South African Government Joins Road Tolls Case
- May
- 17
- 2012
- Posted by MDACC
- Posted in Taxation Blog
South Africa’s National Treasury has applied for leave to intervene in the application currently before the North Gauteng High Court for an interdict against the levying and collection of tolls on the improved Gauteng Freeway system.
The application for an interdict was brought by an alliance of transport and consumer groups led by the Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance (OUTA), against the South African National Roads Agency Ltd (SANRAL) and the Minister of Transport, amongst others.
The Minister of Finance has now instructed the National Treasury to seek leave to join the case in view of the significance of this matter for the State’s financing of road infrastructure and the integrity and sustainability of the public finances.
In a media statement, the government recorded that it decided in 2007, in terms of provisions of the South African National Roads Agency Act and after extensive planning and consultation, to finance the construction and maintenance of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) system through an electronic tolling system.
The GFIP, one of SANRAL’s largest projects to date, comprises different phases to upgrade and implement new freeway networks. The ultimate freeway network will be 560km, but Phase 1 comprises the upgrading of 185km of the most congested freeways in Gauteng, and is nearing completion. The Gauteng ‘e-road’ will be the country’s first multi-lane free-flow toll system using electronic toll collection, which is scheduled to begin on April 30, 2012.
However, after considering public representations during 2011 regarding the original level of tolls proposed, the government agreed that a fiscal contribution of ZAR5.75bn (USD730m) should be made to the project. This, it was said, has allowed the average toll charge per km to be reduced significantly, provided that road-users participate in the e-tolling system.
The National Treasury has explained that “the principal reason behind tolling certain roads is the need, in the interests of economic growth and development, for major arterial routes to be constructed and maintained to engineering standards and specifications that cannot be afforded or justified for the entire road system. These routes are those which carry the heaviest traffic load in the country, and serve as critical economic corridors for both freight and personal travel purposes.”
SANRAL itself has pointed out that as insufficient financial resources are available to implement capital intensive projects (such as the GFIP), the most equitable way to pay for the road improvements is through a ‘user-pay’ principle.
In the case of the Gauteng freeway network, it has been argued that rising traffic volumes and the resulting congestion costs to users are also a further argument for the recovery of costs through toll charges.
The National Treasury has concluded that the benefits to road users of improved safety, lower travel time and lower operating costs substantially exceed the proposed toll charges. “Based on the current toll proposals, which exempt taxi operators and other public transport services, higher income users will account for over 95% of toll revenue,” the Treasury says.
The government therefore believes that there would be serious negative implications for the future financing of roads and investment in public transport, were SANRAL to be interdicted from implementing the toll collection system.
It has also expressed concern at the possible effect on SANRAL’s capacity to repay its debt, which is partially guaranteed by government.
Seeking to join the respondents to the application, the National Treasury will argue that the interdict should be denied and the implementation of toll collection should be permitted to proceed, as has been decided by the government and in keeping with the provisions of the SANRAL Act.
On the other hand, the aim of OUTA, while supporting the need for the GFIP, is to halt the proposed funding of the GFIP by means of e-tolling, which is regarded as “an inefficient, costly and unnecessary additional burden on road users,” who already pay through a number of taxes for the benefit of road use”.
TAXtalk: www.taxtalkblog.com
All material subject to our Legal Disclaimers.
Recent Posts
- Tax evaders should face jail time to curb rising non-compliance – Judge Dennis Davis 15/04/2021
- ASA Newsletter April 2021 – Article by Dave Rich 14/04/2021
- Domestic employees will now be entitled to compensation if they are injured or contract diseases while on duty 12/04/2021
- POPIA – ARE YOU READY? 08/04/2021
- Justice on 100 day countdown to be POPIA compliant 30/03/2021
- 2021/2022 MD Tax Card is now available!!! 16/03/2021
- Extended COVID-19 TERS relief for certain categories of employees 10/03/2021
- MD Accountants & Auditors Inc. | Budget 2021 25/02/2021
- MD’s Current News | February 2021 23/02/2021
- MD Accountants & Auditors Inc – Section 12J Webinar 16/02/2021
- Trusts welcome DTIC Minister Patel’s support for ownership schemes 15/02/2021
- FORFEITURE OF SEVERANCE PAY 12/02/2021
- MD’s Top Tax Savings Tips – Ahead of the Budget on 24 February 2021!!! 11/02/2021
- UIF launches e-compliance certificate system 10/02/2021
- MD’s Top Tax Savings Tips ahead of the Budget on 24th February 09/02/2021
- Potential taxes to fund the vaccine. Be prepared and plan now before the Budget! 08/02/2021
- Employment Equity Amendment Bill described as a “game-changer” 03/02/2021
- Are you being sold a dubious B-BBEE share option scheme? Hear what the B-BBEE Commission has to say… 01/02/2021
- FILING SEASON 2020: DEADLINE FOR ONLINE FILERS EXTENDED 29/01/2021
- Businesses reminded of City support to offer relief 26/01/2021
- 2nd 2021 Provisional Tax Information Request 18/01/2021
- Changes to the South African Exchange Control Rules 13/01/2021