoek het en dat Outa wat deur senior regslui verteenwoordig is, nog geen bewyse van onwettigheid, bedrog of korrupsie by SANRAL kon vind nie. In teenstelling met Outa, is SANRAL se bedrywighede in die openbaar en ontvang hy jaar na jaar ongekwalifiseerde verslae van die ouditeur-generaal.

In ‘n volgende saak het regter A J Vorster Outa se aansoek vir ‘n hersiening van die prosesse wat gevolg is vir die implementering van die GSVP as ‘n tol projek in die Pretoriase hooggeregshof met koste verwerp. Die hof het aanvaar dat een van Outa se lede – SAVRALA – reeds in 2008 interaksie met SANRAL gehad het oor die tol tariewe en die skema. Nogtans het hulle nie op daardie stadium, voor padwerke begin het, die hof genader om die tol projek te stop nie. Die hof was snydend oor Outa se bewering dat die e-tolstelsel padgebruikers ontwettiglik ontneem van hul eiendom, en bevind: “Ek het reeds beslis dat die GSVP skema wettig is en dat die verklaring tot tolpaaie nie op regsgronde hersienbaar is nie.”

Dit is hierdie uitspraak wat Duvenage na die appèlhof geneem het en waar hy weer verloor het. Volgens hom gaan dit oor ‘n “tegniese punt” maar dit was maar net een aspek van die hof se bevinding.

Met verwysing na die feit dat die besluit oor die GSVP tolpaaie reeds vyf jaar tevore geneem is, kom die hof tot die volgende slotsom: “Volgens alle aanduidings is hierdie opgegradeerde paaie van uitstaande gehalte (“truly magnificent”). Die voordele word hoofsaaklik geniet deur die motoriste van Gauteng maar dit bevorder die hele land se ekonomie. Dit kos egter R20-miljard. …. SANRAL is volgens kontrak verbind tot die onderhoud van die tolpaae met die veronderstelling dat dit uit die tolgeld verhaal sal word.”

Twee verdere sake sou volg. Eers het regter J Jansen van die Pretoriase hof ‘n dringende aansoek van die Tolhek Aksiegroep van die hand gewys en die aansoekers gelas om die koste te betaal. En in Maart vanjaar het die Kaapse Hooggeregshof, by monde van regter J Rogers, alle onduidelikheid oor die grondwetlikheid van die e-tolstelsel uit die weg geruim, na ‘n aansoek van die Demokratiese Alliansie.

Die hof se bevinding was dat die wetgewing wat gelei het tot die e-tolbesluitneming op ‘n wettige wyse en ingevolge die voorskrifte van Artikel 75 van die Grondwet geneem is.

Maar, na vyf uitsprake ten gunste van SANRAL, weier Duvenage steeds om die gesag van die howe te aanvaar en hou hy aan om burgerlike ongehoorsaamheid goed te praat. Hierby voeg hy vae en ongetoetste bewerings oor “onregmatighede” en sogenaamde “wangedrag.”

Mens sou verwag dat indien Duvenage en Outa oor bewyse van onreëlmatighede beskik het, dit al voor die howe sou gedien het, maar sulke getuienis is nooit gelei nie.

Outa geniet dit om die openbare mening op te sweep maar dit is nou duidelik dat hy nie die wet of die reg aan sy kant het nie. Outa het in die verlede aangetoon dat hul R13 miljoen vir hierdie hofsake moes insamel. Dit is nou tyd dat Outa aan sy ondersteuners en befondsers verduidelik waarom hulle aanhoudend geld in hierdie bodemlose put moet stort terwyl hofsaak na hofsaak verloor word. Nou hoop hul om nog R5 miljoen in te samel om die wettigheid van die projek waaroor reeds in die Hooggeregshof , Appelhof en Grondwetlike Hof beslis is, weer na die hof te neem.  Waarom sal dieselfde howe nou anders besluit?

Ongelukig het die hele debat rondom tol van die opgegradeerde paaie in Gauteng die fokus verskuif van waaroor dit werklik gaan, naamlik om ‘n funksionerende deurpadnetwerk vir Gauteng te skep wat ekonomiese groei en werkskepping bevorder. Die debat moet eerder gaan oor hoe befonds ons die konstruksie van die 150 km se nuwe deurpaaie wat die provinsie oor die volgende 15 jaar benodig. Ongelukkig is die vertragings en frustrasie wat motoriste daaglik beleef het voor die padopgradering nou reeds lank vergete.

