Is the carbon tax route taken worth it?

This is for all those who are thinking of buying a new car using their bonuses this December.

Come September and you will start paying some extra monies for any new car you buy. Why you ask? Our government is introducing a carbon Tax....this is done to discourage you from driving a car....lol not necessarily, but to discourage you buying vehicles that omits more dirt on our beautiful skies and atmosphere. Basically, the tax will be based on the new vehicle's certified CO2 emission at R75 per g/Km for each g/km above 120 g/km. This emissions tax will be in addition to the current ad valorem luxury tax on new vehicles. According to experts, with the addition of 14 percent VAT, the tax rate will increase to R85.50 per gram per kilometre.

This means vehicles such as Toyota Prius which are less polluting will cost lesser than say an Isizu KB bakkie. But remember, this are only for new cars only which have left a lot of car sellers asking why don't the government instead encourages the scrapping of old cars which are "by world standards, ageing and getting older by the year".

Besides Lloyd's concerns other concerns which have been raised are;

• Automakers are incensed that the tax will apply to bakkies, claiming it will make South Africa the first country in the world to do this. The reason is that clearly defined standard to measure CO2 emissions by bakkies did not exist.
• National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa (Naamsa) though it accepts in principle, argues that the tax will push vehicle prices up by about 2%, and that this additional tax burden amounts to about R1,2-billion a year, based on 2010 projected new car sales (The national treasury estimates the tax will net R450-million in the financial year 2010/11)
• Absent of legislation and incentivising of the introduction of Euro IV enabling 'green' fuel in South Africa;
• Fears in the Eastern Cape motoring industry that the move could threaten jobs, cripple future sales growth and plunge the industry straight back into a financial crisis - The government's response was that this did not contradict its second industrial policy action plan;
• Concerns that the tax may not be used to promote green technology but to serve as another means of revenue source.

Whether the carbon tax route taken is worth it or not, one thing remains.....Best carbon tax must target emissions cuts, ‘not raising revenue’

Picture Source: Here

Will degraced CEO be fired in other government positions they hold?

Yesterday The Star reported that if anyone at the Road Traffic Management Corporation is fingered for corruption (one wonders if the report he just received did not) we face the music. We know that the CEO among others approved salary increases in excess of approved limits as reported here. Other allegations include;

• Spending R4.5-million on provincial workshops, when only R1.5-million had been budgeted for the purpose
• Entering into a 10-year R658-million lease for nine office blocks, only two of which are currently being used for a staff component of 144
• Blowing R1.3-million of RTMC funds for the hire of private suites at Ellis Park and Loftus Versfeld during the Confederations Cup
• The purchase by the CEO of a Audi A4 for personal use, using RTMC funds, despite receiving a hefty car allowance

The questions that we should be asking ourselves is if whether he is going to pay all those monies that he misspent back to the organisation? Secondly, are those that also received salary increases they did not deserve going to pay back? What about the Board of Directors who let the CEO run as he wishes, will they pay back as well?

What also disturbs me is the fact that these CEOs who have been found to have misused taxpayer's monies are also board members in other state run companies. Take for instance, the CEO of SAA was found to have been seating on 20 boards on average of which t

hree are subsidiaries of SAA. The question is will be be fired on these positions?

sydney: an "independent inquiry" on public transport

For Urban Planners in Johannesburg or in any major cities in South Africa, take note. This article here that appeared on Human Transit is relevant for the South African major cities. We have been singing about integration for a while now....what is needed is ACTION, which we seems to be lacking. I was disappointed when the Gautrain and its buses (which is the latest project) was never forced to be integrated with the current existing public transport.

Other difficulties that were mentioned in this report that is similar to challenges we are facing at home is competing modes of public transport. We can not continue to have this especially when subsidies amounts are decreasing year after year, in real terms.

For the last four months, I've been part of a team looking at the big-picture problems of public transport in Sydney, sponsored but not controlled by the city's main newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald. We released the draft report today, so I can finally talk about it.

Transport has been an area of controversy in Sydney for years. The state government (which is responsible for most planning and infrastructure) has developed a pattern of announcing major rail projects only to cancel them a year or two later, leaving the impression that there is no big-picture strategy or integrated plan. Sydney also suffers from a lack of co-ordination among different transit providers. Plenty of people work on planning better buses, or better ferries, or better trains, but not many people are responsible for planning a single transit system where all these services work together, nor do they have the power to make it happen.

