Dear Sanral
It can’t be that you’re unaware of the widespread opposition to e-tolls from almost all sectors of society, so perhaps you had a blonde moment when you issued the following statement last week:
“The South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) welcomes the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) statement that it is not opposed to the improvement of the country’s national roads.
“It clears the air and means that Outa supports the advantages of these improvements: reducing congestion, improving travelling time, enhancing safety on our busiest roads, improving road safety – in short, making it easier and better to travel on these roads.”
Really, Sanral? So Outa saying it supports road improvements means it supports e-tolls?
I wonder if you thought this press release would make you look like the good guys. If so, you’re more out of touch with reality than we thought, so let me clear the air.
Every road user supports the improvement of the national roads. In fact, we support it wholeheartedly, and while we’re at it, we wouldn’t mind someone fixing the dangerously potholed roads that used to be viable alternatives so that we could avoid the existing toll gates on national roads. You know, the roads whose upkeep was supposed to be paid for from the taxes and fuel levy we already pay.
THE REAL PROBLEM
For the record, motorists are okay with paying for smooth new First-World roads. Really. What we’re opposed to is paying much more than we should to fund an ill-conceived and colossally expensive electronic tollgate system, which has some murky hidden agenda with overseas beneficiaries in contracts you won’t show us, when a fuel levy would be much cheaper.
Yes, we know how nobly you defend the “user pays” principle, but we ask why we can’t fund Gauteng freeway improvements with a dedicated Gauteng fuel levy.
We already charge different fuel prices in different parts of the country, so the mechanism to deal with this exists, and it is surely easier to manage than trying to hunt down the millions of motorists who will refuse to buy e-tags.
After failing in your charm offensive to get motorists to support e-tolling, it seems you’re now hauling out the big stick.
We see you’re threatening legislation that will allow you to fine motorists who don’t have e-tags without first sending them an invoice informing how much they owe in e-toll fees.
This means a road user could be fined for failing to pay within a time period stipulated on an invoice that hasn’t been sent. Let me know how that works out.
THAT’S RICH...
It was also interesting how you criticised Outa last week for accepting the DA’s R1 million donation to cover the legal costs of fighting e-tolling, saying it proved Outa was a front for a political party.
That’s rich coming from an organisation that, with the backing of its political masters, has been using taxpayers’ money to oppose Outa (and the taxpayers it represents) in court. At least fight fair.
And while we’re at it, not all of the expensive freeway improvements you’ve made have been for the better. The Gillooly’s interchange in Bedfordview, for instance, used to run much more smoothly before you fiddled with it – particularly the N3 north filtering on to the R24 east. Now it’s characterised by long, slow queues at almost any time of day.
As for the hypercongested William Nicol off-ramp, I humbly suggest the traffic jam could be alleviated by building a new freeway exit on to Main Road.
But that’s just the opinion of little old me. It probably doesn’t matter what I say because, as usual, I’ll meekly allow myself to be financially raped without putting up a fight. In no way am I a ticking time bomb.
Sincerely
Average Motorist