Vusi Mona is die woorvoerder vir die SA Nasionale Padagentskap (SANRAL).

The route to funding roads

SANRALauthor1338views0comments

Nazir Alli

Everybody agrees – roads are vital. However, building and maintaining them require funding. At this point, disagreement starts. Must they be funded by those using them, or by everyone whether they use them or not? Is the best funding model the fuel levy, tolls, concessions, or treasury allocations?

There should be agreement that the fuel levy is not an option, especially in the context of pushing back the frontiers of inequality, although that’s what the general populists and dissenters keep punting. That leaves us with three options on the table.

First, some background. What is being funded? And how much is needed?

At some 750 000 km, South Africa has the tenth longest road network in the world. The 158 000 km of the network that is surfaced, 38% is considered to be in good condition, 36% in fair condition and 26% in poor condition. For the remaining 592 000 km of the network that is gravel, only eight percent is considered to be in good condition, 25% in fair condition and 67 % in poor condition.

These roads are controlled by national, provincial and municipal entities. The national routes fall under the Department of Transport through the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL). They make up just under 2, 85% (21 403 km) of the total of 750 000 km, and 13, 55% of the 158 000 km surfaced network. These are the identified strategic and primary routes on which the economy relies for growth and job creation.

It is expected that in the coming years SANRAL’s writ will reach 35 000 km.

Which brings us back to the question: how should this be funded? But look first at what is needed. To maintain the condition of our road network according to international norms, which allows for maximum 10% of a country’s network to be in poor condition at any one time, requires an estimated budget of R58 billion a year. Besides this annual requirement from all levels of government to maintain the roads they control, R197 billion is needed to catch up with the maintenance backlog (roads in poor condition referred to above) and improve all roads to an acceptable condition. In this respect, the national roads agency needs R20 billion.

Then there is the capacity-related backlog in and around our major metropolitan areas. These are the roads that are reaching their maximum capacity during peak hour, resulting in increased congestion which in turn contributes to driver frustration, decreased safety on the roads and negative economic consequences. To alleviate congestion, additional lanes or new roads need to be constructed. For this the national road agency needs further R120 billion.

These are massive sums of money and if one takes into account that currently some 87% of all goods and services in the country move by road, it is really important to keep road traffic moving. In the light of the needs elsewhere in the economy, it is unlikely that funding at that level will be forthcoming.

More context: of the 21 403 km under SANRAL’s jurisdiction, only 3 120 km are tolled. This year the treasury allocated R11, 9 billion to improve and maintain the remaining non-toll roads, which is being spent as follows: R4, 4 billion on maintenance and R7, 5 billion to strengthen, improve and provide new facilities on this network.

The fact is that the percentage growth in the length of roads that SANRAL has to manage is not matched by an equal percentage allocation increase from the treasury – which means the agency must be innovative, smart and very prudent with allocated funds.

If one looks at the quality of the SANRAL roads, with only 11% in poor condition, it is meeting its mandate.

Of the toll roads, the agency manages 1 832 km – which includes the inner Gauteng highways. The remaining 1 288 km are managed, developed and maintained by three private concessions on behalf of SANRAL.

It must be noted that all the road assets remain in the hands of the national roads agency, and those managed by concessionaires have to be returned in the specified condition at the end of the concession period.

So any talk of even partial privatisation is just hot air.

SANRAL also issues bonds to raise money from institutional investors on capital markets. The monies raised are used exclusively to invest in its toll roads portfolio. There was a temporary setback in this respect when the implementation of e-tolling was at first delayed, but at present investors are reacting positively to the agency’s bond issues.

Which then leaves the fuel levy, which currently is R2, 24 per litre of petrol and R2, 09 per litre of diesel, and generating an estimated R43, 7 billion rand of income for 2013/14 after rebates.

The allocation from treasury for the current year is as follows:
• National (SANRAL) – R11, 9 billion.
• Provinces – R9, 7 billion.
• Metros and Municipalities – R17, 7 billion.
• Public Transport Subsidies – R5, 7 billion.