The public transport task in Sydney is huge. The metro population is around 4.4 million and headed for 6 million in 30 years, so a difficult density-vs-sprawl debate is ongoing. Sydney has an exceptionally dense Central Business Disrict (CBD), where more than 70% of workers currently arrive on public transit. This doesn't mean transit is wonderful, only that driving is worse. All-day parking in the city can cost over$60/day.

When it comes to public transit, Sydney seems stuck. Over the last decade, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth have seen dramatic ridership growth, but Sydney's has been flat, and the public view of Sydney's current transit offering is decidedly negative. Public transit in Sydney is seen as an unfortunate necessity, not as a positive feature of a vibrant global city.

Our project was led by Ron Christie, a former Coordinator General for Rail and former head of the Roads and Traffic Authority, who will always be remembered as the successful director of transport services for Sydney's 2000 Olympic Games. Ron convened a diverse group of academics, consultants, and retired public servants to conduct the inquiry, and the draft report -- almost 500 riveting pages -- has now landed firmly in the public domain, with a large splash in the weekend Herald and local television coverage on Saturday. The report, or any chapter, can be downloaded here.

Readers in other parts of the world may be shocked at the obviousness of what we recommend, because most of it consists of best practices that cities all over the world are following, but where Sydney has fallen behind:

• Public Transport over Roads. The Inquiry finds that the Government's recent priority on increasing road capacity into the City makes little sense, either technically or politically. Technically, increased road capacity simply delivers private cars into the city faster than the city streets can absorb them. More remarkably, the public understands this, and is ready to halt major road investment. The Inquiry included a statistically valid public survey of 2400 residents, conducted through the University of Technology at Sydney, finding overwhelming support for public transport rather than roads as the main investment priority.
• Governance. (Chapter 6) Public transit, we argue, needs to be run by a public transit agency with a bit of distance from the daily to-and-fro of state government, and with control over all the key pieces of the puzzle, including fare policy, network planning, quality control, infrastructure investment. We suggest calling this agency Transport for Sydney, in honor of the Transport for London model.
  
• Fare Integration. (Chapter 3) Sydney is one of few developed-world cities that charges a new full-fare every time you make a connection. This has prevented the design of simple, frequent services that could form a versatile network. Instead, we have bus lines that duplicate train lines, too many buses crowding into the CBD, and not enough crosstown or orbital services into the many other employment and activity centers around greater Sydney.
• Major Rail Investment Priorities. (Chapter 2) Government in the last three years has become enamored with the driverless metro, similar to Vancouver's Skytrain. Unfortunately, proposals for this excellent technology have come into conflict with the need to protect and enhance the extensive rail system that already exists: an electrified commuter rail network, with extensive subway stations in the CBD, that could itself become more like a metro if it were managed to deliver higher all-day frequencies. Much of the hard work of the Inquiry has been in taking apart the "metro" idea, identifying all the ways that the existing rail system can do the same thing, and thus determining where entirely new metro lines really do make sense.
• Short Term and Continuous Improvement. The inquiry devotes Chapter 4 to all the little things that can be done now, or soon, to make things better, including rail frequency increases, bus restructuring, new information systems, and a range of other low-cost changes that would transform transit's usefulness even as the city waits for the big rail investments to come.
• Finance. (Chapter 5). Finally, we know how to pay for it all. The public survey explored in detail the public's willingness to pay new taxes and user fees, including household levies, fares, CBD congestion charges, and carbon taxes on petrol (fuel). Finance experts from Allen Consulting laid out a financial plan showing how these sources, at levels that got majority support in the survey, could add up to the total cost of capital, operations, and financing for the 30-year program of transit improvements.

I did much of writing in the chapters on fare integration and short term improvement, and took the lead on bus network planning, but the entire Inquiry represents both Ron's view and the result of spirited debate within the group.

Sooner or later, some state government is going to implement most of these recommendations, because they are in line with what most similar cities around the world have found they need to do. Even here in Australia, Brisbane, Melbourne, and Perth all have integrated fares, and Brisbane and Perth also have the semi-autonomous urban transit agency that we recommend.

