The Advisory Panel on the Socioeconomic Impact of E-tolls has continued to ask hard questions of the Department of Transport (DoT) and the South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) around the feasibility of the unpopular user-pays tolling system and the extent to which tariff costs are passed on to the commuting consumer.

The advisory panel had been tasked by Gauteng Premier David Makhura to investigate the socioeconomic impact of the tolling system on the province and was expected to submit a final report and list of recommendations to the Gauteng provincial government by November 30.

On the second day of submissions by the government entities in defence of the e-toll system as a funding mechanism for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, the panel revealed that it had received earlier submissions from freight operators and taxi associations outlining that they had been forced to pass on the additional cost of e-tolls to the consumer.

Road freight firms submitted that the e-toll tariff burden had resulted in price increases in the goods they transported, while taxis that did not qualify for exemptions had directly increased prices charged to commuters.

“Taxi associations are saying that they have to increase prices and commuters [appear to be] caught in the middle.

“All things go against your view that you want the consumer not to be affected, but at the end of the day, they are affected, as prices go up in supermarkets as freight prices rise.

“[We] need to ensure that the intended beneficiaries [of e-tolls] don’t get the short end of the stick, which is what seems to be happening right now,” a panel member told DoT acting director-general Mawethu Vilana and Sanral CEO Nazir Alli during proceedings on Tuesday.

Vilana suggested, however, that freight companies that added the e-toll tariff costs to the end price of a road-freighted product were acting “unscrupulously”.

“Business can claim back value-added tax from e-tolls… and it is a business expense… so this [is more a matter] of business ethics,” he commented.

Further questions directed at the DoT centered around the issue of unlicensed taxis and a backlog in the issuing of taxi operating licences, which resulted in commuter vehicles that did not qualify for e-toll tariff exemptions.

The panel asked if Sanral and the DoT had “done enough work to fully appreciate the complexity of the situation”.

Vilana argued that, while neither the DoT nor Sanral were responsible for the permitting of public transport vehicles, the issue had been recognised and work was under way in this regard.

“By no means are we not trying to address the issue, [but] 47 305 taxis are registered e-toll users, so it’s the bulk [of taxis]. [But] it’s not an e-tolls problem,” he noted.

The panel also expressed concern that e-toll gantries appeared to be located along routes used daily by low-income earners that resided in outlying areas, rather than along roads in traditionally higher-income areas.

“Why are there no gantries in Houghton, Melrose or Sandton, but those that are forced to travel to Johannesburg from outlying areas, such as Springs, have to pass under a bunch of gantries?” one panelist asked.

The DoT and Sanral, however, defended the placement of gantries along the province’s freeways, outlining that each had been placed strategically.

Vilana was, meanwhile, compelled to respond to a comment on the “posture” that had been adopted by the DoT and Sanral during their submissions, adding that “we’re not being defensive”.

“The spirit we came here [with] was to share information and if it has come out in any other way, I must apologise, as we have no reason to defend anything,” he noted.

National Treasury was expected to make submissions to the panel later on Wednesday, while Sanral would make further submissions on Thursday.