This aggregate of about R45 billion is allocated by national treasury for transport-related expenditure, actually exceeding the income from the fuel levy. Important to remember is that since 1988 the fuel levy is channelled into the national tax pool, from where all government expenses are defrayed – it is not ring-fenced for transport-related expenditure only. This provides national treasury with more flexibility in addressing changing needs within our country.

But why not change the appropriate law and ring-fence the fuel levy for roads only?

There are many reasons why this will not and should not happen. Keeping in mind the large sums of money required for road construction and maintenance mentioned above, it is obvious that the levy would have to rise between R1, 35 and R2, 80 a litre, depending on time frames in which current backlogs should be addressed –and go up every year, in line with the consumer price index (CPI) thereafter to compensate for cost increases and the anticipated decrease in the consumption of fuel used by newer vehicles.

That will hit the poor really hard, given the long distances people have to travel to get to work, in Gauteng nearly 64% of commuters rely on mini-bus taxis – the preferred mode of the poor – which currently receives no transport subsidy, yet is exempt from e-tolling. Increasing the fuel levy may result in increasing pressure from the taxi industry for a transport subsidy.

An important toll principle is that those who use a road should directly pay for it – the direct user-pay principle. In simple terms, if you live in Springbok, you will not pay for the road between Johannesburg and Pretoria if it is a toll road.

Also, a cost-benefit study has shown that those in the higher income brackets will be paying some 94% of the passenger vehicle toll, that is, those who can afford it.

We need to understand that the e-tolling system enables different tariffs to the charged for time of day and day of week, providing a mechanism to reduce demand during peak hours and thus for costly capacity upgrades – something that is not possible with the fuel levy.

Going the fuel levy route or waiting for the treasury to find the considerable sums needed, has a very simple and too often over-looked consequence – it would be virtually impossible to deliver large infrastructure projects in short time periods when they are needed – due to a very high fuel levy that will be required to achieve this. It also encourages people not to use public transport.

Tolling makes it possible to raise loans immediately, complete the work in short time period and pay over time – and those who use the road in the future help to pay the debt. With the fuel levy the current generation needs to pay in full for infrastructure that has a 20- or 30-year life expectancy, which may result in less infrastructure than needed.

Trying to find another way to fund the needs to keep our national roads at the current standard, is difficult. The route we have taken is a practical one in response to current realities, although it does mean that under-funding is a constant. Should the fuel levy become the only funding model, we may be facing the risk of diverting funding from other much-needed services, such as education or health. We believe this would be devastating to our national development goals.

Nazir Alli is the Chief Executive Officer of SANRAL.

What is ‘right’ in a constitutional state?

SANRALauthor1112views0comments

By Anton van Niekerk

Not everything is going well in South Africa – to put it mildly. I am not going to list all of our worries: there are enough such lists.

A central aspect of many things that the citizenry is wrestling with the authorities about, is a concern about the sustained application of law and order, and in particular, respecting and upholding our liberal-democratic constitution.

The latter is central to the concern about crime, about corruption (think particularly about the President and parliament’s apparent disregard of the constitution regarding the Nkandla-affair), the worries over affirmative action and the struggle in rightwing circles over language rights for minority groups at universities. In all of these disputes we hear a continuing and wishful refrain: ”Respect the laws on our statute book and apply them. Respect the constitution.”

We are a constitutional state – a constitutional system typified by the rule of law, i.e. a government by laws and not people. The constitutional state in its liberal-democratic form is probably the most important and valuable institution of the modern world (that is, Western European civilization since 1600). Before that time (and sometimes during it) we saw what societies look like which are not ruled by laws, but people – almost without any exception, despotic.

Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini are a painful 20th century reminder. Many aspects of apartheid equally remind us of this. One should therefore think carefully in a constitutional state before one begins propagating and doing things which undermine central aspects of the rule of law. It is in this regard that, in my view, we have to think again about the widespread rejection of the e-toll system in Gauteng, as it is presently done under the leadership of OUTA. Whatever else can be said about this controversial system, there is no doubt that it was legally implemented.

Despite disagreements as to whether the public was consulted enough, the system was legally designed and promulgated by the Gauteng legislature [sic]. The system was not designed illegally and just thrust down people’s throats.

