Pro-poor case is irrational – Outa

THE OPPOSITION to Urban Tolling Alliance (Outa) has challenged e-toll economist Dr Roelof Botha to a public debate on whether e-tolling really benefited poor people.

During a submission this week on behalf of the SA National Roads Agency (Sanral) at the Gauteng e-toll review panel, Botha said people who used public transport or those who did not pay income tax must “shut up” about e-tolls.

He said poor people and those who used public transport benefited from e-tolls because it saved them money and travel time. The economist said that if the fuel levy were used to pay for roads, it would translate into poor people paying 35 times more.

In response to Botha’s statements, Outa said Botha needed to engage with his critics to turn down the anger generated by the choice of words he used.

“Dr Botha has recharged the debate with emotion, projecting his frustration in a grossly misdirected manner. Quite frankly, he has done Sanral’s case for e-tolling more harm than their critics ever could,” said Outa spokesman John Clarke.

The alliance said the 8.4:1 benefit-to-cost ratio had been used many times by Sanral’s economists, but they questioned why that had not been tested in a live environment since the freeway upgrade was completed three years ago.

The logic provided in the economic benefit argument by Botha implied that time spent in traffic was a direct loss of salary or earning potential to the road user, Outa said.

Conversely, Botha’s argument suggested that if one arrived earlier to work in the morning or home in the evening, the road user actually earned more money/salary in the bank.

“It is an argument as irrational as trying to place a rand value on love, dignity or altruism,” said Outa chairman Wayne Duvenage.

Clarke said that if Botha believed e-tolling was pro-poor, they (Botha and Outa) needed to have a debate on the issue.

‘He’s done Sanral’s case for e-tolling more harm’