Obviously, there's a lot here, and I hope Sydney's many opinion leaders will take the time to digest it. Sydney has seen a lot of grand plans, but this one is unusual in the level of effort, the sponsorship of a major newspaper, and the detailed research about the public's willingness to pay. It might lead somewhere. I hope it helps someone get home.

Catering for the pedestrian

Any person who have walked/driven around Johannesburg will know about situations where property owners don't cater for pedestrians by putting gardens from the edge of their yards until to the pavement of the road. This is not good for those who depends on public transport and should be discouraged by the municipalities. Likewise, those who put sidewalks should be encouraged. Any ideas how we can do that?

Getting blocked on a bus not Ayoba!

For those who have been following me on my previous Public Transport Blog will remember the buses which have two entrances. Well, I just experienced the disadvantages of having a bus with one entrance and luckily I recorded the event on my wife's cell phone. To see the video, please click here

How bribery put our lives at risk in our roads.

This Sunday I had a great time with my wife and my sister's family at the annual Discovery Radio 702 Walk the Talk at Emmarentia. What I love about this event is that one is able to spend a quality time with family while having fun and exercising. In addition to that, through one's participation one is able to offer disadvantaged children an opportunity to be someone through some monies that goes to the charity. Because the event is open for everyone, some companies enter as a team and this gives them a chance to market themselves.

For the first time this year, besides Shout SA (which advocates for Crime Free SA) I also saw an organisation that is advocating for safer roads in South Africa and the mobilise were asking for everyone to put a signature for their support. Though I did not really see who they are but I recall seeing the AAs, so my guess is that it was AARTO, which is the The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences. But anyway, whoever they were does not have to do anything with this topic, what I want to talk about is the rife bribery that is happening in our Licensing department and the traffic officers.

Perhaps I may start by defining what a bribery is. A bribe a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. In our licensing department, it is well known that it takes months for one to book to write a leaner's license and then months again to test for a driver's license. And what is worse, if you do not have the monies to bribe a tester your chances of failing are almost 100%, irrespective of how a good driver you are. It is no wonder Magistrate Daniel Thulare said that learners who had been struggling to make an appointment for a driver's licence test should not be held criminally liable for driving without a licence once their learner's had expired. Our Minister of Transport, whose department is falling into pieces because of their inability to manage our roads/subsidies and our licensing institutions said Thulare's comments were "disconcerting, misleading and totally unethical".

In a country where roads death accounted for about 14 200 of the 1.3 million road deaths annually worldwide in 2008, this is unacceptable. It is a fact that some causes of these accidents are as a result of people not being fully trained for driving because it does not matter whether you know how to drive or not, what matters is if you have the R2500.00 to bribe the testers. Another contributing factor is the fact that traffic officers, increasingly ignore the road worthiness of the cars after getting a bribe. What is even more worse is that it is already a culture that a traffic officer get bribed

or else he will give you a ticket. It is no wonder that our world ranking on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is going down every year. For instance, in 1999 we were ranked number 34 alongside Tunisia. We beat countries like the Czech Republic, Italy and Argentina. In 2007,we came number number 43, just behind the Czech Republic and Italy at 41 while Tunisia jumped to number 61.

Did I just hear you saying how bribing a traffic officer actually put my life at a risk? Consider the following scenario. You are coming from a club early one morning and you are stopped by traffic officers who ask you for your driving license. After taking a long look at you and having been satisfied that you are the real owner of the license and that it is not a fake, they ask you to take a breathalyser test which you fail. He tells you that he is "hungry" and knowing what he means you then give him a R50.00 and he lets you off the hook.

You then get into your car and off you go but as you turn right into your home street you knock off a kid who was trying to cross the street. So for R50.00, you paid the life of a kid who has not tested what life is. Some people will say it was her time to go, but I don't think that's the case. You would have killed her and even if they call it culpable homicide the fact of the matter is you not suppose to drink and drive.

So when you bribe next time, do it at your own peril.

what does transit do about traffic congestion?

An interesting discussion about congestion is happening here and I thought you may be interested.

Now and then, someone mentions that a particular transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that was evidence of failure. Years ago, politicians and transit agencies would sometimes say that a transit project would reduce congestion, though most are now smart enough not to make that claim.

To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, no transit project or service has ever been the clear direct cause of a substantial drop in traffic congestion. So claiming that a project you favor will reduce congestion is unwise; the data just don't support that claim.