I am the first one to recognise people’s right not to like the system. In a democracy we should also have the right to protest (in a legal way) against it. It is very likely that a different form of tax could have reduced the burden on the Gauteng public or spread it more evenly. It is simply true that the poor who often live far from where they work and are reliant on public transport (which will inevitably become more expensive as a result of the new system) will be badly affected. All these things are true.

It is likely that we have a kind of road- and transport tax here which has not been thought through properly and could be improved significantly. The question remains, though: what are we as the public doing when, fired on by organisations like OUTA, the protest against the new system takes the form of completely refusing to participate in it? What implication does this have for the rule of law? What happens in a democratic society when the citizenry simply refuse to abide by promulgated laws made by legitimate legislative bodies (like the Gauteng legislature)?

For most people in Gauteng the shortcomings of the e-toll system are probably clear and thus the call to civil disobedience is acceptable and popular. But we have to consider this a little more. If such civil disobedience is in order, what else can it lead to? Are we really prepared for all the implications? What do we do, for example, when a substantial part of the poor people of South Africa, fired up by the EFF or some other group, simply starts confiscating property (not just farms) left and right for its own purposes. Do we then protest in the name of the rule of law and legitimate legislation on our statute book – particularly in the name of the constitutional article which now protects property rights? Why should the reliance on the rule of law and the legislation which exist in a constitutional state be in order in such a situation but not in our current situation when we ignore the laws that enforce e-tolls?

One of the most valid critical comments on apartheid is that that system undermined people’s respect for the law. There simply were too many discriminatory laws on the statute book for which the majority of the population had no respect and which consequently were less and less applied. Thus an alarming, widespread climate of disdain for legality and laws was created – something, particularly in the phenomenon of crime and corruption, we still see twenty years after democratisation.

With the reaction to e-toll, we now see in the new democratic South Africa exactly the same phenomenon: people do not take notice of laws and thus contribute (perhaps unintentionally) directly to a climate of undermining the constitutional state. In a democracy we do not have to agree with the government. We can protest against unfair and unworkable laws and regulations.

But heaven help us if, on a massive scale, we start taking the law into our hands.

Then we all lose, not just the government. Then it is the end for all of us. People who ignore valid laws (even if they are laws that should be removed or improved) must count the cost of what they are doing and seek change in other ways – as should happen in a constitutional state.

(Prof Anton van Niekerk is Director of the Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of Stellenbosch. The article appeared in Die Burger on Tuesday 14 October 2014)

How to keep SA roads on track

SANRALauthor1199views0comments

By Minister Dipuo Peters

The prospects for accelerated economic growth in South Africa and the capacity of the country’s infrastructure to support this, will rekindle the debate about how our roads should be financed in the future.

Unfortunately, this debate has, in recent years become bogged down in the mire of political contestation. People have taken entrenched positions about the “how” of funding, while the “why” questions have fallen by the wayside.

It might, therefore be an opportune time to lift this debate out of the current ebb and to conduct a more sober and rational exchange of views on the options and resources available to fund our much-needed road infrastructure.

Today South Africa has the best road highway network on the continent and the 10th largest in the world. However, the research shows that most of the freeways have reached their capacity and are simply getting clogged. The time spent in traffic jams during peak hours is extended every year – with the resultant knock-on effects on productivity, vehicle costs and carbon emissions.

Clearly, people want more and better quality roads. But the debate is raging on how do you fund the maintenance of the existing roads and pay for the construction of the much-needed future infrastructure.

A key feature of the first 20 years of democracy has been the roll-out of social infrastructure to address basic needs and redress the inherent inequalities within the society. The next phase, as indicated by Government’s multibillion investment programme, is to address economic infrastructure backlogs that have become constraints on economic growth.

The National Development Plan provides a good starting point for a new debate about the role played by road infrastructure in the country’s economic development and the need to consider various funding options. There is a broad agreement about the principles underlying the NDP among the bulk of the South African electorate, the political parties who represent their opinions and across the public and private sectors.

A fundamental question to consider is how do we deal with the enormous backlog in road maintenance and rehabilitation? The reality is that more than 75% of South Africa’s road network of nearly 750 000km is 20 years or older and that R150-billion is needed to address just the maintenance backlog.