To my knowledge, and again correct me if I'm wrong, there are exactly three ways for a city to reduce its traffic congestion measurably, quickly, and in a lasting way. (Widening roads is not one of these ways, because its benefit to traffic congestion is temporary unless new development in the road's catchment is completely and permanently banned.)

1. Economic collapse. Traffic congestion tends to drop during economic slowdowns, because fewer people have jobs to commute to, or money to spend on discretionary travel. A complete economic collapse, which causes people to move away from a city in droves, is always a lasting fix for congestion problems!
   
2. Reduction of road capacity. Ever since the demise of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, it's been pretty clear that if you reduce road capacity for private vehicles, traffic will drop in response. Destroying the Embarcadero Freeway didn't reduce congestion on the parallel surface streets, but it didn't increase it much either. If you reduce road capacity, the remaining capacity is still congested, but this can still be called a reduction in congestion -- especially if you use standard highway metrics like "lane miles of congested roadway."
3. Correct pricing of road space. Congestion is the result of underpricing. If you give away 500 free concert tickets to the first 500 people in line, you'll get 500 people standing in line, some of them overnight. These people are paying time to save money. Current prevailing road pricing policy requires all motorists to act like these frugal concertgoers. Motorists are required to pay for road use in time, rather than in money, even though some would rather do the opposite and our cities would be safer and more efficient if they could. Current road pricing policy requires motorists to save money, a renewable resource, by expending time, the least renewable resource of all.

So if transit isn't a cause of reduced congestion, what is its role? Do transit advocates offer nothing in response to congestion problems that have many voters upset? In fact, transit's role is essential, but its effect is indirect.

• Transit raises the level of economic activity and prosperity at a fixed level of congestion. Congestion appears to reach equilibrium at a level that is maddeningly high but that can't be called "total gridlock." At that level, people just stop trying to travel. If your city is car-dependent, that limit becomes the cap on the economic activity -- and thus the prosperity -- of your city. To the extent that your city is dependent on transit, supported by walking and cycling, economic activity and prosperity can continue to grow while congestion remains constant.
• Transit enables people who can't drive to participate in economic life. This includes the disabled and seniors of course, but also the poor. During the US welfare reform debate in 1994-96, government began raising pressure on welfare recipients to seek and accept any employment opportunity. For the very poor living in car-dependent cities, the lack of commuting options became a profound barrier to these job placements. This is really an element of the previous point, since all employment, even of the poor, contributes to prosperity. But this has independent force for government because unemployed people consume more government services than employed people do. This benefit of transit should always be described in terms of economic efficiency, as I've done here, rather than appealing to pity or to alleged "economic rights," as social-service language often implicitly does. The appeal of the social service argument is just too narrow, especially in the US.
• Transit-dependent cities are generally more sustainable than car-dependent cities. They cover less land and tend to have fewer emissions both per capita and per distance travelled. The walking that they require is also better for public health, which produces further indirect economic benefits in reduced healthcare costs.
• Intense transit service is essential for congestion pricing. Congestion pricing appears to be the only effective and durable tool for ensuring free-flowing roads while maintaining or growing prosperity. Congestion pricing always causes mode shift toward public transit, so quality public transit, with surplus capacity, must be there for a pricing plan to be credible.
• Surface exclusive transit lanes (for buses, rail, and arguably two-wheelers and taxis) improve the performance of emergency services. This argument should be much more prominent, because even the most ardent car-lover will understand it. Few things are more distressing than to see an emergency vehicle stuck in traffic, sirens blaring. When confronted with this, all motorists do their best to help. But if the entire width of a street or highway is reserved for cars (moving or parked), and is therefore capable of being congested, it can be impossible to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle even if every motorist present has the best of intentions. Emergency response should be one of the strongest and most obvious cases for surface transit lanes. Motorists understand the need to drop to a low speed in school zones, to protect the life of every single child. Why do we not accept come degree of delay to save a child who may be dying somewhere else, because the ambulance is stuck in traffic?

As far as possible, please present your comments as proposed amendments or additions to what I've written here. I would like to polish my own view on this fundamental question, with the benefit of your thoughts.

Night Transport - From the Old Blog

Just yesterday while going home a thought came to me about public transport at night. I wondered if there is any study done to determine the economic contribution of jobs performed at night. Jobs that came into my mind are those done by electricians, waiters and waitresses, security personnel, etc. I then also wondered how the unavailability of unscheduled or scheduled public transport have any negative contribution to the development of the economy in those sectors that requires employees to perform their jobs at night.