When you add to this the requirements for new roads and rehabilitation, the monetary value of the road infrastructure backlog is estimated at R340-billion, about one third of the national budget.

The shift away from rail freight onto road over the past three decades has placed significant pressure on the road network and resulted in the deterioration of the pavement structures and major congestion within major urban areas. Our long term strategy is to reverse this trend and revive the rail freight sector, but the pressures on road infrastructure will remain for the foreseeable future.

Provincial road infrastructure has gradually deteriorated because of low levels of maintenance and rehabilitation. The South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) has taken over the responsibility for a number of provincial roads in the North West, the Eastern Cape and Limpopo but it will require significant future investments to restore these roads to acceptable levels and to ensure safe road conditions for its users.

The direct user-pay principle was introduced by SANRAL to arrive at a sustainable model for the financing of the national road network. In many circles the opposition appears to be not against the principle of user pay through toll roads – but about the specific method used on the Gauteng network.

After all, toll roads have been a feature of our road network on many highways since 1996 and the majority of road users have accepted it as a legitimate way of paying for infrastructure although they might raise objections about the specific fee structures.

The National Development Plan also supports the long term view that users must pay for the bulk of the costs of economic infrastructure. Quite correctly it qualifies this approach with the need for protection of the poor as well as the need for greater transparency regarding the full costs associated with services.

Another option is to grow the model of partnerships with the private sector where SANRAL issues concessions to private companies to finance, build, operate and maintain national roads while collecting toll fees. After a fixed period the roads revert back to SANRAL at no charge and in a specified condition.

Government has already indicated that it sees a bigger role for the private sector and development finance institutions to fund the multibillion rand infrastructure drive.

Strategic infrastructure programmes represent large and long-term financial commitments and state-owned companies are already making substantial investments to fund these projects from their own balance sheets. However, we also want to mobilise more funds from the private sector.

It is important to heed the warnings expressed by the Development Bank of Southern Africa in its recent (2012) report on the State of Economic Infrastructure: “… the failure to deliver the infrastructure required for the economy to grow will effectively act as a brake on an inclusive growth path in South Africa.”

It is quite clear that we need the private sector to help fund our infrastructure needs.

But we also need a mature debate on the models that are available, taking into account best practices and international experiences.

Dipuo Peters is the Minister of Transport.

The user-pay principle: it’s policy

SANRALauthor6721views0comments

By Anthony Julies

There has been much controversy surrounding the user-pay principle recently but the reasons for using it as the funding model for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) are sound and need to be underscored at this time when there is so much confusion on the subject in the public domain.

The user-pay principle – when it comes to the financing of roads through tolling – remains government policy. This decision is in alignment with government objectives to support public over private transport, find the right balance between socio- economic development and economic infrastructure, ensure equity in the allocation of resources, reduce inefficiencies arising from congestion and ensure long-term efficiency in spatial planning.

The vast majority of national roads (85% of the 21 403 km national road network) are in fact funded through the fiscus and the balance (15%) is funded through tolling.

However, it is accepted good fiscal practice that tax revenues should not be earmarked for specific purposes as this reduces the integrity of the budget process due to reduced transparency and accountability. As such, South Africa currently enjoys the reputation of being second on the Open Budget Index of the International Budget Partnership.

Cash raised by the fuel levy, often punted as an alternative to tolling, accrues to the national revenue account and is distributed through the normal budget process for government expenditure, which may (or may not) be used for road infrastructure and maintenance. It is not earmarked specifically for roads and to do so would not be prudent fiscal policy.

In fact, government’s allocation to transport and roads exceeds what is collected through the fuel levy. Research from the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) titled The State of South Africa’s Economic Infrastructure: Opportunities and Challenges 2012, categorically states this as a fact.

In order for the fuel levy to cover all costs of South Africa’s road network it would have to increase significantly.

The use of selective tolling, on the other hand, offers many advantages and e-tolling, where the process is fully automated, especially so. And it is not as if the tolls collected from motorists will flow directly into the pockets of foreign businessmen. SANRAL has a contract with ETC which designed, built and operates e-tolls in Gauteng, which stipulates that it will be paid for services rendered – not a retainer or a fixed contract fee.