Just to give you an idea, if you are stuck in Johanessburg CBD from 21H00 and want to take a taxi to Cresta you will count yourself lucky to find an affordable taxi at a normal price of R7.50 or else you will have to pay R100 for a cab. Not even a municipality bus (Metro) is available and forget about Rea Vaya or Putco. The former even operate its last trip at 20H00 from the CBD to Soweto. A good reason for this situation could be as a result that there are very few activities that take place at night in this South African biggest CBD as compared to during the day and the biggest reason being that very few people stay in the CBD…but does this necessarily mean that those work at night don’t deserve the same transport as those who work during the day? No I don’t think so.

I know some big companies do offer night transport for their employees but not all companies can afford that (despite the labour law requiring that) just as much as some companies can not afford to transport their employees during the day. Government need to start thinking of providing transport for these employees and anyone who wants to get a drink at night in his/her favorite bar. Such provision will not only unlock social inclusion but also encourage shop owners to extend their operating times which will ultimately create new job opportunities. With such a big unemployment rate of 25,2% (Stats SA, 1^stQuarter 2010), government need to come up with creative solutions to unlock our competitiveness with China and India (and of course other countries)

========

Update:

Considering that very few people work at night and residential areas are scattered in South Africa, I would like to think that Taxis (as shown in the photo) would be the best mode for night transport. Through SANTACO, taxi associations should start proposing such ideas to the national department of transport.

Could this be payback time for Mbeki's friends?

You may have heard that SAA is trying to recoup some monies that its former CEO, Mr. Khaya Ngqula misused while CEO of the company. The monies claimed, which amounts to R30, 8 - million is made out of the following;

• An unauthorised bonuses for executives worth R27-million;
• R3,3-million that Ngqula had allegedly spent on hiring hospitality suites in various sports stadiums; and
• At least R500 000 for free trips that Ngqula had allegedly granted to personal friends.

This is after he was given a golden handshake of R9,35-million to terminate his contract by the board which was led by Mr. Jakes Gerwel, just after an investigation on his wrong doing barely started. The handshake, which was awarded to Mr. Ngqula under the watchful eye of the former Public Enterprises Minister Brigitte Mabandla was not welcomed by cabinet spokesperson Mr. Themba Maseko who indicated that the "Government preference was that the CEO should have remained on leave while the allegations were being investigated", something which the government has failed on doing properly.

You may be asking yourself if whether Mr. Themba Maseko and Mrs. Brigitte Mabandla worked for two separate governments...no they did not. Their failure to consult each other could then be related to the fights between the former president, Mr. Thabo Mbeki and our current president Mr. Jacob Zuma and the perceptions that Mr. Khaya Ngqula was aligned to Mr. Mbeki.

Mr. Khaya Ngqula's other sin was that of conflict of interest, something which continues under Mr. Zuma's current government. In February last year, The Sunday Times reported that Servair, a consortium co-owned by Mr. Vusi Sithole, a business partner of Mr. Ngqula and his wife, Mrs. Mbali Gasi, was the preferred bidder to supply about 180 000 weekly in-flight meals on SAA's domestic routes.

So could this be a payback time? Because if the ANC (I say the ANC because they control the government which controls who seats in the SAA board) is really concerned about the monies that Mr. Ngqula squandered, they will also try to recover monies from other parastatals heads who wasted taxpayer's monies. In addition, any claim or allegations that ministers or politicians are having conflict of interest the running of government departments or any institutions that is funded by government monies will be investigated.

Anyway, one welcomes the fact that finally where monies that belongs to the public are not used with care those responsible are made to pay back. But whether the monies will be paid remains to be seen.

Take care of your people first.

When Rea Vaya decided to re-route their normal service to transport the Soccer World Cup fans I fumed and argued that one need to take care of its citizens first. I did not know that Rea Vaya was not the only one until I saw this report below today on The Sowetan. For those who do not know where the westrand is, you may see the area here;

Still no train rides

TRAIN commuters on the West Rand have lost hope that the rail service in the region – suspended a month ago – will be back on track any time soon.

The service was suspended last month after angry commuters set alight two coaches in protest against “poor delivery”.