All tolls go to SANRAL. ETC is paid for services on a monthly basis and the payment is strictly according to a bill of quantities as specified in the tender contract. Only dividends declared may be paid to the foreign companies involved – that is, after tax is paid in South Africa. And the Reserve Bank is satisfied that all foreign currency control regulations have been met.

Of every rand paid in tolls, only 17c goes to collection while 83 cent goes to a variety of needs – debt repayment, maintenance, operating the system plus value-added services such as the provision of tow trucks, improved lighting and stand-by medical assistance.

Add in the normal internal administrative costs, payment to service providers, plus salaries and only then can ETC declare a profit – if it makes one – part of which will go to the foreign partners.

Toll fees are calculated based on the cost of providing, maintaining and refurbishing that particular road. And don’t forget, almost the entire ETC workforce is South African and local service providers are used.

To disparage foreign investment as has been done, sends the wrong message – South Africa needs foreign investment, has to do its best to attract and keep it. Any other approach is beyond a disservice to the unemployed in the country.

The user-pay principle is also a much fairer system, because only those who choose to enjoy the benefits of the toll road pay for it, while those who do not, make no contribution. And it is to be noted that registered public transport, including busses and taxis, is exempted.

The model makes it possible to mobilise substantial capital resources upfront, usually through debt or public private partnership (PPP) arrangements.

In the case of debt, the government or its road implementing agency, raises a loan from domestic or international capital markets and builds the required road infrastructure. Depending on the ratings of the implementing agency and/or its government, the interest rate charged could be higher or lower. For example, if the country or agency borrowing has been downgraded, the interest rate is likely to be higher.

In the case of a PPP, capital is mobilised from the private sector, for a reasonable return on investment. The private sector is generally not enthusiastic about investing in infrastructure assets because of the inherent risk given the large upfront costs, political/policy uncertainties and long lead times from conception to delivery and revenue generation.

In South Africa, and with specific reference to a few select national roads, the private sector has demonstrated its willingness to share some of the financial burden of road infrastructure investment with government, for the right to collect toll fees for a specified period of time.

This has relieved the fiscus, as it makes resources that would otherwise have gone to roads, available for other needs consistent with government priorities. The overarching strategic themes of the current administration, as reflected in the 2014-19 Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF), are radical economic transformation and improving service delivery.

Given the limitations on government’s fiscus, and this is not unique to our country, South Africa does not have the luxury to shun private sector capital. Also, toll financing has the distinct advantage of providing infrastructure earlier than would have been possible with financing through general taxation. As a result, the benefit of increased roadway capacity is available to the public much sooner

Internationally, the user- pay principle is well-accepted and has been introduced in many jurisdictions, reflecting a simple philosophy that consumers must pay for the costs of the goods and services they consume. Monthly municipal bills for water and electricity have been based on the user-pay principle for decades. The more you consume the higher the tariff.

There are other tangible benefits that are a reality because of the improvements flowing from the GFIP. For businesses there is the improved level of access and the reduction in transport times. Motorists will experience lower wear and tear on their vehicles because the world-class road surface and improvements in productivity will help to grow the provincial economy with a knock-on effect into the region. A reduction in traffic congestion will also result in reduced occurrences of vehicle accidents and thereby further alleviating pressures on the health budget.

When implementing the user- pay principle these are the things government took into consideration. Those who accuse us of being careless and not considering all the options will do well to examine international best practice when it comes to funding roads. We remain convinced that the user- pay principle remains the most equitable and sustainable way of funding projects such as the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project. Selectively and carefully applied in a manner that cushions the economically vulnerable, it can speed up the delivery of infrastructure and contribute meaningfully toward placing our economy on a higher growth trajectory.

Anthony Julies works for Treasury and is a member of SANRAL’s Board of Directors.

Tolling is the most sustainable way to raise funds for highway maintenance and upkeep

SANRALauthor1294views0comments

By Sipho Madonsela

The phantom arguments about the alleged virtues in funding the construction of the Gauteng Freeway project through the fuel levy as opposed to e-tolling continue to be raised. After more than four years of rehashing the same arguments over and over, opponents of e-tolling have not moved the debate any closer to a conclusion.

Neither will raising the volume or launching personal attacks on the integrity of the national government improve the quality of the argument. It is time to move on beyond the debate or South Africa will be the loser.