Metrorail said yesterday that the reintroduction of the train service was still a subject of discussion, more that a month after the arson attack took place.

Frustrated commuters had vented their anger against Wits Metrorail by burning the coaches at the Randfontein station because of the alleged bad service provided.

They accused Metrorail of neglecting them during the World Cup – by rerouting some of their trains to transport soccer fans.

Metrorail acting senior regional communications manager for Gauteng Tu Dlamini could not say when trains – the cheapest mode of public transport for many – will be back on track to provide transport.

“There are continuous engagements between Metrorail and the communities through recognised structures on the matter – once a final decision is taken the public will be informed of the decision,” Dlamini said.

Gauteng Commuter Organisation chairperson Thabang Makhetha said frustrated commuters had burnt the coaches because they were consistently arriving late at work.

“Metrorail has showed no respect for West Rand commuters.

“They said there was no huge demand in the area because it was less industrial. They cut the number of trains to transport soccer fans.”

Gautrain's Ticketing System

Having experienced the same issue with PUTCO buses, I must say I agree with the Gautrain customer whose questions to Gautrain were posted on Moneyweb. The questions were about the remaining trips that get expired after a month if one bought a monthly pass. Also, because customers never do trips on Saturdays and Sundays, they think that they are being ripped off which is the case with PUTCO buses. After reading the Gautrian's representative response, I thought she needed to go back to the drawing board and come back with a better answer. Interestingly enough, even similar questions are being asked in Hellopeter. Below is the question posed by the reader and the response from Gautrain

How Gautrain calculates its fares

Bombela gives answers, after a Community member asks if Gautrain saves you time, money?

Question:
I have some concerns regarding the Gautrain.

Firstly regarding the weekly and monthly passes for the Gautrain...which I believe to be virtually useless. A monthly pass is only valid for one calendar month, and has 70 one way trips...thus 35 return trips to a single station...obviously meant to be for commuting to work. Now, I work from Mondays to Fridays, as most commuters/people do. Thus only, on average, will I need 21 return trips per month (21 week days per calendar month). Why would I want to go to the station my work is closest to on Saturdays and Sundays? Thus 14 return trips are totally useless and a waste of money as they fall over weekends.

Same goes for the weekly pass. Again, you need to use the weekly pass in seven consecutive days. Thus Monday to Sunday. Why on Earth would I want to go to work on Saturdays and Sundays? I mean seriously...who researched these options?

Then also, they say the Gautrain is cheaper than the actual cost of a private car. I saw how they calculate that...petrol + maintenance + insurance...insurance??? Are they assuming because I am using the Gautrain, I no longer need to pay insurance on my car? Do they believe I am going to sell my car because I can take the train to work every weekday? This makes absolutely NO sense.

On Monday, June 14 2010, I also took the bus to Sandton station to test how long it would take. It took me a ten minute walk to reach a bus station, climb up at the corner of Wessels and 12th Ave, and it took 20 minutes to reach the station. Assuming the train takes 30 minutes to get from Sandton station to Centurion (My commute would be from Centurion to Sandton Station), then another 20 minute bus trip to get from Centurion station to the corner of Hendrik Verwoerd and Rooihuiskraal (Where I believe the bus will drop me closest to my home) and then another ten minute walk...this adds up to roughly a total of 1 hour and 30 minutes to get home from work. To drive, from my work, to my home takes at most 1 hour.

Also, a diesel car makes it even cheaper to travel by private car. Thus, the Gautrain is more expensive (by far) than a diesel car + petrol (diesel of course) and the coming toll gates (I refuse to incorporate insurance to this calculation as it makes no sense) AND on top of that...it is 30 minutes slower. The new wide highways makes sure of that fact...it's bliss driving home and to work with the new highway lanes!

Now I ask people with tears in my eyes...WHY would I pay more for a longer trip from Centurion to Rivonia?

Answer: Julia Keevy, technical analyst at Bombela

With regards to the fare structures, they have been designed by the Gauteng provincial government with the concessionaire in accordance with the contract and financial model. There is a fares review committee, which reviews the fare structures and fees on an ongoing basis. If changes are made, they will be released to the media. Thank you for feedback, your sentiments have been forwarded to the relevant parties.

Please note the fares have been designed taking into account international best practice, most transport systems around the world within a weekly (seven day) pass or a calendar month pass. Hence we have attempted to follow these best practice standards.