One myth that is being perpetuated about the introduction of open-road tolling in Gauteng is that it was a whimsical decision taken by government without the consideration of alternative options. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality both the government and SANRAL, as the implementing agency, spent a considerable amount of time and consulted widely with industry leaders, economists, engineers, technical experts, and the Gauteng Provincial Government.

The latest stance taken by the Gauteng Provincial Government is unfortunate. During the mid 1990’s, the provincial government investigated tolling as an option to upgrade and expand freeways in Gauteng. The impact of traffic congestion on the province’s ability to sustain economic growth was already identified at that stage as a major constraint.

Over a period of about three years, the Gauteng Province together with SANRAL explored the implementation of the project as a concession project. An unsolicited proposal received in accordance with SANRAL’s policy on Unsolicited Bids was entertained as a public, private partnership (PPP). This proposal was found to be unacceptable for, inter alia, the tariffs to be charged to the motorist. The Gauteng Provincial Government initiated the project, including proposing provincial legislation to implement toll roads.

In the end, a decision was taken by Cabinet after weighing up all the evidence and considering the specific needs and requirements of Gauteng that SANRAL would implement the project and the method of funding would be tolling.

A hike in the fuel levy was considered but in the end it did not pass the requirements of equity and sustainability.

The fuel levy is a nationally raised tax. Government took a considered decision that taxes raised at a national level should go into a single revenue pool, administered by the Treasury, from where allocations are made in the annual to national departments provinces, municipalities and government agencies. The money collected from the fuel levy is not ring-fenced for roads, in terms of government’s fiscal policies and SANRAL is not involved in its collection or administration.

The fact is that hiking the fuel levy is not the most sustainable and cost-effective way to fund improvements and upkeeps to the Gauteng Roads. A recent study by the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation shows that a fuel levy has several disadvantages.

First, it does not keep up with inflation. Second, increased fuel prices plus a lagging economy will result in slower traffic volume growth. Third, hybrid and more fuel efficient vehicles – and the emergence of electric cars – will, over time, result in lower fuel sales.

The cumulative effect of these factors is that the income from the fuel levy will decline over time.

It would be easy for government to add another R1 or more across the board to the fuel price, so goes the argument. For certain pressure groups with a narrow interest in a predominantly urban economy, this has become the option of choice but they fail to spell out the implications to the rest of the country’s citizens.

Why should a motorist in Mahikeng or Kakamas, or Cape Town – for that matter – have to fork out an extra amount per litre every time he fills up at the pump? Why should he pay for upgrades to a road connecting Pretoria to Johannesburg if it is unlikely that he will ever make use of this road? What will the cumulative impact be on inflation when transport companies, distributors and retailers start to hike their prices to cater for higher fuel prices? Why should poorer communities who usually own older or less fuel-efficient vehicles subsidise the rich? And why should users of public transport – taxis and buses – pay more when fares are raised – while the e-toll system has the flexibility to exempt registered owners of such vehicles from paying?

Clearly to use the fuel levy as a funding model for the upkeep and improvement of our road network is neither equitable, nor fair, nor sustainable.

Toll roads have been operational in South Africa for more than two decades. The overwhelming majority of road users would agree that the construction and maintenance of our world-class highway network would not have been possible without the income derived from the toll roads that are managed by SANRAL together with private sector concessionaires.

The more rational opponents of e-tolling agree that the new upgraded Gauteng road network is a significant improvement on the old roads and has led to improvements in safety, efficiency, productivity and time spent in traffic.

But, the inevitable question is how do you pay for better roads that bring major benefits to the hub of our country’s economic activities?

Open road tolling on the Gauteng freeway network did not introduce a new principle for South African road users. It merely provides for a modern method to collect tolls on busy highways where road users don’t have to stop or pass through boom gates, resulting in the inevitable delays, time wasting and traffic snarl-ups.

Despite the claims that the e-toll system leads to inflated costs because of built-in costs of collection, the reality is that the costs are not as high as the detractors claim.

The cost of toll collection is only 17c for every rand received. This means that 83c in the rand is ploughed back directly into the maintenance and upkeep of the road network.

Tolling is equitable, sustainable and sensible.

Sipho Madonsela is a member of SANRAL’s Board of Directors.